Talk:Palestinian expulsion from Lydda and Ramle/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

POVFORK concerns

Tiamut, this article seems to be a POV fork of Operation Danny, perhaps unintended. I would recommend merging the info here into that article and asking an admin to delete this one. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 22:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for assuming good faith. I disagree that its a WP:POVFORK. Whle the Lydda Death March took place during Operation Danny, it's certainly not a synonym for it. Many other events took place during Operation Danny. We should certainly link back to that article from here, but I believe there is enough in the way of reliable sources to make this a notable topic in its own right. Plus, for those who want to link to this specific event, having a separate article that covers it alone in detail is useful. Tiamut^talk 22:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. I agree with you that many other events took place during Operation Danny, but my point is that this event was wholly a part of Operation Danny, and should be a section in that article. If the section becomes too big, it can be summarized and spun out per WP:SIZE, but that is obviously not a problem at the moment. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 00:16, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

While it may have been a part of Operation Danny, I think including there would give it WP:UNDUE weight, considering that the details of other events that took place during that operation are not described at all. I'm also in the process of expanding the article further (as you can see). There is a lot to discuss, including the implications of this event in the wider conflict, which extend far beyong Operation Danny. I'd prefer to retain this article for now, have a summary section at Operation Danny linking to this and summaries for other events that took place during that Operation as well, also linking to their respective articles. I hope that you will give me some time to develop the article and see where it goes before making any final decisions about what should be done with it. I appreciate your collegial tone. Tiamut^talk 00:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

...and I appreciate yours. WP:UNDUE refers to viewpoints, not to portions of a topic, so I don't think that the policy would be invoked against you if you merged this into Operation Danny. I also think there are other problems with the article right now, for example I wouldn't consider Al-Ahram a reliable source. Anyway, your choice. I know how hard it is to begin an article from scratch, so I won't merge-tag this in the near future, but if somebody AfD's it I will probably argue for merging, unless I become convinced the other problems are critical, in which case I will argue for deletion. No particular reason you should especially care what one editor would do in that situation, but I thought it would be fair to be frank about it. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 00:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I can see the logic behind your position, though I disagree of course (otherwise I wouldn't have created this article in the first place :). I deeply appreciate your patience and your willingness to give the article time and space to develop before placing a merger tag and your honesty about what you would vote if it was nominated for deletion. I hope it isn't. I think its a notable, important topic and I'm surprised that it did not have an article devoted to the subject previously. I only noticed the absence when I was working on Salbit, a town some of the people of the death march ended up in before going to Ramallah. When Al Ameer son challenged the use of the word "scorching" in my description of the sun during the march, I countered that I thought my presentation of the event understated given the magnitude of what happened. Then I started looking for a wikilink so as to avoid piling all the information into Salbit (where its only remotely relevant). When I didn't find one, I started this article. Anyway, thanks again for your thought and for your quick forgiveness of my misrepresentation of your editing below. You're a good man/woman Jalapenos (I knew that from the Gaza war article, but its good to see it here too). Happy editing. Tiamut^talk 01:02, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

*Blush* thanks. I'm also biased towards you, you know, because you were the first to welcome me to Wikipedia, and you did so nicely. I'm a man BTW. Happy editing. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 08:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Now I'm blushing. :) Thanks to you too for your kind words and happy editing. Tiamut^talk 08:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

PS. I should probably let you know that I've nominated this article for the DYK page, though of course I hope your reservations are not so great that they would lead to a challenge to the nomination. Tiamut^talk 01:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Please do not use weasal words

Canadian Monkey and Jalapenos, I ask that you do not keep reintroducing weasal words like "speculates", "alleges" etc., in the text. Its enough to use "writes" and "Describes" and attribute any controversial material to its speakers. I've added another source for the estimate of the number who died.[1] Please do not keep attributing it solely to Finkelstein, he's not the only source (as you can see by the addition of Masalha and ther are others.) Tiamut^talk 23:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

As of now, I haven't made any edits to the article. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 00:16, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh goodness. I'm really sorry. I missed that it was only Canadian Monkey making those edits and not you. (He made them twice and I mixed up the talk page history with the article history thinking it was you the first time. Big mistake.) That you have only been discussing things in a very friendly fashion on this talk page is much appreciated and I'm sorry I misrepresented what you have done. Please accept my apology and regards. Tiamut^talk 00:25, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

It's really no problem at all. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 00:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

pov

the eyewitness section is highly reliant on single,partisan source. thelead presents as facts things which are claims by interested parties. NoCal100 (talk) 04:14, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. strange. I count five different sources in the eyewitnesses accounts section, not one. Three of them are survivors of the death march (partisan to be sure, but they are witnesses to the event and per NPOV, their views should be included. Among the other sources cited are a UN mediator and Benny Morris, hardly pro-Palestinian partisans.

Where does the lead present as fact things claimed by interested parties? I see a sentence that begins with "Surivivors describe ... " which is in line with WP:ATT, WP:V and WP:NPOV. Could you elaborate?

Also NoCal00, it's clear you just checked my contribs after I edited Ramot right after you. I hope you're not planning on wikihounding me for that. Tiamut^talk 04:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

the mediator was not an eyewitness to the march, and his comments are not relevant to that section, or even the article. more than 80% of the section is sourced to a single, partisan source.NoCal100 (talk) 04:37, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Even if true, I still don't see a problem with a section entitled "Eyewitness accounts" devoting 80% of its space to a single eyewitness account. There is another eyewitness account there that supports his. There is also the info from Benny Morris about the looting and hundreds of people who died that support these accounts. Don't forget too all the references cited in the first section, including the Oxford history book, a top-notch reliable source who confirms the general details of the Lydda Death March. Tiamut^talk 04:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

In short, I don't see how this a NPOV issue. It's really more a matter of style. Tiamut^talk 04:45, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

the "style" of pushing a pov by writing 80% of a section based on a single, highly partisan, source is not an acceptable style on wp. NoCal100 (talk) 05:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

As I said, the section is entitled "Eyewitness accounts". There are three eyewitnesses who are survivors of the event who are mentioned there. Its not unusual for a section entitled eyewitness accounts to give heavy prominence to eyewitness accounts. Tiamut^talk 05:42, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

PS. NoCal100, I'd appreciate it if you would remove the NPOV tag. The article was nominated for a DYK and received an initial approval from a DYK review volunteer about an hour before you placed the NPOV tag on it. I'd hate to have the tag in place when it appears on the main page. Clearly, the reviewer didn't see a problem with it and I think I've addressed your concerns here. Or is there still a problem? Tiamut^talk 04:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

yes, of course there's an issue here, and you've addressed none of it - you just stonewall. NoCal100 (talk) 05:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Whoa! That's a pretty serious accusation NoCal100. I think I've been pretty patient in responding to the concerns you've raised. To my credit in fact, given that you only found this article after checking my contribs after I edited right after you at Ramot and I feel as though your presence here is a pretty straightforward example of WP:Wikihounding.

Just in case, however, could you please repeat how this article fails to be WP:NPOV again and how it can be corrected so that I can try to deal with the problem in a way that meets with your satisfaction? Tiamut^talk 05:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Were you "patient" by WP:Wikihounding and reverting me at Ramot , or by running off to the ArbCom case to call for my sanctioning? Perhaps you can point out where you have responded to my concerns,other than to dismiss them.NoCal100 (talk) 05:14, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Again NoCal100, I'm going to have to ask you not to make serious accusations without basis. As I explained to you on your talk page, Ramot is on my watchlist and has been for a while. I saw you revert 3 times there in the last two days. Considering the Arbcomm case is open, that you were already warned by Elonka to avoid edit-warring there months ago, and there is a finding there with evidence to support it that you were engaged in edit-warring over the Judea and Samaria articles, I felt it was appropriate to note these facts, and voice my support for a restriction. That's not wikihounding NoCal100. Not by any stretch of the imagination.

I would note that instead of responding constructively to my request that you restate what your objections are regarding NPOV here and elaborate on ways that the NPOV problem you perceive can be corrected, you have chosen to accuse of me wikihounding. Baseless accusations are a violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. I suggest that you strike your accusations and instead respond to my question regarding how to improve the article to address your concerns. Tiamut^talk 05:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I was drawn here here via a link at User talk:NoCal100, which is on my watchlist. I looked through this article, and while the article is well-written and interesting, I also have some concerns about the article's neutrality. All the article's sources are known anti-Israel partisans. Nary is there any mainstream sources in support of the article's claims. Ideally, such outstanding claims should be supported by reliable and mainstream sources that have a reputation of neutrality.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to the party Brewcrewer! Regarding your claims that "All the article's sources are known anti-Israel partisans" and "Nary is there any mainstream sources in support of the article's claims," let's review the bibliography of the article, shall we?

• Ankori, Gannit (2006), Palestinian art (Illustrated ed.), Reaktion Books, ISBN 9781861892591

Used solely as a source for the Artistic representations sub-section, she is an Israeli art historian.

• Benvenisti, Eyal; Gans, Chaim; Ḥanafi, Sārī (2007), Israel and the Palestinian refugees (Illustrated ed.), Springer, ISBN 9783540681601

Used as a source for the Eyewitness accounts section, Eyal Benvenisti is Israeli, as is Chaim Gans. I don't know if they are "anti-Israel". Do you?

• Finkelstein, Norman G. (2003), Image and reality of the Israel-Palestine conflict (2nd, revised ed.), Verso, ISBN 9781859844427

Used as one of two sources for the 350 dead estimate, Norman Finkelstein is a prominent Jewish academic who is highly critical of Israeli policies.

• Holmes, Richard; Strachan, Hew; Bellamy, Chris; Bicheno, Hugh (2001), The Oxford companion to military history (Illustrated ed.), Oxford University Press, ISBN 9780198662099

Used as a source for the name Lydda Death March and the general details of the event, Richard Holmes (military historian) is an academic from Oxford University. I don't think he's an anti-Israel partisan. Hew Strachan is a promiment Scottish academic, also not an anti-Israel partisan.

• Prior, Michael P. (1999), Zionism and the state of Israel: a moral inquiry (Illustrated ed.), Routledge, ISBN 9780415204620

Don't know much about Michael Prior. Do you?

• Ron, James (2003), Frontiers and ghettos: state violence in Serbia and Israel (Illustrated ed.), University of California Press, ISBN 9780520236578

Or James Ron. Do you?

• Sa'di, Ahmad H.; Abu-Lughod, Lila (2007), Nakba: Palestine, 1948, and the claims of memory (Illustrated ed.), Columbia University Press, ISBN 9780231135795

According to her page, Lila Abu-Lughod is a Palestinian-American professor of Anthropology and Women's and Gender Studies at Columbia University in New York City. The page says nothing about her being "anti-Israel".

• Thomas, Baylis (1999), How Israel was won: a concise history of the Arab-Israeli conflict (Illustrated ed.), Lexington Books, ISBN 9780739100646

Don't know much about Thomas Baylis. Do you? Tiamut^talk 05:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Lydda Death March has now entered the queue for the DYK section on the main page. As I have responded in full to the concerns raised here to the best of my ability and as there is no evidence to support Brewcrewer's complaints or those of NoCal100's, I'm going to be bold and remove the NPOV tag. I would ask that before anyone replaces it, they explain why they are doing so in detail here. I would also ask that any identification of an NPOV problem be accompanied by concrete suggestions on how to address the problem so that we can move forward, rather than simply exchange opinions ad naseum on this page. Thanks in advance. Tiamut^talk 06:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I am restoring the tags, as you have not actually addressed any of the concerns. To name (again), but a few of these concerns:

• Article name: several of the sources (e.g Finklestein, Masalha) call it a "forced march". "Death march" seems to be a partisan usage. The Article should be renamed 'Forced March', and can mention that some Arab and pro-Arab sources call it a "death march"
• The "eyewitness" section contains several accounts which are clearly not eye witnesses (UN mediator, Morris, etc..). When stripped of those non eye-witness accounts we have a very large section devoted nearly entirely to a single, highly partisan account. This section also dominates the article as a whole, and as such, violates WP:UNDUE. The suggestion would be to trim this section to a 2-3 line quote from this source, and move (or remove) the non-eyewitness accounts to proper places.
• Sources: Highly partisan sources such as the al-Aharm article "commemorating 50 years of Arab dispossession" or AMEU should be removed, leaving only the higher quality sources.

• New material added since I last commented makes incorrect claims and attributes them to sources which do not make those claims (e.g: Al-Ramla and Lydda were not "renamed" Lod and Ramla, those were their Hebrew names, used throughout the mandatory period, and the source cited does not say they we renamed) NoCal100 (talk)`

Article name: Richard Holmes (military historian) and Hew Strachan are the authors of the The Oxford companion to military history (2001). These distinguished academics, neither one of whom are Arab, are the main source for the name Lydda Death March. They state clearly on page 64 "On 12 July, the Arab inhabitants of the Lydda- Ramie area, amounting to some 70000, were expelled in what became known as the 'Lydda Death March'." Another source cited using "Lydda Death march" is Baylis Thomas. This is not an "Arab" or "pro-Arab" name. Do you have a source to support this false assertion?

It is not WP:UNDUE to provide generous space to the accounts by eyewitness survivors. This article is about the Lydda Death March. People who survived are an important source for what happened that day. Their viewpoint is absolutely significant and relevant and per WP:NPOV it should be given adequate space. Bernadotte was a witness to the events in that he visited the refugee camp where they ended up. Morris is included there because his account supports the account by one of the eyewitnesses. It is very strange for you to argue on the one hand that eyewitnesses should not be given so much space and then on the other, complain that respectable academics like Benny Morris shouldn't be quoted in that section either.

The AMEU source is an account by one of the survivors. I think its good to have a link to that material since it is one of the only links available for viewing online. Al-Ahram constitutes a reliable source, I know of no reason to think otherwise. But you can take those to the reliable sources noticeboard if you want an outside opinion. I'm open to discussing this point further, but it really has nothing to do with NPOV, since those articles are not relied upon for any information in and of themselves.

The source cited for the claim that Lydda and Al-Ramla were renamed is = Monterescu, Daniel; Rabinowitz, Dan (2007), Mixed towns, trapped communities: historical narratives, spatial dynamics, gender relations and cultural encounters in Palestinian-Israeli towns (Illustrated ed.), Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., ISBN 0754647323, 9780754647324. I have no reason to believe that this information is incorrect. Remember that the relevant guideline here is WP:V. If you have another source that says what you say, please provide it. We can then attribute the Rabinowitz/Monterescu material to them and the opposing view to whoever it is that say that.

In short, your arguments are lacking reliable sources to support your position and I fail to see how they relate to the article being POV. Please remove the tag. Tiamut^talk 14:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Further, you do realize that the two people you cite as using "forced march" instead of "Lydda death march" are Nur Masalha (a Palestinian academic highly critical of Israeli policies) and Norman Finkelstein (a Jewish academic highly critical of Israeli policies): arguably the most 'pro-Palestinian' (scare quotes) sources cited here. Strange that. Your assertion that it is only "Arab" or "pro-Arab" sources who use "death march" is thus flatly contradicted by the facts. I assume though that you will be supporting the use of terminology as identified by Masalha and Finkelstein in other articles, since you seem to be arguing that their terms are more reliable than those used by Roger Holmes, Hew Strachan and Baylis Thomas. Or is it simply that in this particular case, you like the terms they use better than those used by the uncontestably non-partisan sources? Sounds a wee bit like WP:IDONTLIKEIT to me. Tiamut^talk 14:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I've just gone through the accounts of the events by Benvenisti et al, Gelber (not cited in the article), Karsh (not cited), Masalha, and Morris. I was going to restore the POV tag and comment on the article when I saw the exchange above. I think the article has serious problems in its current form, as follows:

1. Title: neither "forced march" or "death march" is appropriate for the title. "Forced march" means a march where soldiers are walking behind you and forcing you to keep going, and "death march" is a forced march where a large number of people die. None of the sources actually describe anything resembling a forced march. Masalha offhandedly calls it one, but the moniker is unjustified even by his own account of the events. An appropriate name would be "exodus" or perhaps "expulsion"-- the sources are in agreement that there was an expulsion, but do not agree on whether there was also a self-initiated flight. Even if there were a forced march, "death march" would be WP:WTA unless it had a wide consensus in the sources.
2. Lede: contains several important inaccuracies. Number of deaths is put at 350 per Masalha, but Morris speaks of "a handful, and perhaps dozens"; with such a discrepancy, the more mainstream scholar Morris should be given at least primacy. Number of evictees is put at 70,000, while Morris speaks of 50,000, Karsh 30,000 and Gelber 30,000-50,000. "Repeatedly shot over their heads to keep them moving" is taken from Rantisi's memoir, which is not a reliable source; the description is contradicted by Rantisi's own account in Benvenisti et al, where contact with Israeli soldiers is described as a couple of chance encounters, and is not supported by the other sources.
3. Sources: Rantisi's memoir and Abu Sitta's column in Al-Ahram are not reliable sources and should not be used per WP:V (but Rantisi's interview in Benvenisti et al is, since it appears in a scholarly publication). I would also recommend making use of Gelber's account, which is quite detailed.
4. Weight: Rantisi gets by far the most space in the article, including extensive quotes. This would be WP:UNDUE even without the reliability problem.
5. Omissions: the fierce street fighting waged by local Palestinian militiamen during the battle over Lydda would seem to be important context material. Also important is the order by Ben Gurion (which came too late) not to expel non-fighting residents, described by Gelber.
6. Style: occasional POV tone. For example, "long march into exile" in the last section: adds no information, and, since Lydda and Ramallah are about 20 miles apart, is misleading. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 15:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Let's start with the first, last. Ankori uses the phrase "long march into exile". I can atttribute it directly to her or change it. I don't see what the problem is myself, but I'm open to discussing different ways to phrase it.

Open to including sources on the "fierce street fighting". Can you provide them? Anyone who has reliable source material to add to the article is welcome to it themselves too. despite mountains of discussion here though, no one has done anything toward that end yet.

Rantisi is the most prominent of the survivors, has authored firsthand accounts (in AMEU and Al-Ahram) and is quoted the most extensively in scholarly sources (Benvinisti, among others). His account is recognized by the scholarship as the most prominent source for information on the details of what happened from the perspectives of the survivors. That's reflected int he weight given to his account in the Eyewitness section.

Please add Gelber's account yourself or direct to where I might find a copy. No problem with adding more, as I said above, either personally or via the additions of others. I disagree about the reliability of Ranitisi's accounts in Al-Ahram and AMEU. They are essntially the same as that quoted in Benvenisti. The benefit of including them is that they are some of the few sources that are accessible online for those readers who wish to investigate the matter further on their own.

Re: the lead. Number of deaths is put at 350 per Masalha, 350 by finkelstein and "hundreds" by Morris. Check the quote in the footnotes here and in a quote that was already in the article Lod before I recently edited it. So I don't see where you see a discrepancy. Number of evictees is put at 70,000 by the very reputable Oxford companion to military history (2001). While Morris may speak of 50,000, he disputes the expulsion order for Ramla (as noted in the text). Please provide the links to the material from Karsh and Gelber or add them directly to the article yourself. "Repeatedly shot over their heads to keep them moving" is taken from Rantisi's memoirs. They are a reliable source, only part of them is included in Benvenisti (the account there doesn't contradict so much as omit the full details of the account). This information is also clearly attributed to "Survivors accounts...." which is how the sentence wih this information begins, meaning that it is in line with WP:NPOV and WP:ATT.

Finally, as I said to NoCal100, those using "Lydda death march" are the British and Scottish academics and not Israelis, Palestinians or Jews. These guys have no bone to pick in this fight. I do not see a clear alternative to his name nor a compelling reason to ignore an authoritative source like the Oxford companion to military history which clearly states that these events became known as the "Lydda Death March". If you have another source that states that these events have become known as X, please provide it.

Hope I've fully addressed your concerns Jalapenos. Happy editing and a pleasure as always. Tiamut^talk 16:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay Jalapenos, I've attributed "the long march to exile" irectly to Ankori so that's out of the way. Canadian Monkey was kind enough to add some material from Efraim Karsh denying that an expulsion took place in Ramla (so that's a view that was not covered that is now). Estimates of the nubmer expelled have a range now from between 50,000 to 70,000 (the lower end figure coming Rabin's memoirs via Peretz Kidron, which Huldra was kind enough to provide). I added a tonne of stuff from Rabin into the Expulsion orders sections - lengthy quotes that give his thoughts at least as much space as the eyewitness survivors quotes in the section to follow. The only issue that I cannot address is that of the article name. I won't consider changing it unless we have an equally high quality source stating that these events are known as X to contrast against the very excellend Oxford military history source. So that's it I think. All major concerns dealt with, no? If there are any more problems, please let me know. I'm going to remove the POV tag given that numerous changes have been made to address what was raised. Tiamut^talk 19:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I just checked Canadian Monkey link about Karsh. Its not a reliable source. They are letters to the editor and one of them says Karsh makes no mention of Ramla and Lydda and its expulsions. So the conclusion that he says they did not happen is a little piece of WP:OR. Accordingly, I removed it. Do you have a better source for him? Tiamut^talk 19:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

And I also forgot to mention that the extensive quotes from Rabin partially address your concerns regarding the need for some context regarding the fighting backdrop. He mentions the villagers being armed, the need to protect the supply lines to the Yiftach, etc., etc. That provides someting toward the context you were looking for. No? Tiamut^talk 19:37, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and Rabin's memoirs confirm Rantisi's accounts that they were shot at throughout their journey (Rabin says for 10-15 miles) so I removed the attribution of that to the "Accounts from survivors...", letting it speak for itself given that key figures on both sides say it was so. I think it's safe to remove the POV tag. I don't want to offend anyone by doing so. But the article has radically changed as a result of the sources provided by Huldra, and sme other changes introduced since to deal with your concerns and I don't think most of the critique holds any longer. One thing I was thinkin is that we could move the AMEU and Al-Ahram refs to an external links section so people can read those accounts but we're not using them as sources in the article (a compromise you might find meets you halfway?) Tiamut^talk 20:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Tiamut, I appreciate your detailed response, but you haven't addressed my major concerns, and I still think the POV tag is warranted. Even the "long march into exile", which was only an example anyway, is still a flowery and inaccurate non-sequitur in the article, but sourced-- to an art historian. Regarding Morris, we may be referring to different books; I quoted above from The Road to Jerusalem. You are absolutely right in saying that I should edit the article instead of complaining. The problem is that I don't have Holmes et al with me, which is a reliable source that a lot of your stuff is coming from, so I can't evaluate it. I will make changes based on the five academic sources I have, though. This will include a title change to Exodus from Lydda, because the current title is (a) not standard - the sources I have do not use it at all, and Holmes et al saying that it "came to be called" that (presumably by Palestinians) is not saying that it is standard; and (b) inaccurate and misleading, for the reasons I stated above. There doesn't seem to be a standard name, but Exodus from Lydda fits the Palestinian Exodus trope, and less importantly, gets the most google hits of all the options I checked (including the current title). I want to expand on one methodological issue because it can affect a lot of other issues. Memoirs are not good sources, especially when compared to mainstream academic publications whose authors had access to the memoirs and could evaluate their veracity. This applies to Rabin's memoir, but even more so to Rantisi's, since he obviously has an ax to grind. This is basic stuff and can't be compromised on. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 21:56, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this page move, which seems to address one of the major points of contention, and was also mentioned by NoCal as one of his reasons for the POV tag. Canadian Monkey (talk) 22:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Please the the sub-section "Title" below. Unilateral page moves to OR concocted titles is not acceptable. Provide sources that support the new name being proposed and gain consensus for the move before repeating it again. Tiamut^talk 15:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

NPOV check

Concerns have been expressed that this article fails WP:NPOV because it a) relies too heavily on eyewitness accounts in the eyewitness account section, and in particular on one such account and b) uses only "anti-Israel partisans" for its sources and no "mainstream sources". The counterargument is that a) for an eyewitness account section to rely heavily on accounts by eyewitnesses is natural, and support for parts of the one eyewitness account relied upon most heavily are supported by other sources cited in the article and b) that the allegations regarding sourcing are not borne out in a review of the sources used. The article is currently queued to appear as as a DYK, so prompt attention in helping to sort out this matter would be very much appreciated.

---

• Comment I don't like RfCs that ask me to choose sides. It's not really very helpful. And WP:NPOV is not a pass/fail system. It's a way of writing articles. Applying it to this article, any who think some viewpoint is under-represented should find reliable sources to support that viewpoint and add them to the article. As for the section currently titled Palestinian accounts, I'm not sure what question is being asked. Dlabtot (talk) 00:28, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

---

Hi. The dispute is a different one now it seems. To me, it boils down to simply whether or not the article should be tagged in its present state. Below there are mutliple section discussing the issues raised. A lot of them have been addressed, so its hard for me to isolate what remains an issue. Perhaps others might like to explain. Tiamut^talk 16:04, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I think a lot of editors misunderstand the NPOV policy. There are cases where the historical facts, and the verifiable sources, do paint a picture that reflects negatively on 'one side' of a dispute. That's not a violation of NPOV. Dlabtot (talk) 17:45, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking something very close to that, but unable to articulate in a non-combative fashion due to my emotional investments in this issue and my, I'll admit, anger, over the lack of recognition of these historical facts by certain editors. Thank you for your thoughts. Tiamut^talk 22:47, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

a few comments

Once again Tiamut has beat me to it; I had thought of starting this article for ages. Just a couple of comments (I`m really in a hurry, should not be on WP today at all..):

• I have the book by Audeh G. Rantisi (1990): Blessed are the peacemakers: the story of a Palestinian Christian, ISBN 0863470599 ......in case you need any quotes from there
• George Habash: the article does not presently mention him! And he was perhaps its most famous survivor. All I have read about him mentions the life-changing effects the Death march had on him. Look at the references on the Habash-page.
• In Pappe (2006): "The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine", p 167 say that the most detailed account of what happened in Lydda was published by the sociologist Salim Tamari, in 1998, in Journal of Palestine Studies.
• Some of the stuff relating to the censorship of Rabins memoir was related in "Blaming the Victims" (ed.: Edward W. Said and Christopher Hitchens), in 1988. I copied material from that book here:User:Huldra/Newstuff
• And now I got to run. Hope to come back tomorrow, Cheers, Huldra (talk) 16:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Love you Huldra, just love you. Everyone talks and talks and talks, but you're the one who delivers the good shit. ;) I'll take a look at all of this in the coming hours and days. Its gonna up on the DYK main page on May 2nd very early morning GMT according to the DYK queue. If I can get everything you added here into it before then, I'll be on cloud nine. You're a star. Tiamut^talk 17:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I added the stuff from Peretz Kidron in Said and Hitchens (totally invaluable resource that subpage of yours Huldra, thanks so much for that).

I also added a brief paragraph on George Habash. I cannot figure out which sources to put here from that article which support this specific information, so if you know, and can let me know, that would be awesome. I'll try to find the Salim Tamari article somehow. About Rantisi's book, perhaps Jalapenos do exist might like to see the quotes we have sourced to the AMEU or Al-Ahram sourced to that book directly. If you can find them there, that would be totally amazing.

Unfortunately, though I feel I've addressed many of the points raised on the talk page by those raising POV issues, I don't feel that we are making progress on that particular issue. Canadian Monkey just came by to drive-by revert to readd the tag, citing the talk page as evidence of a dispute. While I respect the points raised by Jalapenos, I think I've indicated my openness to addressing them if he provides sources to that end and I don't see the need to deface the page when there are no major issues that have not been addressed or that cannot be dealt with promptly if there are people willing to pitch in with solid suggestions and maybe perhaps even, dare I say it, edits of their own. Anyway, I hope this will all be cleared up before the DYK. I think this article is much better sourced that other articles on Death marches and many other articles on Wikipedia. But no one is going to believe the author of their own work eh? RfC comments would be welcome, but none are forthcoming. Too bad. :( Tiamut^talk 18:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Removal of sourced material

Tiamut has reverted an edit of mine, sourced to historian Karsh, with an edit summary that says "karsh doesn't evenmention[sic] ramla but rather speaks generally about a lack of expulsions - this is WP:OR and poorly sourced". As can be easily verified, Karsh is quoted in the given reference as saying "Contrary to Mr. Harris’s claim, parroted from his anti-Israel website, there was no expulsion whatsoever from Ramle". Karsh is head of Middle East and Mediterranean Studies at King's College London and a prominent historian of the Middle East - so it's very hard to see how this would be "original research" or poorly sourced. Perhaps tiamut can explain. Canadian Monkey (talk) 20:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Well Canadian Monkey, I missed that sentence in a link to what appears to be a series of letters to the editor. Generally letters to the editor are not considered reliable sources. If it is Karsh saying this in your link, I would still prefer that we have link to a published work of Karsh's where he makes this statement than a link to a letter he wrote. But if you want to be pushy about it, I don't feel like fighting you on it, because Karsh is a reliable source, so you can put it back in. Please format it properly though, in line with other refs and place it at the end of the sentence you attach it to per MoS. I shouldn't have to clean up after you everytime. And please don't add OR sentences like "Historians disagree over whether or not ... blah blah blah ... unless you have a source that says that. ust let the facts speak for themselves. Thanks. Tiamut^talk 21:02, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

So, you did not read my source carefully (reading your comments in the previous section, it seems you read only the first letter, not Karsh's response to it), jumped to the mistaken conclusion that Karsh does not say in it what I quote him as saying, consequently reverted my edit with the false edit summary that "karsh doesn't evenmention[sic] ramla", and now having this pointed out to you is me being "pushy about it"? And you are now graciously allowing me to put it back it because you 'don't feel like fighting'? How about you correcting your own mistake? I encourage you to take to heart the message I left on your talk page, regarding the tone required if we are to edit this collaboratively. Canadian Monkey (talk) 21:55, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

How about not being a *redacted* and heeding your own advice? Nableezy (talk) 22:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I've been editing this article in a collaborative way from the get go. How about you? Anything to add to the discussion beyond *redacted* and other personal attacks? Canadian Monkey (talk) 22:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I havent edited the article besides removing a tag placed by a notorious hounder, but as you have looked through my contribs you should have known that. Nableezy (talk) 22:55, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy to see you correct your earleir false statement that you did not edit the article. I hope you appreciate the irony in your describing your actions as reverting a "notorious hounder", when you had followed that very editor to this article in order to perform the revert, said revert being your only contribution to the article so far. So, anything to add to the discussion ? Canadian Monkey (talk) 23:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

A) I didnt follow him by looking through his contribs, you could say followed as in came after. B) Who did you follow over here? C) What exactly are you adding to the 'discussion'? D) Feel free to have the last word, I aint responding to further inanity. Nableezy (talk) 23:32, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't born yesterday, and don't mistake me for an idiot. What you did is obvious, and the edit trail speaks for itself. You have been at it for weeks now - and warned about it as early as 4/14 [2]. My contributions are in the article, and my discussions are available for all to see on the Talk page - you might want to glance at the top of this section to see who started this particular discussion and why. Canadian Monkey (talk) 23:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Funny. This is the 2nd time Canadian Monkey has shown up at an article I created within a few hours. The last time it was Palestinian archaeology which was also up for DYK nom at the time. He slapped it with a merge tag, trying to shove it into Biblical archaeology. When that didn't work, he argued for a name change. We renamed it [[Syro-Palestinian archaeology. If he shows up a third time at a new article I've created to slap tags on it again, I'm going to consider a pattern of harassment. Tiamut^talk 15:29, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Lydda vs Ramle

Karsh writes : "The town of Lydda was a different case; there, in the heat of battle in July 1948, Arab residents were forced out by Israeli troops. (Contrary to Mr. Harris’s claim, parroted from his anti-Israel website, there was no expulsion whatsoever from Ramle)"
Is there any historian who claim Lydda unhabitants were not expelled ? Ceedjee (talk) 10:41, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Karsh says that some fled and some were expelled. Gelber talks of flight but considers it likely that Yigal Allon facilitated the flight, i.e. there was an element of expulsion. As far as I can see, no historian (at least no recent historian) says that there was no expulsion. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 11:57, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I have added some refs from Morris which might clarify some of this. The expulsion-orders, both for Lydda and for Ramleh were found in the Israeli IDF archives when they were opened for historians. Before this, the former IDF military leaders had been, well, to put it bluntly, lying for years. Like the Yigal Allon quote I just put in. Some of the historians who had been lied too where not too happy about it, understandably, see e.g. The Deportations of the Hiram Operation: Correcting a Mistake, about Benny Morris being "misinformed" by Moshe Carmel. Regards, Huldra (talk) 19:35, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

So why is NoCal100 making this edit Historians disagree whether the inhabitants of Ramla were also expelled. Michael Prior writes that a similar expulsion order was issued for the city of Ramla, while Efraim Karsh writes that there was no expulsion whatsoever from Ramla. Isn't this a misrepresentation? Tiamut^talk 02:01, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. To quote Morris (2004), orders were sent via: "a cable from Kiryati Brigade HQ to its officer in charge of Ramle, Zwi Aurback:

• 1. In light of the deployment of 42nd Battalion out of Ramle - you must take [over responsibility] for the defence of the town, the transfer of prisoners [to PoW camps] and the emptying of the town of its inhabitants.
• 2. You must continue the sorting out of the inhabitants, and send the army-age males to a prisoner of war camp. The old, women and children will be transported by vehicle to al Qubab and will be moved across the lines - [and] from there continue on foot.."< ref>Kiryati HQ to Aurbach, Tel Aviv District HQ (Mishmar) etc., 14:50 hours, 13 July 1948, HA (=Haganah Archive, Tel Aviv) 80\774\\12 (Zvi Aurbach Papers). See also Kiryati HQ to Hail Mishmar HQ Ramle -Shiloni, 19:15 hours, 13 July 1948, HA 80\774\\12. Cited in Morris (2004), p.429, 454</ ref>

In other words: in the Haganah archives, Tel Aviv, you can find the orders to the IDF officer in charge of Ramla to "empty the town of its inhabitants," dated 13 July 1948.

