Talk:Yarkon Park

too many photos

I have removed the gallery because some of the photos are unattributed and others are not particularly attractive. I think the Old Mill photo could be restored if someone introduced information about it in the "landmark" section.--Gilabrand (talk) 10:58, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Name

It appears that the user Deanb has been adding the name "Hayarkon park", which does not seem either a common name or a name compliant with WP:HE. Any opinions on the matter is welcome. —Ynhockey (Talk) 18:57, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it also called Joshua Gardens? http://www.tripomatic.com/Israel/Tel-Aviv/Joshua-Gardens/ http://www.goisrael.com/Tourism_Eng/Tourist%20Information/attractions/Pages/Yarkon%20Park%20.aspx http://www.israel-tours-hotel.com/id/Yarkon-Park-Joshua-Gardens CrocodilesAreForWimps (talk) 16:14, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Park Yarkon != Yarkon Springs

Somebody confused between Park Yarkon (located in Tel Aviv) and Yarkon Springs + Tel Afek reserve (it's single facility located between Rosh Ayin and Petah Tikva). I'm removing that part (should also check whether Wiki has an article about Tel Afek where removed content should belong) Вых Пыхманн (talk) 12:35, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jarisha

Jarisha in 1940s, showing its location in relation to the Mills and Napoleon's Hill
Seven Mills sign: “Nothing remains of the impoverished Jarisha village which was situated here in the past”

Drsmoo you can see for yourself the location of Jarisha in the center of Yarkon by toggling the views at [1]. And here is the Tel Aviv Park Authority confirming the Jarisha mills in the center of the park (and our article at he: שבע טחנות). Onceinawhile (talk) 06:29, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

טיול בזמן אל טחנת הקמח המשוחזרת בפארק הירקון בתל אביב, Haaretz, "הטחנות שבע טחנות הוא אתר המערבי ביותר בירקון. במקום התקיים עד מלחמת העצמאות הכפר הערבי ג'רישה, וייתכן ששמו נקשר בפעולת הגריסה של הטחנות שפעלו כאן. בשנת 2001 נערכו במקום חפירות ארכיאולוגיות, שחשפו מכלול גדול של אבני ריחיים, המקום זכה לשחזור חלקי של מערכת המים." Onceinawhile (talk) 07:00, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also: [2]: "שבע הטחנות" (1) מדרום לנחל הירקון, שכן הכפר הערבי הקטן ג'רישה. תושבי הכפר התפנו ממנו במלחמת העצמאות, ובמקום נותרו "שבע הטחנות" – שבע טחנות קמח שהופעלו באמצעות מי הירקון. באתר פעלו לפחות אחת-עשרה אבני רחיים – כל אחת מהן טחנה כחמישים קילוגרמים קמח בשעה. טחנות הקמח פעלו במקום במשך מאות שנים, עד להפסקת פעילותן בשנת 6781. הן שימשו איכרים מכל האזור. האיכרים
שהו במקום שעות, ולעתים ימים עד לתום הטחינה
Onceinawhile (talk) 07:10, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Haaretz and government institutions/the Tel Aviv municipality are reliable sources, a polemical essay by a non-notable non-expert is not. Drsmoo (talk) 18:39, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The location of Jarisha that intersected with what is now Yarkon park, per the maps above, and per the sources cited, is explicitly within the Seven Mills section, which is a section within the park, but certainly not the area of the park. Per the map you uploaded above, the rest of the Jarisha region would overlay Ramat Gan, not the park (which would be in accordance with the Khalidi source as well). Adding the part about Jarisha, first to the lead, and then to the opening of the history section, when it is only relevant to a small subsection of the park, is textbook Poisoning the well and Wikipedia:UNDUE . Claiming that "the area" was within Jarisha, when Jarisha village was in fact a tiny part of "the area" (and the non-village parts did not overlay the park), is a complete inversion and factually wrong. Also, in addition to being factually wrong, it is completely Wikipedia:UNDUE, as there is almost no mention of Jarisha across the books and articles written about Yarkon Park. Drsmoo (talk) 22:29, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All of sources I have seen which cover the pre-1969 history of this location are referring to either Jarisha or Al-Shaykh Muwannis (the northern part of the park was on the village lands of the latter). Since there was a clear history of the location prior to 1969, starting the history section in 1969 is incorrect. Onceinawhile (talk) 03:27, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here is an example:
Meishar, Naama (2017). "Up/Rooting: Breaching Landscape Architecture in the Jewish-Arab City". AJS Review. 41 (1). Project Muse: 99–100. doi:10.1017/s0364009417000101. ISSN 0364-0094. Ha-Yarkon Park was established in 1952 on the lands of the village of Al-Shaykh Muwannis.64 Inaugurated in 1974, this 3.5-square-kilometer lawny park also covers the lands of Jarisha, Al-Jammasin al-Gharbi, and Masʻudiya (fig. 3). [Footnote 64. "Netiʻat ha-park ha-leʼumi me-ʻever la-Yarkon," 5 May 1952 (memorandum by Seʻadiya Shoshani, the head of the Planting and Gardening Department in Tel Aviv–Jaffa Municipality), viewed on Tel Aviv–Jaffa municipality's website: http://park.co.il/he/%D7%90%D7%9C%D7%91%D7%95%D7%9E%D7%99%D7%9D/ (accessed July 18, 2016). This memorandum announces a planting ceremony on May 13, 1952 "near the Shaykh-Muwannis village with presence of the prime minister" (translation by the author). {{cite journal}}: External link in |quote= (help)
