Talk:Or Yehuda

History section

• 1. Or Yehuda doest not cover the area which was covered by Kafr 'Ana and Saqiya. They had 17,553 and 5,850 respectively, a total of 23,403 dunams. Or Yehuda has only 5,141 dunams

• 2. The present representation of the History section in Or Yehuda is as close to a blatant history forgery that I have come across on Wikipedia. Just a thing like that the religion of the population in 1596 is not given (They were all Muslim) ..and the info about the 1931, or 1945 etc, etc. It looks as if one has cherry picked history to hide that those two villages were old Muslim villages.

One haven’t even bothered adding a Bibliography, say for Hütteroth and Abdulfattah!! This will have to go. If anyone is interested in adding history for this period, please add that at the appropriated places. Meanwhile I’m removing that which does not belong here, Huldra (talk) 20:14, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

As you may see here - [1] (by switching between the PEF and the modern view while over Or-Yehuda/Kfar 'Ana-Saqiya) - Modern Or Yehuda (36,000 residents and which I believe is 6500 dunams following the latest annexation) - covers the inhabited areas of Sakia (1000 residents) and Kefr Ana (3000 residents). As you should know - attributing dunam areas of villages in Palestine (and elsewhere!) is often mainly unworked terrain (or fields worked in a very long multi-year rotation) in the general vicinity of the village (and in the case Kefr Ana - quit a bit of unpopulated space to the south and east of the village proper). The village buildings themselves (for which I do not have a dunam figure - but as per the PEF map - were quite small) - are directly below the current Or Yehuda. Your blanket revert here - removing important historical information for this site - is not acceptable. We typically refer to, in Wikipedia, to the historical context of a location. If you think additional information should be added regarding the previous Muslim villages (as per your "cherry picked" history comment), beneath current Or Yehuda, add the information (and I believe you are quite familiar with these two villages having contributed to their articles) - disregarding that these villages existed on the exact same site as Or Yehuda - is not what we do in other articles. The site definitely had a history between the Roman period and the State of Israel.Icewhiz (talk) 20:36, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Adding Main articles in the beginning, is exactly what we do on other articles. We can, if you like, add a sentence saying something like: Until 1948, the two Palestinian villages of Kfar 'Ana and Saqiya existed here. (That is, move that above the "State of Israel"). That, and a Main articles in the beginning should cover everything, Huldra (talk) 20:53, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

You blanked the history. There is no kfar ana per your version in Or Yehuda. See New York City#History - I see quite a long section covering New Amsterdam and I don't see a redirect to a "main article". The main article, in this particular instance, should be the modern day city - and not an article covering a long disused name which reached at a its peak 3000 residents or so. Regarding the location - see also here - [2] / [3] / [4].Icewhiz (talk) 21:01, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Huh? There are two links to both Kfar 'Ana-Saqiya in my version. As for "main article", we could change the name, and call it "Earlier history", whatever.

The thing is, you are of course right about me being familiar with the text/sources of Kfar 'Ana-Saqiya, as I have added much (most?) of the references in both. With your wish, to copy things from Kfar 'Ana-Saqiya into this article, you effectively double my work, as each time I, say add some info to say, Saqiya (as I just did), I would also have to add it to Or Yehudi. :/ Thanks, but no thanks....Huldra (talk) 21:09, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

We don't need to add everything to Or Yehuda (due to WP:PROPORTION - minutia regarding previous small settlements shouldn't be given too much weight). However, it would be pertinent to mention that there were two previous settlements on this site, with residents, up until 1948 and that the site was conquered in 1948, resettled in the abandoned buildings, subsequent tent cities (maaborot), and then built up as a modern city. Per your last blanket removal of information (which might run foul of some wiki rule (seeing as this is a re-removal without discussing - violating the stable pre July 11th state here) - but I'm not into wikilawyering)- this site has no history between the Byzantine period to the state of Israel - a 1300 year hole or there about. Just as New York City#History doesn't cover every detail of New Amsterdam, but does go into quite some detail regarding New Amsterdam.Icewhiz (talk) 21:16, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Firstly, the history from Kfar 'Ana-Saqiya was copied into the article a year or two ago, without any discussion, and quite unlike the general "custom" on these articles. And, without me knowing too much about New Amsterdam/ New York, AFAIK, there wasn't a complete break with tradition. In the case of Kfar 'Ana-Saqiya and Or Yehudi it was. Nothing of old Kfar 'Ana-Saqiya was kept. (Except a handful houses). I propose that we add Khalidi refs, and say that "Or Yehudi was established on the land of the depopulated Palestinian villages of Kfar 'Ana and Saqiya.", or something like that, Huldra (talk) 21:43, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

