Talk:1948 Palestinian expulsion from Lydda and Ramle/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

death march

That belongs as an alternate name, we went through this in the past. Here are reliable source attesting to this event being known as the Lydda Death March:

That belongs in the first sentence of the article and the infobox. nableezy - 00:47, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Two sources out of what, a couple dozen used in the article pretty much prove this is not a significant alternate name. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:54, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
It is the Palestinian name, and per WP:NPOV its presence is obligatory.

Sandy Tolan, 'The catastrophe that never ends,' Slate 11 July 2006:' Of all the stories of the Palestinian Nakba, none surpasses this march through the hills from al-Ramla and Lydda 58 years ago this month. "Nobody will ever know how many children died," Glubb would recall in his memoir, "A Soldier With the Arabs." The Death March, as the Palestinians call it, along with the massacre at Deir Yassin, represent two of the central traumas that form the Palestinian catastrophe.

As for the suggestion this is not authoritatively documented, it is of course.
That's far in excess of what Wikipedia requires, and this is not an extraordinary claim.Nishidani (talk) 13:19, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Nish, was going to address the incredibly spurious "two sources", even though more isnt required for a non-contested statement of fact published by top qualitty sources, sources that have already been found reliable for the statement at RS/N the last time somebody tried to relegate the alternative name to outside of the first paragraph. nableezy - 15:33, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
What "isn't required for an uncontested statement of fact"? As far as I understand it, an alternative name requires significant usage. Most of the sources above call the incident a "death march" (in quotes) not the "Lydda Death March" as a noun like Nishidani put in the article while discussion is ongoing. That's not exactly the same. If you want the lead to say that the Palestinians call it a "death march", I think the sources support that. I do not think the sources support "Lydda Death March" as a significant alternative name for the first line of the lead. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:02, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
The reliable sources explicitly say also known as the Lydda Death March. You don't think they support also known as the Lydda Death March? That seems odd. The sources above, previously confirmed as excellent sources at RS/N, directly support the statement known as the Lydda Death March, not the limited Palestinians call it that. nableezy - 20:48, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
A very small minority of the sources use the noun Lydda Death March. Most of the sources Nishidani presented above do not use that noun, for example. Per WP:OTHERNAMES it needs to be a significant other name. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:24, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
If you google ("Death March" Lydda) you will get 1260 results. If you google ("Lydda Death March") you will get 502 results. "very small minority"? Makeandtoss (talk) 21:43, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
I assume you didn't even look at the first page of that google search, or do you consider davidduke.com a reliable source? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:49, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
It doesn't matter if the results are reliable or not, I am only referring to the proportion of the terms' coverage.Makeandtoss (talk) 22:01, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
It always matters if the results are reliable or not. "In RS" is always implied if not stated outright. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:35, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Google hits arent an acceptable substitute for reliable sources. You tried this before, and every uninvolved person agreed that the sources are reliable for the statement that this a significant alternative name. Your ghit argument was likewise rejected with a succinct can't contradict RS with your own ghit count. nableezy - 23:10, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
I didn't post any google hits, that was Makeandtoss. I assume you don't think it's that bad anymore? Anyway, thanks for digging up 3 year old discussions that don't exactly say what you claim they do. But that doesn't matter because WP:CCC and that phrase has not been in this article since at least some time in 2014, as far as I can see. I do notice that you are not reverting to the longstanding version per BRD. That's interesting. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:21, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
No, sorry, the discussions do say what I said, and if you havent noticed thats 3 users in this section agreeing that this name is reliably sourced as a significant alternative name, and 2 more reverting to include said name, whereas you alone here are arguing that things directly sourced to works published by Oxford University Press arent reliably sourced for what they are used for. BRD means something when there isnt consensus for something, there pretty clearly is here. Sad to say that it just happens to be a consensus against your favored version. nableezy - 21:12, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
That's fine. As usual, you lead and I'll follow. TIL that driveby reverts without participating in a BRD discussion are ok, and 2 days over a holiday weekend is enough time to gauge consensus. I will be expecting not to hear a peep out of you when I use these same criteria in the future. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:14, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
