Talk:Beit She'arim (Roman-era Jewish village)

Huldra's initial question

Now, if I might address Huldra's question: "What is in this article, which isn't already covered by Sheikh Bureik, Lajjun and Beit She'arim National Park?"

First, @Huldra:, you are to be commended for calling our attention to things that we would have otherwise overlooked. Yes, there may have been some things that were overlapping in these respective articles, but we have since worked to rectify this problem and have now expunged most of those paragraphs from the Beit She'arim National Park article which speak specifically about the village and have placed them here. Now we find that the "Beit She'arim National Park" article deals more categorically with the necropolis itself, rather than divulging in the history of the nearby village, except where needed to introduce our readers to the connection between the necropolis and the village. In this article here (Beit Shearim) we have concentrated most of the material found treating on the village from its historical Jewish perspective, which was wanting in the Sheikh Bureik, Lajjun article. Besides this, there is in this article (Beit Shearim) an entire section which treats on the archaeological finds found in the village, and which date back mostly to its Jewish heyday. These, too, were lacking in the "Sheikh Bureik, Lajjun" article. There is also in this article (Beit Shearim) an entire section on how scholars determined the true identify of this ancient site, a thing missing in the other article. The "Sheikh Bureik, Lajjun" article, on the other hand, does an EXCELLENT job in bringing down the village's more recent Islamic-era history, which is also important. In short, each article has its own emphasis, and we take for granted that in such articles that deal with the exact same place there are bound to be a few overlapping points.Davidbena (talk) 18:38, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Davidbena, I have been thinking about this in the context of our discussion above around the table. To my mind the biggest issue we have at this article is the overlap vs the national park article, and specifically around the topic of archaeology. I do not think we should split the topic of archaeology across the two articles, one for the necropolis and one for the village, particularly because both sites are located in the national park. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:47, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

The Beit She'arim National Park almost entirely mentions only the archaeological findings of the necropolis, but does not mention the archaeological finds in the village itself. The archaeological finds of the village are mentioned only in this article here. This is the natural division and has nothing to do with the necropolis itself, although both places are found in the National Park. Are you suggesting that we add another section in the "Beit She'arim National Park" article entitled "Archaeological finds in village"? This, in my view, would be unnecessary, since it is already mentioned here. The village article is also a part of the National park, but it is an entity of its own, and disconnected from the necropolis.Davidbena (talk) 23:00, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps we can solicit some feedback from Greyshark09, and from Bolter21. The more advice we can get from a wider range of contributors, the better we will be here.Davidbena (talk) 23:07, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

...and we now have a section called "Islamic, Crusader, and modern history", which is just a copy of Sheikh Bureik, Lajjun; why not have a link to that article instead? Also, the lead still gives the impression that this was "a Jewish village"...."until its demise in the early 20th century." ugh: not acceptable. Huldra (talk) 23:31, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

@Huldra:, perhaps you can work on that section and place there a link. That would be a good idea, although a brief mention of its Islamic history is worthy of this article without going into great detail.Davidbena (talk) 23:35, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Okay, @Huldra:. Your suggestion is reasonable. I have just now corrected the lede paragraph which now reads as follows:

"... thriving from the 1st-century BCE until the 3rd-century CE as a Jewish village and, at one time, the seat of the Sanhedrin. In the course of time, the village suffered a decline in its fortunes, through the succeeding Byzantine and Islamic periods until its demise as an Arab village in the early 20th century."Davidbena (talk) 23:41, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Still not acceptable; if the "Arab village in the early 20th century" is mentioned, then we should note that it was known as Sheikh Bureik, and that it was this village which met "its demise as an Arab village in the early 20th century", Huldra (talk) 23:50, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. I can agree with that. We say in Hebrew that women are born with special insights, more than that given to man.Davidbena (talk) 00:21, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done. I have also linked the section "Islamic, Crusader, and modern history" to the article Sheikh Bureik, Lajjun.Davidbena (talk) 00:25, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

