Talk:Al-Haram, Jaffa

Warning: active arbitration remedies

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

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.

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!

Palestine Mid‑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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Cities

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities articles

History Low‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

todos

References to books need page numbers for verification; please add them. Zero^talk 11:48, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This village is also called Sayyiduna Ali' ? Zero^talk 11:09, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Jewish population in 1945 needs explanation. Usually it means there was an adjacent moshav or kibbutz that the British lumped together with the Arab village for administrative convenience. Zero^talk 11:09, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Who was 'Aly Ibn 'Aleim? Someone of Islamic importance? Zero^talk 11:48, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

odd things

Both the SWP map (1880s) and the Survey of Palestine map ca. 1940 show al-Haram and Arsuf adjacent to each other (at most a few hundred meters). However, Robinson & Smith (1841), usually fairly reliable, place them two hours apart (p46). Zero^talk 12:58, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is some material in "Spiritual wayfarers, leaders in piety: Sufis and the dissemination of Islam ..." by Daphna Ephrat (pages 131,158,167, readable at google books) that seems to contradict some stuff here. Zero^talk 13:15, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It stems from the confusion between two ancient Apollonias. The remote one is currently better known as Antipatris. But you probably figured it out by now. Arminden (talk) 11:14, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

village #160 vs #195 in Morris

Sorry, I seem to have mixed these up; it looks as if this village is village #195 in Morris, 2004. According to the index (p. 625), the village is only mentioned on p. xviii, p. xxii, and p. 129. Now, on p. xxii it gives Reshef as a settlement on village land...does that belong to village #160? Huldra (talk) 00:16, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reshef belongs to this village. You can tell from the maps in Morris (Map 3 in this case). But Khalidi doesn't mention it. Btw, a 1941 map of the surrounds is here. Zero^talk 01:25, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ali "defending the city"

According to Taragan (2004), who is citing primary sources, ʿAli Ibn ʿAleim was a local saint, recorded as having died in 1081 (i.e. before the crusades even began). Baibars is said to have prayed at his tomb for the saint's intercession to grant him victory, and after taking the fortress, Baibars supposedly sponsored a mosque at the site of what had presumably been a minor shrine. Now there seems to be a tradition that Ali Aleim was either a soldier fighting under Baibars or a defender of the city opposing Baibars, who was buried at the site in 1265 and honoured for his heroic deeds. Clearly this is not the tradition found in Mujir al-Din (who seems be the first record of this), but it may well be local folklore recorded in the 19th century, but it would need to be based on some decent reference. --dab (𒁳) 10:55, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DbachmannThere are also apparently 2 versions of this aetiological tradition, linked only by the fact that both the assumed dedicatees are either descendants of, or members of the clan of, ʿUmar ibn Al-Khattāb. I've transcribed the information in a note in the article for anyone with sufficient time to sort this out.Nishidani (talk) 15:39, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kfar Shemaryahu

KS was established in 1937, after, as the article says, its lands were purchased. As currently written , the article makes it seem like KS took over Al-Haram "traditional" lands by force , which would be impossible as in 1937 the area was under British rule. At a minimum, this needs to be attributed to Khalidi. More than likely, it is a baseless claim that needs to be removed altogether. Epson Salts (talk)

Land questions are immensely complex. Walid Khalidi shouldn't be tagged with an exceptional claim, because he's an exceptionally thorough scholar. Even they can err, but in any case, there is a fairly thorough source covering the whole land issue in al-haram which I have added, namely Aida Essaid, Zionism and Land Tenure in Mandate Palestine, Routledge 2014 pp.175-213. I've only been able to read a dozen pages, so I suggest someone with access to the complete text use it, wherever its data lead.Nishidani (talk) 15:34, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I know, you and Huldra think God speaks out of Khlidi's ass. Serious scholars who are actually subject matter experts think much less of his scholarship - see : M. Brawer, "All that remains? ", Israel Affairs Volume 1, 1994 - Issue 2. The claim that Jews took over an Arab village's land by force, under the noses of the British authorities, 11 years before the establishment of the State of Israel is so ridiculous as to not even warrant serious discussion This is the stuff that wild fantasies are made of. Epson Salts (talk) 01:07, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The only ridiculous thing here is that you think a sentence that starts "..the American Zion Commonwealth bought land from the effendi of the village, and the towns of Herzliya, Kfar Shmaryahu and Rishpon were established there.." somehow implies the land was stolen. That's a completely impossible reading. As it happens, I know from official maps that the land of KS was originally part of Al-Haram's village land, but I can't find a textual source. The fact that the land of Herziliya was originally part of the al-Haram village land is stated in Avnieri's book. It wasn't the same purchase as for KS though, so the situation is a bit complex. Zero^talk 01:34, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence you quote above is what I put in the article, so of course I am ok with it, and certainly don't think it implies what you say. What I object to, as anyone with minimal reading skills can see, is the next sentence, which goes on to say that in 1937, KS was established on what were traditionally village lands. If that sentence refers to the lands mentioned at the beginning, bought by the AZC from its owners, then it is completely redundant, as we just said that. If it intended to refer to something else- different lands, that weren't sold to the AZC - then it is highly dubious per the reasoning given above. Epson Salts (talk) 02:02, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Khalidi, one negative review doesn't make it unreliable. It would be a miracle if a book like that didn't get some negative reviews, since suppression of the information it contains is a standard objective in some circles. Regarding Essaid, I have access to the whole book and will comment soon. Zero^talk 01:39, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Read the substance of the critique - his methodology is shoddy. Epson Salts (talk) 02:02, 15 September 2016 (UTC)~~[reply]

It got positive reviews too. I repeat, one negative review is not enough to mark it as unreliable. In the case under discussion, it appears to be quite correct. Zero^talk 13:23, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, every book , even the most horrid ones, gets a good review from someone. Shall I use that argument to include stiff from "From Time Immoral"? There was more than one negative review, (Karsh for example basically repeats Brawer's critique, and adds more regarding his other works), but hat; snot the point. The point is that this specific claim is dubious, for the reasons I articulated. It needs to be attributed, at a minimum, to the single source making it, and unless supported by other sources, removed, per WP:REDFLAG. Epson Salts (talk) 13:58, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The book of Essais has over 40 pages on this place and its land disputes. The story is very complicated: "There were a total of thirty legal cases in the village of Al-Haram, all of which were extremely large in terms of documentation of claims, judgment transcripts, and testimonies..". The village hand was divided in a large number of plots, some owned individually and some in groups with shared ownership (including mixed Jewish-Arab ownership). There is no map and I don't see how to disentangle from all this detail exactly when Kfar Shemaryahu's land was bought. In fact, Kfar Shemaryahu is not mentioned by name though the Jewish land companies are main actors. Zero^talk 13:23, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Summary: 40 detailed pages describe the village's lands' status, and not a word to support Khalidi's claim, yet you are ok with keeping it in the article. What was that you wrote on my talk page - "one can see exactly what kind of editor you are" .Epson Salts (talk)

I think the invariable sneering at any editor who disagrees with you, well documented by now, but illustrated above by the remark:'Yes I know, you and Huldra think God speaks out of Khlidi's ass.' This manages to sneer at two editors with an absurd and foul insinuation, while sledging Walid Khalidi. On complex issues we work slowly here, do research into sources, and do not seek a shoot-out at the I/P corral at every other opportunity. So, try to assume a civil tone, please.Nishidani (talk) 17:07, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

At NLI there is a map that shows the village boundaries of Al-Haram completely surrounding the site of Kfar Shemaryahu. It is citable in the article, but a textual source that provides dates and details would be better. Khalidi is 100% correct on this and he did not ever write or imply that Al-Haram's land was stolen to create Kfar Shmaryahu. That is just ES's imaginative reading, making all of this section a waste of time. Kfar Shmaryahu was not a party to the land disputes because it wasn't the land owner. The owner was the PLDC or the KKL or one of the other Jewish land companies that bought land for Jewish settlement. They are on almost every page in Essais' chapter. The only land theft, of everything that had not been bought earlier, occurred after 1948. Zero^talk 00:30, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If Kahlidi was not implying anything other than the fact that KS was built on the lands bought from the villagers, why do we need to state that twice? We do we say "The land was bought form the villagers and KS was established on the lands that was bought form the villagers"? In English, we simply write "The land was bought from the villagers and KS was established on them" Epson Salts (talk) 02:33, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A little tutorial is in order. The first stage in British rationalisation of land ownership was to divide the country into "village lands". In this region, that happened somewhere around the late 1920s. The division was made roughly on the basis of land usage at that time but the fact that some parcel of land lay within the village boundaries didn't necessarily mean that the village owned it. A lot of al-Haram was owned by a family that lived in Beirut. Afterwards the village land boundaries were rarely changed, even if parts of the village land were bought by others, including by Jews. Al-Haram's traditional lands were divided into "al-Haram" and "Netanya" village lands because the parts that Netanya was built on had already been sold before the village boundaries were drawn. The parts of the al-Haram village land that Jews bought later and founded Kfar Shemaryahu and Rishpon on remained part of the al-Haram village lands until the end of the mandate. I found an additional source (Glass) that has more detail if anyone wants to add it. Zero^talk 12:29, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Al-Haram, Jaffa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071110104941/http://www.nakbainhebrew.org/index.php?id=300 to http://www.nakbainhebrew.org/index.php?id=300

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:44, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maps: wrong year

@Zero0000 and Padres Hana: One push-pin map is captioned with the wrong year: "1940s" is actually "1932", the only 1940s map is from 1845 and is not used up there. Tried to fix the caption in "1940s map" and "1940s with modern overlay map", but the wrong captions are seemingly part of the code, because this led to the maps not working properly anymore. Who can fix this? Thanks, Arminden (talk) 11:10, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Arminden: No, it is 1942. The base map is 1938 but the overprint in a purple color is 1942. You can see the full map here. Zero^talk 14:14, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Zero0000: Great, as long as the caption accurately describes the map, it's all I care for. Thanks! Arminden (talk) 18:09, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jacotin: what name did he use?

The text I removed from the Arsuf page said "It appeared, just named "village" on the map that Pierre Jacotin compiled during Napoleon's invasion of 1799.", quoting the same source, now a dead link: Karmon, 1960, p. 170. Here it says that he called it "Ali Ebn harami". I am looking now at my copy of Karmon, and there are two separate small circles next to each other:

Ali Ebn harami (mosquée)
Village / ARSUF

whereby "Arsuf" seems to be just Karmon introducing the SWP name onto the older, Jacotin map. Maybe Jacotin just wanted to mark two entities: the mosque/shrine, and separately the tiny, no-name village next to it (el-Haram is actually a no-name, it just means the holy site; it's like calling a village "Monastery", period.) I leave it to those more familiar with Jacotin, the SWP, maps... to figure it out - Zero, maybe? :)) Cheers, Arminden (talk)