Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:47, 19 July 2007

Palestine Start‑class High‑importance

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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has been the subject of prolonged and sterile revert-warring. Edit warring is unacceptable even if none of the editors violates the letter of the 3RR rule, and protection prevents all editors from improving the article. (If editors return to edit warring after an article is unprotected, the community has not forfeited the right to improve the article; rather, the editors have forfeited the right to edit. For the next month, ending May 15, I will enforce a limit of one revert per person per day. (Blatant vandalism is excepted, of course, but calling content edits that may have been made in good faith, "vandalism," is not acceptable.) Please discuss controversial changes on the talk page first, rather than editing and reverting and eventually discussing. Thank you. Thatcher131 00:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Archives

Beginning-March 2007

Zeq's edits

Aside from grammar issues, would someone please explain what the problems with Zeq's edits were? I realise that the Shaw report didn't cast full blame on the Mufti, but isn't it possible to include the other report's POV in a neutral manner? Tewfik 02:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Ethnic cleansing + Policemen

disputed phrasing here: The Hebron massacre of 1929 was the ethnic cleansing and murder of 67 Jews and in Hebron, then part of the Palestine under the British mandate, by Palestinian Arabs and Palestinian policemen. end

I can agree that perhaps "ethinic cleansing" is a disputed title by the very same people who say it repeatedly about arab villages in the british mandate... howeverr, I don't see how anyone would dispute the involvement of the policemen. feel free to add commentary so that we need not blindly revert with one-liner arguments in a childish manner. Jaakobou 22:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I see nothing in the article to support this claim. Your version of the lead makes it appear that the police force acted in concerted effort with the rioters, whereas the rest of the article indicates that several Arab policemen deserted and joined the rioters. Quite a difference, I'd say. Tarc 13:58, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

you misread the article and reasources. all the arab policemen abandoned their post with the single british officer and joined the rioters/massacres. Jaakobou 14:58, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

That does not contradict what I said at all. Again, the way you make it sound is as if the police acted in their official capacity to murder civilians. The reality is that they abandoned their posts and joined the rioters; that is far, far removed from the allegations that you are trying to portray in the lead. And I suggest that you improve your tone and civility in this matter...do not tell me or anyone else to "aqcauinted (sic) with subject matter before reverting". That people here disagree with you does not mean that they are unfamiliar with the subject matter. Tarc 16:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

i'm sorry if i sound repetative or uncivil, but please read the material again. the policemen were indeed involved in the massacres. if you are not familiar with the testimonies and the facts of the matter subject, then i am forced to tell you to read into it. it's not a matter of being uncivil, it's a matter of letting you know that you assume good faith onto the policemen while that was not the case of this attempted genocide.. which reminds me btw, of the rammalah lynching. Jaakobou 17:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I did not say that they were not involved. What I question is whether they were involved as policemen or not. It is an important distinction. As it now reads, the article states "...Palestinian Arabs and Palestinian policemen", identifying them as two distinct groupings and claiming that the mob was in effect state-sponsored. This is simply not the case, and even the testimony of the lone savior, Cafferata, describes one of them as an "ex-police-constable". This makes your description of "Palestinian policemen" inaccurate, as they were in effect no longer policemen.

The second issue here is with the term ethnic cleansing. This article is a fork of the 1929 Palestine riots, which grew out of the dispute over Western Wall access. Putting "ethnic cleansing" here is claiming that the Hebron massacres were a direct attempt to displace Jews from the city, when in reality it was one of many outbreaks of violence across the region because of the Wall conflict. Im' not trying to lessen or reduce the severity/importance of this event, but it has to be described in proper and factual terms. The current version does not do that at all.

I'll hold off on reverting for now til others hopefully weigh in, but there's really nothing in reality to support your version of the events. Tarc 17:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

(1) does "if they were involved as policemen" mean anything? when a policeman deserts his post to join riots and endulge in violent activities... does that suddenly mean he was not a policeman? the fact that policemen left the post cannot be refuted and reverting over this, trying to whitewash history, is ridiculous... and to address the "state sponsored" issue... off course it was state sponsoured... why do you think the riots started in the first place?! (see biography of Mohammad Amin al-Husayni and this very article).

(2) the innacuary claim on your part about the ex-policeman... (2.1) is he no longer a policeman by category? (2.2) to repeat myself... you should further read into the policemen deserting their post to join the riots refrences.

(3) the "ethnic cleansing" issue - the rioters tried to commit genocide... you preffer "attempted genocide" to "succesful ethnic cleansing"? .. i believe ethnic cleansing is the proper term for what had occured on top of the massacre of 67 jews. Jaakobou 18:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

(1 & 2) Yes, it does mean he was no longer a policeman. That's kinda what "ex-" usually means. (3) I believe you are wrong, and the previous version of the lead adequately and accurately described the event. Tarc 19:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

i we're playing with semantics here (to protect "the innocent") and that the lead without it is not informative enough to give the proper insight to the rest of the article. Jaakobou 09:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

You both have good points. Policemen doing something as bad as this is certainly notable, however we cannot convey the idea that they did so in any official capacity, which is wrong. Perhaps someone can suggest some phrasing that allows for mentioning the mass participation of the policemen while noting that that followed a mass desertion? Tewfik 21:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

suggestion: "palestinian policemen who abandoned their post to join the rioters." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jaakobou (talk • contribs) 22:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC).

I'm not sure I'm really convinced of the notability, Tewfik. Or at least of the notability for the lead. The intro should provide a clear and concise summarization of what the article is about (hebron massacres), why it is important (jewish-arab regional backdrop), who did it (arabs), what did they do (riot, murder), to whom (jews). That police defected and joined the rioters is the type of info to dive into in the body of the article. The other issue is the ethnic cleansing term, which appears to be editorializing on the part of those trying to insert it. None of the references here cite this event as such that I have seen. Tarc 00:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

you really have to ask why is it notable when a policeman becomes an acomplice rioter in a massacre? i wonder if you'd ask the same question had it been israeli policemen (plural, not singular) joining jewish rioters. Jaakobou 12:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Jaakobou, I think it is certainly notable enough to be mentioned in the article (regardless of ethnic background), but it is a detail. The introduction should be concise, tell the general story concisely, the details should be kept to the article body.

