This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Palestine Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Wikipedia. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

• First: there has never been a requirement that sources should be online (Most of the best quality sources that I use are not). So saying that the Pappe-book is not online, is no reason to ask for citations.
• Secondly, I have the Pappe-book, that quotation is sourced to the "writer Muhammad Ali Taha", who was an eyewitness to the events (he was 17 at the time.) The paragraph is also sourced to Naji Makhul: "Acre and its Villages since Ancient Times", p. 28, Huldra (talk) 22:22, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seems strange to me that it is mentioned that in 1938 the village was entirely destroyed by the British, but there is no mention of the town being re-populated. When has repopulation started? How many lived there in 1948? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.109.124.101 (talk) 07:39, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The 1945 population is in the infobox. Zero^talk 11:09, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fled during the assault its not the same as "depopulated by Israeli forces". Also its a big question if PAPPE reliable source at all from what I looked at WP:RS/N the WP:ONUS for him was not met --Shrike (talk) 09:22, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Shrike: "Depopulated" works in that sentence whether they were expelled or fled from an assault. But, if you think adding more details would improve the neutrality of the lede then we can do that, but simply erasing Israel from the sentence and saying it was "depopulated during the 1948 War" doesn't make any sense. (I don't think there is any question of whether Pappe is WP:RS, btw. I see that the editor who worked on this article has attributed all the opinions as required by the WP:RS policy and has included balancing opinions. In any case, Pappe's view is not the one in the lead.) Seraphim System ^(talk) 09:57, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why doesn't it make any sense?There is a question if Israeli forces were actively depopulated the village or not. --Shrike (talk) 10:07, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We can't just leave it blank like the Palestinian village depopulated itself. There's a diffrence between depopulated and expelled (Pappe's view) - depopulated can be used in either circumstance (expelled or fled from military assault), unless someone can suggest a better word to use.Seraphim System ^(talk) 16:37, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Right now it reads like the Israeli expelled the villages which is NPOV violation.We can add the reasons for depopulation is disputed. --Shrike (talk) 10:26, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think "depopulation" is seriously disputed. Pappe argued it was a preplanned expulsion. The lede is not the right place to discuss details of the dispute, but I don't think reliable sources support the argument that depopulation would be an NPOV violation here. If you want the lede to be rewritten to make it sound like the Palestine's left voluntarily it would be false balance. I don't even think secondary sources support giving Morris equal weight in the article text, much less the lede^[1]Seraphim System ^(talk) 16:19, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Morris p421 is cited, but there is more relevant information on p423 and p514. Zero^talk 12:02, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No one dispute depopulation the only dispute is "by Israli forces".I suggest removing it and saying that reasons for depopulation is disputed.--Shrike (talk) 12:52, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't even what Benny Morris said, if they fled a direct assault, which is what happened in this case, then the current version is fine. There are some cases where people fled in neighboring villages that weren't directly assaulted. You may have an argument there, but not in this case. How are Israeli forces not active participants in indiscriminately killing the people who then fled? Give me a break, you need to have sources that support any argument you are making about balance and weight. Can you tell us what those sources are? Seraphim System ^(talk) 16:16, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what the problem is here. According to reliably sourced information in the article, Mi’ar’s inhabitants either fled because of the Israeli assault on the village or were expelled by the Israelis. Either way, it would be an accurate, neutral and concise summarization in the lead to say that the village was depopulated by Israeli forces. This is unlike some other villages where the inhabitants fled out of caution, fear or encouragement without a direct assault or being directly expelled. —Al Ameer (talk) 23:29, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While there is no disputeon the fact that the village was located on that territory, there is no evidence to its boundaries and therefore there is no evidence that Manof, Yaad or Atzmon are located on it's teritorry. 213.57.30.98 (talk) 09:36, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The boundaries are shown on the map. Anyway, there's a reliable source. Zero^talk 12:08, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The "1948 War and aftermath" section's first paragraph ends with the sentence "According to Israeli historian Benny Morris, Mi'ar's 893 inhabitants fled during the Israeli assault, while Pappé asserts that they were expelled.". In the immediate next sentence, I had written "According to Palestinian historian Walid Khalidi, the Jewish communities of Segev ...". The attribution has now been removed twice, once with the feigned ignorance of "when have we ever done this", and then when the example was show , claiming it is "yellow badging". perhaps there will be a cogent explanation of this double standard. Inf-in MD (talk) 14:24, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Removed the nationality on Morris, which you could have done just as well. The attribution is there cus there is a dispute among sources, so we say who says what. Is there any dispute about what Khalidi said? We dont place ethnic backgrounds on reliable sources. And it did not say "According to Jewish historian ..." And if it had, that would likewise be unacceptable. Double standards indeed. nableezy - 23:46, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why would your strawman of "Jewish historian" be the analogue of "Palestinian Histories", vs. "Israeli historian", which what we had in the article"? That section begins with "According to Ilan Pappé.." - without any dispute about what follows. Why is Khalidi the only one where attribution is not required? And yes ,of course. Kahilidi' work has been