Talk:Al-Birwa/Archives/2013/March

Darwish image
I still don't agree that Darwish should be pictured here because I find it random and disruptive to the article's layout. We could move it to the infobox but that's reserved for a picture of the village or something in the village. However, until I find an MoS rule or guideline that says it should not be in the article, I will not press forward. But, if I could get a picture of al-Birwa, then I will replace the one on Darwish. --Al Ameer son (talk) 21:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

church in al-birwa
I am sorry to say that this is a very silly argument. If you claim that Crusaders lived there and had a name for the village, there had to have been a church there. If you know anything at all about Crusader architecture, you can see the ruins are of a Crusader church. Yes, sometimes Crusader ruins were preserved in part and used by those who resided there afterwards, as residences or barns, or some other purpose. So it is possible the church was indeed used by the Christians who lived there - but this is a photo that lacks any specific identification. It could be a ruin that was there before. You have no proof that it was destroyed "after 1948." That is an assumption - and therefore I have challenged it. The point of writing an encyclopedia is to present the historical facts - not make them up. Best, Gila--Gilabrand (talk) 17:07, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Firstly, I do not know that anybody has "claimed" that the "Crusaders lived there"...the Crusaders had *a name* for the place, which is something quite different. As for the architecture: the neo-Gothic architecture was extremely popular in the 19th century, and how you can see the difference between a neo-Gothic architecture building and a Crusader building from a picture, whaw! Give it up, Gilabrandt; there is NO source, AFAIK, that tells us that the Crusaders actually lived/built something in Birwa. If you find any source saying that: fine. Bring it here. Until then: the "Crusader-church" stays out as an invention. Regards, Huldra (talk) 18:13, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Your arguments are getting more lame by the minute, Tiamut. As long as there is no source saying this church was destroyed "after 1948" - you are the one who is inventing things, and it will be deleted.--Gilabrand (talk) 18:41, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Gilabrand, you're talking to Huldra, not me. And please remember, to discuss content, not contributors.  T i a m u t talk 18:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Gilabrand; I take it as a great compliment that you think I am Tiamut ;-D Having said that: could you please stop attributing opinions/edits to me, when I have never had/made those opinions/edits? I have NOT said that "this church was destroyed "after 1948"" -I write that this is how the church is. It is YOU, Gilabrand, who has been inventing a "Crusader church". Also, the sources clearly say that during the fighting in 1948 "about 45 elderly people, both Muslim and Christian, stayed on in the village, hiding in the church with father Jibran" (p. 66 in Nazzal). If you take a look at the picture of the church: not much to hide in, is it? You say that we should "present the historical facts - not make them up", now, that is something that I agree 100% with. All the sources say that Birwa had a working church through from at least mid-1800 up to 1948. NO source, AFAIK, mentions any Crusader activity/settlement/church in the village.  Let us keep the verifiable facts in the article. Thank you. Huldra (talk) 22:55, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the mix-up and glad you took it as a compliment. The point is this - Someone found a picture of Crusader ruins supposedly in al-Birweh (there are zillions of them all over the country that look exactly like this, but let's say it is in al-Birweh). The picture comes with no information except that it was taken in the 1950s. The assumption, which is quite clear from the caption added by Tiamut, is that THIS was the working church and the one that villagers took refuge in. You have no proof of that, which makes the caption Original Research. Your claim that the Crusaders never lived there is also strange. Why would they have a special name for the village if there was no Crusader presence there? I would advise you to take a few trips around the country and learn something about the architecture before suggesting that the church might be "Neo-gothic." While you're at it, maybe you ought to sit down and listen to the "oral history" appended to the bottom of the article, which hardly jives with the narrative in the article itself (the man who is interviewed blames the Arabs themselves for "giving" al-Birweh to the Israeli forces.--Gilabrand (talk) 06:53, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * If the caption I wrote is problematic, it can be changed. There is no need to remove the picture altogether. Please restore it and suggest a caption of your own making, which is not WP:OR. Assuming it is a Crusader church based on one reference to the Crusaders having had a name for this area, is WP:SYNTH of the highest order. So please, make it a caption without a reference to the Crusades. There ar indigneous local Arab Christian and Palestinian Christian populations in Palestine and have been for some two millennia.  T i a m u t talk 11:25, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You misunderstand me. I am not saying there was no Christian community in the village. The sources state that there were Christians (one says 100, and the other, in the caption, says 130). The building in the photo is a clear example of Crusader architecture. Calling it a Crusader ruin does not rule out the possibility that it was used as a church by Christian Arabs. Many churches and mosques in Israel have Byzantine and Crusader foundations, and many Crusader forts were used as barracks by the Ottomans and various Arab armies. When Israeli forces occupied Arab villages in 1948, they may have destroyed homes, but they did not destroy religious buildings as a matter of policy. So adding a caption to an unidentified photo which states or implies that Israeli forces blew it up is unacceptable. Sorry to belabor this point, but I have the feeling that you regard me as some kind of enemy, which is a great pity. The history of Arab villages should be recorded, but without perpetuating falsehoods that are then copied by dozens of other sources.--Gilabrand (talk) 13:01, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I really wish that we could have a discussion without either one of us making presumptions about the other. I don't view you as any kind of enemy. I do however think you are needlessly aggressive in trying to drive home your points. And when you say things like "Your arguments are getting more lame by the minute, Tiamut." when you are actually talking to Huldra, I wonder whether you are taking the time to reflect upon what it is you are arguing for.
 * That aside - While it might be clear to you that the church is a "clear example of Crusader architecture", you don't have a source that says that. And many monuments that were thought to be clear examples of Crusader architecture, have turned out to be from a different era (Check out Kfar Lam for example). Without a source, it is WP:OR for you to claim this church is a Crusader church. And without a source saying it was the village church that was in use until the town's destruction in 1948, it is WP:OR for us to say that. Though all indications are that the church in Birwa was in fact destroyed, since while it is mentioned as having been there by travellers, and is not standing intact at the site today.
 * So what is your proposed solution about how to include and caption the photo? Or are you suggesting that we exclude it altogether?  T i a m u t talk 13:22, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I am reincerting the picture. In fact, the building looked much like the church of Kafr Bir'im, which for sure was built after the devastating earthquake of 1837. Regards, Huldra (talk) 07:15, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

