Wikipedia:Peer review/1948 Palestinian expulsion from Lydda and Ramle/archive2

1948 Palestinian exodus from Lydda and Ramle

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've returned to this article after a break, and would like to try to bring it to FA status. Reviews from uninvolved editors would be very helpful. I've kept a copy of the last version I can vouch for at User:SlimVirgin/Lydda3.

Brian Boulton, in case you're able to look at this again, I've dealt with the points you raised during the first peer review, except that the ending is the same. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 09:46, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A few initial points:-

There does not appear to be a link to this review page on the article's talkpage
There are dablinks needing fixing
A couple of external links show up red from the link in the toolbox, but they seem to working OK for me.

Substantial review to follow. Brianboulton (talk) 00:56, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~I don't know how to add a link for a PR that has already started. I just tried to add it but it opened up a PR/archive 3.~~ SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:32, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, done now. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:46, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed the dabs I can understand. Don't know what it means about links pointing back. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:42, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There were links to redirects back to this article in some of the navboxes at the bottom - took a while, but I found and fixed them all. Thanks for your work on this, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:47, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 03:00, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: This is a very important article, bound to trigger dissension, and SV is to be thanked for her determination to persevere with it. Initially I am commenting on minor issues, mainly grammar, choices of phrasing, points of accuracy, requests for clarity etc. When this is done I will comment more generally on the objectivity of the article and other issues that have proved contentious in the past. Here are some minor points from the first few sections:-

Lead

first para: "known as Lod and Ramla" → "and were renamed Lod and Ramla", or maybe, "were known to the Jews by the Hebrew names of Lod and Ramla".
"from where" → just "where"
"The events in Lydda and Ramle accounted for one-tenth of the overall exodus from Palestine..." For those who are not knowledgeable in this area of history you need to say "overall Arab exodus"

Strategic importance

General point: At some stage the role of the Arab Legion needs to be clarified. It was not, as some may think, the standing army of the Palestinian Arabs; it had its own agenda. This is hinted at in parts of the article without being made explicit.
"...forcing it onto a bypass" - I don't think this is adequate. I assume you are referring to the so-called "Burma Road" which the Israelis carved themselves through the rocky approaches to Jerusalem. So you should say something like "forcing the Jews to create an alternative route which bypassed the Arab strongholds" or some such.
The third paragraph seems somewhat out of place here. At this stage we are still learning the background; suddenly, before we are ready, we are given a complete summary. I would end the paragraph after the second sentence, replacing "launched" with "devised". The second part of the paragraph could be used later in the article, but it is premature here.

Lydda's defences

There is an awkwardness about "Jewish, then Israeli". Simply to say "Jewish" or "Israeli" would be perfectly clear.
Link Arab Higher Committee
Personally I would say "Israeli attack" rather than "Israeli invasion" although the latter is factually justifiable

Air attacks and surrender of Ramle

I'm not fond of "Two very different images..."; the phrasing carries a prescriptive tone; I would drop the "very"

Unexpected shooting in Lydda

4,000 in a single mosque? This seems unlikely, unless it means the mosque compound

Israeli response to the shooting

"to have it delayed" - "it" requires defining.

More to follow Brianboulton (talk) 17:15, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for these suggestions. I've implemented most of them here. Regarding the third paragraph of the "Strategic importance" section, I've turned it into a section called Operation Dani. We need it before we describe Lydda's defences in the next section, because the defences and Operation Dani (and the perception of both on each side) were related.

As for "became known as Lod and Ramla," this is a point of contention with other editors, and the current wording is not mine. I wrote: "Both towns, which had been Arab areas in Palestine, became predominantly Jewish areas in the new state, with Lydda becoming known as Lod." Some editors objected, saying Lod had been known as Lod for a long time, and therefore "becoming known" was wrong (even though it's what the academic source says). It's also not clear that Lod or Ramla were Hebrew words, which is another thing they wanted to add, and it didn't only become known as Lod to the Jews or Israelis, but to the West in general. So I've just left it as it is for now. Maybe we can return to it at the end of the review?

As for the Arab Legion, I have a couple of Yoav Gelber books here that go into detail, though it's complicated, but I'll try to find a way to clarify. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:42, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing

Expulsion orders

"David Ben-Gurion and the IDF were left to their own devices to decide how Arab residents were to be treated". Odd phrasing; "left" by whom? B-G was prime minister, the IDF a national army, surely what happened was largely down to them? What does Morris actually say?

Morris says they were largely left on their own to decide what to do, without interference from the Cabinet or ministries. I've clarified. [1] SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 03:14, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Rabin's account in 1977" and his "memoirs in 1979". What was the earlier document?

