Talk:1929 Hebron massacre/Archive 2

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)

How on earth do you "dress up as a Jew"? Maybe I should try it some time; I think I must usually dress down as a Jew. RolandR 19:20, 5 October 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. Jaakobou^{Chalk 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)

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)

I'm afraid you will have to reread, if you've ever read it, the rule book. You cannot, on Wikipedia, cite a foreign language source, and refuse to translate it for other editors on the page who cannot read that source, since this violates verifiability. I take your move as a sign of contempt and lack of collaboration.

I will remove the word 'policemen' every time I see it, without fear of being accused of 'disruptive editing' because it is your tactic on this page to get the text back or forward to where you want it, and then accuse anybody modifying against your will, of being disruptive. It is the old problem of WR:OWN. And secondly, my source is Wasserman, who is a pro-Zionist historian. Your source is work commemorating the victims, and, like many testimonies of history is partial, understandably so. Historical works and primary government documents, which have official status because they are vetted committe records compiled by competent analysts, take priority as reliable sources over partisan versions Nishidani 05:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm quite happy to read Benny Morris' personal opinions, with which I, and many historians, disagree. I far more prefer reading his historical works, which are a great contribution to our understanding of what really happened. A pity you like his personal opinions, and ignore his serious research, with your preference for newspaper chat over primary historical documentation.Nishidani 06:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I can cite a foreign language source without being forced to translate 5 pages for other editors on the page -- who cannot keep their civility and soap out of the talk -- since it violates "reasonablitiy" (look it up on policy). you can take my "move" as a sign of contempt and lack of collaboration... however, i take your "moves" as insulting and disturbing to boot.

regardless, i will help you a bit in solving the issue that's bothering you by pointing you in the proper direction to get this matter off your heart - you can try to find someone you have not repeatedly insulted here: Wikipedia:Translation, and perhaps they will be willing to translate the 5 pages for you, i'm sure that if i were to translate small segments, then you would not have been satisfied so i refer you to a page where you can probably someone you will, hopefully, not accuse of "as the unofficial spokesman for the Kiryat Arba" people.

p.s. according to that logic, i wonder who's people you'd be the "unofficial" spokesman of. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

You don't understand the rules governing the use of foreign language sources. Those who post those sources are obliged to either provide an official translation or do it themselves. The other editors are not obliged to do that work, and indeed can challenge and edit out that reference until a translation is provided by the other editor that can allow them to verify the source.Nishidani 10:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

1. i may change my mind if you point me in the direction of the policy.
2. meantime, you'd be better off opening an RfC, 3O or just go where i directed you and ask someone else to resolve this lack of good faith issue of yours.

-- Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

following this revert and following semi-correction,^[22] i opened a 3O case so that we can get an outside opinion regarding the use of the word 'policemen' in the intro. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:00, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Out, out, damned dent!

Nishidani, Jaakobou and PR: IMHO the latest Nishidani revision is superior to Jaakobou's because it does not state as fact something which sources appear to dispute, that there were multiple policemen rather than just one taking part in the riot. As there is agreement that more than one did not act, rather than take part, one must look very carefully at translations or any sources as this is a somewhat subtle distinction, which I am sure some sources elide - again arguing for Nishidani's factual conservatism. Of course we should mention that some sources apparently say that more than one policemen took part, but we can't state it as fact in the lead if there is disagreement.

The relevant policy on translations afaik is Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources_in_languages_other_than_English, although who knows who had a bright idea ten minutes ago. :-). WP:AGF also is quite relevant here. If Jaakobou says something is in a cited source, we are obliged to believe him, as he is obliged to take into account conflicting sources. I believe this policy and guideline make it clear that Jaakobou's interpretation of the translation rules is correct (As far as I understand him). He is not obliged to provide five pages of translation, just a good reference. Anyway there are plenty of Hebrew speakers around, he could just post something in Hebrew and others could check his summation. The main thing is just use common sense, make reasonable requests of each other and take WP:IAR seriously! If people think Jaakobou is saying something controversial, him providing a sentence or two of translation of some source, say ten minutes work, would be nice. He has offered to do so, showing good faith and this is the most policy wants to my understanding. Although possible, it's difficult to concoct a scenario where a good faith editor would not do this; in such a rare case, using a template like {{verify source}} on something really dubious might help. (BTW, many moons ago I contributed to the foreign language policy when this section was being created - on the side of more liberal use of foreign language sources. SlimVirgin, who has greatly contributed to all the policies and kept a lot of "bright ideas" out, wanted more restrictions, but I managed to convince her to be more liberal.) Here as elsewhere, much policy is just reinventing the wheel of academic citation practices. I don't think that standard academic practice requires citers to be translators.Ciao, friends, John Z 23:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, by the way, Sykes' Crossroads to Israel, pp.122+, citing and agreeing with Albert Hyamson's Palestine under the Mandate has a bit on the creation of the viewpoint that considered Cafferata, who certainly deserves an article here, as attackable as the man who failed "to save the lives of seventy victims".John Z 00:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Sykes, p113, again following Hyamson mentions that the Zionists "laid accusations against the British police which they soon found it necessary to withdraw with the admission that what they alleged was groundless" and that this may have caused the Shaw Commission to discount strong Zionist evidence of incitement of the riots. An example why even contemporaneous accusations should be treated with care, as they may have contemporaneous retractions perhaps not always noted.John Z 01:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

John, thank you for participating, AFAIK, the sources do not dispute that there was more than one policeman involved in the violence (and thank you for mentioning the WP:AGF) - does cafferta claim no other policeman was involved, and if he does - does that mean that we mention this on the intro?

p.s. i'm fairly certain that any partial translation i bring up would be contested by nishidani so i suggested he'd open the issue on a proper location.Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 01:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

From what I can tell from the above, Nishidani reasonably believes otherwise; that (modern?, most?) historians don't say policemen, although perhaps they don't say "100% definitely only one policeman." We should try to keep disputes out of the intro, and just give solid information that everyone agrees on. Everyone should always remember that we are editing for non-expert readers who honestly don't know what happened and are trying to find out, and we should try to not drive them crazy. If there is some ambiguity or dispute, often the best thing is just leave it unclear or vaguely general in the introduction, which is supposed to only introduce the article and provide a basis for readers to understand the details and disputes we treat later. So something like "at least one policeman" (everybody agrees with that) in the intro might acceptable to everyone?

I think everyone should AGF (Meaning everyone should accept yours, you should accept Nishidani's and you should accept that Nishidani will accept your good faith, etc, etc.) So if you give a partial translation, Nishidani should accept it for the nonce; as I said, you could just point out which section or post the Hebrew sentences and the partial translation and I am sure many here would be happy to spend a few seconds verifying its accuracy if challenged. BTW I can't participate further as I will be leaving on a long trip in a couple minutes.John Z 01:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I assume good faith when I see similar principles applied to similar situations. Jaakobou picks and chooses. He will not have Baruch Kaplan's testimony on the page because it hails from Neturei Karta, a small minority voice. He insists on having a source posted on a website run by a small minority group, the Kiryat Arba extremist settler movement, however. You cannot dismiss Neturei Karta's evidence (they provide us with a translation from the Yiddish) on the grounds they are a small minority, and then come up with evidence from a small minority (one strongly affiliated with a tradition of extreme fundamentalist terrorism, with several convicted criminals among their leaders) the next minute and post it as unimpeachable. The parallel is fascinating. The Haredi Neturei Karta represent now a minority voice,( their position is identical with what was once the majority view of Orthodox European Jewry (See David Vital on the history of Zionism)) arguing that the state of Israel is a blasphemy, and should be dissolved to allow Jews to live in peace among Arabs. The Kiryat Arba group say all Arabs should be expelled from their lands, to enable Israel to occupy, and populate with people exclusively of Jewish faith and blood, the Biblical land of Eretz Israel. Diametrically opposed small minorities. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

I appreciate the mediation, but you still cannot throw in material in a foreign language and ask other editors to translate it. That is contemptuous behaviour, discourteous (I don't mind discourtesy however, just stupid arguments) and in violation of the rules of verifiability. Nishidani 09:36, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

nishidani, i don't care to make this into a smear campaign against the neturei karta. i did however read the foreign language policy pages and think you are mistaken, proper english and all, with your understanding of it. if you have sources discrediting the book of hebron, saying clearly that despite the testimonies of this that and the other, only one policeman was involved, then by all means bring them up. otherwise, it's pretty obvious that you would not trust a partial translation if i were the one providing it, so i suggest you follow policy and ask for an outsider with hebrew capabilities - or, there is always the option of excusing yourself from the article on the count of hebrew deficiency (and/or "moral grounds" WP:COI POV).

p.s. i'm repeatedly amazed at your demands for courtesy after (what i consider as) your racist and bigoted commentaries. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

YOu are the one introducing new and controversial information into a good intro. So you have to document that well. As my editing history shows, I incorporated that possibility and made no challenge to the source, but simply to the necessity, for the person who introduced the material, to provide a relevant translation for others, which is policy. I will resist, as elsewhere, any attempt to meddle with a page in an obscure way and then ask others to clarify what the mess is about. This is a matter of authorial responsibility, and good faith. At this point I may as well add some curious relevant Chinese or Japanese-language (Japan has a notable tradition of very good scholars of Hebrew and Judaism) sources as well, and ask you to find someone to translate them for you.

I have no intention of discrediting the Sefer haHebron. I follow the usual rules of historians that treat primary sources with great care, and do not regard them as intrinsically authoritative until all evidence is weighed in against what they say. The New Testament says Jews killed Jesus Christ. The NT is a primary source. However that primary document is not therefore, ipso facto, to be believed. In fact historians frequently challenge it as a POV (one that had immense consequences for antisemitic attitudes in mainstream Christianity). (I myself do not believe the NT on this). The situation is analogous to the Sefer ha Hebron, which says more than one policeman joined the riot. I have no problem with that suggestion, but, like the case with the New Testament, I prefer to have that point not mentioned in the text, since it is a highly controversial claim sustained by one source, and requires the authentification of a strong consensus by the historians who specialize in the period. I am interested in ascertainable facts and proper methods, not in charging a page with particular views I might strongly identify with privately. I await some sign that you endeavour to do likewise

As for 'racism' and 'bigotry' (i.e.the suggestion I'm antisemitic, see my talk page where I note this trashy technique of smearing), I won't complain. Be my guest. It's all water off a duck's back. I think my public record (were it known) would compare favourable with the minutely documented racism and bigotry of the people from whose website you cite your material, convicted criminals like Moshe Levinger, Noam Federman, Baruch Marzel and numerous other pseudo-religious fundamentalist thugs in Kiryat Arba and Hebron, whose POV you seem so intently dedicated to posting on this page Nishidani 10:18, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

(1) there's nothing controversial about the material (have you any sources that claim otherwise?).

(2) if i provide a short translation will this issue end and you (and your tag team buddy) will assume good faith and stop reverting?

(3) you brought the racism charges on yourself repeating nonsensically that "hey, he's jewish!!! and the foremost researcher ever!" (trying to lower down the number of casualties), and with your selective reading (same issue) and "moral" bigotry. sometimes, when someone's commentary is called racist and bigoted, it's because he has actually made some fairly bigoted comments and they have earned the title, track record and all.

(4) at the same time, i request (on verifiability grounds) that you post the text from the "The British in Palestine: The Mandatory Government and the Arab-Jewish Conflict 1917-1929" source regarding the incident.

-- Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, Elected patience sing to me and beat upon his walled ears!. There is nothing controversial about the New Testament, except that much of its narration is controversial. If you have some experience of police and newspaper reports of tragedies, incidents, crimes whatever, you will know, as all historians know, and as you yourself repeatedly affirm in your edits at Jenin, what is said in the heat and fury and immediate aftermath, even by sources that are said to be eyewitnesses, is not to be taken, methodologically, as 'true', but must be subjected to close parsing, cross-referenced to all other available evidence, and then, after due deliberation by judges, scholars or whoever, some sort of consensus about what, among the flurry of reports, is reliable, and what less so, comes about. That consensus is, historically, always provisory, but in itself an eye-witness report cannot be used as if it were an historical truth (as you are endeavouring to do in in writing in the intro. 'Arab civilians and policemen), simply because it is an eyewitness report. Kaplan's remark, on its own, like the comment 40 years later from a Jordanian Arab on Deir Yassin, has no value, unless it finds confirmation from several other sources (as Kaplan's remark does). The same holds for the Sefer ha Hebron. There you had houses in various areas full of terrified people, in hiding, glimpsing in panic from windows or cupboards or from under beds, as murderers went about their sanguinary business. Later, records were made, one of which appears to suggest more than one Arab policeman, that identified by Cafferata, joined the mob. An historian notes who said it, tries to look at whether it can be verified as internally consistent, and corroborated by other sources, and makes his call.

Jaakobou, my trouble is that you seem unfamiliar with procedures drummed into university students of all political persuasions when they take on historical or legal coursework. You don't seem to understand method, but simply fish about for whatever evidence might strengthen 'Israel's' case against the 'Arabs', and worry about the status of that evidence only when someone calls you to account.

Nonetheless, I appreciate you offer now of providing the relevant translation. I hope you appreciate that this means (a) providing the names of the witnesses,(b) a brief translation of the relevant testimony (c) the page numbers on the Sefer ha Hebron, so it can be checked. If this latter point is difficult since you may be using the etext and not the 1970 printed edition, you could simply post in here the relevant Hebrew text, passage by passage, under your translation. In anticipation, thankyou.

You write:'you brought the racism charges on yourself repeating nonsensically that "hey, he's jewish!!! and the foremost researcher ever'.

This breaks down into. When Nishidani's evidence was challenged, he reminded his Jewish interlocutor that he was quoting from a conservative Jewish scholar of international repute, a point made in order to underline that the view was not his own POV, but one considered respectable in the mainstream of Jewish intellectual culture. If stating that is proof of 'bigotry' and 'racism', so be it. I call it respect and honour for eminent exponents of an outstanding tradition of erudition, thought and historiography, to which I am in deep personal debt for what the Germans call my Bildung.

I’m far more interested in drafting the text itself, than frigging around endlessly with useless edit battles over minor details best left out of the Intro. Intros. Give the gist, which is then expanded. It is not a crucial point, even if it fascinates me and you, that demands great forensic elaboration to ascertain the truth, if one or two or more Arab policemen defected to join the riot, but a contested detail. My objection to that plural is its POV, which is clearly shown by the subsequent long sentence on the Haganah reform. The POV insinuation reads: (The British couldn’t protect us from massacres, so we had no alternative than to constitute an independent self-defence force to protect ourselves, particularly since the British were pro-Arab, had many Arabs on their force, and these Arabs sided with the Palestinians) I am not raising objections to the Haganah notice, even though its function is to support the ‘policemen charge. It is not quite germane to the Hebron massacre, but I don’t object to it, since it is true.

I suggest therefore that this minor detail, when we eventually sort it out, be mentioned in the relevant section dealing with the actual massacre Nishidani 12:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Just noted your modification of nthe last post. Yes, of course I will give the page number so you can check the Wasserstein text, as required by the rules,so you can check it against your copy, as soon as you provide us with the required work on the Sefer ha Hebron.Nishidani 12:28, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

hebron book = hate-site ?

