| Revision as of 12:10, 4 October 2006 editZero0000 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators41,898 edits →UN mediator← Previous edit | Revision as of 12:19, 4 October 2006 edit undoAmoruso (talk | contribs)13,357 edits →UN mediatorNext edit → | ||
| Line 264: | Line 264: | ||
| ::Please remain civil and cool. I have the diary too and this does support it. Your interpretation is false, teh very fact he went on private meetings with abdallah more than numerous times proves it. If you want , I can name other scholars who have made same assertion (like Katz). ] 11:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC) | ::Please remain civil and cool. I have the diary too and this does support it. Your interpretation is false, teh very fact he went on private meetings with abdallah more than numerous times proves it. If you want , I can name other scholars who have made same assertion (like Katz). ] 11:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC) | ||
| ::: So you copied the quote on page 114 from the diary as you cited, is that right? --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 12:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC) | ::: So you copied the quote on page 114 from the diary as you cited, is that right? --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 12:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC) | ||
| ::::No , actually I saw references to his meetings with abdallah and with british representatives in several places including Katz's Days of Fire on page 449. I went on checked the reference, confirmed it's true and wrote a summary. Katz depicts how Berndaotte flew immediatly to Amman without hesistation upon a request from Abdallah, afterwards he went straight to the british embassy, and it's collaborated in the diary. ] 12:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 12:19, 4 October 2006
 | Scouting B‑class Mid‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
2003 discussion
Moved from user talk page:
Hi Ruhrjung,
Re: Your reverting of my change to the Folke Bernadotte entry - regarding Lehi.
Contrary to what you say, Lehi being a terror organization is very much disputed. Most (or at least many) Israelis (myself included) do not consider Lehi to be a terrorist organization. Lehi never targeted innocent civillians in attempt to terrorize them. All of Lehi's attacks were against military or government targets (including high-ranked officials such as Bernadotte). This is very different than what "proper" terrorist organizations do - attacking random civilian targets such as busses or airplanes.
Avraham Stern's memorial day is attended every year by Israeli political and government officials. Given Israel's effort to gain international support for its ongoing war against terrorism of all kinds, you wouldn't expect Israeli leaders to associate themselves with the memory of someone who led a terrorist organization. Indeed they don't - like me they believe that Lehi, while sometimes using extreme measures, was not a terrorist organization.
I'm not really trying to convince you that Lehi was not a terrorist organization (you are entitled to your own opinion on that) - only that the issue is disputed. Since it is indeed so, the proper place to discuss it is on the Lehi page - rather than have is stated on every page which mentions Lehi.
uriber 21:17 27 Jun 2003 (UTC)
As Folke Bernadotte not was in Jerusalem in the capacity as an officer of any Government or conquering Power, or something similar, but as a mediator - and as he was not there as an officer of anything, except the United Nations - I have some problems to understand you, and if I remember correctly also David Ben Gurion would have had so.
I mean: The wording as it stands there is far more NPOV than many thinkable alternatives, and by moving away from the NPOV-version, you invite to unwished changes, which beside diminishing the general value and credibility of wikipedia articles also will call for booring reverting. The subject of the article is Folke Bernadotte, and it can't be assumed that readers follow links. What's relevant here is the reasons behind the assassination, and there maybe the nature of the assassains is of some interest?
Just start with the accusations against Bernadotte for Nazi-collaboration and spying for the British, and I think you get the picture. See for instance http://www.lysator.liu.se/nordic/div/folke.html
best regards!
-- Ruhrjung 22:49 27 Jun 2003 (UTC)
There is no disagreement on the facts: Bernadotte was in Jerusalem as a mediator on behalf of the UN. As such, he had a potential influence on the future of the young state of Israel. Some people believed then (maybe correctly, maybe not) that this influence was dangerous, perhaps even destructive - and concluded that assassinating Bernadotte would eliminate this danger. This was the reason behind the assassination - not the fact that Lehi was a "terrorist organization".
As I see it, political assasination is not a form of terrorism. If it were, we would have to come up with a different word for what I see too often on the streets of the city where I live - the mass murdering of random, innocent, men, women and children going about their everyday business. (For a few recent examples see Terrorism against Israel in 2003). I'm not saying political assassination is a good thing, or a legitimate thing, or a morally justifiable thing. I'm just saying it is different from terrorism.
