Talk:Kafr 'Inan

Carmoly

Should we use the following source:

• Carmoly, Eliakim (1847). Itinéraires de la Terre Sainte des XIIIe, XIVe, XVe, XVIe et XVIIe siècle, traduits de l'hébreu, et accompagnés de tables, de cartes et d'éclaircissements. A. Vandale.

....given the controversy about Eliakim Carmoly? Huldra (talk) 23:37, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

This seems to be in the Chelo itinerary, which is suggested as a forgery by several modern sources. I don't think we can use this book. Zero^talk 03:55, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Since Adler, AFAIK, uncritically reprinted the Chelo itinerary, and SWP also refers to it, I think those two also need to go. Which means the whole sentence: "Ancient sepulchres believed to be the burial sites of rabbis were located in the village, including those of Jose ben Halafta (buried with his wife and children), Jacob and Eliezer ben Hurcanus." should go.

• Adler, Elkan Nathan (2004). Jewish Travellers (Reprint, illustrated, abridged ed.). Routledge. ISBN 978-0-415-34466-1. ISBN 0-415-34466-2.

References

Huldra (talk) 20:36, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Kfar Hananya

Why is the Hebrew name of Kfar Hananya mentioned in this article? It belongs in the Kfar Hananya article, not here. Any reason why to duplicate this? Huldra (talk) 22:19, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

That clearly belongs in the article Kfar Hananya, and it is there, but we do not use foreign language terms in prose of an article. We dont for example say Hebron (Arabic: الْخَلِيل) wherever Hebron is mentioned. We include relevant foreign titles in the first sentence of the article that it is about, but we do not add foreign titles to the prose otherwise. nableezy - 22:21, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

The answer is given on my Talk-Page, at the very bottom "1RR" section. The modern moshav of Kfar Hananya, built one kilometer to the south of the Old Kefar Hanania (now Kafr 'Inan) is, obviously, not the same site as the older, although it bears the same name. We find this all over the country: The new Beitar Illit, named after the old Betar (now Bittir) are two different sites.Davidbena (talk) 23:12, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

What exactly does that have to do with including the Hebrew for a term that is not the subject of this article? nableezy - 23:28, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

It's simple. Just as the Arabic script is a true representation of its Arabic name, so, too, the Hebrew script (as it appears in the 2nd century Hebrew Mishnah) is a true representation of its Hebrew name. There is an Arabic name and a Hebrew name for the one and same site (like there is Al-Quds for Jerusalem, although in Hebrew the city is called Yerushalayim). Davidbena (talk) 00:39, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

No David, it is not simple. The only Arabic in this article is the Arabic for the subject of the article, namely Kafr Inan. That is per MOS:FORLANG which says If the subject of the article is closely associated with a non-English language, a single foreign language equivalent name can be included in the lead sentence, usually in parentheses. For example, an article about a location in a non-English-speaking country will typically include the local language equivalent. That is specifically for the subject of the article. What you have placed here is a foreign language for another place. That place being Kfar Hananya, which is not the subject of this article. We include foreign language names for the subject of the article, not for any other term that is simply used in the article. The article Kfar Hananya has the Hebrew language for that name there. It also says that it is built on the land of the depopulated Palestinian village Kafr 'Inan. Notice how the Arabic for Kafr 'Inan is not included there? We dont use foreign language terms for when its translation is simply mentioned. Again, we dont include Arabic: الْخَلِيل wherever Hebron is mentioned for this same reason. You bring up Jerusalem. Yes the lead of Jerusalem includes both the Arabic and the Hebrew. But we do not include either the Arabic or Hebrew on other articles where Jerusalem is just mentioned. One more time in the hopes that you recognize that we are not "vandalizing" the article. We do not include foreign language terms for anything besides the actual subject of the article. The article Jerusalem is linked to by over 18,000 other pages. We include יְרוּשָׁלַיִם on just a handful of those pages, namely Jerusalem, Names of Jerusalem, List of Hebrew place names. The other 18,000+ pages just say "Jerusalem" in English. nableezy - 00:52, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood the import of MOS:FORLANG. There it says: "If the subject of the article is closely associated with a non-English language, a single foreign language equivalent name can be included in the lead sentence, usually in parentheses." Here, the site does NOT have a single foreign language to English readers, but TWO foreign languages to English readers, which means we can write both of its names.Davidbena (talk) 03:42, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

No, you misunderstand, either that or are again ignoring me. Kfar Hananya is not the subject of this page. The Hebrew for Kfar Hananya is not relevant to this page because Kfar Hananya is not the subject of this place. nableezy - 06:18, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