User:PalestineRemembered, please explain why you pertain the hebron historical records book to be a "hate-website" and on the other side note that www.JewsAgainstZionism.com represent the "true torah jews", "the real practitioners of judaism"^[[23] and that their material (about kaplan) is a much better cite.^{(first rev)}

i note to you that another editor who holds the same POV as yours on the israeli-palestinian conflict has reverted you on this issue.^[24] but you have repeated the removal on the same reasoning (plus making a false, and uncited comment on the events) not to mention replacing "mass murder" to a mere "death" (of 67 jews).^[25]

I have corrected the Oversight by PR in response to your note on 'death'. However, the rest of your remarks is inappropriate. The book, itself a legitimate source for all sorts of details, is hosted by the Jewish Community of Hebron, which is, as I noted above, run by many people with criminal records, and with a meticulously documented history of hate, violence, theft and murder in that area. You objected to Kaplan's evidence because it was posted on a site run by an unrepresentative minority. We (I presume PR agrees) object therefore to you using material (itself uncontested) posted on the website of a small unrepresentative racist fringe lunatic group of settlers, whose outrageous behaviour and values in no way represent that, and those, the majority of the Jews. If you don't accept Kaplan for those stated reasons, then the reasons you state must automatically apply to your own use of the Hebron site, ex aequoNishidani 12:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Like User:Jaakobou, I object to the use of hate-sites (though he beat me to taking a stand against them, his principled objection dates to at least Nov 2006). User:Nishidani put his reference back into the article, perhaps not realising that it's foreign langauge. Nishidani must be bitterly regretting it now, because Jaaakobou has flatly refused to provide any translation of the content of this book, a clear breach of verifiability. I trust Jaakobou doesn't find it amusing to waste the time of this very productive and highly qualified editor, who doesn't hesitate to correct me, as I (occasionally) correct him over eg the meaning of mass-murder, I'm pretty sure that death by mob-violence/riots doesn't qualify. PR^talk 13:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't bitterly regret anything personally, except the history of the world I have to live in. Wiki is under provisory construction, and since I happen to know that the Sefer HaHebron contains an abundance of material on the 1929 massacre, I am naturally interested in it as a possible source for fresh material, of course, handled with great care. I cannot access or read it. But I do no deny Jaakobou a right to use it to help write this page, as long as he takes the trouble to give a proper translation of the relevant material. My objection to Jaakobou is that he does not use his judgement neutrally, since he denied Kaplan's testimony's right to be posted here on the grounds it was posted by an unreliable minority source, which means, logically, that he must deny himself, unfortunately, the use of the ebook of the Hebron Community here, because it comes from an (otherwise) unreliable minority site. One must never, never be too sure of oneself, and one must listen closely even when, all other things considered, one is convinced the other is an 'unreliable source'. That is what Raul Hilberg, whom I humbly consider one of the finest historians of the last century, taught a generation. Never censor your adversaries. They may be wrong even 99% of the time, but even their errors may tell you something. Nishidani 13:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I find it difficult to accept that the Book of Hebron can be worth anything if it's not translated and available in English. Access to (a translation of) the hebrew version held by the settlers of Hebron would be worthless, since we've no idea how it was compiled. The question seems to be moot, there is no translation been made, User:Jaakobou tells us he won't help (even for the parts he wants to quote!) and the reference, with its information, does not belong in the project. PR^talk 13:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

are you seriously saying that the website is run by people with criminal records... and then you expect me to actually read the rest of your comment? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

You object to hate-sites as much (if not more) than I do, and the web-site of the Hebron settlers must be a prime example of stuff we'd never use or even link to. PR^talk 13:43, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

i'm afraid you are projecting your wild POV once again. (is your sole explanation of being reverted is based on an oversight of your POV companion?) Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:56, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

1) are you seriously saying that the website is run by people with criminal records? 2) are you honestly comparing the book of hebron with any material posted on JewsAgainstZionism.com? 3) 'death' as an "oversight" is an interesting statement... it's interesting that suddenly both of you seem to have succumbed to not realizing things and to gross oversights.Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Hebron book and other books

(1) i do not have a copy of the other book and request it's material transcribed here for easier validation. (2) this request comes due to the fact, AFAIK, that i am not obliged by the policies (despite your claims nishidani) to translate well known sources "for validation" unless i am quoting them. (3) considering 1+2 and that i am now making a generous translation on part of this reference, i request the reciprocal courtesy for my efforts i.e. to have both the context and the text of the other book reference registered here (and that bigoted comments regarding any israelis or myself will be avoided in the future). p.s. to all the people involved, please stop removing citations.

It is not a matter of removing citations. There is opposition to your habit of inserting citations from inaccessible sources, unpaginated, referring to contested reports, in the intro.

hebrew text that i am going to translate (pending a statement of WP:AGF regarding both the text chosen and the translation):

כרעם ביום בהיר בא האסון הגדול על עיר האבות השקטה. מרכז ההסתה והשיסוי שבירושלים עשה את עבודתו בחשאי בכל פינות הארץ, וגם בחברון. נמסרו ידיעות על הכנות הערבים להתקיף את היישוב היהודי בארץ. בירושלים ובשאר ערי הארץ שררה מתיחות רבה אולם יהודי חברון בטחו בשכניהם הערביים ולא עלה על דעתם להתכונן לקראת הבאות. יום לפני הפרעות פשטו שמועות על מכתב הסתה שבא מירושלים. אך יהודי חברון לא שמו לב לשמועות אלו; איך יבגדו בהם שכניהם וידידיהם ... ונכבדי הערבים, הלא הבטיחו תמיד כי שקט גמור יהיה ורע לא יאונה.
...
ביום הששי לפני הצהרים, התייצבו רבני חברון לפני המושל והביעו לפניו את חששותיהם. המושל (ערבי-נוצרי) הבטיח להם, שהוא מקבל עליו אחריות שלא יקרה דבר, ומסר להם בסוד, כי שוטרים רבים, לבושים בבגדים אזרחיים, נמצאים בחברון ועומדים בכל רגע על המשמר . . . ויש לו מספר כוחות רב למדי כדי לשלוט במצב.
...
בשעה אחת אחר הצהריים, זמן מה לאחר יציאת המוני הערבים מהמסגדים, באו נכבדי הערבים אל המנוח א"ד סלונים ז"ל, והתפארו על השקט השורר בעיר והוסיפו להבטיח, כי בחברון לא יקרה דבר.בשעה שתיים וחצי, לערך, נראה צעיר ערבי רכוב על אופנוע שבא מירושלים. הוא הזעיק את תושבי חברון הערביים באומרו, שדם אלפי מוסלמים נשפך בירושלים כמים, וקרא את המוסלמים לצאת לנקמת הדם.
...
ההמונים התאספו ליד ביתו של סגן מפקד המשטרה שבחברון, ומשם התחילו לצאת בתהלוכות סוערות. אותה שעה יצא הרב סלונים הזקן מביתו ופניו מועדות לביתו של מפקד המשטרה. בדרך תקף אותו המון ערבים באלות ובמכות. שאר היהודים נמצאו בבתיהם וחזו מרחוק. יש לציין, כי מאחורי ההמון הפרוע עמד מפקד המשטרה הנ"ל. אשה יהודיה אחת, גב' סוקולוב, שנמצאה בביתו של הרב סלונים, לא יכלה לראות בצערו של הרב שנתקף על ידי הפרחחים הערביים, ופנתה אל המפקד כי יציל את הזקן האומלל. הלה ענה לה בגסות, כי אין זה עסקה של יהודיה פתיה, ועליה להיכלא בביתה ולסגור את הדלת "ובדרך כלל - הוסיף המפקד - הרי היהודים אשמים בכל העניין הזה". תשובה זו של המפקד, אף שיצאה באנגלית, עודדה את הפורעים, כי ביניהם נמצאו רבים ששמעו אנגלית ... עדי ראיה מספרים, כי הקצין הערבי איברהים ג'רג'ורה פגש את הרב סלונים לאחר שקיבל את המכות. הרב ניגש ודיבר אליו, אך הקצין דחפו בסוסו.
...
בערב חזר ההמון הפרוע לביתו. בדרך פגשו בבחור ערבי, עבדאללה יעקוב, שהיה מורה בבית הספר של המועצה המוסלמית, שהיה קורא בקול: "חבל, הלכנו לישיבה ולא מצאנו אלא בחור אחד. אבל, מעליש, יבוא יום המחרת ויעלה המספר כהנה וכהנה".
...
בשמונה וחצי בערב קרא אליו המושל את בנו של ראש הישיבה, הא' אפשטיין, ובמעמד הקצין האנגלי ועוד קצין ערבי, דרש כי ילכו לבתי היהודים להודיע, כי ביום השבת ישבו בבתיהם ובל ייראו בחוץ. הקצין האנגלי קרא אז חגיגית: "ישבו היהודים בבתיהם ואני אחראי לחייהם"
...
ביום השבת ... בדרך נפגשו הנציגים היהודים בקצין איברהים ג'רג'ורה, והוא מסר בשם מפקד המשטרה, כי "על היהודים להיכלא בבתיהם, רק אז יוכל לקבל את האחריות על בתיהם" . לא עבר זמן רב ומפקד המשטרה, הבריטי קפיראטה, עבר ואמר אותם הדברים. ... שעה שש בבוקר. ערבים כפריים נוהרים העירה. א"ד סלונים ובן ישיבה אחד, הולכים בלווית שוטרים לבתי היהודים ומזהירים שלא להיראות בחוץ ואף לא להציץ בעד לחלונות. רק כך תקבל עליה המשטרה את האחריות . . . בעלי הבתים הערביים מוסרים לשכניהם היהודים, כי היום תהיה השחיטה הגדולה. הרחובות מתמלאים והולכים בהמוני ערבים מחברון והסביבה, וכולם מזויינים מכף-רגל ועד ראש. שוטרים לעשרות, מפורקי נשק, מטיילים כנופיות כנופיות בתוך המון של אלפי פורעים פראים, שואפי דם ומזויינים בגלוי באלות, בחרבות ובפגיונות. ... מר שניאורסון ממשיך לספר: "...אמרנו ללכת למושל או למפקד המשטרה קפיראטה, כדי למחות לפניהם על השלטונות המכריחים את היהודים להיכלא בבתיהם - דבר המחזק עוד יותר את ידי הפורעים. בדרכנו פגשנו בערבי אחד, מראשי חברון, עיסא ערפה. אמרנו לו, כי אם יאסוף את ראשי המשפחות המוסלמיות בחברון, ואלה יחליטו לקבל את האחריות על חיי היהודים התושבים, כי אז ידעו המוסלמים שאנו נוסיף להמשיך את היחסים הידידותיים והמסחריים אתם... הערבי הבטיח לסדר את העניין על הצד הטוב ביותר, אולם הוא נטפל אלינו בדרכנו אל קפיראטה, מפקד המשטרה הבריטי. בדרך לא יכולנו לעבור, כי ברד אבנים ניתך על ראשינו. קפיראטה זה קיבל את המשלחת בחרפות וגידופים. הוא לא הזמיננו להיכנס למשרדו, אלא גרשנו מעל פניו בחרפות האנגליות הידועות למדי, ואמר: 'הלא אחת ציוויתי אתכם, היהודים, להיכלא בבתיכם!' מששמע עיסא ערפה את דברי הקצין רווח ללבו. ... בחזרה, אמר עיסא ערפה לאליעזר דן סלונים: 'אם תסגירו לידינו את הזרים שבכם - הצלתם את חייכם'. ... בתוך אלפי הפורעים נמצאו שוטרים אחדים והמפליא הוא, כי השוטרים הללו שנשאו אמש רובים על שכמם, פורקו מנשקם ונשאו רק מקלות בידיהם".

-- Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:36, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

translation of boldened text

hebrew text:

שוטרים לעשרות, מפורקי נשק, מטיילים כנופיות כנופיות בתוך המון של אלפי פורעים פראים, שואפי דם ומזויינים בגלוי באלות, בחרבות ובפגיונות.

english translation:

policemen by the doezens,⁽¹⁾ disarmed from weapons/guns⁽³⁾ traveling in many gangs⁽²⁾ within a crowd of thousands of savage rioters, bloodthirsty and visibly armed with clubs, swords and daggers.⁽³⁾

_{translation notes: (1) "tens" = doeznes, (2) "gangs gangs" = many gangs. (3) the phrasing is unclear if the policemen are holding just the clubs or also swords and daggers since previous text mentioned them holding rifles but this one states that they are not holding "neshek" which could mean either guns or weaponry in general - see next testimony for cofirmation on this translation issue.}

hebrew text:

בתוך אלפי הפורעים נמצאו שוטרים אחדים והמפליא הוא, כי השוטרים הללו שנשאו אמש רובים על שכמם, פורקו מנשקם ונשאו רק מקלות בידיהם

english translation:

within the thousands of rioters there were several policemen and what is amazing is, that these policemen who carried last night rifles on their backs, were disarmed of their weapons/guns⁽³⁾ and were only carrying clubs in their arms⁽⁴⁾

_{translation notes: (4) evidence by mr. shniorson, (3) the phrasing is unclear if the policemen are holding just the clubs or also swords and daggers since previous text mentined them holding rifles but this one clearly states that they are not holding "neshek" which could mean either guns or weaponry in general - see next testimony for cofirmation on this translation issue.}

extra comment: the scope of this shocking story is a tad missing without a translation of the rest of the text i cited.

-- Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I must thank Jaakobou for the time and effort in helping us understand these otherwise inaccessible sources. I have just spent half a day reading 300 pages of a difficult text just to help an editor clarify one small point, and I know how acceding to a request can be a burden. I will examine these, and hope other editors will, in good faith, which is what Jaakobou has shown here.Regards Nishidani 17:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Just a query Jaakobou. Is there any indication that the name Mr. shniorson (Schnorsohn?) could be read as (Haim)Schneersohn from the Hebrew? Nishidani

1. only if the translator is a moron.
2. just for the record, the first quote is not by him, only the second one is.

-- Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Then it must be Schneurson, I suppose? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nishidani (talk • contribs) 17:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

ps. Re your recent edit and note 1. If you didn't note it, I had already much earlier today put all of that information at the relevant section down the page (Morris, Segev, Wasserstein, Sefer ha Hebron). (2) Muslims are not necessarily Arabs, and Arabs not necessarily Muslims. This was an Arab riot and no one knows whether all the Arabs there professed Islam.Nishidani 17:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

YOur provisory translation of sentence one can yield three different sentences to an English reader. Tell me which one represents the exact nuance of the Hebrew.

(1) Dozens of disarmed policemen, on foot and in several gangs, mingled with a crowd of thousands of savage rioters, who were thirsting for blood and clearly armed with clubs, swords and daggers.

(2) Dozens of policemen without guns, bloodthirsty and clearly armed with clubs, swords and daggers, on foot and in several gangs, mingled with a crowd of thousands of savage rioters.

(3) Dozens of policement without guns, mingling on foot and in several gangs with a crowd of thousands of savage rioters, were (like the crowd) bloodthirsty and visibly armed with clubs, swords and daggers.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Nishidani (talk • contribs) 17:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

i'm having difficulty following your comment but i will try responding non-the less.

1. you're saying that you've listed down all the information from the book i asked you to cite in the body of the article?
2. i've no idea what you are trying to say with the mention about Islam the religion and Arabs, in any event, i'm not sure it matters to the Pan-Arabic/Islamic political-system/agenda. i can only mention saddam who held the quran and recited some verses before he was hung - surely no one believes he was much of a muslim.
3. all three of your versions are innaccurate - from what the text states,
   1. it is unclear if the policemen were on vehicles or by foot - they were immersed among the gangs of rioters. shouting for blood and committing the violence.
   2. bloodthirsty is stated towards the group itself where the policemen were just mentioned as joined with.
   3. the policemen (who were holding firearms the night before) were clearly armed with clubs, and possibly with swords and daggers... but strangely, not with firearms anymore.

-- i hope that addresses all the issues. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Jaakobou's somewhat clumsy translation is not directly inaccurate. But, by omitting the context, it is (deliberately?) misleading.

The second paragraph of the text Jaakobou cites is:

ביום הששי לפני הצהרים, התייצבו רבני חברון לפני המושל והביעו לפניו את חששותיהם. המושל (ערבי-נוצרי) הבטיח להם, שהוא מקבל עליו אחריות שלא יקרה דבר, ומסר להם בסוד, כי שוטרים רבים, לבושים בבגדים אזרחיים, נמצאים בחברון ועומדים בכל רגע על המשמר .