What I'm more concerned about is the term "ethnic cleansing". Is this the common term that is used to describe this historical event in the literature?--Doron 19:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

the usual term in hebrew is טבח חברון - מאורעות תרפ"ט, the terms used are mass massacres acompanied by hideous torture (i'm quoting printed texts) - here's a few images example/suggested pics: pic 14 - boy died of his wounds, pic 16 - bakers wife. it was reffered to as a genocidal pogrom, led by shieks and kadis. the survivers sat for two days at a police station before being evicted to jerusalem. most of the dead were buried in a mass brotherly grave at the old city of hebron while the british police prevented any of them from being pictured before burial (that's why there's so few pictures). it has been one of many attempts (this one being one of the succesfull ones) by arabs to ethnically cleanse (via genocide) jewish existance from the land of israel. i think the term is very good, but i'm open to hear substitutes. Jaakobou 20:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Then I suggest you find a legitimate source to term it "ethnic cleansing". As it is now it is just you editorializing the events, which is not allowed here. Tarc 20:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

i think ethnic cleansing fits to quickly describe that the jews were chased away and could not return by the massacre, torture, pillaging, etc. Jaakobou 09:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

You have every right to think so, but Misplaced Pages is based on reliable published sources, not on what the editors think. As far as I know, the literature does not support the labeling of the 1929 Hebron massacre as "ethnic cleansing".--Doron 11:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

scroll up, i'm talking about the description, not the label. Jaakobou 11:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, the literature does not support the description of the 1929 Hebron massacre as "ethnic cleansing" (or "genocide", for that matter).--Doron 11:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

i disagree. it is well described that the jewish community left the city without the possibility of return - if you want that entire long phrasing instead of "ethnic cleansing" i'm ok with it - but it's fundamental to the article and should be on the intro regardless of the phrasing. Jaakobou 12:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

It may be important to mention in the introduction that the massacre led to the end of the Jewish community of Hebron, but to call it "ethnic cleansing" is original research.--Doron 12:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

i find the phrasing "led to the end of" to be dismissive to the crimes - it's not like 3 months later they moved.. it's more like - they sat at a police station for two days thinking they could get lynched at any minute and after the two days the british were able to evacuate them. i think you should reconsider the way you read into this historical event. there was no battle, no special fudes. just an attempt to murder approx. 750 people in one go. the result of the failed mass murder attempt was a massacre and "an end to the jewish community" to hebron - or "ethnic cleansing" in short. i'm open to suggestions, but they do have to be somewhat descriptive to the envents. Jaakobou 13:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

You don't know anything about how I view this historical event, and it is completely irrelevant to this discussion. The only thing that is relevant is how the literature sees this historical event, and the literature does not use the phrases "ethnic cleansing" or "genocide", so these phrases are unacceptable.--Doron 14:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

it's not common to use the term ethnic cleansing, we preffer to focus on the holocaust and tend to forget or make other historical events seem minor (פרעות - wtf??) - for example calling the ethnic cleansing in yemen "the maoze exile" (one of the biggest understatements i've ever heard) - to make my definition clearer, i present to you the phrasing of ethnic cleansing - he: ethnic cleansing - and this article: Palestinian_exodus - "Pappe alleges the mass expulsion was accompanied by massacres, rape and imprisonment of men in labor camps for periods over a year." - now, i'll repeat my earlier note that if you have better suggestions for terminology that describe the event properly, i'm open to hear them. Jaakobou 17:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

another link: Iqrit] - "According to Morris (1994, p.281) the villagers were outright expelled by the Israel Army in November 1948, (together with the villagers of Kafr Bir'im, Nabi Rubin, Tarbikha) "without Cabinet knowledge, debate, or approval -though, almost inevitably, they received post facto Cabinet endorsement." <- nobody was mutilated hence, no "ethnic clensing". Jaakobou 17:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Very interesting, now let's see some sources that refer to this event as "ethnic cleansing" or "attempted genocide". Without sources, this discussion is futile.--Doron 19:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Category:Massacres in Israel

i've re-added this category - Category:Massacres in Israel, due to the topics allready listed on it. personally, i feel the correct category would be "massacres in british mandate palestine", but considering the eclectic nature of the massacres allready covered in the category, i feel this one certainly fits in. Jaakobou 19:02, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

The category should be deleted. It's entirely inappropriate. --Ian Pitchford 22:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

On second thoughts the category should remain and all articles on events before 15 May 1948 should be removed. --Ian Pitchford 22:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Whether the category should stay should be decided at CfD, not on regular talk pages. However, I do not mind having pre-May 15 1948 massacres in a different category. The thing is, if there's a category for massacres in Israel, there should be one for massacres in Mandate Palestine, otherwise it's a double standard. Do you agree to create such a category? -- Ynhockey 22:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think that would be appropriate. --Ian Pitchford 22:46, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

If the obejction are because Israel did not exist prior to 1948 we should have a category of "Massacres of Jews by Palestinians" Zeq 05:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

We already have , which should be sufficient. Tarc 13:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring

This article has been the subject of prolonged and sterile rervert-warring over the introduction of the the term "ethnic cleansing." (12 or more reverts in the last 4 days) Edit warring is unacceptable even if none of the editors violates the letter of the 3RR rule. I have protected the article for 3 days, and after that I will apply the Dmcdevit solution. In essence, If editors return to edit warring after an article is unprotected, the community has not forfeited the right to improve the article; rather, the editors have forfeited the right to edit. After the protection has expired, I will enforce a 1 revert per day limit. If that doesn't solve the problem, I will move to a zero revert per day limit. Figure this out on the talk page before you end up getting blocked for edit warring. Thank you. Thatcher131 16:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I fully realize that the version that gets locked is not an endorsement of said version, but it sucks that the anon edit that conveniently slipped in ~15 mins beforehand is demonstrably worse than anything else that was being argued over previously. Now we have an intro that does not even re-state the article title, per normal WP:LEAD guidelines, followed by some grammatial awkwardness further down the page.