When you say "I have some problems to understand you" do you mean that my English is not good enough to understand (if this is the case, I apologize) - or do you really mean that you have problems agreeing with me?
Ben-Gurion condemned the assassination of Bernadotte. He might have even called it an act of terrorism. This does not prove anything. Ben-Gurion was a politician, and he frequently said (and did) things which were contraversial. Israelis have disagreements among themselves, as I'm sure Swedes sometimes have too.
Why is "The Jewish terrorist organization Lehi" more NPOV than "the Jewish organization Lehi"? The latter is completely neutral - it contains nothing disputed. How can you say it's non-NPOV? How does it diminish the credibility of the WikiPedia? If killing Bernadotte was a bad thing to do, and it was done by Lehi, than the reader can conclude by his own that "Lehi was bad". You don't have to shove this conclusion down his throat by adding the word "terrorist". If the reader is interested in forming an opinion on Lehi based on additional facts, he can follow the link. Misplaced Pages should provide the facts - not make moral judgements. That's what NPOV is all about as I understand it.
As a final thought - just consider what would happen if I searched for all mentions of the PLO in the WikiPedia, and added the words "terrorist organization" before each of them. If you consider Lehi to be terrorist - you must do so for the PLO as well. But I do not think it would be constructive to state this every time the PLO is mentioned.
Regards,
uriber 08:49 28 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Let's start with the understanding:
I am not conciously provocative, and I meant litterally that I didn't/don't understand how you think, although this is improved now. I also guess that both of us use English as a foreign language.
Secondly:
At least in "my" part of the world, PLO is a notorious terror organization. (Particularly in Germany.) LVI/STERN/LEVI is however not known, why I believe there is a need to characterize the group. The NPOV lies, according to my view, in chosing a term which is sufficiently descriptive for such readers who, if promted to edit, would tend to stress the relations to IDF and Israel's state leaders (and their indirect or direct responsibility), and at the same time (on the other hand) sufficiently distinct not to throw blame on the Jewry or Israel collectively. This I feel you do by characterizing the group as plainly "Jewish", and I believe your wording here invites to further editing.
Finally,
I believe in keeping to the definitions valid before the September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack in USA. The term "terrorism" has since then become much more used, and its usage has also become much more questioned. I believe this process is not yet ripe, why I think seriously intended texts must be Conservative in their wording. Everyone knows that terrorists usually are freedom-fighters for someone else. That's trivial. However, if not as an act of terrorism (as the word was used before 2001), how would you characterize the assassination of a benevolent mediator from a neutral country, without any other power than that of proposing compromises? It was rather others than the victim who were targets of a intended psychological impact. "Political violence" against someone without political power, what's that if not ...terrorism?
-- Ruhrjung 13:50 29 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Thank you for your detailed replies, Ruhrjung. I find this to be an interesting discussion, and I hope you feel the same. I'm sorry if I was somewhat aggressive in my previous posts. I sincerely wasn't sure what you meant when you said you had problems understanding me. I'm glad we cleared this out.
I now understand better your reasons for wanting to label Lehi as a "terrorist organization" - you do not want people to think it represented all (or most) Jews. I'd like to suggest the following alternative wording: "the Jewish extrimist Lehi organization" (or perhaps, use radical instead of extrimist). This wording makes it clear that Lehi represented only a small part of the Jews (or Zionists) - which is an undisputed fact - without using the term "terrorist", which, as you said yourself, does not have a clear, agreed-upon, definition.
I hope you will find my suggestion reasonable. If you do, I would appreciate it if you went ahead and implemented it (in that case, there is no need to answer my note, unless you want to, of course). If you do not agree to the suggestion, please explain why.
You say the PLO is commonly known to be a terrorist organization. Just as an experiment, I'm going to edit the PLO page to say that. I would bet you 10 WikiMoneys that within 24 hours my change will be reverted on the grounds of being non-NPOV (except I don't have any WikiMoney - so let's not make this an actual bet :-)
I disagree with you regarding the motives of the Bernadotte assassination. You say he was "without any other power than that of proposing compromises". I think this power, when backed by an organization such as the UN (which was perhaps at the peak of its strength at that time), is not something to be taken lightly. Bernadotte was promoting a plan which, in some aspects, was much worse for Israel than the 1947 partition plan (which was pretty bad as it was). Mediators often do much more than "propose" plans. If they are backed by a strong force, they often have the power to impose their plans (See, for example, the US Road Map for Peace these days). From what I know, the reason behind the assassination of Bernadotte was to make sure his plan never became a reality. I disagree that it was done in an attempt to terrorize anyone else.
