Talk:Khan al-Ahmar (village)

Bias

Wikipedia page on Khan Al-Ahmar. What bias? 1) the name is entered in brackets 1st as Hebrew, then Hebrew, finally in Arabic 2) called an "encampment" a derogatory term indicating transience 3) 'located' between 2 Jewish 'settlements' - a tendentious method of geo-location 4) described as 'tents and ramshackle huts' - perjorative nouns and adjectives

- this in the 1st 3 lines!

5) "slated for destruction" - "slated" appears to be a term intended to legitimise ethnic cleansing 6) the school is described as "made of tires and mud" - perjorative description of a well known sustainable building technology

Interesting that the place commemorates the story of the 'Good Samaritan' JC's parable answer to the question"who is my neighbour"

the 'discussion' page in wikipedia ia headed by 2 images http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1e/Wikij.svg/70px-Wikij.svg.png and a Zionist Entity flag. Feeling welcome? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.171.40.226 (talk) 21:46, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Landmarks

This section talks about the Good Samaritan Inn [1] but confuses several sites. The Good Samaritan Inn, which is also pictured, is not called Khan al-Ahmar but Khan Al-Hatruri. It is this which is described; nevertheless the remains "on the opposite side of the inn" are not St Euthymius but an unknown church discovered in 1934. St Euthymius is some 3.5 km southwest [2] and has an inn associated with it. It is this inn which, in the 13th century, became the site of the red Khan, Khan Al-Ahmar, after which the village [3] is named presumably. I have updated the section based on this clarification of the locations. Mlevitt1 (talk) 23:32, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Census reference

In the first line of the history section it says:

According to a census conducted in 1931 by the British Mandate authorities, Al-Auja had a population of 27, in 3 houses.

Al-Auja, Jericho is some place else. Nearby, but not relevant to this entry So why is this mentioned here? Shmuel A. Kam (talk) 22:05, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

You are absolutely right. The numbers are correct, but the name is wrong, I have fixed it now. (Al-Auja, Jericho was much larger in 1931), Huldra (talk) 22:55, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

A location confusion.

Maps show "Kh. al Khan el Ahmar" about 2km south. There was a rail head there at one time. Some care is needed in interpretting sources. Zero^talk 03:07, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Sigh, yeah, we could really need a map of this place, Laura of Euthymius and Ma'ale Adumim, Huldra (talk) 21:09, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Greetings! This is indeed a tangled mess. I have fixed several references to try to give some clarity to the =Landmarks= section of the article. Clearly, the Red Inn and the Good Samaritan Inn are two different places. The Arabic page exhibits the same confusion. The English page, Laura of Euthymius, seems to be about the Red Inn but then has map coordinates which again point to the Good Samaritan Inn. There are Hebrew and French pages which ignore the Bedouins of the area, focusing only on the archeological site (but which?).@Efrat (talk) 19:00, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Patently silly revert POV pushing

this. It is not an 'activists' claim: the petition was made by Maale Adunim and other settlements in order to expand their settlements. Zonscheine simply stated what numerous sources recapitulate. This trigger-happy reverting is reaching neurotic levels. The edit summary has no basis in policy, indeed is insouciant of policy. Nishidani (talk) 14:31, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Of course it is an activist claim. Zoneshine is the head of an activist's NGO, and the source is his opinion column. His opinion, properly attributed to him and his NGO, appears later in the article, but cannot be stated in Wikipedia's voice as unattributed fact in the lede. Attack Ramon (talk)

If you know nothing of the topic, or are unwilling to read widely before making silly and subjective excisions, then don't edit around here. Anyone who knows the topic, or anyone with any curiosity, will have noted that Zonscheine's statement is widely attested, so it is not an 'activist's opinion, fa chrissake. B'tselem stated that last year, to cite just one example. B'tselem is far more than an 'activist' NGO. It's one of the few institutions in that area that actually troubles to document the realities, legal, administrative and otherwise, of the I/P area, and is widely recognized as a very reliable source.

The forcible transfer of Khan al-Ahmar will enable future expansion of settlements, including in the area designated E1 – a plan being promoted in part by the settler lobby. On Sunday, 27 Aug., hundreds of settlers, joined by MKs Shuli Mualem and Moti Yogev (both of the Jewish Home party), demonstrated near the Khan al-Ahmar community, pressuring the government to move forward with its demolition plan. Khan al-Ahmar, which lies on land that Israel has earmarked for expansion of settlements near Ma’ale Adumim east of Jerusalem, is home to 21 families numbering 146 persons, including 85 minors. It has a mosque and also a local school, which was established in 2009 and serves more than 150 children between the ages of six and fifteen – some of them from neighboring communities.</blockquote>

POV warriors barging in to excise material whose reliability can be independently verified, using Undue, 'activist' or any other excuse, are not here to constructively edit.Nishidani (talk) 14:52, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

I know far more about this topic than you. Quoting the opinion of yet another activist group does not really help your argument. Attack Ramon (talk) 14:55, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

'Abut' is spelt 'about'. The text goes back because I gave you evidence of its use in other sources, and you have no answer but counter-assertion.Nishidani (talk) 15:20, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Seeing as I just fixed your horrendous English grammar here, are you sure you want to make an issue over a typo? You will not come out looking too good in this sort of nitpicking contest. You showed that two activist NGO's claim this, but this is not sufficient for including the claim in Wikipedia's voice, unattributed, in the lede. I remind you that the onus is on you to gain consensus for including disputed material. Attack Ramon (talk) 20:53, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

In the above edit, here, you introduced:...wrotee that thee.....which isn't English, AFAIK, Huldra (talk) 21:31, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Whoever you may turn out to be, this attempt to introduce the Gatestone Institute, is utterly unacceptable. It has no RSN backing, what's more.Nishidani (talk) 17:21, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

I've provided an additional source. This information is public knowledge, and discussed in the court proceedings which you claim to be familiar with. Attack Ramon (talk) 17:30, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

The Gatestone Insdtitute is not RS, period; the second source is an opinion piece by Naomi Khan writing for the Jewish News Syndicate and cannot be used by definition for facts or asserted historical details. You have, third abuse, added Arutz Sheva, which likewise cannot be used for I/P facts, as the RSN board has frequently asserted.Nishidani (talk) 17:37, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