Now: there are two choices here: I can add the above to the article, after the Efraim Karsh quote, making Karsh look, shall we say, gullible, at the very best. (Oh boy, am I being diplomatic here.) Or I can take out the Karsh -quote, and reinsert the simple Morris-citation which was there earlier. Now, what will it be? Regards, Huldra (talk) 03:18, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and I just noticed that the Karsh quote is sourced to http://www.commentarymagazine.com/ ...obviously not a RS according to the superb level of sourcing demanded for this article. Out it goes. Huldra (talk) 03:27, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/ is a reliable source, and Karsh is a notable historian - please do not remove well sourced information. NoCal100 (talk) 03:33, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I looked at the "about us", to find who published the magazin, but NO names were given. Please, how can that be a "reliable source"? Huldra (talk) 03:49, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

It's a good thing we have an encyclopedia where you can read about Commentary (magazine). Take it to WP:RSN if you have any further doubts. NoCal100 (talk) 03:57, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Peer-reviewed? Goodie! Not? But of course, If you really want too play this game, I can insert the expulsion order (see above) for Ramle. If you want to make Karsh look like a gullible fool (or worse); well, that´s absolutely fine with me ;-D Huldra (talk) 04:07, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:RS does not require that sources be peer-reviewed. You can add well sourced material which you think contradicts what Karsh claims.

And you clearly did not look very hard, as Commentary's publisher is provided here, its editorial staff here, and its error correction policy here. NoCal100 (talk) 04:14, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Wonderful! And I have just added the explicit expulsion order for Ramla, (found in the Haganah archives by Morris) to the article. Great and notable historian, Karsh! Can always be trusted ;-D Cheers, Huldra (talk) 04:25, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

It is your personal opinion that this is an "explicit expulsion order for Ramla", vs. the handing over of responsibility for a previously agreed upon evacuation of the town. I will correct that in short order. NoCal100 (talk) 04:31, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Huh? "Previously agreed upon evacuation"? Agreed between who? Ben-Gurion and Allon? ;-D I´m waiting...I can of course also add:

"Already during the afternoon of 12 July, Kiryati officers began organising transport to ferry Ramle´s inhabitants toward Arab Legion lines. Local, confiscated Arab transport and the and the brigade´s own vehicles proved insufficient--" (Morris (2004), p. 429 And so on, and so on. But I thought this was an article about the events in Lydda? Huldra (talk) 05:01, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed upon between Ramla's notables, who signed a formal instrument of surrender, and the Israeli forces. An element of that agreement was evacuation by Arab Legion forces. This is all fairly common knowledge, described in some detail in the every sources used for this article, and your dismissive comments reflect poorly on you. NoCal100 (talk) 14:33, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, under the heading "Expulsion orders" we now have the sentence: "Benny Morris writes that they "were happy at the possibility given them of evacuating." Hopeless! This is taken completely out of context! Basically, they were given the choice of being put in prison-camps, or "evacuate", and they "happily" (!) chose evacuation. Huldra (talk) 03:39, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

that sentence is a direct quote from Morris, a notable historian. You are welcome to disagree with him, but your opinions, as a wiki editor, are not really important. NoCal100 (talk) 03:44, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

No. Both source given are *indirect* quotes of Morris, (and both are "old", from before his seminal 2004 "Revisited" -book). Obviously, if we are going to quote Morris (and obviously we should!), we ought to quote him directly, and not via someone else. Agree? Huldra (talk) 03:49, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

You can quote hims directly from his '04 book, I have no problem with that. while you are at it, you should do the same for the indirect quote of him given by Ron. NoCal100 (talk) 03:57, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I give up

I give up editing this article, when everything I have added from Pappe has been censored out, and the heading had been changed to "Palestinian view". (I did not know that The Economist was Palestinian) This is what has been removed, from Pappe (and it is Pappes language/wording):

The Economist of London also described horrific scenes that took place when inhabitants were forced to start marching after their houses had been looted, their family members murdered, and their city wrecked: "The Arab refugees were systematically stropped of all their belongings before they were sent on their trek to the frontier. Household belongings, stores, clothing, all had to be left behind." This systematic robbery was described by Spiro Munayar, who recollected:

The occupying soldiers had set up roadblocks on all the road leading east and were searching the refugees, particularly the women, stealing their gold jewelry from their necks, wrist and fingers and whatever was hidden in their clothes, as well as money and everything else that was precious and light enough to carry.

I´m not even bothering trying to insert:

The American Kenneth W. Bilby of the New York Herald Tribune was accompanying the Israeli forces in their attack, and reported seeing "the corpses of Arab men, women and children strewn about in the wake of the ruthlessly brilliant charge". Ilan Pappé describes Bilby, who wrote a book about the campaign, and a fellow American "embedded" journalists, as totally one-sided.

Goodnight. Huldra (talk) 23:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey Huldra. I restored much of the first paragraph. About the second, until we decide whether we are going to discuss the attacks on a capture of the two cities by Israeli forces in more detail, it should be left out for now. Perhaps we should include something on that in the brief background section? Tiamut^talk 15:25, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I also restored the "Eyewtiness accounts" heading as it is much more accurate than "Palestinian accounts". The only reason I can think anyone would title it that way is to try and make it seem as though only Palestinians believe these things to be true. Plus, Count Bernadotte's account is listed there (he's not Palestinian). And the works of Pappe and Morris are also included as support for the eyewitness accounts.

Hatchet job

I finally was able to sleep after a 24-hour editing spree fueled my coffee and cigarettes. I come back and the article is hardly recognizable. Who changed the title? That's not the name of the event according to The Oxford Military Companion. Who added a handful of deaths citing Morris? He writes "hundreds". Who fucked up the refs? Who deleted the perfectly good paragraph introducing the subject. This is a hatchet job and utterly ridiculous. [3] I am going to restore most of what was thrown out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiamut (talk • contribs) 11:36, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Recent edits

With Jalapenos' recent edits, I think the POV issue has been adequately addressed. accordingly, I'm removing the tag. NoCal100 (talk) 02:17, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Title 1

I'm sorry but people are unilaterally maing page moves without even gaining consensus for their edits. This article title was Lydda Death March based on the authoritiative source The Oxford Military Companion (2001) by Roger Holmes (miltiary historian) and Hew Strachan. It is one fo the few books to actually name the event. Few others offer a name for this event, and this is the name used by the suvivors as well.

Instead of opening a page move discussion section offering suggestions, Jalapenos just moved the page to his preferred title after raising the suggestion once and getting Canadian Monkey to say yes. No source was referred to, no consensus gained. After I move it back to the original title, it's been moved again to a new one. Again, no discussion no source, nothing. I am returning this page to the original title whose name is suppoorted by an excellent source and more than one. If people want to discuss changing it, do so here. Make proposals, gain consensus. Thanks. Tiamut^talk 11:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Tiamut, I already explained my proposed move at length above, and got no response except by Canadian Monkey, who agreed with it. Like I said before, Holmes et al don't "name" the event the "Lydda death march", and even if they did it wouldn't matter because the name isn't accepted by mainstream historians, and it's inaccurate and misleading. I think it would be proper for me to move the article back to Exodus from Lydda, but I don't want to fight with you. I will however restore the POV tag because of (a) the name issue, (b) the number of casualties (I got the handful figure from Morris, The Road to Jerusalem, p. 177; you seem to be quoting Morris's old stuff through Ron, which is not good practice), (c) the "shot over their heads" issue which we already discussed and which has been returned; (d) "renamed Lod and Ramla" - as I explained in an edit summary, "Lod" is biblical. I'm also adding a "weasel" tag because of the inappropriate use of the following words: (a) "survivor" - I already explained in an edit summary that the word is used for events where most or a large proportion of those involved died; (b) "massacre" - classic WP:WTA unless there is broad consensus in the sources, which there isn't; (c) "looting", which seems to be OR based on an interpretation of an interpretation of Morris; Morris, Karsh and Gelber do not speak of looting; (d) "death march" in the body of the article - already discussed. Finally, I'm adding a "cherrypicked" tag because of the return of unreliable sources such as Al-Ahram and AMEU. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 13:09, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Not quite correct. Morris mentions it in connection with the of Lydda refugees both in "Revisited" and in "1948"; i.e. his two newer books. ("some were stripped by soldiers of their valuables as they left town or at checkpoints along the way", "Revisited", p 432, citing notes Cohen to Allon, and statement at Cabinety meeting, 21 July 1948 [p.455] ) It was also mentioned by outside source "The Economist", see above. I don´t understand the controversy here; it was common practice from the Yishuv forces, so much so that it was commented on by Ben-Gurion in a rather (in)famous entry in his 1948 diary that large amount of looting done by the Jewish forces being one of the two things that surprised him most during the 1948 war. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 18:29, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

It's best to use a less controversial name for for an article if the more controversial name has not been used by mainstream sources.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 13:36, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

It is best to use the actual name of an event, not a made up name that is a netural euphemism. As I said before, the sources supporting this name are Richard Holmes (military historian) and Hew Strachan, authors of the The Oxford companion to military history (2001). These distinguished academics state clearly on page 64 "On 12 July, the Arab inhabitants of the Lydda-Ramle area, amounting to some 70000, were expelled in what became known as the 'Lydda Death March'." Another source cited using "Lydda Death march" is Thomas Baylis. Neither of these sources are partisans in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I know of no other accepted name for this event. Survivors of the march also use "Lydda Death March". Rantisi's articles are written under that name. And there are other articles using it as well. Exodus from Lydda is a piece of WP:OR. It can also refer to the general exodus preceding the death march, since some people left before due to the general instability in the area and the effects of war. If you have a source that indicates that there is another name for this specific event, please present it. Tiamut^talk 15:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, we actually do use neutral euphemisms, precisely in order to maintain NPOV. For example, the 1978 South Lebanon conflict is, to use your words, "a made up name that is a netural[sic] euphemism", for an event known outside Wikipedia as Operation Litani, or alternatively, the Israeli invasion of Lebanon. NoCal100 (talk) 02:21, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

That article is very good example how articles should not be named (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Tiamut^talk 09:18, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

The question of relevance to this article which has still not been answered is what sources provide a different name than the one we are using? And I'm talking about a name and not a description like it was a "forced march" or an "exodus", etc., etc. Tiamut^talk 09:19, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

That article is actually a typical example of how such article are commonly written. You can also look at 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict or dozens such similar events. But here's a deal for you, then: You're here to improve the encyclopedia, and think that other title is "crap"- go and rename that article 'Operation Litani', and defend such move in the talk page wit the same arguments you've presented here, and I will remove my opposition to the non-neutral title of this article. NoCal100 (talk) 14:41, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Why would I propose to rename the 1978 Invasion of Lebanon, Operation Litani? The Military History project frowns upon naming articles after operational names. And why would you remove your opposition to the title of this article if I did that? At best, your suggestion is irrelevant, and at worst, it comes off like blackmail. Tiamut^talk 14:47, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

You'd do that because that's what the event is called, in numerous reliable sources, both Israeli and non-Israeli, and you apparently believe that we should avoid "a made up name that is a netural[sic] euphemism". The name, BTW, is not 1978 Invasion of Lebanon - as the red link indicates, but 1978 South Lebanon conflict - exactly such a neutral made-up name, which avoids the POVs of "Israeli invasion" vs. "Operation Litani". If you could do that , I'd be convinced that you are correct in your interpretation of Wiki policies, and would accept them here, too. NoCal100 (talk) 14:59, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) NoCal100, this is an interesting discussion to be sure, but one for the page on Operation Litani. A google book search does show a respectable 515 hits for Operation Litani, but a google book search for "invasion of lebanon" 1978 brings up more at 715 hits. I am willing to continue this discussion about that article there, should you wish to propose a page move. I still don't see what it has to do with the article name here, with all due respect. Tiamut^talk 15:12, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Let me explain, again, the relevance: You and I disagree about Wikipedia policy with regards to article names. You believe we should use POV names, in preference to "a made up name that is a netural[sic] euphemism". I believe the opposite. I've also shown you numerous examples where my position is used in practice. You dismiss those examples as "crap". Perhaps you are right, and if you could fix those crap articles according to what you believe is the correct interpretation, I would obviously accept that, and agree to using that convention here, as well. Conversely, I expect that if you attempt your name change and fail, because numerous contributors to that article will tell you that it is wiki practice to use "a made up name that is a netural[sic] euphemism", you would accept that here, too. Think of it as an RfC. NoCal100 (talk) 15:21, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a source that says that this article name is POV? Tiamut^talk 15:27, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

It's pretty obvious the name is POV considering how "death march" is used in other places. Usually "death march" is used in cases where either there were thousands of dead, or a large proportion of those marching died. Neither is the case here. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:40, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a source that says that? I'd be happy to include it in the article. Tiamut^talk 17:47, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't follow. A source that says that "Lydda death march" is POV? Are you serious? This term isn't common enough in the first place to have someone bother to say it's POV.
Do you have a source that says that calling the 1948 war "the Arab attempt to drive Jews into the sea and drink their blood" is POV or can I rename 1948 Arab-Israeli War to that if I find one guy who uses that name to describe the war? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:05, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

No need to get hyperbolic. I'm quite sure that if the term was as offensive as you say it is that there would be an article taking issue with the name. It is mainstream enough to have been included in an authoritative military history text. Are you saying that people are enitrely unfamiliar with it? I find that hard to believe. Particularly since NoCal100 had it as a redlink watchlisted on his talk page, at least that's how he says he came to aware of this page in the first place. Tiamut^talk 18:12, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Calling an incident where 70000 people march for 3 days and up to 350 people die a "death march" is hyperbolic. This is a death march. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:28, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Roger Holmes and Hew Strachan (and Thomas Baylis and Audeh Rantisi and Spiro Munayyer among others) don't seem to think its hyperbolic. They use it without hesitation. Can you point me to source that does think this to be the case? Tiamut^talk 18:39, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, comparisons between the Lydda Death March and the Trail of Tears are made in Radicals, rabbis & peacemakers: conversations with Jewish critics of Israel (2005), ed. Seth Farber. Tiamut^talk 18:44, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

That's interesting. And how did they compare the one where people were marched for weeks and about a quarter died to the other where people marched a couple of days and 0.5% died? The word "hyperbole" comes to mind again.
As for your demands for a source that says the uncommon usage you found is POV, see brewcrewer below. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:14, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Using Google as a barometer, it is clear that "Exodus from Lydda" if far more popular term for the incident then "Lydda death march". Compare the revelant ghits:

• "lydda death march" in Google - 168
• "lydda death march" in Google Books - 5
• "exodus from lydda" Google - 288
• "exodus from lydda" Google Books - 94

There's no good reason to prefer the less popular, semi-defamatory, propogandistic term over the more popular wp:npov term.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:22, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Brewcrewer, with all due respect, please read the entire talk page discussion. One problem with "Exodus from Lydda" is that it is used to refer to the broader exodus from Lydda, some of which preceded the final expulsion and death march. Further, no source has been provided that refers to the death march itself that states that it is known as the "Exodus from Lydda". It is not. As I said before, Richard Holmes (military historian) and Hew Strachan, authors of the The Oxford companion to military history (2001) state clearly that "On 12 July, the Arab inhabitants of the Lydda-Ramle area, amounting to some 70000, were expelled in what became known as the 'Lydda Death March'." It is important to note the distinction here between simply using the term and identifying it explicitly as the name of the event. No such equivalent source has been provided offering a different name, despite my requests that one be provided. Similarly, you too have evaded my other question, which was where is the source saying that "Lydda Death March" is a POV and disputed name? Or is this purely a function of your opinions on the matter? Tiamut^talk 17:31, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Tiamut: You keep on harping on Holmes and Strachan while it is clear that the majority of historians avoided the term and used "Exodus from Lydda" to describe the entire incident. Your second misconception is your assertion that to claim X is POV one needs a source that says X is a POV. There's no such requirement. WP:RS is prerequisite for article content, not POV determinations. To that end, it is quite obvious a "death march" is far more POV term then an "exodus." --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:54, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I note your refusal to answer either of the questions. So I will repeat them again:

Do you have a source that says that "Lydda Death March" is a POV name?

Do you have a source that explicitly names these events differently?

If so, please provide them. If not, this conversation cannot move forward. Tiamut^talk 17:59, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Tiamut: Not only have I answered the question regarding a source "that says that "Lydda Death March" is a POV name", I answered the question directly above your latest comment in which you claim that I refused to answer the question. In the post directly above yours you will find the following string of words:

"Your second misconception is your assertion that to claim X is POV one needs a source that says X is a POV. There's no such requirement. WP:RS is prerequisite for article content, not POV determinations."

This string of words answers your question regarding a source for POV claims. It may not be the answer that you like or agree with, but it is an answer. So instead of ignoring the response and claiming that I never responded, please state why you don't agree with my response. Such extreme cases of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT makes it very difficult to participate in a colloberative effort. As for sources that use the term "exodus", take your pick, any of these [4] [5] should suffice. Best, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:21, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Please do not accuse me of not hearing you. Particularly when you ignore that I specifically asked for a source that makes explicit that the events we are talking about are known by another name. I did not ask for usage examples. I asked for a sentence that states that "These events are known as" X. About your argument that you do not need to provide a source to attest the POV nature of Lydda Death March in order to determine it is POV, I disagree. And I would like to see a source to that end in order to be convinced of the alleged POV nature of the name. Tiamut^talk 18:31, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I try very hard to assume good faith (like here, in a similar situation, where I assumed that you only "skimmed" my comments), but it's really difficult to make such assumptions when the discrepancy is so blatant. I was hoping that instead of you requesting that I don't accuse you, as it's clear that the accusation has yet to be refuted, you might apologize. But it's fine. As for the underlying issue, you're going a bit too far in your demands that editors provide you with the exact cookier-cutter phrase that would appease you. These pages [6] [7] indicate that multiple sources refer to the events as the "Exodus from Lyyda."

What's clear at this point is that your demands for sources that proclaim the term "death march" to be a POV term is a demand that does not comport with WP:RS. What's also clear is that there is a consensus of editors that agree that this article should be named the more WP:NPOV "Exodus from Lydda".--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:00, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

What's clear is that you are not familiar with WP:CONSENSUS. It does not mean majority rules. I am not alone in my opinion (We have not heard from Huldra, Ian Pitchford or others on this subject). You did not provide a source that says that "These events are referred to as the Exodus from Lydda", despite my asking for one. You actually do have to provide such a source, since we have at least one that says the event "became known as the "Lydda Death March". In other words, completely ignoring what I said about the difference between descriptive phrases (as attested in usage) and an official name (explicitly denoted as such by source). Plese self-revert immediately. I consider this to be disruptive and unfair. Tiamut^talk 19:12, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

POV and weasal tags

About Jalapenos points: Putting aside the name issue which is being discussed above, I will address them one by one.
b) I did not get Morris' casualty figures from Ron alone. They are also listed in his own work which is quoted in the article on Lod itself. (Look it up.) If he later said only a handful died, he is the only one expressing that opinion. All other sources indicate a figure congruent with 350. It is WP:UNDUE to highlight his estimate (contradicted by his earlier estimate), particularly in the intro. I've added his two separate claims in a footnote, side by side.
c) "shot over their heads" is used not only by Rantisi the survivor, but by Rabin himself who says they shot at those expelled for 10-15 miles to keep them moving. Do you have a source that disputes that this is what happened?
d) Regardless of whether or not Lod is biblical name, the name of the place was Lydda until the Israeli renamed it Lod after they depopulated its Arab population. This is what the source cited says.
About the weasal tag:
a) "That's your OR opinon. Rantisi is described as a survivor in the sources, including Benvenisti. We do not avoid using words simply because you think we should.
b) I don't know what "massacre" info you are referring to. Was it added by Ceedjee? He wanted to expand the article scope to deal with the massacre that preceded the march. I don't have a problem removing that info from here for now, given that title is confined to the march itself. But there was a massacre and I don't really understand how we should fail to use a perfectly normal English language term in this article.
c) "looting" is used by Rantisi. Morris says they were "stripped of their possessions". Pappe also says there was looting.
d) As I explain in the section of "Title" above, death march is used by reliable non-partisan sources. Sorry you don't like that fact, but it's true.
And finally, as I said earlier, I have no problem moving the AMEU and Al-Ahram sources to the external links section which I have now done, but I' like to retain links to them so the reader can access them since they are among the few online sources.Tiamut^talk 15:10, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Anyway Jalapenos, my hope is that you will remove these tags before the article goes up on the main page for DYK (in about 9 hours from now I think). I'm here, I'm trying to address your concerns in good faith and I think we have made a lot of progress towards improving the article. I don't they the article deserves to be tagged in its current state. Tiamut^talk 16:02, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Morris does not claim in his earleir work that "hundreds" died. The quote you inserted to that effect in the Lod article simply does not come from the book. Only the first part of that quote is there, the part that reads "all the Israelis who witnessed the events agreed that the exodus, under a hot July sun, was an extended episode of suffering for the refugees, especially from Lydda...Some were stripped by soldiers of their valuables as they left town or at checkpoints along the way." (the ellipsis do not appear in the original (p. 210), btw) . Later on that page, Morris says "Quite a few refugees died - from exhaustion, dehydration and disease", but attributes the number 335 to Nimr al Khatib, while noting that Glubb Pasha was more careful and said no one will know how many died. So , there's no contradiction between the 2 Morris books, and even if there was, we'd obviously have to go with the more recent work . Canadian Monkey (talk) 20:29, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Please check the edit history. That quote was there before I edited the article and I did not insert it. And please try not to be a dick. Tiamut^talk 22:34, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi CM, I was just working on this when you turned up. I have the "Revisited"(2004) and the "1948" (2008) books by Morris, I do not have the earlier ones. I absolutely agree with you that we should use the latest works; it is pretty useless, IMHO, to use the 1989 book when we have the 2004 "revisited" available. I feel like cutting out both the Morris-ref to Glubb, and the ref to the 1989-book, and, wrt Morris: instead only use the 2004-material, which you have quoted above. Agree? Huldra (talk) 20:47, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem sourcing this material to the newer edition. I haven't looked at it, but i assume it says pretty much the same. Canadian Monkey (talk) 20:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, just to make it clear: then you have nothing against me cutting out references to earlier work, and relying on the 2004 "Revisited" and later books by Morris? Huldra (talk) 21:15, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Very strange, CM: in your latest edits [8] you have changed the Nimr al Khatib cite in Morris (2004) (which I just inserted) to now be in Morris (1989)! You have cut out the Morris (2004) ref., making it seem as if Morris in his "later works" (=2003) downgraded the number of dead! What on earth is going on here? I will wait an hour or two, and if I do not get an explanation I will be bold and cut out *all* references to Morris (1989), and only keep references to Morris (2004) and later, ok? Cheers, Huldra (talk) 21:43, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

It was an edit conflict. I have no problems with citing this to the newer edition, which I have looked at by now. It is substantially the same as the older one ("Quite a few"), differing only in going further in describing the Nimr Al Khutab figures as "hearsay". Canadian Monkey (talk) 22:07, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok; then we all agree: all refs to Morris (1989) goes out. Huldra (talk) 22:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Morris estimates "dozens probably" in his latest book (1948, p. 290). The 350 figure is from the Palestinian historian Aref al-Aref who made the estimate after interviewing survivors at the time. Ian Pitchford (talk) 21:55, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks, shall we list the different estimates?

• Morris (2004), sites Khatib (335), and Glubb ("no one will know ")
• Morris (2008), "dozens probably" (p. 290).
• Aref al-Aref, 350 (where?)

Also, I would very much have liked to see the Tamari (or Tutunji) -ref (from the summer of 1998) which Pappe refers to, see: The Fall of Lydda, Cheers, Huldra (talk) 22:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't have the Aref al-Aref reference but Walid Khalidi (always a reliable source) mentions it in his introduction to Munayyer, Spiro (1998). The fall of Lydda. Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. 27, No. 4, pp. 80-98. In 1948 (p. 290) Morris has two eyewitness accounts from Israeli soldiers that are suitable for the article, the first describing the trail left by the refugees: 'to begin with utensils and furniture and in the end, bodies of men, women and children, scattered along the way. Old people sat beside their carts begging for water - but there was none' and 'Another soldier recorded vivid impressions of how "children got lost" and how a child fell into a well and presumably drowned, ignored as his fellow refugees fought over water". Morris also records that 'From the first, Ben-Gurion and the IDF commanders had thought in terms of depopulating the two towns' (citing protocol of Cabinet meeting, 16 June 1948). Ian Pitchford (talk) 22:43, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

The "Fall of Lydda" article is here. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:51, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, thank you! Much appreciated. Huldra (talk) 23:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

If this is the case, why is Canadian Monkey resinserting "a handful" into the lead? [9] Even if Morris were claiming "a handful", he is alone in that claim and its WP:UNDUE to give that prominence in the lead. Can someone please remove that? It totally trivilizes what happened. Because Canadian Monkey templated me for "edit-warring", I'm scared to do it myself. Tiamut^talk 22:28, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

And now, NoCal100 has reinserted "a handful" into the lead.[10] I thought that there was a general agreement that highlighting this sole opinion, in a rather unrepresentative fashion too, was WP:UNDUE. NoCal100 has also restored the source citing Karsh's letter to the editor. I'm not going to challenge that one, but I was under the impression that letters to the editor were not WP:RS, though Efraim Karsh is no doubt. Tiamut^talk 01:54, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Further, the sentence beginning Historians disagree ... seems to WP:OR. Discussions on this page indicate that no one seriously denies there was an expulsion in Ramla. The discussion seems to center over whether everyone or just part were expelled there and degrees. Or am I mistaken? Tiamut^talk 01:58, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

If there is no reference provided for the sentence beginning "Historians disagree ...", I will be removing it shortly. This is WP:OR commmentary based on a misinterpretation of Karsh's work. Tiamut^talk 09:35, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

yes, you are mistaken. Karsh is a notable historian (head of Mideast History at King's College) who explicitly says there was no expulsion in Ramla. NoCal100 (talk) 14:46, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)Okay then, I've addressed both problems (that of OR re: Historians disagree ... and that of WP:UNDUE re: "a handful" in the main text of the lead) with these edits. Tiamut^talk 11:59, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Please stop moving the opinion of a notable historian to a footnote, while keeping the opinion of a contorversial ex-professor of political science in the lead. This is highly improper. NoCal100 (talk) 14:46, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Please stop edit-warring to unduly highlight Morris' 2003 guesstimate by including a selective quotation from it in the lead. There are six other scholars who give figures between 335 and 355. I know you would prefer that it was only a "handful" (as would I), but it was not. Tiamut^talk 14:55, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy is to present all notable POVs. Morris is the most distinguished historian of the bunch quoted there, and his estimates is as good as the other estimates, which are based on hearsay. Your personal opinion as to what it really "was", is of no consequence. NoCal100 (talk)

All of his many POVs on the subject are represented in the footnote. Given that they are variable and that there are five other sources giving estimates between 335 and 355, I'd say that the text as it reads now fairly represents all significant viewpoints on the matter. To include only two words ("a handful") from one of three texts he wrote about the subject as a lower end estimate in the main text would be WP:UNDUE and misleading to the reader. Tiamut^talk 16:46, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. Giving only the high range of the estimate in the lead, while relegating the lower range to a footnote is highly misleading, and a clear violation of WP:NPOV. Feel free to include a more detailed exposition of Morris' estimates, which range from a "handful" to "dozens". When you do that, make sure to include the fact that he dismisses the higher end of the range as "hearsay". NoCal100 (talk) 17:26, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding NoCal100. I don't have a copy of Morris so I know this to be true only from people's talk page comments. But I am assuming it is true in good faith, and I added it to the footnote here. Tiamut^talk 18:05, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Martin Gilbert's account

In case it's useful, this is Martin Gilbert's account in Israel: A History, first published 1998; this edition Key Porter Books, 2008, pp. 218-9:

That night [Gilbert seems to mean July 10, but it could be July 11], Israeli infantrymen attacked Lydda in force and seized part of it. On the following morning, Arab Legion forces attacked the Israeli positions but were driven off. In the fighting, thousands of Arab civilians panicked, left their houses, and were caught in the crossfire: 250 were killed. The Israelis lost no more than four soldiers. As the fighting continued, Yigal Allon, at military headquarters, asked Ben-Gurion with regard to Lydda, "What shall we do with the Arabs?" to which Ben-Gurion replied, "Expel them."

Orders were issued at once, and began: "The inhabitants of Lydda must be expelled quickly without attention to age. They should be directed towards Beit Nabala." The orders were signed by the Chief of Operations of the fighting in the central area, Yitzhak Rabin.

Ramle also fell to a sustained Israeli attack on July 12. Only the former British police fort that stood between the two towns was still unconquered. But when Israeli forces finally moved against it that day, it was found to be empty. Its defenders had fled. Within twenty-four hours, 50,000 Arabs were moving eastward from Ramle and Lydda, seeking the safety of the Samarian hills. Some were taken by the Palmach in trucks and buses to the border of the area controlled by the Arab Legion.

On the outskirts of Lydda, Shmarya Gutman, a Jewish archaeologist, was an eyewitness of the Arab exodus. "A multitude of inhabitants walked one after another," he recalled four months later. "Women walked burdened with packages and sacks on their heads. Mothers dragged children after them. Occasionally, warning shots were heard. Occasionally, you encountered a piercing look from one of the youngsters in the column, and the look said, 'We have not yet surrendered. We shall return to fight you'."

On the eastward march into the hills, and as far as Ramallah, in the intense heat of July, an estimated 355 refugees died from exhaustion and dehydration. "Nobody will ever know how many children died," Glubb Pasha commented. In a Palmach report written soon afterwards, possibly by Allon, the exodus from Ramle and Lydda was said to have averted a long-term Arab threat to Tel Aviv, and in addition to have "clogged the routes of advance of the Legion," and imposed on the Arab economy the burden of "maintaining another 45,000 souls."

The strategic argument led to a fierce debate inside the Israeli political establishment. The co-leader of Mapam, Meir Ya'ari, noted how "easily" did the military planners "speak of how it is possible and permissible to take women, children and old men and to fill the roads with them because such is the imperative of strategy," and he added, "I am appalled."

SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:25, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that Slim. Tiamut^talk 22:32, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, thank: The Gutman quotes is also in Morris (2004), p. 433. Perhaps it should go into the article? Huldra (talk) 23:04, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

One issue from Gilbert's account that should be transferred to the article is his description that some of the dead were Arab Legion fighters that fought the Israelis at Lod and Ramle. There's no mention of this in the lede.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:05, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Where does it say that there were Arab Legion fighters in the death march? I don't see it. What I do see is yet another estimate that agrees with the 350 figure provided by Aref al-Aref, Finkelstein, Masalha, etc. I will add that to the list of estimates in the footnote for the introduction.Tiamut^talk 12:03, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

One hour and counting ...