You made a blanket removal two days ago - without discussion. Your redirection - from today - of the entire history to Kafr 'Ana & Saqiya (villages who have no post-1948 history, and that were built around 1600) for a modern city is highly misleading. Such a referral could be made in Ottoman/Mandate section - not on the entire history. While Khalidi might (and I stress might) be an appropriate ref for pre-1949 events - it is definitely not an indepth or accurate reference of post-1949 development. In the early years of the state of Israel - quite a bit of the houses were kept - however due to their poor repair, lack of running water, sewage, etc - most were replaced with modern building. I have seen some sources state there are still approximately 10 old buildings (most highly modified / repaired / etc.). However - this could be said of many cities built on the site of old ramshackle settlements - the old buildings are often replaced. Most Wikipedia articles about current locations - cover the entire history of the location - it might refer to some other article for more in-depth coverage of a particular era (as in this case - Ottoman/Mandate - should be fairly brief (besides covering 1948 - which probably should be more in-depth here) - a short paragraph - referring to the main article). People who look up a modern city/town - should be able to see a decent overview of the history of this city (including previous settlements on the same site) - in the article. This really shouldn't be an I/P POV issue. How about you provide a short summary (much shorter than the dedicated period articles) of the Ottoman and Mandate periods for Or Yehuda? Icewhiz (talk) 21:54, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

I make no excuses for blanking out a section which was added - without discussion. (And added badly, may I say, without even a Bibliography!). We could start with the version before all this mess started Here. Huldra (talk) 22:10, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

The stable version, prior to your blanket removal of July 11 2017 and going back to 25 July 2015, or 2 years, contains this period. Most of which was with citations. Removal of cited, relevant information may be seen as vandalism. While I agree the Ottoman section in this article should have been pared down per BALASP, there is really no excuse to remove the sections all together. The British mandate period and civil war section was perfectly acceptable with the exception of perhaps a missing citation for operation Hamatz which could have been trivially added (from that article or from citations already in this article which mentions Hamatz and this location).Icewhiz (talk) 22:26, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

The stable version, before the 2015 addition, was back to 2009. And the citations which I removed were incomplete. Also, rechecking Khalidi, he says that Kafr Ana land went to Yagel and Newe Efrayim, that is Neve Monosson. Lol! See, that is one reason I want it all in one place: no need to spread mistakes..Huldra (talk) 22:57, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Khalidi is not the best source for what happend post 1949. Regarding what went where, you need to separate the actual village buildings which cover quite a small area which is all in Or Yehuda, and farm land (and badland) that nominally (ownership of farm land is a complex issue under Ottoman law, requires usually actual working of the land and is more akin to a lease. Locating the actual location of the farm land is often difficult if the land was not surveyed, and most Arab land was not) was registered to the village or people allegedly from the village. The farm land wenr to a number of places. The built up areas of both villages is under the current houses of the current expanded 2017 Or Yehuda, there should be no question about this, it is clear from an cursory map examination.Icewhiz (talk) 04:24, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