I disagree with your pronouncements about the reliability of those sources, but these objections are moot- I've sourced it directly to the court proceedings, which you claim you are familiar with. Attack Ramon (talk)

The sources are reliable for court documents.If we use such activist sources like Btzelem there is no problem to use these sources--Shrike (talk) 18:32, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

That is a completely garbled assertion, Shrike with no basis in policy. 'If B'tselem, then anything goes' is not an argument. I never said I was familiar with the court proceedings, which means the editor is misrepresenting me. Primary court documents are not RS. Nishidani (talk) 19:01, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

The "if you can use a source I don't like, then so can I" argument is one to avoid, Shrike. The requirement to present reliable, secondary sources goes back to when we learned our Wikipedia ABCs.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:12, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Shrike, Arutz Sheva, the Gatestone Institute etc.etc. have been continually struck out as unreliable sources in the past. This article is no exception, and in legal cases regarding contemporary events, one cannot introduce primary materials. You have provided no argument, you simply voted, made an assertion, and then reverted.Nishidani (talk) 09:07, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Neither the Gatestone Institute nor Arutz Sheva are reliable sources. nableezy - 21:22, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

I disagree with your pronouncements about the reliability of those sources, but these objections are moot- I've sourced it directly to the court proceedings, as well as to the Jewish News Syndicate. You need to start editing in accordance with the NPOV policy.Attack Ramon (talk) 21:27, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Sourcing directly to a court document is likewise a violation of WP:OR, and youve neglected the violation of WP:ONUS in your revert. nableezy - 21:29, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

No it's not, this is apparently another policy you don't understand. Attack Ramon (talk) 21:38, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. Are you under the impression that your edit has consensus? Do you need lessons in counting hands? nableezy - 21:38, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Removal of sourced material

The opinion that the eviction is a war crime is covered, in significant detail. Whether or not the planned eviction is a war crime, the material regarding the relocation package is well sourced. There is no reasonable grounds for its removal, which is a blatant violation of the NPOV policy.Attack Ramon (talk) 21:51, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Nope. I told you cannot introduce Gatestone Institute, nor Arutz Sheva, and settler rag no decent journalist would wipe his arse on, and that other opinion piece in an unrecognized net journal by an unknown authoress for facts. Nor can you adduce primary legal documents for the plaintiffs' case (settlers advocating a 'war crime', the dispossession of people from land they inhabited long before the settlers, whose presence is a violation of the Geneva Conventions on population transfer), presenting their claims about what the evicted will receive as compensation, as facts. If you are not happy with this, do what other editors do, take the sources to the RSN board. Nishidani (talk) 13:47, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Insertion of propaganda sources

Insertion of partisan propaganda advocacy ties, such as the Palestine Chronicle, for statements of fact is not acceptable (in this case - claiming a puddle is a flood, and that "settlers stormed" the location - accompanied with a video of a Vacuum truck cleaning up the sewage puddle). This is all the more egregious given that reliable outlets, such as the Associated Press, have reported on the sewage puddle saying it is {apparently from a nearby Israeli settlement. and The sewage flowed downhill toward Khan al-Ahmar earlier this week, and on Friday was still pooled in a ravine by the West Bank community’s corrugated tin shacks.. AP. Icewhiz (talk) 14:44, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

I suggest this fragment should be changed to: On Tuesday the 2nd of October, the village has been flooded with wastewater from Kfar Adumim. Mustafa Barghouti accused the settlers of doing it on purpose. When it comes to " partisan propaganda", this claim can be made about the Jewish Chronicle etc. yet we use it as a source, because most media sources are impartial. BeŻet (talk) 14:50, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

The Palestine Chronicle is not media - it is an advocacy organization. The claims of "flood" are unsubstantiated - photos show a small pool at the bottom of the wadi (where no huts are located - since this wadi has rain flow throughout the winter), and actual WP:RS - e.g. the Associated Press - do not report of a "flood" but rather of "pooling". Icewhiz (talk) 14:54, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

The Palestine Chronicle wasn't used as a source so not sure why you are claiming that. I've only included it in a bunch of links I have sent to you directly. How about: On Tuesday the 2nd of October, a large amount of wastewater has flowed from Kfar Adumim to the village. Mustafa Barghouti accused the settlers of flooding the village on purpose. BeŻet (talk) 14:59, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

We have first class AP source the other sources are WP:UNDUE in this case. --Shrike (talk) 15:05, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

We can not say unqualified this came from Kfar Adumim in our own voice - as actual RSes say this is "apparently from a nearby Israeli settlement". If you wish to include comments by Mustafa Barghouti - coverage of said comments by mainstream media would be beneficial to establish DUEness. Text that would pass WP:V would be: In early October 2018, sewage, apparently from a nearby settlement, accumulated a ravine next to the village. The Civil Administration said a sewage pipe had burst in the area.. To this, if you have a source reliable enough for an attributed Mustafa Barghouti quote (I don't see it in any of the 3 in the article) or someone else, you could add a quote. While that would pass WP:V, I would still argue that a sewage puddle in a wadi with regular water flow is rather UNDUE. Icewhiz (talk) 15:10, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

The Secretary General of the Palestinian National Initiative accusing Israel of flooding the village is pretty DUE in my opinion, and it's been reported by Jordan's national news agency, but I'd like to hear what other people think about this. BeŻet (talk) 15:17, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

References

This is not a major source.The AP didn't found this statement to be notable.We shouldn't report it. --Shrike (talk) 15:26, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Are only Western sources major? BeŻet (talk) 15:48, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

lol wut? Only Israeli and Western sources allowed here? nableezy - 16:25, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Per their about page, Palestine Chronicle is a 501(c)3 non-profit organization whose mission is to educate the general public by providing a forum....[4] Per their contact info, they are located in Mountlake Terrace, Washington.[5] This advocacy organization is very much Western. It is not, however, a reliable source.Icewhiz (talk) 08:03, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Accusing is as factual as alleging, and agree that if AP didn't include the accusation, then neither should we. Considering controversies in this subject, I would advice only quoting from major press, whatever country these may be from. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 11:33, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Icewhiz, nobody wants to use Palestine Chronicle as a source here, why do you keep going on about it? And my comment was about dismissing Jordan's National news Agency as "not major". BeŻet (talk) 13:10, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