Okay everyone. This article will be linked as a DYK to the main page in one hour. Before that happens, I would like to see the tags on the top of the page removed. I think they needlessly deface an article that many people have gone to an enormous amount of trouble to make accurate using the best scholarly sources available and representing all significant POVs on the subject. I cannot remove them myself, because I've already removed them once, only to have them put back. I've addressed all the NPOV and weasal concerns raised to the best of my ability in sections above. I'd ask that another editor who believes that there is no longer a POV or weasel issue, remove them ASAP. I'd like to thank everyone who has contributed to the article's development over the last couple of days for their work. Congratulations, it is looking really damn good. Tiamut^talk 22:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I can't see any serious issues with the article and in my view all of the points raised have been addressed using good sources. I haven't edited the article itself and so as an uninvolved editor I will remove the tags. If other editors have any remaining issues could I ask for them to be brought here first so that all concerned have time to bring relevant sources? Ian Pitchford (talk) 23:03, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Ian Pitchford. It looks like I was 12 hours off on the DYK time though. It's 1:49pm not am GMT. I do hope that things manage to stay stable up to then and through its showcasing. Then we get move on to good article status and a discussion of how to treat the events immediately prior, such as the war, the capture of the city, the massacre in the Dahmash mosque, etc., etc. Tiamut^talk 01:21, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Is someone who regularly edits IP articles considered an "uninvolved editor" with regards to another IP article if he/she didn't edit it? Not saying they aren't, just trying to learn the rules. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 08:51, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

There are major issues, a result of taimut's undoing of virtually all of Jalepeno's eidts yesterday. these issue have been explained in detail, and have not been addressed. One of th emajor issues is the POV title, which has been edit-warred over and reverted by Tiamut twice today. Until that is resolved, the tags stay. NoCal100 (talk) 01:37, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

The discussion on the title is in the section "Title" above. Please respond to the points raised there. Particularly the request for sources that indicate that there is in fact another name for this event. I still have not seen any. Tiamut^talk 01:47, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

And NoCal100, I have most throughly addressed each and every one of the issues raised by Jalapenos. He has yet to respond to my responses or the changes made to address them. Would you care to address what problems still remain? I don't see them. Neither does Huldra or Ian Pitchford. Please elaborate. Tiamut^talk 01:50, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the tags should stay until the issues are resolved. Tiamut: There's no emergency here that requires editors to respond to you by your self-imposed deadlines. We must expect that editors are involved in real-life and can't be expected to respond at all times. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:01, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes I'm aware of that Brewcrewer. What I don't understand is why tags need to be placed on an article that many people are working to improve in response to every complaint made on this page while they are busy in real life. And why the tags need to be there at all, especially what purpose they serve, except to deface the article when it will appear on the DYK page. I care about what Wikipedia articles look like when they do appear there. I don't think its professional for us to showcase articles with tags or with POV problems. That's why I have bailed on real life for the last few days to get this up to par. Tiamut^talk 02:05, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

and I'd appreciate substantive responses from those making POV claims about the article. Not simply "I still think there are problems so I'm putting this here". Please do articulate. Tiamut^talk 02:07, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

NoCal100 seems to have time. He has the time to make brilliant edits like this one duplicating a ref already at the end of that sentence and placing it in the middle in a strange disregard for the MoS so as to unduly highlight minority opinions or misrepresent opinions as he did here. Tiamut^talk 02:15, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

You might want to chill a bit with your comments about NoCal. Besides, as someone who has written a number of DYK's, I found that it found more eyes and edits when going through the DYK nom page then when it was actually posted on the main page. Best, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:23, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

The reference that Tiamut refers to above (in her typical uncivil tone) was added precisely becasue she herself questioned the "handful" - despite apparently knowing exactly where it comes from (the reference at the end of the section). I've had a look at Wikipedia:Citing sources#How to present citations, and don;t see where it says that references can't be used in the middle f a sentence - in fact multiple examples there show exactly such usage as the proper way to present footnotes. NoCal100 (talk) 02:37, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

If a source only sources part a sentence we would have to place the cite in middle of the sentence. It would otherwise be misleading. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:43, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

No we don't. We particularly do not have to do this when we have additional notes about who says what in the footnotes themselves. I'd like us to revisit this issue once again. Here's how the sentence in the lead on casualties currently reads: The precise number of deaths is unknown, and estimates range from a "handful"<ref name=Morris>[[Benny Morris]], ''The Road to Jerusalem: Glubb Pasha, Palestine and the Jews'', Tauris 2003, p. 176-177</ref> to as many as 350, primarily from exhaustion and dehydration.<ref name=Morrisnote>[[Benny Morris]] writes in ''The Road to Jerusalem: Glubb Pasha, Palestine and the Jews'' (2003), that only a handful of people died. However, in his work ''The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, 1947-1949'' (2004), he writes (p.433) that "Quite a few refugees died on the road east", while attributing a figure of 335 dead to Nimr al Khatib.</ref><ref name=Finkelsteinp55>Finkelstein, 2003, p. 55. Finkelstein writes that perhaps as many as 350 died.</ref><!-- need to find the original of this assuming it exists <ref name=Masalhap44>{{cite web|title=Towards the Palestinian Refugees|author=[[Nur Masalha]]|url=http://www.robat.scl.net/content/NAD/pdfs/refugees_7full.pdf|accessdate=2009-04-29}}Masalha writes that 350 died.</ref> -->

Now note that the "handful" estimate is from Morris' 2003 work. I don't have a copy and don't know what is says exactly, but I'm assuming this representation is accurate. The other quote from Morris' 2004 work, says "quite a few" giving an estimate of 335 from Nimr al Khatib. As I said previously, to me it is WP:UNDUE to highlight the terminology from Morris' 2003 in the main text. It should read simply: "The precise number of deaths is unknown but is estimated to be as many as 350, primarily from exhaustion and dehydration." The notes at the end of the sentence can remain as they are, and the double citation to Morris 2003 after "handful" would obviously then be removed. Tiamut^talk 09:31, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I've just checked my copy of The Road to Jerusalem and Morris says "a handful, and perhaps dozens, died of dehydration and exhaustion". (p. 177). This is noted above. Wherever Morris mentions "dozens" there is no reference and so it looks as though this is just his own guesstimate. Ian Pitchford (talk) 13:04, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Ian: The WP:RS policy makes no requirement that the reliable sources provide sources for their content. So while your gueestimate regarding Morris' source is WP:OR and can never be used to add or remove content from an article, Morris's estimate is a perfectly legitimate content.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:55, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Ian, I will add the quote to the footnote. On this subject, it seems User:Wehwalt has unilaterally changed the DYK hook here without bothering to inform anyone on this page and without keeping up to date with the sources or discussion. I have left a note at the DYK talk page, asking for someone to intervene to restore it to how it read originally. Waiting to see what happens. Tiamut^talk 13:35, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I've added more refs for the 350 figure (thanks Slim Virgin and Ian Ptichford for your sources on that) here and taken care of the UNDUE issue wherein we were quoting Morris' 2003 work as a lower end estimate in the main text. Tiamut^talk 12:20, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

As a result of Wehwalt's unilateral change and my protest against it, the queue has been put on hold to allow for discussion. All interested parties may participate here. Tiamut^talk 13:47, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Masalha reference

This reference is a badly edited/formatted file which appears on a website which is clearly not a reliable source. It possible that Masalha did write this, or some better formatted/edited version of something like it - so whoever added this should go and look for it. I'm commenting it out for now. NoCal100 (talk) 02:51, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to Ian Pitchford, this issue has been resolved. He has provided the book written that discusses the subject. As such, I have moved the article to the external links section. Tiamut^talk 17:35, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Dahaimash mosque massacre

So far this article does not mention at all one of the pivotal events in the expulsion of the inhabitant of Lydda, namely the Dahaimash mosque massacre. The number of dead varies, up to a couple of hundred. Morris (2004) and Pappe (2006) are the two main sources I have. It is too late for me to start now, hopefully I will return later today with the material. Regard, Huldra (talk) 04:56, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be worth mentioning this as well, though I'm quite reticient to do so right now given the amount of difficulty some editors are having with the simple facts surrounding the death march. The mosque is also spelled "Dahmash" by the way (in some sources I've seen). Other times the name of the mosque isn't even mentioned and its referred to descriptively as a massacre in a mosque in Lydda/Lod/Lydd (per mutliple spellings for the city too). Anyway, Jalapenos do exist said he found the word "massacre" to be POV and a WP:WTA and I'm quite sure he will contest its inclusion. If we could hold off for a little bit until the "controversy" over the title and the casualty figures abates, I think we would be a bit better off. I feel quite humiliated for having to say this by the way. Its astonishing to me that other editors can raise this much of a kerfuffle about a very tragic event in the history of Israel-Palestine. There really is little hope for the future. Tiamut^talk 17:41, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

NPOV tag again

A new editor has placed a NPOV tag on the page again, citing the discussion over the title. Do others feel that the NPOV tag remains necessary? What evidence suggests that the title is in fact POV? Tiamut^talk 18:58, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Can someone say specifically why the tag is there, and what needs to be done to fix the issue? Otherwise, I think it should be removed. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:33, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

It was a WP:DRIVEBY and because the article is linked from DYK on the main page I am going to remove it now if there is no objection. Ian Pitchford (talk) 20:35, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Ian: Please be a little more careful when accusing other editors of tendentious editing. The editor that replaced the tag after is was removed without a consensus (and was mistakenly marked as "minor") is actually one of the main contributes to this article. See [11] and [12]. Thanks, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:07, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Page moved?!?

Brewcrewer, there is no consensus for a page move. Please self revert. Tiamut^talk 19:07, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

According to my figures we have User:Jalapenos do exist, User:No More Mr Nice Guy, User:NoCal100, User:Canadian Monkey, and User:Brewcrewer on record for preferring the more NPOV term, while User:Tiamut and User:Huldra prefer the "death march" name. That looks like consensus to me. Besides, it's best we err on the safe side before we use a controversial and extreme name for an article. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:17, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I object. Surely the title should be "Allegations of an Exodus from Lydda"? Ian Pitchford (talk) 19:23, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I think you can add User:Ceedjee to those who prefer the current title - his move from 2 days ago seems to have been reverted. LuvGoldStar (talk) 19:19, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Ceedjee wanted 1948 Lydda Massacre and Expulsion, which Tiamut reverted, and nobody else agreed with. As for "allegations", that is another unique and singular view. According to that logic, we can also rename the article Lyyda death march allegations. I don't think "allegations" are generally a great idea, because it is unclear what exactly is an allegation and what is an accepted fact. It would require renaming discussion of a huge number of articles. Besides, the basic "expulsion" has not been denied by anyone mainstream, it's only other factual issues that are not clear. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:35, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I was just joking. The article isn't about the Lydda massacre or the expulsions from Lydda. Have you understood the subject matter correctly? The massacre took place before the Death March and the latter involved about twice the whole population of Lydda. Ian Pitchford (talk) 19:40, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the problem is that the topic of this article has not been defined.

When I see that Huldra wants to talk about the mosque massacre here and after my own addition of material, I am conforted in that mind.

Several events occured :

• Operation Dani - a military operation
• Lydda Massacre - massacres that occured after the battle (250 deaths)
• Lydda Expulsion - a process that was planned the first day of the operation but that was activated after the additional fights between the Legion and IDF. (~ 50,000 people)
• Lydda to Ramallah Death March - the consequence of the expulsion (dozens of deaths with many children)

The article titled 1948 Lydda exodus would gather all last three.

The article Operation Dani should gather all four.

Note there is quite nothing controversed in the events. That was well known even before the "new historians". And these events are still quite clear and well accepted among scholars (as far as I know). The only controversial point is to know who really took the decision to expell these people : Ben Gurion or Rabin ? Ceedjee (talk) 20:17, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's right and as clear as ever Ceedjee. With regard to the latter point Morris claims that the Cabinet papers show that Ben Gurion planned the expulsion, which makes Rabin's claim more credible. Ian Pitchford (talk) 20:33, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Number of dead

One source, a survivor who was 11 at the time, gives the number of dead as 4,000 (See page 2, under the header Day Three). This is his own estimate, and given his age, it can't be regarded as reliable. Nevertheless, should we mention that at least one survivor's estimate is in the thousands? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:15, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Does not seem to come from a particularly reliable source LuvGoldStar (talk) 19:21, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

The Aref al-Aref estimate is probably close to the truth, but I doubt we'll know until the relevant papers are declassified in about 2048. Ian Pitchford (talk) 19:42, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I would agree with LuvGoldStar (although I hate the beer). We should stick with numbers provided by mainstream historians. That way the article will be taken seriously.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:45, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

The 350 figure seems to be accepted by mainstream historians. Nevertheless, in the body of the text where we report that e.g. Benny Morris writes that "a handful" died, I think we should also add that one survivor, aged 11 at the time, reported up to 4,000 as his own estimate. The point of the article is to inform readers of what primary and secondary sources have said about the march, and then also to tell them what mainstream sources regard as closest to the truth. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs}

My concern is that if we have a general policy of citing or quoting dubious outliers we could end up with some strange (or should I say stranger) articles. Ian Pitchford (talk) 20:03, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

We should not use primary sources and only wp:rs secondary sources; particularly for what concerns such sensitives topics.

In his last book (1948: A history of the First Arab-Israeli War), p.290, Morris gets rid of the wording "a handful" and writes "During the following days, suffering from hunder and thirst, dozens probably died on the way to Ramallah". I think we should get rid of the words "a handful" too. Ceedjee (talk) 20:23, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I won't argue the point, except to say that there's nothing wrong with using primary sources, per NOR. The only restriction on the use of such sources is that we be careful not to use them to interpret anything, and we should always make clear what the mainstream position is. But I won't argue for inclusion if people are agreed that it's not apppropriate. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:46, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Since reliable sources rely on each other most of the time, they might also be wrong. Both lesser and greater numbers should be added, yet with a strict warning on main sources focus on over the 300 deaths. Kasaalan (talk) 22:40, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

General comments

Twice I have given a long list of problems in this article - the lists of course were not exhaustive (nor could they be) - and I got responses addressing a minority of the problems I listed, and not really addressing those very well either. I also went on an editing spree to fix the problems myself, but most of my edits were reverted. If this article were being written the way a Wikipedia article should be written, I wouldn't have to write long lists of problems, and other editors wouldn't have to respond to them, but it isn't. So now I'm listing the major methodological issues, with examples for each, that I think the individual problems result from, in the hopes that it will help. Another thing I'm doing is calling in Cerejota, a milhist editor who works on IP articles and is widely considered reasonably neutral. Problems:

• Use of unreliable sources, such as memoirs, op-eds and partisan websites. The events are very well covered by academic books, often available online, so there is really no need to use other sources.
• Among academic sources, preferring those that are polemical, politicized and/or are not actually about the 1948 war, and/or are not written by professional historians, such as Pappe, Finkelstein and Masalha, over those that or dispassionate, neutral, about the 1948 war, and written by professional historians, such as Morris, Gelber and Karsh.
• Reading things into sources. Example: "continuously shot over their heads along the way", taken from Rabin's memoirs where he talks about warning shots "to get them walking" the distance to the Arab Legion's positions. Aside from the fact that memoirs are a bad source, it is not clear even in this source whether the warning shots were fired along the way, or inside the city to get them going along the way. Perhaps it is the former, but this is not clear from the source, and I note that the good sources do not support such an understanding.
• Picking and choosing. Example: regarding the number of deaths along the way, it's pretty clear that nobody really knows. Morris's estimate is "a handful, perhaps dozens", others estimate over 300, based on a source Morris describes as "hearsay". But Morris's estimate was removed, because "it contradicts his previous figure". Huh? Obviously a scholar's most recent figure is the one to use, but this would conflict with the desire to choose the higher figure and portray only it.

The ironic thing is that it's really not that hard to write the article well. The good sources tell pretty much the same story (I listed three above and linked to their googlebooks presence), albeit with some significant differences where we can just say "X says A and Y says B". For example, Morris says that Ben-Gurion was involved in ordering the expulsion and Gelber says he wasn't, and they spend a lot of space arguing about it, but they agree on the basic issues. The problems come from the bad sources and from using those in an unencyclopedic way. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 20:52, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Once again I find myself completely agreeing with Jalapenos. Get out of my head, dude. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:22, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Taking Jalapenos' comments in turn:

• sources: All of the key facts have good citations. The title itself is derived from one of the best, The Oxford Companion To Military History, but even that has been changed without agreement. Where are the op-eds and partisan websites to which you refer?
• academic sources: Pappe and Karsh are roughly equivalent. I wouldn't use either of them in preference to Morris or Gelber, but they're reliable sources by Wikipedia's definition. Finkelstein's references are invariably accurate: I've spent years checking them without disappointment so far.

• Morris's estimate of "dozens probably" is used even though it looks like an unsourced guess. The 350 figure from Aref al-Aref via the highly reliable Walid Khalidi seems to be widely accepted, even by Martin Gilbert. It isn't based on the source dismissed as "hearsay".

• I've checked Gelber's book. He gives no reasons for doubting Rabin and doesn't cite the Cabinet paper that Morris uses as the basis of his conclusion that Ben Gurion planned the expulsions whether he ordered them or not. As you note Morris says he did.

I asked above if we could leave the NPOV tag off the page - at least whilst the article is linked from the main page under DYK as it is at the moment. We now have an article linked with the wrong (and inappropriate) name and a tag. It makes Wikipedia look ridiculous, but then what's new? --Ian Pitchford (talk) 21:34, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

The POV tag can be removed once we resolve the POV issues. That you have taken it upon yourself to twice remove that tag, without resolving the dispute, or getting agreement for such action is bad form, bordering on disruptive editing. Pappe and Karsh are far from being equivalent. Karsh is the head of Mideast Studies at a prestigious academic institution in the UK, Pappe is a disgraced academic booted from his university, where he held a junior role as a "senior lecturer" in political science. Your personal positive appraisal of Finkelstein does not change the fact that he is not a historian, and his personal opinions on historical event should not be used in this article, at all. I am glad you accept that Morris is a reliable sources by Wikipedia's definition, which makes it puzzling that you would describe his estimate of the dead as an 'unsourced guess', while accepting the higher figures, which are also guesses, as reliable. Regardless, the main issue I see now, after the article's title, is that the estimate of Morris has been removed from the lead and relegated to a footnote, keeping only the high end of estimates in the lead. This violates our NPOV policy. NoCal100 (talk) 22:37, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

"Exodus from Lydda" is a brilliant title. It implies the exact opposite of what actually happened - "Exodus" implies a voluntary mass relocation, whereas this was a death march, a forced mass relocation at gunpoint by a group discharging its power, to such an extreme that the result is hundreds of deaths. Can I really read "voluntary" into a Greek word which in the literal sense just means "departure"? Of course I can. Virtually all readers of the English Wikipedia will know it from the book in the Torah / Old Testament where it describes the Israelites fleeing slavery. Whoever chose it knows this, and chose it anyway.

It's so Zionist it basically comes all the way round to anti-Semitic. I'm not being facetious. Anyone who supports this naming policy is either actively trying to turn this into a racist edit war, or is a moron. --86.159.27.165 (talk) 22:40, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I shouldn't feed the trolls, but I just can't resist. The Israelites' exodus from Egypt in the Hebrew Bible was an involuntary (but desired) departure. See Exodus 12:39. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 23:01, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

That passage indicates that they had to leave in a hurry "they... could not tarry, neither had they prepared for themselves any victual", not that they didn't want to leave.

The Israelites in Exodus wanted to be freed from slavery (even if they didn't have time to pack enough sandwiches for the trip). Whereas the Palestianians in Lydda didn't want to be chucked out of their homes, have all their stuff nicked, and be shot. This is the important distinciton between an 'exodus' and a 'death march'. --81.157.137.147 (talk) 04:11, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

You should really avoid these conversations if you don't want editors responding with notes about the Arab activities against Jews (or against Palestinians) in those years. Wikipedia is not a forum. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 07:23, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

The "Exodus" title is indeed ludicrous, both for the implied misuse of the scriptural narrative, and for the reasons stated by Nishidani below. I don't believe the partisans of the current title are "morons": we can assume that they are familiar with Judaism's foundational scriptures, and knowing this, they still prefer "Exodus" in the title. The obvious conclusion is that this is being done in order to impute false connotations, so as to mislead the readers. The "troll" is also accurate in his "so Zionist it basically comes all the way round to anti-Semitic" description. That sums up quite well my feelings about many Wikipedia articles on the I-P conflict, right from the day I first took a look at them. --NSH001 (talk) 06:00, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict; response to Ian without prejudice to NoCal and anon) First, regarding the POV tag: an article with serious issues like this one should not have been put on DYK to begin with, but that is has is no reason to sweep the problems under the carpet. Regarding your reply (which I appreciate) to the issues I raised. here is my response. I will try as much as possible to stick to the methodological sphere, since the individual problems are too numerous to hash out one by one.

• Sources: I was referring to the memoirs of Rabin and Rantisi (of which extensive use is made; Rantisi in particular obviously has an ax to grind, plus, he was 11 at the time), the AMEU (partisan website), material in Al-Ahram (Egyption Ministry of Information-controlled newspaper), an op-ed in Al-Jazeera, etc. I acknowledge that this is not as big of a problem as it was a couple of days ago, but that's mainly because I and others have pressed to change it. Why should we even need to argue about this stuff?
• Academic sources: see, this is the problem. You consider Pappe and Karsh roughly equivalent, but Pappe is highly polemical, self-professedly (and proudly) non-neutral, and a fairly fringe figure in academia, while Karsh is none of these things. The only reason I can see to use Pappe when there are several better sources easily available is that Pappe is harshly critical of Israel. How often would a real encyclopedia cite him?
• Picking and choosing: again, exactly what I'm talking about. The lower figure of Morris is exiled to a footnote, at the end of a rambling paragraph, while the higher figure is in the lede. Then this is justified by arbitrarily charging that Morris' figure is a guess while the other is not.
• Reading things into sources: you misunderstood me. I brought the Rabin example to show that the text in the article based on Rabin's memoirs is not supported even by that source. That the source is not a good one anyway is a separate matter, which cannot be brushed away by saying that Gelber doesn't give reasons for doubting Rabin; he doesn't give reasons for endorsing him, either, and we shouldn't define historians' positions by what they don't deny (there is an infinite number of such things), but by what they say. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 22:46, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Ian, one speaks of the Burma Road, in the relief of Jerusalem, and this came directly from the precedent in Burma China during WW2. The expression Lydda Death March was borrowed from the Bataan Death March and Sandakan Death March. I might add that in standard Japanese war histories (I can cite them if asked), these incidents are described as 'death marches', though the allied POWs were the victims. In both instances, a major incident in the Asian-Pacific war provided the language, on the one hand for describing Jewish efforts to break through to Jerusalem, on the other, to describe the merciless herding of unwanted people out of their native cities on a forced march. In both there is a disproportion in scale. These two terms entered the language. The Burma Road page is unchallenged because it was standard jargon. One particular note of irony is that Exodus recalls the Bible, but there is was not compelled, but hindered. Here, ethnic expulsion to cleanse a future Israel of Arabs was compelled. Of course, if you are looking at 300-350 deaths, by such a mass of people forced onto a march under guard by a hostile enemy that was obliged by the Geneva Conventions to supply water, then of course it was, objectively, a 'death march'. Nishidani (talk) 22:57, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate this context Nishidani, of which I was unaware. Returning again to Jalapenos' comments:

"Burma road" is not a loaded term. It just describes a road used to break a siege. It doesn't have any implications other than that. "Death march" implies a long (usually more than 3 days) march where a substantial percentage of the marchers (usually more than 0.5%) died. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:21, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

While off-the-cuff comments are interesting, unless informed, they are not helpfulo. Actually the term 'Burma Road' at the time was highly loaded, and calibrated to win sympathy from abroad. It spun events to outsiders so that a Zionist military manoeuver against Arab Palestinians and their allies to relieve the Jewish community in Jerusalem was more or less the same as supplying the Chinese Nationalist Government against the Japanese occupying power, i.e.,a manoever to save an invaded majority from a fascist foreign power, not to save a local minority from a local power. Technically, for the oriental-Palestinian analogy to be correct, it should have been called the Ledo Road, but only military buffs would have recognized that. The name was chosen for its high profile in Western public consciousness, in order to suggest that Mickey Marcus was much in the mould of General Joe Stilwell. The propaganda term was naturalized and normalized, but retains its analogical force in favour of Israeli historiography's traditional account.Nishidani (talk) 09:43, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Source? You will excuse me if I don't take your word for it. I noticed you have a tendency to write long paragraphs spoken with a tone of authority that are not necessarily backed up by verifiable facts. No offense. But even if what you say is correct, the implications are not the same. Having an analogy in favor of one side is not quite the same as implying people were deliberately decimated over weeks of abuse. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:24, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I say nothing of decimation. The text itself reads:'We took them on foot to the Bet Horon road, assuming that the Legion would be obliged to look after them, thereby shouldering logistic difficulties which would burden its fighting capacity, making things easier for us.

I.e.while expelling tens of thousands of people among them a majority of aged and children, at midday, there were practical logistical considerations. The expelling force, since it conducted the operation, would have had a logistical duty to see to minimal requirements of security for the refugees. It calculated however that this logistical burden would be better born by the enemy (Arab Legion) down the road, whose resources to combat Haganah would thus be reduced. So not supplying the refugees with resources (a) enabled the Haganah forces to not 'waste' their own supplies, and actively debilitate the enemy by forcing them to assume a burden the rules of war required that the Haganah should shoulder. So the refugees's needs were analysed in terms of their value in field battle tactics, and as a result over 400 died. If you compare the parallel expulsion at Ramallah, where transport was provided by Israel, no such attrition of needless civilian deaths occurred.

I should note that Arif al-'Arif's figures are not given precisely, On the 11th of July, the Israeli column advancing into Lydda 'shot at anything that moved, causing a large toll of civilian victims. When on the 12th. of July, the Arab Legion sent in a reconnaissance patrol, the Israelis opened fire, and the last Arab militias remaining in Lydda, thinking a Jordanian counter-attack was underway, joined in. In the house by house assault that followed, the Israelis shot indiscriminately both Arab soldiers putting up a resistance and runaways. This led to a bazooka assault on the mosque (the Christians were holed up in the church next door) where many people had taken refuge. Arif al-'Arif's calculations placed the number of Arab dead during Israeli combat operations in Lydda at 800. To this he adds 176 killed in the mosque, and 250 in the exodus. In his figures, according to the French Arabist and historian Henry Laurens, therefore, counting the mosque (initial flight) and the march, 426 civilians died in the exodus, of a total of some 1,300 who died in or after the taking of Lydda. Source, Henry Laurens, La Question de Palestine, vol.3, Fayard, Paris 2007 pp.144-145.

The term "death march" implies decimation of the marchers, as opposed to, say, a "forced march". The rest of what you said above is not in reply to what you were discussing with me. I guess you misindented. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Sources often use 'Death March'. If 'exodus' is going to stick there, though it doesn't fit because (a) it still retains Jewish associations (b)the OED defines it as 'the departure or going out, usually of a body of persons from a country for the purpose of settling elsewhere'.')OED, vol.V col.3 c p.546), and the people of Lydda didn't set out for the purpose of settling elsewhere, but were just expelled elsewhere, I suggest, as what is shaping up to be one of my last edits here by the looks of it, that one use Niall Ferguson's phrase 'involuntary exodus', used of similar expulsions in Eastern Europe during World War 2. See his The War of the World:History's Age of Hatred,Allen Lane, 2006 p.584. Nishidani (talk) 14:49, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't see what's wrong with "expulsion". No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:59, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

• Sources: Morris & Gelber support Rabin's context. The only dispute bewtween them is whether the orders came directly from Ben Gurion. Morris is clear that they did and that the Cabinet led by Ben Gurion planned the expulsions about a month in advance. The "disputed" sources you mention aren't used as far as I can see.

• Academic sources: Not particularly relevant. In this context it doesn't matter whether Pappe and Karsh are equivalent. They are both reliable sources by Wikipedia standards, but they aren't particularly relevant here anyway. All of the principal facts have other sources. I wonder though if you really believe that Karsh is not "highly polemical" or "non-neutral".

• picking and choosing: You are ignoring the fact that the higher figure is supported by the majority of historians cited (Gilbert, Masalha, Aref al-Aref via Walid Khalidi). You haven't addressed these sources, or that supporting the title, i.e " On 12 July, the Arab inhabitants of the Lydda-Ramle area, amounting to some 70,000, were expelled in what became known as the ‘Lydda Death March’. (Tom Fraser "Arab–Israeli wars" The Oxford Companion to Military History. Ed. Richard Holmes. Oxford University Press, 2001) What are "dozens", in Morris' curious phrase, anyway? This seems to mean anything up to the low hundreds in other sources and is in keeping with the general tone of the Palmah archives that Morris cites and quotes.

• Reading things: There's no dispute at all between Morris and Gelber about the forcible explusions or Rabin's account other than the one about the source of the orders.

Now, lets move the article back to its original well-sourced title whilst those arguing for a change search for their own reliable sources, and lets remove the tag, which has no basis in fact. --Ian Pitchford (talk) 06:42, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I tried just now to move the page back from the present ludicrous title, but was unable to, since Brewcrewer has edited the destination redirect, ensuring that we now need an admin to perform the move. --NSH001 (talk) 06:55, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Aref al-Aref is a particularly good source actually, and indeed is rather authoritative. He got the Deir Yassin figure correct as early as 1956 (100-120) when Israeli sources still spoke, for decades, of 250. I.e. he lowered (in Israel's favour) the figure of Palestinian deaths, because that is what his evidence told him. I.e. he has acquired a reputation for precision won retrospectively, in the hindsight of what historians have discovered by later work in archives. Nishidani (talk) 09:43, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Comments/Queries: I see some English title discussions but I'm unclear as to why an Arabic title is missing. I'd expect this event to have an Arabic naming. Also, it seems unclear to why al-Jazeera is used for any information regarding Israeli history. Isn't there some more reliable scholarly source about the history of this event?
Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 07:29, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Good point, Jaakobou. Can we therefore agree in principle that no Israeli or Israeli connected news-source should ever be used for any information regarding the history of the Palestinian people? It would do wonders for the articles.Nishidani (talk) 14:13, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

If I may just point out to Nishidani that scholarly historical sources are to be preferred for historical events. Tundrabuggy (talk) 05:19, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

That is my point here and everywhere over wiki, and that you point it out as if I hadn't been harping on it for three years without finding this self-evident point accepted by my interlocutors, only makes me smile wryly. As Jaakobou is against al-Jazeera for historical detail about Israel, I jumped at his point to show that the same principle applies to using Israeli newspapers or media for details of Palestinian history. The general principle is, don't source articles to newspapers, except where necessary (very recent events). I had in mind the Al-Aqsa Intifada, which is dumping ground for newspaper (dis)information on what is an historical event.Nishidani (talk) 10:35, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Death toll

Benny Morris seems to be the source of considerable confusion here. Could the editors who are using him as a source for "a handful" and "dozens," and his comment that 335 is "hearsay," provide some of the context of his remarks here? For example, when he writes in The Road to Jerusalem: Glubb Pasha, Palestine and the Jews that "a handful, and perhaps dozens, died of dehydration and exhaustion" (p. 177), does he mean that a handful/dozens died overall during the march, or died of dehydration and exhaustion? Also, does he give any information in a footnote about his source for "a handful"?

It might be worth writing to him to ask which of his writings on this issue he regards as most accurate. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:44, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I share Ian Pitchford's mind here : Benny Morris doesn't know. He just gives his guess. He could hardly have found sources for the death toll, given he uses Israeli sources where no information can be found concerning this : the victims mainly died in Arab controlled territory : the road from Latroun to Ramallah was under the control of the arab Legion.

More interesting would be the sources of Aref al-Aref for the [very precise] numbers of 335 and 355...

Ceedjee (talk) 17:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Ceedjee, you raise a valid point, which has broad implications for the article as a whole. Since the road from Latroun to Ramallah was under the control of the Arab Legion, and as such was Arab controlled territory of which the Israelis had no knowledge, let alone the ability to control, how is it possible to claim that the procession of the refugees through this Arab-controlled area was a "Death march"? Is the claim now that the Arab Legion forced them to march to Ramallah with no water in the scorching heat? NoCal100 (talk) 17:38, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know where most of the victims died, but the argument would be that the Arab Legion was unable to cope with a sudden influx of 50,000-70,000 people. That, indeed, was one of the military benefits to the Israelis of the expulsions, according to contemporaneous Israeli sources, in that it gave the Arab Legion something else to deal with. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:01, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Do answer the question: Did the legion force them to march for two days form its front lines to Ramallah? Did it withhold water from them? Do you think many victims died over the course of the 8 km from Lydda to Beit Nabala? NoCal100 (talk) 19:12, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed SlimVirgin. In his last book 1948, Benny Morris reports that Yigal Allon (in his memoirs ?) explains that one of the goal of the expulsion was to occupy the Arab Legion to prevent a counter-attack.