Onceinawhile (talk) 03:48, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Area of Modern Yarkon Park, as shown in the Map Jaffa Tel Aviv Compiled, drawn and printed by the Survey of Palestine 1944 2366983 (cropped)
This map shows the area shown in figure 3 of Meishar’s article. It confirms, as she states, that the park is located within the village boundaries of four Palestinian villages (the others being Al-Mas'udiyya and Al-Jammasin al-Gharbi). This is a very common situation within Israel – almost half of the depopulated Palestinian villages now sit within Israeli National Parks. Onceinawhile (talk) 04:06, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
None of the sources I've seen that cover Yarkon park mention Jarisha, aside from when deliberately searching for the two . And then, it's mentioned as being within the Seven Mills section of the park, the opposite of how you presented it which gave a false impression of the boundaries of the two. It seems that the only former residential structures that are within the park are Jarisha, and those are only within the Seven Mills section. Per the sources for Al-Shaykh Muwannis, the village itself did not intersect with what is now Yarkon Park (Village Lands is vague), and "the lands of the village", sounds like legalese. Since, in your view, the article is not about Yarkon Park but "the location", perhaps we should include Tel Gerisa, which "has been identified by Benjamin Mazar as the Levitical city of Gath Rimmon" from Joshua 19:45" (It's also been identified as such by Yohanan_Aharoni) Drsmoo (talk)
There is a very prominent sign in the park talking about Jarisha. That is not deliberately searching. Central Park covers Seneca Village in the lede and in the history section, despite the fact that most NYC residents have never heard of it.
Village Lands is a very specific term (see Village boundary), and these boundaries were clearly legally defined (in fact, the borders are shown on the map to the right here). Onceinawhile (talk) 06:38, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Modern Yarkon Park (yellow) overlaid upon the 1940s village lands of Jarisha, Al-Shaykh Muwannis, Al-Mas'udiyya and Al-Jammasin al-Gharbi
See image to the right, on which the respective boundaries can be seen clearly. This follows both Meishar and the Survey of Palestine. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:36, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per your map, the only village that intersected with Yarkon Park was Jarisa, which no longer existed at the time the park was built. Unlike Central Park, in which Seneca Park is relevant as residents were evicted to build it. Nothing to do with residents hearing about it. Has to do with reliable sources and undue weight.
Additionally, your reverted edit was factually wrong, and misrepresented the locations of both the park and Jarisha. I’m fine soliciting more feedback as well, and if there is a consensus to include pre-park history, we should include all of it including archaeology. Drsmoo (talk) 12:31, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I identified the factual error above; following Meishar the clause The area was originally part of the Palestinian village of Jarisha needs to change to Prior to its establishment in 1952, the area of the park was part of the lands of the Palestinian villages of Jarisha and Al-Shaykh Muwannis, as well as smaller parts of Al-Mas'udiyya and Al-Jammasin al-Gharbi. Onceinawhile (talk) 12:50, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, the park was established in 1973, not 1952. Secondly, it would have to link to the definition for village boundary and make sure to emphasize that these were specifically legal village boundaries for administrative purposes. Thirdly it should clarify who drew these boundaries, Ottoman(?), British(?), and were these boundaries still valid post-partition/at the time of the park's organization. Additionally, who owned the land at the time of the park's organization, for example, the Jarisha mills were owned by Jews. I'm inclined to say there should be a(n) RFC(s) to determine the scope of the history section as it pertains to Wikipedia:Due and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Particularly as, unlike the example you provided of Central Park, there was no eminent domain or seizure of structures for the purpose of building the park. We should also request comment regarding the extent to which archaeological history should be included. Drsmoo (talk) 13:20, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See the Meishar quote above. She describes the 1952 establishment, and quotes the relevant legal document.