I actually would question the need for a separate Kafr 'Inan article. This bulk of this refers mostly to the ancient Kfar Hananya. The very small village on the site during Ottoman and British times is covered in two short segments (320 words out of 1120 in the body) - all the rest is ancient history (as Kfar Hananya) or modern history (as Kfar Hananya). The Ottoman and British periods are furthermore mostly a regurgitation of statistics from PRIMARY sources - which probably should not be here. Icewhiz (talk) 07:00, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Question what you like, but a. there is no rule against using primary sources, and b. we use census data all over, including in every single article on an Israeli town, city, or settlement. nableezy - 14:43, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Also, 320 words? Are you looking at the same article? The entire history section is about the depopulated Palestinian village. nableezy - 14:46, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Nableezy, we both agree that we are NOT talking here about Kfar Hananya which was established in 1977 at a different place. Rather, we're talking here exclusively about Kafr 'Inan, whose name was also Kefar Hanania in the 2nd-century CE as we see here in Mishnah Shebiith 9:2 and which place is discussed by the relative archaeologists and historical geographers. When students of religion study this site, the first name that comes to mind is the Hebrew rendition of its name, Kefar Hananiah which happens to be the exact same site as Kafr 'Inan. By the way, history sections are what we make of them. Much can be added to the ancient history of the place based on classical Hebrew literature.Davidbena (talk) 21:37, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

A question, please, to our moderator User:Doug Weller. Do you think that what I am proposing here is unreasonable? Doesn't MOS:FORLANG apply here, where there are actually two "foreign languages" applied to the same site? Please advise.Davidbena (talk) 21:43, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Im not opposed to including the Hebrew in the body where it says it was a Jewish village known as Kfar Hananya (or Kfar Hanania). I base that mostly on a quick look at other cities whose names have changed in both language and name over time (Istanbul for example contains only the current Turkish, while the Toponymy section covers prior native names. Saint Petersburg didnt change languages, but same deal, old names included in native script in body not lead. Tehran includes only the current Persian in lead, has prior names along with native script in body). nableezy - 03:09, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Huldra since Nableezy is not opposed to adding the Hebrew name in the body of the article, under the sub-section which reads "Classic era," would you have any objections that we insert its Hebrew name there?Davidbena (talk) 05:49, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

The different here being that Kfar Hananya is probably the WP:COMMONNAME here, while Kafr 'Inan (in various unstable transliterations) seems to be an Arabic form of the same thing.[1]. 05:02, 23 April 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Icewhiz (talk • contribs)

We have an article on Kfar Hananya. It isnt this one. nableezy - 21:05, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

That you can find several examples of articles on Wikipedia that doesn't follow MOS:FORLANG, is no argument for adding another article to the lot. Eg Istanbul#Toponymy to my eyes looks messy, with the Greek language for Byzantium added. (If I had been editing that article, I would have removed it). Tehran#Classical era looks even worse. Huldra (talk) 20:56, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

I dont think it needs to be here, I dont really care if it is there. It certainly does not belong in the lead as though that is a native name for the topic, that being the Palestinian village that had its residents forcibly expelled. nableezy - 21:04, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

A change of name throughout a site's 3 or 4 millennia of existence does not equate to a change of place. It remains the same place. Therefore, we use the name that it is most commonly known by, with its alternate spellings/names given in the lede paragraph. Often, whenever historians refer to historical sites of importance, its older name is the more common or recognizable name. In the case of this village, especially in recent history, the village was indeed known to locals by the name Kafr 'Inan. So, the question we should be asking ourselves (with calm reflection) is whether or not a town's Arabic name is meant to cancel out its more ancient Hebrew name? We find that the ancient Jewish metropolis of Betar is now an Arab village named Bittir. All agree, however, that they are one and the same village. We also find that Taybeh northeast of Ramallah is the ancient biblical Ophrah, a name that was changed because of the Hebrew name's bad Arabic connotation, that is to say, by a reversion of its name from what sounded like Afrin ("demons") to a euphemistic sound (lit. "the goodly"), as was common in other Arabic place-names. Thus is it explained by Ishtori Haparchi and William F. Albright. P.S. - I'm starting to like our conversation. Wishing that I had been more congenial in the beginning.