You need a citation for Kafr 'Ana, and Khalidi was pretty up to date when he published it...but that is of course 25 years ago. Also, it looks strange that you add the 1922 data, why not the 1945 data instead? Huldra (talk) 20:08, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Cited Kfar 'Ana - I'm not sure when the city limits covered it (might have been since the 50s - it was the site of 2 Ma'abarot) - but it was built up around 2000 (Neve Rabin) - so there's excavation reports. I moved 1922 to 1931. 1945 isn't hard census data if I understand correctly - it is a statistical extrapolation of some sort (e.g. assuming a straight line population growth - which on average is correct, but in specific locales can be off (in either direction, and quite a bit so)). I don't have any strong opinions here (1931 vs. 1945), but I do prefer hard data. Regarding Khalidi - I take issue with Khalidi in general (as to my understanding he is/was attempting to build/document an early Palestinian identity - regardless of whether the facts on the ground support this or not), but in particular I don't think he is a good source for what happened in the state of Israel in the 50s onward - that's not his focus. Sourcing pre 1949 material from him suffers from possible POV, but what exactly happened in the state of Israel itself isn't what he was focused nor well connected to the sources.Icewhiz (talk) 21:20, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for finding this reference, it is useful, although it has its mistakes. Ie where do they get "120 inhabitants resided in the village in the nineteenth century" from? They don't say, and the only one I know of who gave a number of inhabitants for Kafr Ana in the 19th century was Guerin, in 1863, and he found 500 inhabitants, if my google.translate.com works ok. ( "Cinq cents ")

I have used Khalidi extensively, and checked literally hundreds and hundreds of his references. Here, at Kafr Ana, is actually one of the very few times I have found that he has made a mistake...in the 1596 data. (See note 13 in the article.). And which localities went on the 1948 villages land was his speciality, if you like. But of course, villages/cities have developed much in the last quarter of a century.

As for 1931 vs 1945, I have no preference, either. As to the reliance, or not, it was discussed exhaustingly with a User:NoCal100 sock on Talk:Walid Khalidi......Huldra (talk) 21:40, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure where they are pulling the 120 inhabitants from - it isn't cited. It isn't necessarily wrong as they provide a wide date bracket (e.g. 19th century could be 1800-10). It is also possibly they mix up households / males of age with inhabitants (particularly if they are pulling this from some sort of tax roll). Depends what they sourced this from. But this isn't the sort of thing you'd expect them to vet with great seriousness - their focus was the dig - providing background on the site was secondary (and definitely secondary when referring to the 19th century in particular). They cite a few other digs there (in Ono - which is Kfar Ana more or less) - if you want to go digging.Icewhiz (talk) 21:55, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

The thing is, there are very few sources giving the numbers of inhabitants in the 19th century, that is, sources readily available to us. SWP usually don't give any numbers, nor do Robinson. That leaves Guerin, in addition to Socin, Hartmann, and Schick, all given here: User:Huldra/Socin...it could possibly be no. 171 on Socin, p. 156...alas, he gives 499 males in 156 houses. I have to check this with Ben-Arieh. Huldra (talk) 22:07, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Drop them an e-mail - they might be willing to help and cough up the source (if there is one and this wasn't a guesstimate - they aren't saying 120, they are saying "some 120", and the next number is also with a c.).Icewhiz (talk) 22:18, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Lol, I am actually guessing that these Hadashot Arkheologiyot people read Wikipedia these days...at least their latest articles about, say, Umm al-Faraj or Aqir just "happened" to have the exact same sources that I put into Wikipedia ages ago......

Also, the number 120 is definitely to low. I’ve checked the Socin and Hartmann 1870 numbers, and yes, those are for Kafr 'Ana, Huldra (talk) 22:43, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

They report dig results there. So they are quite precise in terms of Archealogical finds, and geography... If you want to know what was found in or on the ground in a particular location, this is a great source (and this is generally true of dig reports elsewhere). Autors thete are the people who were in charge of actual digs. But not alot of thought or research goes into their background section, I would not count on them doing a great deal of historical research in a background section. I am not sure they are wrong as they state 19th century, which could be 1800 not 1870, but I would not be surprised if they confused residents and households or just made a mistake.Icewhiz (talk) 05:08, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