I don't think any scholar ever underlined this but hard for me not to make a WP:OR here...

From al-Qubab (al-Qoubab) to Latrun (Latroun) there are 3 km... ([13]). And for the record, the Arab Legion had cut the water pipeline supplying Jerusalem at Latrun. So there should not lack water there. Ceedjee (talk) 19:39, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Operation Danny

This page has more general information than the Operation Danny article, which encompasses this event and others.
Doesn't most of what's in the "military action against Lydda and Ramla" belong there? —Preceding unsigned comment added by No More Mr Nice Guy (talk • contribs) 21:31, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

That there's more here than in Operation Danny is a failure of that article, rather than of this one. Also, there's no clear way to separate the attacks on the towns from the subsequent deportations, at least not if we want to provide a narrative that makes sense of the issues for readers. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:56, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with SlimVirgin.

That is absolutely needed to develop the context. It is the article Operation Dani that is currenlty poorly developed.

I think nevertheless we don't focus enough here on the massacre, which was one of the biggest of the war in term of victims.

Ceedjee (talk) 05:59, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Title 2

I'm about to remove the POV tag, because all the issues people have raised have been dealt with, so far as I can tell. A key remaining issue is to decide on a title. It's true that some sources refer to "exodus from Lydda," but they use other phrases more often e.g. expulsion. The only sources who have given it a name that I can find call it "Lydda death march." Whatever we decide, "exodus" is not the most-used word, and it gives the impression that the departures were voluntary, which is misleading. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:49, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

"Expulsion from Lydda" would be fine with me. NoCal100 (talk) 23:30, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

"exodus" seems to be a more popular term then "expulsion", but I'm willing to compromise if that will make everyone happy.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

A quick review actually suggests that "exodus" is used by more reliable sources than "expulsion". Btw, I don't understand why we still don't have an Arab name for the event. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 05:46, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the title depends on the topic covered.

As far as I have seen in that discussion, Exodus is used by most sources and is neutral. It is in the line of 1948 Palestinian exodus and would be a very good title.

But then, we must have a context section talking about the Operation Dani AND we must have material concerning the "massacre", the "expulsion" and the "death march" in the core of the article.

I think that doesn't prevent to write a small article titled "Lydda death march" that would send to this one for more details. (But step by step).

Ceedjee (talk) 06:09, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

A new Lydda death march article will not end up being small. As a matter of fact it will 50 times bigger then this article. Just like this article is 50 times bigger then Operation Deni.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:36, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Query of sources

I'm not sure why Ilan Pappe, an extreme-left activist, is used and I'd appreciate some thoughts on the matter prior to removing him. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 05:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

He is an historian. Please don't remove him. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 06:00, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

As pointed by Ian Pitchford here above, Ilan Pappé and Efraim Karsh are WP:RS secondary sources for wikipedia.. I would personnaly not use them, because they are not very reliable, but that is not the question. Anyway, if we can find the information from somewhere else, that will be even better.

Ceedjee (talk) 06:12, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

So Pappe is unreliable and reliable at the same time? I see the argument that he is an historian, but he's also an extremist political activist who's work in the history department is highly contentious. The man makes light use of words such as "genocide" and actively campaigns for an academic(wtf?) boycott on Israel. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 06:54, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Jaakobou. You make lose time to everybody.

There are many references of Pappe's books in numerous other articles on wikipedia. And it is used as a wp:rs sources in all these articles.

If you think Pappé is not a wp:rs, start the appropriate discussion (I don't know where but not not in this article) because it sounds like a WP:POINT to prevent its evolution.

Ceedjee (talk) 07:30, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Finkelstein

Jaakobou, please don't remove Finkelstein as a source. Nothing relies on him entirely: he is being used to show that the 350 figure is used by several scholars. He is a reliable source as far as WP is concerned, and his PhD thesis and publications are in an area close enough to the subject for his views to be regarded as relevant. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:59, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

+1. He is a WP:RS secondary source.

That is enough for us. Ceedjee (talk) 06:15, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

He is not a reliable source for Wikipedia at all, Ceedjee. This is barely even debatable and I'm quite surprised by the conviction presented here in support of a clearly bad source. SlimVirgin, I'm not discussing the validity of the content, but Finklstein may use whichever figure he wants but he's not a reliable "scholarly" source on anything Israel related. To make note, he has a personal page devoted to promote anti-Zionist/pro-Jihad (read:anti-American and antisemitic) cartoons and speaks bullshit at hate rallies. What value are we actually getting out of using him rather than mainstream scholars to back up the "several scholars" who use that figure?

Cordially, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 07:02, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Same as for Pappé here above. Just replace "Pappé" by "Finkelstein". Ceedjee (talk) 07:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Jaak, he is hated by some because he tells the truth. That does not make him an unreliable source for Wikipedia. Slim is correct that he is a WP:RS. From what I have read of his work, he is one of the most meticulous and accurate scholars around. I also have very high regard for his personal integrity, as he is willing to defend the quality of his work in face of attacks by others seeking even to deprive him of his livelihood. However, this discussion is moot in the context of this article, since he agrees with the other scholars. NSH001 (talk) 11:53, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

You're really surprised that the anti-Zionists like to use anti-Zionist sources? Come on. Don't be so naive. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:12, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Finkelstein, an anti-Israel polemicist, is not considered a reliable secondary mainstream source for I-P purposes. Adding him as a source to the number of dead (shockingly he's at the high end) causes this article, or any I-P article, to lose any air of neutrality. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:52, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

He is as SlimVirgin and Ceedjee say, a perfectly respectable scholarly source. His politics are one thing. No one has ever shown he has fiddled in the smallest way with documents and evidence, unlike those secure in their chairs and positions whose work he systematically deconstructed, and who moved to have him lose tenure for the discredit it placed upon them. He is an exemplary Jewish intellectual, recognized as such by unimpeachably neutral masters of traditional historiography like Raul Hilberg, who stood poles apart from him politically. Benny Morris could be called an 'anti-Palestinian polemicist'. For all one knows, he is. But his work is of the highest value, regarded as such by Finkelstein, with only Efraim Karsh really dissenting. Keep politics out of sourcing. Nishidani (talk) 16:02, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Keeping politics outside of sourcing is exactly what I was thinking and that's why we should avoid using Finkelstein and Pappe unless, of course, we don't what the article to be taken seriously. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:20, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

That will never happen. All we can do is remind people that people like Finklestein (who, if I'm not mistaken, isn't even a specialist in this area of history) or Pappe are anti-Israel activists. We know their views because they make sure we do, unlike, for example, Morris. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Uh, if you judged reliability of sources in terms of the politics of their academic author, then few articles could be written. One does as academics do, in peer review, which means seeing if the scholar's work cuts the mustard, or, for those of us who sniff it, is up to snuff. Please leave off labouring under the misprision that a scholar's politics necessarily discredits his scholarship. There is no such intrinsic nexus. The alternative is, of course, to remove 85% of poor sources used in wiki I/P articles, which are built up from material not primarily published by scholars.Nishidani (talk) 16:55, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

You're right. These activists forget their activism when they write academic papers. I have no doubt you believe this, in the same way you believe your POV doesn't shine through your Wikipedia edits. But this is a matter for policy in general, not this particular article. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:47, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Look up, Amicus Plato, sed magis amica veritas. I.e., no one can avoid a POV, but when it rubs up against the truth, it must be sacrificed to that higher end. Diametrically opposed to this is the nationalist thesis, 'My country right or wrong'. The latter is incompatible with good editing.Nishidani (talk) 18:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

A so-called "higher end" doesn't justify the use of Finkelstien for historical accounts on the middle east conflict. He is a terrible source on these issues and his recent activism in support of the Hezbollah attack on Israel -- which sparked the second Lebanon war -- is just one of many deplorable events. In short, I'm not following the insistence on making him out as a supposed good source. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 00:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

How would you do to check who is activist and who is not.

• Morris is a wp:rs ? In 2004, he stated that what happened in 1948 was the survival of the fittest and that there are circumstances in history where expulsion and massacre are... justified... Quite pro-Israeli if he was talking about the Palestinians ? Unless he talked about the Shoah...
• Morris is a wp:rs ? Ok. In 199x, he stated that the exodus was an ethnic cleansing... Quite anti-Israeli, isn't it ?
• Gelber is a wp:rs ? Well, he was member of the Tzomet party. Maybe a little bit too much right wing for a wp:rs, isn't it ? (I underline that Prof Gelber is an exceptionnal man !)

So what ?

But... Did I give source for that ? No...

Is this true or a fallacy from me ? Who am I ?

And what about my sources, if any, ... are there reliable ? How to check ?

Is all this not propaganda ?

And how to take into account men can evolve in their life ?

From good to bad or from bad to good... wp:rs yesterday; not any more today or wp:rs for the whole life...

To deserve to be in wikipedia and be a wp:rs source, a scholar needs a PhD, peer-reviewed publications and/or to have been reported by peers or other scholars. No more, no less.

Pappé, Karsh, Morris, Khalidi, Masalha, Sand, Finkelstein, Gelber, Shapira, Tal, Shlaim, Sela, Gilbert, Laurens, Laqueur, Sachar, Palumbo, al-Jawad, Prior, Levenberg,... All these, and many others, fit the definition. Ceedjee (talk) 18:12, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

The "no more, no less" is the problem. Even if we ignore the activism, there's a difference in quality of scholarship. Not to mention that even a newspaper can be a RS, and I think we all know how reliable those are. But like I said, this discussion belongs elsewhere. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:02, 4 May 2009 (UTC).

Comment: Finkelstien, regardless of some of the (indeed heartwarming) defenses made in his honor, has been criticized by multiple scholars for shoddy scholarship. He's been promoting antisemitic art on his website. He's been hailed by antisemitic bodies and organizations for "proving" the holocaust is fake... one of the things he's done was to claim holocaust survivors were lying (nice!). I consider the advocacy for keeping seriously problematic sources as a so-called bonus to normative ones is unhelpful for the article and quite disruptive to any attempts at moving it forward towards a normative encyclopedic account of the history relevant to this event. I assume most of the serious content is followed by serious sources and if there's any special material that only appears on a problem source, we can review and discuss it. I'll take this comment to also note that the article is written quite un-conservatively and in an accusatory fashion. Regardless of the outcome of the current discussions, I can't see this article lasting long term with a first paragraph that accuses Rabin of "gun-pointing" people out of their homes. Just compare the language with other known similar historical events and you'll see a huge gap in tone. here's one example and here's another and one more for good luck. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 00:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Massacre

There is no controversy concerning this massacre. Given numbers are from 240 to 250. Gelber even writes that is was the biggest massacre of the war (Palestine 1948, end of Appendix II of his book). As far as I know, only the Israeli government refused to recognize this fact. I will bring the material but don't have this next to me. Ceedjee (talk) 06:24, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Killed for valuables

Hi Brewcrewer, you removed this from the lead, saying it's too much of a detail. Eyewitnesses do speak of people being killed for their valuables. Can you say what your objection is exactly? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 15:39, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

As you see in the diff you linked above, the content did not say they were killed, but that they were shot it. Being shot at doesn't mean that they were shot, and it surely doesn't mean that they were killed. Regardless, this type of detail does not comport with WP:LEAD policy, which says that the lede should be limited to a summary of the article's important aspects.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:56, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

There are reports of people being killed, not just shot at, so we can change that. This is a highly important aspect of the article's contents. There was widespread looting in Lydda itself, and theft from the refugees, issues that all sides of the debate agree on, so far as I know. In fact, the lead significantly downplays that aspect. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Date discrepancy with the long section on protocols for protecting the expelled people

The text reads:-

'Shitrit returned to Tel Aviv for a meeting with Foreign Minister Moshe Sharett, who later met with Ben Gurion to agree on guidelines for how the residents of Lydda and Ramla were to be treated, though Morris writes that Ben Gurion apparently failed to tell Sharett that he himself was the source of the deportation orders. The men agreed that the townspeople should be told anyone who wants to leave may do so, and that anyone who stays is responsible for himself, and that the Israelis will not provide them with food. Women and children were not to be forced to leave, and the monasteries and churches must not be damaged. These guidelines were passed to Operation Danny HQ at 23:30 hours on 21 July:'

The problem is that the exodus had already all but emptied Lydda. It's nice to have this detail, but Morris says (TBPRPR p.434 para 3) that only about 100 Arabs remained in Lydda by the 14th., a week before this decision. Either the date is wrong, or this whole section is pointless, in that it constitutes an historical farce if inserted with regard to Lydda and Ramle. For the guidelines would no longer have been applicable, except in the at the time unforseeable contingency that Arabs might sneak back into the town, as they did down to October.Nishidani (talk) 16:47, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

The 21 July date is probably just a typo -- almost certainly should be 12 July. Will confirm and fix. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for spotting it. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:10, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Good work thanks,SV.

Another point, Slim.(a) There is a problem with the mosque. The account here has it mainly occupied by young men. But in Morris's 2004 account we read: 'Groups of old and young, women and children streamed down the streets in a great display of submissiveness, bearing white flags, and entered of their own free will the detention compounds we arranged in the mosque (Dahaimash Mosque, my note) and the church - Muslims and Christians separately.' 'There was a need to let the women and children go and to collect only the adult males' p.427.(this is unexplained)

(b) In the mosque, figures vary, but it was attacked and a significant toll of victims occurred (enough to call it a massacre in wiki's terms) and, despite David Tal's dismissal of this as a rumour in his War in Palestine, 1948: Strategy and Diplomacy, Routledge, 2004, p.311), Morris in his maintext mentions soldierly confusion that lead to 'dozens of unarmed detainees in one mosque compound, the Dahaimash Mosque,' ending up 'shot and killed. Apparently, some of them tried to break out and escape, perhaps fearing that they would be massacred. IDF troops threw grenadesd and apparently fired PIAT (bazookas) rockets into the compound' (p.428). In his note to this (p.453 n.81) he writes that some participants spoke of a battle there between armed Arabs inside, and the Palmach troops who used bazookas to shoot inside it.But, Morris adds, they acknowledge some of those killed in the mosque compound were unarmed 'old people, women and children'.

Without indulging in a violation of WP:OR, one need only note that we have the mosque first crammed with the old, women and children, then an obscure ref to some need to let them go so males can be herded in there, then a shootout with bazookas in which several dozen people may well have been killed inside it. Daniel Cil Brecher in his A stranger in the land: Jewish identity beyond nationalism,Tr. Barbara Harshav, Other Press, 2007 pp.284, speaks of the city council signing a surrender and then being accompanied to the mosque the next day, while the women that morning were told to leave. Perhaps someone could consult the original to iron out this obscurity and dissonance.Nishidani (talk) 18:00, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I've been reading about the mosque shootings too, and who was and wasn't inside, but I can't make sense of it just yet, so I'm just ploughing on with the reading. I'd say it deserves its own section once we get it figured out. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:09, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Times on July 12

Nishidani, you changed 14:00 to 13:30 per Morris 2004. [14] Does he actually cite the Palmach for his revised time? The 14:00 hours comes from a Palmach report, cited in Morris 1986. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:04, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I see most of the footnoting goes to Morris 1986, whereas I have been reading this against Morris 2004 where, p.428, just after mentioning what happened in the Dahaimash Mosque, he says b'By 13:30, it was all over.' (para 3.) If you haven't a copy, I think our Ceedjee can crosscheck this quickly. I)'m rushing to get these edits before my permaban, so excuse any failures to footnote adequately if I make them.Nishidani (talk) 18:09, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I think I'd be inclined to go with 14:00 hours, only because he cites his primary source for that: Sefer Hapalmach II, p. 565, and PA, pp. 142-163, "Comprehensive Report of the Activities of the Third Battalion from 9 July until 18 July," Third Battalion/Intelligence, July 19, 1948, cited in Morris 1986, p. 88. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:13, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

But Morris had 18 years of time to correct and revise. Whatever the truth of the matter be, I think one should follow scholarly practice and follow the revised version which takes in the author's corrections. Nishidani (talk) 20:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

If he notes that he made a correction, and says why, I have no problem with the 2004 time. But if he doesn't cite a source, it's an odd thing to change — even after 18 years of careful reflection, he shouldn't be changing what the primary sources say. :-)

I wonder whether he meant only that the shooting in the mosque was over by 13:30. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs}

It's a minute trace but precisely in the revised footnote to his 1986 account(453:n.83) there are several changes from the text you provide us with concerning the Sefer HaPalmach and related documents, indicating he has revised according to new evidence, I think.

It's pretty clear from the context that he refers to the skirmishing. He follows that remark immediately by listing as Israeli casualties 3-4 dead and about a dozen wounded, as opposed to Yiftah's fire killing 250 Arabs. One must recall that there were 400 Israelis against, (here I can't remember where I read it however) some 70-80 Arabs actually involved in sniping and shooting. Here Morris (as Gelber) shows a POV leg, by a set cameo stereotype that speaks of Israeli troops 'dispersed in pockets in the midst of thousands of hostile townspeople'. (that is how the Israeli troops may have felt. Like most realities, it doesn't necessarily correspond to the objective situation).

In any case, I see no reason why one cannot simply keep 13.30 as in Morris's revised text with a note in the ref. to the effect that in his earlier account, he set the end of hostilities at 14.00.

As to the mosque business, I get an uneasy feeling in histories where the language is not clear but self-contradictory at crucial points. Morris writes: 'In the confusion, dozens of 'unarmed detainees in one mosque compound, the Dahaimash Mosque, in the town centre, were shot and killed.'

In Morris's account the people in the mosque were unarmed detainees (p.428). In his footnote however (p453 n.81) he adds that in Kadish, Sela and Golan's Haganah account, Conquest of Lydda pp.45-6 at the mosque, a battle is said to have taken place between armed Arabs and the Palmach troops. Clearly he doesn't believe them. Both he and the three historians concur that some of those killed in the mosque compound were unarmed 'old people, women and children.' Nishidani (talk) 22:02, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. This is very helpful. We can keep the 13:30 time if you think it best, and I'll add 14:00 hours to a footnote. As for the mosque and who was/wasn't armed, I agree that it's very confusing, and I share the uneasy feeling. I'm just continuing to read until I get a clearer picture of it in my mind, then I'm hoping I'll be in a better position to go back and judge what the sources are writing. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Background section

Jaakabou added this a couple of days ago, and restored it when an anon removed it as POV. [15]

Does anyone else find it problematic? It would be quite difficult to write a brief but comprehensive, accurate, and neutral background section. My worry about this one is that it's too selective: there seems to be relevant material missing and also material that doesn't seem necessary. Also, it was taken more or less word for word from another article. My preference would be to remove it. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:14, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

A background section to an article is always a good idea. Difficulties in writing a background section that is comprehensive and neutral are resolved by editing over time, not by giving up and removal. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Where a section is clearly POV or problematic, it's safer to remove it until a better one can be written. The question is whether this section is sufficiently problematic.

There's no POV issues with the section that would warrant total removal. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Jaakabou, it looks as though you're using the POV tag almost as a weapon. Nothing relies on Finkelstein. Even if it did, it would be okay because he's an RS, but it doesn't, so the point is moot. He is used, along with other sources, only to show that the 350(ish) figure is the one academic sources tend to mention when they mention a death toll. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Finkelstein is not a reliable source for the article and, SV, I disagree with your revert of the tag placement. If he's not being used to source anything then there's forsure no reason to have him in the article. But he obviously is being used, he's being used to fortify the higher death number claims. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:50, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

It isn't reasonable to add a POV tag because of one source upon whom nothing relies entirely. Most of the people who commented here agreed that he is an RS. It feels as though the tag is being added simply to force his name out of the article. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Dear SlimVirgin,

I'm afraid that there's other issues as well in the writing style (I've given a sample above). On topic, it's wrong to add a shitty source (he is) to support good ones.. there's just no logic in doing that and there's absolutely no consensus that he is a reliable source. It would actually be the same as using a blogger who writes about 9.11 to support better sources. I believe I've also noted that he's not really representative of reliable scholars so it would be best to find other, more reliable scholars as example for figure using. Using him would be like using a settler polemicist with some history studies background for supporting scholar figures of far better sources. It holds no encyclopedic merit.

p.s. to everyone involved and without pointing fingers, please make comments on content and not fellow editors. Try to assume good faith as well. Anyways, if there's anything that's unclear, I'd be happy to clarify it again and again if needed. I'd be happy to add sources or examples if necessary.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 01:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

inaccuracies

The background is slightly pro-Israeli.

• "discontent among the Arab community grew, leading to violent breakouts.". That sounds as if Arab discontent was responsible of the growth of violence. That is not correct. That is complex violence spiral process and both sides (even among wp:rs sources) rejects the responsibility on the other side (have in mind the Irgun bombing attacks).

• "Reprisals and counter-reprisals" -> I suggest "Attacks, Reprisals and counter-reprisals"

• I already replaces "Amin al-Husseini" by "Abd al-Kader al-Husseini"

• "hundreds[citation needed] of the Jewish Haganah members who tried to bring supplies to the city were killed." This seems much to me. I will check this number.

• "Their operations did succeed in relieving the blockade, and built a continuous front line for the Israelis, but also caused an exodus of 250,000 to 300,000 Arab Palestinians." The relief of the blockade of Jerusalem was far from being the only operation... As it is currently written, it sounds that the exodus was due to the Haganah attacks themselves due to the blockage. That is not correct. The main exodus occured in the mixed cities after they were attacked by Haganah, Palmah, Irgun and Lehi : Haifa, Tiberiade, Safed, Jaffa (!), Beit-Shean and Acre (!) was attacked by the Haganah and 90% of the population fled (a few were expelled). (See here where the references should be put back - I don't know why they were removed).

• "The situation caused the U.S. to retract their support for the partition plan, thus encouraging the Arab League to believe that the Palestinians, now reinforced by the Arab Liberation Army, could put an end to the proposals," That is not correct. The Arab League was convinced of that far before. That is one the reasons for which it didn't prepare for war. What decided the Arab states to intervene is -on the contrary- the defeat of the Palestinians (eg, the fall of all the cities described just here above).

• "Several Arab armies attacked the new Jewish state the next day." A more neutral version should be preferred. It is not the "Jewish state" that was attacked but "Israel". That is a purely political motivation. More, historians now agree the motivation was not to "attack Israel" but to "rescue palestinians" (whatever the claimed, see eg the second page of this article Yoav Gelber, The Jihad that wasn't.) More, the most powerful of them, the Arab Legion had been ordered not to attack Israel and in fact, it is Israel that attacked it [for obvious and logical reasons given the situation at Jerusalem]...

I tried to reformulate but I have been reverted (due to my poor English). Ceedjee (talk) 08:50, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, will take a look — and your English isn't poor. :-)

Would you mind if I went back to the previous map? [16] It shows Lydda and Ramla, and I think looks clearer/bolder too. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:14, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I've tried to simplify it. [17] The more complex it is, the harder it'll be for readers to understand. We want just a brief, but accurate and neutral, summary of the most relevant context. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Plan D

The reference to Plan D in the section expulsion is not pertinent and not NPoV

• it is not pertinent because the plan was implemented between 1/4 and 15/5 (maybe up to 10/6 partly). It was not any more of application during the 10-day campaign (after 1 month truce, in July).
• it is not NPoV because it sounds as if Plan D was a major plan of expulsion, which is a theory only defended by Pappé (who widdened the views of Khalidi) and rejected or not followed by traditionnal historians, by the Morris, Tal, Gelber team and even some new historians such as Shlaim when he reports the debate about 1948.

I remove this because I am confident it is not an issue but feel free to discuss this. Ceedjee (talk) 05:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

B - GA - FA course ?

It seems to me SlimVirgin works to transform this article into a FA ! Excellent.

We'll see. :-) SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 07:39, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Consequences on the image of Glubb Pacha and the Arab Legion

I think an important material that lacks concerns the angryness of the Arab population against Abduallah and the Arab Legion for not taking defense of the area of Lydda-Ramle. Glubb prefered to keep all his forces at Latroun that was the key point to prevent the fall of all Samaria (and the success of Operation Larlar. I think that due to critics he had to resign and was immediately taken back (of something like that).
I also assume it must have written somewhere that this proves a collusion between Glubb Pacha and the Zionists (to be found anyway).

I have some material I'll try to add tomorrow in the aftermath section, about Palestinian anger against Abdullah, and how they felt let down. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 07:39, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Parking two quotes here ....

... until there's a good place for them:

"Rabin writes of the residents of Lydda that, "We took them on foot to the Bet Horon road, assuming that the Legion would be obliged to look after them, thereby shouldering logistic difficulties which would burden its fighting capacity, making things easier for us." Rabin concluded:

"Today, in hindsight, I think the action was essential. The removal of those fifty thousand Arabs was an important contribution to Israel's security, in one of the most sensitive regions, linking the coastal plain with Jerusalem. After the War of Independence, some of the inhabitants were permitted to return to their home towns."

SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:44, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Ditto:

"After the war's end Lod and Ramla became predominantly Jewish mixed towns. Residual Palestinian populations that had managed to remain in both towns were concentrated in bounded compounds and were vastly outnumbered by the influx of Jewish immigrants that followed. The residential property rights of the former Palestinian communities of Lydda and Al-Ramla were officially transferred to the Israel's Custodian of Absentee Properties in March 1950."

Distances

The the lead has this description of the path taken by those expelled from Lydda: The people of Lydda had to walk six kilometers (four miles) to Beit Nabala, then 11 kilometers (seven miles) to Barfiliya, in temperatures of 30-35 °C (86-95 °F), carrying their young children and whatever possessions they could take with them. The final destination for most of them was a refugee camp in Ramallah some 50 kilometers (30 miles) away.

It is said that they were taken by bus to Latrun. The Israelis could take them no further, it seems, because that was approaching their lines with the Arab Legion. The article on Latrun says the distance from Latrun to Ramallah (apparently the final destination of the refugees) is 14 kilometers. That would seem to indicate they had to walk 14 kilometers, not the 67 kilometers described in the article. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

14 km from Ramla, not from Ramallah !

Ceedjee (talk) 06:09, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

50,000-70,000 people were taken by bus in a few days?, when they couldn't even find many buses from the local Arab bus service in Lydda? If you read the accounts, many of them were forced into the hills, over rough terrain, and not even by road etc. Later editors here will I hope address this logistical blank.Nishidani (talk) 21:34, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

How many days? The article does not seem to make that clear. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Three days for the main march, I believe. I'll try to make that clearer. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Malcolm, they were driven to Ramallah. They walked circa 17 kilometers, or most did -- speaking of the Lydda residents only. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

By adding up the distances given in the lead (six kilometers + eleven kilometers + fifty kilometers) it adds up to sixty-seven kilometers. Is that correct? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Many of them ended up (one way or another) in the refugee camp in Ramallah 50 kms away. But that was not part of the march. The march was round six kms to one area, and from there 11 kms to another.

Bear in mind that there can't be much precision here. Tens of thousands of people were wandering through the hills. Some ended up here, some there. No one knows anything for sure. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:01, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the lead needs to make the confusion of the situation, and the uncertainty of actual events, easier to understand. As it is now, it sounds like they had to walk all the way to Ramallah. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:05, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

17km over 3 days seems like a pretty leisurely "death march". No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

There were people of all ages and fitness levels. They had no food or water, for the most part. They were carrying their children and whatever possessions hadn't been removed from them. It was around 90 degrees. They had nowhere comfortable or safe to sleep. That's ignoring the allegations that soldiers were shooting over their heads for part of the journey, that people were lying dead by the side of the road, that they were frightened and distraught about losing their homes. 17 kms would seem quite far in those circumstances, I imagine. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

There is no denying that there was suffering for a large number of people. But as far as the distance is concerned, my daughter (and many others) walked as far to get home on 9/11. Certainly there was a lot of misery, but most of it had little to do with the distance, and much of it was because if the non-involvement to the Arab Legion, and of others who could have made things easier but did not. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

If you have a source for that, we can certainly add it. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

According to this [18] "19,000 Palestinians lived in Lydda but its population had been swollen by refugees from Jaffa and from outlying villages to about 40,000." Is that correct? If so, the article should make clear that many of the refugees from Lydda were already refugees from other towns. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 00:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd say it does make that clear -- where we talk about 15,000 of them having arrived from Jaffa and elsewhere. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Latrun is 14 km south-east of Ramla, not of Ramallah.

According to Morris' the refugees died of dehydration, and disease. Surely Israel is not responsible for their dying of disease on this 17 kms march? Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Apparently the Latrun people were bused from their village. Not the Lydda people. But Morris talks of people dying of hunger, dehydration and disease. It is hard to imagine dying of hunger on a 10 mile trip. One child fell into a well and drowned, while attempting to draw water. Thus there was water on this "death march" of 10 miles. Tundrabuggy (talk) 05:31, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

template depop villages

I don't see the connection between the template and this article. Perhaps a category would be appropriate at the bottom of the page, but this huge template references other towns presumably also "de-populated" - has little or nothing to do with this article aside from being a category... strikes me as very POV. Tundrabuggy (talk) 05:32, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

How do you see it as unconnected, TB? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 06:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Putting aside the POV problem for a second, what's more problematic is its misleadingness; both areas were not depopulated. They're not even listed on the template. Indeed, Lod and Ramle are both mixed Arab-Jewish cities. Also, this article is not about a village, but of an incident. If the template belongs anywhere it belongs at Lod and Ramle, not here.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 14:40, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Are you trying to say that because Lod was not a village and was not depopulated it shouldn't be tagged as a depopulated village, and a list that doesn't include it shouldn't be displayed on this page?! No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

You can be assured that I'm trying to say what I'm saying. From now on you don't need confirmation that I'm trying to say what I'm saying and you don't have to rephrase parts of my comments as a question. Best, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I think Mr Nice Guy was just clarifying for himself. But anyway, why would this template be used in its entirety on this page? A simple category listing, if appropriate, is how this is usually done. Then the reader can go to the category and see the entire list if he/she wants. This is an incident, as Brewcrewer points out, not an article about a depopulated city. I will remove it if I can get the agreement. Is there a category that can replace it? Tundrabuggy (talk) 21:32, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Things to do ...

... before we have a first draft of a reasonably complete article:

1. Background section: (a) brief subsection (summary style) explaining what the Arab Legion was; (b) another brief subsection about the Holocaust and Zionism; perhaps mention 1936–1939 Arab revolt in Palestine, Mohammad Amin al-Husayni, threats to Jews, if it can be done briefly and neutrally.

2. Section on the mosque massacre;

3. More eyewitness accounts of the expulsions;

4. Perhaps say more about Ramla, and rename article to include Ramla?

5. Look for sources who talk about rape, apparently mentioned by Ben Gurion in connection with these expulsions;

6. Expand section on looting;

7. Aftermath section: (a) brief subsection on Lydda after the expulsions; (b) another on Bernadotte and his assassination, the Palestinian right of return, relevant UN resolutions.

8. Perhaps a brief section on when and how the source material became available e.g. Israel opening its archives, the "new historiography." [19]

9. Look for relevant (preferably free) images of refugees, Lydda etc.

10. Keep it tight; mustn't be too long if we want to consider FA status.

SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

1. is not a good idea at all. What are the links between all these topics and the massacre and expulsion of 50,000 citizens from their city ?

This article is not a summary of the I/P conflit from the origin.

Additionnaly, you would have to add all the Palestinian point of view concerning the conflit : idea of transfer in zionism, colonisation, violence, discrimination toward Arabs, ... More, what happened is what they claimed would happen : transfer and expulsion.

7. Why Bernadotte here ? Neutrality doesn't mean reporting all the good/or bad things that aroused during the war.

8. I don't think so either because these events are well known and are not linked with the new historiography even if the openings of the archives confirmed the events.

Ceedjee (talk) 06:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment: all the subsections are not necessary. What is needed is a mini-summary of the main issues connected with the Dani Operation. i.e. Arab discontent over the partition plan and their response in trying to squash it. After this, the Dani Operation and the Exodus fit right in. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Jerusalem blockade

Ceedjee, do you have a source for the dates? [20] I took mine from the WP article, intending to check them later, and I just noticed that article in fact gives two sets of dates -- one in lead, another in infobox. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 06:11, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

See Operation Nachshon, Burma Road (Israel) and Battles of Latrun.

Events are described and sources given.

I don't know when the road was closed. But not before end of January.

