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
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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel 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.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related articles
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
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
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
I'm not sure why DAM, Da Arabic MCs were dropped from the list of famous people from Lod. Judging by this article, they are reasonably notable, and from Lod. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:03, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
"…capital of the region of Filistin, Palestine". Isn't "Filistin" simply the Arabic word for Palestine? - Jmabel | Talk 01:51, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article states that the city was significant to English crusaders like Richard I because it was said to be the birthplace of Saint George. However the Saint George page states that he wasn't the patron saint of England until the 14th century. Perhaps this need clearing up. Iron Ghost 21:44, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The demographic precentagess adds up to 100.3%, which is impossible. The info is indirectly cited. However, there is not a link in regard to this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zpowers (talk • contribs) 09:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Smells like propaganda, although I won't make judgements unless anything is proven. The point is that the Irgun didn't exist when Lod was captured. The 2nd (online) sources doesn't mention the Irgun. What about the book source (Morris)? -- Ynhockey(Talk) 13:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree. AFAIK, it was captured by the Yiftah Brigade. -- Nudve (talk) 15:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
why it's written expelled? it's clearlly a non pruffen say, that is an-acceptable on the Historical community, and a anti-Israelian propagnda as well. asking for a premition to change it to "ran away" insted, while this say have far more prufs and this is the say that is accepted on the Historical community —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yamisrael (talk • contribs) 10:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think we need to decide what to call it throughout, as we're switching from Lod to Lydda and back. The best thing would be to call it whatever it was called at the time of the events we describe. Any objections? SlimVirgintalk|contribs 20:14, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's how it stands now. Can you give specific examples that you have a problem with? —Ynhockey(Talk) 21:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We were calling it Lod when the IDF invaded (now fixed), but we are still calling it Lod during the Muslim period. I've tried to find a reiable history of when the names were changed over the years and to what, but I've not found one. SlimVirgintalk|contribs 21:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm moving this here because I can't find where the source says this. I also think we shouldn't use the Bible as a primary source; if we're going to mention it at all, we should try to find a historian who uses it.
There is a biblical reference to it: in Ezra 2:33, it was founded by Shemed, a member of the Tribe of Benjamin, abandoned during the Babylonian captivity, and resettled upon the return of the Jews from exile.[1]
I think the Bible reference is worth mentioning, as long as the sentence make it clear that the source is Biblical.Igorb2008 (talk) 07:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We need a secondary source who refers to it; plus, it doesn't seem to say what we write that it says. SlimVirgintalk|contribs 07:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You've added material to the lead with no source, and even with a source it probably wouldn't be significant enough for the lead—unless we find a source that explains the significance. SlimVirgintalk|contribs 07:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
,
It is no less significant then the material you added, and the lead esummarize the article, it does not need a separate sources.Igorb2008 (talk) 08:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're edit warring to push a POV, without sources, in violation of the policies. Please remove the material you added. As for the lead needing sources, it needs sources just the same as anything else does: see WP:LEAD and WP:V. SlimVirgintalk|contribs 08:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are the one who push a POV,by removing information you consider less significant.The lead summarize the article, I added nothing new, just us you, when you started to summarize historic section in the lead, and you also not provided separate sources to the information you added. Either whole history must be briefly mentioned ,or non at all, then it will not be POV.Igorb2008 (talk) 08:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did not remove anything from the lead. It is you who has taken unsourced material from elsewhere in the article and moved it to the lead. You did this after trying to remove the 1948 history from the lead.