@Onceinawhile:, A better suggestion would be to do in the Beit She'arim National Park article what we have done in the Adullam-France Park article, where we have a section entitled "Main archaeological sites." In this way, we briefly mention the articles relating to the site (the National Park), and where readers can also find the relative facts about each place.Davidbena (talk) 23:33, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Davidbena, that section at Adullum-France Park links to Khirbat Umm Burj, which is the equivalent of linking Beit She’arim National Park’s section on the archaeology of the village to the Sheikh Bureik article. That would also be consistent with how the National Park’s website does it (see separate section above). Onceinawhile (talk) 00:50, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Since here, though, we're talking about the same village (Beit Shearim = Sheikh Bureik), under different titles, all is well. Both names are now used, with the Sheikh Bureik eponym used primarily in the Old Maps and slowly becoming obsolete in Modern Hebrew; now being replaced in Modern Maps with the name "Beit Shearim," in recognition of its glorious past. Still, both places can accurately be used here. The reason we link Khirbat Umm Burj in that other Park is because there is no equivalent biblical name or English title for the same site. Wikipedia is not bound by any rules or formats used by the Beit Shearim National Park website, but rather by verifiable and reliable scholarly sources. Davidbena (talk) 01:00, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Davidbena, am I right to imply from this that you would support the merger of this article with Sheikh Bureik, so long as the name of the combined was Beit She'arim? Onceinawhile (talk) 08:40, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Onceinawhile, would you suggest that all the archaeological findings found in the necropolis be mentioned in the Sheikh Bureik article, since, after all, it too sits in the Beit She'arim National Park? I think that we can both see the relevance of having the sites broken down based on their notability. Arminden also suggested that he would be in favor of merging "Sheikh Bureik" with this article, with the name remaining as "Beit Shearim." I, personally, think that this is unnecessary because, as I said, there are merits to both names, each having its own relevant notability. Besides, merging would greatly expand this article and may, actually, distract from the core issues conveyed in the sources about this one site.Davidbena (talk) 14:52, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Davidbena, archaeology is usually focused on in the "modern place" articles for Israeli places or parks, because archaeology is ultimately a modern aspect of the topic. So the archaeology should be primarily covered at the National Park article.

With respect to the "history of the village site", there is not enough content on that specific topic to justify splitting between two articles.

So that would leave the topic of "Beit Shearim as described in Biblical/Rabbinic literature" for this article, which would be consistent with the table above. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:43, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Archaeology is discussed in almost every ancient site in Israel. This is not new. Some articles are more drawn-out than others. And, yes, this article stresses its historical context from a Jewish perspective, as well as its "discovery" from an archaeological perspective. The article is notable, based purely on its classical sources, being one of the seats of the Jewish Sanhedrin. If you should have any doubts about the relevance of this article, you can submit a RfC. You have, so far, been trying to discredit the relevance of this article. I disagree with you, as I'm sure many others will too. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 00:34, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Your last three sentences are misrepresentative of my posts above. I have no objection to the existence of an article under this title; we simply have far too much overlap with other articles. Your proposed solutions to deal with the overlap, having part of archaeology here and part at the National park, and having part of history here and part at Sheikh Bureik, are halfway-houses and duplicative. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:36, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

@Onceinawhile:, please accept my apologies for misunderstanding your motives and intentions in this thread.Davidbena (talk) 21:57, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - I think best to merge both classical Jewish town and moreover Sheikh Bureik into the Bet Shearim national park article, as we have with Caesarea Maritima (also including parts on classical Caesarea and modern Bosniak Qisariya).GreyShark (dibra) 08:26, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

@Greyshark09: Most of the editors disagreed with that arrangement, since the Bet Shearim national park article was, originally, almost entirely about the necropolis, with nothing to say about the ancient Jewish village (later Arab village) that lies also within its boundary. Since our early discussions on that subject, the article Bet Shearim national park has been turned into Beit She'arim necropolis. If you'd like, you can recreate the Beit She'arim national park article, and give links there to the two existing articles on the sites that are to be seen in the national park, similar to what we did in Adullam-France Park. Be well. Davidbena (talk) 23:53, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Cleanup