To assess WP:DUE please tell how many sources while reporting this indecent quoted the accusation and how many is not.The WP:ONUS is on you. --Shrike (talk) 13:17, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, could you rephrase your question, I don't understand. BeŻet (talk) 15:10, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

If you are asking how many sources have included the quote from Barghouti, that is irrelevant. What is important is who is making that statement – in this case, the Secretary General of the Palestinian National Initiative. This is the only thing that should be considered, whether his opinion should be included or not. In my opinion, given his role and position, it should. BeŻet (talk) 15:19, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

No,His position doesn't matter at all even if he was president of the US if it was not extensively reported by WP:RS then we shouldn't report it either. --Shrike (talk) 08:12, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, I disagree and I think you're wrong. We shouldn't be covering only things that are extensively reported. What we shouldn't be doing is giving undue importance to fringe theories. BeŻet (talk) 15:51, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

The Jordanian news agency, controlled by the Jordanian monarchy and located in the Authoritarian ruled Jordan (per DI - [6])) with a non-free press[7], is far from a major or strong source - however if you are using it for an attributed stmt from Barghouti (as opposed to a stmt of fact) - it would pass muster for WP:V though I would still dicker on UNDUE (and as there has been quite a bit of recent coverage of this locality - there is no lack of recent mainline reporting to use) Icewhiz (talk) 13:21, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

First of all, Jordan has a better score than Russia and China, and I can't imagine anyone claiming that's a reason for not including something from China or Russia as a source. Secondly, freedom of press indicates that people are free to talk about certain things, especially questioning the government, not that things reported are false. Finally, I think it's DUE for the reasons stated above. BeŻet (talk) 15:10, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

I think the issue is more to do with the amount and quality of coverage this has received, as opposed to what other (independent) RS say. Based on that I think it´s UNDUE. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:03, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Amnesty International

Is not a primary source. This is pretty basic, primary sources are from those connected to the event. The Israeli government is a primary source. The villagers are primary sources. Amnesty International however is at least one step removed from the event, that event being the planned demolition of this village. As such I have reverted the removal of it as a primary source as that is plainly not true. nableezy - 15:12, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

This article is a joke. A bad one. Patching together "sources" doesn't create an "article"

@Nishidani, Zero0000, Mlevitt1, and Atefrat: The "article" puts together disparate bits of info about very different entities, w/o understanding the meaning of the info, and creating (I hope: not intentionally) the wrong impression that the unconnected parts create one single whole. There is NO good reason to create a history of the "village" by listing up facts and numbers without understanding and explaining them.

• 1) NO effort was made to explain why this is a "village". Yes, Bedouin can become sedentary, but is it the case? First prove it. They tend to have two main camping sites, one for the winter and one for the summer, but generally tend to follow their flocks, which cannot graze at the same spot twice during the rainless season, so they wander a lot. Bring arguments in favour of this being a permanent settlement, and I'll be happy to accept them. Right now, it's just Israel and the PA playing political pingpong with a Bedouin tribe.
• 2) There seems to be ZERO, NONE, ZILCH continuity between the episodes stringed together as the "history of the village" and the current inhabitants of the encampment: not the population, and not the place are the same. One by one:
  • British Mandate, the 1931 census of Palestine: "27, of which 25 Muslims and 2 Christians in 3 houses." Really? Where? You have a map? Somewhere on the 16,000 dunams of the next census, maybe, but nowhere near the current site. The Brits most probably counted the residents of the ruined-Byzantine-monastery-turned-khan, with no connection to the Bedouin now living at the encampment some distance away. No continuity, no connection. Find me a Christian among the Bedouin and I buy him a villa wherever he wants. Promise.
  • British Mandate, the Village Statistics, 1945: "the Arabs of Khan el Ahmar had 16,380 dunams of land." Who, the 27 people of 14 years previously plus their natural offspring? Amazingly fast achievers, those two-dozen-plus real estate specialists. Better research who the owners were, or what the Brits meant by "ownership" in a desert area: maybe the right to graze?
• After 1948: "Many of the families living in Khan al-Ahmar, from the Jahalin Bedouin tribe, were expelled from the Negev in 1952 by the Israeli army. They moved the following year to the West Bank, under Jordanian administration." Now you start making sense! The IDF chased a whole Bedouin tribe (or a branch thereof) across the border, and they settled in a place near a large road, not too far from a water source (the Ein Qelt spring?) and other assets the Bedouin need for survival. These are the people we're talking about. The current "village" was probably one of their semipermanent seasonal bases, and it might have become a permanent location for those tribe members who don't tend to the wandering flocks. I can bet that the current people there are just the Jahalins ethnically cleansed from the Negev by the IDF. No connection to the handful of people counted by the Brits among the khan's ruins in '31, or the landowners holding 16,000 dunams in '45. If you need a more scholarly voice, I just found one here: in 1963 the local Bedouin were newcomers who didn't know at least some of the traditional Arab place-names (Jean Prignaud, UNE INSTALLATION MONASTIQUE BYZANTINE AU KHAN ṢALIBA, Revue Biblique (1946-), Vol. 70, No. 2 (AVRIL 1963), pp. 243-254).
• Why do the "village landmarks" include three archaeological sites not connected in any way to the Bedouin let's-say-village, which is quite some distance away? The Jahalins have no claim to those places, others do - most likely the Palestinian Ministry of Tourism & Antiquities for the sites, and some refugees for the land around them -, but not them. The 3 sites have their own history and character. If this weren't such a politically charged article, I'd say: park them here for now. But that's not the case, it's ONLY about politics. So, I strongly insist that they get their own page each: Khan al-Ahmar (the inn), Khan al-Hatruri, and the Templar castle of Maldoim. Actually we can argue that Hatruri and the Templar castle belong together, since they are just a stone's throw away and might have been connected (if either the Byzantine church or the khan did exist in the 12th c., the Templars would have protected them along with the Jerusalem- or Jericho-bound pilgrims). We can also create a page on the "Ascent of Adumim", and list up all there is in there and branch off to different pages. The Ascent is the raison d'être for all of these sites - and for the political brawl.
  

