Talk:1929 Hebron massacre

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^Talk 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^Talk 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 [1] 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.^[2] 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 Wikipedia 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 ^(Talk) 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: [3]. Jaakobou 14:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

another link with a citation for ethnic cleansing to hebron: [4]. 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. [5] "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 Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia.--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, Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia, 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. [6] 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia 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^talk 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 Wikipedia 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 ^talk 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 ^ну? 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 ^ну? 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^Talk 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 Wikipedia 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)

Opposed - I do think the term, while probably a fair reflection of the intentions of the rioters towars the Ashkenazi yeshiva population, is inappropriately contentious, given the lack of clear sources.

12:16, 16 September 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 ^talk 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 ^talk 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^Talk 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^Talk 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 ^(talk) 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 ^(talk) 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 ^(talk) 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."[7] 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 ^(talk) 23:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I see at least two people writing on that site[ it is well presented, well sourced and full of interesting material. It certainly gives the impression of fronting quite a substantial sectio of opinion, with street demonstrations etc. (PR, forgot to sign yesterday) PalestineRemembered 10:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

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 ^(talk) 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 ^(talk) 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^Talk 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[8]. 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[9] 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".[10] 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 ^(talk) 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 Wikipedia 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 ^(talk) 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."[11] - 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 ^(talk) 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.[12] 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?"[13]

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.[14] 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)

PalestinRememberd: ? Hebron Arabs being racist doesn't make sense? With the greatest respecr - what planet are you from? I propose an experiment to determine the racialsim or otherwise of Hebron Arabs. How about you dressing up as a Jew, then walking down the roads into the heart of Arab Hebron, and let's see what happens next. Not all the Arabs of Hebron in 1929 swere racist - and not that in other incidents Jews cannot be declared immune of that charge - but clearly something happened in Hebron in 1929 that all Arabs can be ashamed of. Mr FFB 12:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Nobody has ever attempted to claim this was not a massacre - which is very, very different from what happens in every case where Arabs have been massacred. eg Deir Yassin, where at least 95% of the 100s of books on the subjects refer to it as a massacre, but there are well-known WP editors in good standing still proud of complete denial. PR^talk 10:34, 3 October 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^{Chalk Talk} 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 Wikipedia articles are not considered reliable sources for Wikipedia'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 ^(talk) 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^{Chalk Talk} 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^{Chalk Talk} 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 in 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 Wikipedia 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)

User:Nishidani,

1. it matters not that he's jewish, i really don't understand the logic behind that one and why you insist bringing it up.
2. it does not matter his work history either, as long as the concensus of sources not only state the 67 number but they also manage to explain his minor opinion... btw, i'd like to see the body of text, perhaps it's an issue of selective reading on your part.
3. it matters not that the source i provided is in hebrew as long as it's a more valuable one than the english ones found up to now to explain the discrepency... off course, if an english one is found then it takes the lead however, while there's no english one - it does not mean that the information is not reliable.
4. if you re-read what i've stated, you can undersand how this discrepency should be handled (i.e. by mentioning it in the body of the article - not the intro). please fix this issue.

-- Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Dear Jaakabou.

I think you are forgetting the rapidly changing grounds of your dislike for including a source like Martin Gilbert. I have successively outlined many grounds (1) one of the world's top historians (2) a friend of Israel and Jewish (that I mentioned only because people objected irrationally). (3) You mentioned the word consensus. You have not shown that 67 represents a 'consensus'. I instead cited direct sources for both figures. This is what is called cool objective reportage. You haven't justified your use of the word consensus, whether it is a matter of public opinion or among historians. On this issue, so far, the only reputable source professionally cited in here is Martin Gilbert. The sources for 67 are either undocumented or from non historians like Moshe Dayan (4)If the source is in Hebrew, then, this being a site in English for English readers and editors, you owe them the courtesy of translating it, and providing the name of the person who makes the affirmation. Otherwise, you are impeding your now-Hebrew speaking readers from checking your source (5) If you want the quote from Gilbert I will give it to you.

I have refrained from automatically reverting until you can provide me and others with a reasonable source in English, or translated, for what you assert. RegardsNishidani 13:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you could tell us what Gilbert's source is? I've found that "Report of the Commission on Palestine Disturbances of August 1929" is the basic document in use. Tewfik^Talk 19:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Tewfik. I can cite the relevant passage, but it is immaterial what Gilbert's source is, because wiki edit challenges are not supposed to question the reliability of a reliable source, which is what people are doing in here. But I would like you to provide us with the exact breakdown of the figures in the "Report of the Commission on Palestine Disturbances of August 1929". That is a crucial document. Part of the difference in the figures is due to heart attacks during and some weeks after the massacre, and that therefore using the word 'slaughter' of 67 is misleading. I can also provide a list of the people who died of heart attack from the shock of experiencing the horror. I have refrained hitherto from getting involved in a nitpicking debate on this precisely because I find such hairsplitting discourteous to the memory of the dead. But history is a precise discipline. That is why, from the beginning, I have refrained from details and simply stated the variation, which is the most honest thing to do. The whole ugly dispute could be resolved amicably by saying 59 were butchered on the day, and a further 8 died as a consequence of wounds or shock in the following weeks, making for 67 fatalities. I doubt it will, of course. Nishidani 09:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Nishidani, wikipedia is not a soapbox, basically, you're forcing us to work to explain the common cited number. i've done my work already, finding a couple sources that explain the discrepancy. if you insist on proving the gilbert point, you should work to find others of repute who support his alleged claim (i have not read his book and there's always a possibility he's either talking on the number of people dying in the city that day or that he mentions the 8 more later). what matters is that "your" point was refuted and you insist on it.. well, back it up rather than tell us to work for proving reality. i'm sure you can understand where inserting that gilbert was stupid when he cited 59 because he forgot another 8 people would be WP:OR on our part... and not very good for gilbert's reputation... but feel free to make the research to later add that information as "gilbert, a jew, made an error and cited 59 as the number of casualties" **sigh**.

User:Jaakobou Many here are synthetic, so synthetic their succinctness leaves their reasoning in obscurity, and is not clarified by links to Wiki policy. Linking to Wiki guidelines indeed is often abused when there is no real case, a gesture which is pretextual, to provide the impression a guideline has been broken when this is not the case. I at least respect those who disagree with me, and provide prolix explanations. The link you provide explains nothing. Gilbert is one of the foremost modern historians, neither you nor I can question his credentials. He does not make an 'alleged claim'. He notes the number who died in the city that day. As to who died there, Hannah Slonim died of a heart attack, not from the savageries of the assault itself, as did another person some time later in Jerusalem, according to a relative who is still alive. She was a victim, yes, but cannot be counted among the 'murdered'. You are counting at least two people who died from shock among the murdered, as far as I can see. By the way, the house of one of the Hebronite Arabs who sheltered Jews and saved their lives was seized after 68 by the 'settler' gangs, and now houses them, in the name of revenging 29. But this doesn't interest you. (p.s. Without being offensive, particularly the second part of your screed is not comprehensible in English)Nishidani 15:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Nishidani, i got no time for lengthy discussions about resolved issues, wiki is about verifiability and encyclopedic value - the reference/note about gilbert has neither of the two. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Jaakobou. Wiki is about verifiability and encyclopedic value indeed. That is why I quoted Martin Gilbert. Mind you I have a dozen sources that vary from figure to figure. For example:- Does the Memorial of the Jews of Hebron, as submitted to the High Commissioner of Palestine, conclude or not with the following words:

In the name of sixty-five slaughtered . .? Look at it. Stuart /Shlomo Hersh over at Ramat Mamre, Kiryat Arba will give you a copy, if you email him. It's not Sir Martin's figure, but it isn't Moshe Dayan's either, nor the one you insist on as the 'consensus'. Actually, one could write a reasonably long page on this. I have a dozen sources myself. But am busy with life, and reading. Work on.Nishidani 21:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

if you have a link to this paper, we can/should maybe mention it. to claim the number was 59 just because of gilbert (i havn't seen his source) seem wrong both on the factualness and also on the encyclopedic value. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

">Jaakobou Don't misrepresent my position. From the outset I cited both figures, giving precise references in books, by authoritative figures. I then declared (see above) I don't know which figure is correct. There followed a campaign to muzzle the variant figure given by Gilbert, to get it off the page. There are several written sources for the period, one of which is Maurice Samuel, What Happened in Palestine,October, 1929; Boston, Stratford Co., which prints the Memorial. You will never get the truth looking around for links on the Internet. The problem is very simple, and you could start to see the difficulty in the figure by looking at (1) 'The Memorial' in Maurice Samuel's book (2)Benny Morris, Righteous Victims, Alfred Knopf, New York 1994 pages 111-120. (3)Tom Segev, One Palestine Complete, Henry Holt, N.Y. 1999, pp 314-327, and a few other sources, like Gilbert's. It would be wise not to repeat the refrain about 'factualness' and 'encyclopedia value' since those are the principles that have guided my correction of the original, misleading number which several of you insist on as 'consensual'. Consensus on a page where no one is familiar with the historical literature has zero value for the historical facts and the encyclopedia as a valued and reliable source of information. Doing net searches for 'links' that shed light on a topic is like the prewar Munich comic Valentin's act. At centre stage there is a circle of light, and under a lamppost a figure fossicks about searching for something he has lost. He searches obsessively in every corner of the lit area. A policeman passes by, and asks him,'What are you looking for?' He says, 'My watch'. The cop replies,'But there's no watch here.' 'Oh, yes I know,' the clochard replies,'I dropped it out there, but it's no use looking there, because there's no light'. The light on most of these issues is in books, not on the Internet.Nishidani 08:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

i'm sorry, you just used maurris samuel (see some of his quotes here) as your first example, so i simply can't waste more research time on your lengthy texts. please give some thought to the text you provide (and the people you quote).

as for the memorial, i don't mind a mention of it. but a small memorial discrepancy is not on the same level as an obviously/allegedly mistaken source. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Jaakobou Thanks for the wiki page ref. on Maurice Samuel (note spelling). I wasn't familiar with it. It's very thin, and somewhat misleading but does say:'He and his work won widespread acclaim in the Jewish community during his lifetime'. You find it distressing. It is neither here nor there whether he had other prejudices (those cited, and there are worse ones one could dig up from his many books, are identical to those of Baruch Goldstein). He was a contemporary source for the Jewish community abroad on the events of 1929 at Hebron. If you read books instead of wasting time scanning the Internet, you would have known that Samuel helped Chaim Weizman on the latter's autobiography. Weizman esteemed him. You don't. But that doesn't mean he can't be used as a source.

Unlike yourself, I have no conviction either way about the figures: 59,65,67, they are fluid in the serious literature. From the outset you have challenged any attempt to alter the highest figure given in para 1,as though anything lower would detract from the tragedy. I have simply shown that reputable historical sources vary. You don't like even citing this known variation on the page. All this nonsensical waste of time would have been avoided if you simply allowed that sources differ, from 59 to 67. Since what we are doing is provisory, it makes sense to document in full view, a minor difficulty, so that someone can then see it, and clarify it. Your editorial approach only hides from view the problem.

Your remarks on the Memorial as a source are irrational. You have fought teeth and nail on 67, when two minutes research even on the Net would tell you that at least 2 of those counted in that figure died of heart-failure, and were not murdered directly (hence the figure 65 in the Memorial). The Memorial was written by contemporary members of the Jewish Palestinian community, intimately familiar with the facts and the accounts of the survivors, and states a figure in contrast with that one you insist on, a figure you do not source, but simply assert on your own authority to be 'the consensus'. That document was drafted and presented by community leaders to the British Mandate authorities. Throughout this argument you have insisted on 67 by referring to a 'consensus'. You are obliged to justify the word 'consensus'.Neither I nor anyone else should take your word for it. Nishidani 11:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

this is not a blog, if you have something of value with proper citation, feel free to edit the article, if i will feel you are misrepresenting history with improper use of sources, i will change the article. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

'if i will feel you are misrepresenting history with improper use of sources, i will change the article.' Nishidani 13:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

So it is your feeling that Sir Martin Gilbert's figure, duly sourced and cited by me, which you think/feel is mispresenting history. The meaning is then 'I' (Jaacobou) will not allow 'history to be misrepresented' by one of the foremost historians of the modern world. Enough said. Thanks. It's quite clear now Nishidani 13:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

others might revert your "foremost jewish historian of the modern world" also if they "feel" you give overdue weight to an oversight and as result misrepresent the current consensus. *shrug* Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Jaakobou. I repeat, do not rewrite with prejudice what I am on record as writing, to distort it. I did not write:-

'foremost Jewish historian of the modern world'.

I wrote:

one of the foremost historians of the modern world'.

You judge wholly subjectively Gilbert's statement as an oversight. The 'consensus' you allude to is that of yourself and one or two other people in here who prefer not to look into the dispute among professional historians, informed Israeli figures or contemporary reporters I have introduced ( Morris, Dayan, Segev, the Memorial, Maurice Samuel, Gilbert, Gottesman, to name but a few). Actually 58 were buried in a common grave in Hebron directly after the massacre. A week later, 5 more had died, bringing the number to 63. Where the two who died of heart attacks from shock fit into the various statistics given by reliable sources (from 58,59,63,65,67) is not clear. Note I do not interfere with the text. I prefer to seek an understanding here, before proceeding to textual revision Nishidani 17:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

there's better ways to get understanding than to give undue weight to one/two individuals. you can manipulate numbers by talking about heart attacks, but you can't really convince me when i see the images taken in the hospital and the list of names of the deceased. i can agree on 66, but i will not support 59. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Jaakobou I'm quite familiar with the photos. I have read the details of the euphemistically named 'mutilations', in fact castrations. I don't think I am less disgusted than you are when I am exposed to such images, despite the fact that such atrocities are all too common, and are served up to us every day these days. I have read at an early age, and minutely, Raul Hilberg's monumental history of the Holocaust, and believe every word of it. I happen to come from an ethnic group which suffered centuries of intense discrimination, ending in the starvation of 2 million and the mass emigration from the prospect of imminent death by malnutrition of millions of others. One of my ancestorts murdered an Englishman in revenge for the rape and rapine the latter exacted on people of his village. But when the IRA representative knocked at my father's doors for funds and sympathy more than a century later for a sanguinary fight against the British, he had the door slammed in his face. The fact is that, of the two massacres at Hebron, one is minutely focused on the details of what part of the Arab community did to pious Jews, the other is intensely defensive of the honour of Baruch Goldstein, and careless of the details of the violence meted out to the victims. The same thing happened on the Deir Yassin page. This intensity of focus on one's own community's sufferings, and hedging whenever the other community suffers expropriation, massacres and injustices, devastates the complexities of historical truth, and produces an unfortunate impression of bias in this Encyclopedia.

