Talk:Al-Faluja

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Al-Faluja is part of WikiProject Palestine - a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative, balanced articles related to Palestine on Wikipedia. Join us by visiting the project page where you can add your name to the list of members and contribute to the discussion. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Palestine articles.
NB: Assessment ratings and other indicators given below are used by the Project in prioritizing and managing its workload.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the Project's importance scale.
After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's ratings summary page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.

Contents

[edit] Reliable sources

Hi PalestineRemembered, since you have the Israeli FM and IDF archive documents (Sharett to Dori, 6 Mar. 1949, Israel State Archives FM 2425\7 and Allon to OC General Staff Division, 5 Mar. 1949, IDFA 1046\70\\434. ) in your possession, perhaps you could scan and upload them to wikipedia, so we can link to the actual text. Thanks. Isarig 23:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

All this information is referenced to those archives, where it has been examined by a famous Israeli historian, to whom I have credited the exact book and page. This is to policy and the way that all historical matter appears in this encyclopaedia, if you wish to change policy, then I suggest you start a discussion about it at the relevant page. Not here.
But thankyou for demonstrating so graphically how necessary it is to have this information here - clearly, some people find it surprising and doubt it's provenance. That's why I expanded the article in the first place, doubt was expressed that Morris could really be so sure about what he claimed. PalestineRemembered 07:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Can I safely assume you have not looked at the originals, then, and are in fact referencing Morris's book? If so, may I remind you that you were just in front of ArbComm for doing this - falsely citing a source you have not actually read, instead of the actual place you saw the source cited. And you are doing this here after an edit war in which you claimed that there is more than just Morris as a source for this, and then added these two, apparently in an attempt to create an impression that there is more than just Morris's say-so. This looks very bad - I hope you have some explanation. Isarig 03:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
My apologies, I entered 7 references, 5 of which were more or less completely cited, one was partially cited, and one was missed. I've cleaned it all up and removed some material that I'm pretty sure comes from "All that remains" by Walid Khalidi, Institute for Palestine Studies (November 1992) but I cannot fully reference yet.
I would remind you of the words of the top lawyer and Harvard professor Alan Dershowitz, who stated[1]: "My biased accuser claimed that I cited the quotations in question to their original sources, rather than to their secondary sources. Yes I did, and that is the correct method of attribution. I have asked Harvard Law School's distinguished librarian for an opinion on this issue and he has concluded as follows: Should an author (1) who wants to use a quotation from another author (2) that he found while reading the work of a third author (3) cite to the original source (2) or to the work (3) that cited it? [Response] It is common practice in both legal and non-legal citation to cite to the original source. [Sources Cited] ..... the general rule is to cite the first source not the repeater.."
In other words, there was no call ever to hold me to this standard - as you well know. (Though there is a WP guideline to this effect, which I support). PalestineRemembered 15:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The lead, and [citation needed]

Please read WP:LEAD: "The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, summarizing the most important points, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any", and do not remove the lead agian without discussion. Additionaly, please do not remove {{cn}} templates - they are a requets for a cite. If you have a cite - add it, if you don't leave the template in place. Isarig 18:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Dear Isarig - before we go any further, are you satisfied that my use of references in this article does not "look very bad" atall? PalestineRemembered 21:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Now that you have clarified that everything should have been sourced to Morris, and corrected accordingly, I accept that this was originally a good-faith error. We can move on. Isarig 21:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Thankyou. Can we agree that the lead of this article should be about the town? I'm sorry if I've been forced to add too much material about the atrocities - it would be a shame if we carried on in a similar fashion and unbalanced it with the military details. PalestineRemembered 21:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
The lead should describe the article, and the article seems to be focused on the events of the 1948-49 war, the armistice agreemnt, and the events immediatly after the agreement. If you want to make it about the town - that's fine, but then we'll have to actually add some material about the town, and considerably trim down the current focus on the post Feb-1949 events. Alternatively, we can keep the article as-is, but restore my version of the lead. Isarig 21:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
There's lots of material about the town out there, and I'm completely cofident where it is and the full citation for it. Unfortunately, there seems to be a real problem with anything that's not been personally viewed (actually, policy is that only "surprising" results need this kind of precise citation, but you know what I mean). I agree the article is currently unbalanced, but that's not because it's meant to be like that. I trust we're not going to unbalance it in a new and unncessary direction by including lots of military details that don't really concern the town (though we should link to them somewhere). If the lead has to match the current state of the article then it would include reference to the beatings, though I don't personally think that's necessary. PalestineRemembered 22:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
If and when th earticle's balance changes to be more about the town and less about the events of October 48- 1949, the lead can be changed accordingly. Until then, the lead should reflect the current article focus. Isarig 15:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
That might be a perfectly reasonable request - except this is a brand new article, and we keep getting off-policy statements impugning the character of the villagers, based on their failure to deal with the armed intrusion they suffered. Perhaps you should examine the articles on Lidice or other towns attacked and emptied, and consider treating the Al-Falujah villagers in a similar way, by NPOV alone. PalestineRemembered 07:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] San Francisco Chronicle cite