The history section of the places HA have covered have mostly been horrible..but I seem to have noticed some improvement the last year or two. As for the archeological material, I cannot say, as Im neither an archeologist, not have participated in any of these digs....I use the info they give, of course! But, until I see a source, I would ignore the 120 number. Guerin found 500 inhabitants in 1863, and I don't know of any other village which multiplied its population in the early 18th hundred. As for the present presentation of how the villages become depopulated ("the inhabitants of the villages of Kafr 'Ana and Saqiya fled from their villages, without significant combat taking place" LOL!) that is rubbish, and I will rewrite it, Huldra (talk) 20:25, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

If it rubbish it is at least well sourced rubbish. To my understanding no major combat took place at these villages. There were no significant Arab militia forces present, nor was there a significant massacre (and in significant I mean a high body count). Seems there might have been various levels of intimidation or harrasement fire. The villagers then fled. Had they jot fled, there might have been a fight or massacre, but this did not happen. This was not Jaffa kr Deir Yassin.Icewhiz (talk) 20:35, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Lol, we have sources saying that at least 14 villagers killed in Saqiya, If they had been Israelis, we would have had a Saqiya Massacre article on Wikipedia by now, Huldra (talk) 20:43, 15 July 2017 (UTC) Note that Morris use an M, for Military assault for both of them, he never uses that unless he has to, Huldra (talk) 20:47, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

We have a villager telling a story, uncorrobarated, of forces in Bren carriers entering the village and shooting it up allegedly killing 14 (unsupported by sources other than testimony, which we should note is fishy regarding the body count since if they ran and did not return, then how do they have a tally... People who run away as theyare being shot usually do not have time to be precise). Even if this account is true, which we have ample reason to doubt, this is not major combat but rather an act of unopposed intimidation against enemy civilians, without significant casulties in relation to the war overall and the number of civilians who escaped unharmed. Regarding the M, both Morris and the current text make it clear that this was part of a planned military assault, which seems was largely unopposed by the Arabs (in the wider, non local, context the British intervened, halting this drive).Icewhiz (talk) 20:56, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

And what is you source for "largely unopposed"? Huldra (talk) 21:05, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Morris (and surely a few other descriptions of Hametz). The single villager account (which would be primary and of dubious quality) you are citing also describes a largely unopposed (in the military sense) event - he does not mention the villagers shooting back. Or digging in and holding ground. His description is of some long range harrasing fire and then vehicles driving in and intimidating the villagers.Icewhiz (talk) 21:19, 15 July 2017 (UTC) In the entire Hamatz op, Alexandroni Brigade incurred only five dead, and they were doing the fighting in this sector (which included other objectives as well), Thats a very light casulty count, indicating lack of effective armed opposition.Icewhiz (talk) 21:25, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Note that the alleged villager account is particularly dubious as it was collected 60 years after the alleged event.Icewhiz (talk) 21:38, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, casualty count was also very light ...for one side in the Deir Yassin massacre, if I recall correctly. Also, what the Palestinian refugees said, count for as much a RS, as what the Israeli sources (which is what Morris uses) count as. One side is not given the privilege to give "the truth" here. It is clear that the Haganah wanted the area clear of Arabs. Also recall that this came 2 weeks after the Deir Yassin massacre, which had been widely publicised.

As for villagers account being dubious after that many year: you know, I know a person whose father was killed 40 years ago. She remembers every single detail from that time, the last time she saw him, who, and where she heard he had been killed, what she was wearing that day, oh, and even that she needed hair wash.... Every single detail. After 40 years. Just take my words for it: highly traumatic events are not forgotten.

Anyway, I suggest we keep this to a minimum, just saying that both villages were depopulated due to Military assault during Operation Hametz at the end of April, 1948. Huldra (talk) 21:50, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree this should be kept minimal. It is unclear that there was an actual assault on these 2 (it is clear they were an objective of a military operation, it is not clear to what extent this happend beyond harrasement fire if at all) - we should be careful with wiki voice. Depopulated is not an accurate term to what happend in April 1948 (and only really occured when return was blocked, though technically for these 2 since Jews settled in the ruins, they were not depopulated until the 50s). Stating that the villagers fled, in the face of a military operation (which may or may not have actually assaulted the villages opposed and not empty), is technically correct.Icewhiz (talk) 22:11, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

For Saqiya, at least, it was clear they they were blocked from returning. Actually, from the operational orders, it was clear that Haganah wanted the whole area (Saqiya, together with Yahudiya, Kafr Ana, Khayriya, Salama, Yazur and Beit Dajan) clear of Arabs. And they largely succeeded.

