Talk:Peki'in

message: This article only covers the Jewish history of the village, whereas the vast majority of residents are Druze and Christian. Where are the fair sources providing that history?--TM 14:50, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to add some yourself. --146.79.254.10 (talk) 18:05, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Historical studies by early Zionist, specifically Yitzhak Ben-Zvi found that peqiin has had a continuous Jewish Population since antiquity.  Because of this, there was much interest in the area by many Zionist historians.  The long peaceful relationship the Jews had with their neighborhoods is one of the most notable fact about the area, and what make its history worthy of study.   There is no "bias" in the article.  The Jewish presence in peqiin is what make the area notable.  J. in Jerusalem (talk) 13:34, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias 

message: , thanks for inputing more refs. But I don't think they substantiate the claim:
:Peki'in is frequently mentioned in historical sources in reference to the Jewish community that existed there continuously from the Second Temple period through the 20th century.[3][4][5]
The allusion to "historical sources" in the context strongly suggests that a period of 2,000 years is evenly dotted with documents that show Jewish presence in all periods. This is of course far from the case.
The source at 3 is all about Zinati and her family's oral traditions. It's a popular (if highbrow) publication, it say "apparently", and it does not bother to back it up.
The source at 4 looks like a feel-good ceremonial trivia thing. None of the online appraisals claim it has any weight in historical matters, it is for religiously-oriented readership. It cites a piece of circumstantial evidence that Pekiin might the one of the Zohar tradition. It flats out historical discrepancies: the evidence that the name Pekiin was attached to the village by Zohar fans in the early modern period, and that the synagogue in use is not the ancient one.
The source at 5 looks good enough. Like [3] it should stay somewhere. But when it writes:
:As a last resort Zionists could point to the small community of Peki'in in the mountains of Galilee, not far from Safed, whose present day residents could demonstrate that they were direct descendants of inhabitants of the village who had never gone into exile.
I can't help but read a cynical tone, about a truth that is there due to demand and supply reasons.The ideologists search as they do, and the small community sells a story as they do. But even if I'm wrong, it still tells the only evidence is from residents. Moreover, that they never went into exile doesn't mean they had always lived in Peki'in - it goes quite well with the tradition of families from Kfar Inan (Hananya) too. trespassers william (talk) 12:56, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jewish continuity 

message: I have taken this out of the article:
*  or not? Based on this, p. 271.
But that page also say that Guerin visited in 1875?  (The book looks very interesting, btw). I have tried to identify/map Guerin´s journey´s at User:Huldra/Guerin, still not completely finished. Huldra (talk) 21:12, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guerin-visit 

message: There is a typo in the 1887 ref, I just don't know where...
It says on Schumacher, 1888, p.  191, that  el Bukei’a have
170 Druse, 20 Jews, 100 Christians. That should add up to 290, instead Schumacher gets 190. (And then multiply this number by 5, to get the total number.)
The numbers don't add up, but I just don't know where the mistake is Huldra (talk) 22:05, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  1887