I am convinced the "village" should keep its page with all the twists and turns in the fate of these poor miserable Bedouin, but not with this huge backpack of unrelated stuff.
PS: Danny the Digger claims that hatruri means hungry. True? We need the explanation. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 13:45, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

As for your "2) There seems to be ZERO, NONE, ZILCH continuity between the episodes stringed together as the "history of the village" and the current inhabitants of the encampment"....ahem: there is ZERO, NONE, ZILCH continuity between the info given about Kfar_Saba#Ottoman_era, Meron,_Israel#Ottoman_period, Or_Yehuda#Ottoman_era and the present inhabitants of those places (and a lot of other Israeli places). That hasn't stopped people from "borrowing" the history of the nearby Palestinian places, and "copying" them into the Israeli ones. And note: that information is simply copied from the nearby Palestinian village articles, ie. it is info which already is on Wikipedia. Now, I added the 1931 and 1945 Khan al-Ahmar info....can you tell me into what other articles that info should go, if it doesn't belong here? Unless you have a specific article in mind (I'm listening!), I think the info should stay here. As for your other points: yeah, a lot needs clearing up...I have started with a picture below, Huldra (talk) 22:35, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

You have, as always, good points to make. I will leave it to our two outstanding Palestine geodemographic specialists to respond more intelligently. I will just make this general point, with comes from as wider perspective. The objections you make are 'eurocentric' in the sense that the West historically barged in all over the globe and established its systems of land division, occupancy, title etc., on what the consider the rational norm, nothing other than their customary usages endorsed. Why should a village need to be 'permanently settled' in order to qualify as such? To cite one of several thousand instances: the Kumeyaay left evidence of stone hutments in fixed places, and traditions of seasonal coastal/inland migrations (like the Noongar) according to the seasonal food cycle. In annual terms they were nomadic: in their calendrical record, the alternating sites were all they permanently lived in this or that season, for millennia. Their perception of permanent residence differs from the whiteman's, who considered them nomads, i.e. 'vagrants of no fixed address'.

We had a WB settler, now permabanned, probably a proxy for Regavim who messed with the Susya article, by using one Israeli source on their transhumance practices, in order to deny that the 'community' there were 'villagers' who lived there. Well, the major Israeli expert recognized some had native title deeds going back to the 1880s, but the real point was, 'What legitimacy is there in some foreign (this is the WB) Israeli legal definition about what constitutes 'a villager', when everyone knows that these terms are Eurocentric, and are remodulated to vindicate land seizures over an historic population which doesn't think of land, residence, occupation etc., as modern institutional minds do. Their anthropological sense of the land and of belonging, residence and entitlement is profoundly different. This error is all over the history of the world since 1500. The Australian aborigines consistently lost their land and livelihood simply because their fluid use of territory as a fixed home did not fit in with the defining criteria for possession and ownership set out before they were 'discovered' by John Locke and English customary law. Our whole approach to this over multiple areas still shows systemic bias, with modern notions of nomadic/settled-property title etc., inflecting traditional societies with a different spatial cognitive grid. Think about it. RegardsNishidani (talk) 15:04, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Nishidani, beautiful point, thank you. But I'm not sure it fully applies here: Bedouin do very well know which lands they control (can use for grazing), and have to fight with other tribes or villagers over land if they want to move or expand their reach. Secondly, these Bedouin are not locals, their lands were in the Negev. Thirdly, the Ottomans did do their best to register property for taxation purposes, and that's what all Wikipedia pages on Palestinian depopulated villages are feeding on (you cannot have it both ways). The Sultan counted as owner of all lands not privately or waqf-owned. As I wrote, I'm sure there are some Palestinians somewhere who can lay claim to at least some of the land concerned, but these Bedouin are in a different boat. Best regards, Arminden (talk) 16:26, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm traveling and can't spend time on this at the moment; in any case I don't know of adequate sources yet. I can offer some information. The Khan al-Ahmar of British documents is undoubtedly the Kh. el Khan el Ahmar that appeared on maps at 1819/1333 (about 2km south of the present Khan al-Ahmar). The village land it sat on was labeled El Khan El Ahmar on the 1:20,000 cadastral map and was very large. That's enough to account for the British statistics, but it isn't enough to account for the present settlement at 1823/1353. Probably there is no connection between the inhabitants then and now, but that's a guess. How the name got moved, I don't know. Like Nish, I don't recognise the right of Israel to decide what is a village in places outside Israel. Zero^talk 19:05, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

The simple solution responding to your concerns is to tweak the introd along the like 'Khan al -Ahmar refers to a village, and a number of sites in its vicinity,..' The alternative breaking it up into stubs, given the scarcity of information on all hypothetical three, is not advisable. I haven't time to say more than this today,Nishidani (talk) 11:22, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

except to note that in Western usage, a name place does not only refer to built infrastructure of a hamlet, village, town, but to the territory within its boundaries. We all say 'I was born in . .' whether that designation means the city itself, or its outlying farmland. Only in cases like this are we saying a village/hamlet name must refer strictly to the dwelt area and not to the confines its traditional land use has established as part of its locality. If someone asked me where I'd gone hiking as a boy, and the area was within my township's territory, I would use the same name for the forestland as I would for the precise township several miles away where I lived. The wild bore the same name as the township.Nishidani (talk) 17:22, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

See section "Name" below. It would seem that Khan al-Ahmar is an area and then there are various communities within the area. The legal proceedings appear to relate to the community/school set up in 2009 which Btselem refers to as the "Khan al Ahmar school community" as can be seen in the image at https://www.btselem.org/facing_expulsion/20180815_update_on_planned_expulsion_of_khan_al_ahmar. (the other 3 communities nearby, the Israeli authorities clearly intend also to expel as they were included in a resettlement offer - indeed there is a clear intent in general to displace in the Ma’ale Adumim/E1 area).Selfstudier (talk) 17:37, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

In fact the legal proceedings don't really help, it seems that the proceedings are between Israeli citizens living in Kfar Adumim and the Ministry of Defence complaining that a demolition order hasn't been carried out where the demolition order is against non-Israelis living in occupied territory, which is a bit strange to say the least.Selfstudier (talk) 18:24, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Name