Please find non-religious secondary sources and explain why the material is significant enough to be in the lead, or remove it. SlimVirgintalk|contribs
Comment: The things that should go into the lead section here depend on whether we want a short lead for now, or a broad one. If the lead should be short (and it should, since the article is short), there is no reason to emphasize 1948 in any way, and certainly no reason to link to the article Exodus from Lydda and Ramla. It should merely state something like, "The city changed hands between Jews, Crusaders, Arabs and Turks over a period of X years". The reason is that the changing of hands between Jordan and Israel in 1948 is no more significant than any of the other times that the city changed hands (and its residents were likely expelled). Moreover, the assertion that it was "known as Lydda throughout most of its existence" may or may not be correct, and seems like OR. To its Arab inhabitant, it was certainly not known as Lydda. Lydda is simply the Western name, which is still in use by many English-speakers today. Igor is of course right that it was not "renamed" to Lod, this is simply the natural Hebrew name which was used in Hebrew even during the Mandate. In the same way, Jaffa was not renamed to Yafo, it was always called Yafo in Hebrew (I can provide a plethora of pre-Israel sources for this) and is still called Yafo in Hebrew and Jaffa in English today.
On the other hand, if we want a broad lead (if/when this article is ever expanded), it should mention the 1948 events, but also many other parts of the city's history, including ancient history and its status as a Jewish city. —Ynhockey(Talk) 08:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:LEAD, we must include major controversies. The only major controversy is the Palestinian refugee issue; Lod is a particularly pertinent example given that it was one of the few unambiguous expulsions ordered from on high. It would therefore be obtuse of us not to mention it in the lead.
That aside, Igor has added unsourced material to the lead which, regardless of any other issue, must be removed because it's unsourced and is being challenged. It's not at all clear how ancient history can be relevant in the lead, rather than the body of the text. If the ancient history is a current controversy, that needs a source. But the material needs a source anyway, whether in the lead or elsewhere.
As for "Lydda," the academic sources say that was its name. We go by the sources.
Igor is not right that it was not renamed in 1948, Yan. It was known throughout the world as Lydda until 1948. SlimVirgintalk|contribs 08:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again, it is still knows as Lydda in some parts of the world; it's a simple language issue, and of course Israel is trying its hardest to project its preferred name, Lod, and has reasonably succeeded in doing so. However, there are many instance for its use after 1948; I did a very quick Google search and found this one, for example. I have never seen any name other than Lod used in Hebrew (except Israelis who misread it at Lud), and in Arabic it can either be al-Lid or al-Lud, but not Lydda. However, Arabs today mostly use the name Lydda in English, simply because most would not understand 'al-Lid'.
About the unsourced material: the Ariel Encyclopedia, p. 3946 (vol. 4) has information fairly similar to what Igor wrote. I can rewrite it to match the source, but again, I'd prefer to delete the whole thing from the lead. It's not that important compared to the size of the lead (which should be small because the article is small). —Ynhockey(Talk) 09:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To SlimVirgin, If 1948 history is in the lead, then earlier history belong also, or no historic background must be in introduction at all, the information is cited in the article, just as information you added, and the sources is not from the Bible. also I consider 1948 section also significant , I only disagree with renaming part, Hebrew name was always Lod, Greek-Latin Lydda, and after you restored it, I did not deleted it again, I think the issue must be resolved by discussion .Igorb2008 (talk) 09:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See Mykolaiv article for example, in Russian and Soviet times it was known by Russian name, after Ukraine gained independence by Ukrainian name, but it was never renamed, same as Lod.Igorb2008 (talk) 09:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What the policies say about leads and primary sources[edit]
WP:LEAD says that major controversies must be added to the lead. 1948 is clearly a major controversy regarding Lydda/Lod. If there are others, please add them (with secondary scholarly sources). What we're not going to do is add material from the Bible as though it's a fact -- that shouldn't exist anywhere in the article, but certainly not in the lead. If you want to mention the Bible, please find a secondary (academic) source who talks about it, so we have a source confirming the contents and the notability. That is policy: see Wikipedia:No original research#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources, so reverting is just a waste of time. SlimVirgintalk|contribs 22:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note, perhaps you missed my comment above; Ariel Encyclopedia, p. 3946 (vol. 4) is an academic source that has relevant information. Again though, I still strongly believe that neither information should be in the lead. The exodus from Lydda and Ramla is not a 'controversy'. Today sources agree that an expulsion took place, therefore there is no controversy or disagreement. If historians disagree on the details, that certainly does not belong in the lead, and not even in this article (this is why you are writing the other article, no?). The exodus is just another part of the town's history, just like when it changed hands between Christians and Muslims in the 7th century. —Ynhockey(Talk) 01:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The controversy is whether the inhabitants should be allowed to return. Given that this is a key issue in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and that there have been terrorist attacks as a result of it (one of which is mentioned in the article), it's odd to deny that it's a controversy. :-)