Fine with the wikilink. As to the administrative point, it is clear from the maps above that the park was built on the villages’ orchards, in addition to the homes of c.200 people in Jarisha. These homes and orchards belonged to real people, who had their land taken from them; see Israeli land and property laws for the history of how the new Israeli state took their titles away. This happened only a year or so prior to the park’s 1952 establishment.
More broadly, another good source is here: Kadman, N.; Yiftachel, O. (2015). Erased from Space and Consciousness: Israel and the Depopulated Palestinian Villages of 1948. Indiana University Press. pp. 110, 122. ISBN 978-0-253-01682-9. Another example is the westernmost watermill in the Seven Mills compound of HaYarkon Park in Tel Aviv, described on the JNF website as "one of the five mills built along the banks of the Yarkon river in the Ottoman period." The mill was used by villagers of Jarisha, which goes unmentioned. The use of the term "Ottoman," just like the emphasis on the Crusader period of village sites, fits well the tendency of presenting the historical periods between the Jewish exile to Babylon up to the establishment of the State of Israel as a sequence of foreign occupations, while ignoring the local Arab population that was living in the country at the same time… In most cases (sixty-five), the Arabic name of the landscape feature is echoed in the Hebraized name, even if the village itself is left unmarked and unmentioned. Examples include Tel Grisa by Jarisha village in Tel Aviv's HaYarkon Park; Tsemach Beach, near which the village of Samakh used to stand; the Hadas Stream passing by Biyar 'Adas village in Hod HaSharon; the Nurit Spring once serving the village of Nuris on the Gilbo'a ridge, and the Nah.ash Well by the village of Dayr Nakhkhas. Ronnie Kokhavi-Nehab calls this phenomenon "present-absence," pointing out its recurrence in the names of places within kibbutzim, "such as the name of the stream flowing by the kibbutz, or a ruin remaining within its boundaries, or a grove still bearing fruit, or the name of land plots in the field."
Onceinawhile (talk) 13:27, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you are going to go into the legalese of "village boundaries", then it is imperative to know who drew those boundaries and who owned the land in them. Wikipedia/WikiCommons has maps from 1944, which would be 8 years before 1952, let alone 1973. Drsmoo (talk) 13:40, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Are we agreed that the park was opened in 1952? Meishar's link directs to an image http://park.co.il/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/הזמנות_לפתיחת_הפרק__העירוני_המרכזי.jpg (translating to "Invitations_to_open_the_city_the_communication_chapter.jpg") which is no longer online. I do not believe you have provided a source for your 1973 statement.
On village boundaries, @Zero0000: may be able to explain the history best. This source does a good job: Gavish, D. (2005). The Survey of Palestine Under the British Mandate, 1920-1948. Routledge Studies in Middle Eastern History. Taylor & Francis. p. 145. ISBN 978-1-135-76666-5. ...the planners had to take into consideration the typical territorial deployment of the Palestinian village, for the village was an accepted administrative unit that had to be preserved. In the village there was clear differentiation between the built-up nucleus and the agricultural periphery. Near the immediate block of buildings stretched a dense, narrow belt of fenced gardens and orchards (hawaqir). Beyond these extended an irregular belt of lands in various stages of cultivation and development, of which part, or most, had clear limits of ownership and were held by individual persons. From this belt to the end of the village lands were open areas of communally owned land that were cultivated by the leading villagers (hamulas), who left their mark on the area. These included holdings that were subdivided, permanent, fenced, and held permanently by individuals—the mafruz lands; and holdings that were subject to periodic division among the villagers, and so were held temporarily and were liable to change their form at every new division—the musha' lands, which made the survey, mapping, and land settlement work especially difficult.
