Talk:Yalo

Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. Parts of this article relate to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing the parts of the page related to the contentious topic:

You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive)
You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

If it is unclear which parts of the page are related to this contentious topic, the content in question should be marked within the wiki text by an invisible comment. If no comment is present, please ask an administrator for assistance. If in doubt it is better to assume that the content is covered.

Further information

The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are:

Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive.
Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.

With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:

Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring.
Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.

After being warned, contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topic sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions.
Editors may report violations of these restrictions to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!

A fact from Yalo appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 31 August 2008, and was viewed approximately 668 times (disclaimer) (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that Yalo, a Palestinian Arab village depopulated during the 1967 war, was identified by Edward Robinson as the site of the Canaanite-era city of Aijalon?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2008/August.

Wikipedia

Palestine High‑importance

	Palestine portal 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 articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Minor editing question

Hi Tiamut. You wrote: " Sorry HG but it was not 8,000 who left Yalo, but 8,000 from the three villages together - Segev and Cohen use the wording used here so it's better to keep it I think)" -- Ok, so could it say: "left their villages." But: we should not keep their wording without quotes. Thanks. HG | Talk 13:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear HG. It is a paraphrase (the point being that the departure of the villagers was due to the order itself) and the sentence opens with "Segev and Cohen, so it's properly attributed; however, if you feel strongly about it, I won't object to its being changed again as you are proposing.

Maybe more helpful point -- I think the lead sentence is awkward, with according to the British census. Plus, the article doesn't mention the 1961 population of the infobox. How about putting the population data together lower down? I don't think the British census really needs to be in the lead. My two. HG | Talk 13:55, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A good point. Perhaps you would like to try your hand at editing it? By the way, it's slated to appear as a DYK in the next update. Tiamut^talk 14:08, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch. I wasn't already editing? hehe HG | Talk 16:05, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I did not mean to overlook your earlier edits. Only to encourage you to continue. 17:44, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and started a Demographics section (adding the 1922 and 1945 populations as well). Should the 1961 population be mentioned in the lead too? --Al Ameer son (talk) 15:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we can leave population figures for the demograpghics section only until it is complete and then we can discuss what to include in the lead regarding population. Thanks to all of you for your additions. Tiamut^talk 17:44, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing issues

Here's a small RS question. "However, subsequently the signs have been stolen or vandalized." -- This seems to be supported only by the NGO's website. Doesn't strike me as a reliable source for this claim. Ok? HG | Talk 17:46, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, it is actually also mentioned in the Haaretz article; perhaps we should add it one more place? Regards, Huldra (talk) 17:52, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Btw; when you are at any of the two Zochrot web-sites I have linked to, you will see a lot of links on the left-hand side. All of those links are related to the Canada-park villages, I just picked two, almost at random :-P, while the article is still on the front-page..... Do feel completely free to expand/shorten/change as you like! Regards, Huldra (talk) 18:00, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good. Those links could be useful. So, I'll back up and just ask that the citation for the statement be shifted from Zochrot to Haaretz, ok? Thanks muchly. HG | Talk 18:34, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit is fine with me. I just ask that we keep at least one link to the Zochrot web-site, since it has a useful "link-farm". Huldra (talk) 18:52, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of reliably sourced relevant material