As for the point of debate...a massacre is a massacre, not necessarily an ethnic cleansing. If there's verifiable sources that disagree with that, then we all would love to see it. Tarc 23:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

EC is "practices aimed at the displacement of an ethnic group from a particular territory in order to create ethnically pure society." - do we know that that is indeed what took place in Hebron ? was the whole population displaced ? was that the aim ? Zeq 07:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

genocide was the original aim of the riots. one of the by-products of genocide is ethnic cleansing, something that occured since all the jews were indeed cleansed from the city - the goal itself of killing all the jews was not fully accompliashed but the cleansing was succesfull. Jaakobou 09:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

That is your opinion. The literature does not support the labeling of the massacre as "genocide".--Doron 11:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

That is the point which I have been trying to convey here. Jaakobou, find reliable, verifiable sources that state that the purpose of the riots was to rid the city of its Jewish population, and not a byproduct of the regional conflict over access to the Western Wall, as related pages suggest. Otherwise, it is just your own editorializing. Tarc 13:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

the ridiculous part about what this discussion has deteriorated to, is that the "official" arab "reasoning" for the torutures and massacres of 1929 was to keep the jews away from al aqsa. the less official reasoning was to keep the entire land under muslim rule and "push the jews into the sea" (i.e. kill them)... now, i don't think we can really quote the mufti's letter nuless we find a copy of it online - but him sending a letter to the arabs across the land, including hebron, to come to jerusalem and kill all the jews (accompanied by a promise that he'll protect them from the british administration) - these are historical records and the reason and the "ethinc cleansing" terminology is far more fitting than a reduced "left the place" version. here's an interesting source: . Jaakobou 14:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

another link with a citation for ethnic cleansing to hebron: . Jaakobou 14:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Several sources from the beleagured minority say that, far from it being policy of "The Arabs" to attack "The Jews", it was the policy of the Zionists to foment trouble for Jews. "our rabbi, the supervisor of our religious academy, Rabbi Moshe Mordechai Epstein, called them for a meeting, but they refused. He was forced to go over to them, and asked them what they were up to. He accused them of wanting to provoke the Arabs. They responded that they were coming to protect us!! We cried out, "Woe is us! G-d have mercy!" They didn’t want to leave town until it was too late!". PalestineRemembered 17:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

did tou really link to jewsagainstzionism.com? please don't expect me to that post seriously. Jaakobou 17:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

If you can't live with the current anon's version and can agree on changes, you can post the {{edit protected}} template here. Changes won't be made without agreement, though. Thatcher131 13:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Jaakobou, were those serious responses? The first link is to a Hebrew article, which is inappropriate for the English Wikipediaa, and judging by the URL (hebron.org.il) is doubtful a reliable source. The second link is a pasting of an apparently outdated/expired version of Misplaced Pages's own ethnic cleansing article, where Hebron is not listed. Even when it was, it had a citation needed tag, further indicating the dubiousness of the claim. Tarc 14:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Tarc, (1) it is most certainly acceptable to add diff language sources when you cannot find english ones. (2) you assume about the second link but that's a reasonable claim. (3) you not knowing hebrew, does not in any way negate the validity of that text coming from the archives of meetings in hebron. had you been able to go over it, you'd have seen that it's a serious source that tells the story with the utmost detail to include testimonials and the names of each person giving his testimony or talking about testimonies of involved arabs and british. Jaakobou 17:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

No, it is not acceptable, as it fails the verifiability test. And you had no real answer to the 2nd one (the link to an outdated wikipedia article), so we'll call that one null and void as well.

This is really quite simple; unless you find sources that are reliable and verifiable, then calling it "ethnic cleansing" amounts to original research on your part. Tarc 19:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

(1) i think you should look at Misplaced Pages:Sources#When_you_add_content - you'll see i'm correct about this one. (2) to make things clear, i agreed you have a point. (3) the hebron website is a good source for wikipedia.

Did you note the "If quoting from a different language source, an English translation should be given with the original-language quote beside it" part? Until you do, it isn't reliable. Tarc 22:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't bother, there's no reference to "ethnic cleansing" there anyway. I'm not sure what's the purpose of this link exactly, it appears to be a Hebrew translation of parts of the protocol of the Shaw Commission, which is obviously available in English, therefore this link is inappropriate for the English Misplaced Pages.--Doron 22:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

i believe the links says that the original-language is needed in cases of quotes. and i still think this is a clear pallywood-like case. Jaakobou 23:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

this debate reminds me of the long one on the pallywood article where 2 users were not allowing any citation if the word pallywood was not mentioned. well it also reminds me of a more clear case of bias pushing where the word nazi was not allowed as a description of a cartoon unless a source was using that word to describe the cartoon.. now that was a really redundant dispute - i think this one resembles the pallywood dispute.. eventually, the concensus was that it's ok to use articles that don't have the word. Jaakobou 21:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:SYN, Misplaced Pages editors are not supposed to draw conclusions, they are only supposed to provide information taken from reliable sources. If the literature describes the massacre as "ethnic cleansing" or "attempt genocide", then these descriptions are appropriate for Misplaced Pages, otherwise they are not. It's as simple as that.--Doron 22:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Sources such as the "Jewish Virtual Library" make it abundantly evident that there was no genocide intended even by the most violent rioters. On Saturday, the rioters approached the Rabbi and offered him a deal. If all the Ashkenazi yeshiva students were given over to the Arabs, the rioters would spare the lives of the Sephardi community. Rabbi Slonim refused to turn over the students and was killed on the spot, along with his wife and 4 year old son (another son, 3 years old, survived). In the end, 12 Sephardi Jews and 55 Ashkenazi Jews were murdered. Nineteen local Arab families saved dozens, perhaps 100s of the Jews. PalestineRemembered 17:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

User:PalestineRemembered thank you for clearing out on the intent issue ... i'm sure the nazis only wanted to kill the black haired jews and not the blondes with blue eyes - so there was no holocaust. *shrug* Jaakobou 17:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• • The quote that palestine remebered have brought is something I was not aware of. It should be added to the article (if EC is used or without it). I must say that a promise not to kill some of the group after another half is given to the arab rioters is not something that looks very promosing. I don't know if I would agree to such deal to save my life ... Zeq 18:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

There is unchallengeable evidence (from primary sources) that the Jews of Hebron had excellent relations with the locals, and it appears in unchallengeable secondary sources. There is further evidence from (primary, secondary sources?) that Zionists arrived with guns and bombs, and this was strongly opposed by the Jews of Hebron, who believed it to be provocative, perhaps deliberately so. Then we have the evidence just presented that the Jews of Hebron were not the targets of the rioters. All the evidence renders the insertion of the claim "ethnic cleansing" a non-starter. Since, in addition, we have nothing to indicate that any WP:RS has ever made this claim, I wonder why we're discussing it. PalestineRemembered 06:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

the hebrew sources say the jews could not return until 1967 and the term ethnic cleansing, which is used for massacres, is a good descriptive that doesn't need citation.... eternalsleeper

Of course it needs citation. The fact that nobody has been able to produce a single source that uses the term in reference to this event means that this usage is far from obvious. If it was so obvious, others would have used it.--Doron 23:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

doron (that's a hebrew name?!), it's not obvious that we should not use the term - my personal belief is that reporting history as it happened is part of the solution. and what happened was an ethnic cleansing. a term not really existing in hebrew.. but we can try a really long and descriptive version about it instead if you insist. Jaakobou 23:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say it's obvious that we shoud not use the term, I said it is not obvious that we should use the term. What I mean is that we do not have the privilege to make our own interpretation, we are only allowed to use reliable published material on Misplaced Pages. Yes, Doron is a Hebrew name and a Hebrew word that means "gift". And yes, of course there is "ethnic cleansing" in Hebrew, it's tihur etni. Not that it matter much, because the Hebrew source in question is a translation of a 1929 English text, while the term only entered the English language in the 1990s.