The term "terrorism" was used (here in Israel, at least) to describe random acts of violence against civillians (the kind I mentioned in my previous note) well before the September 11th attack. For me, at least, this definition was not changed by that attack.
As for what I would call the Bernadotte assassination - I would simply call it an "assassination". This is an accurate, undisputed term, which does not entail any assumptions about the motives of its executors.
Thank you for your attention,
uriber 18:46 29 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Well,
I'm afraid we have some serious divergences regarding the concepts of mediating and neutrality. But I don't think there is reason to discuss that here-and-now. I've been sufficiently much in Israel to know what in my eyes looks like a conception of The-World-Aginst-Us. No harm intended!
We also stress the components of terrorism differently, as you stress civilian victims, and I stress fear in the non-victims, more than the other.
But that's things we have to live with.
I've made a change which I hope is in your liking. I persist, as you see, in the wish to denominate the Stern gang as Zionists instead of Jews, which they of course also are...
-- Ruhrjung 19:23 29 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Thank you. I'm happy that we reached an agreed solution despite our outstanding disagreements. I have no problem, of course, with the description of Lehi as "Zionist".
Also, my change on the PLO page was already reverted, just as I expected.
Was nice talking to you,
-- uriber 20:35 29 Jun 2003 (UTC)
What about calling it a "political assassination", as for the debate on terrorist group or not these might help: American definition - "The calculated use of violence or threat of violence to attain goals that are political, religious or ideological in nature...through intimidation, coercion or instilling fear." British definition - "Terrorism is the use, or threat, of action which is violent, damaging or disrupting, and is intended to influence the government or intimidate the public and is for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause." -- LamontCranston 02:38, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
For what it's worth in my opinion Bernadotte would have been alot fairer to the Arabs then Lehi would have ever been capable of - Jewish extremists are in the same league as Christian extremists or Islamic extremists - i feel extremists of any kind aren't good for anybody.
Just my two .002
PMelvilleAustin 18:31, Aug 20, 2003 (UTC)
About the murder of Bernadotte
I guess the statement from the UN security council says it all: "a cowardly act which appears to have been committed by a criminal group of terrorists in Jerusalem while the United Nations representative was fulfilling his peace-seeking mission in the Holy Land"
One should remember that the council's statement could have been vetoed by the US, Israels best friend, and as the US choose not to one may take it as the view the international community has on the murder of Bernadotte. That someone wants to dispute that is as it always is with criminals, the law it not for me. Ulflarsen 11:47, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
- At the time, I don't know if the US and Israel were necessarily that close. As I remember, the USSR was Israel's main supporter in the early days. But, yeah. Why Bernadotte? Of all people. --138.28.140.224 06:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Felix Kersten and the forged letter
I deleted this:
- However, it's been claimed that Bernadotte refused to rescue Jews, and the Jews that were included were there in spite of his refusal and as a result of pressure from Himmler and Himmler's doctor Felix Kersten <ref> The Kersten memoirs, 1940-1945, (1956); Hugh Trevor-Roper, The Last Days of Hitler (1971); Baruch Nadal, Bernadotte's murder (1968); Ofer Regev, Prince Of Jerusalem (2006); </ref>
This is based on a story which was long ago debunked. Felix Kersten, who was Himmler's masseur, was a notorious conman. Amongst other things, he convinced Belgium to award him a medal for foiling a Nazi plan to deport the entire population of Belgium when in fact there had never been such a plan. (I might have misremembered the details of that incident slightly.) After the war he produced a letter appearing to have been written by Bernadotte. It contained things like "I do not want to take any Jews." and "Your 'V' weapon is not hitting London well. I leave you a sketch with English military targets." Several historians, including Hugh Trevor Roper (later taken in by the "Hitler Diaries"), were convinced that the letter was genuine. However, when the letter was examined by the forensic division of Scotland Yard they found that it was typed on Kersten's own typewriter. The story of this letter can be found in detail in A. Ilan, Bernadotte in Palestine, 1948 (London: Macmillan, 1989). --Zero 10:34, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- this fact was reaffrimed later. If you think it's debunked, you can add your info on the matter. It's sourced material that cite numerous facts on the issue, much more than what you seem to think. you can't blank out things you don't like. Amoruso 03:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, nice try... Here is an infinitely more reputable source than Himmler's masseur who refers to such claims as "obvious lies" and backs up the claim with facts from the World Jewish Congress . So the scurrilous lies are out and any attempts to return them will be treated as vandalism. --SpinyNorman 08:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- this is not even a source. Why don't you read the book first ? Now to clarify this business.