I am not supporting Martin Gilbert's figure of 59, which clearly does not cover the overall number of victims. I have no intention to manipulate figures. I am saying that the several figures represent different calculations over time, and different contemporary reports. The text uses the word massacre and 'murdered' of 67, and the overwhelming percentage of the 67 were massacred and murdered. But when one uses these words of some people known to have died of shock at the horror they witnessed, one misrepresents. Hannah Slonim was not massacred or murdered: she died of a heart attack, as did Noit Geva's relative. Again, Zeide Bernzweig's testimony speaks of 63 holy martyrs over a week after the massacre. In short, in the Hebron massacre of 1929, there were 67 victims, the vast majority were murdered on the day or died of wounds shortly afterwards: a handful died as a consequence of the shock sustained by the horror they witnessed. They cannot be included in a phrase like 'succumbed to their wounds'.

To quibble over figures may seem indelicate, but a considerable historical literature on Deir Yassin, reflected at the Wiki page on that massacre, devotes much space to contesting claims. The horror suffered there, and at many other sites of massacre like Safsaf, where Arab village women were raped brutally, is on a par with that at Hebron in 29, but an intense amount of controversy rages over figures. I would note, out of scruple, that accounts of the number of wounded in the Baruch Goldstein case, vary from 125, to 150, and this should be documented. What remains however noticeable, is that no one troubles about how many of the 125/150 died of their wounds afterwards, or from other causes as a result of that episode. They don't even have names. Yet, the figure of '29' stands simply because that is the number buried on the first day, as 58 were buried in 1929. In the latter case, however, those who died afterwards are meticulously included in the overall figure. In the case of the 1994 massacre, the first day figure is taken as definitive, and no one wonders whether the devastating effects of Goldstein's gunfire shortened the lives of those he wounded, in the following weeks or months.

The page is unbalanced in barely skimming past the fact that a very large number of Jews, nearly half on some reckonings, were saved by Arab neighbours (a large part of the mob came from villages outside). Some 25 individual Arabs are known, by one account, at considerable risk to their own families, to have led their besieged Jewish neighbours to the sanctuary of their own homes. Not 'dozens', but, according to Meyer Greenberg's account, hundreds (280-300) of Sephardi Jews survived by virtue of these acts of heroic decency by their Arab friends. To detail the gory massacre, and not detail this extraordinary operation of rescue, is deeply unfair to historical memory. Perhaps they do not fit all of the requirements of being classified among 'the Righteous among the Nations' in the secular sense of Tzadikei Umot HaOlam, but what those families did compares well in its nobility to what Europeans honoured by that title did during the Holocaust. To diminish this is to dishonour the truth.It also means that while Europeans can be recognized for saving Jews, 'Arabs' have a tougher time in being recognized for acting out of conscience to perform similar acts of mercy Nishidani 09:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Nishidani, i got no time for lengthy discussions about resolved issues. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I know. But note I am only dealing with unresolved issues.Nishidani 13:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

pardon my bluntness, but it could seem that you're far more interested in polemics than getting to the point and resolving anything. using +4000 chars and mentioning europeans, Baruch Goldstein, IRA, Tzadikei Umot HaOlam, etc. simply has nothing to do with the point we're supposed to be talking about... which is, in my opinion resolved allready. please don't expect me to waste time unless you have something of value to contribute without forcing me to read meanningless chatter about your personal perceptions on the arab-israeli conflict and other conflicts i'm really not very much familiar with. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Jaakobou I don't mind bluntness, and would never rebuke anyone for it. You recently said 'i can agree on 66'. I have no idea in the world why you now believe '66' would be closer to the truth than 67. Why have you changed your mind? The eventual figure of 67 could be true, if it means comprehensively (1) 'murdered' (2) 'died of wounds', and (3) 'died as a result of shock soon afterwards' etc. You cannot say, as the page now says, that In total, 67 Jews were murdered in Hebron; 59 died during the riots and 8 more succumbed to their wounds later, and be faithful to the historical record, since at least 2 died of heart attacks and were not wounded. The page therefore 'misrepresents history', as you would put it. I have documented two instances, but won't enter them because I wish to achieve prior consensus before touching the text Nishidani 20:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

how did you conclude they were not wounded? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Jaakobou I didn't conclude anything. I just trusted what Noit Geva's reconstruction of her mother and grandmother's experiences said of the massacre, and what Hannah Slonim's relatives said. That is not a comprehensive list, but a good start to understand why the Memorial of the Jewish Community of Hebron mentions a lower figure. You would have understood this if you read my post above. You won't trust me of course, but it is all there, even on the Net, if you care to verify.Nishidani 21:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

links can be evaluated, 1500 word essays on talk are not something i'd subscribe to. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I see another innovative policy coming up - most editors might think that sources have to be used simply and solely on what they actually contain, but User:Jaakobou sets us right, they can be "evaluated" and POV inserted. And I must thank him for making something else clear, the thoughtful and balanced contributions of literate and logical editors (such as Nishidani] is not really very welcome. Far too much danger of articles being written to WP policy and in and NPOV fashion. PalestineRemembered 19:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Revision

I think it is time to revise this page thoroughly. It is poorly written, repetitive, and confused in its chronologies. I have done an initial contribution, to show the lines I think fruitful. But much remains to be done. I think we should stick, for the main outline to several major sources, Benny Morris, Tom Segev, Gottesman's memoir, Noit Gera's memoir, and a few other contemporary documents, some of which are already cited.

Hebron was linked several times, the word massacre recurred several times in one paragraph: In one section the word women and children was repeated three times. Since we are dealing with a massacre, we have no need to bludgeon the reader with the obvious in order to create an effect. The frightful nature of the violence lies in the facts themselves.

Earlier I had touched on the figure of 67. My point, as the record shows, was that the 67 word cannot properly go with 'murdered', since two people died of heart attacks. I have almost finished compiling a name list of the dead (one also exists in the Sefer haHebron, which I would appreciate being used if someone here has a copy to give a more complete account).

I have elided material that is generic, and not germane to the actual facts of Hebron, but which can be see via the links left on the page. I have also made a distinction between the Sephardi and Ashkenazi communities, since it figures in several primary documents, as well as a distinction between the two dozen odd infra-Hebron families and the large majority of Hebronites who lived outside of the ghetto, in lodging rented from Arabs. The way the original text ran gave the misleading impression that all Hebronite Jews lost their property inside the city. The number of Hebronite Jews with property was in fact much smaller, and most Jews registered there rented from Arab landlords. The impression that the whole population was driven from their private houses which were then seized by Arabs reflects a POV of the present Hebronite Jewish population, to justify its seizure of property (in my view). As is on record, some of those properties seized were in fact owned by Arab families like the Al-Zeitouns, who actually saved many Jews. I do not think this needs to be mentioned in the article, but at the same time I object to giving the impression, which the earlier version did blatantly, that the taking over of houses after 67 was merely a reclamation of property under Jewish title. The facts are far more complex. I hope we can work to improve this article collaboratively. There is, as usual, no rush.Nishidani 12:38, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I've only had a few minutes to glance at the text against the chapter in Segev it is clearly based on. I made, while comparing the two, several adjustments, correcting misreports. (i.e. Two boys stoned to death = in Segev one boy stoned to death, the other stabbed to death). But I would much prefer an autonomous rewriting integrating several accounts. So don't take this particular edit as anything other that a correction of the page against Segev's narrative, which it more or less cannibalises. Indeed, it is, up to the point of my last edit, virtually a plagiarising lift from Segev, and as it stood might be said to violate copyright. I should be able, for one, to work more intensely on the text towards the end of the week.Nishidani 20:50, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Jaakobou I have reverted because that is substantially what you did to the prior text. As indicated here, I consider the earlier version a very poor text. I don't think it would pass a high school grading, stylistically and in the way it marshalled the facts. Secondly, the text you have now reestablished essentially gives as very selective paraphrase of Segev's account (almost plagiarizing parts- in one section there is almost a wholesale paragraph that is quoting Segev without acknowledging the fact, and technically this is plagiarism according to the standard manuals of academic writing. Evidently therefore we cannot use only that text.