Onceinawhile (talk) 14:08, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding your link, while that is very interesting, I'm not seeing the relation to the fact that both Jarisha and Sheikh Muwannis both had significant Jewish land ownership. https://park.co.il/en/about-us/ "Planning of the park began in 1969, and it was opened to the public in 1973." Drsmoo (talk) 14:13, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do not understand your first sentence.
Looks like the date was 1951 for planting and 1952 for opening. The 1969 date refers to the “Ganei Yehoshua“ renaming and presumably some change in legal status. The link you posted confirms that During Israel’s first years of independence, Prime Minister David Ben Gurion made the decision to establish a large urban park in Tel Aviv, designating the land around the Yarkon River for this particular purpose. It was decided that no residential buildings were to be built along the riverbanks, and that the area will remain as an open center and the green “lungs” of the city. Hebrew Wikipedia he:פארק הירקון says Hebrew: רק ב-1950 החל הרעיון לקרום עור וגידים, וטקס נטיעת העצים בפארק נערך ב-5 ביולי 1951, בקרבת חיבור נחל איילון לירקון. ב-1962 מונתה ועדה להרחבת הפארק הלאומי, כשבין חבריה האדריכל אבא אלחנני, משה עקרון ואברהם קרוון. הוועדה החליטה להקים בפארק שורת מתקני שעשועים, ובהם רכבת קטנה ותיאטרון לילדים, וכן מתקנים למחנאות., lit. 'Only in 1950 did the idea begin to take shape, and the tree planting ceremony in the park was held on July 5, 1951, near the connection of the Ayalon River to the Yarkon. In 1962, a committee was appointed to expand the national park, with its members including the architect Abba Elhanani, Moshe Ekron and Avraham Karavan. The committee decided to set up a series of playground facilities in the park, including a small train and a children's theater, as well as camping facilities.' and this website shows photographs of the 1951 opening ceremony with the caption Hebrew: 1951- התחלת נטיעת פארק הירקון; בתמונה : טקס הנטיעות הראשונות בפארק ונאום ראש העיר ישראל רוקח בטקס, romanized: 1951, lit. 'Beginning of planting the Yarkon Park. In the photo: the first planting ceremony in the park and the speech of the Mayor of Israel, a pharmacist at the ceremony'
Onceinawhile (talk) 15:11, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14601176.2019.1671055?journalCode=tgah20 - This is an excellent source for a detailed history of the planning of the park. Some land was allocated and trees were planted in the 1950s, but it was not yet "Yarkon Park" as there was no design/implementation. The planning was in the 60s, and the park opened in the early 70s. "Consequently, the government of Israel allocated 175 hectares on the northern bank of Yarkon Stream in 1950 for building a park, exhibition halls, and fairgrounds (as shown in Figure 5a)...However, it took another decade before the actual planning of the park started....In 1964, the municipality, the Association of the Engineers and the Architects in Israel, and the Association of Israel Landscape Architects initiated a competition for the planning of the park. Thirteen proposals were submitted, and none was awarded first or second place....In 1967, after years of negotiation, the municipality nominated landscape architect Yosef Segal as the park’s planner and the architect Arye Elhanani as the municipality’s architect in charge of the design. Their programme served as the basis for the next decade of development (Figure 5f).50 The municipality established a municipal company, and it was placed in charge of the construction and the maintenance of the park.51...The early 1970s inauguration of Yarkon Park, the biggest urban park in Israel and a member of honour in the list of mid-20 th century modern large parks, marks two connected processes. Tel Aviv became the country’s economic and cultural centre, and the pastoral park became a prototype of Israel’s big urban parks." Drsmoo (talk) 16:36, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good source, which will allow a good quality description of how it became a fully fledged Urban Park.
I noted a couple of additional points from the article:
  • At the start of the section discussion the 1950 initial designation, it says: "more than half-a-million Palestinians were uprooted from their villages and towns, leaving behind hundreds of thousands of hectares of fertile land." This confirms the relevance of pointing out how this space became available, given we have it specified in a number of sources which focus much more on that time period than this source does.
  • Figure 5a referred to above states "The area of the national park in the northern part of Tel Aviv, 1950 (Report of the Committee for Public Parks, State archive file c-5496/12)." So we have it confirmed that this was a national park as early as 1950.