As for the word depopulated: there are a lot of people who want to write "ethnically cleansed", there are others who want to write that the villages were "abandoned." "Depopulated" has become a compromise: a word that none of us really like, but everyone can live with, Huldra (talk) 22:38, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

I do not doubt that the operational instructions before and during Hametz were to clear Arab strongpoints (mainly populated areas) from the route to Jaffa. This doesn't mean that an actual fight took place (Morris, and others, indicate no major fight took place - stating the villagers fled as the columns approached or possibly as the first round began to fall) - the villagers may have had the foresight (and obviously the rumors and press following Deir Yassin would be relevant) to understand that resistance in this instance would be counter-productive and costly for themselves - thus choosing not to fight.Icewhiz (talk) 05:56, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Your edit line here "text does not support assault" is clearly wrong. On Morris, 2004, p. xviii, both village #214 and #218 have an M after them. And M means, according to Morris key, p. xvi, Military assault on settlement. And both Kafr 'Ana and Saqiya are mentioned many times in the Morris book. By only quoting one page, you are effectively cherry picking. I suggest we return to p. xviii, which is a summary (yeah, I get it, you don't like it, but it is the Morris summary, none the less), Huldra (talk) 21:57, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

The events of late April are covered exactly once, in page 217 (woth perhaps a spillover to the next page). The text it self is quite clear - the villagers fled during a military operation aimed to cause them to flee. However, the text is also clear in stating that no major combat occured in these villages, as the villagers fled as the Jewish forces approached. Therefore military assault is simply incorrect as there was no assault. Your edit is highly misleading, and you should cite the section of the source that actually deals with this. The formulation you placed is misleading, and I believe we should simply expand the section somewhat. Note your edit technically violated the 1RR restriction,Icewhiz (talk) 04:16, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

You are right about the 1rr, I violated that with 5 minutes margin. I have therefore rv it But I will rv that again, as you are wrong about Morris. Morris 2004, p. xvi, states that M means Military assault on settlement. I suggest that we avoid the issue completely, and don't write anything about depopulation reason at all. After all, that normally belongs in the Palestinian village article. Do you agree? Huldra (talk) 21:03, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I think the background as to why this area was depopulated, leaving a large empty space for Or Yehuda (and other towns and facilities, beyond these two villages, as a result of the wider Hamatz) is highly relevant for this article. Mentioning Hamatz briefly should be in. We really are not, currently, at such a large gap here - I dispute assault as this is not what is described in text describing the operation in page 217. I agree that the cause was the military operation - which is clearly mentioned in the current text. If you insist on assault, per the table, I will insist on describing the actual op in relation to these villages. Take another look at the current text, it really is not that far from what you are advocating.Icewhiz (talk) 21:14, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, Morris is not the only RS, Rosemarie Esber Under the Cover of War: The Zionist Expulsion of the Palestinians is also very much a RS. And Im reading it at the moment, and will add that to the village articles ..when I have the time, and the strength to do so. It is extremely depressing stuff. She interviewed survivors, also from Kafr 'Ana and Saqiya, and their stories should also be told. Huldra (talk) 23:43, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

There are of course other sources besides Morris, but it seems to me that for the most part there is a consensus that no major battle or massacre actually took place on the site of the villages despite being purposefully militarily targeted by Jewish forces. Regarding Esber - take care - while this might be reliable for what 126 selected Palestinians told Esber, selectively, about some events in 1947-49 more than 50 years later - this does not mean these accounts are reliable. Esber may be a RS for being told what she was told - not for the contents of what she was told - which would be WP:PRIMARY in any event besides reliability and verifiablity issues.Icewhiz (talk) 06:47, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Actually, no. If Esber has used them, then they become WP:SECONDARY. There is no difference from when, say Morris use some sources I find highly questionable, alas, when Morris have used them they become WP:SECONDARY. One example: if Morris cites, without any reservations, what Israeli officials told the UN. This, even though he knows that Israeli officials at times bragged (internally) about how they managed to fool UN personnel. (They did that in the case of the Eilabun massacre.) Still, when Morris cites it without reservations, then we cannot voice our private doubts in the article. Huldra (talk) 23:57, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