I suggested we form a rational chronology of events, integrating the various sources, Morris, Segev, Gottesman, Maurice Samuel, the Sefer haHebron (which I hope you can cull material from since it is unavaible to myself, and so far does not seem to have been used. That book is a document of primary importance and Hebrew-speaking editors should help us by exploiting its copious material) and several other texts.

As to specific edits. I put 'some' which you deleted, because, as I have frequently argued, you cannot use the word 'massacre' or 'murder' if some of the victims died of natural causes. The highest figure I can obtain, after some months research, is 65, with two dying of heart attacks, one during the massacre, the other weeks after it (in Jerusalem, from shock). It is, at least in English, and in historical writing the world over, improper to say of someone who dies of heart failure during or some weeks after a massacre, that he/she was 'massacred/murdered'. Not to accept this is to lay oneself open to the charge of being indifferent, for POV reasons, to historical truth, i.e. to want to extract the highest possible figure for, God forgive me the idea, rhetorical effect. Massacres have no need of rhetoric to impress those who read of them of their inhumanity.

You want 'Arab civilians and policemen' instead of 'Arabs' specified as the perpetrators. I think 'Arabs' is sufficient. Cafferata found one policeman, as far as I recall, from Jaffa, slaughtering a Jewish person, and subsequently shot him. Cafferata, for what little he could do, did not intervene alone, or solely with the assistance of the one Jewish member of his force. Though the Arab contingent fired into the air, they did not collectively ('policemeni.e.,) join in the riot. Arab policemen subsequently guarded the survivors as they made their way to Beit Romano. The way you have phrased it, it is as if the Arab policemen were part of the riot. If you want to document this, which is a highly specific issue, then the logical place is further into the text, not in the intro. which must be generic.

The word 'civilian' is obvious: clearly those who massacred the Jews of Hebron were civilians. It was stuck there in order to get over the innuendo that the Arab police-force under British control was so ineffective that the Haganah had to be reorganized.

Generally, if I may be permitted an observation, you edits tend to simplify history by reducing as much as possible any hint of Arab realities, while maximalizing Jewish realities. That is why I find myself frequently challenging your edits. That the Arabs didn't revolt because they are nasty, but because they sensed that they stood to lose their homeland (and were certainly inflamed by the rhetoric of mullahs and clan leaders in this) is attested by every respectable historian of Zionism. In fact they did lose most of their homeland tragically, and the slight hint of this reality, though in no way diminishing the grievousness of the massacre, should stay in the text. This wasn't a European-style pogrom, i..e, one based on pure Christian hatred, enmity and intolerance of Jews as Jews.Ask Benny Morris. The distinction between Sephardi and Ashkenazi Jews was a very real one according to the documents of the period, and indeed the rioters wanted apparently to kill the Ashkenazi. With the consolidation of a Jewish-Israeli identity these important historical distinctions have been lost in an Us/Them opposition, one that your own repeated insistance on the 'community' (which Hebron documents say was divided by rivalries, which we need not highlight here however) erases.Nishidani 11:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

These are just two of several points. As I said, the text as it stood, is not something any self-respecting editor would like his or her efforts to be associated with, and we owe it to history and the memory of the dead to work much harder than has been done so far. There is no need to 'overegg the pud' rhetorically. But there is good reason to flesh out and develop the text in detail, in order to do justice to the event and its victims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nishidani (talk • contribs) 11:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

My apologies for forgetting to sign my previous remarks. Nishidani 11:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

to be frank, this is too long for me at this moment in time, i've not reverted your edit to the previous text, but only removed some of the changes which were against previously achieved consensus. your changes to the intro were the most prominent changes in that aspect.

if there is anything specific that you wish to add or change, please bring them topically on talk rather than make an inclusive change that would be difficult to follow - i've went over one such change and left in a nice amount of your additions/changes.^[15] Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Jaakobou I have reverted at times, but generally take the practice to be deplorable, when it occasions wholesale changes in the text. I hope you agree that, if we are to undertake a revision, which is long overdue, we can do it line by line. I personally find massive revisions unmanageable. Elsewhere, I try to edit slowly, over several days, waiting for other editors to challenge endorse or comment on single piecemeal changes. I find that massive changes merely lead to endless talk or revert-battles which impede both research into books, and intelligent editing. You tell me:-

'if there is anything specific that you wish to add or change, please bring them topically on talk rather than make an inclusive change that would be difficult to follow'

This is surely advice you yourself should follow. I made small edits over time which you have twice or thrice reverted,with minor things adopted. You did this without 'seeking consensus'. None of us has proprietorial rights to this or any other page. So technically I would prefer that we take the page as it is, and discuss our proposed emendations point by point. What you have done is revert massively and then say 'talk' before editing. Do that, and everyone else is licensed to use the same tactic on your edits, which is not efficient. Let's have some discussion in here before preceding.Nishidani 15:46, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

For example, the word 'massacre' is used hypnotically 5 times in the lead para. That is unacceptable in historical prose, because it declares to the reader (1) I can't write for the likes of me (2) I'm trying to make you even more outraged than you are reading the word 'massacre' once or twice, and thus undermines the readers' confidence in your objectivity.

The word 'community' is used 3 times, again hypnotically. It is an unfocused word, since we do not know which specific community is being addressed on each occasion. The Hebron community today (which is frequently criticized within Israel and abroad by the Jewish community), the original community of predominantly Sephardic Jews, (3) world-wide community of Jews (I think the adjective 'world-wide' is best, for several reasons. It made the headlines all over the world, because it provided some evidence that the endemic problem of being victims of pogroms in Eastern Europe (Petliura's murderous pogroms were vivid in the minds of many still at that time)might recur in the Holy Land of Eretz Israel, where Zionism was planting its hopes for relief from antisemitism. The events shook that world-wide community, on whose funding the program depended, because it suddenly drew attention to the possibility that one was getting out of the fat and into the fire.

I Object to the way the fact of Jewish property being seized is phrased. It looks like a justification for what Kiryat Arba settlers are doing. They have not only taken over Jewish properties, they have seized many Arab properties as well, doing exactly what some Arabs did in 1929, on the grounds of 'redeeming' the Holy Land by an act of historic retribution. This is a highly charged issue, and should be phrased with great delicacy, in order that the facts are faced without providing what Malinowski would have called an implicit 'charter' to justify ther equally violent expropriations of Arab land long practiced by Kiryat Arab settlers. The writing of this article requires great sensitivity and tact Nishidani 16:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

discussion of changes

i'm starting this subsection in hopes to find general concensus regarding the differences between the following verions: - the conflicting versions

please make short and specific notations on the following subs to the changes you'd want to see and the reasoning... try to keep it short and to the point. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

issue 1

I have simply called for a collective reading and reasoning over the whole article, to get it up to snuff. I have a very large file by now on the massacre, but with the repeated work on explaining myself I haven't been able to get time to actually work it up to offer that material to the text we are writing. Issue one is the intro. para. I won't repeat the points made in the previous section. They are predominantly stylistic, far too much noisy hammering. The event speaks for itself.Nishidani 16:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

