Talk:Dayr al-Shaykh

Palestine Family net
There is a mistake in Dary al- Shaykh, Palestine Family net.....They say 1596 population is 133. According to Khalidi, it was 113. Someone with access to Hütteroth and Abdulfattah please confirm this. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 02:43, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

POV tag
I am concern about this statement in the lead "It was captured and depopulated during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War on October 21, 1948 by Israeli forces" There's no reference for such claim (I mean depopulated  by Israeli forces). There's something in the body of the article, but it is my understanding that most villagers fled on their own before Israelis actually got to the village. In any case the sentence in question should be dealt with somehow. Cheers.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The majority fled at the advance of Israeli forces during operation Har'el making them the indirect cause of their depopulation. The remainder were expelled making them the direct cause. --Al Ameer son (talk) 00:01, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * This sentence should be removed from the lead. It is a POV that is not supported by a source. Also the words "Palestinian Arab village" should be replaced with the words "Arab village". There was no such such thing as  "Palestinian Arab"  before 1960s. So while talking about 1948 to call this place "Palestinian Arab village" would be incorrect. Please see United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine:"The resolution recommended the termination of the British Mandate for Palestine and the partition of the territory into two states, one Jewish and one Arab" (highlighted by me), but not "Palestinian Arab"--Mbz1 (talk) 00:16, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That sentence is probably one of the most important lines in the lead since the village doesn't exist today because of the facts in that sentence. The lead should be expanded now that we have more information, but the sentence should remain. Also, we very clearly provided a number of reliable sources (Khalidi and Morris) to back that information in the article. Second, you seem to believe that Palestinian identity was absent until the 1960s. This is false since Palestinian culture has been around for centuries and for even longer there has been a "Palestine" province or sub-province under the Romans and the Caliphate. Anyway, "Arab" is obviously a very general term and why state that the village was just "Arab" when he have an article on the Palestinian people who are the same people that populated this village. If we want to make this sentence as accurate as possible we could write instead: It was captured by Israeli forces on October 1, 1948 during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. Most residents fled at the approach of Israeli forces and the rest were expelled following its capture. This summarizes the situation as accurately as possible. What do you think? --Al Ameer son (talk) 01:45, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Is my understanding that Morris has this claim under a question mark correct? Also I removed the external link to www.palestineremembered.com, but in the article itself this site is used as reference. It should not be used as a reference, at least not for DYK articles. this site is not a reliable source. --Mbz1 (talk) 06:20, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If the statement was re-edited to: ""It was captured by Israeli forces and depopulated during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War on October 21, 1948" it would perhaps remove the objection, which I am not saying is valid. Nor is the website necessarily not RS, but its clear POV should be referred to when using it. RSs do not have to be neutral, or there would hardly be any on Israel/Palestine topics. Johnbod (talk) 05:35, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: The website is only used as an online repository for a book (that otherwise would've been offline; and is unmistakably RS), nothing is sourced to the "website" itself. Not to mention that no controversial information is being cited by it, only census figures! Yazan (talk) 05:41, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I still did not get response to my question, so with your permission I will repeat it one more time: "Is my understanding that Morris has this claim with a question mark correct?"--Mbz1 (talk) 06:04, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Apparently yes, I don't have Morris's book. Whoever added the info must have it. It's probably available on google books. I have Khalidi's book and he acknowledges that Morris "does not explain what ultimately happened to the villagers" but says the town was occupied on October 21, 1948. Khalidi states most villagers in the area of Dayr al-Shaykh fled at the approach of Israeli forces while others were expelled. That being said, I support Johnbod's suggestion to reword the sentence. Objections? --Al Ameer son (talk) 17:00, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You see, there's a problem with that. Morris does not state this as a fact, and Walid Khalidi cites Morris. So the proposed re-write is not good enough because we really do not know what happened, and why and when the villagers left. Also the section "1948, and afterwards" should be re-written somehow. And once again I strongly object using palestinerembered as a source. It is better to use offline source than to use that site.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:37, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I have nothing against the removal of palestineremembered as a source in the article, since I think we have all the necessary sources to back the statistics it provides. You can go ahead and remove it. As for the sentence, why don't you propose one that is good enough since you don't like any of our suggestions. We might not know the exact circumstances of the population's fate, but we know it was captured on October 21 and we know it was depopulated during the war. Also, I suggest you make the necessary changes to "1948 and afterwards" and we could work from there since this article has been nominated for DYK and I would prefer that any issues are resolved before it misses the deadline. --Al Ameer son (talk) 23:37, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I am sorry, but taking off palestineremembered should be done by one of the article's creator, not me, and while somebody is doing this, I will think about the appropriate sentence for the lead.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:44, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I just checked the article and unless I'm mistaken (and correct me if I am), palestineremembered isn't used as a source for any information. Actually, the only palestineremembered link that exists is the excerpts of Sami Hadawi's population statistics book. If this particular usage is troubling you, there's absolutely no grounds for it. They're simply excerpts of Hadawi's book (which certainly is an RS). --Al Ameer son (talk) 00:47, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It is used in 3 places. It does trouble me, and not only because it is not RS, but because this site has a very strong POV, and should not be linked to from wikipedia articles. I am still thinking how to change the sentence, but no matter how it will be changed, it should be taken off the lead, because nothing is known for sure about depopulation, and I was not able to find that this particular village was even captured at all in Morris. So, the sentence should be taken off the lead and changed to :"The village was deserted by 1949". --Mbz1 (talk) 01:41, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That is extremely weaselly. Johnbod (talk) 17:11, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, it is not more "weaselly" than the sentence the article uses now about 1881: "However, the village was described as deserted by 1881." We really do not know why the villagers left.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:18, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * How about "was depopulated during the 1948 Arab Israeli War...", because the village was not simply "deserted", and it happened during that war. Btw, that is supported by Morris, because this is the broad title for the list he puts the village under. Yazan (talk) 17:07, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * OK I am fine with the sentence you propose. Please take off references to palestinrembered, fix section "1948, and afterwards", and we'll be done. --Mbz1 (talk) 20:18, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Morris never says anything about the town being "captured" or "depopulated." His list of villages are of "abandoned" villages and his date is for the date of abandonment. His map key, pagexiv, says "the following codes are used for the decisive causes of abandonment". This village in the Jerusalem corridor has a question mark (not too "decisive"), followed by an M. Israel tried to clear out all the hostile elements in the villages in the Jerusalem corridor in order to break the siege on the Jews in Jerusalem. Morris explains, "''"The line between C, F and M  are somewhat blurred,  It is often difficult to distinguish between the flights of villagers because of the reports of the fall or flight from neighboring settlements, flight from fear of "being next" or flight due to the approach of a Haganah/IDF column. I have generally ascribed the flight of inhabitants on the path of an Israeli military advance to M[Military assault on settlement] even though some villagers may have already taken to their heels upon hearing of the fall of a neighboring village." That being the case, the question mark and the M and the mapnote taken together do not support that Dayr al-Shaykh "was captured and depopulated during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War on October 21, 1948 by Israeli forces."  The village was abandoned during the 49 Arab-Israeli War during the fight to lift the siege on Jerusalem. If they villagers fled in fear, it may'' have been due to the advance of Jewish forces, but we don't know this for sure.  If they left on their own, it cannot be said to have been "depopulated by Israeli forces."  172.190.10.76 (talk) 23:58, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