challenged by historians- e.g [1]Inf-in MD (talk) 02:00, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did not ask if Khalidi's work has been challenged by anybody, I asked if what is cited to him here is in dispute. Since the strawman you chose to answer is irrelevant, I assume there is no dispute here. Why Palestinian or Jewish as the comparison? Because Khalidi was born in the British Mandate and is an American citizen. So Palestinian would be in reference to his ethnicity. We dont ethnic mark our reliable sources in such a way. nableezy - 04:21, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is what is cited to Pappe in the first sentence in dispute ("on 20 June 1948 Israeli troops entered Mi'ar and shot indiscriminately against its residents while they were working in their fields"? No, yet we still say according to... as is extremely common here, when there is but one source for a claim. The conflict is a called the Arab - Israeli conflict not the Arab-Jewish one, but just to remove that last bit <removed> , we most certainly introduce some claims as "according to Jewish historian... https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=%22according+to+Jewish+historian%22&title=Special:Search&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&ns0=1. Khialidi's entire book and methodology used in it has been criticized by eminent historians and geographers, which is more than enough to require attributing the claims to him. Inf-in MD (talk) 13:01, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Then remove that attribution to Pappe. Remove the "according to Jewish historian" from any article you want to. I welcome you to refactor that last comment prior to me reporting it. nableezy - 15:04, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need to remove either attribution, because as I wrote and shown, it is common practice whenever we have a single source. Refactored. Inf-in MD (talk) 15:56, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, there is no need to attribute material when there is no dispute about it. There is nothing especially controversial about what is cited to Khalidi, and you can look at a freaking map to verify the accuracy. So long as nothing is challenged nothing needs to be attributed, and we certainly dont need to ethnically mark Khalidi (why not "American historian" as he has been an American citizen for over 30 years if this is about nationality?). nableezy - 16:11, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am not attached to labeling Khalidi as Palestinian or anything else, though I'll note that this, too, is common practice: for example here, and here and many others, and a similar amount of 'Israeli historian" attributions, as was the case in this article before you decided to selectively remove Khilidi's designation. And it is of course not limited to the Arab-Israeli topic area; "according to Armenian historian", "according to Turkish historian" , "according to Indian historian". There is a dispute around khilidi' book and his methodology. It needs to be attributed, just like we normally do for single-sourced controversial claims. Inf-in MD (talk)

Those are all nationalities, and as written above Khalidi is an American citizen. And just saying there is dispute does not make it so. Show a single reliable source challenging what is cited here and we can attribute it. Absent that, it very much is not in dispute. Certainly not due to some vague wave to some historian saying he thinks Khalidi's work leaves much to be desired. nableezy - 16:40, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Those are nationalities as well as ethnicities, and as a case in point (illustrating you didn't even bother to look at the links I provided), Richard G. Hovannisian is an American citizen, the exact parallel of Khaidi. Karo Ghafadaryan was a citizen of the USSR and Kemal Karpat was born in Romania, and a naturalized US citizen, of Turkish ethnicity. Give it up, you're completely wrong here. Our practice is to attribute controversial claims with a single source, and this one is no exception. Inf-in MD (talk) 16:52, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am very much not wrong, and if other articles are incorrectly ethnically marking reliable sources that should be corrected. We do not ethnic mark, or yellow-badge, reliable sources. And for that reason if somebody were to claim that something was according to "Jewish historian Benny Morris" they would be rightly reverted. There is no controversial claim here, only one user demanding that we participate in well-poisoning by ethnically badge an eminently reliable source. If you can demonstrate, with a source directly disputing Khalidi, that there is a controversy about the fact that several Israeli towns were built on the lands of this depopulated and destroyed Palestinian village then sure, we can attribute it. Unless that happens, no we will not. Given the 2-1 support against such well-poisoning ethnic-marking, I dont really see the need to continue to engage further with you on this. And just cus I wasnt sure I could trust your description of the other articles, I checked one of them, Karo Ghafadaryan, where it says "Nationality: Armenian". Huh. nableezy - 17:17, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are vey much wrong, as my examples show - this is common practice all over Wikipedia. Now, If you have no life, you can follow all the examples I point out and edit all those articles so they conform to what you imagine to be a the "right" practice, until someone takes you to task. The claim that localities miles away from the village's location are on "village lands" or "traditional village Lands" or whatever other term Khalidi uses in his criticized methodology is very much in dispute, and this needs to be attributed to its single source, as we do in countless other articles. Inf-in MD (talk) 18:21, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are not a reliable source, and as such your view on if something is in dispute is not something I need to concern myself with. Unless you have a source that disputes that these Israeli villages were built on Mi'ar's land then there is nothing else to do here. If you return the attribution I will be reporting you for edit-warring. Toodles. nableezy - 21:00, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And as of now, your search result for "according to Jewish historian" returns only references to Josephus, and I'd be happy removing those too as unnecessary, I just am not familiar enough with the standards for attributing to fist century historians so Ill refrain from doing so. I did however knock out the other ethnic badges as inappropriate and unnecessary. nableezy - 16:38, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, those all have wikilinks already, so removed all of them. nableezy - 16:44, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]