Talk:Shuafat

message: Roman colony rather than Jewish settlement? Many of the Roman troops in the area were "local recruits/enforced service"....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 17:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Colonia 

message: It is improper to put the 'Palestinian Municipality' ttmeplate here. Shu'afat is, like it or not, administered as a neighborhood of Jerusalem, not as a village council, and it is not a part of the 'Jerusalem Governate' of the PLO, just liek Ma'ale Edomim, which resides in that territoy, is not part of the governate. I have no problem with the other information provided (the name in Arabic, location, etc.. - please find another way to include that info. Canadian Monkey (talk) 21:32, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template 

message: I removed "﻿settlement in the area of Jerusalem after the city fell in 70 CE. The main indication that the settlement was a Jewish one is the assemblage of stone vessels found there. Such vessels, for food storage and serving, were only used by Jews because they were believed not to transmit impurity. Archaeologists believe stone basins discovered at the site were used to hold ashes from the destroyed Temple."  because when it comes to archaeology using quotes from newspaper articles as references is inappropriate.  One needs to use articles published in peer-reviewed journals or reputable published books; especially when the subject at hand is so contentious such as this one. 
Moreover, The two newspaper articles sited here even contradict one another.  One says the dig director is Debbi Sklar-Parnes (Parnes is misspelled as Parnas in the newspaper article) and "While the settlement is believed to be Jewish, she added that she could not be certain since no remains of ritual baths were discovered."  The other newspaper article says the dig director is Rachel Bar-Nathan and that "Several of the excavated private dwellings contained a mikvah, or Jewish ritual bath."  
Also, the text I inserted was inserted only after I made sure that the two censuses sited (the 1596 census and the 1931 census) do indeed state what I wrote.  Nwt807-01 (talk) 20:10, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I left him a message. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:43, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I saw it and that's why I didn't initiate anything more 'stringent' like may be a warning to begin with? Have it your way,  Hope&Act3! (talk) 18:10, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nwt807-01 

message: Hi, I tagged the statement that "The place was known to the Canaanites [...] as Dersophath, attributed to Palestine: A Guide by Mariam Shahin as needing more sourcing. The statement seems highly unlikely since excepting Phoenician and Hebrew, Canaanite language documents are almost nonexistent. Perhaps there is a better source for the claim? Aslbsl (talk) 01:21, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious 

message: Two issues about these two camps.
* Some sources speak of "squatters" in Muaska camp.  That is actually correct but one should get it straight: in addition to the refugees from multiple places who lived there, there were lots of other people living there too (Plascov says 2/3 in one time period and 1/2 in another).  This was one reason for the poor conditions and why the UN wanted to move the refugees somewhere else.  Only refugees were moved to Shuafat camp.
* I believe it was 500 families and not 500 people who were moved to Shuafat camp, but I lost the source with that information.  Can anyone help?  I have a figure of 4923 refugees in Muaska camp in 1954, which would slightly match 500 families if the families were large and not all of them were moved.
Zerotalk 12:39, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Muaska -> Shuafat  camps 

message: User:Zero0000 and User:Nishidani: I see some rather  questionable sources here, LaMar C. Berrett, for one. And has someone some updated information on the 1991 dig?  
Also, when I use google-translate on Guerin, I get 150 inhabitants. However, Pringle have translated the same passage (from p. 395) as: This village, situated on an elevated plateau from which one can make out perfectly the cupolas and minarets of Jerusalem, counts 500 inhabitants. The houses are for the most part fairly old and vaulted internally. Is it google or is it Pringle who are wrong??  Cheers, Huldra (talk) 18:05, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Pringle slipped up.'Cent cinquante habitants' =150 denizens.Nishidani (talk) 20:32, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

text: LaMar Berrett is not RS, and in any case is only in the bibliography, so it can be removed instanter.Nishidani (talk) 20:40, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