Look, we're really wasting a lot of time here. You cannot just use such a contentious term without it being the widely-accepted term in the literature, and so far you haven't produced even a single reference in the literature that uses this term. There's really no point in discussing this any further unless you can produce such references. You don't have to convince us that the massacre was "ethnic cleansing", you have to convince us that this is the term that is widely-used in the literature.--Doron 07:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

(1) i'm afraid i disagree with the way you interpret the hebrew text - it talks about the inverstigation and testimonies, but it does not look like a dircet translation. (2) i still think this is a clear pallywood-like case where the term itself is not needed in the text body to describe what had happened in an efficient way. may i suggest you look into the pallywood talk to see what i'm talking about? Jaakobou 09:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't really care about "pallywood", to be honest. Calling it ethnic cleansing without citing a verifiable, reliable source constitutes original research on your part. Until you provide what the Misplaced Pages guidelines call for, it will be removed from the article. Tarc 13:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Tarc, keep it civil please. i've explained my stand and you've explained yours and no consensus was found as of yet. it does not mean that either of us should enforce his POV. Jaakobou 14:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

It is not uncivil to point out that your addition would be a violation of wikipedia guidelines such as WP:NOR. Tarc 15:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

It should go without saying that organizations with a very strong motivation in presenting only one side of the case are not reliable sources. The Jewish community of Hebron is an obvious example. This is not a biased judgement, because we should avoid publications of the Arab community of Hebron too. There is such a large amount of published research on this subject by serious historians that there should be no need to look elsewhere (at least for the basic facts). Incidentally, I have the complete report of the Shaw commission, the transcript of all evidence given, and a document the Jewish Agency wrote in response to the Shaw commission. If there is need to verify something claimed to be there or to check its translation, possibly I can do it. (And there is no such thing as a letter from the Mufti urging anyone to kill Jews; that's BS.) --Zero 16:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

>User_talk:Zero0000, i don't have any problem with citing well written and trustworthy notes from palestinian sites - this hebrew site looks to be a very good representative of honest discussion - even if it's from the jewish pov. your dismissal of it and preffering a british version is inapropriate in my opinion, esp. considering how the british were a partizan involved in the incidents under the mandate. and honestly, i'd preffer the testimony of a hebron rabbi who was being stoned in the riots over your POV that there was no letter. Jaakobou 16:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

What one prefers isn't really relevant; what one can verifiably source is. Tarc 19:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• If this was true we can not use evidence from any victim. Zero has been using a lot of Palestinian sources in his editing.
• The statement above shows only the intelligent way in which Zero has been manipulating wikipedia: To get to his POV all he need to do is discredit any data from the other POV with the argument that it is POV.
• well this is against WP:NPOV which says that both POV must be represented.
• The real problem in Misplaced Pages is that anyone who stands in Zero's one side way is labeled a "Non good faith" editor and removed for disruption.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zeq (talk • contribs) 16:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC).

Zeq and Jaakobou, does any of you have a reliable source that calls this massacre "ethnic cleansing", or is this all your own invention? The Hebrew source, whether it is appropriate or not, makes no such reference, and don't tell me again the whole set of arguments of why this ought to be called "ethnic cleansing", I'm not interested. Sources, only sources, and nothing else, we need a substantial amount of sources that refer to this event as "ethnic cleansing" to even begin discussing this term. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a blog, it has to be based on existing literature, not on your own synthesis.

And Zeq, this discussion page is hardly the place for your quarrel with Zero.--Doron 20:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Doron - I stayed away from the discussion about ethnic cleansing. It is a terminology. If we have crediable evidence that the acts described by the word "ethnic cleansing" indeed took place we can use this terminology. So I am focusing on the inetnet of the massacre prepetrators. I was amazed that Zero wants to discredit the victoms decsription of the evenet. Zeq 21:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

No we cannot use this terminology unless it is used by the literature. It is not our job to interpret, only to summarize published sources, see WP:SYN. Now what are you referring to exactly by "the victims' description of the event"?--Doron 21:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The victims description of the events (and the historical record) point to there being violent provocation of the locals by outsiders, and the mob coming exclusively for "outsiders" (though not necessarily the same ones). While in no way excusing the massacre, the evidence makes nonsense of claims that deep-seated anti-semitism in Hebron led to the trouble. PalestineRemembered 17:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree with PalestineRemembered Zeq 18:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

pro/con ethnic cleansing

• support - all hebrew (and many english) reliable sources state that extremely violent stoning, torture, lynching and riots starting mid day friday (probably after the mosque sermon) resulted in not only the death of 67 people but the immediate, extremely violent and pogromish displacement of all jewish population from hebron. considering that the the riots were nationwide and presumed to have been started due to hajj amin al husseini insightment (not accepted here by some editors) that debate is only on the term "ethnic cleansing" as a quick descriptive to the events. considering no one is willing to make a proper alternative suggestion beyond "they left" i am forced to start in a voting on this terminology - hopefully we'll find consensus or better terminology with this method. Jaakobou 09:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

-- i'm adding a note about the pallywood case of the word not being used as a clear cut descriptive in every article, however the term and articles were supported. Jaakobou 10:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