From 5 april to 20 april, it was opened and the city re-supplied

After April 20, Operation Maccabbee (see Battles of Latrun) didn't succeed to re-open it

End of May, the Burma road solved the problem definitely and it was fully operationnal for the first truce (10 June)

Ceedjee (talk) 06:25, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I hope it is remembered in rewriting this that there were two blockades of Jerusalem, and not just one (this is a strong rooted POV even in the literature). The large parts of the Arab sector had frequent difficulties in ensuring adequate supplies: this was one of the functions strategically of the Etzion bloc. Nishidani (talk) 09:59, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Reference of Lydda and Ramle events in cabinet discussions

Taken from another article :

When he was criticized by MAPAM members for his attitude concerning the Arab refugee problem, David Ben Gurion reminded them the events of Lydda and Ramle and the fact Palmah officers had been responsible of the "outrage that had encouraged the Arabs'flight made the party uncomfortable." (Yoav Gelber, Palestine 1948).

Ceedjee (talk) 06:39, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Several of the POV issues in the article

Section opened to resolve a few of the major POV issues with the article. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 07:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Lead

• In comparison with similar historical event articles, this one waits until the last lead paragraph to make some minimal mention of the Israeli issues which surround the battle. The operation's name should be (a) in the first paragraph along with it's (b) stated objectives. This is standard for articles such as the Hama massacre and the Black September in Jordan. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 07:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• I agree. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 10:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Background

• Several POV issues seem to exist in this section and I'll name a few. I believe the earlier version was much more to the point and did not include any of the current problems. As such, I believe it would be simpler to just put it back in instead of the current version. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 07:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• I will take care of this this week end. None version was neutral. Ceedjee (talk) 08:40, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• I woulnd't mind discussing the issues you see with the previous version. As of now, if I'm not mistaken, only an anon. user with no contributions to their history was removing a section in it that described the lead up to the Dani operation and, all due respect to this anon., I'd hate to think that we're writing up articles to the likes/dislikes of vandals. I think the better version should be reinstated until we can write up one that is superior to both versions. Anyways, I'd be interested in hearing the neutrality claims about the previous version. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• The previous version wasn't well-written. It had no clear narrative, or point. You had copied it from another article word for word. Whatever is in a background section here has to be written (and written well) for this article, not for some other. We also have to try to write for a reader who knows little or nothing about the subject, rather than using buzz words that they're going to be forced to look up in order to understand what we're saying. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 15:53, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• Heyo SlimVirgin,
  I'm wondering why you're not fixing the other article then if you believe it to be poorly written. Certainly, the new version is (a) written even worse, (b) hasn't stood still under a form of consensus like the other text, and (c) it's full of POV issues as well. As such, it would seem that the previous version is a better interim for the current one which is just improper for the various reasons presented below. We already have two editors agreeing with a couple of the mentioned issues and, as-such, I would assume that, if we're indeed interested in moving the article forward, that the original version would be allowed to stay until we can work out the kinks in it - which I'd be more than happy to go over. Btw, what "buzz words" were bothering you in it exactly? I've just re-reviewed the text and there's nothing special that pops out that I can see and make a connection between your comment and what's in the article.
  Warm regards, 16:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Mandate

• • "District of Ramla in Palestine" - should be, "District of Ramla in the British Mandate of Palestine". There's no justification for the regional terminology applied in the context of that sentence and it smacks of POV to people who know a bit of the history of the area and the rhetoric applied. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 07:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Riots and pogroms 1

• • "in order to give the Jewish people a homeland, something they had long campaigned for." - emphasized text should be removed. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 07:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Why? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 15:54, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Riots and pogroms 2

• • "In the aftermath of the proposals, Arab discontent with the situation grew. Reprisals and counter-reprisals" - I'm unclear as to why to original text (i.e. "discontent amongst the Arab community of the Mandate grew leading to violent breakouts. Murders, reprisals, and counter-reprisals...") was reduced to censor historical facts. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 07:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Mohammad Amin al-Husayni

• "Arab militias set up a..." - it begs the point to name the commander in charge here. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 07:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• You mean Abd al-Qadir al-Husayni. Ceedjee (talk) 08:45, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• Who do the sources refer to in the context of the relevant milita activity? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Jewish medical convoy

• "The attacks included an assault on a medical convoy, which killed 79 Jews, mostly doctors and nurses" - clearly WP:UNDUE as a singular event when many more were killed. previous generic phrasing of "hundreds of the Jewish Haganah members who tried to bring supplies to the city were killed." The singular event of the doctors' convoy is not in direct relevance to this article (unless there's a source that makes such a link). Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 07:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• I think you are right. The problem was to source the "hundreds"... Ceedjee (talk) 08:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

U.S. and the Arabs

• "The volatile situation caused the U.S. to retract their support for the partition plan. On May 14, 1948, with the termination of the British Mandate, David Ben-Gurion declared the independence of the state of Israel." - text seems to make an artificial connection between the Israeli independence declaration and the U.S. retraction. The actual connection, should be Arab increase in support for an attempt to demolish the partition plan. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 07:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
  • The link should be the real link with sources.
    It means the situation of huge violence. Ceedjee (talk) 08:47, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Yes, the retraction should be merged just as the sources merge it and not superficially to the declaration of independence. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Palmach commander

• • "named after Dani Mass, a Palmach commander killed in January 1948, was an Israeli operation carried out over a ten-day period — which has come to be known as the Ten Days" - WP:UNDUE. You want to read about Danni, read the Dani operation article then. There's simply no relevance for this article. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 07:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Anti-Zionist activist

• Ilan Pappe is debatably reliable but he's clearly unreliable at the same time. He's been overturned, for example, on honoring a thesis that "found" a massacre that never existed. He noted his perspective on historians, as that he belongs to a group who "tell their own version of the past". He's also advocated for an academic boycott on Israeli Universities while he was actively teaching in one such institution. Obviously, he was asked to apply the boycott himself (i.e. to resign). He, basically, freely distorts the truth and prefers sources regardless of their merit, to conform with his ideology. He even repeats the blood libel that Israel committed a massacre in Jenin in 2002. In short, he should not used as a source here. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

This is your personal opinion, and you are entitled to it. It cannot serve as a grounds for denying Pappé a voice here. Since many other mainstream historians accept him in the fold, he is a RS. As to the often-quoted and invariably twisted remark of his that historians 'tell their own version of the past', people who say this disqualifies him as a historian really only show by this they are wholly unfamiliar with the philosophy of history. Pappé's position here is almost identical with that of Michael Oakeshott, whose politics were diametrically opposed to those Pappé embraces. Oakeshott wrote:-

History is the historian's experience. It is "made" by nobody save the historian: to write history is the only way of making it.'Michael Oakeshott, Experience and its Modes, Cambridge University Press, 1933 p.99

Pappé was simply say history was ineludibly interpretative, a position that is actually mainstream. All history as we have it is history as leached through the historical imagination. Facts are of course fundamental, but the way they are evaluated is itself subject to the constraints of randomness and subjectivity, randomness because the 'facts' that survive are often selective and partisan (1948 is a good case), and subjective because historians, however empirical, are themselves historical actors, and not, like Joyce's God, extraterritorial agents paring their fingernails above and beyong their creations as the facts spontaneously marshall themselves into the true and proper order a past reality is supposed to evince.Nishidani (talk) 09:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Besides the fact that Pappe is a fairly extremist partisan and has supported a student's false thesis (which aligned with his political views), he explicitly says that he does not attempt to be neutral in his history-writing, and takes pride in the fact that he brings his politics into it. His book The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine is not a reliable source, and even if it were, it would be a fringe POV and would couldn't be given much weight per WP:NPOV. Frankly, it's hard to take seriously anyone who insists on using him when there are several better sources easily available. The inherent subjectivity of history-writing is a red herring, of course, as some (i.e. good historians) will recognize that and try their best to be neutral, while some (i.e. Pappe) will recognize that and try not to be neutral. Encyclopedias prefer to use the first type, for obvious reasons. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 10:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Heyo Nishidani,

The philosophy of history that you're suggesting here is non germane to the current dispute. Certainly not where in concludes Frankenstein, Pappe and their likes are "peer review[ed]" sources. At least you make awareness that sources are subjective and you can make note that, within that context, peer review is exactly what Pappe fails (and Finkelstein even more-so).

p.s. You'll excuse my personal tone here, but you quit wikipedia "indefinitely" in November 2008 and by the looks of things there's probably not that much time left for corrective suggestions to behavioral issues even if you are fully returned. Still, it wouldn't hurt if you comment on content, not on how you perceive fellow editors' likes and dislikes (per WP:NPA policy). For the record, I don't hare Pappe but I do believe that there's plenty of reasons to avoid using him as a source on I-P conflict history. This brings to mind the old JewsAgainstZionism discussions.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

No, I suspended my contributions of substance to Wiki in November in protest at the triumph of formalism over substance. This was 'indefinite'. I made an exception when I saw on November 8, Meteormaker's attempts to put order into chaos were dismissed per WP:Consensus, which contextually meant 5 against 1, the former consisting of 5 editors who always agree among themselves on everything. This pseudo-consensus, and MM's challenge to it on the basis of impeccable method and evidence, was confirmed as determinative by Coren on the 11th or 12th. He, in this view, was the only edit-warrior in there and those sticking by numbers an Israeli POV were simply 'consensus' seekers. That patent gaming of the system got me to come back to help him in that area, since he is an extremely good wikipedian, and so did the strike on Gaza, when I observed a total mess. The third instance is the Arbcom dispute, which is now moving towards my permablock on I/P articles, which means I won't be around any more.

You will note that recent attempts to twist every other minute comment I make into some violation of WP:NPA and WP:Civil, is just wikilawyering, making a smear stick by repetition over pages. Finally, you can raise objections to Pappé as consistently as you like, that's what talk pages are for also, but his peers determine if he is citable, not stray anonymous voices from the world of wikipedia. This is self-evident, and I think it a rather pointless exercise to continually raise this. Experienced editors like Ceedjee and SlimVirgin who know the history, and who certainly would not agree with Pappé's position, nonetheless have confirmed that he qualifies. I'd prefer, out of respect, that further remarks about putative violations of some obscure interpretation of the wiki etiquette rulebook be not repeated from now on, until the formal ban comes through, unless there is evidence, and that evidence be placed on the appropriate Wiki arbitration page. Thank you.Nishidani (talk) 11:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

If by Pappe's "peers" you mean historians of the Arab-Israeli conflict, they generally consider him a hack, and they say so in words far harsher than Jaakobou's or mine. That he got Walid Khalidi to write him a noncommittal dust-jacket blurb praising his "moral clarity" is unimpressive and says nothing of his actual research methods, which scholars tend to deem amateurish and manipulative. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 12:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, not.

I personnally consider Pappé as a propagandist and not reliable (at least after for his work after the end of the 90's) BUT his work is referred by many scholars (eg, Benny Morris and his adversary Yoav Gelber himself !) and even his last book The Ethnic Cleansing....

I really don't see what we can do against that. Ceedjee (talk) 16:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Efraim Karsh says much the same thing of Benny Morris. It's a bitchy area, as academia often is. Most I/P articles are sourced mainly from hack articles and POV papers. I note editors are generally not worried about this, but tend to concentrate their scruples on the credentials of one or two 'anti-Zionist' historians. Cordesman's recent work on Gaza is, in my view, hackwork, and I was pleased to see Finkelstein demonstrate this. But I still posted it one my page to the gaza page as qualifying as as RS, because of his standing, and his academic career work. As a (former) editor, my personal judgements about these things are not relevant, except in talkpage exchanges like this. I would suggest rather than eliding sources, one read the subject in all versions, and build the article, according to those reliable sources, all of them. The Israeli archives, not completely open, have exhaustive materials. All we have from Arab sources, are driblets of oral information collected decades later, themselves subject to intense dispute, often by Israeli historians. That means methodologically that our main sources are Israeli, an interested party. Historians know this means one must exercise extreme care to avoid the formal bias, violating NPOV, in what cannot but be, by the weight of available sources, a one-sided account. All reputable historians know this. Papp*'s work, whatever its defects, shows a keen awareness of the problem. Morris's method is rather indifferent to it. Nishidani (talk) 12:42, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• A link to a somewhat less than neutral Al Jazeera article in the lead sentence is not acceptable. I have added a source to the much better Morris book, and I think the Al Jazeera article should be removed as a source for the lead sentence. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:44, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Our sources don't have to be neutral; if they did, we wouldn't have any. Ilan Pappe is a reliable source. He has a PhD in the subject from Oxford, he's chair of the history dept at Exeter University, and he's a published author in the field. That's good enough for WP. We don't censor views just because some people — or even a lot of people — don't like them. The essence of NPOV is that we tell the whole story, based on what majority and significant-minority published sources are saying. Similarly, al-Jazeera is a reliable source for the most part -- an exception might be where they say something that truly contradicts what other sources are saying, to the point where a mistake is suspected. But otherwise, they can be used.

The impression some people are giving here is of wanting to censor certain views or certain people or certain facts. Sources are deemed unacceptable, or facts are declared UNDUE or over-emotional. That impression is coming from one side only. Please -- let's just tell the whole story, without fear or favour, insofar as it has been published. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Slim, while your sentiments might be agreeable, they don't comport with the WP:RS policy. Sources that are known as blatantly unneutral can't ever be used; not even to represent any minority viewpoint.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:42, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

There is no RS policy; the policy on sourcing is WP:V. Nowhere does it talk about biased sources, for the obvious reason that all sources are biased, especially in this area. What we look for in deciding whether a source is reliable is a confluence of issues: whether the writer has been published by a decent publishing house; whether other sources in the area refer to that source; if the source is an academic, is the work in a relevant field; if it's a news source, is it regarded as mainstream; and so on. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:54, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Slim, I'm afraid you're under a misconception. According to Wikipedia:Reliable sources, only "authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand" are considered reliable. Best,--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:35, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Heyo SlimVirgin,

I think we've reached a consensus (barring yourself) that the source is not accepted by enough editors here and that it should be avoided. If there are special cases where you think he (i.e. Pappe and/or Finklstien) should be used -- rather than in general use -- then I'd be happy to consider the value of the content in comparison to what others say about the described event.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:50, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Slimvirgin, Ceedjee, and myself certainly take him as technically qualified to be cited as a Reliable Source. I think if there is some doubt on this one should ask for input from the Reliable Source discussion page. Given his qualification as an historian, the answer there will in all probability be, in accordance with wiki RS policy, yes. Nishidani (talk) 18:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, as an academic historian Pappe is a reliable source for Wikipedia. Ian Pitchford (talk) 18:16, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, I counted roughly 3-3. Or make that 5-3 in favour now (on a point of general principle at least - I've been aware of this page since certain editors descended on it and managed to force Tiamut off, but haven't followed the ins and outs of the specific points under dispute). I agree as well that this issue really needs to be knocked on the head once and for all, perhaps at RSN - it crops up with alarming regularity in respect of Pappe, Finkelstein etc. The objections seem to be based on little more on than that certain editors disagree with them or don't like their work, and can dig up criticism of it, often from others who are highly partisan themselves (eg Karsh, Dershowitz etc - who interestingly seem to get a much easier ride on WP as it happens). The bottom line is, surely - are they academics, published in the field, whose work has not been formally repudiated or comprehensively debunked? Whether they have biases or not, or whether they have been involved in spats with other academics,is kind of beside the point, as a matter of both common sense and WP rules in terms of sourcing facts and (attributed) interpretation. As I noted somewhere a long time ago, are we going to say EP Thompson or Eric Hobsbawm are not serious historians, whose work can be referenced and cited here? --Nickhh (talk) 18:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

As this apparently keeps cropping up, I've raised it at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Is_Ilan_Pappe_a_reliable_source.3F. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:50, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Tags

Could people please resist the temptation to slap POV or cite tags on the page? If a cite is missing, the best thing is to look for one; tags are intended for cases where you can't find a source. If something seems POV, we can discuss it on talk, or you can try to adjust it, rather than slap a tag on it. All the tags do is deface the page. It would be good if we could create something here that people on both sides of the debate could agree is accurate, fair, well-sourced, and well-written -- and perhaps even be proud of. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 15:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Slim, as evidenced in the sections above, there are clear POV issues that have yet to be resolved. The continuous removal of the tag, which is a valid representation of some editors estimations, might be the cause for the inability to come to a common ground over these POV concerns. Best, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:00, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Tags are wildly overused in Israel-Palestine articles, usually as a bargaining chip, or as a way to undermine the article. All they do is deface the page for the reader. Genuine POV issues can be discussed here, and hopefully fixed.

Also, this is very much a work under progress. Can't people give it time to develop, before deciding it's POV? It can't be written perfectly overnight. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

wise. Ceedjee (talk) 16:24, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Slim, you seem to imply non-good faith on the parts of the multiple editors that have placed the tag on the article. I was hoping we wouldn't go down that path. Also, the point of POV tags are not to decide that the article is POV-violative after the article is developed. Rather, they should be used during the development of the article in order to develop a WP:NPOV article. Multiple editors have raised concerns about the use of anti-Israel activists as sources for this article. These concerns have yet to be rectified and there should be a tag on the article that manifests these concerns. Best, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Good editing practice is, when you see someone willing to rewrite an article to relative GA or FA status, to hold back until a semblance of completion is formed. This was conceived by Tiamut. SlimVirgin offered to intercede, when the foetus, quickly maturing, suffered a setback closed to abortion, due in good part to environmental circumstances, and she now has undertaken to bring it to term, with the maieutic assistance of a period (sorry for the pun) specialist like Ceedjee, and anyone else with hands-on experience of textual parthenogenesis. Onlookers (I'd include myself here) may well mangle the worrybeads in the corridors, overcome with qualms, anxieties, and wondering about possible genetic defects, etc. I would suggest that meddling too much only increases the pangs of birth, and distracts the delivering doctor. A little bit of good faith is required, patience with, and trust in, the staff, and, certainly, if there are gynacologists or pediatricians with data the obsteticians lack in here, any imput would be welcome. But generally, it should be given tactfully, in such a way as not to disturb concentration in the delivery room. Nishidani (talk) 17:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Good editing practice is to accommodate the valid concerns of multiple editors and not revert multiple editors. As for the rest of your comment, I'm not sure what you're talking about. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:17, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Refugees

Malcolm, do you have a source for this claim? [21] SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I gave a source yesterday, and you agree with the numbers. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:24, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't recall a source saying the majority were refugees. Can you add it to the article, please? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:09, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

You will find that source above. Additionally, [22], says the population of Lydda was 18,250 in 1946. The WP article on Ramle says "The 1945/46 survey gives 'Ramle' a population of 15,160. Of whom 11,900 were Muslim and 3,260 Christian." Since the article gives the figure of "50,000 and 70,000 Palestinians" that were forced out, a little very simple math makes it clear that the view given here [23], that that majority of the population were refugees from elsewhere, is correct. I think it is pretty obvious, and since this is just getting facts straight without giving am image boost to the 'Zionist Entity', I do not understand the resistance. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:39, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

That's your OR. Please find a source that makes it clear that the majority were refugees. Also, can you explain why you think this is important enough to highlight in the lead? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Your question, "explain why you think this is important enough to highlight in the lead?" is impressive for its stupidity. I tried to help to get some facts right, and you insult me by implying that I would not do anything for the article if it did not serve my personal POV. Please review WP:AGF. -- Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

It's odd that you advise me to AGF when it's you calling me stupid. My question is: why do you feel whether the Palestinians were or were not people who originally lived in Lydda is important enough for the lead? It's a perfectly valid question. Leads are meant to contain the most important issues. So why do you feel this is important? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Malcolm: Chill out please. Your comments aren't taken with the seriousness they deserve if it's conflated with a statement that another's comments are "stupid." To that end, I do agree with both Malcolm and VS. If the refugees came from somewhere else it would be important to mention that in the lede because at this time it gives the impression that most of the people that left Lydda were from Lydda. I also agree with VS that we would need reliable sources that said as much. Our mathematical calculations, even if elementary, are still wp:or-violative. Although not germane to anything important, SV, accusing you of acting in bad faith and accusing you of being stupid are not exclusive of each other. Neither of which are true, btw. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:23, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

NB: I said the question was stupid, not the user. On the other hand, she really did accuse me of bad faith editing. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

It's quite important that many or most of the people in the exodus were not residents of the place but refugees from elsewhere. It should definitely be in the lede, but not necessarily in the first paragraph. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 22:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Why is it important? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Because it decides the nature of the exodus, which is the topic of the article. People leaving their homes is a very different event from people leaving a temporary refuge. I consider this self-evident. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 23:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

A reasonable analogy to better explain this would be a comparison between the eviction of a home owner with the eviction of a squatter. This might be a bit of an overstatement to compare refugees with squatters, but the overall issue is that they did not "belong" (pardon the phrasing) in these towns to begin with.

Hope that helps clarify the issue further, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:33, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

The 50,000-70,000 population figure is used by Morris (1987/page 203) which he follows with 'of whom 15,000 or so were refugees from Jaffa and its environs.'Padres Hana (talk) 18:48, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Ben Gurion, Allon and Rabin

In the lead it says that all three gave the order to expel. If Ben Gurion gave the order, Allon and Rabin were following the order, not giving it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:37, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

There is a hierarchy, and according to versions it is not clear who ultimately gave orders. It is clear that Rabin and Allon did order their units to act the way they did. For the record, Ben-Gurion's own biographer, Michael Bar-Zohar stated that BG did in fact give such an order. See (with the accompanying notes), David N. Myers, ‘Simon Rawidowitz on the Arab Question: A Prescient Gaze into the “New History”.’ In Lauren B. Strauss, Michael Brenner (eds.) Mediating modernity: challenges and trends in the Jewish encounter with the modern world : essays in honor of Michael A. Meyer,Wayne State University Press, 2008 pp.143-167 p.164 n.13 Nishidani (talk) 21:45, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I've removed it from the lead because there's considerable disagreement among sources. We can hopefully deal with it in detail in its own section. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The economic consequences/aftermath section perhaps worth mulling

I recall reading the Lydda expulsion plan excluded Arabs employed by the railways. They were given an exemption because their work was required to keep the trains running (2) There was a rather extensive industrial infrastructure, in Arab ownership, that was immediately sequestered and then expropriated as belonging to Israel's enemies, something in the order of several hundred workshops. In fact one argument is that the loss by Palestinians of their industrial base in cities like this set back their own national ambitions for decades. This could be handled in a section on consequences. You can get the details in John B. Quigley Palestine and Israel: a challenge to justice, 2nd.ed. Duke University Press, 1990

This is the data that Quigley supplies.

The exodus of the Arab urban population in 1948 destroyed their commercial-industrial base. The government took over fully equipped plants. In Ramleh it distributed 600 shops to Jewish immigrants. In Lydda, it seized 1,800 truckloads of property, including a button factory, a carbonated drinks plant, a sausage factory, an ice plant, a textile plant, a macaroni factory, 7,000 retail shops, 500 workshops, and 1,000 warehouses. It confiscated cabinetmaking shops, locksmith works, turneries, ironworks, and tinworks, which it then leased or sold to Jews’ The bank accounts of expelled Arabs were seized as ‘enemy property’ a small percentage of these funds was returned in the late 1950s and 60s.p.111 John B. Quigley Palestine and Israel: a challenge to justice, 2nd.ed. Duke University Press, 1990

As Jalapenos remarks above, it's important to stress that these folks, with this property base, were mostly just aliens to the area.Nishidani (talk) 09:44, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

7000 retail shops in a city of 20,000 sounds pretty unlikely, don't you think? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I myself thought it was a misprint. Out of scruple I didn't edit it into the text with the other details, awaiting for other editors to check around and examine the evidence on this particular point. That a section must be written, carefully checking such material, as part of a Keynsian 'economic consequences of the war' is obvious, however.Nishidani (talk) 11:40, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Title 3

I've moved this to "Exodus from Lydda and Ramla," as all the sources deal with both towns at once. Because of that, I've moved the first mention of "Lydda death march" lower in the lead, because it's no longer an "also known as."

I know this article was started as "Lydda death march," with the intention of it being a stand-alone piece about the march, but so far as I can see, there isn't enough material to sustain an article about the march itself. If I'm wrong about that, and more sources are found, then we can fork it to its own article. I also think it's difficult to discuss the march and the expulsions without discussing what happened just before it (the invasion, the allegations of a massacre), so it seems to me that they need to be on the same page.

It's also difficult to discuss what happened in Ramla separately. To try to do that feels as though we're imposing a precision on the past (Ramla refugees went to X; Lyddans to Y; Ramlans drove; Lyddans walked) that almost certainly wasn't there to the extent that we seem to imply.

We can move it to "Expulsions from Lydda and Ramla" if people prefer that.

I hope it's okay that I've done this. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:54, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I will register my strong disagreement, especially in moving the 'Lydda Death March' down the page. I first heard of that phrase some 4 decades ago. In the interim, I have never heard people talking of the 'Lydda and Ramla exodus' which is historically descriptive, since the two events occurred at the same time, but which is nonetheless a synthesis, where many texts refer primarily to the bigger Lydda exodus. I think changing a title like this, unilaterally, preemptively (you'll have the numbers for it however if it comes to a vote) not good practice, and, as in the Gaza war article, these things are best left to last, when the page is done, the sources ransacked, and one can review this with comprehensively informed hindsight.I won't be round for that however, so I will break my rule and register a premature vote of dissent, the first objection I have come up with so far to the flow of your work here.Nishidani (talk) 22:03, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I could move it back until there's an agreement if you like. I don't agree that we should base this only on numbers though. We need to find a solution that is fair.

Can you suggest an alternative? I'm just trying to make the title fit the body of the text. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I moved it back because there was an objection. We should discuss here how best to deal with the two cities, and what the parameters of the article are. As things stand, the title looks a little incongruous, and if we take it to FA, I know this is one of the things that will jump out at them. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Rather early for FA. Festina lente. I'm not to happy about numbers of votes determining things, as opposed to quality of sources guiding judgement, either. The move just strikes me as premature. My own purpose here, as a non-editor, is simply to allow composition a freer flow, and stem possibly useless divagations on minutiae not conducive to textual recension. I've no suggestions for alternatives, (other than my dislike for 'exodus') and, if I do eventually have one, probably won't be around here to argue for it :)Nishidani (talk) 22:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Heyo SlimVirgin,

I actually think that this type of move is a good one. All due respect no Nishidani's objection, it doesn't address all the good points you've raised. Certainly, a redirect could exist for the common names but there's nothing that sustains one without the other.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

"Fled during the fighting"

Jalapenos, can you say what you mean, please? You make it sound as though they just ran away, but in fact they were ordered to leave, as all the sources make clear. Also, please don't add contentious material without a source. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing contentious here, and I don't make it sound like they "just" ran away. In Ramla, many ran away (before the Israelis took the city), and many were expelled. Since the article is now about Lydda and Ramla, I changed "were expelled" to "fled or were expelled". Check Gelber for instance. In truth, the change should have been made even while the article was only about Lydda, since according to Gelber and Karsh many residents of Lydda also fled, and according to Morris the dominant phenomenon in Lydda seems to have been intimidation to flee, which is kind of in the middle between expulsion and flight. I am not disputing that expulsion took place; I stated above that no recent historian denies it. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 22:54, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Maurice Ostroff

Tundrabuggy, I'm confused about this source. He is a blogger who was a volunteer in 1948, is that right? How could he know who gave the expulsion order? It seems he cites the New York Times. Why don't we just use the NYT article instead of mentioning Ostroff? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

His article is here. This is not an RS, and we don't need it anyway, given that we can go directly to the NYT, which he relies on. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:44, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, fine about citing the NY Times, but Ostroff wrote his piece originally for the Jerusalem Post, a reliable source. If you read the article carefully, you will see that he was not merely doing opinion, but journalism. I was hoping to introduce the source (Ostroff), and add the testimony from his named interviewee, who was an eyewitness soldier there, to the other soldier given as "Gideon" (no last name) who is so prominently placed giving his testimony in this article. "Gideon" was introduced by Morris, referencing someone else's work in a footnote. I hope this helps. Thank you. Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Here is the link to the original JP article Remembering 1948 the way it was. Perhaps it would have been better to have called him a journalist, rather than a writer. Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:32, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Is Ostroff a journalist? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:16, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't seem so. If you read his website, he seems to send letters to universities, e.g. [24] and memoranda to the British government. [25] Blogger would seem to be the best description.

I agree it would be good if we could introduce more eyewitness testimony, but I don't think we can do it if the eyewitness has been mentioned only by Ostroff. Has anyone else mentioned him, do you know? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:39, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

[ec]:::::I guess that depends on how you describe "journalist." He has done a number of interviews for magazines on other issues (such as this one [26]) as well as commentary and opinion. He seems to be multi-faceted. In the original JP article he is acting as a journalist when he provides a quote from an eyewitness whom he interviewed. He is perhaps also expressing his personal opinion, based on his participation, knowledge, and personal experience. He is published in a RS. With respect to the fact that he is a blogger, no, he writes for numerous other academic journals and respected publications. I will find them for you. Tundrabuggy (talk) 05:51, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

He is published in an RS as an opinion piece only, almost an extended letter to the editor, to judge by the tone. The link you gave [27] is just a question from a reader (him) about credit limits.

I'm finding it a little incongruous that someone is arguing we use a Zionist blogger as a source, while others argue against an anti-Zionist professor of history with a PhD from Oxford and eight books on the Middle East to his name. :-) SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 06:03, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Unlike Pappe, the Jerusalem Post has never faced mainstream accusations of lying. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:11, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

[ec] He is elderly now, and semi-retired, but I suppose he could be referred to as the old fashioned Man of letters. Some more of his writings include: [28] [29] presented evidence to the House of Commons, UK more available. As for Pappe, he acknowledges he could care less about the facts -- he's a partisan. And as for another source for Mike Isaacson's quote-- maybe when we get another one for someone named "Gideon"... Tundrabuggy (talk) 06:33, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Here's a little something from Haaretz: on the environment.Tundrabuggy (talk) 06:36, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Newly inserted Background section

There's many issues with the newly inserted background section and on several of the points I raised there was agreement. As such, I'm reintroducing the previous version as a "core" that could be expanded without harming the neutrality of the article as the new version did. Let's discuss which parts of the new text adds to the encyclopedicity of the "core" rather than putting in all the problems in one go. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 07:48, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

The text (static link):

After [[World War I]], until the outbreak of the [[1948 Arab-Israeli war]], Lydda and Ramla were towns in the District of Ramla in [[Palestine]], which was under [[British Mandate of Palestine|British rule]], situated between Tel-Aviv and [[Jerusalem]]. === 1948 war === [[File:Porat Yosef attack.jpg|left|thumb|200px|The [[Arab Legion]] attacking the Jewish quarter of Jerusalem, May 1948.]] The Arab community of Palestine rejected the 1947 [[United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine|United Nations partition plan]], which proposed dividing the Mandate area into one Arab state, and one Jewish, in order to give the Jewish people a [[Jewish state|homeland]], something they had long campaigned for. In the aftermath of the proposals, Arab discontent with the situation grew. Reprisals and counter-reprisals took dozens of lives on both sides. Arab militias set up a [[Siege of Jerusalem (1948)|blockade of the road to Jerusalem]] from February to March 1948 and during May, attacking vehicles carrying supplies to the city's 100,000 Jewish residents. The attacks included an assault on a [[Hadassah medical convoy massacre|medical convoy]], which killed 79 Jews, mostly doctors and nurses, and one British soldier. [[File:Israel 20 mai 1948.GIF|thumb|left|160px|Area controlled by Israel in 1948 before [[Operation Danny]].]] The volatile situation caused the U.S. to retract their support for the partition plan. On May 14, 1948, with the termination of the British Mandate, [[David Ben-Gurion]] declared the [[Declaration of Independence (Israel)|independence of the state of Israel]]. Armies from [[Egypt]], [[Iraq]], [[Lebanon]], and [[Syria]] launched attacks the next day. On July 8, 1948, Israel launched [[Operation Dekel]] in Southern Galilee, [[Operation Kedem]] in the Jerusalem sector, and [[Operation Danny]] in the Lydda and Ramla area. ===Lydda and Ramla: Operation Danny=== [[Operation Danny]] (''Mivtzah Dani''), named after Dani Mass, a Palmach commander killed in January 1948, was an Israeli operation carried out over a ten-day period — which has come to be known as the Ten Days — between July 8, 1948, the end of the first truce in the Arab-Israeli war, and July 18, the start of the second truce.<ref>Pappé (2006), p. 156.</ref> The objective was to relieve the Jewish population and forces in Jerusalem during the Arab blockade of the city, and to capture Arab territory — including Lydda and Ramla, which had been assigned to the Arab state proposed by the 1947 partition plan<ref name=Sadip91>Sa'di and Abu-Lughod, 2007, pp. 91-92.</ref><ref name=Monterescup16>Monterescu and Rabinowitz, 2007, pp. 16-17.</ref> — from which attacks were being launched on Tel Aviv. The road between Lydda and Ramla was at the time under the control of Arab militia forces supported by [[Arab Legion]] platoons and an additional military benefit to the Israelis was of clogging the roads along which the Legion might have advanced.<ref name=Gilbertp218>Gilbert, 2008, pp. 218-219.</ref>.