The information about the rescue missions of Bernadotte is based only entirely after his own books which came out immediately after the war and about witnesses who saw him standing in their way to the rescue. Many scholars have determined that Berndaotte objected to the rescue of Jews and has attempted to convince Himmler not to include Jews among those waiting to be resecued. In the end he did rescue Jews among the rescues (that's why your "quote" is irrelevant) but only because of Himmler's pressure. This is why he can't possibly be in the same list of "people who rescued Jews" but rather "people who were forced to rescue Jews". This is why Yad Vashem also didn't recognise his "rescue" and this fact is sourced with numerous scholars in the article. Amoruso 08:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- By "scholars", do you mean "people with an axe to grind against Bernadotte"? Try finding some actual, reputable sources to back up this preposterous claim. Until then, it is out. --SpinyNorman 09:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- The sources cited are all reputable. Try finding a source contradicting these books perhaps. Not out at all. Amoruso 09:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Amitzur Ilan is a very respected historian, and I cited his book already. If you take time to look at it, you will see how he debunks Trevor Roper's position on this very thoroughly. --Zero 11:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- You don't seem to understand the concept of WP:NPOV and no WP:OR. If you have sources that contradict other sources, you can add them. You can not blank out material. Moreover, the lastest research is Ofer Regev's which prove that Bernadotte was forced to take the Jews, and debunks your theory completely. That's a book from this year. Amoruso 11:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- I think you need to think a little harder about the idea of making a prima facie case for your claim. The opinions of a handful of idealogues doesn't pass the laugh test. You can't take an extreme view posited by a couple of kooks and then demand that other people debunk it. Lots of people believe that the moon landings never happened, but you won't see anything in the Apollo 11 article about these fringe views. If you want to start a separate page on conspiracy theories surrounding Bernadotte, then feel free to do so. But this stuff has no place in the main article. --SpinyNorman 11:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- I don't see how you can call the memoirs of one of Himmler's lackeys (and an established liar) "reputable" as a source. --SpinyNorman 10:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- 3 differnet scholars have established this fact using different evidence, see below. quoting Zero's rhetorics is also not very useful, especially now that you violated WP:3RR. Amoruso 10:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- I can only assume that your definition of "scholar" is different from everyone else's if you seriously consider Kersten, Nadal and Regev to be "scholars". --SpinyNorman 10:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Kersten and Bernadotte had a very public fight over who did what during the war. Kersten became Bernadotte's enemy and that's when he started to make vicious claims about Bernadotte. He wasn't an independent source. It is noteworthy that even those historians who are sympathetic towards Kersten make a point of stating that he was very unreliable as a witness and everything he said needed to be carefully checked. --Zero 11:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
numerous evidence on the issue
The Himmler doctor's claims are only one of a myriad of evidence on the issue. For example, Regev in his recent book (page 184) brings a quote of a recorded interview with Ian Holm , the Danish refugee minister. This also confirms the allegations towards Bernadotte which were elaborated in the previous books cited. Amoruso 09:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Ian Holm?! The British actor? --SpinyNorman 10:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- valueable comment. what's with the spacing ? these are all serious specialists on the issue. Read Trevor-Roper. Amoruso 11:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- I'm just wondering why you think a British actor was the Danish Immigration Minister. Given Kersten's antipathy towards Bernadotte and his "arm's-length" relationship with reality, I'm also wondering why you think he is a valid source. Though I see you've dropped the fantasy that these men are "scholars". --SpinyNorman 11:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- I hope when you come back from your ban, your edits will be more frutiful. Amoruso 11:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- From your point of view, I doubt you will see them that way. But that's just proof that I'm doing the right thing. I'm still waiting for you to explain Ian Holm's relevance to this issue though. ;-> --SpinyNorman 09:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