<

Icewhiz

The inhabitants of the villages of Kafr 'Ana and Saqiya fled as as the Haganah columns approached or when the first rounds fell on the villages

One synthesizes an historian like Morris at one's own risk. He is marvelously honest in detailing the content of what reports come his way: he is often slipshod when he then generalizes (as your synthesis does) a situation. It's in the latter that his bias shows (nothing wrong with that in an historian, but it means professional readers become very cautious in using it).

• (a) Sakiya was taken without a fight, it being clear 'the inhabitants have no stomach for war and . .would willingly return to their villages under Jewish protection.'(May 8, 10-11 days later)
• (b)Kfar 'Ana was not attacked
• (c) The 'inhabitants and militiamen of all the villages (including . . Kfar 'Ana(3 May i.e, 5-6 days after the event)) panicked and fled with the approach of the Haganah columns or as rounds began to fall.'(Morris's comment)

Morris is using unilaterally as always, Israeli military bulletins written in the fog of war. They are frequently contradictory, as he paraphrases file after file.

• 'All the villages' refers to the 7 listed on this page. Yazur villagers fought back and had to be conquered under fire, and therefore the generalization that everyone panicked and fled on seeing the haganah or on being fired on, is contradicted by Morris's own evidence (as often).
• The generalization is again contradicted since Kheifiya is listed as one of the 7 villages where everyone fled without a shot fired, or when the first rounds fell. Yet Morris states 7 Arab corpses (victims of the shelling?) and a handful of men women and children were found in the village. So that handful, there, did not 'flee'.
• Everything a historian would like to know (the circumstances of each village, and what 'fled' meant in each case (contradicted in one instance) is missing, and in place of it we have Morri's messy generalization nwhich you choose to register, despite it being obviously problematical.

• These are Israel military reports, and represent a single perspective. Therefore however one cites them, they require attribution.Nishidani (talk) 19:28, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Well - you used the same source for "tihur hashetah" and other details - it made sense to actually source the actual combat operation - and not just pre-op plans. I didn't synthesize - what I added is more or less a direct summary of what is written in page 217 - I used the source (so this isn't SYNTH - you are disputing Morris as a RS if at all). I actually agreed with most of your expansion. What is clear to me from Morris, and other sources, is that no major combat occurred in these two villages. In the entire Hamatz op, Alexandroni Brigade incurred only five dead, and they were doing the fighting in this sector (which included other objectives as well), Thats a very light casulty count, indicating lack of effective armed opposition. Jewish sources might have shot from afar (and yes - that kills). They might have entered the village and intimidated (and yes - that kills). Or the inhabitants seeing and hearing what happened else where - might have chosen to flee (and yes, in some places this happened). However it is clear there was no major pitched battle in these two. Most of the inhabitants escaped.Icewhiz (talk) 19:49, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

This is all speculation, and one can't use that on Wikipedia. I am not questioning the source. Morris is unchallengeably RS. I am stating that you synthesized him to iron out the contradictions in that report, and pass off Morris's personal generalization as though it were a fact, when he himself shows it is not a fact but his opinion. Please read closely in future. Quick editing when messy obliges editors to waste valuable time in correcting errors that should not have been put there in the first place.Nishidani (talk) 21:10, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

The line I added appears pretty much in the same form (minor phrasing diff) in Morris on page 217.Icewhiz (talk) 21:30, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Nope. It's WP:OR technically, because it infers an unnamed village from the context. But that is not the problem, which I explained to you in detail above.Nishidani (talk) 21:59, 24 July 2017 (UTC)