Perhaps we "press pause" on the debate above, and just get on with fixing the things that are broken. I will try to do that now, with some clear edit comments. @Davidbena: if you disagree with anything, please feel free to revert and we can discuss here. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:36, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I have also proposed fixing the title for consistency here: [1] Onceinawhile (talk) 23:59, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

@Onceinawhile:, your edits are good. One of the reasons we added the Islamic history in the first place, even though some things may have overlapped the Sheikh Bureik article, was because the tag penned at the top of the page asked for balance. Knowing Huldra, she would have wanted to see more on the site from its Islamic-era history. Still, your edit is good, if that is what you feel must be done. I have no objections. One thing, however, not everything deleted was an "overlap." For example, one of the edits in that section had placed an inline tag asking for a source, to which we responded in what follows below. Perhaps it is important and should be added to the Sheik Bureik article, or perhaps it is not so important. I'll leave that up to your discretion.

• "[...]The Sursuk family, in turn, withdrew from the village in the mid-1920s after selling the lands to the Jewish National Fund (purchased in the name of the "Palestine Land Development Company"), with the exception of the Muslim shrine on the site, and which, at the time, fell to the administration of the Government of Palestine. The village continued to be called by its Arabic name Sheikh Abreik when resettled by immigrant Jews under the British mandate in 1927."

References

Davidbena (talk) 17:31, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

David, Arutz Sheva is certainly not a reliable source for anything historical.Nishidani (talk) 19:20, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

@Davidbena: I believe all this information, and these sources, are now in the Sheikh Bureik article.[2] I brought the Arutz Sheva article despite its non-RS status; Nishidani makes a good point. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:24, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Okay, if the information was transported there, that's fine.Davidbena (talk) 19:50, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Sursock purchase

@Nishidani: do you have any good sources on the Sursock purchase and sale – i.e. their 19th C acquisition of the land from the Ottoman govt and then the details of the deals made with the JNF on its sale? It impacts a lot of existing articles and I would like to write a specific article on it. I know it was by far the largest land sale in Palestinian-Israeli history. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:21, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Busy now (I mean, there's an ad break for the engaging film I'm watching) but for the initial purchase see Alexander Schölch, 'European Penetration and the Economic Development of Palestine, 1856-82,' in Roger Owen (ed.),Studies in the Economic and Social History of Palestine in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries, Springer, 1982 ISBN 978-1-349-05700-9 pp.10-86 esp pp.21ff on land tenure. The Sursuq’s buy-in comes into the picture on pp.24f.Nishidani (talk) 22:00, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Begun here: Sursock Purchase. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:30, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

"Depopulated" vs. "Displaced"

I am still of the humble opinion that, in the case of this Arab village, owned by a Lebanese land-owner and sold to the Jewish National Fund, the use of "depopulated" when it comes to eviction of tenant workers is not the appropriate term to use, because of its more harsh political connotation. In places where lands were duly owned by farmers but who were evicted from their lands due to war, we can say "depopulated." However, where lands are NOT owned by the tenant workers, but which are owned by another group of people, it is the people's prerogative to choose whom they want to settle on the land which they possess, and to select which type of share-croppers or tenant workers they wish to put to work in the fields. A change of ownership usually brings with it a change of managerial goals, aims and relegation of responsibility. My view is that, instead of writing, "It later became the village of Sheikh Bureik (Arabic: شيخ ابريق); it was depopulated in the 1920s after the Sursuk family of Lebanon – who had bought the land from the Ottoman government in 1875 – sold the village to the Jewish National Fund," we can write with a more appealing tone, "It later became the village of Sheikh Bureik (Arabic: شيخ ابريق); a village displaced of its inhabitants in the mid-1920s after the Sursuk family of Lebanon – who had bought the land from the Ottoman government in 1875 – sold the village to the Jewish National Fund. It is today part of the Beit She'arim National Park."