text: I expanded two of the sources (including Runesson and "The ancient synagogue") about the alleged synagogue with quotations. Zerotalk 00:25, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

text: The Cambridge History of Judaism, Vol 4, p177, says "Although other sites have been suggested, the veracity of the identification of the ruins there as synagogues has been seriously questioned (for example, Jericho, northern Jerusalem, and Shuafat)."  I took it out as the two specialist works are more specific and stronger.  But I don't mind. Zerotalk 00:37, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks a lot. The text should be changed to reflect later doubts. The same with the part based on the Haaretz and Kershner article: I don´t like archeology  based on newspaper-sources and speculation, but if we have them, then at least we should include the doubts that are in the source. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 21:20, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biblical times , + possible synagogue 

message: This article is about Shuafat.
Icewhiz, you added two items referring to ostensible archaeological finds in Shuafat. Both aappear to refer to archaeological work at the Israeli settlement of Ramat Shlomo, and thus are made by your edit to appear to refer to Shuafat itself by the equivocation present in the older name for Ramat Shlomo, namely Reches Shuafat (Shuafat Ridge). Could you clarify why this is relevant to Shuafat, rather than appropriate to the distinctly different site where these excavations took place?Nishidani (talk) 12:30, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Shuafat Ridge is, as the name implies, directly adjacent to Shuafat (and people usually don't bury their dead or quarry stones inside their own villages, but rather outside nearby). The article already refers to "Shuafat Ridge" elsewhere - . These aren't totally separate areas - but adjacent ones - Shuafat ridge was, until recently, undeveloped land right next to Shuafat. In any event - the article should be consistent - if the adjacent land is expunged here it should be elsewhere as well.Icewhiz (talk) 12:44, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope. Please answer the question. That the article mentions Ramat Shlomo is adjacent to Shuafat is no warrant for attributing to Shuafat archaeological finds in the former. As the green zoning shows, Shuafat is not allowed to extend to Shuafat Ridge. If you want that data somewhere, it goes itno the Ramat Shlomo article. Nishidani (talk) 13:04, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is right next to Shuafat (as is evidenced by the name and any map), and part of the same ancient site. If former green zoning (By Kollek - in the previous century) of the ridge is relevant, then clearly other historical information is as well. Should we remove the green zoning sentence?Icewhiz (talk) 13:10, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't repeat your position. Please respond to what I argued. This has nothing to do with altering parts of the Shuafat article that mention contiguous neighbourhoods. This is about defining what relates to Shuafat.Nishidani (talk) 13:23, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  I responded to you argument directly. I believe it is best to wait for a 3rd input. The article currently delved into Shuafat ridge as well as Shuafat refugee camp (which is distinct and walled off from Shuafat) - I believe adding this information was consistent with the current article.Icewhiz (talk) 13:38, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but that is procedurally inaccurate. While we were discussing the issue of one item re a putative Jewish site in the form erratically produced against the source by Debresser, you introduced 2 new items. Now I have not reverted Debresser. That is under discussion. But your passages may be reverted as muddling two distinct realities. The material you introduced does not apply to Shuafat as the Israeli authorities define it, but to Ramat Shlomo. Move it there.Nishidani (talk) 14:22, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  This article, in general, does not relate to Shuafat as defined by Israeli authorities (including various info, including info on the unrelated and quite distinct refugee camp, which is walled off and treated as a separate neighborhood). While you may revert this well sourced information on Shuafat ridge finds without violating 1RR - you may be in violation of other policies. The two of us are definitely in disagreement here - I suggest that instead of edit warring - we wait for a 3rd or 4th opinion.Icewhiz (talk) 14:46, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Hang onh. I am trying not to behave as many act with regard to my edits. I.e. revert me and then say 'discuss.' I needed no permission to revert your additions, because they do not apply to Shuafat but to excavations in Ramat Shlomo. So I ask you. Why don't you add that information to the Ramat Shlomo article, where its appropriateness is obvious. Here is is manifestly out of place.Nishidani (talk) 14:54, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  I wasn't aware this was your point (sometimes I do need things to be spelled out it would seem) - I edited Ramat Shlomo with this information. However this information is also relevant for the Shuafat article with its current scope.Icewhiz (talk) 15:06, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: No. It now had its proper place. I am waiting to find why material used for Ramat Shlomo must be reduplicated in this article. Either a site is in one, or the other. I know this area of the world has been described in terms of quantum physics but in a mundane encyclopedia one should not espouse concepts of bilocality.Nishidani (talk) 15:23, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  We have a vast multitude of articles in Wikipedia which cover overlapping contemporary geographical areas as well as different temporal eras - e.g. New Amsterdam and New York City - and which contain repetitions of the same information. Ancient locations rarely fit "neatly" into modern ones unless wholly encompassed. In this case we have a grave site adjacent to the old settlement, which is clearly connected. The article itself also links the ridge to Shuafat elsewhere. I will also note that your argument would also apply (and with more merit) to all mentions of Shuafat refugee camp, which is clearly distinct and separate from the Shuafat neighborhood.Icewhiz (talk) 15:36, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

