Talk:Al-Khayriyya

POV

All I see in this article is a Palestinian POV I am sure that there also other POVs on what happened there. --Shrike (talk) 16:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Please feel free to add material from other sources. I too will look for some more sources, and make changes as I did in response to your similar request at Al-Shaykh Muwannis. Tiamut 16:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

When was the name changed

The text, citing Khalidi, says "At the time of the British Mandate for Palestine the villagers changed the name of the village to al-Khayriyya to distinguish it from the neighbouring Jewish town of Bnei Brak." However, it appeared in the 1922 census (Table VII) as "Khairiyeh" while Bnei Brak says that place was founded in 1924. So something is amiss here. Actually I suspect Bnei Brak is wrong since I see it on a 1895 map, though it is not in the 1922 census. Might Bnei Brak have been founded, then abandoned, then founded again? Zero^talk 14:56, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Possibly. But I recall I suspected major mix-ups between the two places when I checked the HA-data; see User:Huldra/HA#p.153. Al-Khayriyya was named "Hayriyya" in 1596, while Bene Berak was named Bani Ibraq at the same time...according to HA. Huldra (talk) 15:17, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Curious. I have a 1918 map which shows Ibn-Ibrak. So I think the name changed between 1918 and 1922. That 1918 map does not show Bene Brak and in fact I can't find any sign of Bene Brak in its current place before 1924 and it is not in the 1922 census. Also, the present Bene Brak is 5km north of al-Khayriyya and several other locations are closer, so it seems dubious that the partial overlap of names would have been serious enough to prompt them to change it. Zero^talk 09:10, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

There are two questions here; why Al-Khayriyya changed its name, and which is Beneberak?

When all these Biblical researchers (vanderVelde, SWP) did their work in the 19th century, Bnei Brak was abandoned, and they seem to have drawn the conclusion that this village was Beneberak, due simply to its position and the similarity in name.

But those researchers did not know that Bnei Brak was populated in 1596, and called Bani Ibraq then. (Both Al-Khayriyya and Bnei Brak had a wholly Muslim population in 1596.)

I suspect only archeological excavations would solve the issue of Beneberak.

As for the why al-Khayriyya changed back: I could only speculate. But the info all over that the "village was called Ibn Ibraq, preserving the ancient name" seems like rubbish: why should it be named "Hayriyya" in 1596, and then later changed to "preserve" the ancient "Beneberak"? It makes no sense. (More likely: there was a sheik named Ibrak sometime during Ottoman period....) Cheers, Huldra (talk) 22:38, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Sharon-ref

Sharon, 2013, p. 294 have problems. He gives grid number 133/160; that is here.

Firstly, he writes here: Guerin found a village named Barqa .. citing:

• Guérin, Victor (1869). Description Géographique Historique et Archéologique de la Palestine (in French). Vol. 1: Judee, pt. 2. Paris: L'Imprimerie Nationale. p. 68- 70

Well, that Barqa is clearly Barqa, Gaza, way south of this place...where there is another tomb for a Neby Burk (see SWP II, p. 409)

Secondly, he writes that it appears in Hutteroth on page 153....which is true....but he writes that it appears as Bani Ibraq...which is wrong. On p. 153 are both:

• z26 Hayriyya (133/160) (modern Al-Khayriyya )
• z49 Bani Ibraq (135/166) (modern Bene Berak)

I´m still looking for solid evidence that this place actually was Beneberak. So far it looks as if "Biblical scholars" ..van der Velde is the earliest I have found, came to this area (where Beneberak was supposed to have been), found the only inhabited with a name something close to it, and thereby jumped to the conclusion that was the case, Alas, not knowing that in 1596 there had been different names, different places, and todays Bene Berak would probably have been chosen as the probable place for ancient Beneberak. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 23:25, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Also see HA p. 153 and Robinson, p. 118.

I suspect there have been major mix-ups here these last 200 years.... Note that Robinson have both Karatiyya and "Buraka, Mus. Bene-Berak" on p. 118. So what was "Buraka"???? Any comments? Huldra (talk) 23:56, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

The Palestine Post

We have here the same case as for Balad al-Sheikh, which has been extensively discussed (at its talk-page, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_191#The_Palestine_Post, and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive900#Huldra) Every single "outside" editor who has commented has said that going through these old Palestine Post -records, picking out attacks to "ones liking" and adding them...is not a good idea (to put it diplomatically).

I guess the best place to discuss this is at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard, where I will bring it up. Or even possibly an arb.com case. I´m just tagging it a "unbalanced" as of now; (Number 57: If secondary sources had treated this attack the way they have treated the Haganah-attack, then I would have absolutely no objections to adding the stuff. It is the cherry-picking of Arab attacks from Palestine Post online sources which I object to.) Huldra (talk) 23:55, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

We have a section on the 1948 conflict that is largely dedicated to Haganah attacks, and a short mention that the villagers were also involved in violence. To claim this is unbalanced is silly; to tag the article is just ridiculous. Removing the text about the villagers' violence is a clear breach of NPOV. Dealing with nonsense like this is precisely why I hate editing in this topic area. I look forward to some rational outside input at the noticeboard, although I fear the discussion will be taken over by the usual suspects (and I may take this to other venues if this happens). Number 57 00:29, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Also, you have misrepresented the opinions of the outside commenters on RSN discussion; their comments about UNDUE were in the context where ONLY the attacks reported by the Post were covered in an article. It's quite clear here that this article is not an example of this. I can't believe we're even having to discuss this. Sad. Number 57 00:35, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

I dont think it is unbalanced to mention this. --IRISZOOM (talk) 01:13, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

I think this case is different from Balad al-Sheikh. In the other case there are a large number of mentions in PP from which someone had selected with a clear bias. In this case we have all the mentions that I can find (but mention under other names or hidden by OCR errors is possible). I'm not comfortable with using a primary source belonging to one side in an ongoing war, but if the information is attributed and the selection is objective it is harder to object. In my opinion, PP was a better newspaper in the 1940s than JP is in the 2010s, though it is unreasonable to expect perfect balance in wartime. I wish we had an Arabic source to cite too. Zero^talk 02:23, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

None of the books I have on the 1948 war mentions this. Also, say Morris, 2004, mentions other episodes relating to Al-Khayriyya which is *not* used in the article. So that is not used...while personal research (like using PP) is used? And yeah, I would have liked to have another source available, but Falastin (newspaper) was in Arabic... and how many of us read Arabic? Huldra (talk) 22:20, 29 November 2015 (UTC)