Talk:Bayt 'Itab

RS and AGEMATTERS

Yitzhak Ben-Zvi, a Zionist activist and politician, writing in the 1960s about a Palestinian village is both self-serving, making exceptional claims, and too old to rely on for factual statements. Since this material was edit-warred in without consensus I will be removing it again tomorrow. nableezy - 15:13, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

The original goal of this research, conducted in the 1930s, was to elucidate the ruins of the ancient Jewish villages that had existed in Palestine for centuries prior to the Zionist Aliyah. A well-known historian, Ben-Zvi also authored numerous volumes on the Mizrahi Jewish and Samaritan communities. The information was collected through talks with the local Palestinian populations and with the Old Yishuv. Making sure that "this knowledge is not lost owing to the upcoming conflict" was one of the primary goals of this. Even if these studies were politically motivated, what is obviously untrue, the writings of such a significant person—later Israel's second president—are anyway worth mentioning and are of historical value. But as I said, this is not the case - probably far from it. Tombah (talk) 15:29, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

You are not addressing any part of what I am saying. Ben-Zvi was a politician and a Zionist activist, and his now 60 year old accounts cannot be reasonably considered reliable secondary sources. If his views of this are discussed in modern scholarship then cite that. But your edit-warring in of unreliable primary sources is the issue here. nableezy - 15:50, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

What makes it different from citing a church founder from the fourth century, Eusebius, or Kitchener and Conder as that example? Each scholar has their own biases, especially in earlier times. We shall be left with nothing if we disregard all of their writings. Anyway, he did not come at such findings on his own; as I mentioned, he spoke with local Palestinians and recorded their conversations. These are definitely not outdated theories of physics, genetics or biology, of course. And what is so expectational about these claims anyway? Tombah (talk) 15:56, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

I believe the quote below sums up the exceptionality of the claims. The difference between Eusebius and this is that is actually cited to Onomasticon - The Place Names of Divine Scripture, (ed.) R. Steve Notley & Ze'ev Safrai, Brill: Leiden 2005, p. 92 (§477), and Khalidi, W. (1992). All That Remains: The Palestinian Villages Occupied and Depopulated by Israel in 1948. Washington D.C.: Institute for Palestine Studies. ISBN 0-88728-224-5. The Survey of Western Palestine should probably be replaced with a source citing it at this point to be honest. nableezy - 16:36, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

https://www.academia.edu/2021830/Traveling_Zion_Hiking_and_Settler_Nationalism_in_pre_1948_Palestine

"In the writings of Ben Zvi, one sees frequent recourse to a more subtle strategy of obscuring the Arab fabric of the Palestinian landscape through recourse to a Jewish historical overlay. The following account of a 1908 voyage to Hebron is one instance of this representational practice:" plus other criticism in similar vein. Inappropriate addition to this article. Selfstudier (talk) 16:28, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Postcolonial studies? Settler nation-making? I hear ideological claims here as well... Who says this source is more reliable than Ben-Zvi's own writings? It can be added as a criticism, if you insist. I'm sure some have already labeled PEF's studies as imperialist and colonial all the same. Tombah (talk) 17:05, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Author looks like a qualified expert to me. Simpler to keep the obvious narrative out in the first place, it has little or nothing to do with Bayt'Itab anyway. Just because it is verifiable, does not mean it has to go in. Selfstudier (talk) 17:24, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

You can read about the journal, published by Routledge, if youd like. Who says its more reliable? Well Routledge is a well-respected publisher specializing in academic works and publishes some of the most widely cited journals in the humanities on the planet. You can read about the author here. See the list of peer-reviewed works on the topic. And the fact that it is the work of modern scholarship. So who says it is more reliable? Wikipedia does. nableezy - 17:49, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

SWP

Comment to the above section, where User:Nableezy wrote "The Survey of Western Palestine should probably be replaced with a source citing it at this point to be honest".

Being the editor here who has probably inserted more SWP quotes than anyone else, I am starting to partially agree with this. Their factual description still stands, IMO, if they write that they found x inhabitants in a village, or a mosque, or a well, or a cistern: that should still be mentioned.

It is all their speculations which are a problem. (And not only SWP, all the other 19th century writers as well: Robinson, Guerin, van der Velde, Adolf Neubauer, etc.) Beit Liqya is typical: "some editor" inserted the SWP speculation about it being the biblical Eltekeh here (including that this was "a town of Dan near the border with Benjamin). It turns out that presently, researches think that Eltekeh was situated a very different place.

I have seen lots and lots of similar examples; Khirbet el-'Ormeh which was claimed to be biblical Arumah; Bi'ina which was claimed to be biblical Beth-Anath, etc. etc.

Should this SWP biblical suggestion even be in the Beit Liqya article? I would suggest that we in the future, at most, put such 19th century speculation/guesswork into a footnote. (I suspect others want to put it in the lead :/) Cheers, Huldra (talk) 21:00, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

I think basic info (populations and whatnot) is fine, descriptions of physical characteristics as well, along the lines that a census would still be reliable a hundred years later. nableezy - 21:08, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

I think we all(?) agree about this, then. About the 19th century speculation/guesswork; should we have a policy about this? One problem is the difference between them; from Robinson, who is usually quite "sober" in his guesses/assessments, to van der Velde who is often wayyyyyy off. I would really like a common standard here, but is it possible? Huldra (talk) 21:22, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

I think that 19th century conjectural identifications should not be cited alone. There will be a more modern source if the identification is still regarded as solid. On the other hand it would be ok in a historical sequence that gives both the old identification and its modern alternative. Zero^talk 04:47, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Usually we attribute SWP anyway, don't we? It's not as if we are stating things as a fact, although I think they probably are reliable for factual info. However I agree it is better to back up opinion with modern RS where possible. Selfstudier (talk) 10:00, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Don't fall down the hole of "cancel culture", or you'll make Wiki irrelevant to all but Electronic Intifada warriors

Nothing more to add. Or yes: turn the tables, mentally: write Tawfiq Canaan or Khalidi or whoever you choose in stead of Ben Zvi: people with a strong cause and agenda, who went out to document what's there in the field. I would never, ever dismiss their work as a source, of course always seen in the actual context. You are on the way of doing that, dismissing all that seems "inconvenient". Wiki won't thank you. Work here requires educated temperance, control of crusading and activistic instincts. Those are good & needed for the struggle, but not for the study. You can easily counter every one of my words here, that's what rhetorics was made for, but the tendency is clear to me, so don't bother. Arminden (talk) 15:41, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM. nableezy - 15:44, 16 September 2022 (UTC)