• comment I'm not sure the killing of 67 people qualifies as ethnic cleansing - as to my understanding ethnic cleansing is a very similar term to genocide and therefore can only be applied on larger scale systematic killing of a certain group of people (ie. Armenians, Turkish Cypriots and the Jews and Gypsies in the Holocaust - please forgive me if I accidentally took a stance in any of these conflicts as I haven't studied them closely enough to form a well-educated opinion, that is, other than the Holocaust). Either way, if we have a reliable source we might wanna make the statement with attribution to that source. Yonatan 10:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  • comment reply, see how the term is actually used here: google search: "etchnic cleansing hebron". I don't support these libeleous demeaning usages, but i think the rerm fits 1929 hebron better than any of those links - there were no clear clashes in the city beforehand and it was an arranged genocide attempt. In fact, en-wiki: Ethnic_cleansing explains where the terminology is correct (i.e. "violent 'cleansing' of Bosniaks", "it is occasionally used as a claim of war-crimes") and where it's incorrect ("when no war-crimes actually exist", "poorer ethnic groups are being displaced economically"). the hebron case is uniqe in that it puts a clear question mark on what people actually call "ethnic cleansing" and what we neglect to describe as a very real genocide attempt. Jaakobou 10:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose, as the addition of the term without a verifiable, sourced reference will violate wikipedia policy, and the article will be edited as such to prevent violations. Tarc 12:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  • comment, your response sounds like a threat on top of a vote. Jaakobou 14:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
    • If you have a problem with the Misplaced Pages policy of no original research, then take it up on the appropriate forum. Tarc 18:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support per Jaakobou. Amoruso 13:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
• opposed This vote is pointless, because the usage of this term without sufficient (or any, really) references is so obviously against Misplaced Pages policy. There's no dispute over the facts, but your own conclusion, without any sources, about what these facts constitute is clearly against WP:SYN. Just for the record, I'm opposed.--Doron 19:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose - we're being asked to spend even more time on a question that should never be raised when we we're supposed to be writing an encyclopaedia. The proposal as framed is blatant "Original Research". The (provable) statements "the Jews were attacked" and "the Jews left Hebron" do not allow us to apply our own judgement that "therefore ethnic cleansing was planned/took place". Furthermore, no acceptable WP:RS has been produced that state it was ethnic cleansing, despite many requests for such references. Can I remind everyone that "taking a vote" does not mean we can trample the principles on which Misplaced Pages is based. PalestineRemembered 21:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't see it that way, wikipedia is supposed to keep neutrality and no OR, however, when the happenings of an event fit perfectly into a certain description, then I don't think we must find a source that uses that exact same word, esp. let me ask you this - what would your terminology be had the sides would have been reversed? Jaakobou 21:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

You are not in a position to determine that there is such a perfect fit. Even a mathematical proof has to be cited according to Misplaced Pages rules, otherwise it is original research, and history sure isn't math!--Doron 22:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

"the Jews left Hebron" would be a misleading statement, implying that they "left" on their own. ←Humus sapiens 22:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

• No vote - I don't think this is a votable matter. If there are reliable sources, we can say "According to RS A, the event constituted an act of ethnic cleansing." If there are no RS to be found, no vote will help. ←Humus sapiens 22:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose, since RS don't support the assertion - lets instead deal with the phrasing of the verifiable concerns, perhaps clarifying in the lead that the massacre was directly responsible for the cessation of the community, and making note of the mass desertion and complicity of police alongside the civilians. Tewfik 23:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  • comment- sounds like a good plan, i kept suggesting we add an explanation in the intro, but there was no interaction with that suggestion. Jaakobou 04:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Are we done with this? Clearly there's no viable support for labeling this "ethnic cleansing" as there are no sources that label it as such...along with with the primary proponent of such willfully admitting that he feels that original research is justified to use the term here. I won't do it myself (for now) since it was Tewfik's edit, but I'd like to see the article go back to his initial version before self-reverting, and then proceed from there. The anon's version is atrocious. Tarc 03:55, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  • (1) willfully admitting that he feels that original research is justified??? wtf?! you should re-read my statement and look into the pallywood article.
  • (2) the debate was going nowhere previously, but now we have a few mediating suggestions made. Jaakobou 04:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

• No Vote - per User:Humus sapiens Zeq 12:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  • it's a tad unclear if your vote is oppose or 'no vote', please clarify. Jaakobou 18:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Please be aware that persistent attempts to drag out a discussion may appear to be disruption aimed at wasting the time of more experienced editors dedicated to operating Misplaced Pages policy. Querying the votes of others (particularily in this case, one editor agreeing with another) is particularily egregious. "The community" will decide later whether people have cast ballots meaningfully or validly or correctly. "The community" might even think your call for a vote was misconceived or mischievous in the first place. PalestineRemembered 09:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
    • thank you for the notice, i do believe this voting has actually sped things up rather than slow them down. if you've noticed, the information was now allowed to be introduced (unlike before) only without the phrasing "cleansing" - still, it's a big difference from "left the place". Jaakobou 09:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Hebron Massacre

Shouldn't this article be moved to Hebron Massacre (1929) as the actual name of it is the "Hebron Massacre"? Yonatan 19:59, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• correct. Zeq 20:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe even rename it to "Hebron Massacre", and rename the current one to "Hebron Massacre (disambiguation)", since the other two massacres listed there are not really called "Hebron Massacre". On second thought -- "if it ain't broken, don't fix it" -- the current name is not so bad, and it is consistent with other events in the history of Palestine/Israel (1920 Palestine riots, 1929 Palestine riots, 1936–1939 Arab revolt in Palestine, 1948 Arab-Israeli War, 1978 South Lebanon conflict, 1982 Lebanon War, etc.). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Doron (talk • contribs).

On the other hand, if it's wrong - do fix it. Yonatan 00:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

• agreed, should be fixed. Jaakobou 08:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The reference to "ethnic cleansing" is yet another way to manipulate public opinion and point the finger away from Israel and its apartheid policies of forced deportation of Palestinians (a.k.a ethnic cleansing), confiscating Palestinian Lands from its rightful owners and inhabitants. It's time for the media to start calling things by their right name, instead of always protecting Israeli interests and hiding the truth. Samasim

Rabbi Judah Leon Magnes demoralized?