I came here to do some research on UN personnel who were killed trying to bring peace to troubled region and I have to say Amoruso, your being even ruder and more arrogtant than Norman. And your wrong about Bernadotte. He was a good man who gladly saved lots of Jewish people and was trying to save lots more but was killed for doing it. Shame on you for repeating lies about him. What are you related to one of those Bernadotte haters? --MesaBoogie 12:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- that's helpful. WP:RS, WP:CITE. Amoruso 12:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- I'll take arrogant over stupid any day. --SpinyNorman 09:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- You're also in violation of WP:No personal attacks. Hope you're not looking for another ban, the 7th. Amoruso 09:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- No, actually, I'm not. I was referring to myself - saying that I would rather be arrogant than stupid. I wasn't referring to anyone BUT myself and therefore it wasn't a personal attack. --SpinyNorman 20:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Protected
I've protected this page, and intend to unprotect it in 24 hours. Please see my comments on WP:ANI/3RR. I think it would be best to leave this article be for a short time, and resume editing when cooler heads may prevail. Thanks -- Samir धर्म 11:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree with the decision to protect but it doesn't seem appropriate to protect a version arrived at through 3rr violations (esp. when sourced material was removed during the course of that violation.) I have restored the article to its pre-3rr version while maintaining the protection. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 20:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- If you'd bothered to read the talk page, you'd have seen that the sources for the material in question are academically worthless. If you're not going to contribute positively, I would suggest you not contribute at all. --SpinyNorman 05:51, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- Will you apply that principle to everyone who's editing this page? SlimVirgin 05:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- Sure, are you volunteering to give us an example of abstention? I can't think of any article that wouldn't be better for you not editing it. --SpinyNorman 09:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- Just because a user claimed they're worthless don't make them worthless, it was his personal POV. Amoruso 08:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- Well, since they don't meet ANY standards of scholarship or intellectual integrity, we're all still waiting for you to explain why they should be taken seriously. Sofar, all you have is someone who had a personal beef with Bernadotte and was known to tell extravagant lies, as well as one of the thugs who was responsible for Bernadotte's murder. Can you do better? --SpinyNorman 09:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- Your allegations are baseless. We have different established scholars and experts on the issue, like explained. Amoruso 09:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- Why dont you answer his question, why are you taking such biased material seriously? I think Norman is right and you are wrong. After the prrotect is off I will come back and make sure Kersten material is gone. --MesaBoogie 07:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- it is not Kersten material. It is historians and experts Trevor Ruper and Ofer Regev material. Sourced and accurate material like this won't be removed. Amoruso 07:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Ofer Regev isn't a "historian" nor is he an "expert", he is simply pushing his own extremist POV. Trevor-Roper's reputation as a historian in the aftermath of the debacle surrounding the Hitler Diaries isn't on very solid ground and there is no indication that he's an expert on Bernadotte. So, unless you can do better than these guys, you'd best give up the fight to have this ludicrous material inserted. --SpinyNorman 20:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, they're all in the category of WP:RS, WP:V and WP:CITE. Do not blank out sourced material next time. Amoruso 06:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- You should back up your claim that they're reliable. On what basis do you consider them "reliable". Here's a hint, just because they say things that you are pre-disposed to agree with, that doesn't make them "reliable". --SpinyNorman 06:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- Your wrong. THey're not allowed. Read those things. --MesaBoogie 23:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Ofer Regev, Prince of Jerusalem
The sourced material which was deleted and will return : Ofer Regev, pages 138-165, 184, numerous evidence presented about the issue. Will be re-introduced. Amoruso 12:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Ofer Regev is a writer of popular books and not a historian. --Zero 14:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Ofer Regev is an historian who added further evidence to the already established facts laid by Trevor Ruper and Baruch Nadal. Amoruso 14:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- And Baruch Nadel was a member of Lehi who claimed to have organized the killing of Bernadotte (Cary Stranger, p271). Like that really makes him an unbiased source on Bernadotte! When we start writing articles on someone based on claims by their murderers, that is when Misplaced Pages is dead. --Zero 15:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- what the is Cary Stranger. Anyway, Regev approved Trevor Ruper version and added a LOT of evidence. Amoruso 15:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- And Baruch Nadel was a member of Lehi who claimed to have organized the killing of Bernadotte (Cary Stranger, p271). Like that really makes him an unbiased source on Bernadotte! When we start writing articles on someone based on claims by their murderers, that is when Misplaced Pages is dead. --Zero 15:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