You havent given a valid argument for why when two sources, found to be reliable at RS/N published by OUP, which explicitly say that this event became known as the Lydda Death March our article should not include that it is also known as the Lydda Death March. So yeah, two days of one person arguing against 5 users either here or through reverts should be enough considering the one person hasnt given an argument to support why what two solid sources say is true is in fact not true. nableezy - 02:36, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
That's funny. First of all we're talking about if it should be in bold in the first line of the lead, not in the lead in general. Second you don't get to say if my arguments are valid or not. Third, we both know 2 days is not enough time. Would you like to test this issue at the admin boards? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 03:09, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Oh, sorry, I thought that was addressed by having multiple solid sources specifically say that this event "became known as the Lydda Death March". That would seem to indicate that when something is also known by another name found worthy to be included in overviews on the topic in works published by OUP that it is a significant alternative names and as such per WP:TITLE is should be mentioned in the article, usually in the first sentence or paragraph. Youre partially right about one thing, I dont get to say if your arguments are valid, but I have a say in that determination, like RS/N and NPOV/N did in the past. Here, 5 users are arguing against you. If you want to take your multiple reverts, as though you thought that you are "entitled" to 1 revert a day, to the admin boards, by all means, be my guest. Toodles, nableezy - 04:36, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
5 users arguing against me. That's a good one. The RS/N and NPOV/N discussions were not about the first line of the lead, so I don't know why you keep bringing that up. Not to mention the fact the NPOV/N discussion was 3:3. Anyway, I found a more efficient solution than going to the admin boards, one you and your driveby tag team buddies are less likely to abuse. Au revoir. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 05:16, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
They actually were, but no matter. You think 5 users is a joke? On this page there are 4 (myself, Nish, Huldra, Makeandtoss) and one other user reverted you (Pluto). Now I think I was always pretty good at math, but tell me if Im adding 4 and 1 incorrectly. I come up with 5. nableezy - 16:54, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
I´m not sure if I´m included in those "driveby reverts", but I was really surprised to see that it had been taken out of the article lead. If you recall, this article was started as Lydda Death March, then moved to this title later. I cannot recall any discussion about taking the old title out, all together. (Having said that, I have hardly watched ...or cared...about the article for years, largely because of that horrid lead picture!) Huldra (talk) 23:13, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Of course you're included in those driveby reverts. You reverted without participating in the discussion and despite BRD. On top of that, now that you say you have hardly watched this article for years, it's obvious your edit summary was disingenuous. I've just looked at the history of the article, and the term Lydda Death March hasn't been bolded in the lead since 2010 (that's the last 500 edits) if ever, but apparently two days discussion over a holiday weekend is enough to gauge consensus for deciding it's an alternative name that should be in bold. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:26, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
....and that was the "R"-part of BRD. Please show me a place where it was discussed removing "Lydda Death March" from the lead? I recall there was quite some disagreement over even moving the article to the new name; after that, removing "Lydda Death March" went "under the radar" (as so much on wp). (Btw, the majority for moving the article was achieved with the help of at least two NoCal-socks...)
In any case; as was then, it is now: it is a term which is used by WP:RS. I´m not sure why we are even discussing that this should not be included in the lead? That it has been wrongly removed for 5 years, is absolutely no argument for continuing that situation. Huldra (talk) 02:03, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
You are mistaken. The R part was removing it from the first line of the lead, since it was never there (or at least not since 2010 as far as I can tell). We are not discussing if it should be included in the lead in general, we are discussing if it should be in bold as a significant alternative name in the first line of the lead. Perhaps you should first read the discussion and look at the article history before you driveby revert? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 03:09, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
No you got me wrong. The term "Lydda Death March" has already been demonstrated to exist in reliable English sources, google hits are just being used to demonstrate that none of the terms; "Lydda Death March" and "Death March in Lydda" are used exclusively.Makeandtoss (talk) 08:53, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Pure wikilawyering. Nishidani (talk) 17:35, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Usage in Arabic sources mostly revolves around "what happened in Lydda in 1948 became known as 'The Death March'." Examples:

1- In a biography about George Habash, the event is mentioned as "قافلة الموت" transliterates into "The caravan of death". "Caravan" in Arabic is similar to "march". page 113
2- Described as "مسيرة الموت" which transliterates and translates into "The Death March" here: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6].
3- If I tried to search for the transliteration of "The Lydda Death March" which would be "مسيرة موت اللد", it wouldn't really make sense. Its an Arabic thing... So most of the sources here describe it as "the death march in Lydda". Makeandtoss (talk) 18:51, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Excellent work. The only thing to clarify is whether the Arabic term and its transliteration is to be introduced.Nishidani (talk) 19:33, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Excellent work? Some of those are so obviously not RS, you don't even need to know Arabic. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:53, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
If you are going to judge websites based on how they look, trust me, there are no fancy looking Arabic websites . Makeandtoss (talk) 22:01, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Al-Quds al-Arabi looks quite professional. But it really doesn't matter since this is textbook original research. You can't [corrected "can" to "can't" after the reply below was posted - NMMNG] search google and decide on your own what it's called. You need a reliable secondary source. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 04:20, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Im pretty sure those were given at the top of this talk page, added to the article, then deleted by you. nableezy - 04:43, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
In Arabic? Diff please. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 05:19, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Dont need to be in Arabic. We are allowed to use English sources. nableezy - 16:45, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

RfC

Consensus is to include this term in bold in the first sentence of the lead. Reliable sources have been advanced that use this term as a common name, and those sources have not been shown to be unreliable. The insertion of this term in the first sentence of the lead should be neutral. In particular, avoid saying anything like "commonly referred to as the..." unless there is specific consensus for that in the future. Right now, it is not clear that "commonly" or similar terms would be supported by the sources. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 20:08, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should the term "Lydda Death March" appear in bold in the first line of the lead as a significant alternative name per MOS:LEADALT?

No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 04:12, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

  • No. Per UNDUE and ALTNAME, a very small minority of sources mention this name, none of them specialists in this specific field. None of the dozens of sources currently in the article use the term (there were a couple that were used just to source this term exists). It is obviously not a significant alternative name if none of the dozens of books written specifically about the war even mention it. Obvious UNDUE weight. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 04:19, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Also, as Huldra notes below, this article is about the exodus from Lydda and Ramle, "Lydda Death March" can logically only describe part of it and doesn't seem to refer to the exodus from Ramle. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:06, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes - "a very small minority of sources" is underselling it a bit, and is not in any way quantified or even quantifiable. What can be definitively said is that two rock solid reliable sources specifically say that this event is known as the Lydda Death March. Sources published by Oxford University Press, edited by experts in the field, and even specifically found to be reliable for this statement at RS/N. I'll include those sources here as theyve apparently been excised from the article by the person who just opened this RFC.

    *Chamberlin, Paul (2012), The Global Offensive: The United States, the Palestine Liberation Organization, and the Making of the Post-Cold War Order, Oxford University Press, p. 16, ISBN 9780199811397, On a visit home in 1948, Habash was caught in the Jewish attack on Lydda and, along with his family, forced to leave the city in the mass expulsion that came to be known as the Lydda Death March

    *Holmes, Richard; Strachan, Hew; Bellamy, Chris; Bicheno, Hugh, eds. (2001), The Oxford companion to military history, Oxford University Press, p. 64, ISBN 9780198662099, 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.