No historians disagree that there were expulsions from Lydda or that the return of the refugees is a key issue. It is solid information. SlimVirgintalk|contribs 02:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:LEAD says that lead must summarize the most important points of the article, not only controversies. No information I added comes from the Biblical source, and it is cited in the article, and so it is not original research.Igorb2008 (talk) 04:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You need to find a decent source for the material you added, which is here. Currently, it is either unsourced in the article, or sourced to a Jewish Agency website or the Bible, neither of which is acceptable. SlimVirgintalk|contribs 04:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jewish agency cites encyclopedia Judaica, whose article on Lod as you can see here 1based on Josephus works, so he can be cited directly if you like. I also don`t think there will be problem finding other sources for first mention of Lod by Egyptians or Arab capture of the city.Igorb2008 (talk) 04:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, once you have the sources in place, we can take another look at the material. SlimVirgintalk|contribs 04:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Igor, can you quote what Josephus says, and where exactly as I can't find it? It would be good to know what is meant by that sentence. Also, we may need a source other than him, given that he's another primary source, and that he based his work on the bible. And again, could you please stop copying material from elsewhere and repeating it in the lead. Material from the history section should go in the lead only if there is an issue of controversy, either one that continues, or that is in some way particularly interesting or pertinent to the nature of the city; and even then it shouldn't be copied word for word. SlimVirgintalk|contribs 13:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
SlimVirgin, Josephus based his accounts not on the Bible, he lived in that age, and participated in the Jewish revolt against the Romans, and his work is historical account,not religious, used by non-biblical historians .But there is no problem citing Michael Avi-Yonah, Encyclopaedia Judaica, who uses Josephus as a source. Also please stop deleting name Lod from city history, which is after all, earlier original spelling used, including by many sources, as opposed to Lydda, that is later spelling. If somebody read the article now, he can understand incorrectly, that there was ancient city named Lydda, that became known as Lod only after 1948. Also material must not be related to controversy to be in the lead. See Dresden article for example, history in the lead is not limited to bombing in WWII. If you do not like wording then propose change, don`t start edit war.Igorb2008 (talk) 14:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop reverting the lead. What you are adding is not well-written, not well-sourced, and it's inappropriate for the introduction. For example, you're using an Israeli website to say that Lod (not Lydda) is first mentioned by an Egyptian pharaoh. But it is the website that's calling it Lod, not the pharaoh. Do you see the difference? It's going to be impossible to improve this article if you continue to edit like this. SlimVirgintalk|contribs 14:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've created Talk:Lod/lead, so that we can expand the lead there. The actual article can't be left with poor writing and sources in the introduction. We can edit the subpage until we have a good-enough version to post. SlimVirgintalk|contribs 14:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The bible cannot be used as a source in this article. Edits like this, sourced to biblos.com, are not acceptable. If a non-religious, academic source uses it (preferably a historian), that's fine, but our source must be the historian. We can't base the history section of a Wikipedia article on religious texts.
Also, bear in mind if you use Israeli sources that they are using the word "Lod" because they are Israeli, and are used to the Hebrew word. If they write, "Lod was settled in year X," it does not mean that the city was called Lod at that time. It would be better all round if we stick to academic sources. SlimVirgintalk|contribs 14:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is one of the mentions in the Bible, and identified as such, referenced from the Bible, just as later references from Acts. I also deleted "Lod" from Egyptian list, probably they had their own spelling.Igorb2008 (talk) 15:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you understand what I wrote about not using the bible as a source? It is not allowed under our content policies. SlimVirgintalk|contribs 15:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why have you changed the name to Lod where we mention the first ancient settlement? The source does not say Lod. See Frenkel, Sheera and Low, Valentine. Why Lod, the other land of St George, isn't for the faint-hearted, The Times, April 23, 2009. Please produce a (non-religious) source, and if you can't, do not change it again.