The word "displaced" still carries with it the connotation that the people who were being evicted definitely suffered, just as the source implies.

References

Davidbena (talk) 22:24, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Davidbena: AFAIK, you are still WP:TBAN from the IP area. As such, you should not even participate in "discussions or suggestions" relating to the IP area. "Depopulated" vs. "Displaced" is, I think we can all agree, way within the area you are topic-banned from. And whatever you think of me: I am so not looking for an excuse to have you banned from Wikipedia. Shall we all agree: lets pretend the above post never happend? Thanks, Huldra (talk) 22:47, 6 February 2021 (UTC) PS: Davidbena: you might use the <s></s> to strike the above post.

@Huldra:, I will gladly desist from this discussion if this falls under my "Narrow Topic Ban" issued here on 18 August 2020, where I am permitted to discuss historical issues on pages that are still designated Arab–Israeli conflict-related pages, but not to discuss issues involving the Government of Israel, army or otherwise, where they relate to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Here, in this article, we are dealing specifically with British Mandatory Palestine (not Israel, per say) and where all citizens at the time were called "Palestinians" (both, Jews and Arabs), and in this particular instance there was no war or conflict involved; only the purchase of land by one party (lands sold by Arabs themselves), and the tenant workers being compelled to move elsewhere to find work. If I am wrong, I will stand corrected, but to allay all doubts in this matter, allow me to ask the professional opinion and advice of an administrator, say, User:El C and fellow contributors, User:Selfstudier and User:Sir Joseph. Note that I avoided any topics in the Palestinian-Israeli area of conflict, since this particular case involves the actions of Lebanese who sold their lands to Palestinians. Davidbena (talk) 08:19, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Just for David's private record, 'a village displaced of its inhabitants' is not English. Only people, not places, are defined as 'displaced', which would be in any case a contradiction in semantic terms.Nishidani (talk) 23:18, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

So we can reword it to represent the "displacement of people". I see no real problem here.Davidbena (talk) 08:19, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

My opinion is that we should definitely not start avoiding "depopulated", which arose as a hard-won compromise. I disagree that it has a "harsh political connotation". Depopulation of a place just means substantial reduction of population, which can be caused by basically anything. Aging, epidemic, voluntary emigration, forced emigration and massacre are just some of the options. "Depopulated" by itself is about as neutral a word as the English language provides. More specific words can be used with source support. This example could be rearranged to employ the specific word "evicted" that applies here. I apologise to David for responding to a thread he is not permitted to continue. Zero^talk 01:34, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

To editor Davidbena: I didn't know your TB had been narrowed. I believe it does not automatically cover Zionist purchases before 1948, nor the displacement of tenant farmers before 1948. The fact that it involved Lebanese is irrelevant. Zero^talk 12:17, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

If I am prohibited from editing in this particular field, I will plainly desist from editing in what concerns this matter. No bad feelings. The land purchased at Sheikh Bureik, if I might add, was purchased by the "Palestine Land Development Company, Ltd.," a Land Development organisation ran by ideological men whose ambitions were to allow fellow Palestinian Jews to work the land. This land purchased at Sheikh Bureik was classified by the Government of Palestine under "miri property," meaning, lands given out for conditional public use, while ultimate ownership lay with the Palestine Government; or what is tantamount to private usufruct State land. After the sale, the Arab tenants (who were not property owners) were left without work under their former employer, and naturally sought work elsewhere, although given some compensation for their eviction from the land. The Muslim shrine on the site was not sold and fell to the administration of the Government of Palestine. I hope this clarifies matters. As you can see, the whole matter of Sheikh Bureik is not your typical Israeli-Palestinian conflict area. It's purely administrative and within the official duties vested in the Government of Palestine.