 * To User talk:172.190.10.76: (and who are you when you are logged in, if I may ask? hmm?) You argument does not hold. Morris, (like the Israeli state) always use the word "abandoned" about *all* empty places. And in the above quote, you have quted him out of context. The heading is: "Key to map 2", and below that Morris writes: "In the Key, the following codes are used for decisive sources of abandoment": (and then follow the  the different letters, including E: Expulsion by Jewish forces".


 * So, if we should follow User talk:172.190.10.76 "logic", Deir Yassin, (a mere 10 km away from Dayr al-Shaykh: the villagers must have known about the Deir Yassin massacre) was "abondoned" (??) No chance. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 11:13, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Let me address your issues because I believe I have the stronger argument. To your first point, which I will restate for clarity, that Morris (like the Israeli state, according to you) *always* uses the word "abandoned" for all empty places, and therefore Wikipedia should not use it. I disagree.  This article is supposed to be based on sources, and since we are using Morris as our source, then we should use Morris' considered use of language, not some other that may be more to our personal liking.  As to your remark that I quoted out of context, that is not accurate.  The article itself was out-of-context, since it did not include Morris' clarifying remarks at all.  I left out the last sentence simply because it did not apply to this village.  To your last point that the villagers "must have known" about Deir Yassin and the implication that they fled because of that would be an example of WP:OR, not supported by reference.  Deir Yassin happened April 9, 1948, and the Dayr al-Shayk villagers apparently stayed on until last of October.  172.130.209.242 (talk) 16:12, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