Canadian Monkey (talk · contribs) has repeatedly deleted (last diff) information sourced to Benny Morris regarding the killing of two children in Yalo by the IDF in 1950, claiming in his edit summaries that it is not a notable incident. Why is the killing of two kids by the IDF, mentioned in a history book, by a reputable Israeli historian, not notable enough or relevant to be mentioned in this article? Tiamut^talk 18:14, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the village of Yalo. Not every event involving one of Yalo's residents is notable enough for inclusion in an article about the village. This incident did not happen in Yalo, and tragic though it may be, is not notable enough for inclusion here. If I dig up a (hypothetical) Jordanian newspaper article mentioning a traffic accident in which 3 Yalo residents were killed, would it be notable enough for inclusion here? of course not. When an Israeli woman from Kibbutz Gvaram gets killed by a Qassam rocket [1], do we go and create a special section for this in the Gvar'am article? When a laid-off employee kills his former CEO in Santa Clara [2]we don't go and create a special section for this in Santa Clara. Same goes for this incident. Canadian Monkey (talk) 18:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We agree on one thing: This article is about the village of Yalo. Yalo is not in Jordan, nor is a kibbutz in modern-day Israel, it's a Palestinian village that was depopulated during the 1967 war. And the incident in question is not a traffic accident, or the killing of a former CEO or a woman by Qassam, it was the killing of two kids from Yalo in an area right nearby it by IDF forces in 1950. and the information is not from some (hypothetical) Jordanian newspaper, it's mentioned in a book by Benny Morris, a well-known Israeli historian. And I'm not alone in my opinion, as you are quite aware, since Huldra has reverted your deletion of this material a few times now. The use of force by IDF forces against children in Arab villages in the 1950s is relevant to an article about an Arab village that was totally depopulated only 16 years later. So, instead of continuing to engage in a slow motion revert war. Why not try to gain consensus for your position or open an RfC before continually deleting reliably sourced information relevant to this article? Tiamut^talk 00:49, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So first of all, at the time of the incident, Yalo was in Jordan. The rest of your differnces are irrelavnt - why should we treat a Kibbutz in israel differently from a Palestinian village? Why should we treat kids killed by IDF fire different from a woman killed by a Qassam attack, or a CEO murdered by an enraged employeee? As to consensus, the onus is on those wishing to add material to article to get consensus for disputed material, not the other way around.

Let me try again. The same Morris book discusses the killing of a mother and her two children, as they were sleeping in the town of Yehud. It discusses this incident in much greater detail than it does the Yalo incident - mentioning it no fewer than 7 times, in 4 different chapters. And rightly so, as this incident was very significant in its own right - it was discussed at the MAC meeting, and in a rare occurrence, Jordan voted together with Israel to condemn it. It was the subject of a formal Israeli complaint to the US state department, and the subject of an Abba Eben UN speech. And of course, it was the official "trigger" for the infamous Qibya raid. Yet, if we go to the Yehud article, there is no mention of it, and rightly so - because even though this was an incident that received worldwide attention at the time, and is probably notable enough for its own article in Wikipedia (unlike the Yalo incident), it is not notable enough in the context of an article about the town of Yehud.

Similarly, the same Morris book discusses the murder of a woman in Mishamr Ayalon. This incident, too, is discussed in much greater detail than the Yalo incident (about 8 different times, in 3 chapters). There is no mention of this incident in Mishmar Ayalon, nor should there be, because in the context of an article about the Moshav, this act of terrorism is not notable. There are dozens more such examples, but I think you get the point. Canadian Monkey (talk) 02:12, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of sourced edits made in a neutral narrative is disruptive. That was an Arbcomm finding from 2006. The onus on editors adding material to an article is to source it to reliable sources, phrase it in a neutral fashion, and ensure it is relevant to the article. That has been done here. There is no reason for you to assertively re-delete this material against the wishes of two other editors, particularly not while the issue is being discussed. In any case, I see Huldra has something to say about the matter and will clear the floor so she can make her case as well. Tiamut^talk 10:37, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(EDIT-CONFLICT):

Canadian Monkey: without going into detail about those other instances, I will say this: that "other-stuff-is-missing" is no excuse for removing this well sourced material. There are several articles about single terror-victims, but they tend to be "newer", more recent. That does not make older cases irrelevant. And when you say that this is "contentious" material, well, the *history* isn´t contentious. The question about whether to *include* it or not is, and that is something else. Regards, Huldra (talk) 10:58, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You miss my point. I did not provide the other examples to show you that "other-stuff-is-missing", and argue that thus this should be removed unless those are included as well. I showed them to you to try and establish that this is the common practice on Wikipedia articles for towns and other localities. I am not pushing for inclusion of these other instances into their respective town articles, as that would be just as inappropriate as this incident is in Yalo. Nor is my argument in any way related to the recentness of incidents. The Yalo incident would be inappropriate for inclusion in this article even if it happened yesterday. Certainly there are articles about individual terror victims - but note that while Shalhevet Pass has an article, that incident is not mentioned in the Hebron article. Similarly, Ofir Rahum has an article, but the incident is not mentioned in Ashkelon, where he is from, or in Ramallah, where he was killed. And the same holds true for Palestinian victims - Muhammad al-Durrah has an article, but the incident is not mentioned in Bureij, where he was from. Iman Darweesh Al Hams has an article, but the incident is not mentioned in Rafah - It is simply not appropriate, and of course, impractical, to list every victim of murder, terrorism, military acts etc.., in the article about the town they were from. If you think this incident is notable on its own, I encourage you to create a new article for it. I am an inclusionist, and doubt that I will oppose such an article if it is well sourced. Canadian Monkey (talk) 20:27, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, your argument is again mostly based on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (or does not).