References

Davidbena (talk) 12:37, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Once more you have reintroduced garbled, meaningless English into the text, and indeed,-apart from considerations of whether your topic ban allows you to edit sensitive issues about Palestinian-Jewish issues ,you went ahead after I warned you of the flaw, with this 'village displaced of its inhabitants in the 11920s' That is absurd English, and, as noted, above, 'depopulated' is a consensual compromise, neutral and pprecise. No one wants to jump at the offered opportunity of all this to cause you problems, but you are doing your best to get into trouble.Nishidani (talk) 13:30, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

@Nishidani:, please excuse my "garbled" English, if I have done that. I will take a pause (break) from editing this "sensitive" topic until I hear from the Administrator (User:El C) if what I am doing is right. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 13:35, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

To whom it may concern: I have just now received a reply from the admin. El C, which can be accessed here. Still, I assure all editors here that I will be careful not to over-step my bounds, and I will seek consensus in matters where disputes might arise. Thanks for your patience.Davidbena (talk) 14:37, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 8 February 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 21:11, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

---

Beit Shearim → Beit She'arim (Roman-era Jewish village) – Per recent disambiguation of Beit She'arim and suggestion here from User:Number 57.[3] Onceinawhile (talk) 19:04, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support, I think this sounds like a sensible suggestion. Huldra (talk) 21:48, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support. A good disambiguation for this page.Davidbena (talk) 23:18, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
• "Roman-era Jewish village" is a bit wordy for a disambiguator. Beit Shearim (archaeological site) is how we'd usually differentiate sites from contemporary settlements. There's also a possible natural disambiguation in Besara, which currently redirects to Beit She'arim National Park but should probably redirect here. Do we also need so many articles on the same place? As far as I can tell this article and Sheikh Bureik cover the same site in different periods, and Beit She'arim National Park duplicates the content of both. – Joe (talk) 11:15, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I have redirected Besara to Beit She'arim (the disambiguation page). I think there is broad agreement on the duplication issue; @Davidbena: what is your current thinking here? Onceinawhile (talk) 11:45, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I am still in favor of having two separate articles for "Beit She'arim (Roman-era village)" and Sheikh Bureik. The name, in my view, can be shortened to either "Beit She'arim (Roman-era village)" or to "Beit She'arim (archaeological site)". Both are fine. And, yes, while they are the same village covering two different periods, this is often a common way of discussing sites (here, on Wikipedia), whenever there is a sharp historical contrast between eras described in the given town. I call @Joe Roe:'s attention to what we have previously discussed in the above section here. I'm very happy to see cordial collaborative editing on this article.Davidbena (talk) 13:25, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's common anywhere outside the IP area. Regardless, that still leaves Beit She'arim National Park, which is about the same (UNESCO delineated) site, in the same period(s). – Joe (talk) 13:38, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

The Beit She'arim National Park has in it two important sites: 1) the necropolis, and 2) the Roman-era village, later an Arab village. The articles reflect their specific areas of interest. Nothing amiss here, as it is just as we've seen in the Adullam-France Park. Perhaps, though, we might be willing to change the title of "Beit She'arim National Park" to "Beit She'arim necropolis," with an indicator that it is within the 'Beit She'arim National Park." This seems to be much more appropriate, since 95% of the article deals specifically with the necropolis, and the necropolis is the very reason why it was declared a World Heritage site.Davidbena (talk) 14:08, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Davidbena, I would be comfortable with moving the NP article to necropolis, as it would create much cleared delineation. The issue I have always struggled with is that the village site is in the NP. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:34, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

That presents no real problem, since in many of the National Parks we find other sites covered by individual articles. The Beit She'arim National Park has been recognised as such primarily because of its necropolis, and the necropolis is, without question, its primary attraction. We can make note in each of these articles (all three) that they are located in the "Beit She'arim National Park." The Park, as I said, has little significance without these historical places.Davidbena (talk) 16:46, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.