Talk:Hittin

message: Kfar Hittaya in not a name in Latin or Greek form.  What is the evidence for it being the Roman name?  Mark O'Sullivan 8 July 2005 13:11 (UTC)
It is no a name in Latin or Greek indeed. This is Aramaic. It's the Jewish name place during the Roman and Byzantine period. The term "roman name" is borrowed from the "Palestine remembered" site.
Eranrabl 08:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Could use some expansion. I found this source which explains that the Druze had asked the Israeli authorities to settle Druze soldiers who had fought in 1948 in Hittin, as a recompense for their loyalty. But no Druze were ever settled in the new village which remained exclusively for Jews. Anyway, I'll try to add something about this soon, but if I forget or anyone wants to do it themselves, the link to the book is above and it also gives more specific information about the holiness of site to the Druze as well. Tiamuttalk 17:15, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I'm gonna go ahead start that article tomorrow if no one else starts it. I'm enjoying the source you provided, I think could slightly expand my mother's home town of Kafr Yasif with it. --Al Ameer son (talk) 23:43, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Great. It does seem like an interesting topic. I'm pursuing other threads right now, but I'd love to pop in and take a look when you have got it started. Tiamuttalk 00:18, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Druze relationship to Hittin

message: Does anyone mind if I change the ref formatting to a separate references and bibliography section? And if that's okay, would it also be okay to change to citation template referencing? Or do people working here prefer to continue without the coding? Tiamuttalk 18:40, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just go ahead, Huldra (talk) 19:03, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Will do. Tiamuttalk 00:19, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Ref formatting

message: A few points. First, templates used in articles generally should have a link to that article; that is not the case for Hittin. Second, if one wants to find out more about the Palestinians, there's a link to the Palestinian people article in the first line of this article, and that article features the template, as do some 68 other articles (many of them in similarly unnecessary fashion). Third, of course, it's just clutter: 90% of the articles linked in the temple are only vaguely related to Hittin, and those more closely related can be found without help from that obtrusive box. -- Biruitorul Talk 01:48, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: "Palestinians" template

message: Could someone else please look at this old postcard by Fadil Saba, Nazareth: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:FadilSabaMountofBeatitudes.jpg
On the back of the postcard someone has hand-written: "naer Hattin" (or something like it)
I am 90-100% sure that the village you see in the forefront is Hittin. Notice the minaret of the mosque, down to the left!..it is still standing. However, can someone else check? The picture is not in Khalidi or on the Pal.rem.-site. According to this site, Fadil Saba published his postcard-series in 1926, which would date the picture nicely. Regards, Huldra (talk) 07:47, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another picture of Hittin? 

message: This map seems without Palestinian State seems to be illegal. Is there another, legal map which is not from Jewish Zionist imperialist government? Is this a "free" Encyclopaedia? It does not seem so.
Michael Palomino
Michael.palomino-at-gmx.ch (talk) 19:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No, no actually it's a map of the British Mandate of Palestine. Hittin doesn't exist today, so we're using the BMP map and its districts. Also you should keep your POV out of Wikipedia articles and their talk pages in the future, other editors might get offended. --Al Ameer son (talk) 21:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  This map without Palestinian State seems to be illegal 

message: Haifa, or Life in Modern Palestine By Laurence Oliphant has lots.  Zerotalk 14:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oliphant 

message: User:Gilabrand has twice now inserted (in the lead, no less!) the sentence. "In the 1948 Arab-Israeli war, the village was conquered by Israeli troops without a fight." LOL! When Morris in  "Causes of depopulation"  for Hattin lists as a cause:  "Military assault by Yishuv forces"?
Also, needless to say, what Gilabrand writes is not in accordance with what Morris, Khalidi or Nazzal writes. The  most detailed explanations (used by both Morris and Khalidi) is in Nazzal. And briefly, the villagers fought until they had no more ammunition, then they fled. As one villager said (Nazzal, p. 85) "During the first Jewish  attack, many of the villagers used up all the ammunition they had....we were too poor to replace our bullets....We retreated to the village and with a few remaining villagers, we fled north."
I am going to take this falsehood out. And before Gilabrand insert it again, will she just please explain: how do you get a military assault    -"without a fight"? Huldra (talk) 05:36, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: For starters, it would be good if you toned down your aggressiveness. Your comments on every page that we edit together are exceedingly rude. If you do not understand where the sentence is coming from, please read Morris and the other sources more carefully. The lead sums up the material in the body of the article, and this is precisely what it says in the article, cited to Morris.--Geewhiz (talk) 05:55, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: And for another  starter, it would be good if you answered the question. In short: there was fighting, until the villagers ran out of ammo. How do you translate that into "without a fight" in the lead? The lead is supposed to "sum up" the result, you cannot cherry-pick the result from one day (the last, when they were out of ammo) and say that  this represents the whole. I though this was fairly obvious?   Huldra (talk) 06:24, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  1948-war 

message: Horns of Hattin#History and archaeology has material relating to the hill, and specially the hilltop. This art. here on the other hand, is vague on WHERE the archaeological findings were made (hilltop? Foot of hill? Village lands in the plain?), making it impossible to correlate with that other article.
This goes hand in hand with the usual problem: Which settlement existed when? Was habitation discontinued? Problem concept: "continuity" - ideological, not academic.
The Canaanite fortress at the top of the hill probably had nothing in common with the Jewish Kfar Hittin, and the Arab village might have had nothing to do with Kfar Hittin. Different periods, possibly different locations around the hill, as well.
Making pre-48 Arab villages the "prime topic", with a monopoly on history and archaeology of a diverse and wide site or area, is IMO more often than not strongly ideology-driven, or activistic, and necessarily leads to confusions & mistakes by conflating what should be kept apart. Carefully linked, but apart. Arminden (talk) 06:22, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The findings sourced to Getzov were on the hillside at the same elevation as the village, about 250m west of the village built up area. Both are quite far down the slope from the summit. Maps show the village cemetery there. Your argument can easily be played back you. Why should an ancient settlement about which only a few fragments of information are known take precedence over a village that existed for many centuries about which we know a great deal? You know why some think the ancient village is more important, and you know this is "ideology-driven" in your words. You could be more balanced in your comments. Zerotalk 02:19, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archaeology