Talk:Al-Faluja

message: Please read WP:LEAD: "The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, summarizing the most important points, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any", and do not remove the lead agian without discussion. Additionaly, please do not remove  templates - they are a requets for a cite. If you have a cite - add it, if you don't leave the template in place. Isarig 18:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear Isarig - before we go any further, are you satisfied that my use of references in this article does not "look very bad" atall? PalestineRemembered 21:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that you have clarified that everything should have been sourced to Morris, and corrected accordingly, I accept that this was originally a good-faith error. We can move on. Isarig 21:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thankyou. Can we agree that the lead of this article should be about the town? I'm sorry if I've been forced to add too much material about the atrocities - it would be a shame if we carried on in a similar fashion and unbalanced it with the military details. PalestineRemembered 21:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The lead should describe the article, and the article seems to be focused on the events of the 1948-49 war, the armistice agreemnt, and the events immediatly after the agreement. If you want to make it about the town - that's fine, but then we'll have to actually add some material about the town, and considerably trim down the current focus on the post Feb-1949 events. Alternatively, we can keep the article as-is, but restore my version of the lead. Isarig 21:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's lots of material about the town out there, and I'm completely cofident where it is and the full citation for it. Unfortunately, there seems to be a real problem with anything that's not been personally viewed (actually, policy is that only "surprising" results need this kind of precise citation, but you know what I mean). I agree the article is currently unbalanced, but that's not because it's meant to be like that. I trust we're not going to unbalance it in a new and unncessary direction by including lots of military details that don't really concern the town (though we should link to them somewhere). If the lead has to match the current state of the article then it would include reference to the beatings, though I don't personally think that's necessary. PalestineRemembered 22:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If and when th earticle's balance changes to be more about the town and less about the events of October 48- 1949, the lead can be changed accordingly. Until then, the lead should reflect the current article focus. Isarig 15:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That might be a perfectly reasonable request - except this is a brand new article, and we keep getting off-policy statements impugning the character of the villagers, based on their failure to deal with the armed intrusion they suffered. Perhaps you should examine the articles on Lidice or other towns attacked and emptied, and consider treating the Al-Falujah villagers in a similar way, by NPOV alone. PalestineRemembered 07:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The lead, and {{Fact|date=April 2008}}

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

message: Is it too much to ask that experienced editors act to protect this article from vandalism? We have this edit and this edit, removing "soon after which the inhabitants of al-Faluja were forced to leave" and replacing it with "Following the agreements, the Arab residents of the pocket slowly left their homes, allegedly due to beatings and theft committed by Israeli soldiers."
The changes are plainly weasel-words, since the conduct of the soldiers is very well attested (they are also the best record we have of something that happened 100s of times elsewhere) - but it's the next part that is really interesting - because along comes an anonymous editor who removes all reference to the beatings leaving only "slowly left their homes". It's difficult to understand how, when the former editor is still making changes to this article, he has failed to spot this attack on it.
Needless to say, this denialist damage is not just occuring here, but also in the Kiryat Gat article, from which every reference to the pogrom, even the name al-Faluja, has been removed. PRtalk 18:36, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protect this article 

message: because according to the NY Times "Even after the war ended, some Palestinians chose to leave rather than live under Israeli rule. The 3,000 Arabs of Faluja, a village near Tel Aviv, asked to be evacuated in March 1949. "Observers feel that with proper counsel after the Israeli-Egyptian armistice, the Arab population might have advantageously remained. They state that the Israeli Government had given guarantees of security of person and property. However, no effort was made by Egypt, Transjordan or even the UN Palestine Conciliation Commission to advise the Faluja Arabs one way or the other." New York Times, March 4, 1949." Why is this not refected?Tallicfan20 (talk) 20:23, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  about if the cause of depopulation was actually "expulsion" 

message: The Israeli government yearbook of 1952 lists a "Workers Smallholders' Settlement" called "Uzza (Faluja)" founded on Nov 6, 1950 with a population of 284 at the end of 1951.  Does anyone know anything more about that? Zerotalk 01:10, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uzza? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Al-Faluja. 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/20090124212115/http://domino.un.org/maps/m0103_1b.gif to http://domino.un.org/maps/m0103_1b.gif
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110928202610/http://www.palestine-studies.org/enakba/Memoirs/ to http://www.palestine-studies.org/enakba/Memoirs/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:28, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Given that the plan was not ratified by both sides, why it is cited so widely, as opposed to other failed partition plans of the time?
The article says: “Al-Faluja was in the territory allotted to the Arab state under the 1947 UN Partition Plan.”
Just curious why it is given so much weight. Thank you Zarcademan123456 (talk) 08:37, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The 1947 partition plan was a matter of international law, it was not a treaty. It was imposed, not offered. The "ratification" by either side is irrelevant. That is not how a *law* works.2601:140:8900:61D0:E0B3:5754:5D16:8750 (talk) 02:31, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  The un partition plan