The use of this citation is problematic. The text says :"See also the "San Fransisco Chronicle" which questions whether due diligence was applied to the land on which the chip plant was built.", as if the SFC is an independent source which can verify Morris' work. Reading the article, the text is entirely based on Morris' book, and one other source: a web site, www.palestineremembered.com (Has a familiar sound...).
I have no objection to citing this source, but dont use it as collaborative evidence to Morris' account. The text should be rephrased. Derwig 19:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

You have a point, because the same reference is used twice. Once as an "easy-reading" version of Morris's account, and then again for the "chip-plant" claim. (Once as a hyper-link, once as a ref). But I cannot really see why that is problematical.
The more significant problem is that this article had been stable for months and wasn't bothering anyone. Objectons were raised to the references, I go out and get better references and more detail, and then people claim it's all unduely weighted. I agree, there is now more information about the atrocities than is needed. (There's even a move to make it seem that the history of this town is mostly about the ethnic cleansing, which would be ridiculous). I fear the same thing will happen over the chip-plant, and I really can't see the point of it. Let's produce something that's accurate, not unduly weighted and easy-reading. It's only the last part I need much help with, though I appreciate your over-sight over the whole thing. PalestineRemembered 20:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Something wrong here, source doesn't make this claim.

Assuming that [2] is indeed the text of "All that Remains" by Professor Walid Alkhalidi 1992, it reads as follows - "An early attack on Al-Faluja was reported on 14 March 1948. Quoting Jewish sources, the New York Times said that a "Jewish supply convoy" had engaged in a battle with villagers, as a result of which 37 Arabs and 7 Jews were killed, and "scores" of Arabs and 3 Jews were wounded. The convoy, which was escorted by Haganah armored cars, reportedly had to fight its way through the village. But another Jewish group returned that same day with a Haganah demolition squad and blew up ten houses in Al-Faluja, including the three-storey town hall. Two days later, the Associated Press confirmed that the buildings blasted included the municipal building and the post office. An earlier attack had been mentioned by the Palestinian newspaper Filastin the previous month, on 24 February; no details were given. [F:26/2/48; NYT:15/3/48, 16/3/48]".

I'm not disputing that convoys may have been attacked - but the source doesn't say that's what happened (and, at least on this occasion it's pretty unlikely, the villagers losing 5 times more dead than the column). PalestineRemembered 16:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The source said that it was a supply column that "had to fight its way through the village" - clearly a claim that it was attacked by the villagers as it tried to pass through. That the villagers were ineffective fighters has little bearing on this fact. Isarig 17:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
The source does not say the convoy was attacked. And I'm not trying to invent a trivial quibble about OR, since the main street could have been in use by the famous market or a religious procession - or even not wide enough to force an armoured car through. Any of those things could have led to the convoy claiming "it had to fight it's way through", they do not imply the convoy was attacked. The convoy didn't even have any business there, since Falouja wasn't part of what was to be Israel. You should self-revert what you've done there. PalestineRemembered 18:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Your speculation as to what might have happened or the legitimacy of the convoy's passing there are interesting, but wholly irrelevant. Your source says a supply convoy passing through had to fight it's way through - obviously it was being prevented from doing so peacefully. Isarig 19:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Our source does not say it was attacked, and there are clearly other explanations, including the one given, the NYT says the convoy "engaged in a battle with the villagers". The edit in question is a clear, but quite unnecessary, case of OR. These are the same people later guaranteed their homes by the Israeli government, but beaten from them anyway - is it denial we're in the business of? PalestineRemembered 20:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Please review WP:NPA and remember to comment on content, not editors. Your previous edits have created the misleading impression that this was some random peaceful village attacked for no apparent reason - while the current edit, based on the NYT article, makes it clear that these same villagers were engaged in battles, attempting to stop supply convoys from going through or near their village, and as such, legitimate military targets. Isarig 21:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Let's get this right - these people were hideously victimised around 12 months later - correct? The description of the events we have here is of them being quite nastily victimised (37/7 killed) by armed intruders, with no business there - correct? You've apparently blamed the victims by saying they were "ineffective fighters". I'm sure I could say the same about any number of innocent victims victimised by gunmen and bombers. It's reasonable to ask whether you're in the business of denial. It's a fairly simple "Yes/No" question. If the answer is "No", then I'll accept that this is just an unfortunate impression I got from what went before.
No, quite far from correct. These are not villagers "nastily victimised (37/7 killed) by armed intruders, with no business there" - these are armed villagers who used force to try and stop a food supply convoy from passing near their village -and suffered heavy casualties in the ensuing battle. The POV editorializing you are attempting is exactly why I've balanced the description. If you repeat the accusation that I am in the business of denial once again, you will find yourself in front of Arbcomm once again. Cease that immediately, and consider this your final warning. Isarig 22:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
In the meantime, you're telling us the villagers attacked convoys, when our source does not claim that, and there are many other explanations. I'm surprised to see an editor of your experience do something so obviously OR. PalestineRemembered 22:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
The source clearly says the supply convoy had o fight its way through the village. Prat tell how that could have happened if it was not attacked. Isarig 22:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
We now have four straightforward pieces of OR in the article or in Talk:
1) The claim that the convoy was attacked (nothing to that effect in the source, with multiple other explanations).
2) The claim that these were "armed villagers", when there is nothing in the source that states as much, and strong indications that the villagers were not prepared in any way.
3) The claim that the convoy was "food" when the source says it was "supply". That's a laughable inclusion - why take food to largely self-sufficient settlements? And why protect it with (scarce) armoured cars, supposedly needed at this exact time to supply Jerusalem?
4) The claim that the convoy passed "near" the village, when the source says it went through.
On top of this, the implication that the convoy had every right to go through an area that was not going to be part of Israel, while ignoring very real concerns (expressed in the source) about the suffering of these villagers, then and later.
I'm astonished to see an experienced editor behave in this fashion. PalestineRemembered 06:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Convoy action not a battle