I am familiar with the policies and I disagree, I never added original research. You insist on historical sources, and then use some opinion piece from newspaper, when real historical source you yourself provided use Lod and Lydda. By arguing that one part of city history is more important then other, and trying to emphasize one spelling, while censuring other, and all this by deleting material time and again, you push POV. As for Biblical sources, Peter's healing of a paralytic man is also references from the Bible, you don`t seem to have problem with that. What is the difference? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Igorb2008 (talk • contribs) 15:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By using religious texts (primary sources) in a way that isn't purely descriptive and 100 percent clear, you're in violation of NOR. The Peter reference is clearly sourced; its meaning is clear; it is unambiguous; and it doesn't suggest any POV or interpretation of history. That is the difference. Those factors mean it is okay to use it under NOR.
Schwartz, Joshua J. Lod (Lydda), Israel: from its origins through the Byzantine period, 5600 B.C.E.-640 C.E or Martin Gilbert books on Jewish history.Igorb2008 (talk) 15:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gilbert uses Lydda, and Schwartz obviously does not say it was called Lod during the period the pottery relates to, because no one knows what it was called then. Why do you claim to know what is in two sources that you clearly haven't even looked at? SlimVirgintalk|contribs 15:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ezra reference is also clearly sourced, and purely descriptive, with clear meaning.Igorb2008 (talk) 15:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Now these are the children of the province that went up out of the captivity, of those which had been carried away, whom Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon had carried away unto Babylon, and came again unto Jerusalem and Judah, every one unto his city", Ezra 2,1
The children of Lod, Hadid, and Ono, seven hundred twenty and five" Ezra 2,33
What is not clear exactly?. It is without a doubt Bible reference to Lod, that says that children of Lod returned to their city from Babylonian captivity. Igorb2008 (talk) 16:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I'd appreciate if you'd answer my question above, namely why you're claiming to know what's in two sources that you clearly haven't even looked at. SlimVirgintalk|contribs 16:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gilbert mostly uses Lod for ancient history, and Lydda mostly for more recent 1948 events.In his The Routledge Atlas of Jewish History p.13 for Hasmonean kingdom map, city is marked as Lod. As for Joshua J. Schwartz he uses Lod constantly. From Introduction, he says that his intent was to write the book on history of ancient Lod. As for Ezra reference, its meaning is clear and literal, it means what it says. The is no reason not to list Ezra among Biblical mentions.
Also if you moved earlier history to the talk page to reedit, you must move your material of 1948.Either restore sourced material you deleted or move your own additions to talk page also.Igorb2008 (talk) 19:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So-called "editors" with clear agendas are trying to introduce their POV by linking strings of words in a non-standard way. An edit war is looming. There is more to Lod than this one issue, and wily attempts to monopolize the article will not be tolerated.--Gilabrand (talk) 17:42, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've uploaded what I regard as a high quality image from around 1895 of Lydda, Lod or whatever you want to call it, to commons. The existing categorization of Lydda/Lod related things in commons is a little troubling but the image is there if anyone wants to use it here. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:59, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you really want a terrorist listed as a "notable" personage?[edit]
George Habash, founder of a terrorist organization, listed as a "notable" resident of Lod is an affront to sanity. Do you list Adolf Hitler as a notable resident of his hometown? Infamous would be a far better description of Mr. Habash who murdered scores of innocents. Perhaps you support the actions of Mr. Habash and that is why he is listed? Regardless, his presence on this page speaks volumes about the morals and ethics of Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.66.1.14 (talk) 16:27, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In undoing Byschw's unexplained mass deletions, I missed this one. Can someone please oblige? Zerotalk 13:51, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's probably worth reviewing the rather curious sampling of information from The Economist source too. Not counting the Economist material that was already in this article prior to this edit, a further ~760 words in the source about all sorts of Lod related things could have been sampled and summarized. It's unclear what criteria was used to decide that the most important piece of information that hadn't been sampled from the source was that "Violent crime in the Arab neighborhoods of Lod is largely directed at other Arabs and revolves around clan wars and honor killings". Sean.hoyland - talk 14:52, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed there are four uses of "BC" in then article, yet the other dates have "CE"- both of which use the same dates, but are a different systems. For a more professional article, I would like to recommend using either "Before Christ" and "Anno Domini" or "Before Common Era" and "Common Era", but not both.