"On Saturday morning, the Hebron Rabbis met the Governor to express their fears. The Governor (a Christian Arab) promised them that he would take responsibility that nothing would happen, because many police, in civilian dress, were present in Hebron, and permanently on guard". In my reading, this suggests that the unarmed police were present in the crowd, not as participants, but in an inadequate attempt to control matters and prevent violence. The text -- at least, that bit cited by Jaakobou -- offers no evidence that the police were themselves involved in the pogrom. RolandR 20:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

(1) i request you strike out your insinuation of deliberately misleading the involved editors - i've explicitly copy-pasted that text from the article and suggested i translate the entire pasted text.

(2) feel free to follow the other sources as well before jumping to conclusions on what is accurate and what is inaccurate.

-- Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

As RolandR remarks, this gives a context which may help clarify what you Jaakobou selectively presented. It refers to Abdullah Kardos (other sources give 'Abdallah Kardous'), the Christian Arab Governor (or 'acting district commissioner' according to Segev) of Hebron. One can, and it is only speculation not proper to the page itself, but allowable here, wonder whether this statement, circulating among the justifiably agitated Jewish community, indeed prompted, after the massacre, Scheursohn to make his otherwise uncorroborated assertion that 'dozens' of policemen (i.e. the whole of Cafferata's force) mingling with the mob. Only a competent historian can determine things like that, but it is a distinct possibility. RolandR has not jumped to conclusions. He has simply contextualized a selective quote from a large passage. You yourself further admit that the translation is ambiguous, and have failed to adequately respond to my request that you tell us precisely which implication of the three possible is grammatically more probable.

One cannot even consider using material that equivocates on a decisive issue such as this. When I asked you to clarify an ambiguous translation (what you wrote has at least three possible propositional meanings in English), you replied:

'all three of your versions are innaccurate - from what the text states,'

But my three versions try to tease out the meaning of a loose translation whose original has, as you footnote,

the phrasing is unclear if the policemen are holding just the clubs or also swords and daggers since previous text mentioned them holding rifles but this one states that they are not holding "neshek" which could mean either guns or weaponry in general -

You admitted the phrasing is 'unclear'.

I ask you, by providing three 'versions' paraphrasing that 'unclear phrasing' to clear up the 'unclear phrasing'.

You respond all three of your versions are inaccurate - from what the text states.

See the trick? The text is unclear. I note that lack of clarity, and you reply that my notations on that lack of clarity are inaccurate since they don't correspond to what the text states, a text which you have previously said contains unclear phrasing. Jaakobou.

I don't have time to put you through a quick course by virtual correspondence on (1) handling historical documents (2) propositional logic (3) translation techniques and (4) Gregory Bateson's double bind theory, into which you are trying to drive me and others. Either devote more time to being absolutely precise, and attentive to records, or give up trying to turn a relatively simple matter into a Ramayana-length of discursive exasperation.

Apropos. 'i've no idea what you are trying to say with the mention about Islam the religion and Arabs, in any event, i'm not sure it matters to the Pan-Arabic/Islamic political-system/agenda.'

You wrote 'Muslim' for 'Arab', and can't understand the problem. To repeat. A Muslim is not necessarily an 'Arab', and an 'Arab' not necessarily a Muslim. This was an 'Arab' riot. Nishidani 10:28, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

offtopic

Verifiability, a core principle of the encyclopedia, requires a translation be available, the chief proviso being that a translation done by yourself is less desireable than one done and published by an RS. Mass-copyvio is laughably useless, and we should remove it without comment. I'll leave you do that, however, I'm sure you'd not wish the administrators to look at this, or your TalkPage be vandalised by garish threats of being blocked for compromising the legal standing of the project. PR^talk 13:49, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

repeating yourself a gazillion times might feel good, but it doesn't make your claims and soapbox more valid. please pay attention to your mentor when she states this note regarding non english sources on your page. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay you have put into bold two sentences, which you refuse to translate, and, for any bilingual, two sentences take roughly 30 seconds to translate, while you have taken two days to defer translating. What's the problem? Lazyness or incompetence?

just might be your attitude and obvious lack of good faith. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:36, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The Kiryat Arba community is represented by that Website. The behaviour of some members of the Kiryat Arba 'community' remind Yosef Lapid, chairman of Vad Yashem, of what Nazis did to Jews in Yugoslavia. The 'community' was founded by a known thug and criminal, and is doctrinally inspired by a school of 'thought', that of Rav Kook, who maintained mankind is divided into Jews and others, the others lacking the full components of a human soul. I could mount a diatribe, but I won't. I stick to the facts, which are, for this page, that a large number of Jews were massacred in Hebron in 1929, and I don't think this fact should be framed so as to supply any warrant for POVing the article to justify what a very large bunch of aggressive fanatics are doing in robbing, shooting and expropriating Arabs of their property there now, property that in part was Sephardic, and is now claimed by, American Ashkenazi fanatics as their own. Remind me to go back to Britanny and seize that castle my ancestors the du Quesnes had in the 12th century Nishidani 14:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

As to PR's mentor, 'the systematic bias' comes here from an article dominated by Israeli editors. If anything her mentor's reference to 'systematic bias' should imply that non-Israeli or Jewish sources be heard. In soccer, this is called a 'self-goal'. You still need to translate the section, as per Verifiability, so get cracking, instead of dithering over polemics.Nishidani 14:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Nishidani, i'm not interested in arguing with you both on the topic of how violent and criminal the "kiryat arba" people "must be", or the topic of how problematic PR might be. i've left you a note on your page and am requesting you consider my suggestion seriously. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

And I've answered you there. I.e.

Your definition of good faith doesn't correspond to usage. If a man speaking my language suddenly switches to another language I don't know at a crucial point, and, smiling, says, 'it's up to you to hire an interpreter. I've said what I have to say,' he is not acting in good faith but engaged in a taunt. So I will not engage with you on this till you provide the translation required, the only objective sign of good faith. So far I see only boorish manners Nishidani 14:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

if you scroll up, you just might find the source of the problem stems from your boorish manners (1)(2)(3). *shrug* i am afraid i will not translate unless you will agree to the selected text (and stated conditions). you are free to look for people you trust more (and havn't insulted) to translate the text for you, but i am willing to go your way if only you will show a desire. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you ever think about what you are writing? 'I will not translate unless you will agree to the selected text (and stated conditions).' I.e. I will not translate the text you cannot read unless you agree with the text I have selected, about which, until I translate it, you can know nothing. Excuse me, but I am not a Palestinian under IDF interrogation conditions.

This is resolved easily. Don't translate it, and don't have it referred to on this page. L'uovo di Colombo, you can't have your cake and eat it as well, unless you want that egg on your face.Nishidani 14:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The British in Palestine: The Mandatory Government and the Arab-Jewish Conflict

can you please add the context and notes made by cafferta regarding issa sherif?

i have a strange suspicion that it is the same guy mentioned in the hebrew text under the name issa aarifa as the arab ayan ("distinguished") suggesting to eliezer dan salonim that, "if you will hand over the foreigners among you - you have saved your lives".^{(Hebrew: 'אם תסגירו לידינו את הזרים שבכם - הצלתם את חייכם'")} Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

You mean the Ayan, a distinguished notable of Hebron, Issa Aarifa, known by name to all Hebronites, Arab and Jewish, was in fact the same Issa Sherif, a common man from Jaffa, who was enrolled in the Hebronite police force as a lowly constable?Nishidani 19:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

nice guy, apparently he would have supposedly settled for only massacring the ashkenazim if they were handed down to him. thank you for clearing that up - this should be noted in the text. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

May I use this clip/entire section as proof positive of inability to read plain words? Or would it be preferable to use it as an example of jumping to recklessly impossible conclusions? Or only as an interest in inventing and injecting partisan distortions? PR^talk 09:15, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

RfC - policemen

Request: User:Nishidani requests^{[26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34]} that the word "policemen" be taken out of the intro to the article because it is "a controversial piece of evidence."^[35]

User:PalestineRemembered has also promoted^{[36][37][38][39][40]} that same request, albeit without participating on talk. his explained reasoning was (other than mere support for nishidani^[41]) that "We don't reference hate-sites in the lead,. Or indeed anywhere"^[42]

response (by Jaakobou): as far as i am concerned,

1. there was already a long discussion (continues beyond the subsection) and a silent consensus was reached regarding the use of the word policemen in the intro.
2. considering the body of the article includes the text: "most of the Arab constables deserted, leading the rioters to where Jews were hiding."^[43] i believe that the "controversial piece of evidence"^[44] statement, is a tad inaccurate.
3. i find the suggestion that the municipality of hebron hosting a historic record of the book of hebron to be a hate-site, quite puzzling - but not so much when the editor involved believes that www.JewsAgainstZionism.com are the "real practitioners of Judaism"^[45]
4. last but not least, i do believe that any instance where policemen desert their post and lynch 60+ people, it is more than notable enough to appear in the intro.

side note: i disagree with the way the book of hebron source is registered in the article's body. i.e. "It should be noted that some survivors testified that more than one of the Hebronite Arab policemen joined the riot"^[46] esp. considering the body of the article includes the text: "most of the Arab constables deserted, leading the rioters to where Jews were hiding."^[47] based on the cited books.

-- Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

---

Remarks (by Nishidani):

You make much of 'the body of the article includes the text: most of the Arab constables deserted'. Well, I haven't read the full text for several months, and, as is my usual practice, I work my way down it. When I get to that point, I will ask for a reliable source stating that most of the deserting constables led the crowd to where the Jews were hiding (really? the Arabs of Hebron did not have a clue as to where the Jews lived, and required policework to find them?) As it stands, that is not sourced, and therefore cannot be a warrant for what you are trying to put into the text.

I didn't ask that the remark about policemen be taken out of the intro. I opposed it being put in, and Jaakobou, who put it in there, and has repeatedly restored it against other editors, is now making out it is a standard text somehow being disturbed by disruptive editors.

An intro. is brief, synthetic and must touch on the main points to be developed in the successive sections. Jaakobou's intrusion of what is a controversial opinion, sustained by some passages in one source, and not mentioned by standard historians of the event, ignores these standard requirements. Historians who have read the Sefer haHebron also ignore this element, which therefore should, as I have placed it, be mentioned in the text as a minor view (UNDUE WEIGHT) against the historical consensus.

I often ask myself why it is ignored by several historians of distinction, whereas, in the case of Jerusalem 1929, the defection of several policemen from the British force to the rioters was noted by the authorities, and punished?

I'll give just one example of the can of worms just one of his two examples opens up for any historian.

'policemen by the do(e)zens,(1) disarmed from weapons/guns(3) traveling in many gangs(2) within a crowd of thousands of savage rioters, bloodthirsty and visibly armed with clubs, swords and daggers.'

Whatever this means, and the meaning is obscure, this can't be true for a very simple reason. Cafferata had 33 policemen under his command.

18 on horseback.
15 on foot.

Of these 33 men, one was a Jew, therefore we are dealing with 32 'Arab policemen', spread over Hebron.

Of them 18 were on horseback, as was Cafferata.
Another 15 were on foot (the same word appears in the Hebrew text)

Of these 15, 4 were judged physically fit. The other 11 were elderly men in poor physical shape.

Of these limited numbers of troops, units were dispersed throughout the city of Hebron, at various points, to cover all of the areas requiring guards. Policemen were posted outside houses subject to particular violence, and not left to patrol about freely. Some were (to judge from Cafferata's dispositions the day before,) posted outside the city proper, on the Jerusalem road, to check cars for terrorists, outside the immediate area of the riot.

Now, Scheursohn's evidence, gathered at one point in the city, describes dozens (tens and tens, i.e. virtually the whole of the policeforce, the cavalry dismounted, abandoning their horses presumably) of policemen milling with the crowd, eager to kill the Jews. The numbers he describes is almost equal to the total number of policemen disposed throughout a town of some tens of thousands of Arabs and Jews, all concentrated at one point.

There is no way of telling whether the footpolice (only 4 were fit and in the kind of physical shape milling in a riot requires) were with the crowd, in all senses, or in the crowd, 'disarmed', or with 'clubs' (police customary had batons for crowd contro. Especially since effectively you only had at the most 15 mainly old men, facing a mob of several thousand.

The passage cited therefore raises so many difficulties for a judge of the evidence, and historian, that it is virtually useless as evidence, unless external confirmation is forthcoming. The external confirmation is lacking, but we do have one significant piece of evidence. Namely, that Cafferata shot one of his own policemen, whom he found killing a Jewish girl. Cafferata did not hide the fact that one of his own got involved, and he would have had, in the Imperial system at that time, no problem with court-martialling whoever else among his 4 or five active policemen had changed sides and joined the rioters.

All this of course is my speculation, as to why serious historians in Israel do not use this particular testimony in recounting the massacre at Hebron. They certainly spare, and rightly so, no gory details, but none of the standard historical works refer to a mass defection of virtually the whole Hebron policeforce to the side of the rioters, as Schneursohn's testimony asserts.

To return however to the gist of the matter. Jaakobou wishes to put into the introduction, in place of 'Arabs', a specification, as if it were an ascertained historical fact (which it isn't), that Arab civilians and policemen in Hebron all joined in the slaughter. I object and will continue to object and erase any such insinuation until he can supply me with a neutral historical source supporting that hypothesis. As I said much earlier, eyewitness accounts are never accorded the status of truthful accounts, in law, in history, and in journalism, until they find corroboration from other sources. Jaakobou's interesting testimonies therefore have a place, rightly, in the footnote, regarding Issa Sherif, in the main text, but, as pure controversial hypotheses, have no place in the laconic sobriety of a general overview of the massacre, as that must be synthesized in the introduction. I have much more on this, but it is late. Nishidani 21:49, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• small note by jaakobou - please consider adding a few references to your statement. as they are now, non is verifiable. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• • • What do you want referenced?It's all in Rightous Victims Palestine One, Complete, books we've all read, since most of the narrative of the page has vbeen woven from them, especially from Segev.Nishidani 22:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• • • • • it is up to you to decide what is worth proving with a well placed citation and what is not so important. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:16, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, taking you seriously is obviously a sign I don't take myself seriously. I don't have to prove anything. You have to prove that a piece of 'evidence' no historian has ever used merits showcasing in the article. Over to you, sonnyboy. I have a good book to read, written intelligently for the intelligent. So for the mo', good evening.Nishidani 22:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Rebuttal (by PalestineRemembered):

The reference of this infomation about the policemen is a hate site, run by the people of whom "A senior Israeli official" said carried out "a pogrom against the Arabs of Hebron, with no provocations on the Palestinian side." We'd not reference anything in the "IHR" (David Irving) because of it's association with hate (and a proven tendency of such people to fabricate), and the same applies to this web-site.

And User:Jaakobou agrees with me, because he was objecting to hate-sites (in this very article) well before I did so anywhere. Furthermore, his standards for identifying a "hate-site" are much higher than mine, because his target (http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com) has no connection to violence or racism, it's the "True Torah Jews" hosting an interview claiming that Arabs and Jews lived in complete tolerance and peace together in 1929 Hebron before the massacre. The JAZ link was even excluded from the list of links at the end at the article - but here we have (one) editor wishing to put a hate-site into the lead! PR^talk 09:28, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

generic commentary:

Involved editor User:PalestineRemembered again - assuming this RfC is completed and nobody else wishes to add anything, would it be alright to accept the result, whereby only one policeman is implicated in any way in the massacre?