Benny Morris did not write about Shalhevet Pass or Ofir Rahum in is book discussing the birth of the Palestinian refugee problem. But he did write about Yalo and two kids from there who were killed by the IDF in 1950. Morris thought this was important to the history book he was writing and he is an Israeli academic with adequate expertise in his field to serve as a reliable source here. So please, stop ignoring where this information is coming from, for starters.

Yalo is not Ramallah, Ashkelon, or Rafah. It is a village that no longer exists because it was depopulated in the 1967 war. Since most Palestinian villages were depopulated during the 1948 war, it would be valuable to this article to document events involving Israelis and Palestinians so as to provide the reader with an idea of the context in which this village lived in the years after the 1948 war and before the 1967 war. We don't have that opportunity for many other villages.

Please make your arguments for why this does not belong in this article discussing this article itself. Even if we listed every documented death from Yalo, what would be the problem exactly? It's a destroyed village, we're documenting its history which includes some large doses of violence, dispersion and death. If Benny Morris thinks it was important enough an incident to write about in his book and thought that mentioning the kids were from Yalo was important (and didn't this happen just right nearby anyway?), then who am I to disagree with its inclusion here really? Tiamut^talk 21:49, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have already made the argument why this does not belong in this article - this incident is not about Yalo, and did not even happen in Yalo. Its only tie to the topic at hand is that the victims were from Yalo, but in the context of writing an article about the village, it is just not appropriate to list every victim of every crime or accident that happened to come from that town, per WP:UNDUE. It is also impractical. Consider: In the current intifada, there are over 6,000 deaths. Are we going to add 6000 sections to the articles about the towns from which these 6000 people came from? Of course not.

Yalo is not Ashkelon, but in what way does this make a difference? In both cases we have a victim of violence, and in both cases, I am arguing that the article about the town of origin should not mention the incident, because is insignificant in the context of that article. And Morris most certainly did write about the Yehud incident, and about the Mishmar Ayalon incident, in a much more prominent way than he did about the Yalo one. Should we be creating a lengthy section in the Yehud article about it? When one is writing a 400+ page book about border incidents between 1948-1956, it is relevant and appropriate to make brief mention of just about any of these incidents. When one is writing a Wikipedia article about a town, it is not relevant nor appropriate to detail the circumstances of death of each of its inhabitants, even if they were mentioned in some reliable source. Canadian Monkey (talk) 23:30, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Compensation?

The claim: "all the inhabitants of Yalo were expelled by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), but were compensated by Israel". The source: "the Arab inhabitants, though offered compensation, were not allowed to return". Anybody who thinks this source supports the claim should not be editing in Wikipedia. Zero^talk 03:55, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1967

I have removed the following from under the 1967 war:

"As Arab forces near Yalo were using it as [[high ground]] to attack United Nations convoys and Israeli soldiers, the hilltop was captured by the Israeli Defense Forces, and the main road to Jerusalem was re-opened and made safe for travel.<ref>[http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/AB14D4AAFC4E1BB985256204004F55FA UN Doc A/648] of 16 September 1948 Progress Report of the United Nations Mediator [[Count Folke Bernadotte]] on Palestine Submitted to the Secretary-General for Transmission to the Members of the United Nations.</ref>

Firstly: to source something from 1967 to a 1948 statement is preposterous. Secondly, I cannot find Yalo mentioned in the above UN document, thirdly, it is a primary source in an area which plenty excellent secondary sources. Huldra (talk) 17:04, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]