The sources we have say that Al-Faluja was attacked and "the convoy had to fight their way through". The former is specific, the second is meaningless (maybe they fought their way through a column of pilgrims filling the road). We couldn't call this "a battle" unless and until we have sources that say so.

Furthermore, we must make it clear that Al-Faluja was outside the area that was to become Israel according to the UN partition plan. Under the circumstances, all actions by the villagers can only be described as defensive (especially against a mobile force in armoured cars). The only possible description is that the village was "attacked". Decency would also not allow us to blame the villagers, who were later victimised in a well-observed and horrific fashion. PalestineRemembered 11:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Please stop this OR speculation - the article now quotes, nearly verbatim, the NYT piece which is the source. The location of faluja is entirely irrelevant, this battle took place month's before the end of the mandate, when there was no partition. Anyone had the right to travel anywhere, and to claim that the villagers had the right to attack this convoy is nothing short of apologetics. You can;t have the cake and eat it too- either the villagers were peaceful citizens, in which case they had no right to attack a convoy, or they were justified in attacking a convoy on the grounds that there was a civil war - in which caae it was just as legitimate to later attack them.Isarig 15:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
I see 4 clear pieces of OR presented to us, not in the source and not a legitimate extrapolation of the wording.
And if an armed Arab column had swept into an immigrant settlement and killed 37 to 7, you'd have called it a massacre - as indeed would I. Fortunately, there's a policy called NPOV, and this is what governs the encyclopaedia. PalestineRemembered 16:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
The article now quotes, nearly verbatim, the NYT piece which is the source. Please cease your POV-pushing based on OR and specualtion. Isarig 16:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
The article is still POV, using OR to call this a battle when, if the situation was reversed, we'd all agree on calling it a massacre. PalestineRemembered 20:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Your speculations on what "we" might "all agree on" in the case of some hypothetical situation betray only your POV, and are entirely irrelevant to this article. When there is a firefight that results in the deaths of 10s of people, it is perfectly acceptable to call it a "battle". Isarig 21:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
We have nothing to indicate that this was a fire-fight, making it the fifth piece of OR we've had presented. It could even have been a car-crash, with unarmed and unresisting witnesses gunned to death. We still have no source and no evidence this was a battle. PalestineRemembered 09:52, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
we have the NYT saying the convoy had to fight its way through. Please stop this nonsense about a car crash. Isarig 15:15, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
PR, you are my friend, but "car crash"? The third word of the Times article is "battle." I practically plagiarized it in order to avoid just this sort of thing. I might call it a massacre too, but the Times didn't and that's our source. The previous version, with its unseemly original research about the villagers having "attacked" the convoy as it passed "near" the village, was unacceptable, and its implication that this "attack" in March precipitated a reprisal in February was ludicrous, but let's not fight garbage OR with OR of our own.--G-Dett 00:06, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Move to Faluja (Israel)

The "al" is just a definite article, no? A source I have calls the town just Faluja, and so does the Hebrew wikipedia. So I propose moving the article to Faluja (Israel) (as opposed to the Iraqi one). nadav (talk) 05:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Post-armistance events needs tightening

The section Al-Faluja#Post-armistice events needs major tightening and needs to use dry-fact language and fewer adverbs and adjectives.

For example, the paragraph that starts off "Moshe Sharett" can be rewritten:

Moshe Sharett (Israeli Foreign Minister) was concerned about the reaction from other countries and the effect of Jews in nearby Arab countries, as well as its effect on Israel's application to join the United Nations.[[citation goes here]].