It was an interview in 1977. I've clarified. [2] SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 03:14, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do we know why Rabin, rather than Allon who was head of the operation, signed the expulsion order?

I don't know. I'll look at the sources again, but I think it's simply that Allon was the boss, so Rabin did the paperwork. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 03:14, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shitrit/Shertok intervention

"the word "lalechet" can mean go or walk". I would clarify this to; "the word lalechet can mean either "go" or "walk".

Agreement to leave

Some confusion here. The first two sentences refer to Ramla, the rest of the section to Lydda. Did the Ramla refugees join with those from Lydda on the death march? I think that for clarity, a short separate paragraph should deal with Ramla, including information about how they travelled and where they went.

The march

"After walking for three days..." Since the distance travelled in three days was only 17 km (10 miles), I'd guess that they weren't "walking" for three days. Perhaps the wording could emphasise that conditions enabled the refugees only to cover a relatively short distance (some accounts say they only travelled as far as Beit Nabala and were picked up there.
Not necessary here to give Glubb his full panoply of names.

Looting of refugees and the towns

The heading refers to "towns" in the plural, yet apart from mention of a rape allegation in Ramle, the text focuses in Lydda. This creates the impression that things progressed more smoothly in Ramle; is this the case? Either way, the concentation on events in Lydda needs to be explained.

Again, more to follow. Brianboulton (talk) 23:37, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the rest

In Ramallah, Amman, and elsewhere

Again, Glubb full names unnecessary, nor is it necessary to repeat his designation as commander of the legion
"Wives and parents of Arab Legion soldiers tried to break into King Abdullah's palace." Needs some context; what was the focus of their protest?
"Palestinians drove out the Jordanian governor of Nablus." Maybe Transjordanian? But again, why? What had this poor man done? Why at this stage did Nablus, not then part of Transjordan, have a Transjordanian governor? Maybe a note should refer back to the five invading states mentioned in the Background section
The same note should explain the presence of the Iraqi army.
Perie-Gordon should be properly named, if possible (no clues on google)
"King Abdullah indicated that he wanted Glubb to leave". By "leave" I assume you mean "resign his post". To whom did Abdullah "indicate" that he wished this?

Situation of the refugees

This section looks to be part of a an article on the general Arab refugee problem, since it scarcely alludes to Lydda and Ramle. The background information is important because it gives the bigger picture, but I would begin the section something like: "The refugees from Lydda and Ramle became part of a total of 400,000 Arabs who became homeless that summer. Morris writes that their situation was dire, as they camped in public buildings, abandoned barracks, and under trees."
"Israel offered to allow 100,000 to return ... Ben-Gurion opposed..." What, then, was the status of this Israeli offer?

Resettlement of the cities

Can you explain the practical effect of the "closed" zones? They clearly weren't closed off completely, given the numbers of essential Palestinian workers.
When you say "some of their needs", it reads as though this refers just to the essential workers, but I believe it means the whole Palestinian remnant. Can this be clarified?

Four key figures after the exodus

I am slightly worried about the designation of "Four key figures", which reads like editorial selection/opinion. Would it be possible to rename the section neutrally, e.g. "After the exodus"?
The information on the first three figures is given as unadorned fact. With Habash, however, a reminiscence of Lydda is included, in very emotional terms. This damages the objectivity of the section; perhaps you should conclude at "rescue of the hostages".

Artistic reception

What transpired from Ben-Gurion's atrocities investigation?
"apparently referring to the events in Lydda, according to Morris." "Apparently" and "according to" don't sit well together; I'd omit the "apparently".

Historiography

No comments on this section

Lod and Ramla today

You give a Jewish/Arab population split for Lod but not for Ramla (the section is, indeed, somewhat Lod-centric)
"the former Arab ghetto" - perhaps explain by reference to the "closed areas" mentioned earlier in the article, or readers might wonder what this ghetto was.

At this point, apart from the odd instance which I have mentioned, the article seems to me a balanced and reasonable account, but I will, as promised, return to the review in a couple of days with further comments and suggestions relating to comprehensiveness and objectivity. Brianboulton (talk) 19:16, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not much has happened yet, so I'll delay my return a bit. Brianboulton (talk) 11:12, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Brian, I'm still on it, just a little overwhelmed by the work ahead. I keep thinking this article is more or less finished, but it's turning into the painting of the Forth Road Bridge (by the time you finish, it's time to start again). :) But your comments are greatly appreciated, and I will respond to them. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 03:42, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, I've not had much time in the past week or so to do much, anyway. Let me know when you think it's worth another look. Brianboulton (talk) 00:02, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]