Discussion

Translation. 'We, one party, were beaten up on all over the place before this, and this incident at Lydda, if seen in the context of these huge hostilities and persecutions, is just a minor disturbing, but understandable, footnote, somewhat justified by the terrible things that befell us beforehand, and which to some extent, explain why we had to adopt harsh measures.'

I.e. it is the old Zionist standard narrative, stacked line by line into the background, passed off as NPOV, while its function is simply to undercut whatever negative information might emerge in the actual account of events in Lydda and Ramle. I think this signals, if we have to fight line by line on this, that the article's aspiration for relatively rapid FA status, will be effectively stopped dead in its tracks, despite Tiamut and SlimVirgin's efforts. Pity.Nishidani (talk) 09:30, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd be happy to help advance this article to FA status. A serious part of that is getting rid of (pardon the language) cruddy sources and irrelevancies and putting the language into an encyclopedic tone and structure. Not sure on why I'm explaining this to you though as you're obviously capable of constructing good language when necessary. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Numbers in the lead

Prior to recent changes, the lead stated, in the first para that between 50,000 to 70,000 either fled or were expelled - this is the NPOV presentation of the facts . Recent edits moved this to a later part of the lead, and now other editors are trying to insert a more POV presentation - stating only the higher end of the range, and claiming all were expelled - into the first para, while keeping the original representation, which contradicts their new, in the lead. I have no position on where the original formulation should go - first para or later in the lead - but we can;t have the POV one in there, certainly not when in creates a contradiction. NoCal100 (talk) 13:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The earlier version 50-70,000 who were expelled or fled (most fled because they were effectively expelled however) is undoubtedly superior, and should be in the first para., since it is not controversal, and scale of the movement (10% of the total population of Palestinians displaced throughout the entire war) from these two centres alone, too significant to be swept aside.Nishidani (talk) 14:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

merge to Operation Danny?

I know I brought this up before, but as this article grows larger and more comprehensive, the more it looks like it should be the main article for Operation Danny, rather than an article to one incident in that operation.
It already talks about Ramle as well as Lod, about how many people were killed when the town was taken, not only during the expulsion/exodus, etc. It covers about 80% of what a good article about Operation Danny would.
I understand that "Lydda death march" is sexier, but still. —Preceding unsigned comment added by No More Mr Nice Guy (talk • contribs) 13:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree. I'll add a merge tag. NoCal100 (talk) 13:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

The "Lydda Death March" the death toll was around 1/2 of 1% and 17 kilometres. People died of dehydration, thirst, hunger and even disease! according to Morris. (Not to make light of it, I have hiked 10 miles in the desert in the heat without sufficient water and no food; and while no picnic, it was hardly a "death march") -- The Bataan Death March, for example, was 90 kilometres --the death toll was between 25 and 28% and included cutting the throats of stragglers. There is about one presumably reputable historian (the Oxford Companion reference) who refers to it that way. Tundrabuggy (talk) 14:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Moreover, none of the other sources used in this article use that term, yet it's in bold in the first line of the lead. Go figure. Now that I think of it, maybe there's a WP:UNDUE issue here. But this belongs in another section.No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:36, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Until I see further sources, I'd support that it belongs in another section. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:42, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I meant that the whole "death march" issue belongs in another section of the talk page. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:52, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I followed that :) Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:01, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

The article doesn't talk about the battle but about the exodus of the cities.
Given they are good faith, all the proposal will immediately suggest to merge Hadassah medical convoy massacre into the article 1947-1948 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine or into Siege of Jerusalem (1948).
There is no reason to merge this article. This is another topic. Ceedjee (talk) 16:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Totally unacceptable

The Jerusalem Grand Mufti, Mohammad Amin al-Husayni arranged a Palestinian blockade on the 100,000 Jewish residents of Jerusalem and hundreds of the Jewish Haganah members who tried to bring supplies to the city were killed. The Jewish population was under strict orders to hold their dominions at all costs, but the situation of insecurity across the country affected the Arab population more visibly where up to 100,000 Palestinians, chiefly those from the upper classes, left the country to seek refuge abroad or in Samaria.

Two blockades, throughout the country, and around Jerusalem, existed. And this version completely excludes the Arab side of things. I.e.

‘An intensification of the Yishuv’s economic warfare against the Palestinians accompanied the spread of fighting. On 12 April, the “Centre for Economic Warfare” commenced its regular activity. Its terms of reference including managing relations with Arabs in Jewish-controlled territories, dealing with treatment of absentees’ property and waging war by economic means. Several members held that the time had come to abandon scruples and embark upon a total struggle against the Palestinians, employing all means at the Yishuv’s disposal. Parallel to the Jews’ difficulties, particularly in maintaining supply lines to Jerusalem and isolated settlements, the immense effects of the campaign upon the Palestinians soon became apparent. Land communications between Jaffa and Gaza ceased completely. A service of yachts and motorboats between the two ports was only a partial substitute. By the second half of April, Jaffa was economically paralysed. Banks and post offices closed, and the city suffered from a shortage of fuel and medicines. Supplies of flour that had been brought from Haifa via Nablus and Lydda were sufficient for one month only. In other regions, conditions were even more arduous...Economic warfare had an especially significant role in Jerusalem Destined by the terms of the partition plan to be a part of the international enclave and excluded from the Jewish state, the city’s Jewish population felt itself besieged. The Yishuv invested an enormous military, economic and organizational effort in attempts to break the siege. The goal was to stockpile sufficient supplies in the city for any contingency, including continuous isolation., Similarly, the city’s Arab residents were also under a partial siege as long as Gush Etzion and Neve Ya’acov controlled the southern and northern approaches to the town respectively. Suffering from a shortage of fuel and food, the Arabs of Jerusalem had to employ long detours to bring in provisions.' Yoav Gelber, Palestine, 1948 Pp.86-87

We are obliged to give both sides of the story. On this, Gelber is balanced, our section gives just the traditional narrative of Jerusalem's Jews besieged, which they were, while ignoring siege conditions on Jerusalem's Arabs, and on other Arab cities in Palestine. The usual figure of the Mufti here, whose authority came only from the Egyptians on the souterhn flank, is unnecessary. Events in Jerusalem were predominantly dictated by Glubb Pasha's command.Nishidani (talk) 14:39, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I can't understand, I think this paragraph is irrelevant here! Why is it mentioned, what does it have to do with the Lydda Death March? --Yamanam (talk) 15:13, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

We're not obliged to give 'both sides of the story' when the 'other side' is irrelvant. Operation Danny, which resulted in this exodus , was designed to lift the siege on Jerusalem's Jewish population, so that siege is relevant to the background. The fact that Arabs elsewhere were also besieged is completely irrelevant to this article. NoCal100 (talk) 15:14, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Wrong, and totally. Operation Dani had three distinct aims. One was to relieve pressure on 'semi-besieged Jerusalem' (2) secure the length of the Tel-Aviv-Jerusalem road and (3)neutralize the perceived threat to Tel Aviv from the Arab Legion, whose forward units, in Lydda and Ramle, were less than 20 kilomtres away'. Benny Morris 2004:423-4

The large city of Tel Aviv, in short, was under a perceived threat from the presence of 120-150 soldiers, a 'defensively oriented company'.

Compare Gelber: '‘Another mistaken assumption concerned the Legion’s intentions. The IDF perceived the Legion’s position at Latrun and its outposts in Lydda and Ramle as 'tightly clenched fists' aiming at Tel Aviv and at the newly opened access to Jerusalem (the 'Burma Road'). Continuing to misread the Legion’s war objectives, the IDF General Staff did not change this assessment despite additional and more trustworthy intelligence that reached HQ just prior to launching the operation – information that clearly testified that the Legion was on a defensive footing. Yoav Gelber, Palestine, 1948, p.158

The Lydda-Ramle operation had nothing to do with Jerusalem, and, as in more detailed accounts, much to do with getting territory, cleansing it, and, at least with Lydda, taking the city as a bargaining chip in future negotiations with King Abdallah of Transjordan.

Both Morris and Gelber use the word 'perceived threat', because it is known, and was known before this part of Operation Dani was launched, that no such threat existed. But it's clear there's no purpose in editing here anymore. Sorry Tiamut, and good luck to SlimVirgin. Nishidani (talk) 16:16, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

No doubt the operation had numerous goals, including the defense of Tel Aviv from a perceived threat. But as Morris clearly tells us "[Operation Danny] was geared to clearing all the remaining Arab-held sections of the Tel-Aviv-Jerusalem road", and he quotes the battle order for the operation which states "To attack in order to destroy the enemy forces in the area of the bases of Lydda-Ramla-Latrun-Ramallah, to capture these bases and by doing so, to free the city of Jerusalem and the road to it from enemy pressure". If you don't wish to edit here any more, don't. But if you stay, please edit in a collaborative way, tone down your aggressive style, and avoid baseless declaration such as "Wrong, and totally.". NoCal100 (talk) 16:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

If I recall the users involved in WP:Requests for arbitration/West Bank - Judea and Samaria/Proposed decision correctly, Nishidani is likely to be topic banned, and may have no choice about withdrawing. Personally, I regret that any user will be topic banned; and I think the arbcom decision will do nothing to make I/P editing better, but will probably make the whole situation even worse. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:15, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Ilan Pappe

I opened a discussion as to whether Pappe is a reliable source yesterday at the RS noticeboard. Uninvolved editors who commented, except one, agreed that he is an RS, so long as his views are included along with those of other reliable sources. Some said that, because he takes a contentious position, we should use in-text attribution when citing him, something we've been doing already with most of the sources for anything not widely agreed.

• Editors uninvolved in this article who said Pappe's work is an RS within the meaning of the policy: MastCell, Cs32en, John Z, Blueboar, Peregrine Fisher, Jezhotwells, G-Dett, Cla68, Vesal, Dlabtot, Pedrito (11)

• Uninvolved editors who said not RS: Goodmorningworld (1)

• Involved editors who said RS: SlimVirgin, Ceedjee(**), Nishidani, Ian Pitchford(*), Nickhh (5)

• Involved editors who said not RS: Jaakobou, Brewcrewer, No More Mr Nice Guy, Jalapenos do exist (4).

(*) WP:RS for wikipedia but would not use him when possible; (**) WP:RS for wikipedia but not in reality.

For future reference, this is the part of the policy regarding what counts as a reliable source -- information about when to use primary, rather than secondary, sources is in WP:NOR:

In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. Electronic media may also be used. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable the source is.

Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science. Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if they are respected mainstream publications. The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context. Where there is disagreement between sources, their views should be clearly attributed in the text.

Regarding Pappe in particular, some of his work has been published by Cambridge University Press, and all or most of it is used as part of the curriculum in universities, in addition to which he teaches at one himself. I hope the response on the RS noticeboard has helped to settle the issue. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:55, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Breakdown of the Ilan Pappe discussion notes:

• Complete support for using as a neutral reliable source:
  • SlimVirgin, Peregrine Fisher, (2)

• Support for using as a notable source with exceptions*:
  • MastCell, Goodmorningworld, Cs32en, John Z, Nishidani, Jezhotwells, Cla68, Jaakobou, Rd232, Blueboar, Vesal (11)
  • * Stated exceptions:
    1) Where the viewpoint was published in reliable sources,
    2) not as general/principal source on history,
    2) conservative descriptive on political activism/advocacy/view (relevant context),
    4) both viewpoints should be presented,
    5) If the claim is not notable enough - omit it.

• Rejecting the usage of the source:
  • brewcrewer, No More Mr Nice Guy, Jalapenos do exist, Jaakobou, Tundrabuggy (5)

• Unclear - feel free to move yourself to one of the above categories:
  • Nickhh, Dlabtot, G-Dett (3)

NOTES:

• One could be listed on more than one option (but not twice on the same option).
• If you feel I've misjudged your perspective or neglected to mention it, feel free to move/add your name to where your perspective on the RSN issue lies.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC) fix 09:42, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

He is obviously not a neutral reliable source, but reliability is simply a question of the reputation of the publisher. His books The Modern History Palestine and The Modern Middle East should be seen as highly reliable, while The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine much less so. This has nothing to do with the content of the books, the reviews they receive, and the refutations on this talk page; it has only to do with the fact that getting something published by Cambridge University Press or Routledge is much harder than having it published by Oneworld Publications. If we are talking about essentially self-published commentaries, then these qualify under the provisions of WP:SPS, but with all caveats described in the policy. SlimVirgin should have known better than to ask whether a person is a reliable source, but she is absolutely right in insisting that you cannot reject usage of an academic with this kind of publication record just because he isn't neutral. Now, when you argue that Karsh's Fabricating Israeli history is more reliable than The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine I can sympathize, but attacking Pappe due to his self-admitted bias, his having been wrong before, his wicked views on boycotting Israeli academics, etc.; these are arguments that should be wiped off the talk pages of Wikipedia. Vesal (talk) 23:26, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey Vesal,

I think you're confusing the things I was saying with other people. Regardless (sticking to relevant matters), we have everyone's perspective listed on the chart above so there's no need to make any new or old arguments.

p.s. it would seem that you're now leaning towards the second group as you're suggesting focus on the publishing source (also "He is obviously not a neutral reliable source"). Am I getting you correctly? (feel free to move your name if you disagree with my moving your name)

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Fled or expelled

I'd like to remove "fled or were expelled" from the lead, because the sources make it clear that these were expulsions. Yitzhak Rabin himself confirmed this in 1979 in his memoirs, this part of which was published in the New York Times on October 23, 1979:

Allon and I held a consultation. I agreed that it was essential to drive the inhabitants out. We took them on foot toward the Bet Horon Road, assuming that the legion would be obliged to look after them, thereby shouldering logistic difficulties which would burden its fighting capacity, making things easier for us.

"Driving out" is a terms with a harsh ring. Psychologically, this was one of the most difficult actions we undertook. The population of Lod did not leave willingly. There was no way of avoiding the use of force and warning shots in order to make the inhabitants march the 10 to 15 miles to the point where they met up with the legion.

Given such a clear statement, what reason do we have for saying "fled or were expelled"? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The reason to say "fled or were expelled" is that the 50,000-70,000 figure includes those who fled. There is no doubt that there were expulsions, but there is equally no doubt that many residents fled before the expulsions, or even before the towns fell. For example, Morris , in The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, p.204, quotes Dani HQ communications with the GHQ on July 9 or 10 saying there's "a general and considerable [civilian] flight from Ramle". Morris further notes that "the flight gained momentum during the night of 11-12". NoCal100 (talk) 02:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, fair point. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 04:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The problem with "fled or were expelled" is that we don't know if it means "both" or if it means "one or the other"... Anyway the remaining of the article is clear enough and I don't see better than such concise wordings. Ceedjee (talk) 10:11, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

What edition are you using, NoCal? In the 2004 revised edition, which should be the standard p.204 says no such thing. The relevant comments by Morris on this are 2004:424ff. Many residents may have fled before the official expulsions in those two cities, (flight from Ramle often meant nothing more than refuge in Lydda. There are several things to take into account here. Explicit expulsion policy, and flight from necessity under circumstances of war. Often these are confused. Ramle residents took flight from the effects of a blockade and general war conditions to places like Lydda before the expulsion order. One must not therefore confuse 'flight' from Ramle with flight from Ramle and Lydda in the general expulsion that took place on the 12th of July, which included large numbers of refugees from that total area. Those who moved out towards the Jordanian Legion's lines, under an expulsion order after that date cannot be said to flee, since they were under a clear expulsion order, involving most Arabs in the area. The only ones exempted were the 400 odd railway workers in the Rekivot quarter, needed for maintenance of trains.

Note particularly this passage from Morris:

‘It is worth noting that IDF radio traffic began to refer to the inhabitants of Ramle and Lydda as ‘refugees’ (plitim) even before they had left the towns; the issue of the expulsion orders had sufficed to change their status from inhabitants to refugees.’ Morris, The Birth . . 2004: p.455 n.97

Flight from Ramle in Morris's narrative occurred as successive elements of demoralization took effect. The Haganah attacked on 10 Dec 1947, and two attacks took place by the Irgun (the bomb in Ramle's market place 18 February) and the 'massacre'(sic, Morris) apparently by the Irgun of ten Arab workers later in the same month just on the outskirts of Ramle. Both Ramle and Lydda were bombed by the IDF airforce on May 30, further depressing morale. Mass flight began from Ramle in May because the water and electricity was cut off (and little fuel getting in), something intelligible as part of the same economic blockade used by both parties on each other's populations in Jerusalem. All events of mass movement preceding the expulsion order are rightly designated as 'flight' (the nuance is that one just spontaneously fled troubles). But the numbers 50-70,000, if referring to the mass movement that occurred from the 12th of July, refer to expelled people, since that movement proceeded after an explicit order of expulsion was given in the field.Nishidani (talk) 11:22, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I was quoting from the original version, but the exact same sentence (Dani HQ communications with the GHQ on July 9 or 10 saying there's "a general and considerable [civilian] flight from Ramle".) appears in Revisited, on p. 425. Morris' note that "the flight gained momentum during the night of 11-12" appears on page 426. The numbers 50-70,000 include these people who fled prior to the towns' capture. NoCal100 (talk) 14:00, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Could you give me a source for the statement:'The numbers 50-70,000 include these people who fled prior to the towns' capture'?

I think you are ignoring the distinction I made. There are many references to 'flight' in Morris' narrative. But many of them, if defined, refer to flight to Lydda. My point is that one must be quite precise about the circumstances of the 'mass exodus' from 12th. of July.

'While some IDF officers began advising people in Lydda to leave the town already during the morning of 12 July, before the outbreak of the shooting, the mass exodus from both towns, which began a few hours later, must be seen against the backdrop of the massacre.'(Morris 2004:428)

Within minutes of the shooting dying down, and the massacre ending in the Mosque (there were two massacres in Lydda, by Dayan's 89th Battalion (perhaps as many as 200 dead) the day before, and this one by the Yiftah (dozens to 250 dead), Operation Dani HQ gave the expulsion order (429).

So clarity please. If we are talking of movements of Arabs after that order was delivered, it was expulsion. If there is evidence of independent drifts of people from either or both Ramle and Lydda to Jordanian lines before that date, then this is 'flight'.Nishidani (talk) 14:41, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Morris refers to flight on beginning July 9 or 10, and intensifying on the night of 11-12, so clearly before the order mentioned above, which is from the morning of the 12th. NoCal100 (talk) 23:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Which again ignores the distinctions I draw your attention to, flights from places like Jaffa, and Ramle to Lydda (b) flight/expulsion of the entire populations of both towns from 1.30 pm on the 12th.Nishidani (talk) 10:33, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Flights from Jaffa are irrelevant to this article. If you have a source that says the flight from Ramle was to Lydda- let's see it. There's no dispute that after 1.30 pm on the 12th, people were expelled - that's the "expelled" part in "fled or were expelled". NoCal100 (talk) 14:25, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Battle

I'm not sure this edit is appropriate. [30] Calling it a "battle" implies a degree of equal fighting on both sides, which wasn't the case here. This was a well-equipped army against some snipers, according to all accounts. The bulk of the killing occurred when the Israeli army opened fire indiscriminately, killing men, women, and children. None of the sources disagree with that, so far as I know. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:48, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The source I added says there was a battle, and the source is WP:RS. -- Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:10, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

But that is just one source, and an extreme one. If I were to remove "battle," and insert instead "ethnic cleansing," sourced to Pappe, you would rightly object.

That is why I used the word "invasion," because no source disagrees that it was an invasion. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Karsh is an 'extreme source'? He's head of ME studies ad King's College, and his book is published by an academic publisher, Routledge, unlike Pappe's. Is it your position that anything sourced to a single source can be removed from this article? this will have wide-ranging implications for this article, and to the body of I/P articles as a whole. NoCal100 (talk) 23:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Malcolm, on a point of method, one can find sources, even good sources, for things that are mistaken or poorly put. In composition based on sources, one acquires a feel for discretionary judgement, in which if a dozen books have a variety of interpretations, you thresh out the best, most up to date, most comprehensive, source from the others. In citing Sir Martin Gilbert, while he is an omnivorously comprehensive historian of a very strong order, he often gets details wrong (the 1929 Hebron massacre figures he gives are 59, whereas the real figure was 64-5, and most sources say 67. Read his History of the Twentieth Century, vol.2 on 1948, and you get a purple patch of poorman's Zionism covering the whole period of civil war, unreliable). The same with Karsh, and both Ceedjee and Ynhockey will recall me correcting them recently when Karsh was cited for giving pogroms against Jews in Aden (82 dead) and Tripolitana (130-140) in the context of the 1948 war, as though these events were contemporary with the occasional Israeli massacre. In fact, Karsh was wrong, since the Aden incident was in december 1947, and the Tripolitana pogrom occurred in November 1945. The lesson is, one does best to source narrative incidents, dates, and language to the most current, frontline scholarly books dealing specifically with a period, or an event. In this case, Gelber and Morris (though they have their POVs) should give us the lead. One has recourse to other texts for information they overlook, neglect or haven't caught. But, as a general principle, one really should not challenge area specialists by citing generalists, or historians who work in other periods or areas. Benny Morris's book 'Righteous Victims' is not a good source for the 1920s for example, on similar grounds. When in doubt, follow the best source(s). If we apply this one rule of method, most conflicts can be avoided.Nishidani (talk) 22:28, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

NoCal, when you're using a source that says something other sources do not say, and which they to some extent contradict — particularly when that source is on the extreme of one side, as Karsh and Pappe are — you use in-text attribution, along the lines of "what X calls a 'battle,' but which other sources refer to as ..." That's not really appropriate for the lead, because it's long-winded, so instead we look for a purely factual description that all sources would agree with. "Invasion" seems to fit that requirement. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Let's quickly dispense with this line of argumentation that claims Karsh 'says something other sources do not say'. Morris, Revisted, p. 427: "The Yiftah Brigade's 3rd battalion fought its way into town". p. 426: "the battalion's death-dispensing dash combined elements of a battle and a massacre". Kadish & sela, in The Middle East Journal[31]: "the expulsion was not pre-meditated but a consequence of a complex and ill-conducted battle" as well as "a meticulous reconstruction of the battle on July 11 and events of July 12 offers a better, albeit more complex, explanation of the Arab losses." NoCal100 (talk) 00:00, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

With respect, you're missing the point. You can produce sources who call it a "battle." I can produce sources who call it "ethnic cleansing." You can produce others who call it a "fight." I can produce others who call it a "massacre."

In a situation like that, where you're writing a lead and don't have space for "A says X, but B says Y," you find a word that no source would disagree with. "Invasion" is one such word. If you don't like it, by all means find another. But "battle" — without context or qualification — is POV, just as "massacre" would be. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 04:04, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

That battle was called "ethnic cleaning" by no one. The description, as a battle, is supported by a reliable source. If you have reliable sources to support the inclusion of accusations of "ethnic cleansing", there is every reason to include that, and I have no doubt that you will. It is silly to argue as though one has anything to do with the other, or to imply you will retaliate later by including content that you have every reason to include if the sources support it. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:26, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest : "conquest of Lydda" or the "fall of Lydda"

Ceedjee (talk) 09:18, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

NB: Interesting article NoCal. We have to add this somewhere in the article. Does someone have access to the full article ?

Good idea, Ceedjee. I'm fine with either of them. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 15:01, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

It seems there was fighting, and a reliable source called it a battle. I have come across other sources that also called it a battle, and if you think multiple sources are necessary, I could go back and look for them.

I would not be happy with the use of the term "ethnic cleansing", because it was a term that had no meaning at that time; but even so, I would not object to including that in the article as the term used by Pappe. (Since the partition of India had occurred just before the partition of Israel/Palestine, it certainly was very clear to those who voted for the partition that population transfers would occur.) Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:04, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I have found that Morris says on p. 176 of The Road to Jerusalem that Lydda was defended by several Legion platoons and some other volunteers, in addition to several hundred local militiamen. Morris also says that Ramle, unlike Lydda, surrendered without a fight.

So there was a battle, in the sense of "a hostile meeting of opposing military forces in the course of a war" [32], even if it did go badly for the defenders of Lydda. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

There must be a misunderstanding somewhere.

Of course there was a battle and fights. operation Dani was a military operation. From memory there was 150 soldiers from the Arab Legion.

But if some killings (of fighters and civilians) occured during the battle, there was a massacre(s) and expulsion after.

So, "Around 250 Palestinians and up to four Israeli soldiers were killed during the battle to take Lydda." is not correct at all. If Karsh writes this, that confirms that he is not perfectly reliable.

Yoav Gelber, writes [about Deir Yassin]. "Certainly it was not the bloodiest massacre of the war. The killings of 240 Jews in Gush Etzion after their surrender, and 250 Arabs during the occupation of Lydda and its aftermath were more extensive by far".

That fits better fact even if 250 people seems to be the total number of victims and not of massacred people.

Ceedjee (talk) 14:24, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Here is another source [33], which says of the city defenders: "Transjordan army, some Arab Liberation Army, and local Palestinian militias. The people of al-Lydd and al-Ramla should be very proud of their city defenders because in April and May 1948, they launched several counter attacks on the Zionist forces, which resulted in the liberation of several surrounding villages between al-Lydd and Jaffa, plus the liberation of al-Lydd train station & its airport." Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:18, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

LOL !!! Palestine Remembered is NOT a WP:RS source :-)))

Anyway... I think you missed the point. There was a battle but that doesn't mean these people were killed during the battle or if they were soliders or civilians.

Ceedjee (talk) 14:27, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

(a) the Kiryati Brigade report of late May said there was a 'substantial Arab forced, with armour and apparently artillery, in the Ramle-Lydda area'.

(b) the Arab Legion in fact had 'one defensively-oriented company (120-150 soldiers= in Lydda and Ramle (a second company was to the north at Beit Nabala)

(c) Morris does speak of a battle joined on the 9th of July p.424, though he fails to give details of what battle took place, and proceeds with his narrative to deny there was a battle.

(d) Four IDF brigades in Operation Dani moved on the night of 9th July

(e) Bombing attacks started on the morning of 10th, followed by more bombing and shelling.

(f) This lead to a readiness to surrender by the populations.

(g) In response, more bombing and shelling with incendiaries this time, was asked for.

(h) Late in the afternoon of the 11th, two companies from Moshe Dayan's 89th Battalion, in armoured cars, jeeps, scout cars and half-tracks, drove through Lydda from east to west spraying machine gun fire at anything that moved, then turned south shooting uip militia outposts on the Lydda-Ramle road. 6 Israelis died, 21 wounded. dozens perhaps as many as 200 Arabs were killed. This was the 'death-dispensing dash..containing elements of a battle and a massacre. It lasted an hour.

(i) 11-12th.Night. The Arab Legion company in Ramle withdrew.

(j) 11th. Yiftah Brigades 3rd battalion 'fought its way' into the centre of Lydda'. The only holdout was a small force of Legionnaires and irregulars in a police force on the southern edge of the town.

(j) 12th.morning Ramle notables sign document of surrender.

(k) 11:30 2/3 Legion armoured cars wandered or reconnoitred into Lydda. A brief firefight ensued, and they withdrew. This was a skirmish (Morris 427)

(l) Some townsfolk began to shoot at the 300-400 strong Israeli force. To suppress them, the order was given to shoot anyone seen in the streets. 13.13 the Dani HQ is informed battles erupted in Lydda.

(m) Dahaimash Mosque incidents, dozens to hundreds killed. 13:30 it ended, with 3/4 Israeli dead and a dozen wounded, and some 250 Arabs dead.

Morris writes of the post 11.30-13.30 skirmish. The ration of Arab to israeli casualties was hardly consistent with the description of what happened as an 'uprising' or battle.' (p.428)

This is the evidence from Morris. In the three movements, by Dayan's group (I hour yields 6 Israel dead/perhaps 200 Arab dead, Morris calls a 'massacre', as much as a battle), the Yiftah's nighttime occupation of the town centre (no casualties spoken of), and the 'skirmishing' between the Yiftah and desultory snipers for 2 hours, (3-4 Israeli dead, dozens to 250 Arab dead, which Morris also says is hardly consistent with a 'battle' or 'uprising'), there is nothing, despite Morris's early language about a 'battle joined, which fits the normal concept of a battle, unless all skirmishes in war constitute a battle. 'Invasion' is appropriate, because 'invasion' meets with hostilities, resistance. But in military history, skirmishes, putting down sniper fire in a town, etc., does not usually qualify as a 'battle', which connotes dogged conflict between two strongly entrenched or opposed forces. The casualties for these three brief episodes, lasting over 2 days, effectively some 3 hours, was 10 Israeli dead, and somewhere between 400-450 Arab dead. A 1 to 40 kill ratio, as Morris hints, is not typical of battles. Two of those events, broadly within many sources, by Dayan and Yiftah at the mosque, are discussed as massacres, which are not 'battles'. Compare the more complex Hadassah Convoy Massacre/Battle, which lasted 7al hours, between fixed positions, and which Morris calls a battle, rather than the usual 'massacre'. Nishidani (talk) 14:33, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Multiple sources, not just Morris, call it a battle. Your personal analysis may be interesting, but on WP we go by what reliable sources say. NoCal100 (talk) 14:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

There was a battle but this sentence "Around 250 Palestinians and up to four Israeli soldiers were killed during the battle to take Lydda" is false. Do you agree or not ? Ceedjee (talk) 15:23, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

"Battle" does not imply any particular ratio of deaths on the opposing sides. There was a battle, and that needs to stay because it has a good source. But including that does not in any way conflict with other content concerning the massacre that occurred, or the exile of the civilian population. I really do not see why this causing so much resistance. The defenders fought their best to defend Lydda, and the outcome was determined by factors not in their power to control. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:10, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

There was a battle but this sentence is false : "Around 250 Palestinians and up to four Israeli soldiers were killed during the battle to take Lydda". Do you agree or not ? Ceedjee (talk) 15:23, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

No one has produced a source for that sentence, which is not surprising given that it's false. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 15:26, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

There is no WP rule that a sentence can have only a single source. I added a WP:RS source that that supports the very simple content that a battle occurred. All your excuses to prevent it from being called what it was, a battle, amounts to nothing better than wiki-lawering, which is considered disruptive. There is an excellent source that calls it a battle, and that should be in the article despite your WP:JDLI excuses. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:04, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

There was a battle but...

There was a battle but this sentence is false : "Around 250 Palestinians and up to four Israeli soldiers were killed during the battle to take Lydda". Do you agree or not ? Ceedjee (talk) 15:23, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

From Morris's notes, I gather that 'battle' was the kind of language used in early Palmach and Haganah histories. I can't see a battle at all. I just see an invasion with very small casualties from sporadic if at times intense fire from pockets of resistance of a city of 40,000 people.

Note. I am limiting my remarks to three sources, Gelber, Morris, and Tal whose work, though of varying but good quality, is consistently patchy on sensitive points, and is clearly in the conservative tradition of Israeli historiography. In the material I have cited, we are getting only a narrative based on works by Israeli historians, using primarily Israeli archives. Anyone teaching this section of these books to a class, would pull the three narratives to pieces quite easily. Example:

'the reaction of the soldiers to the raid and the local residents' firing was harsh. The soldiers shot at any suspected source of fire, regardless of who, or where, he was.Tal p.311

'a suspected source of fire' here is a person. That 'suspected' means nothing, or it flags the idea they shot at anyone, not bearing arms, anywhere in the vicinity of shooting. I says 'not bearing arms' because if you shoot someone you suspect of being a source of fire, clearly he is not, when shot, actually shooting at you. It's giveaway language in my book, and all three historians fail to do an adequate job on the Lydda-Ramle episode.

But in wiki, one goes to the best technical literature first, and these rank there.

To make sense of the word 'battle' you have to clarify what battle, where, and over what period of time. The cities were softened up by extensive aerial bombardment and artillery. Dayan entered machine-gunning anything that moved on the 11th., and if that is a 'battle', the casualties in his one-hour cruise through Lydda were 6 Israeli deas as opposed to perhaps 200 Arabs, who are not identified by Morris as combatants, look distinctly odd as 'battle casualties'. But since Israel suffered 6 dead, and a dozen wounded, some armed opposition must have fought back when seeing the invasion, or more precisely military incursion. (2)The day after, since overnight Lydda had been occupied, a brief skirmish, followed by an hour and a half of shooting and the mass killing of people inside a mosque, produced 3-4 Israeli dead and 250 Arabs. David Tal however, in his War in Palestine, 1948, p.311, says that in this period only 2 Israelis were killed.