• note: issue has been open for discussion here. JaakobouChalk Talk 17:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

issue 2

I suggest for the main account of the massacre that instead of using a paraphrase of Segev pure et simple, which is how it stood, that we make a complete chronologically detailed account interweaving his fine narrative with Benny Morris's, and any other reliable sources. They all supplement each other. I haven't access to the Sefer haHebron and here, for the third time, ask Hebrew speakers to help out by harvesting its wealth of witness so that we can get a richness of detail otherwise lacking. I have only managed to get a file of some 40 people slaughtered there. I think that book has a complete list, and we could add their names, and links to online sources on their lives like Gottesman's, to a section on the victims. Perhaps Jaakobou could offer to help us on this last point?Nishidani 16:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

i'm willing to work on this if you provide the material, however, it may take a bit of time and i don't think we should keep the NPOV tag based on this issue. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

issue 3

On second thoughts, having just noted that Jaakobou has once more reverted to a very poorly written text, as he was advised repeatedly not to in the cause of consensual rewriting, I will suspend my contributions here, no doubt much to his relief, and work on a solid article on the evidence I have accumulated. When that is in shape, with every point scrupulously annotated according to primary sources, I will ponder rejoining the discussion. Scholarship is a serious business, and too much time is wasted battling a very inane attempt to POV this and many other articles.Nishidani 17:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

honestly, i cannot help you with this, i can only refer you to WP:DR, WP:RFC and WP:3O. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

See also section

I don't mind if you guys edit war over content, but can you please not blanket revert my edits that are more WP:GTL?TIA --Tom 17:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

my apologies, i felt the reoval of the 1938 Tiberias massacre was a mistake and to make the correction with all the information changes, would be too much of a hassle. i agree with your removal of the 1929 riots from the see also section.^[16] Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Issue 1 - the intro

trying to resolve the dispute regarding the issues, i post the current version and a separate talk/comment section.

intro tries

current intro - do not touch

note: i removed the reflist from this part because the duplicate created issues. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The Hebron Massacre refers to the massacre of sixty-seven Jews in 1929 in Hebron, then part of the British Mandate of Palestine, by Arab civilians and policemen in 1929.

The massacre had a deep and lasting effect on the Jewish community. The survivors of the massacre were forced to flee the community, and their property was seized by the Arab residents and occupied until after the Six Day War of 1967, and some of it to the present. The massacre also led to the re-organization and development of the community defense organization, the Haganah, which later became the nucleus of the Israel Defense Forces.

intro play - feel free to touch

if you edt, please leave a comment and signature after the reflist. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The Hebron Massacre refers to the mass murder of sixty-seven Jews in 1929 in Hebron, then part of the British Mandate of Palestine, by Arab civilians and policemen in 1929.

The carnage had a deep and lasting effect on the Jewish community. The survivors of the massacre were forced to flee the community, and their property was seized by the Arab residents and occupied until after the Six Day War of 1967. It also led to the re-organization and development of the community defense organization, the Haganah, which later became the nucleus of the Israel Defense Forces.

• 1st edit - played around to replace the word massacre where it seemed fitting. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Issue 1 - talk

• comment, i've went over this, and don't really see what has been described as "noisy hammering", perhaps some clarification would help. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
  • note - we can edit and/or remove the "and some of it to this day", it's indeed a bit much in the intro... we can phrase it better probably. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 02:14, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Noisy hammering is clumsily repeating a keyword several times in the same paragraph for decibel effects on the emotional tympana. Try rewriting it limiting 'massacre' to two occasions, and if you absolutely need to refer to it again in the same para. use pogrom. Same with community. Reflect on the fact that I have outlined the stylistic problem with this and 'community' in great detail several times above. If you can't see the problem, then check with any manual of style.Nishidani 12:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
    • You're correct. It should simply be removed. The phrase is ugly or rather awkward. The preceding phrasing, 'until after 1967' is sufficient.Nishidani 12:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
      • i've made a first attempt, lemme know if this solves it for you. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:23, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

note - it's been a couple days and user User:Nishidani is active, so i'm assuming this issue is closed and inserting the new paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaakobou (talk • contribs) 15:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Not quite. You should consider thinking sub specie aeternitatis as Spinoza would write. This is a long project, potentially infinite, and one should always bear in mind that any heavy handed protection of a POVy site will, one day, collapse and with its all of the hours, days and moneths (which are the rags of time, John Donne) spent as praetorian guardian of the page will evaporate, unless of course you start to give a better track record for listening thoroughly to others.

I note you mention 'carnage' as an alternative to the excess of 'massacre'. That is an improvement. You still have, however, a big problem with 'massacre' of 67 persons, since that is, as I have repeatedly told you, a misrepresentation, since 2-3 of the people were not massacred, if we are to believe the primary sources (which you don't appear willing to consult, i.e. the early Jewish Memorial Book published in the aftermath of the slaughter). I know, for the umpteenth time, of two people included in that figure, Noit Gera's grandmother and Mrs Slonim, whom Jewish sources testify as dying of heart-attack, the former some weeks after the event. I therefore suggest you consult the Sefer haHebron to see the precise list, and secondly that you find a syntactical way of adjusting the word massacre to the facts. I earlier suggested one of several possible rephrasings, along the lines of '67 people died: 59 on that day, and 65 as a direct result of the slaughter'. You'll have your own version, but Mrs Slonim and Noit Gera's grandmother were not 'massacred', and therefore though you stoutly defend the text, inevitably others will see that sense and historical precision prevail, and will agree to revise it, unless you yourself do so in the meantime.

p.s. Baruch Goldstein's slaughter also had 'a deep and lasting effect on the Arab community in Hebron and around the world', but I note a remark to this effect is missing over there.

There are a few other points. But I'll reserve them until I can see your replies and adjustments.Nishidani 17:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

1. you have a point regarding the deaths, but to be frank i feel that the intro does not need to go into such detail on who died how... i think that mass murder covers the issue of how the intro puts it but i'm willing to hear alternatives.
2. i don't have the Sefer haHebron but i'd be willing to go over it.
3. baruch goldstein made everyone mad, including me, but while people were affected, they were not forced out of their homes... if you have anything linking his heineous crimes with reformation of some of the resistance/terror groups, then i figure you can add that type of note into the goldstein article. anyways, reagdrding this article, if you have something i can work with, i'll try to help out and find the more accurate input based on the links you provide. (you should probably start a new subsection)

-- Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and instituted a few more of Nishidani's uncontroversial edits. Good work so far, Tewfik^Talk 06:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Tewfik. Thanks for those edits. I have had some intemperate altercations with Jaakobou, as the record shows, more from exhaustion. I prefer to work on the text rather than have much time dragged out in needless niggling debates, esp. when my interlocutor, probably for linguistic reasons, appears not to understand the gravamen of my suggestions (which are just that my suggestions). I hope I can drop this now, and help work on the page, if, certainly in the coming weeks, desultorily.

You will note that I changed 'community' to Hebron once, and shortened the ref. to Haganah. As above, I don't like, apart from everything else, decibel effects in prose, and your adjustments, along with Jaacobou's proffered 'carnage', certainly lower the stylistically monotonous tone-drone in para 1. 'Community' was chanted three times in as many lines, and to my ear when one does that one is sending, unwittingly or otherwise, subliminal essages.

Jaakobou I'm chuffed that finally someone has responded to my rather parasitical (it means asking others to do work) request that the Sefer haHebron be consulted. That is a rather lengthy book, unless my memory fails, some 400 pages long?, and a daunting task to reread, but it should absolutely be harvested (against of course the historical accounts naturally). I have ventured the suggestion that the Sefer haHebron may provide us with a full list of the victims, whom I think could well be listed in an appropriate subsection. If you could generously oblige us over the next several months with material from this, we shall all, wikireaders and editors alike, be in your debt. Thanks in anticipation.

I'm not prepossessed by the Baruch Goldstein matter. I simply mentioned it to remind you that all communities have deep and lasting memories. Harp on that, and finesse it, and you invite the same phrase to be repeated in every article (Safed's post-1948 refugees) dealing with Palestinian losses and massacres.

That is, in my view (perhaps I'm overreading, but I was trained in literary-textual criticism), the positioning of that phrase before the remark about the retaking of Jewish property after 1967 reads as a justification, an historical charter for all real estate resumptions by the Kiryat Arba settlers, when at least one property was apparently taken from the very Al Zeitoun family that helped save Jews from the massacre. (It seems to be self-evident that the return of a Jewish community to a key and sacred city in Jewish tradition, with deep and continuous roots in Jewish sentiment and history, is something to be augured. I just deeply dislike the way it was done, by someone the Israeli law courts have judged a criminal. That is my POV and explains my sensitivity to wording here).

A last point. I haven't looked at my records for over a month, but offhand I can only recall Cafferata noting and shooting one member of his Arab force. Thus I took exception to the introduction of the distinction 'Arab civilians and policemen' (plural) because it appeared to suggest that, rather than being inhibited from directly shooting at the mob of ethically related rioters (Segev says many were ineffectual old men), many of the force actively joined in the massacre. Subtext? The Arabs can't be trusted to police their own, then or now. If several did engage in the riot, other than the Jaffa policeman/murderer he summarily shot, then obviously the distinction should be restored, but properly sourced.

One final point, that 67 plus murdered vs 64-5 murdered has to be ironed out. There are numerous possibilities. We should vet them. Regards Nishidani 08:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

all the point are worth discussing, but can we please break this down into segments so we can address issues one at a time without being forced to read 4000+ chars every time? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Jaakobou Could I prevail on you for the last time to stop considering this page your personal bailwick, as others have complained already, while using the word 'we' as a synonym of 'I'Jaakobou? You have just restored the 'Arab civilians and policemen' passage, which I questioned. My raised eyebrow at the introduction of this phrase (subtle POVing and message sending) relates to a memory that cafferata's testimony speaks of 1 policeman, not a plurality and secondly, that Segev's account attributes the notorious inefficiency that day of the force to (1) lack of numbers, the British police force in Palestine being exiguous and (2) the presence of many old and ineffectual Arabs in the force. Now it is a matter of correct procedural protocol in writing that whoever introduces new matter should justify it before his/her peers. What you apparently did was introduce this distinction without sourcing it. Once that was done all attempts to revert the phrase to the neutral form existing beforehand have been met with 'Stet' on your part with an 'let's discuss it'. In terms of tactics, here as often elsewhere, I have noted, you habit is to get something into a text that others protest and then, while admitting that is can be discussed (thanks for the permission) reverting all efforts to restore the text to the shape it was before your controversial edit. In other words, you want to make a fait accompli of a text you, innovating, prefer to make stand, and then battle all oncomers in order that some part of that text will have to be accepted. I'm afraid I don't like playing puerile games of this order since they testify to bad faith on the part of the interlocutor. This is not your text, nor mine nor any one else's, and you are, for the umpteenth time, gaming the page in order to create difficulties for a serious revision of that text. I suspe ct at this point that you have no intention whatsoever in collaborating but simply wish to make a war of attrition on whoever has expressed a desire to contribute to the article. I will return therefore to help with this text when I note serious Israeli and Jewish editors other than yourself in here, with a record for attentive, rigorous and well-informed contributions. Tewfik is one such person, but there are many others. Of all pages, those on massacres should not be troubled by bias, and it is a pity that, as it stands, this poorly drafted or copied page does not honour the memory of those who died in Hebron (since you're evidently too busy thinking of using this page to bolster the interests of those who have settled there decades later).Nishidani 13:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

i can't read this mess. can you please break down your arguments so that they can be discussed properly? (not using "we" anymore) Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

If writing clear English strikes you as a mess, then I suggest you work a little more on the language. After all, it is the one in which the article is written and many of your contributions have required correction purely on grammatical grounds.Nishidani 13:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

what's clear is that you self indulge in hostile superabundant gabble, diametric to the benefit and function of this project. seems you're more interested in attacking my grammar woes than in resolving the dispute. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I.e. 'self-indulge' should be, in English usage' 'indulge'. 'Superabundant' is pleonastic since 'gabble' implies already prolixity. diametric should be 'diametrically opposed'. 'Function' is supererogatory, since the project is not a function (except in the sense that a 'function' colloquially means 'partying', which is what your works looks like. 'grammar woes' should be 'grammatical woes'. You see, how can I trust you to understand what I am writing if you don't show signs of being able to grasp elementary distinctions and nuances of language and style in the English language. It gives me no pleasure to state this. Any average hand at writing could have written this article in its entirety, doubling its length, and finessing its dull prose and erratic order, in two days, and here we are, years into an endless mess. So much for respect for the dead.Nishidani 14:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

i stand corrected, you obviously care much more about resolving the material disputes over my grammatical woes. *shrug* Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

No, we are writing English prose and it took me several pages of remonstration to get you to acknowledge that in drafting an entry into an encyclopedia, no normal editor would allow a word to be used 5 or three times in the same paragraph. If you had a feel for the language you would not have troubled me to make the point at length, but rather adopted my hint immediately and varied the language. That is what I mean by wasting people's time. You don't have to take my word on anything, but if I say a phrasing is awkward, you only need to ask around among friends who are native speakers to check. Do it next time and don't suspect some plot.

I have repeatedly called over the last few months for you to read more widely than the Tom Segev text. I know huge numbers of people love to highlight the bloodthirsty irrational Arab motif, when 'introducing' these tragedies, but Benny Morris, in dealing with hebron 29 writes:-

"By 1929 the Arabs understood that the disproportionate growth of the Yishuv, nurture and sustained by Mandatory government measures, promised to turn them a minority in their own land. Nonviolent political protest was proving ineffective, but the alternative would necessarily alienate British sympathy and involve them in conflict with the Mandatory authorities. By the end of the 1920s the Arabs realized that what they were witnessing was separate, exclusivist economic development. According to economic historian Barbara Smith, "the institutional and ideological basis for separatism had crystallised.. The economic partition of Palestine predated geopolitical partition and was well underway. (Righteous Victims p.111).

The specific incidents that led to the Hebron and other massacres were sparked off by a combination of the manoeuverings between the Husseini and Nashashibi clans (the latter in the pay of the Jewish Agency) and Jabotinsky's Betar tactics of provocation, as with the famous incidents of trying to erect semipermanent structures on the Wailing Wall (where in Moslem belief Mohammed's horse had been tethered), against precedent. All of this fine detail is lost, in an introduction which reflects the comic book version of history, bad guys versus good guys. All you are doing is fiddling about with the text to get an emotional outrage sustained in support of Kiryat Arba. Your and my duty is to see that the events are understood as they were lived in 1929, esp. by the Hebronite Jewish community, which lived with a mindset totally different from the one prevailing today, and whose memory should not be contaminated by the contemporary history of that city. Read, man, read (Morris, Gottesman, Samuel, the Palestine Post (where Sir Martin Gilbert got his figure of 59) the Sefer haHebron (tell me how many names it records!) etc., and then try and work the text collaboratively with those who have done their homework.Nishidani 15:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

i read your post and i have to say that i am outraged that you suggest i am "fiddling about with the text to get an emotional outrage sustained in support of Kiryat Arba.", i note you that this type of commentary is a breach of WP:NPA. if benny morris is your only objective source then i suggest you also accept him when the material cited by him does not fit the POV you're pushing. regardless, i suggest you try a few other scholars for good mesure, start with Palestinians: the making of a nation by baruch kimmerling and joel migdal. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Outrage at what? How else am I to explain your textual behavior? That is the only reason I can find to account for the way you repeatedly rev up the text rhetorically. The nice little hint about after 1967 property belonging to (Sephardi) Jews being taken back by (American) Jews underlined precisely an intent to use this article to vindicate the behaviour of Kiryat Arba settlers. (Try to imagine a Polish Jew born in South America seizing property in Warsaw because it belonged to some Jewish family before the war, and he feels he has a right to it as a Jew, and you may wake up to the point)