References

--- Davidbena (talk) 21:38, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

The Palestinian village that was captured by Israel in 1948 and depopulated of its residents is a notable topic. That village was called Kafr Inan. It is called Kafr Inan in reliable sources, for example Khalidi, Walid (1992). All That Remains: The Palestinian Villages Occupied and Depopulated by Israel in 1948. Institute for Palestine Studies. pp. 20–21. ISBN 978-0-88728-224-9.. nableezy - 21:46, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I know that, Nableezy. I'm not arguing against including that information in this article. But you ought to also agree with me that the same village had an earlier history, going back to the 1st and 2nd centuries CE. The two histories are not mutually exclusive of each other.Davidbena (talk) 21:57, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Id need to see some more sources on them being one and the same. I already said I dont necessarily oppose including a Hebrew name in the body if it is shown that it is indeed the same village. nableezy - 22:20, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Nableezy, if you have access to JSTOR, you may wish to see the article entitled Reviewed work: Common Pottery in Roman Galilee, A Study of Local Trade by David Adan-Bayewitz of Bar Ilan University. The article was published in 1996 in the Israel Exploration Journal, Vol. 46, No. 3/4 (1996). There, the reviewer (Jodi Magness), mentions on page 270 the Arab village of Kafr 'Inan as being identified with Kefar Hananya of rabbinic literature.Davidbena (talk) 03:00, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

You may also wish to see Kefar Hananya - Identification and Exploration, as well as this, The Sea of Galilee Boat: An Extraordinary 2000 Year Old Discovery (p. 244), or else this link here, where the Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA) writes: "Nearby, Kefar Hananya (the Arabic village of Kafr ‘Anan) was built on the eastern bank of the stream in the Roman period and Be’er Sheva‘ Ha-Gelilit, which was a fortified city in the Second Temple period, was founded on a remote hilltop west of the stream." Another important online source is this one here, taken from the book Settlement and History in Hellenistic, Roman, and Byzantine Galilee, by Uzi Leibner. I hope that this is helpful.Davidbena (talk) 17:23, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Sorry David, been super busy this week. Ill look at those sources as soon as I can. nableezy - 12:08, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

No base for habitation in Early Muslim period

The article read:
"An Aramaic inscription initially dated to the 6th century, and recently redated to the Umayyad (661-750) or Abbasid period (750-969 with intermissions after 878),..."

The source quoted was: Flood (2001), p. 50. Flood (2001), p. 50 offers the same date: 6th c., mentions nothing about a "recently redating to the Umayyad or Abbasid period". Flood mistakenly places the find in Kfar Hananya itself: no, it was found in Kafr Makr; the inscription refers to a Kfar Hananya ("maybe" says the NC catalogue; Negev is more assertive). The only "source" for a habitation in the Early Muslim period is none, so I removed the section. If someone can offer new sources, it can be discussed here; as of now there is no base for it. Tiamut introduced it here, and I understand that she has quit editing, so we cannot ask her. Arminden (talk) 16:04, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Khirbet?

@Davidbena: hi. It's about the archaeological site. You have captioned the photo "Old blocks of hewn-stones at the ruin of Kafr 'Inan (Old Kefar Hananiah)". The photo is impressive, I like the before-the-rain atmosphere (or was it after the rain?), it's quite dramatic. With the caption though I have a problem. It looks like a slightly unfortunate literal translation. Hewn stones and [stone] blocks are about the same, but my main issue is with the site name. Archaeologists usually go by the SWP maps and terms, so you get a lot of "Khirbet Something" for ruined settlements with visible architectural remains, or "Tell Something" for mounds where you have to dig to find walls. In Hebrew 'khirbet' was translated to 'horvot'. In any case, to literally translate "khirbet" to "ruins" is not done in English, it doesn't work well. So, what is the name of the site? Is it Khirbet 'Inan or something similar? If so, the caption should read more or less "Ruins at Khirbet 'Inan (ancient Kfar Hananya)", that would be the standard. Google has no hits though for Khirbet 'Inan. If there is no such name, then I suggest "Ruins of ancient Kfar Hananya". The picture speaks for itself, but if you want to describe the content, "remains of stone wall" could do. I'll go ahead and put something in, and you can see if it's OK with you. Thanks and have a great day, Arminden (talk) 03:09, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

@Arminden:, you are right about the caption being somewhat redundant, as "old blocks" and "hewn stone" have nearly the same meaning. Feel free to shorten the title. As for the article's title, most peer-review articles that mention this site, mention it under the name "Khirbet Kafr 'Inan," or simply Kafr 'Inan. In Arabic, "khirba" (or in the construct state "kirbet") simply means a "ruin," whether a modern ruin or an old ruin. The name of the site before its inhabitants abandoned the site was Kafr 'Inan (in the Arabic language) and Kefar Hananya (in the Mishnaic Hebrew language). I have no problem with removing the word "Khirba" from any given title, although perhaps it is still good to make known the fact that the site is today a ruin. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 03:23, 26 April 2021 (UTC)