Therefore the text you cite is false. By 11.30 Lydda had been taken and its centre occupied. A surrender had been signed. The Jordanian armour incident was a brief skirmish. Immediately at 11.30-12.00 noon, a firefight broke out that lasted one and a half hours, in what was a 'mopping-up operation'. The figure of 250 Arab dead refers to the toll taken by Yiftah's fire between 11.30-12 noon and 1.30 pm, including a large number of people in the fishtank shootout in the mosque of unarmed detainees. But it excludes the perhaps 200 people killed in Dayan's wild shooting spree the day before. If you date the battle from the morning of the 11th to the 12th 1.30, you get from 8-10 Israeli dead, and a figure around perhaps Arab 400-450 dead. But all this does not occur in battle, but in two brief and intense episodes, lasting 3 hours in all, where massive and indiscriminate Israeli firepower was used, and, as on the day before, the order 'kill anything that moves' was given. This is what Gelber, Morris and Tal's evidence looks like to me. Gelber and Tal do not speak of a battle, Morris does, only then, when he actually narrates the events, to deny it was a battle. Just between you and me, CJ, my grandfather was at Gallipoli or Ypres. He would have laughed at anyone describing this incursion and skirmishes as a 'battle'.Nishidani (talk) 16:46, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment : NPoV and lead

On the French wikipedia, the "consensus" is that the lead doesn't have to be sourced. According to our point of view, the lead must be a fair summary of the material that is in the core of the article and, as a consequence, all the information in the lead MUST BE in the article.
Another consequence is the lead can only be written after the article or at the end of the process
My personal guess is that the lead is the main field of battle of the WP:BATTLEGROUND. The only reasonnable step would be to have 1 sentence in the lead and then, when most of the material have been add in the article, a fair summary of that material (and only of that one !) is put in the lead. Ceedjee (talk) 09:11, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Some notes before leaving

(1) Lead.'According to a report by the Palmach, part of Israel's army, the expulsions were seen as averting a long-term Arab threat to Tel Aviv.'

Leads must be terse. 'According to a report by the Palmach, part of Israel's army' is far too (a)specific (b) 'part of Israel's army, parenthetic wadding.

The expulsions had, in the evidence, many motivations. To single out one in the lead, that referring to (a non-existent,but 'perceived) threat to Israel is POV, highlighting at the outset a POV which explains this as basically a defensive measure. It was a complex geostrategic measure above all, as sources note.

(2) 'The Jerusalem Grand Mufti, Mohammad Amin al-Husayni arranged a Palestinian blockade on the 100,000 Jewish residents of Jerusalem and hundreds of the Jewish Haganah members who tried to bring supplies to the city were killed. The Jewish population was under strict orders to hold their dominions at all costs, but the situation of insecurity across the country affected the Arab population more visibly where up to 100,000 Palestinians, chiefly those from the upper classes, left the country to seek refuge abroad or in Samaria.'

This sounds like a piece of POV editorializing. Totally inadequate, unsourced, irrelevant, and in part untruthful. I've complained about this before. The background should cleave strictly to the three or four essential elements required to clarify this specific event. (b) Source for Amin's control of strategy over Jerusalem? (b) Jews were told to hold their positions. So in many cases, were Arabs. What's the point of the remark? (c), 'but'. What is the function, given the sentence before, of this 'but (d) 'situation of insecurity affected the Arab population more'. Euphemism or unfocused blague. (e) source for the statement that 100,000 Palestinians chiefly from the upper classes(!) left the country? Remarkable. that in 1948 some 80-90,000 'upper class' Palestinians could be counted. 'Upper class' implies the existence of two other classes, middle and lower. Few in the middle class fled? There was a native aristocracy constituting 13% of the eventual number of refugees? (f) 'Samaria'? I.e. they only fled to the northern Cisjordan, Mandatory Samaria, and never to the south of that area. Interesting. But where is the source?Nishidani (talk) 13:35, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Background is poved and partially false ! I promised to take care of it this WE... Ceedjee (talk) 14:29, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Merge tag

People keep restoring the tag suggesting a merge with Operation Danny and an instruction to discuss it on that talk page. Two people had turned up when I last looked (me and another editor not involved here), and both said no.

Otherwise no one has commented, and yet you keep restoring the tag. Also, no reasonable person would suggest merging this. This is a notable issue in its own right.

Are certain editors here going to force us to discuss each and every tiny issue, even ridiculous suggestions and false statements? If we do spend all our time on talk, the article won't get written and we'll eventually give up, disgusted. If we don't spend our time on talk, we'll be accused of OWN.

Could we please just edit in accordance with the content policies, and try to write a decent article here? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:03, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

(ec):Absolutely, the suggested merge is an obvious non-starter. This article is about the death march (and should be named accordingly). It seems to me that much of the military information about the attacks could be removed from here, and added to Operation Danny. --NSH001 (talk) 17:18, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Please stop edit warring. These changes need to be resolved on the talk page. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:12, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

ok... Ceedjee (talk) 17:22, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know when you "last looked", but there's a section above, from may 7th, where User:No More Mr. Nice Guy suggests a merge, I agree, and two other editors participate without opposing. You have not participated in that discussion at all, but for some reason unilaterally removed the merge tag with a false and misleading edit summary. Your constant insinuations that those who have a POV which is different than yours are not editing in accordance with policy are not only false and getting tiresome, they constitute a violation of WP:AGF, and are probably in breach of WP:CIVIL and WP:OWN as well. NoCal100 (talk) 17:44, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

And if you look even above, you will see that this discussion had already taken place on April 30.

Ceedjee (talk) 17:48, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I actually don't see such a discussion, but even of one existed, what of it? The issue was obviously not resolved, as it was brought up again on May 7th, after a major rewrite had taken place. NoCal100 (talk) 23:10, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

RfC on merge tag

{{RFChist}}

Should Talk:Exodus from Lydda be merged into Operation Danny?

• Previous discussions about merging, April-May 2009: #POV concerns, #Operation Danny, and #Merge tag

• Previous redirect to Operation Danny, May 2007, apparently without the content being merged. [34]

---

• No. The case for merging, which is ice-thin anyway, has not been even sketchily argued.Nishidani (talk) 17:18, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

• No. Exodus from Lydda is an important topic in its own right, and Operation Danny covered more than just the conquest of Lydda/Ramla. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:21, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

• No. Exodus from Lydda is a part of the Operation Danny. In Operation Danny, this material would be wp:undue (and of course removed accordingly). That is the same for Hadassah medical convoy massacre that could be argued to be merged into Siege of Jerusalem (1948). And there is also 1948 Palestinian exodus that has not to be merged in 1948 Palestine War. Ceedjee (talk) 17:26, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

• Yes. This article already covers substantially more than the exodus from Lydda, with a background section (that covers some of Operation Danny), and a lengthy section describing the 'Capture of Lydda and Ramla'. NoCal100 (talk) 17:38, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

• Yes (tentative). It seems to me that the exodus of Palestinians that occurred might be more understandable in the context of Operation Danny. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:55, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

• No. This article is about the death march (and should be named accordingly). There is a case for moving some of the purely military information to Operation Danny, since this is not a military article. NSH001 (talk) 18:48, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

• Personally, I'm undecided yet as to the value of this page as a stand alone. However, this article is clearly not about the "death march" and I'm not sure there's enough reliable work with death march content for a stand alone article. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:58, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
  Anyways, one of the reasons that I'm undecided is that I feel, as stated by others as well that, the operation page should be where the information starts and not the niche article. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:01, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

• Maybe. I'm not saying there shouldn't be an "exodus from Lydda" page, but it doesn't make sense that such a page includes so much information that is not directly related to the exodus from Lydda, that it covers probably 80% of an "Operation Danny" article. The page for a specific incident is 15 times larger than the page for the whole operation it was a part of. Not sure what the exact procedure is, though. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:40, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

• Yes. The main objective of the first phase of Operation Danny was the conquest of Lod, Ramla and the Lod Airport. The main article should be Operation Danny, which should depict the overall context of the military operation. If it becomes too large, then the possibility to create a separate article for the exodus should be examined. A good example of an encyclopedic entry written recently for Operation Danny can be found here (Ynet Encyclopedia, (in Hebrew)). Noon (talk) 21:14, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

• No. Operation Danny is more of an overall list and summary of the communities captured. This article is a subarticle that meets Wikipedia:Summary style, detailing a particular subtopic related to a specific community affected by that operation. There is enough information to warrant an article of its own. --MPerel 00:23, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

• No. It's a military operation. It had a large part in causing the exodus, but the exodus itself merits its own article. It's far too extensive to include in the Operation Danny article and could be included in a "See also" section, or we could write an "Aftermath" section and make the Exodus from Lydda article a see also header in that section. --Al Ameer son (talk) 02:10, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. Let's first rename the article into Exodus from Lydda and Ramla (seems like a completely obvious move to me), and then talk about Operation Danny. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 10:57, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
• No. This is an important topic in its own right and I don't think it makes much sense to write about the history of the region in terms of the military operations taking place. Ian Pitchford (talk) 19:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
• No. The exodus is notable in its own right. --Apoc2400 (talk) 09:59, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

• Yes = three
• No = eight
• Maybe or unclear = two

I'm going to remove the tag now if there are no objections. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:00, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree. There's an agreement. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 05:57, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Two quotes from Chaim Herzog and a question

Is there any way of introducing two comments from 'The Arab-Israel Wars' (ISBN 0 85368 367 0)
Assessment of the defenders - page 80: 'Ramla and Lod were well fortified and held mainly by local Arab forces, irregular units, several hundred tribesmen from Transjordan, and small detachments of the Arab Legion.' (He later identifies the occupants of Lod police station as 5th Independent Infantry Company)
Also perhaps a footnote after reference 14 with Herzog's assessment of Glubb's decision - page 82: 'no doubt that his decision from a military point of view was in fact a correct one.'

The question: I have been told that these events occured during the month of Ramadan. Does anyone have the AH date? Could it be included in this article?
Padres Hana (talk) 21:15, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

There must be another way....really

I am tired of the endless fights over every little point, while players on one team call everything said by the players on the other team, 'POV', and call everything said by the players on their own team, 'NPOV'. I wish the Einaiych article had even half of the work put into this article. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:00, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

There is only one way that lasts and produces good results, Malcolm. That is to read the academic sources carefully, every one we can lay our hands on, then add what they say to the article within as clear a narrative as we're able to write, in summaries as fair as we can produce. Nothing else is needed. I'm truly happy to work with anyone from any POV who is trying to do that. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:40, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. Sure. Happy to work with them, and call their POV, NPOV if they agree with your editing goals. Otherwise you can always work with them getting blocked on Arbitration enforcement. Its all just thinking in terms of one team against the other, modeling through WP editing exactly what is wrong in the real world conflict. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 23:57, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Lydda death march?

I think you need attribution for the statement in the lead that the expulsion is also refered to as the Lydda Death March. I couldn't find it referred to that way by any mainstream source (such as a daily newspaper, or academic book). --Ravpapa (talk) 05:48, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

For some reason, those ref were deleted, please have a look here. --Yamanam (talk) 07:20, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

You'll notice that none of the sources actually used in the article call it a "death march". Putting a name that none of the mainstream sources and very few others use in bold in the lead is UNDUE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by No More Mr Nice Guy (talk • contribs) 11:18, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

As I understand it, among Palestinians it is known as "Lydda death march", and seeing that many people really did die, removing that content from the article does not seem a good idea. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:50, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

On what basis do you understand that? In the cases I'm aware of, an incident is called a "death march" when a substantial percentage of the people die, where stragglers are killed to encourage the rest to march and where they march at more than a leisurely pace of 17km in 3 days.
Anyway, I didn't say anything about removing it from the article. But bold in the lead? And a redirect? I think both of those are UNDUE. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:53, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Malcolm Schosha, Though I don't know you personally, I would suggest that your understanding is not a reliable source. Surely your understanding is based on something you read. Find it, and put it in a footnote. --Ravpapa (talk) 13:01, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

The original name of the article, when Tiamut created it, was Lydda Death March, and it was moved to its present name. I suppose the redirect is a result of that (but I understand next to nothing about such WP technicalities). Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:17, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Providing reliable sources for things you write in the Wikipedia is not a technicality. Please provide a source for your use of "Lydda death march", or remove it until it can be documented. Thank you. --Ravpapa (talk) 15:47, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I did not write it, and it has been suggested that I am biased against this article. Its pretty funny that you are implying the opposite. I am just trying to be fair; but someone else will have to supply that source, because I do not know it, and do not have time to look for it right now. SlimVirgin would be the the editor most likely to do that, but she seems to be busy right now collecting crap on opposing editors so she can denounce them on WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement. -- ‎Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

As Yamanan notes, sources for this phrasing were in the article at one stage and attached directly to the phrase - it seems a little off to say that because they've been removed, the material is now unsourced and that must be removed as well. And simple Google searches for "Lydda Death March", both general and on books, do reveal some fairly reputable and serious sources that do use or refer to this terminology (several of which are the ones that were originally here), such as the Oxford Companion to Military History - anyone can check that for themselves. I don't know enough about these events to argue about the title of the page one way or another, or whether "death march" should be a bolded alternative or not, but it certainly seems to be a perspective/title that exists in the real world. --Nickhh (talk) 17:17, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

The source for "Lydda death march" is one of the sources after the sentence or paragraph. I'll isolate it and add it after the words "death march," but anyone doing a google search can find it easily enough too. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 04:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Does one source (which is not used for anything else in the article) justify putting the term "death march" in bold in the lead? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Have a look here once the page is unportected I will restore all of those resources. --Yamanam (talk) 12:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

"All of those resources" is still 2 sources not used anywhere else in the article. My question still stands. Bold in the lead? I mean, if this were a mainstream name in common usage, you'd think Morris or even Pappe would use it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The Oxford companion to military history uses this term. Try to google the term and see how many resluts you'd have. --Yamanam (talk) 13:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest to add at the end of the lead that the events are referred as the Lydda Death March by Palestinians due to the number of people who died during the 50 km march from Lydda to Ramallah. Ceedjee (talk) 14:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd support the first part of this - i.e., "add at the end of the lead that the events are referred as the Lydda Death March by Palestinians ". There no need for the "due to the..." part, as there is a dispute surrounding the number, and the fact that most of these 50Km where not a death march at all, but a trek in Arab controlled territory, under no threat or coercion. NoCal100 (talk) 14:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Adding the term in the lead would make sense if you had a few actual Palestinian sources that actually used it, rather than the Oxford companion using it but no other source used in the article. Morris doesn't mention it. Neither does Pappe as far as I'm aware. It's obviously not a mainstream term. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The article says "The people of Lydda had no transport: they walked six kilometers (four miles) to Beit Nabala, then 11 kilometers (seven miles) to Barfiliya..." That appears to be 17 km (about 10 1/2 miles). The article also says "Many of Ramla's residents were bussed to Al-Qubab..." There was some past discussion of this, and it seems the figures given in the article are correct. It was a sad event, but not exactly the Bataan Death March. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Another looting reference

Sandy Tolan. 'The Lemon Tree.' (2006) ISBN 9780593057452
Page 105:
Soldiers from Moshe Dayan's Commando Battalion Eighty-nine, having little to patrol, had been among those looting. 'The men of Battalion 89 residing in our neighbourhood in Ben-Shemen have wreaked havoc on roadblock sentries, pointing weapons toward them at Ben-Shemen roadblocks and breaking through them with trucks laden with different goods they collected in the cities of Ramla and Lod [Lydda],' declared an Israeli military field officer in a written report. 'Battalion 89's outrageous behaviour peaked when they threatened our inspector with a bullet unless he left the area while they were collecting their loot...'
Also page 74: 'July 14 ... the seventh day of Ramadan.'
And a several pages describing events. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Padres Hana (talk • contribs) 19:17, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
:: Apologies - Padres Hana (talk) 21:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Padres, that's very useful. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:38, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Until the page is unprotected ...

... editing continues at User:SlimVirgin/Lydda. Please feel free to join in; edit warring is permitted in SlimSpace. :-) SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Danni operation section is a bit bloated with irrelevant info or undue detail. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Benny Morris, and some general discussion

Since Benny Morris is one of the most important sources used in this article, editors might find this letter, written by him on February 21, 2008, of considerable interest [35].

It is pretty clear from this letter that his writing is being used to support views that are not consistent with his actual thinking. Although he does specifically mention the expulsion of population from Lydda and Ramla, it is very clear that Morris places the blame for all that eventuated entirely on one side, and that he thinks the side that carries the blame is not Israel: The Palestinian Arabs were not responsible "in some bizarre way" (David Norris, January 31st) for what befell them in 1948. Their responsibility was very direct and simple.

Also he writes in his letter:

The displacement of the 700,000 Arabs who became "refugees" - and I put the term in inverted commas, as two-thirds of them were displaced from one part of Palestine to another and not from their country (which is the usual definition of a refugee) - was not a "racist crime" (David Landy, January 24th) but the result of a national conflict and a war, with religious overtones, from the Muslim perspective, launched by the Arabs themselves.

It appears to me that, since Morris is such an important source for this article, his view on the cause for the whole mess should also be made clear. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:27, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Malcolm,

You know, this is not new. He has stated that the exdus was "made by war, not by design" since 1989 in the first version of the The Birth.

His book : 1948: A History of the First Arab-Israeli War costs 15$ in the USA. It is worth buying.

Ceedjee (talk) 18:56, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I did not think it was new. My point is that since is that Benny Morris is an important source for describing details of events in the article, his overview of those events should also be included. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

It is included -- where we say Morris regarded the expulsion practices as "haphazard," and not necessarily coming from the top, though it allegedly did come from the top in the case of Lydda and Ramla, which is all this article can deal with. That issue will be expanded upon as the article is written, with other views added. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:26, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

"Haphazard"?!! You think that represents Morris' view of events? You must be kidding.

What about including something like: "The Palestinian Arabs were not responsible "in some bizarre way" (David Norris, January 31st) for what befell them in 1948. Their responsibility was very direct and simple", and also including

The displacement of the 700,000 Arabs who became "refugees" - and I put the term in inverted commas, as two-thirds of them were displaced from one part of Palestine to another and not from their country (which is the usual definition of a refugee) - was not a "racist crime" (David Landy, January 24th) but the result of a national conflict and a war, with religious overtones, from the Muslim perspective, launched by the Arabs themselves.

which is his actual evaluation of the causes of the conflict, and the expulsions that eventuated, as a result, during of the conflict. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:09, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Malcolm, if I say that Morris uses the word "haphazard," and your response is "Haphazard"?!! You think that represents Morris' view of events? You must be kidding," I don't know what to say to you.

The basic positions (summarized simplistically) are: (1) The Jews/Israelis planned the expulsions even before the State of Israel existed: this is one extreme position on the Arab and anti-Zionist side; (2) There were no planned expulsions: Arabs fled, or were expelled only on local orders: this is (or used to be) an extreme position on the Israeli side; I don't know whether anyone still holds it; (3) There was no grand plan to expel the Palestinians, but there were instances of ordered expulsions that were not simply local in nature e.g. the Lydda expulsion signed by Yitzhak Rabin. (3) is roughly Morris's position.

May I suggest that you get hold of two of Morris's texts for editing this article? The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited (2004) for the particular events of Lydda and Ramla: it is very detailed. And 1948: The First Arab-Israeli War (2008) for the background. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:26, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Morris has written, in addition to "haphazard" that he thinks everything that eventuated was the fault of Arab aggression. Since the article relies so much on Morris for details of events, it must include also his view that it was all (including the Exodus from Lydda) "the result of a national conflict and a war, with religious overtones, from the Muslim perspective, launched by the Arabs themselves". Morris' view on what caused all the individual events needs to be in the article. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:04, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Off topic

It appears that the arbcom decision will directly effect the participation of two users active in the editing this article. I regret that they have been topic banned, and I think that the ban is both unfair and a mistake that will do nothing to solve WP problems. Sorry. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

This would probably be more useful if posted on the Arbitration case's discussion page than here. AGK 18:56, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I share Malcolm's point of view. Ceedjee (talk) 19:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

AGK, I can't put anything on any of case pages because I was kicked out, and if I could put something there it probably would be closer to what I put on Jayjg's talk page. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Working with the raised concerns

There's a problem with the new changes as that only a few hours passed since the article protection was over and already Yitzhak Rabin is signing expulsion orders in the first paragraph.[36] Most of the edits seem ok on a first glance, but I must insist that (especially in the lead) should be written in a conservative way. I'd suggest focus on expanding the body and making the introduction into a conservative lead that gives a bare minimum of general detail that promotes readers to go into the details of the event. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 01:32, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

That Rabin signed the order was there from the start, as I recall, but was removed. What reason would we have for not including it?

The lead must follow WP:LEAD, which means it must be a stand-alone summary, containing the topic's main controversies. A very brief lead would be inappropriate, especially for an article this length. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:53, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

These are the key issues that need to be (and are) in the lead:

• When, why, from where, how many fled/expelled? = July 1948, Israeli-Arab war, Lydda and Ramla, 50,000-70,000.
• How do we know it was an expulsion? = an order was signed by Rabin
  • NOTE: I'm not sure this is a MOS prerequisite for the first paragraph. We know because there's more to the article than the first paragraph. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 07:56, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
• Why did the Israelis do it? = averted threat, clogged roads
• What happened to the residents? = rode/walked to X and Y.
• How many died? = We give July 11, July 12, and march death tolls, and mention of looting deaths.
• How significant is this historically? = It accounts for 1/10th of the Palestinian exodus, now called al-Nakba ; It was [one of] the biggest massacre of the war

The exodus of Palestinians from Lydda and Ramla, also known as the Lydda death march,[1] took place in July 1948 during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war, when 50,000-70,000[2] Palestinians fled or were expelled from the cities, when Israeli troops moved in.[3] According to an Israeli army report, the expulsions, the order for which was signed by Yitzhak Rabin,[4]averted an Arab threat to Tel Aviv, and clogged the roads with refugees, thereby thwarting an Arab Legion advance.[5]

Ramla's residents were mostly bussed to Al-Qubab, from where they walked to Arab Legion lines in Latrun and Salbit.[6] The people of Lydda had no transport: they walked six kilometers (four miles) to Beit Nabala, then 11 kilometers (seven miles) to Barfiliya, in temperatures of 30-35 °C (86-95 °F), carrying whatever possessions they could take with them.[6][7] From there, the Arab Legion helped most of them reach a refugee camp in Ramallah some 50 kilometers (30 miles) away.[8]

Around 290-450 Palestinians and 9-10 Israeli soldiers were killed during the conquest of Lydda;[9] the death toll in Ramla is unknown but presumed much lower because the city surrendered immediately. The number of refugees who died during the march is also unknown: figures range from "a handful, and perhaps dozens," to 355, primarily from exhaustion and dehydration, though eyewitnesses also said refugees were killed for refusing to hand over their valuables to Israeli soldiers.[10]

The expulsions accounted for one-tenth of the overall Arab exodus from Palestine, an event commemorated in the Arab world, along with the anniversary of the creation of Israel, as al-Nakba (lit. "the catastrophe").[7]

SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:07, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

• The Lydda massacre is also important to state in the lead. It was the 2nd in number of victims of the whole '48 war.

It was not "just a battle" and except the article of Avraham Sela, we don't have material that denies or nuances it. On the contrary. Giving due weight to all pov's mean we must refer to this as a massacre and in a section "controversy" write that this is denied by some Israeli sources but there is no real wide controversy on this topic. It is even officially admitted at the time.

Ceedjee (talk) 11:02, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Dear SlimVirign,
I'd like you to take a look at the Hama massacre article and to reconsider my note here. There's nothing wrong with the lead saying who expelled who and in what context but to go into the details of a single person who signed an operation orders (there's a bigger chain of command) and/or "though eyewitnesses also said" they saw gun-pointing (both are undue notes for the lead). This is just not what WP:LEAD is suggesting.
Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:40, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

You have not explained why these two points are UNDUE. On the contrary, it is important that there was a signed expulsion order, because it shows this was not a spontaneous local event. It is also important to say that people were killed in thefts during the march, because it shows that not all deaths on the march were accidental. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:05, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Dear SlimVirign,

This content is clearly relevant and important for the article's body. The issue I'm raising is encyclopedic structuring. Since you believe that you're right here, I'd appreciate any examples of similar articles with this kind of lead. If you have such examples, I'd be quite interested in reviewing them and reconsider my position. If you don't, then there seems to be support in my perception of how the lead section should be written and I request that you try to focus on what's really important for leading the readers into the article and what could be relegated to the body (such as who signed the expulsion orders which orders which should not be in the first paragraph). Basically, it's not really per MOS to finger point like that (with Rabin in the first paragraph), plus the lead should not be definite if the article body discusses a disagreement over responsibility. It's just (a) poor writing that sticks out like a sore thumb and (b) you should not be definite in the lead when the article is not definite (e.g. I can see an expulsion attribution made to Yigal Allon).

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:54, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

• Jaakobou has my google chat on speed dial for some reason and asked me for my opinion. I only looked at the "signed by Rabin" part of the dispute but I don't like it in the intro. (a) it's poor writing and sticks out, and (b) it is misleading. When I see in the lead, "Rabin signed the order" I think that means he is responsible. But in the article there is a disagreement over who was ultimately responsible for the decision, Ben Gurion or Allon. In democratic republics (like the US and Israel) a military commander may sign an order to implement the decision of his civilian leadership but that does not necessarily mean the military leader is "responsible." (Who is responsible for the bombing of Hiroshima? Harry Truman, or the Air Force chief of staff who assigned the 509th to conduct the mission.) I think it reads quite well without any statement. If you feel the need to demonstrate that it was an intentional act, there should be a better way to word it. Perhaps something like, "The expulsion orders were signed by Rabin, deputy commander of Operation Danny, but there is a dispute as to whether the expulsions were ordered by Rabin's superior, General Allon, or Israel's PM, David BG." Thatcher 18:09, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Thatcher, it is important to include that there was an order and that it was a high-level one. This is an issue in the historiography for this period: whether it was a random local decision, whether the Arabs simply fled, or whether there was an order, and if so, how high level. Historians seem to agree that Allon and Rabin were responsible, though Rabin tried to blame Ben-Gurion; see the article for details. The one solid fact that is known is that there was an order and that Rabin signed it. It is a key issue and belongs in the lead for that reason. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

People are forgetting that this was a very new govt and state -- just a few months old. Comparisons with the complex chain of command in the U.S. during World War II are inappropriate. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:57, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Thatcher, I've taken up your suggestion, and restored Ben-Gurion and Allon's names to the lead, along with Rabin. We had that before, but it was removed. The sentence therefore now reads: "The expulsion orders — signed by Yitzhak Rabin and issued by David Ben-Gurion or Yigal Allon — were intended to avert an Arab threat to Tel Aviv, and thwart an Arab Legion advance by clogging the roads with refugees, according to the Israeli army." With sources. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

SlimVirgin,

How about we make a comment that "a high level Israeli order was made to..." in the second or third paragraphs instead of the expanding further on the second sentence finger pointing?[37] I'm just not following why you're insisting on this when there's no other examples for writing like this (and with good reason). I'm hoping you'll accept my compromise suggestion.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 07:54, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

p.s. I think that what you see as a key issue here -- that Rabin supposedly tried to put the blame on Ben Gurion and he's the one to blame-- is actually a matter that is barely significant for the lead. The lead is not there for us to determine who is to blame (read: finger point) from the Israeli chain of command. I don't believe articles on Wikipedia are written in that manner and it would take several examples to persuade me otherwise. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Background/General section

Do we have a source for this? -- "The Jewish population was under strict orders to hold their dominions at all costs, but the situation of insecurity across the country affected the Arab population more visibly where up to 100,000 Palestinians, chiefly those from the upper classes, left the country to seek refuge abroad or in Samaria."

Also, it's not clear what, "[t]he Jewish population was under strict orders to hold their dominions at all costs" means exactly, or how it's being juxtaposed with "but" in the next clause. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:24, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The source are Lapierre and Collins for the "hold at all cost", Ilan Pappé or Lapierre and Collins for the "100,000" and Yoav Gelber for the fact the Arab was more affected.

But that doens't concern the events of Lydda. That refers to the Civil War period (jan. to march) for what concerns Palestinians.

I don't think the information concerning the Jews is relevant for the article. Ceedjee (talk) 09:50, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposal for a new background

See also: 1947–1948 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine, 1948 Arab-Israeli War, and 1948 Palestinian exodus

Since the 1920 and in the context of antagonist nationalist projects, the Jewish Zionist and Arab communities of Palestine fought violently against each other to get the control of the region and to set up there their own independent state. No agreement could be found. The 30 November 19487 United Nation's vote for the partition of Palestine didn't solve the issue and was followed by a civil war that resulted in the collapse of the Palestinian society, its military defeat against the Yishuv militias and a massive exodus of its population.

On 14 May, the last day of the British Mandate, the State of Israel was officially founded. The neighbouring Arab States, opposed to the Partition Plan, intervened. Heavy fights followed, particularly in the area of Jerusalem and Latrun, controlled by the Jordanian Arab Legion that verroued the only road supplying the Jewish population of Jerusalem.

After 6 weeks, the situation was a statu quo. The Syrians and Iraqi forces had failled in their attempt to invade East Galilee, the latest redeploying in the hills of the North of Samaria. The Egyptians expeditionnary forces had been stopped 15 km south of Tel-Aviv. The Jordanian had taken the control of East-Jerusalem and kept Latrun whereas the Israelis had succeeded in building a road in a 2 km wide corridor they controlled around the salient. All parties were exhausted and agreed to sign a one-month truce.

The protagonists didn't take advantage of the truce the same way. While they were all under weapon embargo, the Israeli succeeded in receiving massively heavy material from the East bloc and reinforced their army that mid-July fielded more than 50,000 men. (I have to check for the Arabs.)

Ceedjee (talk) 06:27, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Giving this some thought, Ceedjee. I'm thinking we should keep it as simple as possible. Also thinking it would be worth mentioning the blockade of Jerusalem, as that was an issue at the time. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 09:26, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

It is mentionned with Latrun. Don't forget the blockade was from march to april and from may to mid of june. It was left one month before the events. But the current background is not neutral and not pertinent. Husseini and Hadassah have nothing to deal with the issue.

Ceedjee (talk) 09:41, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

What follows is not correct and I am sure Morris doesn't state that way : "The objective of the operation was to relieve the Jewish population and forces in Jerusalem during the Arab blockade of the city; secure the Tel Aviv-Jerusalem road; and neutralize the perceived threat to Tel Aviv from the Arab Legion, which had forward units just 20 kilometers away in Lydda and Ramla".

No relief, there was no blockage and the population had been supplied during one full month. The city was not blockaded; the purpose of securing the road is correct. And if a threat was perceived, it was not because of the troops deployed at Lydda and Ramle. Ceedjee (talk) 10:07, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

That's what Morris and others say, yes. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:59, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

It is well-known that Operation Danny's objective was to help Jerusalem by clearing up the roads leading up to it. Its purpose was to capture, Lod, Ramla, Latrun and Ramallah, and the operation was originally codenamed Larlar (לרל"ר), an abbreviation for these 4 towns. This is stated in any history book about the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, right now within a meter's reach I have just Carta's Atlas of Israel, vol. 2, p. 42. "Lifting the blockade on Jerusalem" therefore is not correct, but "relieving Jerusalem" is. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 10:26, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

You are right ! "Relieving" is correct by not "relieving the population" -> "relieving the front". I would prefer the wordings : "securing the road...", "widdening the corridor" which are more factual or "improving the difficult military situation of Jerusalem" (a 10 km long corridor of 2 km wide along the hills was crazy situation).