I have to say this, because on previous occasions, some editors, even when proved to have no support in the wider community, have ignored the result of these RfC's and persisted in using non-RS sources regardless. It seems a great shame to waste the time of good-faith editors and the community at large if POV additions will simply be steam-rollered into place anyway. Practices like this have gone on for far too long, with the result that in many cases Bad editing has overcome (and even driven off) Good editing. PR^talk 12:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The one reliable source here Cafferata, in his deposition, said one Arab policeman, in mufti (civilian clothes) was involved in the slaughter and shot for it. This is already noted in the appropriate section, and well sourced. The introd. must therefore read, for the moment, by Arabs.Nishidani 13:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

1. i disagree with Nishidani's assessment on the reliability of Cafferta, the chief policeman who failed to protect the 67 people killed. I also fail to see how him mentioning only one arab policeman by name negates the testimony of the others who said they saw policemen (plural) involved, if anything it supports their story.
2. we will wait for the RfC process, it may take a little time because there is a bot issue and cases are not closing properly so there's a backlog.

-- Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

'i disagree with Nishidani's assessment on the reliability of Cafferta'

Fascinating. Take it up with the Shaw Report

'I also fail to see' etc.

We'll look again. It's been explained in depth above. Nishidani 16:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

look, the book of hebron is just as valid as cafferta if not more - if you have any accounts which clearly discredit the book of hebron, feel free to link to them. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:06, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad you have written that.(the book of hebron is just as valid as caffer(a)ta ) I will cite it in due course. It is not a matter of discrediting the book of Hebron. The site you use has racist hate material on it (see my remarks you know where). You have yet to reply to the problem of citing from the book of Hebron testimony that 'dozens' of policemen rioted with the civilian Arabs, when the policemen on foot patrol all over Hebron consisted of 4 physically fit men, and 11 elderly men in bad shape(Tom Segev).Unless you can iron out that contradiction, and how the observer managed to spot all 4 or 15 in a milling crowd of several thousand ranting Arabs in the small street, the testimony remains just that, a fringe piece that jars with the known facts. Cafferata was an official and technically neutral. Schneursohn was neither, and his testimony and that of others was withdrawn from the Shaw Commission. But I won't do your homework for you. Nishidani 18:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

By the way, since you are supposed to know a minimum about the subject you edit so authoritatively, please do not write Cafferta, for Cafferata so often, nor Shniorson, for that matter, for Schneursohn.Nishidani 18:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

(1) i think you are misrepresenting my reply to you regarding the source, and i add that i have not translated all the hebrew text i chose to suggest for translation.

(2) i mostly work with the hebrew source (validated as authentic by phone despite your reservations of the website), so pardon if my translations don't fit the book you are working with. (the hebrew translates as kapirata and shniorson)

NB.I paste this from my talk page:'

'You are not supposed present a justification for pushing something as a reliable source by personally informing others you did some original research into their website, directly phoning the person running it, obtaining assurances, and then asking other people to take your word for it (and their personal assurances). You don't understand procedures, unless they support your POV. I'm in no hurry.Nishidani 12:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC) Nishidani 12:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

(3) i'm not the judge of their reports and neither you are.

(3.1) cafferata was, according to my understanding of the hebrew text, quite responsible and only thought of how to do things in hebron and in general without any personal responsibility.

(3.2) the british mandate banned all Jewish papers from printing anything (special one time editons were printed in secret).

(3.3) cafferata was the only one allowed to testify "in the name of the jewish people" despite an obvious conflict of interest and rabbi salonim who's son was slaughtered was denied.

(3.4) if i'm not mistaken, one of the most obvious culprits (for murder) only got a 2 year sentence after the judge clearly said he doesn't believe the witness, and he was still released to his home(!) with the provision he visit the police station once a day (unverified notes suggest that he didn't even do that so basically he was a free man)

.. so, no. i don't think cafferata or the brits and their shaw report were neutral at all.

-- Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:56, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad to note, for future reference, that you validate information by privately phoning the editor of a hate site to confirm that the text is correct.

Neither you nor I, agreed, can judge the content of reports. We are judging whether it is a reliable source. It isn't, for the reasons stated.

(Were it a reliable source, why have you in the past refused point black to change the 67 figure?, when'Memorial of the Jews of Hebron, as submitted to the High Commissioner of Palestine' speaks in the name of 65, (not 67), slaughtered.' I've noted this fact a dozen times, you always refuse to reply, because you prefer the 67 figure.)

On the talk page, we can discuss why something is not a reliable source, and I have shown you in detail why the evidence you wish to paste in here not only conflicts with the evidence judged relevant by historians, but is internally inconsistent. The testimony you would include cannot be true because it refers to a number of policemen far in excess of the numbers known to be there. You are violating WP:Undue Weight to showcase a fringe (conspiracy) theory, since that evidence is not accepted by historians who write of the incident.

You write:cafferata was, according to my understanding of the hebrew text, quite responsible and only thought of how to do things in hebron and in general without any personal responsibility.

I'm glad to have this statement also on the record, and thank you. I.e. You have read a highly partisan account of a massacre, and here attest that you accept it unquestioningly. Since in your understanding (and your understanding of the text is correct) Cafferata was responsible for the massacre, and acted to allow that massacre while covering up his responsability for it (This is controverted by all known evidence from neutral and official sources, including the records of the many desperate requests he made to other cities to call for assistance). At this point I draw your attention to the rules you have strictly applied, with minute obsessiveness, in the Battle/Massacre of Jenin talk pages:

(A)your statement is incorrect, esp. in this case where HRW simply reported what they heard the residents of Jenin tell them (later toned down a notch when it became clear the statements were bogus) and this is more of an advocacy' than ADL even, since (best i'm aware) ADL are not alleging anything that did not occur. regardless, i'm willing to hear some 3rd party opinions about this issue about this "very elementary distinction". JaakobouChalk Talk 15:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

(B)User:Blindjustice - with all due respect, 1 of your refs doesnt work, the 2nd one is a propaganda website and the third link looks like a post on a forum. it's quite possible that haaretz newspaper wrote this down, however, you have to find a normative source and also to write it down in a more newtral way such as stating that haaretz reports that in back rooms peres said... and used the term massacre .. and if you can give the hebrew he used, it would be even a more credible source but enlish would be fine if you just find a proper source. in short, please start out by finding what is considered a WP:RS and we will include the information. JaakobouChalk Talk 07:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

You are showcasing a piece of evidence to give it WP:Undue Weight. As the text stands, tolerantly, it is in a footnote, where it belongs as a fringe report, and an unreliable one at that.

"The British mandate banned reportage for a very simply reason. Reports by both Arab and Jewish papers were deemed, correctly so, responsible for the incitements that led to the massacres and riots and killings (Jews were killed for murdering Arabs also remember)

"In writing (again thanks)'cafferata was the only one allowed to testify "in the name of the jewish people" despite an obvious conflict of interest', you are judging both the content of the Shaw and other official reports as partisan, and dismissing both official reports as Unreliable Sources, simply on the grounds that they conflict with a Jewish source you prefer. That is extreme partisan and POV editing by any man's standards, and you will be held to respond to this deliberate abuse of the Wiki rules when the case comes up. If you impugn Cafferata's evidence, then hurry to impugn evidence about Palestinians in the Occupied Territories coming from official sources within Israel, the Occupying Power. Lad, you cannot have your cake and eat it too.

Disinterested editors please note this remark, which means Jaakobou holds official reports as biased, unreliable, and prefers to them as historical sources partisan reports made by their victims, but only if the victims are Jewish.

' so, no. i don't think cafferata or the brits and their shaw report were neutral at all.'

"The above statements collectively mean that it is Jaakobou's declared understanding that, when a massacre occurs, evidence from the responsible government ruling the territory where that massacre took place is not 'neutral', since there is a 'conflict of interest' between the government source and sources deriving from the victims, and that the victims' evidence should be accorded more weight than that given in official investigations. Secondly that this prejudice applies only to cases where Jews were massacred. If the victims are Palestinian, official reports are to be accredited only as 'neutral', and private 'rumours' circulating among the victims are to be dismissed out of hand.

In the technical literature, what you are doing in this exchange is described as 'digging yourself into a hole'. The more you dig, the deeper the pit gets. I'm trying to lend you a hand, i.e. by simply, as already done, getting that minor variant, and patently false report duly noted in a footnote, as one can already see on the page.Nishidani 09:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Nishidani - before wrestling in the mud makes you impossibly dirty, have you considered making a formal complaint against this kind of behaviour? I don't believe it will stop until administrative action is taken, and in the meantime, it's causing lots of damage. Bad editing is increasingly displacing Good - even your style is being cramped by it. PR^talk 10:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

why aren't you doing it instead? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I was born dirty, and my mother, a pharmacist always admired my love of mucking about in muck, since she though early exposure to it gave one a strong immunity system, a piece of wisdom from which I think I have gained immense profit. I do not believe in administrative action, unless there is no alternative to save a page. I don't believe in vendettas, even against those who wage them. I am in here for the duration, and will simply oppose any attempt to write the page not according to common standard principles of good prose and scholarly regard for facts. The rest is, well, not silence, but a huge amount of noise, in particular from Jaakobou, who tends to try and get his way round the evidence by creating huge amounts of rowdy confusion.Nishidani 15:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Comments by others:

How about this formulation?
de-facto sanctioned by the police
This is correct according to the Hebrew source. - Lev 16:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

No. Read the above discussion on the evidence supplied by Jaakobou. On this the Sefer haHebron is not a Reliable Source. Therefore the point made by it is in a footnote in the text, since controversial material cannot go into an Intro. which must simply provide the elementary undisputed and neutral facts. 'Sanction means 'approved'. That is an inference from two bits of partial testimony that, moreover, are not accepted by official reports or later mainstream historians.

What Jaakobou is endeavouring to do is to insinuate a POV into an Introduction which bans them. It's as simple as that, since reference has already been made in the text, at the appropriate juncture, to the material he would include. I.e. he is trying to move a footnote remarking a minority view in a section below, into the key introductory remarks which disallow (1) contested material (2)extreme minority views (WP:Undue Weight). (He has provided thus far two statements by two people out of the 500 odd present at the scene, statements which jar blatantly with the evidence, and which are internally inconsistent).Nishidani 16:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I should add that the insistence on inserting this controversial material, whose only function is to highlight the putative unreliability, and indeed murderous behaviour of Arab policemen in 1929, seems to sit nicely with the insistence on the Kiryat Arba website which hosts the Sefer haHebron, that Palestinian policemen in Hebron today are equally ready, as terrorists, to drop their official functions and engage in a sanguinary battle with the settlers (or that the Palestinian Authority, its functionaries and police are all basically terrorists). That is the only reason I can come up with to explain his curiously intransigent insistence on showcasing in the intro. what is otherwise an extremely marginal POV dating back some 80 years.Nishidani 16:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

• Propose Closure - Involved editor User:PalestineRemembered again - assuming this RfC is completed and nobody else wishes to add anything, would it be alright to accept the result, whereby only one policeman is implicated in any way in the massacre? PR^talk 18:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The book of Hebron

Note: Background info and discussion begins here. Please look below to offer a third party opinion on this source dispute. HG | Talk 02:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

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)

Nishidani, I believe that while you requested this book be translated, you believe the source is corrupt. Please explain your reasons succinctly here so that your concerns could be fully addressed. please try to avoid accusations - if something is not 100% certain - ask. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have already explained myself, and my reasons for questioning your extremely dubious use of the material you selectively harvested from this book, while not even replying to my remarks on, for example, the Hebron survivors testimony about the number of people actually slaughtered. You say my concerns could be fully addressed (could here should read might/may, unless you are suggesting they might be addressed if I repeat them, but not necessarily so, i.e. you don't feel, as earlier, obliged to address anything I raise). Yet none of the points I raised earlier were even minimally addressed, so I won't repeat the exercise.

You have no claim on my time. If you don't understand what I wrote, reread it. Your mode of address, at least to English ears, sounds authoritarian in its peremptoriness and suggests you are under the delusion that you are the senior administrator of this page. If I can for the moment copy your style - Please try to avoid wasting serious people's time. And please write its not 'it's', when you mean its: an unfortunately frequent confusion among Wiki editorsNishidani 17:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Nishidani, please consider participating by explaining your reasons succinctly here so that your concerns could be fully addressed. please also try to avoid accusations. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 00:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I will take the liberty by addressing, what seems to me as, the most major of your concerns so that we can hopefully get this source approved or rejected and move along on the main point of conflict without WP:V claims.

I called the Hebron municipality and they referred me to the person in charge of these matters, Noam Arnon (Public Official of the Jewish community of Hebron). I asked him if there is a place i can see the Heberon book and he told me it was uploaded in full on the Hebrew site. I went to the site and found this link - [48] - which shows what seems to be the cover of the book with the name of it's author. and it also seems to include the proper structure of such a book. Being that i don't automatically consider all the people of Hebron to be equal with Baruch Goldstein, I had no reason to believe the source is false/inaccurate to the original.

Now, i request you participate and explain (succinctly please) if you still have reservations regarding the authenticity of this source so we can follow proper procedures to either consider it reliable or unreliable.

p.s. i'm including all the History sections of the Hebron Municipality website into this WP:RS notice - both the hebrew and english versions. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 00:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I've already replied in extenso to everything you raise here. What is your point? Reflect, man: our only difference is that you want to put into the Intro. a highly suspect piece of testimony (see above) which I have already included into the main body of the page. My objection to the site source was that you bjected to the site source for Baruch Kaplan. It is a matter of coherence. If you do not accept Kaplan's evidence because you challenge the source site, then others will object to your use of the Sefer haHebron on identical grounds. Tutto qua. To insist further on this is ridiculous. And please stop trying to administer the page. It violates WP:OWN Nishidani 08:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

rehtorical question:

so, if i understand correctly, you're saying that you do accept the source itself as reliable (regardless of content issues) but your objection to using it was based on "kinship" between The Jewish Community of Hebron and JewsAgainstZionism.com, and making a WP:POINT regarding a content dispute?

Please make a short and clear statement if you accept both history sections of the Hebron Municipality website, and/or make a clear note to the source you desire to tag along to this source. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll put it in logical terms. Please study them and provide me with a precise reply:

You objected to Baruch Kaplan's testimony, because it was posted by Jewsagainstzionism.com., which you judge a hate site, and being from such a source, cannot be accepted.

You press for the Sefer haHebron testimony, which comes from a website of a community that hosts hate journalism against Arabs, and this logically entails that, if you object to the site hosting Kaplan's testimony, you cannot object to my raising the same objection to your use of material from a site subject to the same charges (racism, hate against another ethnic community).

Make up your mind on your first decision, about the Kaplan source, and then get back to me. Unless you approach this issue in logical terms, you are using two measures, and not applying criteria that are neutral as regards sources Nishidani 12:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

(1) i've opened a 3O on this issue. (2) i believe there's no connection between the two sources - the book of hebron is a known source, while if the Kaplan testimony is known, then it should be on more reputable sites. (3) from what i've seen on hebron's website, i don't quite concur with your assessment and comparison between an unknown anti-site and a municipality holding more than 7000 residents - please don't tell me that all of a sudden you are capable of reading hebrew. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Would you please clarify the 3O request? This is a complicated discussion page, and though I've read through it I'm still not 100% sure I understand what you want a third opinion on. Jewish-wargamer 20:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Would one of you please clarify the 3O request, as I asked? I think you both pretty desperately need a third opinion here. Jewish-wargamer 20:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead,Jaakobou. I hope you know what your getting into, and have thought ahead at least several moves, all over a desire to change 2 controversial words in an intro?

In the meantime, I note you have remarked: please don't tell me that all of a sudden you are capable of reading hebrew. I.e., you have put on record in our discussion of sources that I for one have no means of verifying the source and the content of material you wish to introduce, and that you evidently believe that, blindsiding one editor in this way, works to your editorial advantage. Think over the implications, and, by all means, proceed with your procedural measures, and I will deliberate on those I shall be obliged to take.Nishidani 20:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

(1) the statement was made because, from my preception, you'd decided the hebron website is an arab hate site and i disagree with that evaluation. there was no attempted blindsiding - but i do feel this issue is hampering the discussions.