Onceinawhile (talk) 17:16, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Figure 5a is referring to the allocation of "175 hectares on the northern bank of Yarkon Stream", however Yarkon Park is 375 hectares. Additionally, regarding how the space became available. We know, per Jewish land purchase in Palestine#/media/File:Palestine Index to Villages and Settlements, showing Land in Jewish Possession as at 31.12.44.jpg that much of the land that would become Yarkon Park was owned by Jews as of 1944, and probably (possibly) well before that, for example, Jarisha Mills was purchased via auction in 1912. https://www.palestine-studies.org/sites/default/files/jq-articles/Pages_from_JQ_72_-_Beska_0.pdf Drsmoo (talk) 17:59, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Area of Yarkon Park within the Palestine Index to Villages and Settlements, showing Land in Jewish Possession as at 31.12.44 (cropped)
Another good source. On this close-up you can see the river with its familiar shape - in simple terms most of the Yarkon Park area north of the river (in the Al-Shaykh Muwannis land area) was owned by Palestinian Arabs, whereas it seems most of the area south of the river had come into Jewish ownership. But we know for sure that the three villages south of the river (Jarisha, Al-Mas'udiyya and Al-Jammasin al-Gharbi) were still inhabited by Palestinian Arabs in 1948. This map gives a similar but slightly different picture. On a related note, it would be worth trying to find what happened with the Jarisha mills dispute. The article you linked to did not state that the sale went through; it described opposition to it. I wonder if some agreement was reached where it was sold but with commitments to the native inhabitants. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:34, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you mean by "another good source", it's the same source. Neither map conveys that the land not owned by Jews was owned by Palestinian Arabs, or who owned it at all, though that may or may not be inconsequential. To go back in circles, the only actual village that was in the land of what is now Yarkon Park was Jarisha, with, at least by 1944, the Mills and almost all of the land within the "village boundaries" being owned by private Jewish owner(s)."Village boundaries", can not be confused with a village where inhabitants are, and in fact, is not confused, as maps delineate the village from the "village boundaries". In other words, if you walk through Yarkon Park, you will not find the remnants of any village outside of the Seven Mills area. Drsmoo (talk) 18:50, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, it may be time for an RFC, as there is a limit to the usefulness of two users going back and forth. Drsmoo (talk) 18:51, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we have a source showing that the mills were purchased by Jews? Per above, the only source I have seems shows there was a proposed purchase and a public dispute; I am not aware of any source showing the outcome. If you have one that would be good. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:36, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Village Statistics 1945 for Jaffa subdistrict (page 28)
Per this official source from 1945:
  • the four villages we have been discussing had almost 100% Muslim population.
  • the majority of Jarisha and Shaykh Muwwanis lands were owned by Arabs (interestingly this summary version of the document adds together the "Arab" and "Other" columns in the table shown to the right, categorizing both under "Arab"). The Jarisha data is intriguing as it seems to contradict the map we discussed above.
Onceinawhile (talk) 20:09, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Both sources that show Jewish land ownership include Jarisha. If you'd like a fourth source "During the British rule a Jewish Tel Aviv resident acquired the mills; however modern mills, operated with advanced motors, were already crowding out traditional water mills. The Jarisha mills were being used less and less frequently until they ceased to operate completely in 1936." It is possible either the 1912 sale didn't go through, or his purchase was later resold. The only population was Jarisha as well, and only within the Seven Mills section, per the overlays/map on the right. The rest were "village boundaries" not the villages themselves, and the largest of those (Shaykh-Muwannis) also had significant Jewish ownership. Drsmoo (talk) 20:41, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That municipal website you linked to is as bad as the JNF one that Kadman described: The mill was used by villagers of Jarisha, which goes unmentioned. The use of the term “Ottoman,” just like the emphasis on the Crusader period of village sites, fits well the tendency of presenting the historical periods between the Jewish exile to Babylon up to the establishment of the State of Israel as a sequence of foreign occupations, while ignoring the local Arab population that was living in the country at the same time – the page manages to tell the story without mentioning the word Arab or Palestinian once, so we can't consider it NPOV as to any part of the history that relates to Palestinians.
Having said that, I am willing to accept it as confirmation that the mills were purchased during the mandate period, as it seems likely given the prior source re the 1912 discussions (per the Sursock Purchases#1910–1911 Fula affair, activity that was stalled during the late Ottoman period was frequently forced through under the British).