I have just modified one external link on Lod. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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: 18 January 2022).
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.
I have just modified one external link on Lod. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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: 18 January 2022).
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.
These edits look like they contain copyrighted content from a song which has no relevance to the article itself. Iggy (Swan) 23:26, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
User:Nableezy has reverted edits of (05:21, 6 July 2021 SoaringLL) and (16:55, 6 July 2021 Hippeus) putting undue weight on what they percieve as "international media". The dispute is as to what is to be written after "... first time since 1966 that Israel has used emergency powers over an Arab community...". See examples: I would personaly prefer none of the examples to be on the site until a consensus is found. Alternative 4. Currently alternative 2 is used in the article. Other sources are available, and this article on Lod does not represent the state of 2021 Israel–Palestine crisis#Arab communities in Israel.
In May 2021, the city was put into a state of emergency over Arab riots during the 2021 Israel–Palestine crisis.[1] On 11 May, Mayor of Lod Yair Revivio urged Prime Minister of IsraelBenjamin Netanyahu to deploy Israel Border Police in the city, stating that the city had "completely lost control" and warning that the country was on the brink of "civil war".[2][3] Netanyahu declared a state of emergency in Lod on 11 May, marking the first time since 1966 that Israel has used emergency powers over an Arab community.[4][5]
1: International media noted that both Jews and Arab mobs were active in Lod.[6][7][8]
2: International media noted that both Jews and Arab mobs were active in Lod, but the "crackdown came for one side" only.[9][10][11][12][13]
3: After the start of the Arab campaign of arson, stone-throwing, and vandalism by Arab residents, Jewish extremists from outside Lod burned Arab property in Lod.[14][15][16]
User:Huldra, I'd appreciate if you can explain the issues that need to be resolved in the updated lede. I believe it introduced a major upgrade to this article. Thanks in advance. Tombah (talk) 10:57, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The paragraph states that there was a wave of refugees following the holocaust, most coming from arab countries. The issue is that the refugees from arab countries weren't refugees of the holocaust.
Another topic that seems amiss in this article is the lack of mention of the maabarot into which the Moroccan and other jewish arab refugees were placed in. Lod had a huge maabara and this article doesnt mention it. This is an issue as it creates a narrative that all jewish immigration into Lod was completely voluntary. 184.164.179.12 (talk) 15:25, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is no mention in the article about the substantial ethiopian and russian-speaking population in Lod. 184.164.179.12 (talk) 15:29, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 December 2023[edit]
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Addition to Bibliography:
Silvia Pasquetti, 'Subordination and dispositions: Palestinians’ differing sense of injustice, politics, and morality,' Theor Soc (2015) 44:1–31.
This academic article is based on sociological research in the city of Lod from 2002 to 2008. It describes different ways in which living in the city is experienced. 184.147.234.113 (talk) 20:49, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Question: I think the Bibliography section is for books and articles which are used in the current article, i.e. in this Wikipedia article sentences use these books as their source. I don't see any content which uses Pasquetti's article as a source. Deltaspace42 (talk • contribs) 21:42, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the 
Question: I think the Bibliography section is for books and articles which are used in the current article, i.e. in this Wikipedia article sentences use these books as their source. I don't see any content which uses Pasquetti's article as a source. Deltaspace42 (talk • contribs) 21:42, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