Where is the evidence that "The supporters of a binational solution, such as Rabbi Judah Leon Magnes, were demoralized."? 8 years after the massacre in 1937, when the British very briefly seemed to be in favour of partition, Magnes was still speaking up for co-existence and against mass immigration. And later, he was distraught with those blocking any refuge other than Palestine to those fleeing Nazism or fear of persecution generally. I would also question whether this statement (refering to the effect on, and opinions of, just one person) belongs in the lead. PalestineRemembered 12:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Apparently you are right. According to Goren, A. A., The view from Scopus: Judah L. Magnes and the early years of the Hebrew University (Judaism: A Quarterly Journal of Jewish Life and Thought, March 22, 1996), it appears that the events did not demoralize him at all, but rather encouraged him to be more involved in these ideas.--Doron 18:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou. PalestineRemembered 22:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Rabbi B Kaplan

I monitored the arguments for and against this inclusion at the time, (see archives), but decided not to get involved with it. I would just like to comment that I can see a very concerted attempt by Users Tewfik and Jayjg to censor if you will Kaplans version. His opinion does contain new historical information which doesn't feature on the page, i.e. that the Arabs were provoked, and the website its hosted on is not a personal web page as Jayjg would have us believe. The only problem I have with Kaplans "testimony" is that is in not descriptive enough, i.e. how exactly were they provoked - surely not just by riding motorbikes around the town? His view should be included somehow and it would be better if there was another, stronger, source material for this opinion. Chesdovi 22:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

if i'm not mistaken you're talking about a website dedicated to POV against Israel.. not really what makes for a reliable source for this article. Jaakobou 06:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Chesdovi, that is what I mean - he asserts that they were provoked, but he doesn't even explain how. He just vaguely discusses the 1929 Palestine riots and the Palmach, both of which are dealt with neutrally and in detail based on many reliable historical works. The rest of the page is just his opinions etc. Tewfik 06:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Kaplan's testimony could indeed be more descriptive, but the arrival of armed, motorised elements would be very alarming (remember, this is a society used to operating virtually without policemen - or guns). And not just alarming to the Arabs, similar elements terrorised the native Jews too (eg Rabkin re WWI period and Einstein re post-WWII). I don't see the point of including Cafferata's testimony, he needed to cover himself for killing a likely prominent member of a local family. If we're genuinally interested in understanding this atrocity (and the puzzling evacuation of all the community), then Kaplan's testimony is more significant. It certainly deserves some place by NPOV, "representing fairly and without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources)". It would be strange indeed if we rejected "JewsAgainstZionism" as unreliable and fabricating this kind of material. PalestineRemembered 06:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

(1) what are you talking about "society virtually without guns"?? in those days, a gun was a distinctive status symbol to a person being considered a man. (2) there's nothing strange about rejecting "jewsagainstzionism" as a reliable source for israel related items. it would be as non-reliable (the same level) to use takatom.org (extremist settlers) to make statements about saudi arabia. Jaakobou 07:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

PalestineRemembered, that is an interesting theory, but our policy on original research would not allow us to make those sorts of novel analyses. Tewfik 08:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

No OR involved, we have an excellent primary source and a very respectable secondary source describing what was actually happening in the town. We're including lurid and unnecessary statements from the policeman who failed to stop the massacre, and excluding eye-witness statements of the actual conditions in the town. Anyone reading this would think we wish to incite bitterness and hatred with a very one-sided view, excluding notable and well-referenced other points of view providing a much more respectable explanation. Are you denying what Rabkin and Einstein and others say about the attacks on Jews in WWI and WWII respectively by armed gangs from, supposedly, their own community? PalestineRemembered 10:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The website in question is an anonymous personal website, not to mention extremist; thus the material on it is not reliable, and it should not be included as an external link, per WP:EL. Also, claims of "censorship" are uncivil; please desist from making them. Jayjg 12:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg, it is not anonymous, (True Torah Jews, 183 Wilson St., PMB 162, Brooklyn, NY 11211), nor a Personal web page. It is a Political and News site. Most of the material is very well sourced and therefore it is reliable. Chesdovi 13:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Of course it's a personal web-page. The person running it is a post-office box. PMB = Commercial mail receiving agency. Jayjg 23:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I still don't get it. There is a PMB - hence it is not anonymous. Is the ADL website also anonymous as the address it provides is: Anti-Defamation League, Department: RL, P.O. Box 96226, Washington, DC? When WP:EL states that personal websites should normally be avoided, I'm not sure whether it meant this type of personal website. It is a non-profit organization, so what if one person runs the site? Even according to you, this website can be considered as it meets the following stipulation: Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources. The website is an Information site. Chesdovi 16:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

A post-office box is indeed anonymous. The Anti-Defamation League, on the other hand, is a well-known organization that has been around for 90 years. It is a not-for-profit organization recognized as tax-exempt under Internal Revenue Code section 501(c)(3). It has regional offices across the United States, and in other countries. It publishes financial statements and annual reports. It lists its Director, Board Members, treasurers, secretaries, legal counsel. Now, tell me who runs this website, and where I can find any information about them. Jayjg 17:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Edit conflict -> :I'd never heard the Torah Jews described as "extremist" - would you care to document this? I'd expect the word of these people to be entirely trustworthy - what evidence do you have otherwise? "True Torah Jews is a non-profit organization formed by a group of religious Orthodox Jews dedicated to informing the world and the American public and politicians in particular, that the idealogy of Zionism is in total opposition to the teachings of traditional Judaism. True Torah Jews, 183 Wilson Street, PMB 162, Brooklyn, NY 11211." Nor does it appear to be a personal web-site, selling Yiddish, English and French books, and CDs. Nor do I understand the claim that it's anonymous, there are at least two named people contributing. PalestineRemembered 13:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The website is run by a post office box. Its author is a fundamentalist extremist. Jayjg 23:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I see at least two people writing on that site

Just because a website reports on street demonstrations, it doesn't mean it actually has anything to do with them. Which "organization" is behind this website? What is its name? Who runs it? It looks pretty much like any other personal website, except that in this case the person running it isn't willing to even provide his name or address. Jayjg 16:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Let's go back a step - what do you know about the "Torah Jews" and why do you accuse them of "being extreme"? They have a well-articulated point of view, masses of background information that looks very credible, and don't threaten anyone. They're not actively racist, and they preach living in peace with others. They clearly exist in a section of a community which turns out in their 100s (thousands?) to support many of the same things they do. Most people would think they were less extreme than almost any supporter of Israel - what is it you know that persuades you differently? PalestineRemembered 10:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea which "Torah Jews" you are talking about. Are you referring to the individual who runs the "jewsagainstzionism" website? Jayjg 17:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I can't take serious the suggestion to replace a primary source discussed in every historical work on the topic with a 1980s political monologue lacking in any academic vetting, or any other attention. Tewfik 18:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

We know there was a massacre, Cafferata's testimony adds almost nothing. We have one explanation for the massacre, that the Hebron Arabs were violent racists. That doesn't make a lot of sense. Or we have another explanation, that violent gangs of immigrants caused lots and lots of trouble with guns and bombs. (The evidence you might find easiest to accept is of these violent outsiders attacking the Jews of Palestine - Einstein's evidence is very persuasive). So why are we writing this article from the racist point of view ("The Arabs" were incorrigible) when at least some of the evidence points strongly in a different direction - it was gangs of criminals who deliberately set about wrecking race relations? Why are people telling us that the Torah Jews are extremists - do we see them shooting people and attacking international observers? PalestineRemembered 20:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

(1) by your logic, all the people who rioted "over cartoons" (they actually rioted because of the akkari laben document) look like bloodthirsty islamist racists looking for excuses to burn churches and kill non-muslims. the truth behind the hebron massacres is more complex and involves a gullible crowd following a hate speech letter from the mufti... hence, the rioting started immediately after friday prayer.