(2) on point, and to slightly repeat myself, i don't think there is any connection between the sites. each should be evaluated on it's own under WP:RS and WP:V.

(3) please avoid inserting more accusations to the conversation, it's getting tiresome.

(4) if you have other solutions besides "all or nothing" at resolving this dispute, i'm open for suggestions. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

The solution is already on the page. You want to mention, using an unreliable source (on this) more than one policeman. You repeatedly edited the page to insert a piece of 'information' which is not found in any standard historical work by reliable historians on the 29 Hebron massacre, works written by historians who have read the Sefer ha Hebron and have not considered its peregrine notice on this point worthy of mention. WP:Undue Weight After a several edits, the compromise was to put that variation in a note in the appropriate section. This was duly done.

You alone keep insisting, in a tiresome and vexatious manner, that we must compromise apparently in the sense you understand the word, namely, that your controversial original edit which maintains policemen were involved in the riot, be accepted holus bolus. So what you are trying to do is to have your way, to revert the text to what was a factitious piece of pseudo-evidence, against the moderate and acceptable compromise that has been made. It is not I who have taken an 'all or nothing' stance, but yourself. You are not open to suggestions or compromise. Nothing I have said constitutes an accusation. If you wish to proceed, I will document quite precisely the evidence at my disposal for what I have stated above, and to which you make objections.

There is much work to be done on the text, and you have wasted several days on two words. It's about time to move on, and get the rest of the article up to snuff. I've compromised, and, I think, you must show good faith by accepting that that compromise extends a note to the Mr Schneursohn's extraordinary claim in the Sefer haHebron, a claim inconsistent with the known facts of the police dispositions and numbers in Hebron on that day.

That book provides a complete list of the victims, which is why I requested you find a copy and use it to provide a page listing them. That, dear sir, more honours the victims that a futile, tiresome and totally inane edit battle over two words. But, if you disagree, by all means go ahead. I was a marathon runner as a boy Nishidani 21:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

There is an English list, with photos, of 52 of the victims on the Hebron site.RolandR 23:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I am compiling a list of the names of the victims, and since Jaakobou seems indifferent, it looks like I will have to do that section eventually.Nishidani 07:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

it's a pleasure to know you "was a marathon runner as a boy", but can you please focus first on the issue of whether or not the history sections of the hebron site are reliable and after we finish this discussion we focus on other topics such as "undue" and "policemen"? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I won't 'focus first' on anything you propose at this point, because you persist in ignoring the detailed analyses and questions I have raised on the primary issues that emerge from your attempt to use this material. I other words, you only want to focus exclusively on what suits your POV (that the Sefer haHebron is a RS, so you can then harvest 400 pages inaccessible to other editors in order to rewrite onehandedly the 1929 Hebron page, with iits lengthy challenges to the conclusions of the official Shaw report, and the books of several distinguished historians, who refrain from using it).

To repeat, you are not the administrator of this page, you are therefore not invested with a peculiar judicial authority to decide which questions are pertinent, and which questions are uncomfortable.I note again that 'undue' and 'policemen' were debated substantially much earlier, and you now wish to set those questions, which are fundamental, aside, to raise still another question. This is not a logical proedure, and therefore until you addrss the primary questions, I will not address the tertiary question you now pose.Nishidani 07:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

arbitrary section break

User:Nishidani,
please try to refrain from POV accusations and help us me and you both, promote this discussion.

yes, i would later like to try and persuade in my belief that more than one policeman was complicit - we've already had User:Lev suggest "de-facto sanctioned by the police" as a compromise. regardless, i give my word to not associate an acceptance of this source as WP:RS as an acceptance of my policemen issue.

I just want to establish that the history sections of the Hebron website are considered reliable sources for future discussions and i promise to be more accompanying than before in translations and/or clarifications. -- Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from using the plurale majestatis when you are speaking of yourself. When you say 'help us promote this discussion', you are referring (see back several centuries) to a discussion between myself and yourself. You are not a 'we' (hmm. Except metaphorically.)

Lev's suggestion represents his personal inference from an eyewitness report which says no such thing. As such it is not a compromise, but a ring-in's attempt to favour your POV, which is the POV of Mr Schneursohn. One is not here to espouse a cause, but to get the relevant facts straight.

You write:'I just want to establish that the history sections of the Hebron website are considered reliable sources for future discussions.'

You are trying to tell me that a Website of the Hebron Jewish Community, which has hate articles on it, can be trusted when it prints historical materials, since that website did not manufacture the book. Neither did 'Jewsagainstzionism' manufacture Baruch Kaplan's testimony in yiddish. You rejected it because you assert that the site in question promotes hate. So, logically, I reject you citing the Sefer haHebron because of the source site. I have repeated this a dozen times, but you still give me only a personal opinion. Unless you display a coherent attitude towards evidence, don't expect anything but severe and persistent defence of cohesive analytical principles from me. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. I have offered a compromise, which you refuse. Your counter-offer is not a compromise: it constitutes a blatant attempt to obtain my endorsement for your endeavour to appropriate a single text, written in the immediate aftermath of a tragedy by grieving victims, a text which makes numerous accusations against the British not only not accepted by the Shaw Report but also by later Israeli historians of repute, which is unreadable by most other editors. To concede this is to hand this page into your hands, so that you can dictate the terms for a unilateral rewriting of the article (since all evidence you cull from it selectively cannot be checked except by third mediating parties, if they can, from time to time, be found, parties who must lend themselves to reading that whole source, checking your selection of evidence against other evidence in the book etc.etc). And since that is what would undoubtedly occur were you with your notable record to take control of the page, I will not only personally oppose it as a complete violation of the principles of verifiability and editorial equality in Wiki, but will take it to arbitration. Nishidani 17:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Just a piddling word on your edit that changes

please try to refrain from POV accusations and help us promote this discussion.

into

please try to refrain from POV accusations and help us me and you both, promote this discussion.

I appreciate that you appreciate my remark on the use of the plurale majestatis, but the new edit becomes incomprehensible, because you end up now asking me politely to 'try to ....help me'. I can help myself, usually to another serve of roast lamb, or bottle of chianti, but I can't help myself noting the minor details of grammar. No matter. Nishidani 20:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Nishidani, please refrain from continued attacks on my grammar. instead, please address the issue of this subsection, which is, the authenticity of the history sections on the website of the hebron community. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Jaakobou. Please refrain, dear sir, from repeatedly using the words 'please refrain' about my remarks. Please refrain from using the word 'attack' to characterize my use of evidence and logical argument to counter your own views. You have created a subsection in order to avoid addressing the problems I raised in the earlier section, problems and arguments you systematically ignore. If you expect me to address only problems that interest you, while availing yourself of the privilege of ignoring the primary issues that I raise, then you, once again, are behaving erratically. Address the points I raised in the earlier section, fully and intelligently, and we can then move on to the subsidiary issues you raised here. As an logician will tell you, to deal with entailments and inferences while ignoring the original propositional forms is a faulty procedure.P.s. 'continued' should be 'continual' (though they are neither attacks nor 'continual')Nishidani 17:30, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

List of victims

Jaakobou. In the meantime could you do me the courtesy of checking the ‘’Sefer haHebron’’ and tell me the names of Yankov Welwel Weiss (Reisman)’s brother, and his mother-in-law? I need the clarification to finish my list accurately.Nishidani 10:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

i think you should first agree that the source - here - is a WP:RS no? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Forget about it. I'll do it myself, and indeed have almost finished. I gather you dislike editing cooperatively, but was willing to give it a try. Nishidani 18:24, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

mother-in-law of raizman - Hanson Ester-Frida. - per Hebrew: חנסון אסתר-פרידה - ילידת רוסיה, חותנתו של י"ז רייזמן, כבת 67 , not sure on the oter name seeing that "וייס"="weiss" doesn't seem to appear on the list of the massacred (which holds 67 names in it).^[49] Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:49, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. One good piece of information deserves another. Here is the note I have in my own files on the victims:-

'Yancov Welwel Weiss . . He had a brother, a youth of nineteen, who had acquired an enviable reputation in Jerusalem for his scholarship. During the last year of his life this youth had come to study at the Hebron Yeshivah.' I will check to see if this last allusion gave me the idea he was killed there, or whether I have independent sources for the illation Nishidani 09:47, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

3O Request

Ok, in the interests of giving this a 3O review (or letting someone else do it :-> ), I am starting a 3O section here. The two combatants (and that's what you are) should try to objectively explain the disagreement, and maybe some other users can help you sort it out. What do you say? Jewish-wargamer 20:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I've no problem with that. I haven't the faintest idea what a 30 is, but if it means a third party wishes to examine our differences, by all means. I should however prefer in such a case for some guarantees to be given as to the absolute neutrality of the third parties adjudicating our differences.

Let it be clear that to clarify part of my disagreement with Jaakobou over his wish to cite from a book on a website for a group historically associated with racism and terrorism, while, at the same time refusing material from a site which he defines as unreliable because it is, he claims, hatefully anti-Zionist, relates to conceptual clarity, the avoidance of using double standards. But if pursued, it will go deeper than this question of logical coherence in editorial judgements.

I'm not sure he wants to go down this path, (it strikes me as suicidal for his case, and I prefer a gentlemanly solution) but if he does, it will mean the mediator(s) will have to digest, in order to appreciate the points I am now prepared to fully document in favour of my call, very lengthy quotes from Philadelphia University's distinguished professor of Political Science Ian Lustik's book 'The Land and the Lord' dealing with the ideological origins, criminal founders and terroristic history of Kiryat Arba and the Jewish Hebron community, which independently of what Jaakobou might believe, think or say, has a deep (and natural) ideological stake in how both this page on the 1929 massacre, and other pages on Hebron and Baruch Goldstein, are presented on this encyclopedia. Quotes, to mention one of the more innocuous kind, like:-

'What is so significant about this network of Jewish terrorists is that virtually all of them were respected members of the Gush Emunim mainstream, with close and in some cases very personal ties to the leadership of the movement. They included one rabbi (director of a religious school in Kiryat Arba), a former general secretary of Gush Emunim, a former member of Gush Emunim's secretariat, the head of the Committee for Renewal of Jewish Settlement in Hebron, several officers in the army reserve, the son of one of the Gush founders, a Nekuda reporter, and a certified war hero.'

Lustik, one of several mainstream academic sources I can use, has worked for the American Council on Foreign Relations, and is considered, I hardly need add, a very reliable source on these questions, indeed a world authority. Nishidani 21:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

comment by jaakobou - Skipping boring background... i'm making a huge effort to work with said user but the interaction seem to have gone quite wrong and it's getting tiresome to go over Nishidani's comments. when i go over them, they all come down to him accusing me of trying to racially attack others and/or bigoted judgments on all the jews who are living the dispute over in Hebron (7000 of them) and seems to place me and them together with Baruch Goldstein, a mass murderer from 1994, on the same "evil zionist" group. the discussions are just counter productive to say the least.

A little while back he asked i find the "book of hebron" ("Sefer Hebron" request - I added here, 17 Sep.). At first he accepted the source (and even reverted it back in (1)(2)), but later he started objecting to information from the source being put into the introduction in what seems to be a response to my rejection of jewsagainstzionism.com (about us), a website introduced by a POV partner, User:PalestineRemembered. later he cited bigoted explanations on how racist and criminal the people of Hebron are (7000 people) to justify his rejection and insisted either we accept both or reject both.

Despite him asking me to find out (and translate) material from the source (see here), he refuses to state acceptance of the source as valid on it's own - as is evident in this subsection.

sample diff: attempt at reconciliation - response.

personally, i opened the 3O only for having an agreement that the Hisotry sections of the Hebron Jewish Community website (both hebrew and english versions) be admitted as WP:RS - i find the comparison with Jewsagainstzionism.com insulting even though i don't subscribe to most views of the residents of Hebron.

btw, i'm not rejecting the text they want to bring forward (havn't even looked it up) - only asking that, being if it is indeed authentic, there should be more normative sources for it.

-- Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 00:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

HG Comments. For Nishidani (and Jaakobou as needed), it's important to clarify that WP:3O isn't like binding arbitration or adjudication, it's only advisory. Plus, there's no guarantee of neutrality by commenters, though commenting as a 3O surely does imply a genuine effort to be fair-minded, not biased, etc. Since I've only read part of the long thread(s) on this, I'd like to ask a few questions:

1. For N, to what extent is your argument about Sefer Hebron based on the outcome of the dispute on another source? While I appreciate the goal of logical coherence, conceptual clarity, I'm inclined to think that arguments about double stds (or an article-specific quid pro quo) don't carry much independent weight. Have you seen such arguments validated in any Wikipedia policy/guidelines on using sources? In any case, it's crucial to identify the principled criteria that would be applied conherently to both sources. Do you all disagree about the relevant criteria?
2. For J, sorry if I've missed the point, but it sounds like you've argued that because some aspects of Sefer Hebron may provide useful info for Wikipedia, therefore the entire Sefer should be deemed a reliable source. Is that right? If so, this strikes me as a bit rigid on your part, if you don't mind me saying so (sorry), since I assume that nearly all sources have limitations and weaknesses. A scholar might be reliable for textual criticism but weak in historical insight, or vice versa. A UN report may offer accurate data but weak synthesis, etc. Well, I'm guessing that you will concede that Sefer Hebron is limited compared to high quality sources. If so, on what matters would you consider it reliable and in what ways would you admit that an encyclopedia can't rely on it?
3. For N, are you arguing that a source is not acceptable because of its POV, or the degree of its hate speech (racism, etc)? I think this is plausible, since high quality sources generally don't engage in such deplorable rhetoric. Nonetheless, are you completing ruling out Sefer Hebron as a source for anything? If not, on what matters might you consider it reliable and useful? (E.g., do I recall some matter about your asking for genealogical or demographic data?)
4. For J, likewise, might a source inadmissable based solely on the hatefulness/racism/etc of its language? Or might such hate be a sufficient indicator of the source's non-reliability?

Please be brief in responding. In particular, if you feel you've already answered these ad nauseum, I apologize in advance and encourage you just to succinctly and kindly tell me to read what you said above (or elsewhere). But be concise anyway, ok? Also, pls answer below, not between my questions.

For anybody wishing to offer their own 3O response, please start below. Thanks muchly, HG | Talk 02:21, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

the hebron book is an historical document. the argument started only because PalestineRememebred wanted to insert jewsagainstzionism.com and i rejected it and stated that clearly more reliable sources could be found. the issue of the policemen (in the introduction) is also ridiculous since it amounts to OR - i.e. because caffrata only mentions one arab policeman by name then "it's clear that no others could have taken part in the riots".. reading the material makes it more than clear - i asked a 3rd opinion from a hebrew reader (User:Lev) - and he suggested we use "de-Facto sanctioned by the police" - Nishidani rejected that one also based on his "declared POV" and heightened sense of "moral principles"... that and an old benny morris book that morris has already started tracking back from. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 07:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

regardless - the 3O was only opened to get WP:RS clearance on the hebron book (which is an assembly of historical records) and the history sections of the hebron website. i not only disagree with the bigoted perception of the entire jewish hebron community, but i find it odd that at one point Nishidani requests i use the source to find information for him, and the next he won't accept the source as reliable. (my position is to first accept the source - then find resolution about the policemen issue). Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 07:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

HG | Talk I will in due course respond in detail, point by point to your queries. This will take time, time reluctantly stolen from serious work better spent assisting the writing of articles, or more importantly, from an imminent and extended, lunch with two academic philosopher friends over Chianti and Descartes, rather than frittering about in backchat. In the meantime could I prevail upon you to remind Jaakobou that the repeated synthesis of my views in a caricatural fashion, with frivolous yet major distortions, is not conducive to a rational analysis of the matter under dispute. The page is replete with information, readily accessible. He is not a RS for what I think, and should stick to summing up what he thinks.