I don't understand your last two sentences. The table to the right has all the data - for example the built-on area in Jarisha was 3/4 Arab-owned and both Jarisha and Shaykh Muwwanis were 100% Arab in population. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:55, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The land in Shaykh Muwannis had significant Jewish ownership, and it is the land, not the population, that is relevant to Yarkon park, as the village of Shaykh Muwannis (population), per the map on the right, was outside what is now Yarkon Park. It is the administrative boundaries (land) that had some overlap with Yarkon park, and it is the administrative boundaries (land) that had significant Jewish ownership. Drsmoo (talk) 21:07, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The ownership map above shows Jewish land ownership in Shaykh Muwwanis of a %age which roughly ties with the Village Statistics tables. But crucially the places in the map marked as Jewish ownership are almost all north of the Yarkon Park area. The Yarkon Park area of the Shaykh Muwwanis village lands looks to be no more than 5-10% Jewish ownership, and we know from the Village Statistics tables that almost all of the rest was in Arab ownership. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:26, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per the chart, Jewish land ownership of Shaykh Muwannis was about 30%. It is quite hard to tell based on the land ownership map how much of the Jewish section is overlapping Yarkon. Drsmoo (talk) 22:04, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The circles on the ownership map are the built-on areas (i.e. the village core). Directly south of the circle for Shaykh Muwwanis is the familiar shape of the meeting point of the Yarkon and Ayalon rivers. The bulk of Yarkon Park sits to the east of those two points; an area which is shown as not Jewish-owned on this map.
I am still puzzled by the Jarisha land ownership discrepancy between the map and the table. Very odd. For now I am assuming it is because the map is quite roughly drawn at that level of detail. Onceinawhile (talk) 05:29, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's great that this discussion has brought out some detailed information. But I'm struggling to see the overall picture. If there was a Jewish village here 2000 years ago, for sure it would have been added. But a Palestinian village 74 years ago is something to argue about? Zerotalk 04:03, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I’m struggling to see it as well, especially as A. The current revision was made by me and includes Jarisha, but no references to Gath Rimmon. B. almost none of this discussion has anything to do with Yarkon Park whatsoever, which is telling as well. It’s primarily become about open land and how much of that open land was owned by Jews in 1944.Drsmoo (talk) 13:03, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Telling"? Onceinawhile (talk) 15:52, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is significant to understanding why an outside editor would struggle to see the overall picture. This prolonged discussion of esoterica related to land administration/ownership of space outside villages that had various degree of overlap with what is now Yarkon Park 30 years before the park opened, is in complete disproportion to the weight assigned to it in reliable sources discussing the park. It was not my intention for my comment to be perceived as related to the intentions of editor(s). Drsmoo (talk) 17:32, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We have multiple sources confirming that a park was first created in this place in 1950-51. Are we agreed that such information is relevant to this article? Onceinawhile (talk) 21:21, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to say yes, particularly given such a useful source on the history of the park's development. Drsmoo (talk) 22:39, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Current boundary of Yarkon Park, Tel-Aviv, superimposed on land ownership of June 30, 1947.