NPOV editing
NPOV editing does not mean removing cited material that you disagree with. It means finding citations that refute the statement and ADDING them to the article. People can then read the claims, read the citations and come to their own conclusions. If you think a claim is from bad scholarship, find a citation that says as much and add that as well. It is not the job of wikipedia editors to decide which claim is true. The discussion should be about how much weight the claims and counter claims should get. Even discussions about weight should be determined by finding citations. Both sides of this debate should be working together to present an well-balanced presentation of the controversy. If you think that you know the "truth" you probably should be putting your efforts elsewhere. -- Samuel Wantman 08:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- well said, this is what I was aiming at, as I didn't mind the addition of more material on the subject, but rather the blanking of the existant material. Amoruso 08:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Interesting position. Some contributor adds a statement
- "However, it's been claimed that Bernadotte refused to rescue Jews, and the Jews that were included were there in spite of his refusal and as a result of pressure from Himmler and Himmler's doctor Felix Kersten"
- without mentioning that the source cited, Felix Kersten, is generally considered a not very reliable source, and without listing other sources for the statement (it is references to two other books, but no information regarding what those books says about where the claim comes from). And then the proof is on the rest of us. Again, interesting position - but not something that would raise the average readers respect for Misplaced Pages I guess.
- To be very clear, I have not seen any statement from reliable sources that confirms what is claimed regarding Bernadotte. If it can be verified - we should of course have it in the article, but as far as I can see we have some mileage before that. Ulflarsen 07:00, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
- I would be adding direct quotes from Regev soon. The primary evidence on the issue is not based on Kersten but at more parties involved. Amoruso 07:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
- I completely agree with the comments above made by Ulflarsen.Longleg 20:07, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Unprotected
Article unprotected now -- Samir धर्म 05:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Regarding Zero's blanking
You're only allowed to add material if you think it's relevant. Your mass blanking of sourced material is not allowed. If you later claim that it's vandalism to restore the version before your blanking that's more bad faith from your part. Your claims that the information was not according to the sources is false. Amoruso 23:19, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
- I didn't blank anything. I replaced poor material by good stuff copied directly from the documents themselves. And you obviously never looked at Bernadotte's "diary". --Zero 02:18, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
- Obviously i did and i quoted what was said in it. you can not blank what you don't like. these are all facts. Amoruso 02:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
- So the passage "When proposing an offer..." was quoted from the source you gave was it? --Zero 08:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Seems user Zero has done a good job showing that the accusations regarding Bernadotte are just that, accusations, while you have not been able to come up with reliable sources. Kersten is not reliable and has been shown to falsify documents, Trevor-Roper relied on the former - and the last two seems to have a axe to grind with Bernadotte due to his position as UN mediator in Palestine. So I suggest you revert back, and I also suggest you remove the similar accusations from the article about the White Buses. Ulflarsen 05:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
- I'm afraid that's Zero and apparently your POV and OR. Misplaced Pages is about citing WP:RS and that's exactly what was done. I do intend to quote directly from Regev's book - he has evidence much different to Kersten from other indepedent sources - soon when I get the book to my hands again. Removing them is vandalism. Amoruso 05:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
- You have stated that you will quote from the book for some two weeks now, without actually doing it. I suggest you remove the allegations regarding Bernadotte until you can show proof here that he indeed was against taking jews with the White buses.
- Sorry, I didn't have time but I'll get the book this week. I don't have to cite directly from it of course, I cited the relevant pages. Amoruso 01:10, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- You have stated that you will quote from the book for some two weeks now, without actually doing it. I suggest you remove the allegations regarding Bernadotte until you can show proof here that he indeed was against taking jews with the White buses.