    nableezy - 04:41, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Look at the reference section of this article. There's what, 40-50 sources there? Most are specific to the 1948 war, written by experts in this specific field such as Morris, Khalidi and Gelber, and not a single one of them uses this term. They all just forgot this significant alternative name? Putting it in bold in the first line of the lead is fairly obvious UNDUE. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 05:06, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes. NMMGG. 10 books sources were produced immediately when you questioned the use of this term. Now you claim that 'none of them (are) specialists in this specific field', which I guess means that you are trying to whittle down the reference list by demanding that the source be written by a qualified specialist in the events of 1948. Even with that anal restriction, your generalization is wrong since at least one on the list (ignoring Martin Robbe,T.G. Fraser MBE, an Emeritus Professor of History, and Michael Prior, a highly qualified scholar of semitic languages), namely Saleh Abd al-Jawad, happens to be a historian, who obtained his doctorate from one of the most prestigious French universities, Paris West University Nanterre La Défense and is a ‘specialist in this specific field’, since he is an authority on the massacres of Palestinians (68 in his count) in precisely that period.
Your only other argument is that this obvious addition wasn't there earlier. It was consistently removed by sockpuppets. This is required per WP:NPOV since the phrase is apparently widely attested in Arabic sources, and confirmed in those Western sources, as how the Palestinians refer to the incident. The fact that Ari Shavit and other Israeli sources prefer to not use the phrase does not translate into the conclusion you make that it is not common: that only means is not common in Israelocentric sources, an interested party.Nishidani (talk) 08:54, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
10 books of which 3 used the explicit term "Lydda Death March", and (going from memory), one was written by a sociologist? Also, I see you edit warred your preferred version while discussion here is ongoing (for all of 3 days). Kindly self revert or I will have to report you. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:04, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
  • No I think it could be mentioned in the article, but as a Wiki "alternate" name I think the RS are that it is not a significant alternate name to this. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:02, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes, but it should be mentioned that "Lydda Death March" is, strictly speaking, a part of "1948 Palestinian exodus from Lydda and Ramle" (though they often are used interchangeably), Huldra (talk) 19:07, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Isn't that then a POV to have it called a Death March when it's clearly not, if even according to you only part of the exodus was a death march? Sir Joseph (talk) 19:48, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Hundreds died during what is called the "Lydda Death March", amply earning it its name. Alas, it isn´t "obvious" that the ethnic cleansing of Ramle is included in the expression "Lydda Death March"; that was what I tried to say. I believe it is generally understood that the emptying of Ramle did not cause as many deaths as the emptying of Lydda. Huldra (talk) 21:19, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
  • No Lead should read something along the lines “Palestinian sources refer to this event as the "Lydda Death March””. If it can be sourced.Jonney2000 (talk) 21:27, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
No, its not exclusively referred to as such by Palestinian sources. Makeandtoss (talk) 21:56, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes The sources provided are more than enough and provide a significant alternative name per wikipedia guidelines. Makeandtoss (talk) 21:56, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
  • No. MOS:LEADALT does not allow for any alternative name that is sourced somewhere. Need more than that, and this political sloganeering does not satisfy. brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:49, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Umm brewcrewer, just a note, you removed the material citing WP:BURDEN. I invite you to go read WP:BURDEN where you will find it says the burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material. The material you removed was verifiable to the two sources you removed. Next time you want to delete anything that doesnt quite fit a pro-Israel narrative it might be better if you cite some policy that actually supports your edit, rather than waving at one that emphatically does not. nableezy - 17:50, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Comment.Please read the policy, which does not allow editors to misrepresent it as you have just done. Thus manipulated your objection falls to pieces because it fails to reflect the policy cited. To dismiss as 'political sloganeering' what happens to be one usage in a two POV argument is, itself, to play politics.

When this title is a name, significant alternative names for the topic should be mentioned in the article, usually in the first sentence or paragraph. These may include alternative spellings, .., historical names, and significant names in other languages.