In many UN documents they refer to this location as "Khan Al Ahmar/Abu Al-Helu". Anyone knows what that's about, I couldn't see anything in the article?Selfstudier (talk) 15:34, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Apparently, Khan al-Ahmar is an area that has 6 communities including that threatened with demolition, Abu Helu/school, the others being Al-Tabana, Al-Mehtwish, Al-Kurshan, Abu Falah and Wadi Sidr.Selfstudier (talk) 19:45, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

http://bimkom.org/eng/wp-content/uploads/jahalin/al%20kurshan.htm You can see 4 of them in the pic here.Selfstudier (talk) 19:48, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

https://972mag.com/between-garbage-and-sewage-israels-future-plans-for-khan-al-ahmar/137299/ This article has a picture of the immediate area and identifies 4 communities, Khan al-Ahmar school community, Abu al-Hilu, Abu Falah and al Kurshan. In it's 7 August 2018 response to the new petition the authorities offered an alternative relocation site subject to the eviction being extended to “four compounds of the Jahalin Abu Dahuk tribe, comprising some 80 families” (~400 people), the afore mentioned communities shown in the pic. Is the community subject of the eviction just the (tyre) school? Or it's the school and Abu al-Hilu, both being referred to as a village?Selfstudier (talk) 10:52, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

It seems there is some sort of fluidity in the naming, http://bimkom.org/eng/wp-content/uploads/jahalin/develop%20pages/khan%20al%20ahmar.htm has that what is now being referred to as school community (North of the road)was previously referred to as Abu al Helu (that must be why the UN docs often use that designation) and that what is now being called Abu al Helu was Um-Addeif before (South of the road,seems to have gone altogether, perhaps a family moved away or something like that?). The road appears to have been expanded between the two clusters over time, increasing the separation.Selfstudier (talk) 10:57, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Not correct : "until a negotiated resolution is found"

Please note that these terms: "until a negotiated resolution is found" are not correct. It should be : "to give a chance to the negotiations"
(aljazeera.com is correct, other sources say it : "The intention [of the postponement] is to give a chance to the negotiations and the offers we received from different bodies" ... "I don't intend to postpone it until further notice contrary to what has been reported, but [make it happen] within a short, fixed period of time. The duration we will give to evacuate it in consent will be decided by the cabinet." "This is the decision of the court, this is our policy and it will be implemented".
See also : Haaretz, Jun 17, 2019: Israel Postpones Eviction of West Bank Bedouin Village of Khan al-Ahmar Until December).

Deleted reference to any negotiations since it is unclear there will even be any.Selfstudier (talk) 10:37, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

@Selfstudier: Thanks for the deletion but "until a negotiated resolution is found" remains here.--Valp (talk) 14:05, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

DOne.Selfstudier (talk) 10:54, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Local Historical Sites Access

According to Sarah Irving (March 2012). Palestine. Bradt Travel Guides. pp. 130–. ISBN 978-1-84162-367-2. the Good Samaritan Inn (misidentified as Khan al-Ahmar) together with both nearby monasteries are controlled by the Israeli National Parks Authority (https://www.parks.org.il/en/reserve-park/good-samaritan-museum/). Since the Euthymius monastery ruin (the later Khan al-Ahmar) is in the industrial park settlement (the other being in the main settlement), does this mean that Palestinians cannot visit? What about the Good Samaritan Inn? That's on the highway, can they visit there? Anyone know? Selfstudier (talk) 08:58, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Where was this picture taken?

On the road to Jericho, "Khan-el-Ahmar" (seldom used name), better known as Khan al-Hatruri or Inn of the Good Samaritan

I have a problem: the famous picture to the right (there are at least 3 versions only on commons; and it was also used on a zillion postcards), originally came from Detroit Photographic Company, 1905, AFAIK, with the info that it was taken between ca. 1890 and ca. 1900. It clearly states that it is Khan-el-Ahmar, on the way to Jericho.

To me this looks as if it is Khan al-Hatruri/Good Samaritan Inn.

Could there (in the late Ottoman era) have been two operating Khans, just a couple of kilometres apart, one at Khan-el-Ahmar and one at Khan al-Hatruri? That sounds unlikely, to say the least. And if there had been, surely some traveller would have remarked on it. No−one did, AFAIK.

Ok, so here is my theory: I think the picture is misnamed; it should have been named "Khan al-Hatruri". This is less surprising that it might seem: there were professional (foreign) photographers who did not know the area, operating in Palestine at the time: they might easily have gotten the name wrong. (I know of a postcard from my country (from between WW1 and WW2) which has famously misprinted the location, too: the postcard maker was a national company which obviously didn't have local knowledge.)

Aaaaaaand, look at this old postcard for sale, ostensibly showing "Haiffa. Jewish Temple". If I am not mistaken, it shows the Tomb of Rabbi Meir...which is up by Tiberias (!) ...which is pretty far from Haifa.....

Comments? Huldra (talk) 22:14, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

I have a similar concern as you and I am trying to find out more. There seems to be two (related) issues:

1) Where is the "original" Khan al-Ahmar (the place, not the area)? 2) Was there an inn (a Khan)there? It seems possible that the location of Euthymius monastery is Khan al-Ahmar (a location rather than an area).https://web.archive.org/web/20170617213902/http://www.christusrex.org/www1/ofm/sbf/Books/LA43/43339YH.pdf on page 357. The Jerome Murphy ref in the article also identifies the site as being Khan al-Ahmar. While Murphy does not mention an inn, the more detailed Biblewalks ref does mention an inn as forming part of the monastery.I don't know how reliable http://allaboutjerusalem.com/tour/euthemius-monastery is, that says there was a khan but that it ceased to operate when the monastery was finally abandoned.