I think there's something you fail to understand. Saying "seems to have an an axe to grind with bernadotte" or attacking credibility is your WP:OR which is fabricated by Zero0000. Sourced material can not be blanked out just because someone doesn't like it. You can contradict it but you can't blank it out. There's no problem to include Zero's quotations as well on the issue. The problem is when he starts vandalising the page enforcing his own WP:POV. Both opinions can be heard, also Kersten and the allegations that he fabricated documents and so on. All this should be addressed. He can't decide for the reader, which is what he consistently did. Amoruso 04:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- First, I think Zero has done a great job on improving the section on Bernadotte as a UN mediator including adding primary references. Second, Amuroso's accusations on Zero for vandalism is very inappropriate given that Amuroso himself recently blanked the improvements of the above-mentioned section. Longleg 20:17, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
UN mediator
I think the sentence:
- Bernadotte had a close relationship to British delegates and especially to Abdullah, king of Transjordan.
is irrelevant in this context (point-by-point lists of the conditions of the proposals) and should be removed from the paragraph. Longleg 20:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
- well it's obviously relevant in SOME bernadotte context. if you feel it belongs in another paragraph, relocate it... it is there since the original edit, and later blanked out by Zero in his massive edit. Amoruso 10:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
- OK, I suggest this sentence is then moved to another context, either the "Assassination" section or perhaps a concluding section covering the legacy of Folke Bernadotte. By the way, are you sure this a correct interpretation of the source? It seems strange that Bernadotte would have bluntly admitted that he was biased towards the British and the Jordanians? It should be noted that for diverse political reasons Bernadotte has often been indicted with sometimes quite different and mutually exclusive claims (e.g. biased towards both the Germans and the British, which for obvious reasons seems quite unlikely).
- No, of course he doesn't say it. But it's obvious from the text (his meetings), and mention by many scholars who looked at the diary too. It doesn't say he was biased btw, simply that he had a close relationship.Amoruso 10:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
- OK, I suggest this sentence is then moved to another context, either the "Assassination" section or perhaps a concluding section covering the legacy of Folke Bernadotte. By the way, are you sure this a correct interpretation of the source? It seems strange that Bernadotte would have bluntly admitted that he was biased towards the British and the Jordanians? It should be noted that for diverse political reasons Bernadotte has often been indicted with sometimes quite different and mutually exclusive claims (e.g. biased towards both the Germans and the British, which for obvious reasons seems quite unlikely).
- well it's obviously relevant in SOME bernadotte context. if you feel it belongs in another paragraph, relocate it... it is there since the original edit, and later blanked out by Zero in his massive edit. Amoruso 10:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
I deleted that sentence for a reason. Unlike Amoruso, who seems to be copying citations from an unnamed source in violation of policy, I have a copy of this "diary" (actually a journal always intended for publication) of Bernadotte and so can check the claim. Turning to page 164, we find at the top of the page that B got a telegram from Abdullah asking to see him. This was towards the end of the truce in early July. B then went to Amman where "King Abdullah expressed his extreme uneasiness at the prospect of the war breaking out afresh." That's about it. There is nothing here about a close relationship and nothing to suggest more than the relationship one would hope an official mediator to have with the various parties. On other pages B describes similar meetings with Jewish leaders (eg. Shertok on p202, a delegation of rabbis on p142, etc etc). In summary, this sentence is an attack on Bernadotte that is not supported by the source. --Zero 11:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
- Please remain civil and cool. I have the diary too and this does support it. Your interpretation is false, teh very fact he went on private meetings with abdallah more than numerous times proves it. If you want , I can name other scholars who have made same assertion (like Katz). Amoruso 11:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
- So you copied the quote on page 114 from the diary as you cited, is that right? --Zero 12:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
- No , actually I saw references to his meetings with abdallah and with british representatives in several places including Katz's Days of Fire on page 449. I went on checked the reference, confirmed it's true and wrote a summary. Katz depicts how Berndaotte flew immediatly to Amman without hesistation upon a request from Abdallah, afterwards he went straight to the british embassy, and it's collaborated in the diary. Amoruso 12:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
- So you copied the quote on page 114 from the diary as you cited, is that right? --Zero 12:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
- Please remain civil and cool. I have the diary too and this does support it. Your interpretation is false, teh very fact he went on private meetings with abdallah more than numerous times proves it. If you want , I can name other scholars who have made same assertion (like Katz). Amoruso 11:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC)