Talk:Al-Khayriyya

message: All I see in this article is a Palestinian POV I am sure that there also other POVs on what happened there.  --Shrike (talk) 16:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please feel free to add material from other sources. I too will look for some more sources, and make changes as I did in response to your similar request at Al-Shaykh Muwannis. Tiamut 16:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: POV

message: We have here the same case as for Balad al-Sheikh, which has been extensively discussed (at its talk-page, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_191#The_Palestine_Post, and Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive900#Huldra) Every single "outside" editor who has commented has said that going through these old  Palestine Post -records, picking out attacks to "ones liking" and adding them...is not a good idea (to put it diplomatically).
I guess the best place to discuss this is at  Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard, where I will bring it up. Or even possibly an arb.com case. I´m just tagging it a "unbalanced" as of now; (Number 57: If secondary sources had treated this attack the way they have treated the Haganah-attack, then I would have absolutely no objections to adding the stuff. It is the cherry-picking of Arab attacks from Palestine Post online sources which I object to.) Huldra (talk) 23:55, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: We have a section on the 1948 conflict that is largely dedicated to Haganah attacks, and a short mention that the villagers were also involved in violence. To claim this is unbalanced is silly; to tag the article is just ridiculous. Removing the text about the villagers' violence is a clear breach of NPOV. Dealing with nonsense like this is precisely why I hate editing in this topic area. I look forward to some rational outside input at the noticeboard, although  I fear the discussion will be taken over by the usual suspects (and I may take this to other venues if this happens). Number 57 00:29, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, you have misrepresented the opinions of the outside commenters on RSN discussion; their comments about UNDUE were in the context where ONLY the attacks reported by the Post were covered in an article. It's quite clear here that this article is not an example of this. I can't believe we're even having to discuss this. Sad. Number 57 00:35, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

text: I dont think it is unbalanced to mention this. --IRISZOOM (talk) 01:13, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

text: I think this case is different from Balad al-Sheikh.  In the other case there are a large number of mentions in PP from which someone had selected with a clear bias.  In this case we have all the mentions that I can find (but mention under other names or hidden by OCR errors is possible). I'm not comfortable with using a primary source belonging to one side in an ongoing war, but if the information is attributed and the selection is objective it is harder to object. In my opinion, PP was a better newspaper in the 1940s than JP is in the 2010s, though it is unreasonable to expect perfect balance in wartime. I wish we had an Arabic source to cite too. Zerotalk 02:23, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  None of the books I have on the 1948 war mentions this. Also, say Morris, 2004, mentions other episodes relating to Al-Khayriyya which is *not* used in the article. So that is not used...while personal research (like using PP) is used?  And yeah, I would have liked to have another source available, but Falastin (newspaper) was in Arabic... and how many of us read Arabic? Huldra (talk) 22:20, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Palestine Post