(indent) Nothing in this article is being sourced to Morris except for the exact date of depopulation. Otherwise, it is mostly Khalidi. Yazan (talk) 16:27, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Morris 2004 vs 2006 version.
In most of the 1948-village articles, Morris 2004-book is used. It was printed again, later eds. In later versions, the page numbers are different from the 2004-book. Now, this edit by Mbz1 is simply wrong....as the ref. in the article only gives the 2004-version of the book, ..and there the "old" page-number is correct. IF you want to change the page-number...you must also give which other edition of the Morris-book you refer to! Cheers, Huldra (talk) 11:20, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Checked page number of Morris 2004, 2nd ed isbn 978-0-521-00967-6 -- based on that, the edit xviii is correct.?? 172.130.209.242 (talk) 16:28, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * What year is the book printed?
 * I have Morris 2004, 2nd ed isbn 978-0-521-00967-6, Fourth Printing 2007, and confirm that the page number there is xviii. --NSH001 (talk) 20:22, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, but check Morris, 2 edition, printed 2004: there it is page xx. 79.121.146.46 (talk) 23:10, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If you use a later edition of Morris, then that must be noted in the reference-section. Like it has been done here: Kawkab al-Hawa. 79.121.146.46 (talk) 23:16, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Khalidi
This is what Khalidi writes: "Occupation and depopulation With the end og the second truce of the war on 15 October 1948, Israeli forces pushed into the Jerusalem corridor, just south of the road to the coast. Dayr al-SXhaykh was occupied by Harel brigade in the course of this operation, known as Operation ha-Har (see Allar, Jerusalem), probably on 21 October. Israeli historian Benny Morris gives a date of occupation but does not explain what ultimately happened to the villagers; he does mention, however, that some villagers in the area fled as Israeli forces approached, and that others were expelled.(see M:219-21)"

Under Allar, Jerusalem, he writes: "while there is no documentary evidence that Yigal Allon, the commander of the operation, issued expulsion orders to theunits that carried out Operation ho-Har, Morris writes that "...it is quite possible that he indicated his wishes in pre-battle tetes-a-tetes with his officers." ..A large number of refugees remained in the gullies and caves around their villages, only to be expelled during Israeli raids in subsequent months. [M: 217, 219-21, NYT 21.10.48]"

Also; recall that the Al-Dawayima massacre occurred a few days before. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 11:27, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Khalidi references Morris to say that some of the villagers were expelled and gives page numbers (for Morris). Reading those page numbers several times, I was not able to see where Morris mentions expulsion of inhabitants of this village. Perhaps someone will enlighten?  It is not in his original mapkey either (where he gives (?) and M).  Is Allar, Jerusalem equivalent to Dayr al-Shayk? Can we use the facts for one as for the other?  We certainly cannot use as fact Morris' possible mind-reading "...it is quite possible..." According to Morris 1948, pg 333 the attack on Dawayima (what Wikipedia calls the "Al-Dawayima massacre") occurred 29 October; the village of Dayr al-Shayk's abandonment is given as October 21, so actually it is the other way round.  Mia culpa: my earlier comment that the abandonment of this village came as part of the campaign to lift the Jerusalem siege was incorrect.  By then, Jerusalem had already been lost to the Jews, and the Jews from the nearby villages were expelled. evacuated, and the Jews expelled for the Old City. 172.130.209.242 (talk) 16:55, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Well it looks as if he had a second reference, the New York Times. Khalidi is a reliable source and I don't see why he can't be used. Gatoclass (talk) 21:51, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If the Times article speaks of this village, then certainly. Were you able to find the this reference in Morris? Khalidi is certainly reliable but everyone can make mistakes. 172.130.5.58 (talk) 22:58, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK
I am going to decline DYK for this article. Although the lead is improved, and I am satisfied with this, the section about 1948 is not. One cannot say "According to Israeli historian Benny Morris" without citing Benny Morris himself. Also palestinerembered should not be used a source. Cheers.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:33, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Dispute
Let's see, the last section has 6 sentences, 3 of them are "contentious". They are:
 * Dayr al-Shaykh was captured by Israel's Har'el Brigade, probably on October 21, 1948 during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War.
 * This one is clearly cited to Khalidi, page p.288. Anybody objects?
 * According to Israeli historian Benny Morris, most inhabitants of the area occupied, including Dayr al-Shaykh, fled as Israeli forces advanced.
 * This one is almost a quote, also from Khalidi. I've not read Benny Morris' book, but of Khalidi (an RS) states that, then it is definitely acceptable to put it in Wiki. If you want you can change the sentence into "Khalidi's book states that according to Israeli historian Benny Morris, most inhabitants of the area occupied, including Dayr al-Shaykh, fled as Israeli forces advanced."
 * Some who remained in the vicinity were expelled.
 * This is also sourced to Khalidi, p.266.