(2) jewsagainstzionism is not a WP:RS, no matter how hard you try to present them as such. Jaakobou 20:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying not to respond to you, particularily after the concerns expressed here. Perhaps I should not have replied then, and I hesitate to do so here, but I have my own concerns. For instance, you seem to be trying to warn me against material coming from Israeli newspapers, Israeli human rights groups, and now the "Torah Jews". I have concerns about reversions like this in order to keep statements we know to be unverifiable (tertiary source wrongly quotes secondary source). And this is on top of my other concerns about new policies introduced without consultation, also just in this article.

I too am appalled by the reaction of millions of members of a Middle Eastern relgion to the cartoon affair. (Actually, I'd prefer to call it superstitious, hysterical or idiotic rather than use words such as "bloodthirsty racists" which would seem calculated to incite fear/hatred, but you know what I mean). Since it now appears you have quite serious problems with at least some members of two of these religions, I'd be interested to know where you stand on the "Torah Jews". At least one other here have called them extremist, so I don't think you need fear speaking honestly.

In view of what I said first, I will avoid answering anything further you say in this section, but I'd still be interested to read your considered response to the above points. PalestineRemembered 12:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

User:PalestineRemembered, i have no idea on why you call them "torah jews". beyond that, they are not a WP:RS for anything bible/talmud/etc. or israel/arab. Jaakobou 13:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll take it that you distrust the Torah Jews, but you're not prepared to provide anything corresponding to a Reliable Source that explains why the rest of us should distrust them. That's OK, I'm a lot more familiar with this attitude towards Muslims than towards the Jews, but I'm told it exists for both of these Middle Eastern religions, and I'm quite prepared to accept you feel this way. PalestineRemembered 20:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Who are you referring to when you keep saying "the Torah Jews"? If you're referring to the person behind the jewsagainstzionism website, please explain who he is, and why he would be considered a reliable source. Jayjg 20:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

To answer Jayjg's question, "Torah Judaism" has been used as a synonym for what the rest of the world calls "Haredi Judaism" preferred by many ultra-religious Jews for two reasons: (1) they feel unfairly defined by outsiders by a Hebrew word, haredi, that has a negative connotation (roughly meaning "afraid of God") and (2) Ultra-religious Jews believe that they alone are interpreting the Torah correctly and, thus, the other Jewish demoninations for not strictly "Torah Jews" but Jews that have disregarded the Torah in one way or another. Naturally, this is representative of the religious/non-religious divide with each side labeling the other in an unflattering light. This is similar to the abortion debate's POV labels of pro-life and pro-choice.

To answer PalestineRemembered's question, it is not that the Misplaced Pages community distrusts sources written by ultra-religious Jews. Its just that the website you plan on citing is not "regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." They clearly have a political/religious slant, which means they are not NPOV, and call for the destruction of the modern State of Israel. Jewsagainstzionism are the mirror image of Kahane.org, a website devoted to the infamous Jewish religious nationalist that called for a theocracy in the State of Israel with expanded borders and reckless disreguard for the lives of Israel's Arab citizens or Arab neighbors. Both websites use the same tactics of argument from biblical and talmudic sources and a redefinition of history to suit their own destructive POV. Therefore, if jewsagainstzionism is a reliable source, then I insist that Kahane.org be treated as an equally reliable source of information on the Arab-Israeli conflict. --GHcool 22:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm familiar with the phrase "Torah Judaism", but it's used by a large proportion of Orthodox Jews, many of whom are actually Zionists, so this website certainly cannot be representing them. It's rather strange that PalestineRemembered would appoint this individual's website as a representative for millions of Jews. Jayjg 22:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not claiming that JewsAgainstZionism represents a huge movement, only that it's web-site has enough oversight to render it a Reliable Source, at least for the purpose of information (less so for opinion?). The impression I get from this site is that it represents many thousands in Brooklyn (?). Furthermore, they appear to have collected quite a bit of material that "supports their POV". This is valuable, allowing us to say that, for instance, Hebron wasn't obviously steeped in aggressive antisemitism in 1929. (We know from other credible sources that bombers and gunmen travelled to Hebron and that Slonim thought they increased the danger to the community, so there's a real possibility that outsiders set out to damage race relations, and somehow scored a lucky hit). I see nothing in the "Torah Jews" material that is "surprising" (ie needs especially good sources by policy). Are you denying that any of the people referenced said what is claimed of them?

Furthermore, a check on the web for "Torah Jews" finds 28,000 references, all of them apparently refering to a group that opposes the existence of Israel. And to further demonstrate they're a real part of the spectrum, I even find this article, Torah True Judaism: Unity or Uniformity (Mar 07) - "Being a Torah Jew just doesn’t seem to be enough, I guess. One has to have that extra word ‘true’ attached to it." - so it's a movement that even has it's own splitists! That's the marker of a fully formed and significant body of opinion.

And none of this is addressing the most interesting allegation, that the author of the web-site is an extremist. PalestineRemembered 08:56, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

"Torah Jew" is term used by most Orthodox Jews, it's not unique to this website, and, as pointed out, quite a few of those who use the term are Zionists - this website certainly doesn't represent them. Now, on what do you base your claim that the "web-site has enough oversight to render it a Reliable Source, at least for the purpose of information" and that "it represents many thousands in Brooklyn"? Having "collected quite a bit of material" describes hundreds of thousands of websites, but that doesn't make them reliable. Please provide evidence to back up your claim that this personal website is in some way reliable. Jayjg 00:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

We've had two claims that the Torah Jews (or "an individual who claims to speak for them") are "extreme", now you're claiming they're equivalent to Kahane. A quick check of kahane.org reveals two photos of a guy in a base-ball bat with a stick. A sentence pulled out almost at random "Binyamin Netanyhau said that he doesn't want to build now on Har Homa,because "concerning Jerusalem, one should do, and not talk!"... Did you getthat? Neither did we. The only question remaining is: Did half the nationvoted for a valium pill, a clown, or just a plain liar?"