FYI : Operation Larlar. ;-) Ceedjee (talk) 10:47, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: FYI: I don't want to be an ***hole, because I saw the article only after you mentioned it, but I suggested that it should be merged. Operation Larlar = Operation Danny. It simply stopped before it could be completed because of the losses at Latrun. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 21:21, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Must say I'm not keen on the existing Background section myself, particularly since it's the same basic stuff that gets regurgitated in article after article. Ceedjee's suggested alternative, while it would obviously need some smartening up, is more specific to this particular article and gives a brief overview of the military situation at the time. Gatoclass (talk) 16:10, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Would anyone mind if I removed the current background section while a new one is suggested? It was cut and pasted in from another article, or from several different articles, and isn't really accurate or neutral. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:01, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not following the "Since the 1920 and in the context of antagonist nationalist projects" phrasing or the "November 1948" mention to the 1947 Partition plan. There's also some quite unnecessary details that should be in the main articles rather than this one (e.g. Israel getting weapons behind the scenes). I'd suggest working from the current version rather than trying a complete rewrite that seems to add unnecessary stuff and remove some relevant issues. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:10, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The current version is a copy-and-paste job from another article. It's not really appropriate for this one, and the writing is odd. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

It is the main relevant content written in a way that was long lasting on another page, surviving many eyes on both sides of the spectrum on it's main page. The suggested re-write adds irrelevancies and it is quite odd in its own right. To be frank, I'm not following what you find odd in the version I'm supporting and you've still not answered my question about the claim that buzz words were inserted into the text. I'd appreciate that explanation be made now.

Thanks, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:06, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Israeli troops moved in

Yamanan, the writing was better before, and the troops were not from the cities. [38] SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 09:14, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I've restored this to "fled or were expelled from the cities when Israeli troops moved in." It is obvious who expelled them, if Israeli troops have moved in and no one else is mentioned. Not "they fled or were expelled by israeli troops from the cities when the troops moved in." The troops were not from the cities, and there is no need to mention them twice. The sentence really is fine as it is. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 09:24, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I suggest to replace the "or" by an "and" because there is no doubt that both occured. Ceedjee (talk) 09:43, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Reading this sentence at it is current status doesn't mean that the israeli troops expelled the Palestinians, it only says that Palestinians were expelled and this expulsion took place at the same time when israeli troops occupied the city. So I think it would be better to rephrase this sentence, if you think that my version is not suitable, then please suggest another version that would be better. --Yamanam (talk) 10:44, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Who else would have expelled them if no one else is mentioned? "X was expelled when Y moved in," means that Y expelled X. If it didn't mean that — if, in fact, Z expelled them — we would say so. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:57, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Article ownership problems

SlimVirgin, there was never any agreement that "conquest as agreed on talk". It was not agreed upon. You deleted sourced material, claiming an agreement that does not exist.

Likewise your insisting on returning disputed material, about the origins of the order for expulsions, into the lead is problematic.

The main problem, behind the other problems remains that your apparent view this as your article, making a problem with WP:OWN, and your consequent an unwillingness to make compromise agreements on content. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:51, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Someone should come up with an idea for neutrality enforcement. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

My view of that whole neutrality enforcement project is that it is founded on a hope, of the editor who initiated it, to get her POV enforced as NPOV. It has long been WP official policy that NPOV is best achieved in articles when compromises made between editors with differing POVs. Establishing a WP NPOV Police would undermine that policy. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:51, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

It was agreed that "battle" was a partial view, and that "invasion of," "conquest of," or "fall of," were preferable; see the discussion above. It makes no sense to call it a "battle" (Karsh's view) or "ethnic cleansing" (Pappe's view). We agreed to use a neutral word in the lead. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:54, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any agreement. Where is it? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:05, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Forgive my ignorance on the topic, but is there any reason why a term that our readers would perceive as more neutral shouldn't be used? AGK 22:23, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure I understand your point. I see the problem as WP:OWN. It is not a term I use freely, nor without consideration of its implications. SlimVirgin has reverted virtually every change I made to the article. Okay, maybe the objections against my edits have some validity...that's possible. So I make changes to accommodate her objections, and try again. But that edit gets reverted too. Are you surprised that at a certain point I start to think, maybe this really is WP:OWN? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:50, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Battle again

You are trying to use a word in the lead that is POV, when there is no need. I can produce sources who call it a battle, ethnic cleansing, a massacre, an invasion, or a conquest. We have no shortage of words, no shortage of sources. Given that it's the lead, and we have no space for X said this but Y said that, we choose a neutral description. We had invasion. Someone (perhaps you) objected. So we changed it to conquest.

This has already been explained to you. You haven't yet explained what the point is of choosing a term some sources would object to, when we have terms that no sources would object to. Please explain that, or let it go. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

That's interesting. Before you objected that the way I used the word "battle" did not take into account that most of the deaths followed the battle. So I changed the wording to make that clear. But now you have decided that the word "battle" is just POV, and that the various terms you have tried out are not. When are you planing to compromise on this or any other point? You calling something POV does not make it so. There is a good source that says it was a battle. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 23:45, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi,

My mind is that the word "battle" is not neutral and doens't fairly summarize the comments of the 2nd sources on the events.

The reasons are : 1. that some people were killed/massacred outside the context of any battle ; 2. numeours people were expelled after the battle.

The use of that word could give undue:weight to the analysis of some historians that all these events arouse in the context of a battle whereas others talk about planned expulsion (eg Pappé at least argues "somewhere" that the battles occured in the context of the expulsion). We must try to find words that avoid to give weight to any theory. My feeling is that talking about the "fall of Lydda and Ramle" or the conquest, or the capture of these cities is as a consequence far better.

Ceedjee (talk) 05:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Ceedjee, I understand that you think the word "battle" is not neutral. But that is secondary to the fact that it is content which has an excellent source to support it [39]. I do not object to the use of other words, to describe what happened, being added; but I do object to deletion of the word "battle." I wrote a compromise version, incorporating previous objections. It can't just be me making the compromises. Some of the other editors need to show their good faith by showing a willingness to compromise also. If not, Jaakobou's comment, below, will likely prove prophetic. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:36, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Malcolm, this has been adressed... :-(. There are as wp:rs sources as this one that doesn't mention the battle and the lead cannot use all the words so we have to chose the one that fits at best all points of view. Ceedjee (talk) 12:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Malcolm Schosha is right in the essence that there needs to be more collaboration on the page coming from SlimVirign. Up to this point, I believe, she has taken the liberty on reverting everyone repeatedly and ignoring many of the concerns raised by fellow editors to the point of even ignoring the external perspective of a completely uninvolved admin. If this attitude doesn't change then things could only escalate for everyone involved and I worry that end result would be an overall sanction similar to the recent Judea/Samaria one where 7 established editors were indef-banned, several of them without good reason. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:15, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Well. If all you can do is to threathen us with suicide attacks, please, proceed. I don't fear the Palestinians when they do so IRL and I don't see why I would fear anybody else when this is virtual.

Is this the answer you expected ? Ceedjee (talk) 12:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Dear Ceedjee,

I can't start describing how insulting I find this "suicide attacks" comment and, for the sake of trying to keep a semblance of a collaborative atmosphere, I request that you retract it.

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:41, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Amazing. Jaakobou asked for cooperation and a willingness to compromise (hardly a radical request to make of WP editors), and Ceedjee responds with a statement that he is willing to face wiki-death rather than do that. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:59, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I am happy that you both understood how insulting it was to be threatened.

"We have to fight terrorism as if there were no discussion and going on discussing as if there was no terrorism" (David Ben Gurion, a little bit paraphrased).

Ceedjee (talk) 16:59, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I sent you a note. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 06:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

It appears that the main dispute here is whether Zionists are foreign intruders coming to conquer the land fron its rightful inhabitants, or whether this was a battle between two warring groups, each of which was reluctant somewhat to grant the other side certain recognitions or rights. I favor the second approach and viewpoint. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 16:46, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

The discussion doesn't deal with "Zionists" or whatever. It deals with the fact to decide if the background has to focus on the Operation Dani as a background of the expulsions or not.

Ceedjee (talk) 16:59, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

It seems the intention is to portray the Palestinians of Lydda as the defenseless victims of Israeli brutality, and using the word "battle" to describe the taking of the city (no matter how well sourced) does not fit that script. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:23, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

If so, it would be good because...

...with 150 Arab Legion soldiers and a few hundreds (?) of militiamen, the Palestinians of Lydda and Ramle were indeed defenceless in front of the combined forces of the Harel and Yiftah brigades of the Palmah, the 8th armoured brigade, some battalions of the Kiryati and Alexandroni brigades, all supported by 30 artillery pieces and bombing aircrafts.

Nevertheless, that is not the intention of SlimVirgin or any other editor to give that feeling.

As have been written several times, there are wp:rs sources that describe these events as an "ethnic cleansing" and for obvious reasons, we don't use these wording in the lead. Battle is not better given the events occured mainly after, and not during it.

Ceedjee (talk) 17:45, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

If they had weapons (which they certainly did) and if they had the will to fight (which I believe they also possessed), then they were not "defenseless" (as you term it). They had at least as good odds as the defenders in the Battle of Thermopylae, or the defenders in the Battle of Stalingrad. No one says those two events were not 'battles' because the odds were heavily against the defenders. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:02, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Malcolm, instead of arguing from a position of no knowledge, where you're reduced to guessing, why don't you do some research and bring the results here? You've mentioned Karsh a few times as though you admire him. He has written in about the defences in Lydda. As this article is in the process of being written, and is nowhere near even a first draft stage, it would be very helpful if you could do the Karsh reading (which someone will have to do at some point), and add the results to the article. Then you would find it more balanced, and there would be less need for arguments on talk, which would make everyone happier. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

In the writing of this article, I am interested in maintaining a certain balance, and do not intend to contribute anything major to the content. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:29, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

You don't have to add content if you don't want to, obviously. But if you want to help maintain balance, you will have to do the reading. Balance means balance between the views of the reliable sources. You therefore have to know what they say, and very little is available for free online. This is causing enormous problems here, as you're making points that you wouldn't be making if you had done some reading, and it's not fair to expect others to take time to explain that on talk. Plus, all of this is time away from adding content, so the article isn't being developed. If you would only allow it to be developed, you would see all the POVs being added. But it cannot be done overnight, because the reading takes time. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Malcolm's and others' comments are entirely appropriate here. Wikipedia is a community of people interested in creating an objective reference. Many people participate in the editing process, from various perspectives and in various roles. The assertions made in the sources which you quote are the subject of much debate, as you know. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 20:24, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, they are the subject of debate, and that debate will be covered. As things stand, I am having to add other POVs to User:SlimVirgin/Lydda, because this article is protected. The article cannot be written in a flash! The writers have to be allowed time to do the reading; anyone wanting to write it, or to comment meaningfully, is going to have to do some reading too; otherwise they will be commenting in ignorance, and what is the point of that? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:31, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

many article-related discussions take place here with participants having read no sources on the article's specific topic; just look at Deletion debates. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 21:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

If it's an article about Star Trek, it doesn't matter; or if it's a current event, people can quickly read the newspapers. But where it's a complex and important historical event, where even the reliable sources have difficulty sorting out who-said-what-when, it is impossible to discuss it intelligently without doing the reading. That is just a fact. Perhaps in 100 years time, we'll be able to have brain chips implanted containing all the scholarly material on X, but as things stand, there's no alternative to going to an academic library and sitting down with a bunch of books, which I have to say again takes time. If people would only be patient, they will see all reliable points of view being added to this article, bit by bit by bit. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:12, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I understand your point, and your legitimate concerns. however, Wikipedia provides many methods for resolving disputes and for pursuing discussions; none of them entail excluding any good-faith editor's views based on which sources they have or have not read. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 21:32, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

No, they don't. But the ArbCom I/P rulings do exclude advocacy for one side only, and repeated wholesale reversions of the kind we've seen here (and which the same editor is engaged in elsewhere too).

If people admit to having done no reading, and say they don't intend to, there can't be any reason for intervening if not for the sole purpose of promoting an uninformed POV, which is actionable under the I/P rulings. I hope we won't have to do that, however, as the ArbCom tends to sanction everyone involved in editing articles that attract these types of complaints. My hope instead is that we'll be allowed to at least try to get this article to FA status, and that editors will either help, and/or will understand that a decent article can't be produced in an instant. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:53, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

One group of sources here asserts a certain chain of events. Another group of sources completely contradicts the first group. so no single source is definitive here. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:07, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, I told AGK that I am taking a break from the article. But if you insist in making ad hominems such as in your edit above (ad hominems are always a logical fallacy and a violation of WP:NPA), I may change my mind. From the beginning, you have been accusing every editor who disagrees with your editorial goals for this article with accusations such as "promoting an uninformed POV", while at the same time you try to depict your own position (and every editor who supports your position) as NPOV.

I present this challenge to you: Take your accusations about me to WP:AN/AE, and we will see the outcome. Or if you chose not to do that, stop the ad hominems. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:29, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

The only thing you have done here is insult people, push a single POV, revert, add a tag, remove viable material, and argue on talk about issues you could easily establish for yourself e.g. questioning whether the lead image really is an image of Lydda, when all you had to do was look at the image page, the previous uploads and/or the source. You have said you have no time to read about the subject, but it's not possible to know anything about it without reading. I see you reverting other people's work elsewhere too (again because you dislike the POV. This is exactly the kind of intervention that people are tired of on the I/P pages. It is the kind of editing that makes WP's critics accuse us of promoting ignorance over scholarship. Please, either make yourself familiar with the scholarly material, and join in the editing (and you'd be most welcome), or allow other people to develop the article, and give them some time to do it before launching attacks. Constructive comments are very welcome on talk, but yours have not been constructive. I won't be responding to this again, unless you make a fresh point, because it's a waste of everyone's time. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:42, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, your claim that your supposed expert knowledge of the history involved qualifies you to edit this article, and that my supposed ignorance of the subject disqualifies me from editing this article, is contrary to WP tradition which allows good faith edits from all interested editors; and seems to further substantiate my previous statements (never refuted) that your approach to editing this article amounts to WP:OWN. Time and again you have accused editors, with a different view of this subject than your own, of bad faith editing. There is not a single editor, who disagrees with your concept for this article, who you have not accused of bad faith editing. That accusation is self serving; and your having taken charges against an excellent editor -- who's only fault is having a different view of the subject than your own -- to WP:AN/AE, was disruptive. Your claim that only your own editing, and the editing of those who agree with you, are NPOV, while all disagreeing with you are ignorant (at best) and editing in bad faith (at worst), in the context of I/P disputes is silly, and shows an inability, or an unwillingness, to understand that editors can have opposing concepts of a subject while still editing in good faith. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:23, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Malcolm,

take a break. Ceedjee (talk) 15:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Ceedjee,

thanks for the nice offer. however, I would like to make one small suggestion; let's try to please not make comments here which might seem to imply some form of belittling of another's editor's comments. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:10, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

• Malcolm, I'd encourage you to go on that break now. You seem frustrated, and it's not helping you or anybody else.
  AGK 16:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

AGK, I was through, and said so; when reading this edit (directed at me) gave me second thoughts

The only thing you have done here is insult people, push a single POV, revert, add a tag, remove viable material, and argue on talk about issues you could easily establish for yourself e.g. questioning whether the lead image really is an image of Lydda, when all you had to do was look at the image page, the previous uploads and/or the source. You have said you have no time to read about the subject, but it's not possible to know anything about it without reading. I see you reverting other people's work elsewhere too (again because you dislike the POV. This is exactly the kind of intervention that people are tired of on the I/P pages. It is the kind of editing that makes WP's critics accuse us of promoting ignorance over scholarship. Please, either make yourself familiar with the scholarly material, and join in the editing (and you'd be most welcome), or allow other people to develop the article, and give them some time to do it before launching attacks. Constructive comments are very welcome on talk, but yours have not been constructive. I won't be responding to this again, unless you make a fresh point, because it's a waste of everyone's time. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 22:42, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

You will excuse me if I wonder why it you are giving me a warning after SlimVirgin wrote something like that. If she, or you, thinks the content of that edit is true, why do you not take it to WP:AN/AE and we will test it there? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:03, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Title 4

I'm assuming it's okay to remove the merge tag now. However, we still have to decide on a title. Lydda and Ramla tend to be covered together in scholarly works, so I suggest we move it back to "Exodus from Lydda and Ramla," or call it "Fall of Lydda and Ramla." My preference would be the former. Any thoughts? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Not easy. Most scholars only use Lydda in their title but that is not accurate and sometimes it is because they only focus on the events in that city. There were about 10 other villages in the area and they are concerned by the events too.

• 1948 Palestinian exodus from Lydda and Ramle.
• Exodus from Lydda and Ramle
• ...

Ceedjee (talk) 06:13, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

At this point in time, I believe 1948 Palestinian exodus from Lydda and Ramle is the best way to go. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:17, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Karsh on Ramla

Is anyone familiar with Karsh's view that there was no expulsion from Ramla, and why and where he argues it? We have a letter to Commentary from him, but he simply states it -- there was no expulsion from Ramla -- he doesn't explain. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:01, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Lead image

There seems next to nothing to confirm that the lead image actually is Lydda. I have tried to compare what is in this image with other photos of known landmarks in Lydda to verify, but have had no luck. Is there someone who can establish why this is thought to be a photo of Lydda in a way to meet the requirements of WP:verify? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 23:49, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

NB: the original photo, from the G. Eric and Edith Matson Photograph Collection at the Library of Congress, is marked Palestine RR Junction [40]. If there is any rail road junction in the photo, I fail to see it. Perhaps it is a mislabeled photograph? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:12, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Invasion, conquest, or battle in the lead

Previous discussions Talk:Exodus from Lydda#Battle; Talk:Exodus from Lydda#There was a battle but...; and Talk:Exodus from Lydda#Battle again

Could I again ask for views on this sentence in the lead?

1. Around 290-450 Palestinians and 9-10 Israeli soldiers were killed during the invasion of Lydda.

2. Around 290-450 Palestinians and 9-10 Israeli soldiers were killed during the conquest of Lydda.

3. Around 290-450 Palestinians and 9-10 Israeli soldiers were killed during the battle to take Lydda, and in violence that followed.

1 and 2 are the neutral terms, as I see it, because not all reliable sources agree that there was a battle, or that 290-450 Palestinians were killed during a battle. But 1 and 2 keep being reverted by Malcolm. [41] [42] [43] [44] I'm therefore requesting input here. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:52, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

NB: "Battle" is the word used in an excellent source [45]. Feel free to use the other words in addition to battle, but not to replace it. Asking for a vote on sourced content is the same as asking for a vote on WP:RS. -- Malcolm Schosha (talk) 00:17, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

All the words we could use come from excellent sources. The key is to choose one for the lead that every source would agree on. I am forced to request input again because you have reverted four times against two editors, and are ignoring the input from the previous discussions; see above. If I revert you, I'll be accused of edit-warring, so here we are, forced to spend time discussing minutiae. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

My mind is that we should only focus in the lead on the events that concern the exodus and not the Operation Dani (that deserves to be developed !).

I fear we mix casualities of both events here.

I don't think it would be not neutral not to give the Israeli casualities in the lead, it doesn't matter. For the casualities of the PAlestinians Arabs, we should try to get a fair number of the civilian casualities because fighters are not concerned by an exodus (they re-deploy).

Then, never mind the word we use given it will be : "after the -whatever- of Lydda".

Ceedjee (talk) 06:03, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I have a suggestion in mind but I'd be interested in hearing Malcolm Schosha's suggested phrasing prior to making it. Currently, all three versions seem like they would not last long term.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

What's the point of this voting game? It's obvious there are more 'pro-P's watching this page and every vote will go the way SV wants (I wonder what happened to writing from both sides of the issue? But I digress). I am enjoying the argument about how one or two sources isn't enough to put something in the lead when that's the whole reason "death march" is in there, though. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:43, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Of these alternatives, I favour "conquest" as it implies battle in any case, and is a more elegant construction. "During the battle and in the violence that followed" is a clumsy construction that adds no additional information. Gatoclass (talk) 15:12, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

• Just to let all editors know, there has been some additional discussion of this issue here. -- Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:42, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

New background

For what concerns the "background" suggested here above, could we discuss what is considered useless and what to add eventually ? Then, we can re-write in better English and I can provide wp:rs source.
The best would be to find what information is given by scholars in the articles (or chapters of book) dealing with this topic but it is not an easy job.
The other way (what I tried) is to give information of events that had consequence or a direct link on the events. We may have to discuss about the "idea of transfer", but that is very hard stuff. Ceedjee (talk) 06:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not entirely against a version that starts at the Balfour declaration but it feels unnecessary. What is wrong with starting with the 1947 Partition plan? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:37, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

We can start with the partition Plan. What is written before is just to explain why there was a partition plan.

Ceedjee (talk) 12:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see a clear explanation and it feels like it would be going to far to try and explain Jewish-European-Soviet-Middle Eastern history. If I undertand you correctly, we're in agreement that it is not necessary so we can move to other points.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:37, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

The partition plan was voted because there was no other possibility to solve the I/P contentious on Palestine.

Anyway, indeed, it can be removed and we can start with the Partition Plan.

What are the other points ? Ceedjee (talk) 16:45, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I can't see where Balfour is mentioned in the proposed background/general section, but I'd say it probably isn't necessary. Ideally it should be the bare bones only, in my view. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment—I believe that the idea behind the background section needs to be changed. There should basically be two equal-tier sections: one for a general background (who did what and why), and one section called Operation Danny (linking to the main article), analogous to a 'prelude' section which is standard in military history articles. This section will detail the immediate background for the exodus, in the context of the war. I am willing to (help) write the part about Operation Danny. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 03:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Ceedjee (talk) 05:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

As the article's protected again, I'm continuing the editing here, and I've added quite a bit today about the military background. You're welcome to join in. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 04:25, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Merge tag

As the RfC came out clearly against merging this into Operation Danny, I'm going to remove the tag when the article is unprotected. Please say here if you object, so that I'm not removing it without discussion. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

FYI : Salbit

Few days ago, I had removed the info according to which the unhabitants had been ordered to go to Salbit, arguing at that time Salbit was already controlled by the Israelis and not any more by the Arab Legion.
I was wrong. I have been influenced by a map in Morris's book : 1948 where it is written Salbit felt on 10 July. But that is a mistake in that map. All other sources I checked (and Morris himself) state that Salbit felt 5 days later, just before the Israeli attacked Latrun.
So my point was unrelevant. Ceedjee (talk) 05:43, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for checking that, Ceedjee. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:53, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Recent additions

I've added the content [46] I developed yesterday at User:SlimVirgin/Lydda, because the page was protected. If anyone wants to look at the individual diffs, see here; the start version was 19:27, May 14, 2009, and the final one 10:29, May 15, 2009.

Most of the new content is based on a paper by Kadish and Sela about the military capacity in Lydda on the Arabs' side, arguing against Morris on several points. I also moved some sections to make the narrative flow better, and I added some images. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 10:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Battle/conquest and Operation Danny/Dani

Two points:

1. Ceedjee, I also prefer Operation Dani, but when I first wrote that, someone changed it to Danny, so that's what I used throughout. I don't mind which it is, but it should be consistent, at least within this article. Does anyone have a preference? Danny is used throughout Wikipedia in case that matters.

2. We need to choose a word for this sentence in the lead, where it says "battle":

"Around 290–450 Palestinians and 9–10 Israeli soldiers were killed during the battle to take Lydda, and in violence that followed."

I would prefer, "Around 290–450 Palestinians and 9–10 Israeli soldiers were killed during the fall of Lydda." (Or invasion of Lydda, or conquest of Lydda.)

The problem with using "battle" is that the historians don't agree. Karsh, Kadish and Sela call it a "battle." Morris says it was part battle, part massacre. Gelber says it was a massacre, even bloodier than at Deir Yassin. Khalidi regards it as a massacre. But they all refer to it as "fall," "invasion," or "conquest" at some point, so I feel we should choose one of those for the lead, so as not to beg the question.

I'd normally just pick a word, but AGK requested that people express a preference to avoid edit-warring. See previous discussions at Talk:Exodus from Lydda#Battle, Talk:Exodus from Lydda#There was a battle but..., and Talk:Exodus from Lydda#Battle again. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:47, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

About Danny vs. Dani: It's obviously Danny, and to anyone who understands Hebrew, "Dani" seems like something totally unnatural and weird. Danny (דני, Dani) is a Hebrew name which is short for Daniel (דניאל, Daniyyel). I don't see anyone writing Daniyyel in Israeli contexts of the use of the name Daniel—completely incorrect and unnatural. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 22:57, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I think many, if not most, of the Israeli historians use Dani. Here's Tom Segev in Haaretz, just as an example. [47] Morris uses Dani too. I don't mind either way, though. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:39, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Here Morris uses Danny. But that doesn't really matter. Wikipedia's guidelines are specifically made for these kinds of situations—we should use the word most recognizable and "natural" to the English-speaker. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 00:56, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Do you have an opinion on battle, fall, conquest, invasion, or occupation for the sentence in the lead? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:04, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Here, I disagree with Ynhockey. We don't have to make sometimes new or better than what is currently used. I have never met the word "Danny" but only "Dani". Historians are the references. I agree that the guidelines recommand to use the most recognizable and "natural". And concerning this operation, it is "Dani" because it is "Dani" that is used by historians.

Concerning "battle" or "conquest" etc, I think it doesn't matter if it is written "during the battle and the violence that followed". The only important thing is not to make believe that all these people died "only" during the battle.

Ceedjee (talk) 06:50, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Really, it doesn't matter what historians use (although, as I said, they don't all/always use Dani). Wikiepdia's target audience are not historians, but English-speakers, and Dani is decidedly non-English (reads more like French/Italian). No one fluent in both Hebrew and English who is named Danny would seriously write their name as Dani. It's simple common sense. In case anyone is wondering, the operation was named for Danny Mas (not Dani Mas). —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 11:54, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Another example of why we shouldn't use what historians use is how all professional maps (both geographical and political) use Q for the Hebrew letter Kuf for Israeli localities. It has long been agreed on Wikipedia not to do this, because it's not natural in a modern context. Professionals have their reasons for using a certain spelling (or sometimes they don't care), and we should make our own assessment. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 12:18, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Regarding battle, fall, conquest, invasion or occupation, the obvious one seems to be 'battle' (the addition of "and the violence that followed" is also fine). The reason is that the terms 'fall' and 'conquest' are very side- (POV-) specific. In any battle with a conqueror, the winner calls it conquest, and the loser calls it fall (automatically). We should not take sides. Invasion and occupation are just unnecessary strong words and are not really relevant to what is described. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 11:54, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

POV tag

I'd like to remove the tag. If there are outstanding concerns (that are actionable), could people list them here?

Previous reasons given on this page for the tag:

1. the eyewitness section is highly reliant on single,partisan source. thelead presents as facts things which are claims by interested parties. NoCal100 (talk) 04:14, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
   Resolved
2. All the article's sources are known anti-Israel partisans. Nary is there any mainstream sources in support of the article's claims ... --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
   Resolved
3. Article name: several of the sources (e.g Finklestein, Masalha) call it a "forced march". "Death march" seems to be a partisan usage ... NoCal100 (talk)`
   Resolved
4. The "eyewitness" section contains several accounts which are clearly not eye witnesses (UN mediator, Morris, etc..). This section also dominates the article as a whole, and as such, violates WP:UNDUE. NoCal100 (talk)`
   Resolved
5. Sources: Highly partisan sources such as the al-Aharm article "commemorating 50 years of Arab dispossession" or AMEU should be removed, leaving only the higher quality sources. NoCal100 (talk)`
   Resolved
6. New material added since I last commented makes incorrect claims and attributes them to sources which do not make those claims (e.g: Al-Ramla and Lydda were not "renamed" Lod and Ramla, those were their Hebrew names, used throughout the mandatory period, and the source cited does not say they we renamed) NoCal100 (talk)`
   Resolved
7. Title: neither "forced march" or "death march" is appropriate for the title. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 15:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
   Resolved
8. Lede: contains several important inaccuracies. Number of deaths is put at 350 per Masalha, but Morris speaks of "a handful, and perhaps dozens"; with such a discrepancy, the more mainstream scholar Morris should be given at least primacy. Number of evictees is put at 70,000, while Morris speaks of 50,000, Karsh 30,000 and Gelber 30,000-50,000. "Repeatedly shot over their heads to keep them moving" is taken from Rantisi's memoir, which is not a reliable source; the description is contradicted by Rantisi's own account in Benvenisti et al, where contact with Israeli soldiers is described as a couple of chance encounters, and is not supported by the other sources. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 15:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
   Resolved
9. Sources: Rantisi's memoir and Abu Sitta's column in Al-Ahram are not reliable sources and should not be used per WP:V (but Rantisi's interview in Benvenisti et al is, since it appears in a scholarly publication). I would also recommend making use of Gelber's account, which is quite detailed. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 15:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
   Resolved
10. Weight: Rantisi gets by far the most space in the article, including extensive quotes. This would be WP:UNDUE even without the reliability problem. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 15:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
    Resolved
11. Omissions: the fierce street fighting waged by local Palestinian militiamen during the battle over Lydda would seem to be important context material. Also important is the order by Ben Gurion (which came too late) not to expel non-fighting residents, described by Gelber. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 15:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
    Resolved
12. Style: occasional POV tone. For example, "long march into exile" in the last section: adds no information, and, since Lydda and Ramallah are about 20 miles apart, is misleading. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 15:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
    Resolved
13. Use of unreliable sources, such as memoirs, op-eds and partisan websites. The events are very well covered by academic books, often available online, so there is really no need to use other sources. Among academic sources, preferring those that are polemical, politicized and/or are not actually about the 1948 war, and/or are not written by professional historians, such as Pappe, Finkelstein and Masalha, over those that or dispassionate, neutral, about the 1948 war, and written by professional historians, such as Morris, Gelber and Karsh. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 15:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
    Resolved
14. Reading things into sources. Example: "continuously shot over their heads along the way", taken from Rabin's memoirs where he talks about warning shots "to get them walking" the distance to the Arab Legion's positions. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 15:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
    Resolved
15. Picking and choosing. Example: regarding the number of deaths along the way, it's pretty clear that nobody really knows. Morris's estimate is "a handful, perhaps dozens", others estimate over 300, based on a source Morris describes as "hearsay". But Morris's estimate was removed, because "it contradicts his previous figure". Jalapenos do exist (talk) 15:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
    Resolved
16. Sources: I was referring to the memoirs of Rabin and Rantisi (of which extensive use is made; Rantisi in particular obviously has an ax to grind, plus, he was 11 at the time), the AMEU (partisan website), material in Al-Ahram (Egyption Ministry of Information-controlled newspaper), an op-ed in Al-Jazeera, etc. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 15:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
17. Academic sources: see, this is the problem. You consider Pappe and Karsh roughly equivalent, but Pappe is highly polemical, self-professedly (and proudly) non-neutral, and a fairly fringe figure in academia, while Karsh is none of these things. The only reason I can see to use Pappe when there are several better sources easily available is that Pappe is harshly critical of Israel. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 15:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
    Resolved
18. Picking and choosing: again, exactly what I'm talking about. The lower figure of Morris is exiled to a footnote, at the end of a rambling paragraph, while the higher figure is in the lede. Then this is justified by arbitrarily charging that Morris' figure is a guess while the other is not. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 15:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
    Resolved
19. In comparison with similar historical event articles, this one waits until the last lead paragraph to make some minimal mention of the Israeli issues which surround the battle. The operation's name should be (a) in the first paragraph along with it's (b) stated objectives. JaakobouChalk Talk 07:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC) (Stated objectives added to first para.)
    Resolved
20. Several POV issues seem to exist in this section and I'll name a few. I believe the earlier version was much more to the point and did not include any of the current problems. As such, I believe it would be simpler to just put it back in instead of the current version. JaakobouChalk Talk 07:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
    Resolved
21. "District of Ramla in Palestine" - should be, "District of Ramla in the British Mandate of Palestine". JaakobouChalk Talk 07:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
    Resolved
22. "in order to give the Jewish people a homeland, something they had long campaigned for." - emphasized text should be removed. JaakobouChalk Talk 07:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
    Resolved
23. "named after Dani Mass, a Palmach commander killed in January 1948, was an Israeli operation carried out over a ten-day period — which has come to be known as the Ten Days" - WP:UNDUE. You want to read about Danni, read the Dani operation article then. There's simply no relevance for this article. JaakobouChalk Talk 07:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC) ("named after Dani Mass" removed)
24. Ilan Pappe is debatably reliable but he's clearly unreliable at the same time. JaakobouChalk Talk 09:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC) See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Is_Ilan_Pappe_a_reliable_source.3F.
    Resolved
25. Merge to Operation Danny: "I'll add a merge tag." NoCal100 (talk) 13:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
    Resolved

Unresolved issues from the above:

• We still use the memoirs of Rabin and Rantisi, but both are clearly relevant, both are mentioned by reliable secondary sources, and neither is used a lot.
• We still describe what Operation Danny was, but I would say most people would want that. We removed that it was named after Dani Mass, which was perhaps what the objection was about.

Are there other actionable issues? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:30, 17 May 2009 (UTC)