Since, as it develops, this is, I imagine, going to blow out into all sorts of consequences (past experience with our mutual friend), and will indubitably end up with the Hebron website and its community backers under scrutiny as a RS at the proper court of arbitration, I will be in no hurry, since Wikipedia is not written under the stress of meeting a deadline. So patience, as I follow Suetonius's advice: Festina lente. Regards Nishidani 09:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

p.s. I would remark in the meantime that Jaakobou prejudices this attempt at dispute resolution by repeatedly reverting to the extremely controversial page, with information that is contested and whose reliability is under doubt since it conflicts with the consensus of official documents of the period, and standard accounts by historians of repute. Bad faith, in short. I, instead, have refrained from fiddling with that passage until the dispute over the 'evidence' Jaakobou would insert there, is definitively resolved. I ask that it be reverted immediately, as a show of good faith, otherwise one of the two disputants will be seen as endeavouring the strongarm and prejudice the contended issue by pushing it on the page without the consent of the other party, indeed while the other party is discussing the matter under contention.Nishidani 10:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear J & N, I'd like to say, kindly but firmly: the 3O is not the place for dealing with conduct complaints. Aren't you both arguing elsewhere on that? Plus, I don't think my q's require answers of "J did this" or "N did that" type. Patience is good counsel. However, all such comments are distracting to me here (feel free to msg my Talk). So, please, would you mind deleting any above text that doesn't specifically answer my questions? Or, simply permit me carte blanche (contra Talk custom) to edit down your answers as a I see fit. Respectfully, HG | Talk 12:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - User:HG - I have quite strong views on this subject and am by no means neutral. But I'd grant you permission to extensively trim this section to make it understandable for 3O examination or otherwise. (Delete this comment from me when you're done). PR^talk 18:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

30 Request. Point one of HG's address to me requesting clarification

HG, you ask:-

(i)'For N, to what extent is your argument about Sefer Hebron based on the outcome of the dispute on another source?'

(ii)'it's crucial to identify the principled criteria that would be applied conherently to both sources.'

Reply to (i) 'To some considerable extent.'
Reply to (ii) 'I insist that the criteria be the same, since the two cases correspond in detail.

At Wikiquette Jaakobou asserts:

I have made a grossly false comparison with jewsagainstzionism.com. JaakobouChalk Talk 07:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

A.Facts from the thread: Kaplan. Precedent

(i)Baruch Kaplan was a survivor of the 1929 Hebron massacre.

(ii)He recounting briefly the incident. .

(iii)His account is hosted on the site jewsagainstzionism.com.

It has been rejected by Jaakobou, because it is on.

(a)‘website dedicated to POV against Israel’ Jaakobou 06:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC) .

(b) 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) .

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

At this point, GHcool stepped in. .

(d) 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) .

The argument was dropped.

B.Facts from the Thread: Sefer ha Hebron. Aftermath

(ib)The Sefer ha Hebron deals with the massacre of 29, and its survivors,

(iib)The survivors recount their impressions

(iiib)The Book is hosted on the site www.hebron.org.

It has been rejected by Nishidani because

(a) that site is a hate site against Arabs

(b) run by extremist settlers

(c) www.hebron.org is not a WP:RS

At this point, paraphrasing GHcool, one could write,

(d) ‘The settlers’ site at www.hebron.org clearly has a political/religious slant, which means they are not NPOV, and call for the expulsion of Palestinians claiming the right to a modern state in the Palestinian Territories. www.hebron.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, is a mirror image of jewsagainstzionism.com.

I will proceed systematically when this single point is addressed, for it is the only way to avoid conceptual confusion on fundamental issues Nishidani 13:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

HG for N. Got it, that seems clear. HG-numbered questions for N: (#5) In your own view, if a text is written by an author with an extremist POV agenda, is that a sufficient and necessary condition to disqualify it from use as a reliable source? For all of its content? (#6) Same question re: text posted by an extremist/hate website. (#7) In your own view, pursuant to your previous answers, should either or both the Kaplan and Sefer ha-Hebron sources be disqualified? For all of their content? Thanks for your continued focus on what I hope are narrow enough questions. HG | Talk 17:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

If you don't mind, I'd prefer to put a subsection divider here, so I can dialogue with each party separately. Others editors helping with the 3O are welcome to pursue the conversation as they wish. But would a divider her be ok with J and N? Thanks. HG | Talk 17:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

you have anything other than bigotry to supprot (a), (b) and (c) regarding the hebron municipality website? why do you ask me to validate material from it for you then?
p.s. the comparison with jewsagainstzionism and/or takatom is, in my opinion, ridiculuos. User:Jaakobou 16:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me User:Jaakobou. I think we should deal with this point by point, and not be distracted. I will await User:HG's deliberation on the above issue before proceeding. But for the moment, please consult Ian Lustik's book, to cite just one source, referred to above. My judgements come from sources of that quality, as indicated earlier, and bigotry, or personal bias, has little to do with the matter.Nishidani 16:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Editing of disputed content

Unfortunately, there is edit warring now on what I gather to be the content disputed, as in the 3O discussion above. I've filed a 3RR request, though merely asking somebody else to investigate any involved parties. Alternatively, I could request full page protection. However, Jaakobou and Nishidani, perhaps you both could agree to suspend editing of this article until you've reached some mutual understanding through discussion? If so, would you also be willing to leave it up to me or even another 3rd party to decide what stays on the page? thanks. HG | Talk 18:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

As best I can tell, there are two things clear in the Talk here. There is only one policeman implicated in the massacre and the "Book of Hebron" cannot be used while there is no translation provided. Those editors who keep on inserting the flawed material need to stop doing so, it would be nonsense to stop all editing because some editors cannot abide by either consensus or the texts. PR^talk 20:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

have you read the sources... either of them? what's clear is that you're being disruptive. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

For the record

HG I gather that the 3RR problem will suspend this discussion so, until it is sorted out, or a decision taken (and its possible sanctions end) I shall myself refrain from troubling the page with further answers to the questions you have posed me.

HG et alii. Jaakobou is the only editor to my knowledge who has proposed, and defended the peculiar text he has inserted which would change the standard ‘Arabs’ into ‘Arab civilians and policemen, '(where all major and standard sources give one policeman). This position has been tenaciously sustained by a minority of one, against several editors over the last weeks. No other editor over that time has supported his innovation. It stirred a lengthy and involved discussion but was not settled. The dispute was ongoing, but generally only he insisted on intervening on the page to re-insert it while that dispute was still underway. It was reverted by several editors, among whom also myself.

From October the 9th, the traditional, uncontroversial text was stable.

On the 13th. Jaakobou, while preparing for a procedure against me for Wikiquette violations (where it was, it appears, dismissed as not appropriate to that forum), reinserted his controversial edit. Over the next three days he edited the text 8 times, mostly with reverts, while his complaint against me was being discussed. I was distracted by it and did not notice these. After 4 of his edits, which challenged the reversion to the stable, uncontroversial text made by both PR and user 70.109.223.188, noticing that while trying to get me up on a rap of breach of etiquette he had apparently kept editing the disputed text, which in the meantime for two and a half days I had not touched, thinking, wrongly, that a moratorium would be in place, I reverted his text, again to the uncontroversial version. This was reverted by Jaakabou again, and was duly challenged by me.

19:09, 15 October 2007 Nishidani

06:40, 16 October 2007 Nishidani

12:57, 16 October 2007 Nishidani

While reading HG’s remarks, I checked the text for evidence, and noticed something I had not realized, i.e., that I appear to have violated the 3RR law, and perhaps also Jaakobou. So, since I dislike violation of rules, I adverted HG on his talk page to the problem, and left it for him to work it out. I had, unwittingly lapsed into that habit of thinking that reverting a text can be done twice in a day, (and certainly not every day, in serial killer sequence), which is wrong, since the rule applies to a 24 hour period . I am afraid I haven’t the curiosity or patience to look at diffs, copy and format them and clarify all this, since, unlike writing, of which I have decades of experience, I find bickering endlessly over POVs intensely boring, even if at times necessary. If I have inadvertently violated the rule, I therefore request that I be suspended. Lex ignorantiam negat. I put this small note here by way of annotating that I am responsible for being suspended, and no one else, if such a measure is taken.

As to the text, I naturally differ from HG’s apparent view that, where there is a chronic conflict, both parties are to blame in equal measure, and I commend other editors in the meantime, whatever the POV they may be coming from, with as much neutrality as they can muster, to examine the record over the Intro (laying aside other issues) and determine whether or not Jaakobou’s unique insistence on placing, in the Intro., as an assertion of fact, what no mainstream historian to my knowledge registers, fits the requirements stipulated for Introductions. (The original memorial presented to the British authorities was quickly withdrawn when its many inaccuracies and exaggerations were noted, and considered potentially damaging to the otherwise pre-eminent cause for grievance the Jewish Hebronite community had. Jaakobou would ignore this fact, and simply take the text at its word).

In my understanding, Intros. should be succinct, uncontroversial, factual, and any contentious matter relegated to sections below. Indeed his suggestion of more than one policeman being involved was, by myself, subsequently reintroduced into a footnote in the relevant section on Cafferata’s testimony. That was my compromise, which he will not accept, and I naturally wonder why the text should stand as he alone insists it be written, against a majority view that can see no point to it. I do not know why I should have to spend several days of a busy and otherwise interesting life trying to maintain the integrity of a page against what strikes me as an evident POV-pushing piece of unreliable testimony into the lead, and then to find that somehow, in the extraordinary Kafkian universe of wikilawyering, I am to be judged guilty of some malpractice. But if that is the way things work, I decided to work here, it was not imposed on me, unlike in Kafka's haunted world. If the other editors and perhaps administrators reviewing the record think my participation here is disruptive, then I’m quite willing to withdraw from this page permanently, so long as the same gesture is made by Jaakobou. Tragic historical events should not suffer the indignities of incompetent narration, and that is what has occurred here unfortunately.I don't think any one neutral party should decide what stays on a page and what is inadmissible, with due respect to HG. Such an important function should eventually be determined collegially, by at least two administrators. Regards Nishidani 21:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Nishidani, just to clarify -- no definitive person or group, neutral or not, decides what stays or is inadmissable. We try to work by rough consensus among interested editors, etc. You should feel welcome and encouraged to contribute here. We'd like it to be a collegial space and not a battleground. Both you and Jaakobou should try to use this Talk page to discuss content and editing policy; if possible, deal with your concerns over bad faith bickering or POV-pushing elsewhere. Don't sweat the 3RR, will see what happens. Meanwhile, if you have potentially controversial edits, maybe you could vet your draft wording etc here. Thanks for your participation. HG | Talk 22:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

FYI, the page is now protected from editing, so as to avoid unproductive reverts.HG | Talk 23:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Fine by me. When the dust settles, I hope it will be clear that this extraordinary ruckus, whose gist is lost in the exhausted chronicles of argumentation that looked like equalling Dickens' evocation of the Jardyce vs.Jardyce case, was based on the innocuous principle that controversial marginal material, pushed by one editor against a majority, and dealing with just two words, should not be intruded into an introduction, but left, where it had been duly accomodated in a compromise, down the page. That, to defend this elementary principle, I must wear the taint of a village pump bickerer, of a merchandizer of bad faith charges, or warrior of conceited pedantries, is quite a large price to pay personally, but I don't mind wearing the innuendo, as long as the effect is to secure an intelligent page over one that looked like tumbling over the precipice of rational editing. I have no controversial edits to make. My work here has been, singularly, to keep them off the page. Regards Nishidani 08:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Introduction

HG | Talk. Perhaps one could begin to annotate a few problems, other than the one just addressed.

'The survivors were forced to flee Hebron, and their property was seized by Arab residents and occupied until after the Six Day War of 1967.'

The reference is to 1929, and the passage is shaky, for two reasons.

(1) The usual historical term is 'evacuated'. The Haganah itself offered on August the 20th, two choices to the community: assistance from Haganah to set up a robust defence, or, alternatively, 'evacuation' (Benny Morris, Righteous Victims p.114). 'Forced to flee' has always troubled me because I know that one woman refused to be evacuated and, given her refusal, she was not 'forced to flee', but stayed behind. In all critical situations of this kind, authorities usually evacuate populations in danger, they don't 'force them to flee', a phrasing which makes the British effectively accomplices in the ethnic cleansing of the city (if this were the case an RS should be adduced to confirm it).

(2) Secondly, as is well known, an attempt at re-residence was undertaken in 1931. From that year, down to 1936, Rabbi Yaakov Yosef Slonim, with the assistance of Rabbi Heiem Begaio, Y. Hasson, and Avraham Franco, resettled some 200 people there. Rufina Bernardetti Silva Mausenbaum, 'Jewish history begins in Hebron said David Ben-Gurion' http://www.saudades.org/Jewish%20_history.htm

The problem this poses for the present text is as follows. If, as our page states, the survivors' property was appropriated by Arabs until 1967 (actually until 1979), where did the new 1931 community live? As Yosef Ezra's article in today's Haaretz leads us to intuit, many of them probably retook up residence in their old homes.

One of the families reestablished there remained in Hebron, after the re-evacuation in April 1936. I refer to the family of Yosef Ezra, who left Hebron only in 1947 (I cannot account so far for the fate of the woman who refused to evacuate in 1929).Nadav Shragai, 'Last Jew to leave Hebron after 1929 massacre to back settler claims,’ Haaretz 17/10/2007 http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/913890.html

• Yosef Ezra's age is given as 75, which yields an approximate date of birth of 1932, i.e. he was born in the newly reestablished community. The article opens thus: 'By the time Yosef Ezra was four years old, his family was the only Jewish family still in Hebron following the 1929 massacre.' This is poor prose, since it gives to inattentive readers the impression he was born in 1925. What it appears to wish to state is that when Yosef Ezra was four years old, i.e., in 1936, his family was the only one to remain in Hebron (i.e.not evacuated, since they exercised a choice, apparently) from the 200 settlers who came back there in 1931. The phrasing 'his family was the only Jewish family still in Hebron following the 1929 massacre' completely obscures the fact that after 1929, there was a resettlement undertaken, of which our Yosef Ezra is living witness.

I think this doesn't require inclusion in the Intro, but the facts the evidence highlights mean that the wording of the Introduction has to be delicately rephrased in order to not compromise the historical fact that Jews did live, after the 1929 massacre, in Hebron (1931-1936) and one family until 1947.

I suggest to interested parties, something along the lines:-

'The survivors were evacuated from Hebron, and, despite a brief resettlement from 1931 to 1936, were again evacuated during the riots of 1936. Though one family stayed on until 1947, much of the community's property was subsequently taken over by Arab residents.'