I.e.MOS:LEADALT cannot be cited as though it excluded a name that is (a) widely attested in Arabic sources (per WP:NPOV, since the Palestinians are the immediate victims of the expulsion) and (b) is attributed in Western sources to Palestinians as their name for the event (c) is referred to in two peer-reviewed sources under the Oxford University imprint as 'the mass expulsion that came to be known as the Lydda Death March'/'what became known as the Lydda Death March', a usage corroborated by a further 11 mainstream RS. This is not a voting booth.Nishidani (talk) 10:21, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
(a) Where's your source that says the name is "widely attested in Arabic sources"? (b) Which Western sources attribute Lydda Death March (the noun you want to put in the first line of the lead) to "Palestinians as their name for the event"? (c) 2 sources does not make something a significant alternative name per the specific guideline we have for cases such as these. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:59, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes - the most relevant line in MOS:LEADALT for me is: "The editor needs to balance the desire to maximize the information available to the reader with the need to maintain readability." - ie readers should know that this was referred to as the Lydda Death March. It also bears to be described more in the body; right now there is really only one glancing mention to that name in the article body, yet this discussion has showed that there are numerous significant sources which could be used to present and unpack the term - even if only to show their POV. TrickyH (talk) 14:24, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes - The question is not to decide of the title of the article but to give (one of) the alternative name(s) that is also used to refer to these events. The fact is that Lydda Death March is also a name that was given to these events. There are 10/11 WP:RS sources that are given here above to prove this. Note that even without these source, the fact this name is used by the Palestinians to refer to these events is enough to add the name in the lead (in bold). Per WP:NPoV we have to give all the names under which an event is known.
    We have exactly the same case on the article Qibya massacre and there the name under which the Israeli government refer to the event was given in bold too. That's the right way to proceed and it follows the same principle. Our rules are perfectly applied: per WP:NPoV, we give all the different points of view and the name under which an event is reminded follows the same rule. Pluto2012 (talk) 20:05, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
There aren't "10/11 WP:RS sources that are given here above to prove this", there are 3. And NPOV is not the relevant policy here since we're not supposed to list every single name, we are supposed to list significant alternative names per ALTNAME. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:59, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Doesnt exactly say known to the Palestinians as this, but here: Fraser, T.G., ed. (2007). The Arab-Israeli Conflict, Third Edition. Palgrave Macmillan. p. 47. Next to Deir Yassin, the 'Lydda Death March' which followed etched its way into the Palestinian consciousness as a symbol of their tragedy. nableezy - 22:43, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Indeed it doesn't say what I was requesting a source for. Also, this source has been mentioned in the list above, just in case someone mistakenly counts it twice. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:48, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
While it doesnt say exactly what you want a source to say, it does indicate that the term reflects a usage among Palestinians. The use of quotes and saying that it etched its way into the Palestinian consciousness. nableezy - 23:24, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
How does it indicate the term reflects a usage among Palestinians? Looks to me like he's indicating that this is the terminology his source (Palumbo, 1987) uses. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:04, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
As a matter of fact, that's the second source from the list above that references Palumbo for this. Interesting. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:06, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
How? Quote unquote X is seared into the Palestinian consciousness doesnt show a usage of X among Palestinians? nableezy - 04:42, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Exactly as I explained above. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 05:33, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes, since it's a reliably sourced alternative name. People need to know they're at the right article when redirected there. Whether it really was a death march or not is a matter for sourced details in the article, balanced per WP:UNDUE.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  04:32, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes: There have been plenty of RS presented above for the term "Lydda Death March" presented here. The relevant policy is WP:ALTNAME, which states When this title is a name, significant alternative names for the topic should be mentioned in the article, usually in the first sentence or paragraph. These may include alternative spellings, longer or shorter forms, historical names, and significant names in other languages. One can also simply call it a "death march", instead of "Lydda death march", if required, though this is just nitpicking. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 07:10, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
The term they want to put in the article is Lydda Death March (a noun). It's not at all nitpicking to point out that does not seem to be a "significant alternative name" considering the small amount of sources that use it relative to the amount of sources that discuss this event. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 02:24, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
You have already made this argument above, which I don't find convincing at all. Both the term "Lydda Death March" and "death march" by itself are used in many RS, and I see no effective difference between them. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 00:54, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
The effective difference is that one is a proper noun and one isn't. Or in other words, one is a name given to a specific event (cf "alternative name") and one is not. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 02:49, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes for the reasons already provided by others - no need to repeat them - but what I can do is leave these formatted citations bundled together as a single ref here for use with the altname in the event that the RfC outcome results in the term being included. I've included most of the sources listed above. Perhaps someone else could add the other sources or additional sources if they are required. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:01, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Not all of those refs support the suggested alternative name. Also, how is Max Blumenthal a reliable source for historical fact? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 02:21, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Do not edit material I add to this page because I will simply revert it. You will not receive a reply from me to any questions about anything here or on any page. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:17, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
You mad, bro? You can't just anchor a bunch a refs that don't even point back to one of your posts into the middle of the article. People might get the wrong idea. I'll just put your sig on the bottom and reply there. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:11, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes no reason (apart from pushing an ideology) to keep out the other common name for the event. Sepsis II (talk) 20:03, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

 [1]

footnotes

  1. ^
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sean.hoyland (talk • contribs)
Max Blumenthal is obviously not RS for historical fact, and 4 of the remaining 7 refs above do not include the term "Lydda Death March". So when looking for the best refs to support a significant alternative name you came up with 3. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:11, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment, this RfC has now run for one week; I count 7 yes and 4 no. If no big changes occur during the next 24 hours, I will include the term tomorrow, Huldra (talk) 21:12, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Default run time of an RFC is 30 days and should be closed by an uninvolved editor. Sir Joseph (talk) 22:09, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Fine, we can wait. I don´t think it will change the outcome, but never mind, Huldra (talk) 22:20, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

OK, the RFC template is now removed. In addition to the arguments, I see 9 yes and 4 no votes. What I don´t see is any "uninvolved editor" closing this? Huldra (talk) 22:23, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Ill ask for a formal closure. nableezy - 16:43, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on 1948 Palestinian exodus from Lydda and Ramle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:38, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on 1948 Palestinian exodus from Lydda and Ramle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

cimalight Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:13, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Incorrect URL for footnote