Benny Morris is not my only source. I note you have no answer however to the remark he made, which should be used in the background section. You don't like it clearly, as you didn't like my quoting Sir Martin Gilbert (you admitted not knowing who he was, despite the fact he is one of the foremost historians of modern times, and we are supposed to be doing history in here). Had you read properly I cited several sources close to the period, which I haven't yet used. You are holding this page to ransom by stopping others from making a comprehensive rewriting of a poorly organized article according to a dozen new sources. I have indicated them, you do not appear to use them, but keep plugging away at embalming as sacred writ a phrasing you have yet to justify in para 1. Give us a source for the 'Arab civilians and Arab policemen in Hebron', to start with. Nishidani 21:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

dear User:Nishidani, i will not continue this personally oriented discussion. i find your insistance on this type of usage of the talk page, not only a breach of WP:CIV but also insulting, which doesn't happen often with me. i suggest you discuss the sources only without the insinuations on what "you're forced to assume" if you wish to get anything done on the article. quite frankly, there's an abundant of things i could assume about you but i refrain from doing so. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

p.s. i clearly demonstrated why Sir Martin Gilbert was mistaken (unless it was an issue of selective reading), and your insistanceon hismistake was borderline soapbox.^[17] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaakobou (talk • contribs) 21:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Sir Martin wasn't mistaken. His figure was taken directly from research done in Israel on the contemporary Palestine Post account of the massacre published in that week. 58 died directly, 1 of heart attack =59, and this was the precise number all newspapers reported as dying in Hebron on the day of the massacre. His data refer specifically to the burial. That others died in the aftermath is another matter, as I have often noted. In early September the jewish community calculated its losses at 64. I have their report.Nishidani 21:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

so now you admit to selective reading? you've truely reinvented the meanning of "a comprehensive rewriting of a poorly organized article" (Nishidani 21:19, 17 September 2007). i'm sorry i've reverted to this type of personally orientated talk, but i'm having a moemntary lapse in WP:AGF. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

No mention on my part of 'selective reading', and the insinuation is malicious. I have several sources documenting the way the burial figure mentioned by Sir Martin grew, as over the weeks, other members of the Jewish Hebronite community died, in consequence of wounds and or shock-induced heart attack. Being precise with details is what historial writing is about, and it is a pity that you are contemptuous of these subtle conventions, which mark out objective reportage from POVing tribal defence versions. This, like many other articles, is poorly organized, defective in its construction and use of primary materials. You are insistently quibbling on language on pseudo-POV grounds (without providing what the article needs, a comprehensive well-written revision based on several primary and secondary sources). You have offered to use, as I asked, the Sefer haHebron, but don't. I will not add to the text the details I have garnered until I find responsible editors present willing to do comprehensive justice to the tragedy. But I will monitor closely your efforts to POV/Kiryat Arba-ize this text. Nishidani 09:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

i consider your commentary, which i just highlighted, insulting as usual. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

It is of course my POV, but one well founded, and I keep my POV out of the pages, and expose it only in the talk pages, as is proper. All editors have points of view, which they should not confuse with the comprehensive perspective required on the pages they contribute to. Your Kiryat Arba POV is evident in mentioning, in the intro. originally, the Arabs as seizing Jewish property. Such things occurred and is repeatedly mentioned by Kiryat Arba settlers as the justification for their seizing not only Jewish properties lost, but many other pieces of land to which the Palestinians have legitimate title in law, as the Supreme Court has recognized several times (Ma'on al Ja'abari lands, etc). To mention this fact in the intro. to what is supposed to be a description of events in 1929, is to prime the text with a tacit justification for, as you write, what occurred 'after 1967'. The page is to deal with the massacre not with real estate losses (those Sephardi who lost property haven't reclaimed it, as far as I have been able to 'ascertain'). Just one instance of your weather eye to Kiryat Arba interests in drafting this pageNishidani 13:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The book of Hebron

the book of Hebron can be found in it's entirety here:

http://www.hebron.org.il/hebrew/articles.php?cat_id=65

-- Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Jaacobou

This is not your page. Please provide evidence for your textual insertions otherwise they will be edited out. Note that my reference to the Jewish virtual library report on amicable relations between the Arabs and Sephardi Jews has been artfully eliminated, the source is impeccable and is confirmed by Baruch Kaplan whose testimony you refuse to accept because it is cited by Rabbis who dislike Zionism. Had you the slightest knowledge of rthe history of modern Israel you would be well aware that the foundation of the state was considered by many pious traditionalist Jews as an abomination, and your remark that those rabbinical sites which host this material are antiJewish is pathetic, particularly since Kaplan was an eyewitness to the massacre (NOte that you delight in citing on the Deir Yassin massacre page an Arab witness to the massacre who denies it was a massacre, some forty years on, but find it outrageous a Jewish witness to the Hebron massacre, one who affirms its horror, could still hold that relations were good between the two communities). Get your act together, get your information right, drop your POV, and above all, stop treating this page as your private territory.Nishidani 21:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Nishidani,

1. just find a normative source and spare me the standard personal attacks. i'm sure you would not appreciate it if i were to tread in the same fashion.
2. the introduction is, best i'm aware, not only based on the body of the article, but it is also factual... if at least you would have focused on this issue i could have maintained some good faith, but considering the body of your comment (and similar recent comments), i'm afraid i don't. if you still contest this issue, please do it properly.. perhpas by asking someone who knows hebrew to help you go over the material.

-- Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

p.s. if you will take the time to get your information right, then our interactions (as can be seen on this page) wouldn't be so annoying... putting it mildly. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 05:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Jaakobou You write:-

'perhpas by asking someone who knows hebrew to help you go over the material.'

Indeed. You cited the material on 'policemen', you know Hebrew, and therefore I am asking you to 'go over the material', as fits boththe rules of courtesy and respect for your interlocutors who don't. You have, after some months, finally supplied the evidence asked for repeatedly, and have thus gone half way to satisfying the request for clarification. I will still contest the material unless you provide, not only me, but others handicapped by a lack of knowledge of Hebrew, with an adequate English construal. This is an English encyclopedia, and it is standard to supply foreign language source materials with a translation where requested.

I suppose my words were annoying. It was certainly annoying to find the words of a Rabbi, Baruch Kaplan, who was a direct witness to the events, branded as an anti-Jewish, and hence POV, and a disputable source, simply because his letter, kindly translated from Yiddish, was supplied by a site 'Torah Jews' against Zionism. What is a reliable source here? On that criterion one should eliminate all self-referenced articles from Kiryat Arba sources, since that movement was founded by a thug and criminal, Moshe Levinger, and continues, as anyone knows who has daily access to reports on what actually occurs in that town, to use the I929 massacre's example in order to train young Jewish members of that 'community' to behave like the unidentified 'Arabs' who cursed, sang, threw stones, smashed windows' in order to drive off local people from their work and properties, and seize their land and housing? You and others have artfully worked the text to justify thirty years of usurpation, theft, ethnic cleansing, humiliation and bullying that is a shame (as Kaplan and many others admit) to the principles of Judaism, and widely recognized as such within Israel itself. Both you and I, on this, have a declared POV on the Hebron issue, and perhaps should both be excluded from this page. I justify mine as one based on moral principles, which happen to coincide with methodological principles, i.e. all similar events must be treated in a similar fashion, independently of who is the victim, sinced ethnic origin does not give extraordinary privileges in history. Your POV is justified by a nationalist principle, which says, 'we own their land, any method is justified in getting it, and getting them off it, and all pages dealing with 'them' have to be tailored to vindicate our im/moral behaviour in the eyes of goydumb'Nishidani 08:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

you will have to ask someone you have not repeatedly insulted and accused with a plethora of bogus accusations and figurative insinuations.

p.s. your "moral principals" excuse is insulting to anyone following your recent attempts to lower the number of casualties based on (what i consider to be) racist(!) justifications^[18]... not to mention selective bias that you later admitted to.^[19] perhaps, now that you've proven a good number of times that you cannot disassociate your bias from the way you interpret sources, you should indeed excuse yourself from any articles you believe your "moral principles" kick into gear. cheers. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Throw in your racist slurs, they sit well with the anti-semitic charges thrown onto my talk pages. I don't mind being insulted by insinuations. What I protest is your contempt for the pursuit of the truth on these pages, independent of their consequences.