text: Useless analogies. If some 17th century slave cemetery is dug up on a site in Brooklyn, one doesn't add that to the Queens's article. Come on, this is obvious.Nishidani (talk) 15:56, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shuafat ridge 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Shuafat. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721134929/http://www.citypass.co.il/english/FirstLine4E.aspx to http://www.citypass.co.il/english/FirstLine4E.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100613141427/http://www.citypass.co.il/english/FirstLine3bigmappE.htm to http://www.citypass.co.il/english/FirstLine3bigmappE.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081204112412/http://israelbehindthenews.com/Oct-13-98.htm to http://israelbehindthenews.com/Oct-13-98.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:37, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I came to this article hoping to provide some edits into spelling, punctuation, and other basic copy editing. However I am completely unable to do so as this article is completely locked. All I am able to do is view the source but I am unable to make edits. Why? I am a user and not a bot so please dont confuse me with a bot (talk) 05:26, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:ARBPIA and the edit notice at the top of the page - you need to be extended confirmed (500 edits, 30 days tenure). You may make edit requests however.Icewhiz (talk) 06:30, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  I do not understand. I fulfill all criteria but this page is inappropriately edit locked for those of us who wish to make uncontroversial edits. I am a user and not a bot so please dont confuse me with a bot (talk) 05:48, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: You're free to suggest edits here. You've only made 25 edits. You need to make 500 normal edits. Please don't try to get there by making large numbers of trivial edits as the clock often gets reset when that happens. Doug Weller talk 11:18, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I have fulfilled the required criteria and, therefore, require access to this article. Please remove the block immediately. I am a user and not a bot so please dont confuse me with a bot (talk) 05:10, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's not a personal block, and you need 500 edits to fulfill the criteria. As a member of the WP:Arbitration Committee that enacted these sanctions I'm think I know what the criteria are. Doug Weller talk 05:28, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have been a member of Wikipedia for the required length of time. The number of edits are not nearly as important as the quality. Is Wikipedia the encyclopedia anyone can edit? It truly feels like editing is limited to a small group of elite only. I am a user and not a bot so please dont confuse me with a bot (talk) 20:07, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is clear that Wikipedia is actually not the encyclopedia anyone can edit. Instead hurdles and stumbling blocks are erected in order to maintain an artificial segregation between the elite and the peasants. I am a user and not a bot so please dont confuse me with a bot (talk) 03:25, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  I wish to edit this article but it is for some reason completely locked 

message: add:
:Category:Palestinian neighborhoods in East Jerusalem Architau (talk) 07:30, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Jonesey95 (talk) 09:48, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Same here.  Debresser (talk) 00:24, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is a duplicate cat.Icewhiz (talk) 15:28, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 April 2019