I'm not quite happy with this, but I drop in this note to mark a problem, and suggest editors mull it over to find an appropriate solution. Both this and the Hebron page proper, evidently need to deal with this, but here only en passant. History is never simple, but is often simpler than writing about it. Regards Nishidani 09:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

comment - changing the topic much? i thought the article was locked because of our disagreement on the book of hebron - you demanded we allow jewsagainstzionism.com also, and i rejected the comparison and refused to connect the WP:RS of the two sources together. maybe we should resolve this before the article gets unlocked so that it won't be locked again as soon as it opens? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:42, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I won't repeat the point made in my precise analogy between the reasons several editors gave for not including Baruch Kaplan's evidence, and my reason, on precisely the same grounds, for not including evidence you alone, of several editors, wished to introduce. Once one sorts this out, rereading through the argument, one can move on to larger issues. It is simply a matter of editorial coherence, and, as this gigantic thread indicates, it is very difficult to edit this page unless clear ground rules are accepted for what does, and does not constitute a RS. So, I ask third parties, is my analogy correct, in which case double standards are being used, or is it false. I don't think it sensible at this point for us to replay the edit and talk comment conflict. I think we should try to make positive suggestions about what we take to be problematical matters on the page, cool off a little, and, above all, wait until others pitch in. This is collective work, and so far, unfortunately it has ended up in a duel, which is not conducive to sober editing. Nishidani 11:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. Well, I appreciate Jaakobou for wanting to focus on the source dispute. So, I'd like to ask you, Jaakobou, if you don't mind, to go back above and answer the questions I posed. Would you? Nishidani, I also had follow-up q's for you. Meanwhile, Nishidani's idea of cooling off might be good, if you can identify some editing improvements that aren't so contentious. For instance, this is a "start-class" article, what needs to be done to bring it up a few notches? Perhaps if things are calm here, you also mind find some other third parties willing to help smooth out the disagreements. Ok? HG | Talk 12:38, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I've no problems with that. I did make the introductory note above because I thought that, given the recent dispute, a creative way to eventually address it would be to suspend tired focus on it, and work collaboratively on something fresh, and reading Haaretz's article this morning gave me an idea. My suggestion is we just try to iron out the problem of that phrasing in para. one, as a test of good faith editing on something that hasn't been the object of an edit war (of course, only if the points I raised are deemed valid). A trial run on fresh ground as it were, before we Alonso-Hamilton our ways back through the old circuits? Regards Nishidani 12:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

i'm displeased with the way this talk page is being bloated up (i don't even know what questions HG made that i'm supposed to answer) and i find nothing diffusing by removing something which was held under consensus for months and moving on to the next issue that nishidani wants to remove. not only did we reach this consensus before, but we've already had a 3rd opinion with the suggestion of "de-facto sanctioned by the police" and we've also has nishidani admit that the book of hebron is considered as an RS... the only thing missing, is for him to let go of the WP:POINT regarding the jewsagainstzionism.com (which is a ridiculous source on anything) so that we can resolve this dispute. i'm sorry, but avoiding this issue, will not diffuse it... noting also, that nishidani can't read hebrew and is a "professed bigot" (he calls it "moral grounds") on all things hebron related, i really don't see this as going in the proper direction by "moving on" to yet another POV push of contesting the wording "forced to flee" and wishing to replace it with "evacuated". Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 06:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Jaakobou, my questions are in the 3O section, here's the diff. Thanks. HG | Talk 07:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

A day has passed, and I find, instead of a gesture of accommodation to a mediating review, another restart of unfounded charges. To review a dispute takes both time, effort, patience and sobriety. If however my attempt to do this is greeted by a paragraph of incomprehensible accusations ending in the charge that I am a 'professed bigot', by someone who has just suffered a 3RR sanction regarding his editing behaviour (not notified on his page) which he proves influential enough to get cancelled within two hours, though the rule was infringed, then I see no point in pursuing this dialogue. I appreciate your attempt to mediate HG, recognize your honesty in reporting us both, but there does seem to be a problem there that goes deeper, far deeper, than what processes of neutral arbitration and dialogue can manage.

I have compromised on his blessed text by making due reference in a footnote. I have expressed my willingness to participate in this review, a readiness to cool it, change topic, experiment with an issue that has not engaged us, with a third neutral party, and the gesture is read badly. If Jaakobou comes to the page with this hostility, I refuse to play the game. I do have much to contribute to this and many other pages, and I think a critical third party review will show that I have looked at all of Jaakobou's material and arguments with a meticulousness of care and attention few others would have troubled to give them. My record shows I am not litigious, and have only suffered one sanction throughout my wiki career. I cannot evidently repeat a dialogue with someone who refuses the mediation offer itself, who is in perpetual conflict all over Wiki with many others, and who, in presenting arguments, delivers caricatures. Over to you, thenNishidani 08:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

it seems i'm not the only one who found comments by you as bigoted or insulting so get off the high "My record shows I am not litigious" horse. We have the article locked because of a certain issue - you making a WP:POINT because you want to protect User:PalestineRemembered's soapbox edits - and that issue needs to be resolved before the article is unlocked. i find requests such as this one: "Jaakobou. In the meantime could you do me the courtesy of checking the ‘’Sefer haHebron’’ to put an emphasize on how big of a point you're making - and no, i don't think you've made a compromise when i go into the section and see this is all that's supposedly left from the testimonies of the survivors. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I repeat, I will not allow myself to be dragged down into the mud, and into futile litigation. I am interested in writing quality articles, and defending articles under assault from irresponsible POV-pushing.Nishidani 08:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

You've reverted me several times, sometimes with apparent prejudice. However, I have considerable confidence in your editing articles to policy, from reliable sources. It is distressing to me to think (and see) more of your valuable time being wasted. I'd really hate to see good editing being displaced by bad. PR^talk 18:26, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Can everyone please try to keep comments limited to content, and not contributors? As far as the content issue, I think guidelines about the lead are clear that we should only discuss the most salient points, which I think would discount major mention of the constabulary there even if there was no dispute regarding participation. Would everyone be okay with keeping the more general lead, as Nishidani requests, and leaving any detailed discussion for the body? Tewfik^Talk 08:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:3O request rejected

Sorry, folks. There's already three (or more) editors extensively involved in this debate (depending on where you draw the line between debates), making it ineligible for the actual WP:3O process -- one more solitary voice isn't going to defuse this (not to mention it's entirely too muddled by now for one person to clear it up). My suggestions for places to turn are as follows: for questions about the reliability of a source, please try the reliable sources noticeboard, where a separate and non-contentious discussion could be held regarding ONLY the reliability of the source(s) in question (I'd suggest HG (t c) post there, as he/she has been acting as a mediator here already); for broader comment about the article, an RFC/HIST may be useful; if y'all want to complain about each others' conduct, go to WQA where I (and other volunteers) would be happy to comment on conduct and not content.

I do appreciate, however, the sentiment expressed by trying the WP:3O process; at least y'all are trying to de-escalate the situation here. --Darkwind (talk) 03:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Where is the consensus for "many policemen"?

Where is the consensus for "many policemen"? I didn't notice it, as best I can tell, the counter argument was conclusive, only one policemen is mentioned in the reports, and there is very good reason to think he was the only one. (eg - if there had been more, they'd have been prosecuted, as many people were, and many sentenced to death, though in the end I think only 3 were hanged). If any editor believes differently, then I think they should put the evidence together in one place for us to see it. (It might be a good idea if someone else did a "canvas" on any editor thought to have a particular interest in this matter - it could be misunderstood if I pick on any one individual and expect an answer from just that person). PR^talk 09:06, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

There is a passage in Tacitus's, 'The Histories', that comes to mind, in reading over this thread, and observing the bewilderment of impartial observers: tumultu verborum sibi ipsi obstrepentes ('drowning out their meanings in a wordy ruckus'.Bk.1.85) As Tewfik indicated, guidelines suggest that contentious views have no place in introductions, which must simply adumbrate, tersely, the salient elements of an article.

This has already been done, again in deference to another Roman writer, Horace, who wrote: 'parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus' (Ars Poetica l.139). See note 9 of the page. This note accommodates the variation Jaakobou desires, and fits both WP:Undue Weight and rules governing what can and cannot go into an introduction. I regard this specific issue as long settled, only the compromise worked out does not seem to be acceptable to the other editor, and is lost on mediators who have themselves, perhaps, understandably missed it in the clangour of debate.

If this compromise on my part is unacceptable, we can of course refer the materia del contendere(the matter under dispute), as classical jurisprudence puts it in Roman courts, to further higher tribunals of arbitration, where we may bore the community with a rerun of our respective forensic catherine-wheelings. Nishidani 09:45, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

just would like to add

I think it would also be important to add some details about the brutality of the rioters such as the castrating of males and then stuffing their mouths with their severed genitals, the rape of women and the murder of children. Also it would benefit the article to add specific murders such as the case of Ben Zion Gershon a crippled druggist who was known in the Hebron community for his legendary kindness to Arabs but was not spared the Arab mob broke into his house gouged his eyes out and killed him cut his wife's arms off (she later died in a hospital and the attempted rape of his daughter who struggled so much that they decided to kill her instead. Finally I think it would be wise to add the fact that this massacre took more lives than The Kishinev Pogrom did to help people understand the magnitude of this riot also the fact that there was not yet an "occupying force" in the west bank and Gaza nor was there even a state of Israel. Wikihawk27 19:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikihawk27

Personally I see no problem in adding an account of these incidents, so long as it is done by editors with a strong record for impartiality. Indeed, I have already prepared a synthesis of the atrocities, with details like those mentioned above, written some months ago, and have not been able to post it because I have been stuck in an edit war on two words in the Introduction, as per above.

My argument has been, throughout, to revise the text, which is poor, by using a close chronologically coherent narrative on the way events unfolded, and then sum up with an account of the victims (it is the victim list that I asked Jaakobou to obtain from the Sefer haHebron). The slaughter details of that work amply recording the tragedy have been harvested and posted all over the Internet in hundreds of pages: the list of the victims is nowhere available in full. Then a paragraph on the Arab rescue, which was as singular as the massacre itself.

The massacre took, yes, more lives than Kishinev, but it took fewer lives than the slaughter, in some 879 pogroms, quickly following one on another, of at least 28,000 Jews in the Ukraine and Black Sea Area in 1917-1919, by Petliura's thuggish army (averaging over 30 people per incident, often with obscene violence). Jabotinsky knew all about those 28,000 Jews butchered, and yet as late as 1922 was still negotiating with Petliura's representative Slavinsky to get Jewish brigades into that antisemitic pogromist army as part of Petliura's campaign to invade the Soviet Union, testifying before the WZO on the reliability of such people. Hebron is showcased, because it fits a Zionist historical narrative of just reclamation for an outrage committed on Jews decades earlier in Palestine, which was to be colonized by people traumatized by these ferocious European pogroms, or under threat from further massacres abroad.

Why Hebron, a rare event in the area's modern history, should be singled out for this intensive hate campaign against Arabs, by people who in Wikipedia cultivate Jabotinsky's image, and keep the Irgun and Stern gang pages relatively clean of negative innuendo, is evident. The page suffers from strong pressures because it lends itself to an open controversy between the local Arab population and recent settlers which is still unresolved, controversial and violent.

This page therefore demand deep editorial tact, sobriety and honesty. For, it is evident that the Sefer haHebron itself is widely used by a community with deep historic links to terrorism, and a strong investment in this narrative for highly emotive propaganda purposes, and therefore the page's drafting cannot allow the Wikipedia article to drift into the hands of those who use the 1929 incident in order to wrest control of that city from 'Arabs'. The contextual presentation by Wikihawk27 shows precisely the danger from extremist sources that menace a serene NPOV narrative of those events. Allow these hands that fossick in the gore for instrumental purposes of propaganda, to work the page, and one invites the usual futile edit wars.

I suggest that Wikihawk27 meditate, when thinking of Hebron, on Abba Kovner's account of events at Bi'lin and Barqusya, not to mention Dawayima, some decades on, in the Hebron area. He recalled, after putting those villages to the torch, that:-

'Suddenly the ground was soft (under the wheels of the jeeps of 'Samson's Foxes', (Giv'ati's commando unit) . bodies! Tens of bodies under their wheels. The driver was put off: human beings under his wheels (But)wait a minute. He remembered (Kibbutz) Negba (and) Beit Daras (in both Arab troops had killed Jews) - and he ran them over! Do not be deterred sons, murderous dogs - their punishment is blood! And the more you run over bloody dogs, the more you will love the beautiful, the good, and liberty(italics in original).

Hebron's slaughter is well-documented. What occurred in dozens of these villages, many near to Hebron, where, according to reliable historians, massacres of similar and greater scale took place repeatedly against Arabs, is lost, for no one thought of getting the survivors in exile to get a reliable collective eyewitness account that could be circulated for political purposes. We should never forget that fact while writing on the tragedies that befell Jews in that area. Nishidani 09:59, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you two discuss it a bit before it goes in? I personally will not put any language in until it is clearly exactly what everyone wants me to put in. Saying "some details about the brutality of the rioters" is not clear. Work out the exact language a bit more (maybe a subpage?) before using {{editprotected}}. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

It comes down to "Do we wish to incite hatred?". If not, then we'll exclude these details, which in any case, add nothing to understanding the incident and situation. PR^talk 05:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Ricky81682 It's relatively easy to write about gore, it comes naturally to most of us. It appears to be immensely difficult to agree on whether an introduction should write 'Arabs' or 'Arab civilians and policemen.' The best evidence says the former. One contradictory account supports the latter. The compromise was to footnote the latter minoritarian view in the relevant section. The page got stuck because the compromise was not accepted.

Since this began as a review of the page, I think the Introduction issue has to be resolved. There is one other point. To make those succinct words compatible with the known facts, i.e., that after the massacre in 1929, Hebron was resettled by 200 people for 5 years, and one Jewish family remained until 1947. That doesn't have to be put in, since it is detail, but the intro. can't assert, against these facts, that after 1929 all property was seized, and only began to be taken back after 1967 (actually after 1979). I am labouring perhaps under the misguided impression that Wiki rules on verifiability of text should be applied also to this page. If the rules are to be suspended here, then we are stuck.

PR. Facts don't worry me. The selective use to which they are put does. It is a fact that the 1929 massacre at Hebron evinced a singular and obscene brutality, which cannot be glossed over. Lenni Brenner, in his bio. of Jabotinsky, writes:-'the pogroms were a devastating propaganda setback for the Palestinian cause, particularly because the prime victims had been the anti-Zionist Chassidim.'(He should have added, it was a devastating setback for the Hasidim themselves). As I indicated above, the Kiryat Arba community derives a large part of its rationale for the brutality of its re-occupation from those facts. But this does not mean that fear of that instrumental use for propaganda of those ascertained facts should intimidate one from noting those facts. It simply means that the material must be admitted, in such a way that it does not lend itself to publicitarian strategies for that interested lobby. The only way to do this is to record the truth: which is that the riot ended it acts of outrageous mutilation, and that were it not for the singular intervention of from 19 to 25 Arab families, who saved much of the rest of the Jewish community, the toll would have been far higher. This means you must give equal weight to the savagery, and its details, and to the rescue operation by Arab neighbours.