On the other hand, there are several refs identifying the site of the Good Samaritan Inn as being Khan al-Ahmar although it seems possible that they just mean the area rather than a specific place. So it's all a bit confusing.Selfstudier (talk) 11:41, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

As mandate era references, we have D. J. Chitty & A. H. M. Jones (1928) The Church of St. Euthymius at Khan El-Ahmar, Near Jerusalem, Palestine Exploration Quarterly, 60:4, 175-178, DOI: 10.1179/peq.1928.60.4.175 and

E. Hanbury Hankin (1929) The Structure of the Mosaics from the Church of St. Euthymius at Khan El-Ahmar, Palestine Exploration Quarterly, 61:2, 98-103, DOI: 10.1179/peq.1929.61.2.98 Selfstudier (talk) 13:24, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

The Survey of Western Palestine (for the PEF), 1883, mentions both Khan al-Ahmar ("the ruins of a Saracenic hostel beside the old road to Jerusalem") and Khan al-Hatruri ("a Saracenic hostel standing on high ground just North of the present Jericho road"). Is it possible the road layout might have been somewhat different in that time, idk? Selfstudier (talk) 15:29, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

You can look at the SWP map. There was a road passing through it, approximately E-W. The location is 1819/1333 (old grid), 2319/6333 (new grid). The sourcebook "Israeli Archaological Activity in the West Bank" says that it is the location of St Euthymius Monastery. Three excavations are mentioned. I don't know about the image but probably one of the excavation reports has a diagram of the site that can be compared to it. Zero^talk 16:26, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Here are some documents on mandate-era excavations. The third one has diagrams and a few photos. You can see that the monastery was in far worse shape than the 1947 "Khan el-Ahmar" photo. In fact what is in that photo looks so sound that I'm doubting it is an old structure at all. Zero^talk 17:50, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

This says c1895, https://www.granger.com/results.asp?image=0130778&inline=true&itemx=7&wwwflag=4.Selfstudier (talk) 18:32, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

OK, the SWP I was looking at was Vol 3 and no map in there, I will get hold of the 26 maps to look at the roads. I am reasonably sure that Khan al-Ahmar and the monastery were the same place at some point although whether "Khan al-Ahmar" signified a specific location rather than a region tag I am not so clear (just to be clarify something, al Khan al-Ahmar - the first "al" does not change the meaning at all? I know the second one can sometimes mean that the following is tribe/family).Selfstudier (talk) 18:14, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Go here. The monastery site is right in the middle of that ugly squarish area that looks like an industrial park. Horvat Khan el Ahmar is written there in red. Click PEF-1880 on the side-bar to see the SWP map. You can always reach this site by clicking the lat/long link in an article and selecting the Israel pane. (Right, "al" is unimportant for the meaning here.) I have map pox; my computer holds almost 2000 maps of Palestine/Israel. Zero^talk 18:56, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

OK,that's good; and it's more or less the same info that's on the biblewalks ref (and why the other chap says "surrounded by...").Selfstudier (talk) 19:11, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Right, those archives were great, the first of them, Extracted from letter 27 July 1928 to Deputy District Commissioner Jerusalem:

It is reported to us on good authority that the people of Silwan claim ownership of this site upon which are the ruins of the monastery and church of St Euthymius situated a little to the South of the old road to Nabi Musa on a track branching from the road to Jericho at a point between the 13th and 14th kilometre stones. The place is known as the Khan al-Ahmar but is not to be confused with the Good Samaritan Inn known by the same name.

This is clear that both Khans were known by the same name in 1928 and would explain why we have the apparently contradictory references.Selfstudier (talk) 19:01, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Nice find. Whatever that photo is of, it isn't an ancient building. I removed it until we can make a better identification. I also looked at satellite images for a compound like that anywhere nearby, unsuccessfully (but missing it would be easy). I won't be surprised if it is somewhere else altogether. Zero^talk 19:11, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

http://www.holy-landpilgrimage.com/jericho-river-jordan-the-dead-sea The picture here (row 15, the first one) is more like what the Good Samaritan inn should look like in earlier times, I think.Selfstudier (talk) 12:18, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Ah, another very popular postcard, Huldra (talk) 20:09, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

On back of one shows postcard seller Ephtimios (Port Said and Jerusalem). The one with Port Said postmark, the sailboat stamp is Egyptian from 1914. Some countries use "Han" instead of "Khan"?(I suppose transliteration by sound)Selfstudier (talk) 09:17, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Well, the problem is that copyright wasn't exactly enforced back in the day. Was Ephtimios (Port Said and Jerusalem) the first to publish this picture? I have no idea. I believe though that Detroit Photographic Company, present Detroit Publishing Company, was the first to publish the above, much copied photo. As for name: all sorts of transliteration are made of Arab names: making "redir"s is a very import task, if you edit in the area! Huldra (talk) 22:19, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Question answered, see amended caption. That's precisely why we need to use clear names and definitions. Lots of "red inns", "white houses" and "blue rivers" to go around in the Arabic-speaking world. Arminden (talk) 04:20, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Reason for Lock Protection

The reason for lock protection is not stated. There should be sufficient reason for it. Otherwise it shoud be deleted. Saifullah.vguj (talk) 17:17, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

You can see the reason at WP:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel_articles. If you want to make changes to the article and you don't have extended-confirmed status, you can propose your changes here. Zero^talk 00:37, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Added "(village)" to the name

There should be no opposition to this addition, but I know better by now: in I/P, even calling Earth a planet would lead to objections, so here is why this is not a Zionist, Hamas-led, or Martian plot to discredit the village.

I see it time and time again that calling the village by the name of the khan, with no qualification, is leading to never-ending confusion. Huldra, a very experienced editor in this area, has just fallen into this very common trap, wikilinking an explanation for the Arabic name of the Laura of Euthymius, "Khan el-Akhmar", to... the Bedouin village here. There is no direct connection between the two. Of course she would know this if asked, but it's so misleading, that anyone can fall into this trap. But: by just adding "(village)" behind the name, things are sorted. Nobody loses, it's win-win, nobody is taking anything away from the village, we can make sure that there are so many tags and cross-references at Laura of Euthymius/Khan el-Ahmar, and at Khan al-Hatruri/Inn of the Good Samaritan/sometimes also "Khan al-Ahmar", that every user looking for the village will find it with their eyes closed.

These were the practical reasons. Now a bit further. The khan (inn) has been known for many centuries by its Arabic name, "Khan al-Ahmar", with "Inn of the Good Samaritan" as its Christian, Western name. The recent Palestinian village, or community of several Bedouin encampments, has been using the name of the khan since far more recently (decades). The article does not really deal with the history of the inhabitants. The actual khan, although partially ruined, has offered far better shelter than the barren hills around: see the late-19th-century description at Laura of Euthymius#Ottoman period. It has gradually fallen into worse disrepair, being less and less attractive for housing. The 1931 census gives numbers, but doesn't tell a story: 25 Muslims and 2 Christians in 3 houses can mean anything, 3 rooms in the old khan, or the khan and two (or 10) Bedouin tents nearby. The 1945 statistics already contain: zero population. In 1952, the Jahalins chased by Israel out of their Negev territory, are looking for a grasing area not already taken and settle around the road, not far from the khan, and maybe sometimes sheltering inside the by now roofless structure. They of course adopt the existing, approximate name: "Where are you living?" "At the Red Inn." Not a lie, but not an administratively & academically/encycloaedically accurate answer either :)) I can't be 100% sure, but still I am, because this is the only line that connects all the dots. Does it remove any legitimacy from the settlement? Not at all. Many Middle-Eastern cities have started like this.