The small scale land ownership map is too low-res to be useful for small areas. At right is a detailed map. The base is from block plans of the Survey of Palestine. The green coloring was added by Zalman Lif for the end of 1945 and updated by the Jewish National Fund for June 30, 1947. Light green is private Jewish ownership and dark green is JNF land. Solid color is mafruz land and striped color is musha land. I copied the current park boundary from Google Maps but I'm not sure if all of it is called Yarkon Park (is there an official map?). By actual measurement on the map, the fraction of the current park which was under Jewish ownership at the end of June 1947 is close to 20%. Zerotalk 04:46, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. This is fantastic. I never imagined it was possible to see the land ownership on such a micro scale. Very well done. The boundaries you have put follow the Meishar article linked above so are securely sourced. Onceinawhile (talk) 05:30, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Drsmoo: how is a reader supposed to interpret the map above without an explanation of the colors? You wrote in the edit summary of your deletion that "The vast majority of land in that image was Jewish owned, image summary was misleading. Replaced with neutral image summary from talk page." Yet the caption that you removed was taken directly from Zero0000's comment above. What is your statement "The vast majority of land in that image was Jewish owned" based upon? It conflicts with what is visible on the map. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:06, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I stand corrected regarding my edit summary, which was incorrect. I was about to modify to something akin to Zeros recent edits, when I saw that he had already done so. Drsmoo (talk) 14:17, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Zero0000: thanks for your recent edit. Per the 20% figure, I presume that is a "rough" number so we can't write it? The challenge with the caption (both the original and the current) is that it is silent on the identity of the majority ownership. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:21, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The 20% is my measurement on the map using the area tool in Photoshop. It is probably too ORish to mention. The non-green parts were all included in the village lands of the Palestinian villages but the identity of the owners is unspecified. It isn't so far from Sarona so it is plausible that some was owned by Templers, and there could also have been state land. The 1945 statistics limit both of those (Templers certainly weren't buying land after 1945) but there is an absence of sources making these assertions. Zerotalk 12:57, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Zero0000: I wonder if to make it clearer we could use the term "only known" before "Jewish owned land", and perhaps explain the context of Zalman Lif’s work in the footnote. What do you think? Onceinawhile (talk) 15:40, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by “to make it clearer”? Drsmoo (talk) 16:29, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
i.e. to make the sentence more specific. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:45, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence is "Light green is land in private Jewish ownership and dark green is JNF land." Which part should be more specific? Drsmoo (talk) 17:03, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have made it clear above. I won’t respond again. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:05, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Given your use of the adverb "only", my reading is that the point you want to make "clearer" is that the land owned by Jews was, in your view, small. Is that an incorrect reading? Drsmoo (talk) 17:11, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I replaced "showing land ownership" by "showing Jewish land ownership" to better reflect what is shown and what is not shown. Objections? Zerotalk 23:50, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drafting

I don’t really mind it but the second half of the sentence The mass displacement of Palestinians, along with the arrival of large numbers of Jews from Europe and the Middle East presented Prime Minister Ben Gurion with an opportunity to establish new parks didn’t make sense to me. I don’t understand why Jewish immigration created an opportunity to establish new parks. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:16, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sudden urban overcrowding resulting from the influx of immigrants created the political necessity to alleviate it by building parks. "On the other hand, one million Jewish refugees arrived in Israel from Europe and the Middle East. In general, the early 1950s brought a unique opportunity to establish parks for the increasingly overcrowded cities of central Israel, as suggested Prime Minister Ben Gurion: "Public parks for the city’s residents,which are crowded between the walls of houses in the streets of the city, are a vital necessity: During the rule of foreigners, our citybuilders could not take care of the gardens because there was a shortage of land, this delay was removed upon the establishment of the state."Drsmoo (talk) 12:03, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, the revised language makes some more sense.
The word "technical" as a modifier of "village lands" is odd though. In many years of reading in this topic I have never seen this kind of (or any?) modification of village lands. Is such treatment sourceable? Onceinawhile (talk) 12:16, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have definitely seen the phrase "technical city limits" before. For example: "Note that the technical city limits of New Orleans extend far to the northeast of the city." https://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep17236.11 It should be clear when reading the article that the populated village of Shaykh Muwannis itself is/was not within the bounds of the park. One reading the article without that qualifier would likely get a false impression that houses from Shayk Muwannis were within the boundaries of the park. Drsmoo (talk) 12:23, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I removed "technical" as not informative. Village lands were the geographical administrative units below sub-Districts, quite similar to Israeli regional councils. Just as a regional council can have several villages, so could village lands. A common misconception is that the village lands of Palestinian villages were all owned by Palestinians, but that is not true as parts could be bought by others. If there is a need to say that the village of Shaykh Muwannis wasn't in the park area, but only some of its village lands, that could be said explicitly. Nobody will understand what point is being made by attaching "technical". Better yet would be a map showing then-and-now. Zerotalk 12:33, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Technical is commonly used to describe areas that are not within a city/town but are within it's legal limits. For other examples: "technically within the city limits but not considered to be within the metropolitan area." https://www.google.com/books/edition/Metropolitan_Problems/dohRSFT4iSsC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22technically+within+the+city+limits%22&pg=PA69&printsec=frontcover, "a previously undeveloped swampy area technically within the city limits but actually far from the old neighborhoods" https://www.google.com/books/edition/Metropolitan_Problems/dohRSFT4iSsC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22technically+within+the+city+limits%22&pg=PA69&printsec=frontcover "Cameron Park, a colonia that wile technically within the city limits, isn't part of Brownsville proper" https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Long_Shadow_of_Small_Ghosts/xBPXCwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22technically+within+the+city+limits%22&pg=PA37&printsec=frontcover, etc. Drsmoo (talk) 12:42, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that you can find examples of a usage does not imply that readers will understand that that usage is intended. Write "village lands but not the village" if you want. Zerotalk 12:51, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Opening date

@Drsmoo: what is wrong with correcting the opening date? Why the aggressive edit summary ("falsely" / "hidden")? The infobox should match the article; this is just fixing a simple mistake. Onceinawhile (talk) 13:34, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You did not correct the opening date. The land that was set aside in 1950 was not Yarkon Park, which included additional land and was was opened in 1973, which is attested to in reliable sources and is a statement of fact. Additionally, using the false edit summary of "tidying up" to hide change of date is sanctionable, and is a textbook Wikipedia:Red flags in edit summaries Drsmoo (talk) 13:49, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Drsmoo: please lower the temperature. Threats and aggressive language do not help us move forward here. There is no dispute, and no disagreement. The only problem is a failure to follow WP:AGF.