The Hebron massacre puzzles me. There is much that is left unrecorded (the effect of the earlier Nebi Musa riot, which involved Hebronite Arabs coming to Jerusalem, and being stoned and then running amuck in the Jewish quarter there: the impact of that incident in the rise of tensions recorded for 1921-1923 in Hebron; the tensions between Hebronite Arabs and the Ashkenazi students, who were very poor and often could not pay their rent to Arab landlords; the distinction between the Arab villagers outside Hebron and those who lived inside the town; between the Jewish ghetto and the dispersed new immigrant population of Jews living outside that area etc.etc.) It was singular in the extremity of butchering brutality, and in the often valiant efforts by Arab neighbours to protect Jews. A pity then that one cannot, under the pressure of these POV anxieties, write the page according to the truth. The truth is far more complex than what interested parties will allow. But an editor in these circumstances owes a duty to that truth: it never disturbed Raul Hilberg, even when the facts stood starkly against what he might have wished to believe, and lesser beings like ourselves, who scurry obscurely in his wake, should learn to take a page from his book, and look it straight in the face, mindful of his advice to go to the facts irrespective of the consequences. Nishidani 09:56, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Sources

Sources are needed for adding the category "Islam and antisemitism".Bless sins 13:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Were those jews killed for any other reason that being jews ? they were (for the most part) not even Zionists. Zeq 14:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Some 19 to 25 Arab families (Islamic faith) helped rescue the majority of the Jewish population of Hebron from the massacre. Therefore to link their own faith to antisemitism is inappropriate. Some may have acted from common humanity, some may have acted out of respect even for that tradition of protection for people of the book which, unlike Christianity, is one of the hallmarks of Islam. Just as a matter of curiosity does Wiki have a category for 'Christianity/Catholicism and antisemitism'? Christianity has been, historically, far more deeply antisemitic than Islam, and the clever transfer of this hallmark to Islam in the Western mind is one of the more notable pathologies of the contemporary loss of historical perspective. I say this as someone of Christian cultural background.Nishidani 16:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Those who rescued are certainly important and are mentioned, but I don't think the existence of Righteous among the Nations makes the circumstances they were saving Jews from less antisemitic. On the count of Christianity and antisemitism you are probably quite right. Tewfik^Talk 01:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Tewfik. Some things are much more complex that what appears on the page, and even in the standard history books. There were two tensions which are relatively ignored, one between the traditional community and the predominantly Ashkenazi (American and Eastern European) yeshiva community. Perhaps tension is the wrong word, but the Arabic-speaking Jews, fluent in local cultural ways, often with their own housing, often had to bail out Zionist newcomers from problems with rent, behaving (unwittingly) in ways that worried local Arabs (lack of circumspection when entering an Arab house etc), corresponding to tensions within the Arabic community between rural and entrepreneurial Hebronites. The post-1917 effect of official government sponsorship for Jewish emigration on the situation naturally ratcheted up this unease, producing the spate of simmering violence in 1921-1923, as Hebron was swept up in the larger discourse of Zionist colonization vs. an Arab state. Undoubtedly, given the primitive development of national feeling, notions of identity assumed a religious colouring, as Islam was the only value leaders could exploit to mobilize the masses, otherwise caught up in their village particularism and enmities. There was also a theological tension between the apolitical side of Jewish religious feeling (which thought Zion could not be created by human endeavour, but must await a Messianic coming, and the secular Zionist project, ideated by thinkers familiar with the example of European nationalism, which believed, in contrast to orthodox thinking, that a state was not only desirable but feasible. The socioeconomic and political factors are what interest me, not the pretextual rhetoric used by machiavellian nationalists to enage the masses. The Arabs used religion for foment riots but the groundcause of these tensions was not rooted in metaphysics, it was, rather, based on very real concrete political interests. Throughout the Shoah, a huge number of Jews in Arab countries remained, despite despicable pogroms here and there (most of them 'insignificant' compared to the norm from 1880s-1922 in Eastern Europe, where killing two to three hundred Jews from Poland to the Ukraine week in week out, at times (under Petliura in the Ukraine 1917-21), was commonplace), relatively intact from the onslaught of genocide conducted throughout the Christian world, and I suspect that there is something astutely hypocritical in the very recent trend in Western countries to brand Islam as intrinsically religiously terroristic, when those countries have the major burden to wear for the unparalleled industrial-scale slaughter of Jews that took place during the war.

Those who conducted the massacre in Hebron were certainly impelled by antisemitic propaganda, but did so in the name of that religious pretext furnished by mullahs inflaming passions in the ongoing struggle over the sacred sites at Jerusalem. Of this propaganda we know quite a bit: we do not know much about the nature of those varied motivations that lay behind the rescue of so many Jews. But, as I said, aside from 'humanity', religious feelings related to Islamic doctrine cannot be wholly excluded. Christianity inspired, indeed created, antisemitism, and yet Christian doctrine also provided grounds for recusing this very tradition, and many of the righteous among the nations undoubtedly drew inspiration for their acts on what they considered to be ethical values they learnt from Christianity. I think Christianity, historically, far more antisemitic than Islam. Perhaps I should examine how often in recounting the innumerable pogroms against Jews in Europe we encounter, on those pages, a category 'Christianity and antisemitism'. Until I see this, I will remain wary of putting 'Islam and antisemitism' on pages like this because it plays too facilely into the hypocritical hands of those majority of broadcasters in the West caught up in the latest projection of what the late Norman Cohn called 'Europe's inner demons'. It is no great advance in the contemporary liberation from prejudice, that antisemitism is interdicted (a huge plus) and yet Arabs, or people of Islamic faith, are branded as murderous, warped, conniving despoliators of human decency. That all smacks to me of a sign that the hatred within the traditional antisemitic cast of mind has simply altered its focus from the standard target - the Jew - to the Arab. Empirically I know this to be true, since I live in an area where the antisemites of two decades ago are now fiercely anti-Arab. Scratch them in argument just a tad, and you find that their new found philosemitism is just a superficial accommodation to political correctness, viable because, in the meantime, they have a new semitic hate object that happens to be in conflict with their erstwhile bugaboo. Regards Nishidani 12:01, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you that much of recent perspective is a bit twisted, and that the Islamic world was often a better place. However my point is that there are always complicated contexts, whether in Europe or elsewhere, but they don't take away from the larger picture of antisemitism, despite it always having various external "causes". Tewfik^Talk 19:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

'but they don't take away from the larger picture of antisemitism.' Well here we disagree. I think anti-semitism very much, as its major historians concur, a Christan malady. And I think for example that in the Palestinian context, the rioting against Zionist immigrants built on a tradition already present in late Ottoman times of exploiting religious festivals like Nebi Musa to arouse popular protest against foreign Consular interference in local affairs, and Christian purchases of property, or campaigns of proselytisation. The Arab resentment of Zionist initiatives replays their resentment of Christian plans for developing and converting the 'Holy Land' that got underway from the 1840s. Since religious propaganda first focused on Christian intrusions, and only later on Zionist intrusions, the protests cannot be seen as 'antisemitic' (in the Western sense of an ingrained, quasi ontological hostility to Jews) but as a broader popular and elite resistance to 'foreigners'. With of course the spread of Western ideas, and the rise of nationalism, these practical elements were overlaid with the standard protocol venom Nishidani (talk) 10:29, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Michael Kiefer has an interesting article, 'Islamischer, Islamistischer oder Islamisierter antisemitismus?', Die Welt des Islams, Brill Academic Publishers, Volume 46, Number 3, October, 2006 (which is available on the web. The abstract gives his conclusion as 'the author concludes that, as this anti-Semitism was largely prefigured in Europe, its current expressions in Muslim countries are in its essential aspects identical with its European predecessors. The term “Islamized anti-Semitism” is thus proposed as more adequate to this ideology.') I'll try to access a copy.Nishidani 19:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. When you get access to the copy, could you please provide the quote. Until then, I see no sources implicating that this event has to do with antisemitism caused by Islam.Bless sins (talk) 21:18, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I see you have double standards, Bless sins; you demand quotes here, but cannot provide them on the Islam and antisemitism article. But yea, a quote would be helpful just to silence this issue once and for all. Yahel Guhan 07:31, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The situation here is different. The source above doesn't at all mention the Hebron massacre. We need relevant sources. Also on Islam and antisemitism, you ask me to produce the quotes months after I added the material. Here the discussion is fresh and the user is liekly to have the source on hand.Bless sins (talk) 06:48, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

• antisemitism is not christian malady. It is, like ignorance, universal. Zeq (talk) 11:29, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Yves Chevalier's L'Antisémitisme, to note but one of several comprehensive books, (Cerf Paris 1988) only mentions Christian Europe. Live in countries like India and Japan, or study the history of the Sinti/Rom or Palestinians in the West Bank and you will see that pariah treatment of minorities, of great intensity and historical duration, is not unique to Jews. Nishidani (talk) 11:49, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

So despite the discussion, we still have no sources? If there are, can someone simply state them.Bless sins (talk) 18:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Questions

• Why were they massacred ?
  

1. Because they were Jewish religious ?
2. Because they were of Jewish origins ?
3. Because they were Jews living in Palestine ?

• Who organised the massacre ?
  

1. Local authorities ?
2. Muslim religious ?
3. Arab Palestinians ?
4. Arab Palestinian nationalists ?

• In what context were they massacred ?
  

1. In a peaceful context but with some political instability ?
2. In the context of a religious war ?
3. In the context of a xenophobia situation ?
4. In the context of a nationalist struggle ?

• What do scholar say about these events ?

1. It is the result of Judeophobia ?
2. It is the result of Islamofascim ?
3. It is the result of Anti-Semitism ?
4. It is the result of Anti-Zionism ?
5. It is the result of Arab nationalism ?

Ceedjee (talk) 10:47, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Ceedjee In historical writing, the thicker the details one musters, the weaker the evidence for any one or two schematic master-theories giving a monocausal account. As a general observation, we tend to like simplistic explanations because they relieve us of the fuzzy complexities of real events. Most of the elements you raise were present in some minds, and some contexts, but overall, since we are dealing with a mass action of murder, classic works like Le Bon's Pychologie des foules and Canetti's Masses and Power provide one with the physics of madness that influence hysterical mob action. By citing them, I don't mean to reduce the incident to these situational dynamics of group madness: in my own view it was a classic case of the clash of nationalisms boiling over, Jewish versus Arab, heightened by the usual tensions of wealth and means and vision as opposed to poverty and insecurity. Zionism aimed to turn urban immigrants into peasants (itself an anomaly in the general theory of nationalism): Arab nationalism was supposed to transform peasants into townsmen, but had no adequate project of social engineering capable of this, being far more backward, and thus wasted its energies in defending traditional elite interests, by manipulating popular dissent, against similar ones encroaching on their territory by the new Zionist elite. Nishidani (talk) 11:07, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Nishidani,

I agree with what you write.

These events occured in a context of nationalist struggle. Would have these people been Christians (or even Shiites), BUT with the same political goals as Zionists and they would have been massacred as well. Would have been no Yeshiva in Hebron but a Jewish isolated settlement, it would have been attacked as well such as Kfar Ezion in '48.

This is neither Judeophobia, nor Anti-Semitism. All that can be said is that it is the expression of the Palestinian Arab nationalism AND the Zionist nationalism fighting each other.

Ceedjee (talk) 11:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but it is not a classic case of conflicting nationalisms. As Author Koestler wrote, it was a freak of history that one foreign nation gave to a second people dispersed all over the world, the land of a third people who actually lived on the territory, and the greatest irony is that the decision to do this was made by an anti-Semite, Balfour, who despised both Jews and Arabs.Nishidani (talk) 11:39, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with this too except I never read Balfour despised Arabs.

Ceedjee (talk) 12:05, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Balfour was a Semitophile and a Zionist who shared some of the standard racial attitudes of the elite of his day. To describe him as "anti-Semitic" is a travesty. Indeed, historians and psychologists alike have some difficulty in explaining exactly why Balfour worked so hard and so diligently in the Zionist interest. Balfour and Foreign Policy: The International Thought of a Conservative Statesman has a really interesting discussion of these matters. --Ian Pitchford (talk) 13:36, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't you think that at this time, simply, being racist was as normal as today most of us are not racists ?

For people at this time, "normality" was to think that women didn't deserve to vote (for many reasons) and they were racists (for many reasons). So pointing out Balfour considered Jewish as inferior or stating he was antisemite doesn't have the same meaning as it can have today.

Is this what you refer too ? Ceedjee (talk) 14:11, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Ian Pitchford Antisemitic in the sense that for one an acute writer like Frederick Raphael would define that attitude. After all, Balfour is on record as sharing Cosima Wagner's profoundly antisemitic prejudices, as Weizmann himself recalled, and a little familiarity with the Wagner circle puts this curious admission into the proper light (Admittedly, one of Cosima Wagner's own circle, the racist ideologue Houston Stewart Chamberlain, thought Balfour on the other hand 'typical of an emasculated aristocracy captivated by Jews'). I suggest you reread what Jason Tomes says on pp.46ff., of his book, about Balfour's total indifference to uncivilised peoples like Indians, Arabs, and aborigines (quite happy to let them starve in their millions and cut each other's throats) as a background to his antisemitic remarks, and his sense of English racial and civilised superiority., and then read on. To wish to put a minority movement within Western Jewish circles, Zionism, into centre stage, as England was preparing with France to carve up the Middle East into zones of commercial interest, using these 'Jews' as the commercial interest that would then face the 'uncivilized Arab' and in doing so, take on the white man's burden while, in gratitude (as Jabotinsky saw) defending England's imperial dominance of the middle eastern chessboard, was justly seen as an act of folly by many of his peers, In my own view, there was nothing philosemitic in this, but rather a highly astute, cynical use of a people whose habits he privately disliked to have them bear the brunt of a colonial policy he didn't like Britain to waste resources on.Nishidani (talk) 17:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

@User:Ceedjee - Nishidani has been shamefully hounded from the project, at least temporarily. I can answer all your questions in a tolerably fact-based fashion (I hope). I may well be accused of soap-boxing and blocked indefinitely without reason or appeal, but since it's in direct response to your questions, I should get away with it this time.

1. Why were they massacred ?

An understandable but foolish attempt to protect freshly arriving youngsters, likely both religious and secular. The former seem to have been upsetting locals in various ways (and struggling to pay their rent!). The latter are known to have turned up with bombs before the massacre - and their conduct was extremely threatening. The two groups were (rightly or wrongly) linked in the popular mind by the ongoing campaign to seize various holy places by violent means. (Palestine traditionally hosted a third immigrant group, elderly Jews supported by donations from abroad - it's unlikely these folk were any trouble to anyone).

2. Who organised the massacre?

Nobody - in a society that had never had dependable policemen, crime was dealt with by imams who denounced "the guilty" at Friday prayers and a mob assembled to deal with the problem. The sentence was couched in racist terms, but appears to have distinguished between the old and new communities. 12 of the former (of a population of several hundred) were killed. 55 of the "new" population died - at least 7 were yeshiva students. These students may or may not have been planning to seize holy places - but the threats were real, serious and growing.

3. In what context were they massacred?

The seizure of the Western Wall in Jerusalem had been threatened for at least 5 years (1922), and large groups of extremists with sticks were now congregating there. The British Mandate authorities, heavily influenced by Zionism, had been allowing (sometimes encouraging) the immigrants to arm and train while preventing the natives from doing so - this despite the fact that the gun-running had been deeply alarming to the Palestinians since at least 1891 (ie before Herzl proposed Zionism!). British investigators of the riots were thoroughly alarmed by what they found and predicted catastrophe (as they'd done regularly for 10 years) if immigration wasn't stopped.

4. What do scholars say about these events?

As best I'm aware, scholars describe it in a fashion broadly similar to what I've done above. However, this article will not be written in any kind of encyclopedic fashion as long as scholars and first-rate editors such as User:Nishidani are forced out in the way we've just seen. What's happened to him is only the same thing that's happened to a series of knowledgeable people who object to articles written like this one, pandering to hatred. PR^talk 11:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Nishidani will be missed, despite all his attempts to lower down the death toll of the massacre based on selective reading of the sources and "moral high ground". i'm sure he'll come back someday soon with you revving him up and cheering for him though. (that is a hint to stop the hyperbole eulogy) [50] Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:08, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

on point - i disagree with a large chunk of your perception on events, and i have read a nice chunk of the hebrew sources... some of them pasted here for public comfort. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:09, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

This is the third time recently you've wiki-stalked my contributions with wiki-lawyering and in-your-face challenges based on nothing atall. Why would I even bother with an editor who things that calling David Frum "a political commentator and former speech-writer for George W. Bush" is poisoning the well and edit-wars to exclude it? Are we to have another long and bad-tempered wrangle as we did over your crapping in people's TalkPages - a practise it took from April to October to force you to give up? PR^talk 15:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

• The fact that some muslim family sheilds jews clearly show that any accusation of antisemitism can not be placed against all the mulsim in Hebron. The question ehre should be: Is there evidence sources showing that those who did the massacre were mulsims ? if so were they motivated or connected to antisemitism. if the answer is yes the category should be restored. I think it was un fair to remove it now while this discussion in talk is going on. it may be realted to the issue of the movie Fitna ? Zeq (talk) 04:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Archiving

This talk page needs archiving badly. 336 KB is way too long. John Carter (talk) 19:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)