Look at the Google map: you can find on it what you can also see when travelling through the area. One Bedouin encampment after the other, on both sides of the road. As any Bedouin tribe, families stick together, but grasing opportunities in an arid area mean that they can pitch their tents, later build their huts, and quite possibly raise concrete buildings in the end, at some distance from each other. They would all know exactly with whom they belong together, and once a village takes roots, they would build a mosque, a school, etc. for them all. What do we see on the Google map? A pin without a specific name marking the main settlement, so Khan al-Ahmar (Central); then all around it are Khan al-Ahmar al-Kurshan, Khan al-Ahmar Mihtawish, Khan al-Ahmar Abu-Falah, Khan al-Ahmar Umm-Adeif, and even one more Khan al-Ahmar with no addition east of Mishor Adummim (this one might be a mistake, or maybe not). Meaning what? 6 distinct villages? Certainly not. 6 encampments, or one village and 5 satellites, call it as you will. Again, recognising that these are facts on the ground doesn't take away anything from the legitimacy, rights, .... whatever, of the inhabitants. But it connects to reality.

Once all editors of this article start understanding what the Khan al-Ahmar village actually is, we can start writing the history section and addressing all other issues calmly and matter-of-fact. Amman didn't start in a much different manner in 1878 (except that it was resettled by Circassians, not Bedouin; same goes for Jerash), nor did Shibli in the 20th century (Bedouin starting from scratch), or al-Ubeidiya at an earlier point in time, or Umm Sayhoun near Petra, and an endless number of other places, some of which are now large cities, towns, villages, or have long disappeared.

So: let's keep the name Khan al-Ahmar without qualification for its much older "owner", the khan. "Khan al-Ahmar"... is a khan (inn).... whose name means "red inn"... Khan al-Ahmar (village)... is a nearby village. Does it need more arguments? Thanks, Arminden (talk) 04:08, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

I think we need some analysis on which would be the primary target for that name. Im not exactly opposed to a disambiguation if it is needed, but the article Khan al-Hatruri doesnt appear to even suggest that it is known as Khan al-Ahmar, unless I am missing something. nableezy - 04:15, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

We generally don't disambiguate things unless we need to. There is no other target for Khan al-Ahmar so it should not be disambiguated with (village). nableezy - 04:02, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

@Nableezy:, hi. Sorry, but I disagree: we need a redirect from Khan al-Ahmar to Laura of Euthymius, where it belongs. In seldom cases, the Inn of the Good Samaritan was also called Khan al-Ahmar. That's more than enough of a problem, see the confusion here (up on this page); we don't need a village' called Khan al-Ahmar when we already have two actual khans competing for the name. And the actual Khan al-Ahmar has been called this way for many centuries. The khan gets the redirect; the village loses nothing; the confusion is less. Win-win-win. What is there to oppose here? Have a great day, Arminden (talk) 04:41, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Nableezy Please check again at Khan al-Hatruri: "The Inn of the Good Samaritan/Khan al-Hatruri is sometimes confused with the nearby ruins of the Byzantine Laura of Euthymius, later: Khan al-Ahmar, due to the fact that Khan al-Hatruri was sometimes also called "Khan al-Ahmar" ("Red Caravaserai" in Arabic).[reference: letter to Deputy District Commissioner Jerusalem, 27 July 1928: "It is reported to us on good authority that ... this site upon which are the ruins of the monastery and church of St Euthymius ... The place is known as the Khan al-Ahmar but is not to be confused with the Good Samaritan Inn known by the same name."]. I took me a long time to understand this mess myself, and since I did, I kept on trying to add more and more tags, disambiguations, qualifications... to the 3 different articles. And still both you and Huldra, old hands on the job, are stumbling over it within hours of each other. And me too, quite often, when I don't pay attention. This is the best proof that we need to keep the three articles as much apart as possible. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 04:41, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Honestly Im not all that concerned with it, I just want the primary target (as determined by what is most often called Khan al-Ahmar in sources) to be at Khan al-Ahmar. If the village is the most common target for the title then that should not be disambiguated and we can have a hat note up top saying not to be confused with or see this other article if youre looking for ... nableezy - 04:45, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Except: that doesn't help, as proven today, twice, by you and Huldra. Tags and stuff don't replace reflexes and "common sense". I do see a good additional solution: a disambiguation page. All these together MIGHT be enough. Nobody other than contract lawyers has the patience to go through all the paragraphs and cross-reference. The title remains the first point of reference, and for most, it's the only one. As to what the "primary target" is: no such thing. If you're interested in history, archaeology, religion, architecture, the logic behind today's events, you look up the khans and monasteries. If you're into news, politics, I/P conflict: you look up both, if you're not superficial, and then clear distinctions are most helpful. Only scoop-hunters might only rush to the village article (stub). Arminden (talk) 04:54, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Zero queried the pic in the first instance and then eventually I dug up that 1928 source because we were all getting confused about the name but we thought that we had explained it all in the article body. We didn't think it necessary to change the article title because commonname refers to the community these days.Selfstudier (talk) 09:12, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Follks, khan is inn. Khan el-ahmar is red inn. There is a "Red Inn" called by this name for some 750 years. 750 years? Not impressed? A Muslim, Baibars if I'm recalling correctly, terminated the monastery and rung in the khan period. A hero of Muslim anti-Western fight, OK? There are endless pilgrim and traveller reports using the name, then an even higher amount of scientific papers, the ruined monastery still is a stunning tourist attraction for pilgrims and non-pilgrims alike. Then, in the 1950s, that's 70 years ago, a Bedouin tribe was chased out of the Negev by Israel and settled in the general area of the khan. Eventually some started calling their various, slightly spread-out encampments by the name of the better-known khan PLUS the name of the pater familias (if you ask me: only by the latter, go and ask them, but whatever). Then came a short (in the historical perspective) period of media focus on the struggle against demolition, and journalists use shorthand names, don't bother much for reality, they have a set number of characters allowed per article. (We don't.) THAT IS NOT A BASE FOR NAMING AN ENCYCLOPEDIC ARTICLE. Besides, I didn't ask to change the name, it's still Khan al-Ahmar for Ba'al sake, just added a qualifying "village" behind it. Which requires one redirect to be amended accordingly. It's a technicality, but it serves the user (not even mentioning logic). Do we need to be talking for talking's sake? Always, about anything? Each of you, ask yourselves: what do you, actually, object against it? What is the gain vs. any perceived loss? Arminden (talk) 16:02, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