As for palestineremembered: Let me state again, that it is NOT being used as a source. It is a depository. While it obviously has a POV, it is not an offensive website, and as such I don't see why we can't link to it to give readers a chance to verify the information we state, when we can. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason. Yazan (talk) 16:25, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


 * There is a problem. Even according to the article Benny Morris is cited with a question mark,and Khalidi cites Morris, as it has no question mark. So why not to use in 1948 section the same language as it is used in the lead now: "It was depopulated at the time of the siege of Jerusalem during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War." because it is the only thing that is known for sure. Also how one could say that the village was "captured"? In order for something to be captured, there should have been some kind of resistance. Was there? Did villagers allowed foreign troops into their village? Was there a fight? We do not know, don't we. That's why it is better to use more neutral language. --Mbz1 (talk) 20:20, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Mbz1, Khalidi is only citing Morris on the second sentence. The first sentence is his assertion, see the excerpts that Huldra wrote down from the book. If you want to remove the whole sentence that is cited by Morris, fine with me. But the fact that it was captured by the Har'el brigade, during the ha-Har operation is asserted by Khalidi, which is RS (and he does not cite morris for that). Yazan (talk) 20:52, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Please see here. Where it said the village was captured? Am I missing something? "Occupied" and "captured" are two different words. One could "occupy" an empty village too.
 * Yes, if you are to take out the whole sentence cited by Morris, this will be fine with me too.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:03, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Now everything is sourced to Khalidi's book. Changed captured -> occupied. Any other objections? Yazan (talk) 21:08, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * There's still this sentence "Some of the villagers who remained in the vicinity were expelled". Khalidi cites this claim to Morris, but according to the posts by IP above, Morris has nothing of the kind. I have no Morris book myself. I worked with it in a library, but I did not have enough time to get into details. user:NSH001 has the book. He supported page number claim mentioned by IP, and did not dispute any claims IP has made about the content of the Morris's book, which IMO indicates that IP is right. So why don't you remove this sentence "Some of the villagers who remained in the vicinity were expelled" altogether? --Mbz1 (talk) 21:27, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


 * According to Huldra above, Khalidi also cites the NYT for that section. So if you can't confirm the expulsion from Morris, presumably that info came from the NYT. Gatoclass (talk) 21:53, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, from the quotation provided above it is not clear what particular village Khalidi and NYT for that matter are talking about. It said "villages" in plural. The article is about specific village.And besides, if Khalidi cites Morris on something that apparently Morris never said (I am not sure about this, I rely on the comments made by IP) how we could be sure that citing NYT is correct? That's why I believe it is just better to remove the sentence simply because nothing is known for sure about this particular village. --Mbz1 (talk) 22:07, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) Hmmm, you seem to be correct that it doesn't mention a specific village. But from what I gather, this village was abandoned as part of a larger military operation, and that in the months that followed, villagers who remained in the area were expelled. So maybe it would be more appropriate to say something along those lines. Gatoclass (talk) 22:15, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Why don't we just say simply: "this village was abandoned as part of a larger military operation conducted by Israeli forces during the War of Independence"?--Mbz1 (talk) 22:30, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