le Strange, footnote 6
Ok, in footnote 6 it is refered to Le Strange, p 25-30 (and p. 423, which I added). Well, I have the le Strange book, and I cannot see anything of relevance on p. 25-30? The Nasir Khusraw visit is covered on p. 423, though not the "though it is likely that the tombs were those of local sheikhs or sages"- sentence. Though, IMO, that sentence is very likely true!! ..it does look a bit like OR. Perhaps we should write something like "The Persian geographer Nasir Khusraw visited al-Birwa in 1047 while it was under Fatimid rule. He describes it as lying "between Acre and Damun," and reports having visited what he described as the tombs of Simeon and Esau there". (Underline what I suggest to insert.) Suggestions? Huldra (talk)


 * Good suggestion. I wasn't aware that its not in the source. I'll do that.  T i a m u t talk 18:39, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Done. When you get a chance, can you check if Khalidi mentions that refugees from al-Birwa ended up in Lebanon? I know Mahmoud Darwish did for a time, but I'd like to make sure we have an RS that support a broader conclusion. I fact tagged it in the body for now, because it was only cited to PalestineRemembered. But I'd like to get that solved soon. Cheers.  T i a m u t talk 19:12, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I was going to bring that into light as well. From what I know, many people from al-Birwa went to Jadeida and Kafr Yasif, and our next door neighbors in Majd al-Krum were originally from Birwa. Unfortunately, Khalidi doesn't say anything about their eventual destination. I think the Lebanon bit should be removed. Thanks for all the efforts guys! --Al Ameer son (talk) 22:19, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, you are correct in saying that Khalidi does not say where the villagers ended up. But Nazzal interviewed many villagers from al-Birwa  in the Shatila refugee camp, Beirut, in 1973 (that is in Nazzal, p 65-70). (Btw, Benny Morris use Nazzal, and say that the information given by the refugees normally  fits with the information found in the Israeli archives.) So, based on Nazzal, I think we can keep inf. that some villagers ended up in Lebanon. (There is no indication about the number, or percentage, unfortunately.) Huldra (talk) 23:05, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, so we reveal it and use the Nazzal source? --Al Ameer son (talk) 23:14, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and inserted some, feel free to cut it down, if you like. Huldra (talk) 23:20, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Lebanon
Note to Tiamut: Nafez Nazzal-book (from 1978) has much about Birwa, from its villagers in Lebanon. I have to log out now, but I will add it later tonight. Huldra (talk) 18:30, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks Huldra. I'll do what I can on and off until then.  T i a m u t talk 18:40, 9 December 2008 (UTC)