For my two fūlūs, I can't, on the basis of the text we have, see any problem here.Nishidani (talk) 16:23, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Ready-made solution, I hope it satisfies everybody: I remove the request to reset redirect Khan al-Ahmar to Laura of Euthymius/Khan el-Ahmar, and set up a disambiguation page on that name instead. Work already done (see below), just needs to be set it.

---

Khan al-Ahmar or Khan el-Ahmar, meaning "Red Caravanserai" in Arabic, may refer to different sites in the Adummim, West Bank area:

• Good Samaritan Inn, archaeological site of ancient inn known in Arabic as Khan al-Hatruri, more seldom as Khan el-Ahmar
• Khan al-Ahmar (village), Palestinian village near the ancient Khan al-Ahmar inn
• Laura of Euthymius, archaeological site of Byzantine monastery, later khan (caravanerai, inn) known in Arabic as Khan el-Ahmar

It can also refer to:

• Khan al-Ahmar, ruined khan at the entrance to Beit Shean/Beisan [more research to be done: see "The SWP", Vol. II (1882), Nahr Jalud (= Nahal Harod), pp. 79-80, "Three bridges span it near Beisan. Under the middle bridge, called Jisr el Khan..."]

....See also....

• Kızılhan ("Red Caravanserai"), ruined khan near Beçin castle, from the time of the Menteshe beylik in Muğla province, Turkey
• Kizilhan, Pinarbasi, township and neighbourhood, Pinarbasi District, Kayseri Province, Turkey
• Kizil-Robát ("Red Caravanserai"), Russified to Kizil-Arvát, the "Red Inn" that gave its name to today's Serdar in Turkmenistan

double-bracket... disambiguation|geo... double-bracket

---

Arminden (talk) 16:22, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Arminden, you should be able to go ahead and paste the disambiguation content at Khan al-Ahmar], replacing the redirect and the CSD tag. (Per WP:MOSDAB, though, items which don't already have articles probably shouldn't be listed.) --Paul_012 (talk) 18:17, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Paul_012, thank you for the advice. Wasn't there some WP rule against it, one that really does make good sense? If you search for "Talk:Khan al-Ahmar", or go to it via the current "Khan al-Ahmar" redirect page, you end up here, at "Talk:Khan al-Ahmar (village)". The system would get totally confused, we would get into a big mess with the edit history. As to those extra items, they do have articles for several closely related terms, and this has worked once before as a base for a separate page (it's like parking material until smb. cares enough as to start a page). So let's wait until somebody deals with the redirect removal request. I hope I've done it formally correct, as I couldn't place a page title as the new target, just explained that it's going to be a disamb. page. Bureaucracy kills, and ELM. Editors' Lives Matter. Arminden (talk) 19:46, 25 April 2021 (UTC) Or do they...?

Source for name origin

Khan al-Ahmar is the Arabic name of both the Monastery of Euthymius and of the Inn of the Good Samaritan site (seldom used for the latter, but still documented; more commonly called Khan al-Hatruri). Is there a reliable source for the origin of the village name? I believe that the Bedouin first took refuge in the ruins of the khan at the former Monastery of Euthymius, not at the Good Samaritan Inn, and kept the name when they moved and set up new encampments in the immediate vicinity, but that's not good enough, a source is needed for the name. Maybe there was a popular mix-up among some between the two "Red Khans", but hard to believe this was the case with the Bedouin themselves, who know their way around very well.

Once clarified: the DAB page should have the sentence "modern nearby village took its name from this site" added next to the appropriate one of the two khan sites. Also, if it's indeed the Monastery of Euthymius, that one needs to be lifted up one line, before the Samaritan, as it's a) only known as Khan al-Ahmar, and b) closely related to the village, which has been placed as the main definition. Arminden (talk) 12:21, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

References

If memory serves, the Bedouin initially leased land from one of the villages whose land was confiscated to make way for Ma'ale Adumim so yes, probably it was near/at the monastery, it has the most obvious Arab connection. I remember seeing some references to the KaA "area" but those could also have just meant the monastery. It's a while since I looked at this, so what you want is a source saying that a) they did indeed settle at that place and b) because of that, they called their community KaA? and then later moved up the road taking the name with them? I'll see what I can dig up from my old research. I'd lift the monastery up one anyway because it's Arabic name is KaA.Selfstudier (talk) 14:08, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

One possible meaning for KaA "area" is KaA "village lands" - "the administrative division of Palestine during the British Mandate, in which the borders of every community (village, town) were defined for administrative purposes." Footnote 12, p.9 and see this map Selfstudier (talk) 15:35, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

To follow on from the above, Palestinian Gazette 1939 shows "Khan el-Ahmar, El" as an administrative district during the Mandate so it would seem that the name comes from those village lands per the above map and it is hard to see where else the name of the village lands might have come from other than from the Arabic name of the monastery. The Jahalin must then have taken that name for their community which was apparently near to the monastery (p.63) initially until the Israelis took the land and moved them on for the purposes of constructing Ma'ale Adumim. Selfstudier (talk) 19:58, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

This is an illegal Palestinian settlement

I find it racist that the illegal Palestinian settlements, especially those already found illegal as they sit on lands owned by others are not explicitly called such, while perfectly legal Jewish cities and towns are openly called settlements.

Since this is an illegal settlement by all accords it should be marked as such. 2A00:A040:19E:E12A:A8B2:8923:FBCB:35C1 (talk) 21:19, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

None of that is true, sorry. We base our articles on reliable sources, not the personal opinions of random people on the internet. nableezy - 21:26, 14 March 2023 (UTC)