The article currently at footnote 1 was not available at the URL provided; the URL provided is a redirect using server-side actions. I found the article at http://www.wrmea.com/backissues/0794/9407072.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sustain4people2 (talk • contribs) 21:34, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Abuse of "exodus"

Once again we need to complain about the use of "Exodus" used to for the expulsion of Palestinians out of Palestine: the Nakba. 'Exodus', a biblical term only, is about 'going home', which is not appropriate for expulsed Palestinians (1947/48, 1967). -DePiep (talk) 23:14, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

I am surprised that a move was done without any discussion, especially on such a sensitive topic—and without reference to the massive volume of past discussions either. If you read the article, as well as the most serious research done on the topic in universities, you will see that there was a lot of confusion about the event as it was unfolding, and labeling it simply as 'expulsion' is not factual. In any case, if you still feel that the article should be moved, there is a relevant process that can be started. —Ynhockey (Talk) 21:23, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
No. "Exodus" is not in place here, and you have not clarified any point being problematic. All in all, you, Ynhockey, are the one introducing a problem. Now: what is the problem you perceive? -DePiep (talk) 21:47, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Problematic: Firstly, you know as well as I do that I–P articles are a contentious niche on Wikipedia, and when making edits that affect the tone of an article (let alone of its title), it should be done with great care, certainly not without discussion. Secondly, there is a process for requesting articles moves, which should be used in case the move is even slightly controversial. I can't imagine someone thought this move might not be an example of such a case.
The actual problem: as I wrote, the article itself, as well as all the serious research done on the subject (much of it cited in the article) points to chaos and confusion on the ground, with some expulsions taking place but also cases where expulsions did not take place (remember, these are two fairly-large towns). In any case, article titles that don't have a WP:COMMONNAME, especially disputed ones, are chosen according to the most factual title, and I doubt anyone can dispute that an exodus took place. It is also consistent with 1948 Palestinian exodus and Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries, among others.
—Ynhockey (Talk) 08:39, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
@Ynhockey: I don't get your reasoning. DePiep (talk) 20:45, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
I suggest we have a RfC on this: remember, there was an explicit expulsion order for Lydda (cited in note 58, that whole note should probably be in the article proper), Huldra (talk) 20:38, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
In the great majority of sources these towns are given as the most clear cases of expulsion in 1948. As Huldra says, there was even a written expulsion order which has been published. Expulsions are often carried out amid chaos and confusion, so that is not an argument. I could live with "depopulation", but "exodus" is piss-weak to the extent of being an npov violation. Zerotalk 02:18, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Depopulation seems somewhat reasonable, the only problem is that it's not consistent with similar articles I linked to above. The reason those other articles use "exodus" is because while they include expulsion, they cover a broader topic. While this article's scope is pretty narrow, it's also broader than the specific expulsion that took place—we know (and indeed the article covers this in-depth) that there was a large exodus among those who were not expelled, most likely a majority. I could live without depopulation, but would like to hear some compelling arguments other than "there was a signed expulsion order", which in the context of this war means little; lots of orders were signed and never carried out, or carried out very partially like in this case. —Ynhockey (Talk) 07:39, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 August 2018

There is a nonsensical sentence in Spanish saying "Siéntete como en casa" (make yourself at home) by the end of the section Operation Dani. You should delete it. 11koyo11 (talk) 20:30, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Done, thanks nableezy - 21:24, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

death march

I restored that as an AKA, this is well sourced material. Claims of POV on what something is known as are absurd unless somebody can show there is in fact a dispute that it is not known as such. nableezy - 15:55, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Oh, and we had an RFC about this with consensus to include in the lead. The removal was disruptive. nableezy - 15:57, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Killed and mutilated Israeli soldiers

In the article it’s briefly mentioned that “a mob set upon” some Israeli soldiers, as they thought the Arab legion was about to take back the town.

According to Benny Morris, five of the 500 Israeli troops left guarding the town were killed and their bodies mutilated.

This should be mentioned in the article, as it explains the Arabs fleeing the city after it had been successfully pacified for a second time.

After their surrender, they killed five Israeli soldiers and mutilated their bodies in a grisly way. The fear of a harsh Israeli retribution caused many of the locals to immediately flee.