As to the dates, see above:
We have multiple sources confirming that a park was first created in this place in 1950-51. Are we agreed that such information is relevant to this article? Onceinawhile (talk) 21:21, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
I'm inclined to say yes, particularly given such a useful source on the history of the park's development. Drsmoo (talk) 22:39, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
We had clear agreement between us. Has anything changed? Onceinawhile (talk) 13:59, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
False edit summaries are sanctionable. When you make an edit summary, you should explain what you're doing. You can choose to heed this advice or not. "a park" is not "Yarkon Park", which was opened in 1973 and was not the same as what was established in 1950. You can see that both dates are now in the infobox. Drsmoo (talk) 14:02, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You and I can agree to disagree on whether fixing a date in the infobox to match the article, itself built on clear talk page consensus, constitutes a tidy up. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:11, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like "Created 1973"; it seems the wrong word. If the source says "opened to the public in 1973, then "opened 1973" would be better. Zerotalk 14:22, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we have a reliable source about 1973. "Opened" is definitely wrong. I believe the 1973 event was simply the renaming to "Ganei Yehoshua". We do have a source above which states (Figure 5a) "The area of the national park in the northern part of Tel Aviv, 1950 (Report of the Committee for Public Parks, State archive file c-5496/12)." Onceinawhile (talk) 14:30, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The source used for most of the history section (Modern park for a modern city: planning Tel Aviv’s Yarkon Park during the 1960s-1970s) states "The early 1970s inauguration of Yarkon Park, the biggest urban park in Israel and a member of honour in the list of mid-20th century modern large parks, marks two connected processes." The opening date not being 1950 is also self-evident from "planning" in 60s and 70s in the article title. For example in 1964, the municipality began planning the park, so it clearly was not opened in the 50s, it had not even been planned yet, let alone landscaped. I only did half the section, which may be contributing to the confusion. I will complete the full history when time is available, but the article goes into the details of how the park was designed and planned throughout the 60s and early 70s. Drsmoo (talk) 15:20, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The evidence further above shows there is a nuance missing here. That article is differentiating between being just being a simple park and being a real park. It is describing the inauguration of a planned / manicured urban park, equivalent to major global city parks like Central Park or the Jardin du Luxembourg. But prior to that, ever since the tree planting began in 1950-51 it was clearly open as land for recreation by city residents, and designated as a park. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:47, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What you are referring to is not "Yarkon Park". Not only was its name different, it's composition, and indeed it's area (dramatically) was different. Yarkon Park is roughly double the size of what was allocated in 1950. In 1950, 175 hectares were set aside for a park. 140 hectares were added to the "Segal–Elhanani" plan, which was from the mid '60s, in the early 70s.Drsmoo (talk) 16:18, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. To be clear, the “name” point is that today it is officially Ganei Yehoshua. But “Yarkon Park” (or the Hebrew equivalent) has been in use since 1950. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:22, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hebrew Wiki says 1951 so I've updated to that. Also linked in the other languages, which weren't linkedDrsmoo (talk) 18:10, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Yarkon_Park&oldid=1202101370"