I see nothing similar to indicate that a charge of "being extreme" can be levelled at the "Torah Jews", who appear to be a credit to their race. The human race. Here is an interview video, some of them are demonstrating "Torah Jews Protest AIPAC - March 21, 2007 - "The state of Israel, with God’s help, should be speedily and peacefully dismantled, so that we can once again live in harmony with the Arabs and Muslims, as we have for hundreds of years." My God bless you Rabbi, in this world and the next. They come across as thoroughly decent. PalestineRemembered 08:56, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

These same Jews, that are a "credit to their race," attended the Holocaust denial conference in Iran. You wouldn't be trying to quote Holocaust deniers, would you, PalestineRemembered? That would be out of character. --GHcool 20:04, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

67 - 59

i believe the general consensus is 67 or 66. a single/couple of sources stating 59 seems as negligible as the number of people claiming the moon landing was fake... anyways, it's open here for discussion. p.s. please add a bit of info on the referencing for this new information. Jaakobou 08:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

A wiki page, ideally, strives for coherence in style and statement of the facts. One cannot announce in para 1 the figure of 67, and then much further down the page, avert the reader to another figure, 59. A personal belief about a 'general consensus' is not sufficient grounds for disputing documented evidence which qualifies that 'general consensus'. Most readers of these articles read them for information, they do not belong to a 'general consensus'. I would say rather that there is no consensus yet because, to my knowledge, no competent historian has established why a variance exists between what popular books (Dayan's and many others) say, and what a very good professional historian states. In general, I trust more what historians say (and even they have trouble over consensus) than what public memory recalls. I myself first read over the years 67, quite frequently, in general, non-professional memoirs and books, and came across the lower figure only in the work of a professional historian. I am curious why Gilbert gets that figure. Perhaps someone could email him. I am also not happy that one should engage in battle over the precise numbers who were murdered in a massacre. It is ugly to do this. But, unfortunately it is done throughout the literature on massacres, Turks vs Armenians on 1915, neo-Nazis contesting the obvious 5+million Jewish people killed in the concentration camps, equivocations over Deir Yassin (see the wiki site), gulags in the USSR, Japanese disputes over the number killed in the Nanking massacre, Chomsky's errors over Cambodian victims of the Khmer Rouge holocaust etc.etc. We must strive for precision, not deface the memory of the dead with shoddy incongruities.

I have reverted for a very simple reason. To repeat. One cannot say 67 in para.1, and then qualify that down below with a notice drawing the reader's attention to an alternative estimate, 59. To put 67 in para.1, and then allow 59 (a legitimate, sourced alternative figure) below means (1) scrappy historical writing, which hardly dignifies the page (2)and insinuates, unfortunately, that by maintaining the two figures in that order, one hopes to catch quick readers' eyes with the higher figure, in the expectation that some will not scroll down the page to note the variant figure, and thus remained impressed with 'the common consensus'. I'm sure you do not mean to do this, but it would be an unfortunate consequence of the editorial policy you favour. As to your request for further information, I did cite my source for the 59 figure, and am not sure what 'further' means, and would be obliged if you could clarify.

p.s. I personally would appreciate if someone could take the trouble to list the names of those massacred at Hebron, and also the names of the 19 Arab families who did offer protection to their Jewish neighbours fleeing from the onslaught.

Regards Nishidani 15:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Please be aware that Misplaced Pages articles are not considered reliable sources for Misplaced Pages's purposes; among other things, they can change from moment to moment. Also, please find reliable sources from historians, not polemical political writers for your claims. Thanks. Jayjg 02:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Dear Jayjg

Reliable sources from historians are, I'm sure you will appreciate if you examine the sources cited in these various articles, not the only source of material for wiki pages. Were they, there would be far less writing in here than is the case. In regard to the Middle East, you do not seem to be aware of the standing of Chomsky's historical writing. His work is thoroughly documented, according to professional criteria for historical writing, on every page. He is, among other things, a recognized historian on Israeli-Arab affairs, controversial in some quarters, certainly, but for his views, not for any slipshod documentation. Shahak again is dismissed for unreliable claims, but in pointing you to Shahak's essays in the Journal of Washington's Middle East Policy Centre, I indicated that a Washington think tank which deemed Shahak's interpretative essays, with their detailed knowledge of primary Israeli newspaper sources,among other things, important and publishable, in so doing recognizes his work as important. These policy journals of the American establishment do not, I repeat, do not give vent to the airings of polemical oddballs.

Allow me to be a tad repetitive here, one historian may say something, but considering his location and name, i'm guessing he doesn't speak either arabic or hebrew, and his notes/opinions/statements are not part of the general concensus. imagine we place the phrase "some believe it was faked by the gouvernment" on the intro of the article about the moon landing... there is off course room to write this down somehow.. but i don't think this statement/opinion is notable enough to fit into the intro. Jaakobou 13:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe i found a resolve for this issue and also a conclusion to the origin of the minor opinon. 59 Jews were slaughtered on that very day, while 8 others died of their wounds in the following days.. there's horrific images of melted arms and 3rd to 4th degree burns. here's one source, but i've also read this before on others... please correct the article to explain that Gilbert is an example of a minor mistake in the assessment. Jaakobou 13:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Dear Jaakobou Martin Gilbert is Jewish, one of the foremost contemporary historians, who has worked in the archive at Yad Vashem, lived ion Israel (he was there during the 6 day war) taught in Israel, at both Tel Aviv University and the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. He has written, at a rough guess, at least 15 books dealing with Jewish history, from the Holocaust to the Middle east. I don't think you should take his word lightly. I have no reason to deny the horror of the episode, you don't need to convince me.As to the 59 Jews directly killed, and 8 dying of their wounds subsequently, that certainly looks like a reasonable explanation of the variance. All you need to do, for the Misplaced Pages article, is add the source, in English. The corrective would be important, because the casual reader, consulting this subject, is often bewildered by the variation in figures, and if that variation, now documented, can now be, by reliable documentation, explained, a small mystery will have been, thanks to your researches, clarified for future generations. RegardsNishidani 09:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• Start-Class Palestine-related articles
• High-importance Palestine-related articles
• WikiProject Palestine articles
• Riots in Israel and Palestine