I repeat, your edits on this page consistly allign themselves with the explicit POV of a group of settlers notorious for their thuggish behaviour, criminal records, and habit of thieving, resident in and around Hebron, and their consistent publicitarian campaigns to use the tragedy of 1929 as a pretext for punishing native Palestinian Hebronites with loss of dignity, housing, business and land to which they have legal title. They do this on a daily basis, armed against the disarmed, with the convenient assistance of the IDF, in order to wrest Hebron from Palestinians, in the cause of gaining for Israel, a conquest over the last of the 4 sacred cities still largely in Palestinian hands. That is why you accentuate the property loss of 1929, to provide a charter for justifying the stealing, burning of crops, harassment of shepherds, daily underway at Ma'on, Tel Rumeidah, Hebron, Kiryat Arba etc. That 1929 property was property in specific Jewish hands (most of the Jews in the Hebron area rented rooms from Arab landlords), which in no way entitles strangers to the place, decades later, taking it back on the grounds it is 'Jewish' like them.

I have, as often mentioned, been studying, without hurry to get it on the page, the history of how the figure was arrived at. I collect only Jewish sources on this. Here's one:-

Sept 2 (Bernzweig letter in Meyer Greenberg) 'Now I will tell you the total number of people who were slaughtered in Hebron. As of today, there are 63 holy martyrs. While we were still there, 58 were buried in a common grave, 51 males and 7 females; up to today, there are 5 more martyrs from among the wounded. Of the wounded, 49 are in serious condition, and 17 slightly wounded. Who knows how many more fatalities there will be? The Yeshiva suffered 23 killed and 17 wounded. Eight of the dead and 14 of the wounded from the Yeshiva are American boys. Gevald! Twenty﷓three living Torah scrolls were burned! May the heavens open and avenge us.

'Arabs killed 64 to 67 Jews in Hebron and wounded many others.' Ami Isseroff ‘The Hebron Massacre of 1929’ www.zionism-israel.com/Hebron_Massacre1929.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nishidani (talk • contribs) 13:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

To me, numbers, higher or lower, do not, as they evidently do for you (Qibya, Deir Yassin, Jenin) allow POVers margins to contest the use of a word like 'massacre'. I will make my edit when I have a precise picture of how the frequently cited figure you use was formed. In all probability it will mean 64-5. Will that correction be taken as a huge slur on the memory of the dead, because it assigns some deaths to heart failure from shock or age? Nishidani 10:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

to be frank, i've been insulted by your previous talk page reasoning for lowering the death toll to 59 (mostly after i found the reasoning for this discrepancy), and am not very much interested in "polemicizing" with you. if you have something valid you can surely bring it up succinctly (without all the figurative speech and accusations) and we can put it into the article. but please, spare me the "moral principals" and please, find someone to translate some hebrew sources for you (not me)... and not only the ones written by "new historians" (or "the torah jews" from JewsAgainstZionism.com). Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:09, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Let me analyse what you wrote:

if you have something valid you can surely bring it up succinctly (without all the figurative speech and accusations) and we can put it into the article.

We of course refers to 'you', since you are the main person objecting to my contributions. The sentence says, in effect, 'I own the page. If you want to mosey on in with a comment, I'll think about whether I'd allow it here'

'please, find someone to translate some hebrew sources for you'

Please note.Wikipedia:Verifiabilityunder WP:RSUE

Because this is the English Wikipedia, for the convenience of our readers, English-language sources should be used in preference to foreign-language sources, assuming the availability of an English-language source of equal quality, so that readers can easily verify that the source material has been used correctly'

If you don't adhere to the policy, I will edit out the reference.

'the ones written by "new historians" (or "the torah jews")'

'New historians' simply means those with better evidence at hand, because they access archives once closed to 'old historians'. It's a POV junk term much bandied about here. As for Torah Jews, you evidently know little of the history of Zionism and the fierce opposition the foundation of Israel found in certain traditionalist quarters, in Palestine, Europe and the United States. That tradition still lives on among those who call themselves 'Torah Jews', who are as much Jews as the Karaites, or any other sect. There never was a 'Jewish community' at Hebron, but Jewish communities, with friendly but at times intensely competitive relationships, who differed in lifestyle, dress and Talmudic interpretations. The Sephardis owned most of their houses, the Ashkenazis rented from Arabs, and were often way behind in their rent, no small cause for a small part of the natural tensions that arose there after 1924 when 150 raw European outsiders from Lithuania and elsewhere descended onto the city, and introduced a way of life, pious,studious yes, but completely ignorant of the long and subtle traditions of convivial tolerance Arabs and long-settled Jews had worked out between themselves.I won't put this certainly here, but you, as the unofficial spokesman for the Kiryat Arba viewpoint here, defending its POV, should at least know these things Nishidani 19:21, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

comment - your recent edit/white-wash to the intro is very much disturbing.^[20] i was not aware that cafferta, the man who failed to stop the massacre (according to my reading of testimonies he had a good chunk of responsibility), is more reliable than "some sources" of the other testimonies on the book of hebron. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

NO white wash, just observing the rules, and you shouldn't be disturbed by my edits, since they will be governed by strict reference to reliable sources, and not, like yours, to anything from any source that consoles your POV. Saying Cafferata is 'the man who failed to stop the massacre' (one Englishman among 'thousands of Arabs'. Bravo!) shows your POV. The 'Sefer haHebron' has been read by the historians I will cite. It is not the Bible. And if you use it, you are required by the rules to page it, and translate the relevant sections.Nishidani 19:21, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted because you reverted that paragraph without understanding that the citation of Cafferata's evidence before a commission is not given to introduce my POV, but supply evidence from the chief official present. The note says 'according to'. I also retain the evidence you supply disputing this. This is not a matter of POV, it is a matter of providing various pieces of evidence. To accept, as you did, the testimony of some witnesses in the Sefer haHebron as the truth is to reveal a POV. This is a matter of simple English grammar. Don't contest it, provide proof in the secondary literature from modern historians (who say that in Jerusalem, policemen did often join in riots. No modern historian I am familiar with speaks of 'policemen' joining in the riot in Hebron.Nishidani 19:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

i hope it's fixed to your liking now (according to the body of citations),^[21] try to have someone read you the hebrew source sometime - and please don't remove the word "policemen" yet again because that could be regarded to as disruptive considering you have yet to read the source.
p.s.1. i think you meant to say "no New Historians" (try to go over the criticism section).
p.s.2. regarding your high "moral principles", here's something Benny Morris said on the guardian after he wrote the book you're citing in the article... try to keep an open mind and hear the man out.

-- Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Why would we accept anything Morris now says in interviews when Israeli professors (Pappe) and US professors (Finkelstein), are being hounded from their jobs (and even their country if they're Israeli) for exposing atrocities? PR^talk 22:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)