192.38.138.132 (talk) 03:50, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Morris documented a deliberate expulsion and even published the military order to expel the population. So you are writing nonsense. In any case, edit requests cannot be even considered without supporting citations. Zerotalk 05:47, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Edit request: Map/Visual demonstration of where death march

Hi, in #The_march it's a bit hard to visualize how much and from where to where they marched. Is it possible to add some sort of visual medium? --Xland44 (talk) 20:37, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Lydda Massacre

“The visit was rescheduled for 14 July; Dani HQ ordered Israeli troops to remove the bodies by then, but the order seems not to have been carried out.”

It seems extremely plausible that some of the bodies were removed and a smaller amount were left to make it look as though not as many people were killed. Are there any eye witness accounts, biographies, journals, etc. that supports that bodies were moved to suppress the overall numbers? 2601:645:880:4570:9D38:5A9E:6841:7647 (talk) 05:29, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Pictures!

There are lots of pictures (all from Israeli archives) uploaded to commons this last year; some of them are very relevant to this article. See especially c:Category:Israel photographs taken on 1948-07-10 and c:Category:Israel photographs taken on 1948-07-12, cheers, Huldra (talk) 23:11, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 12 August 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Favonian (talk) 12:18, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

1948 Palestinian exodus from Lydda and Ramle → 1948 Palestinian expulsion from Lydda and Ramle – a slightly simpler case than 1948 Palestinian exodus, the current title here is a clear example of POV-based euphemism - the use of a vague term for some sort of departure without any hint of the method or agency. This terminology of 'exodus' is an almost verbatim copy-paste of the descriptive component of Benny Morris' Operation Dani and the Palestinian Exodus from Lydda and Ramle in 1948 - a choice of language that is odd given Morris has also called the episode "the biggest expulsion of the war" (as quoted in the article lead), but alternatives are easy to come by, e.g.: Expulsion of the Palestinians—Lydda and Ramleh in 1948. Numerically, the language of expulsion also has an edge over exodus, with a crude scholar search producing 1,950 hits to 1,420 hits. Note also that an unambiguous expulsion order was also signed by Yitzhak Rabin. All in all, there is little ambiguity here, and no reason to shy away from the terminology of expulsion. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:50, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

  • Support. As noted in the article's lede, the subject is specifically the expulsion of a population, something that the term exodus doesn't convey. ╠╣uw [talk] 13:01, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Support I don't see how one can object to the obvious, so thoroughly documented and officially admitted.Nishidani (talk) 13:24, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Support - would actually prefer Lydda Death March as it was originally titled and was originally focused on, but expulsion is far more accurate than "exodus". nableezy - 13:29, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Support, it was one of the best attested expulsions in 1948. Zerotalk 15:58, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Koestler "eye-witness"?

Arthus Koestler "eye-witness" account seems extremly biased; he wrote "The Arabs were hanging about in the streets much as usual, except for a few hundred youths of military age who have been put into a barbed wire cage and were taken off in lorries to an internment camp. Their veiled mothers and wives were carrying food and water to the cage, arguing with the Jewish sentries and pulling their sleeves, obviously quite unafraid. ... Groups of Arabs came marching down the main street with their arms above their heads, grinning broadly, without any guards, to give themselves up. The one prevailing feeling among all seemed to be that as far as Ramleh was concerned the war was over, and thank God for it."

Well, the pictures of the day tells another story. Certainly none of the Arab/Palestinians were "grinning broadly". Also, they were all guarded by armed Israeli soldiers. And some of the "youths of military age who have been put into a barbed wire cage" seem to be old enough to be grandfathers, or even great grandfathers. Huldra (talk) 23:16, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Koestler as an Irgun supporter and defender of the use of terrorism against Arabs is not reliable. The book he wrote is a blot on his career,- the intellectual curiosity that made so many of is books attractive to a young mind went off the rails certainly in this, which lends itself more to a study of personal neurosis than of history. It is rarely elaborated on in the two biographies of Koestler I have. Perhaps an embarrassment.Nishidani (talk) 12:33, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
I recall reading that Koestler spent a good deal of his time in Palestine sitting drunk under a tree. I think it was in "Living with Koestler : Mamaine Koestler's letters 1945-51" (Mamaine was his second wife), but I don't have that with me. Zerotalk 13:37, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
Perhaps we can remove it, then? Huldra (talk) 23:13, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
Since no-one has objected; I will remove it, Huldra (talk) 21:25, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:1948_Palestinian_expulsion_from_Lydda_and_Ramle/Archive_4&oldid=1182263529"