 * If some villagers were expelled, the article should say that. Not to do so would constitute censorship. Gatoclass (talk) 22:35, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Of course, "if some villagers were expelled, the article should say that", but the problem is with this big "if". We do not know, if some residents of this particular village were expelled. That's why the claim about expulsion should be removed from the article.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:16, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay, I'll try to resolve this by getting hold of a copy of Morris' book in the next day or two. Gatoclass (talk) 06:21, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * (repeated edit conflict) Firstly Mbz1, can you do me a favour and correct a small matter? In general, and with only a few exceptions, I intensely dislike the ugly and grammatically incorrect use of the singular they. I dislike it even more when an editor (any editor) is described as a "they", and, a fortiori anybody describing me as a "they". I state my real name on my user page (since I have nothing to hide, except from putative identity thieves). I am a "he", not a "they", and would be grateful if you would correct that.
 * Unfortunately I don't have Khalidi's book, but Morris says very little about Dayr al-Shaykh; the only entry in the index is to the footnote in the map key. The 172.190 IP is incorrect, in my view, to emphasise in bold the word "abandoned" as if that implied something of significance - it doesn't. He or she does, however, quote Morris accurately, except for some typos. The code "M", preceded by a question mark, indicates that in Morris's view the cause of depopulation was probably "Military assault on aettlement", but beyond that Morris has nothing to say. It would be better, in my view, to use other sources for the cause of depopulation. --NSH001 (talk) 22:21, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Any others you could recommend? Gatoclass (talk) 22:25, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm unable to do so at the moment, but I'm slowly working on improving my knowledge of the sources. My problem is that I'm more interested in peace-building than re-hashing the horrifying details of past conflicts. --NSH001 (talk) 22:39, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay, thanks anyway. I might be able to get hold of a copy of Morris, and maybe Khalidi, from my local library to check the texts for myself, but I probably won't be able to do that until tomorrow. Gatoclass (talk) 22:53, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

If we are to use Morris' as a reference for the causes of the abandonment or depopulation, I feel that his legend (explanation) should be included in a footnote: ''"The line between C, F and M are somewhat blurred. It is often difficult to distinguish between the flights of villagers because of the reports of the fall or flight from neighboring settlements, flight from fear of "being next" or flight due to the approach of a Haganah/IDF column. I have generally ascribed the flight of inhabitants on the path of an Israeli military advance to M[Military assault on settlement] even though some villagers may have already taken to their heels upon hearing of the fall of a neighboring village." '' For other villages' articles where Morris is used as a reference and says the residents were expelled, I believe his further comment regarding expulsion should be available. I personally don't have a quarrel with the term "depopulated" over abandonment, as Khalidi uses that term; my objection is only with the laying of blame when it is not specifically given by the references we are using. (as well as ascertaining that Morris did in fact say what Khalidi says he says, per my above comment) 172.130.5.58 (talk) 23:42, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


 * (indent) Please review the changes in the last section. I think this should be acceptable (without prejudice to additional data being added if sources could be located). Yazan (talk) 04:55, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Also that palestinerembered thing, please see here. I understand you're saying it is used only as a depository, but I believe wikipedia should not promote such sites by providing references to it. Besides it cites "Palestine Liberation Organization Research Center" that is not RS on its own. In any case,if a source isn't reliable, then the contents aren't reliable period.There's no guarantee the material on that site matches exactly the contents of the book. --Mbz1 (talk) 05:16, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Sami Hadawi is certainly an RS. Palestine remembered is not being cited, and is not being "promoted". It is a relevant site to these villages, so it is in the external links section, and it has pages of this book that we are referencing, so it is linked there. You don't like Hadawi, take it to RS. Yazan (talk) 05:29, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Yazan, although I don't believe palestine remembered's village profile has to be provided in the external links section. Anyhow, I have brought it up at the Reliable Source's talk page and I'll wait for a reply there. Maybe it could be made clearer whether or not we could use the site indirectly in this particular instance. --Al Ameer son (talk) 06:31, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

new web-site
This: Maqam Sheikh Badr el-Din el-Jimali contains some great pictures, and direction on how to get too the place. There are a couple of typos: "In the beginning of the 19th century, Badr el-Din Muhammad el-Jimali came to Palestine" ,... then he died in 1253. Hmm. Another thing is that he gives as reference Palästina-Vereins II, 160; but I cannot find anything relevant for Dayr al-Shaykh on that page. But on p. 152 there is a der esch-schech. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 20:03, 14 December 2013 (UTC)