Talk:Lehi (militant group)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Stern gang and Irgun

A couple of comments about the link that was added. For one, the text in the article claims that the Stern Gang wanted to side with Nazi Germany, while the link itself claims it was the Irgun that wanted to side with the Nazis. These were two separate organizations. The Stern Gang split from the Irgun over the question of whether to continue the struggle against Britain during World War II. The Irgun said that Nazi Germany was the common enemy and that, therefore, they should cooperate with Britain, while the Stern Gang wanted to continue the struggle against Britain.

As for the story as to what really happened (as I understand it)--There was considerable animosity between the two groups during World War II, and the Irgun decided to take some drastic measures against the Stern Gang. What they did was forge a letter from the German diplomatic attache to Damascus (Syria was then under Vichy rule), inviting the Stern Gang to negotiate with them. The Stern Gang believed the letter was genuine and sent a representative to Damascus. I do not recall if he actually made it and the German ambassador refused to see him (after all, the invitation was a forgery), or whether he never made it there (I think this is the correct version, but I will have to check).

My sources for this are a personal discussion I had several years ago exactly about this topic with Yitzhak Berman, a former commander of the Irgun (and later Minister of Justice, who resigned his post in opposition to the Lebanon War). Berman ran a British spy operations in the Balkans during World War II (mainly in Bulgaria and Romania). In other words, cooperation was such between the Irgun and the British that the British agreed to use them as spies in Europe. Berman claimed to also have been involved in the incident with the Stern Gang. I had been asked by an Italian company to present a draft translation of Berman's autobiography for possible publication in English. I do not know if it was ever published, but I think it was not. In any event, I asked him about the Stern Gang-Nazi link, and that is what he told me, expanding on a brief outline that appeared in his book. Personally, I trust his version of the story more than a website with blatant historical errors. Danny

---

I didn't hear about the forged letter of invitation before, but Stern certainly wrote to the Germans claiming an idealogical affinity and offering to fight in the war on the side of Germany. His letter is in the German archives and can be found (in its German original) in D. Yisraeli, The Palestine Problem in German Politics 1889-1945 (Bar Ilan University, 1974) 315-317. Stern's representative Naftali Lubenchik went to Beirut and met Otto von Hentig, a representative of the German Foreign Office (who recalled the meeting in his memoirs). J. Heller, The Stern Gang (Frank Cass, 1995) has a photo of von Hentig's covering letter added when he forwarded Stern's letter to the German embassy in Ankara. Stern tried to make contact with German officials again in Dec 1941. As far as I know, there was no substantial German response. Heller is a good source.

Concerning the "Irgun" versus "Stern Gang" question you raise concerning the letter, the confusion is resolved thus: when Stern broke away from the "Irgun Zvai Leumi" (National Military Organization) he named his new organization "Irgun Zvai Leumi be-Yisrael" (National Military Organization in Israel). This is the "Irgun" in his letter (probably he considered his faction to be the "real" Irgun). It was only after Stern's death that the name "Lohamei Herut Yisrael" (Fighters for the Freedom of Israel) was adopted.

Proposal to Germans: It is correct that the web site has a strong bias and should not be trusted. However, the actual documents that appear there are genuine. The source given for the original German version (D. Yisraeli, The Palestine Problem in German Politics 1889-1945 (Bar-Ilan University, 1974) 315-317) is genuine and seems to match the photocopy I made many years ago at the BIU library. The author quoted it from the German archives. Eldad wrote a book about it (but I haven't read it). Shamir also mentions it in his autobiography. It's also described in Encyclopedia Judaica. So the basic facts of the matter are not disputed, but of course the question of why it was done and whether it was a moral action in the circumstances is going to remain a hot potato forever. I added a solid reference (Heller). -- zero 12:07, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Bernadotte assassination

Bernadotte assassination: It is not true that Lehi never claimed responsibility for it. Israel Eldad admitted it on Israeli TV at the 30th anniversary (1978). Zetler and Markover talked about it on Israeli radio at the 40th anniversary (according to the NYT, 12 Sep 1988). You can find admissions reported in many history books (Bell, Bar Zohar, Ilan, Marton). By now there is nobody who denies it. As far as I know the only thing disputed is of who ordered it. Eldad and others said it was the three leaders together but Shamir denies that.

It's true that Lehi was officially dissolved by then, but in Jerusalem they were still organised and had their weapons. Dayan even mentions joint operations with them in his autobiography.

-- zero 12:07, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC) (UTC)

Wouldn't it be good to put the rival claims into the main document? ---- Charles Stewart 15:21, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

---

The Bernadotte assassination is also listed on the Lehi web page. It is towards the end of http://www.lehi.org.il/h_idf.htm . It says that Lehi "saw Bernadotte as a tool in the service of British interests, and viewed his suggestions as a plan for dismantling Israel." -- zero 02:22, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)

---

Is there any justification for describing http://www.marxists.de/ as "a non-reliable source" ? - pir 09:06, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

That's a good question. Maybe the wording can be improved. That site is an activist site rather than an information site, so it has the same problems with bias and skewed viewpoint that activist sites often have. It is necessary to say something to prevent the wrong impression that only communist sources claim Lehi wrote to the Nazis. If you can suggest better wording, please do so. --Zero 12:12, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

What we always do, attribute claims, make PsOV clear and let readers make up their mind: "note: this is a link to an excerpt from a book by marxist Lenni Brenner, hosted by an anti-Zionist activist group ; it is not controversial that the letter from Lehi is genuine". At the moment it reads like the website is some kind of nutty conspiracy site involved in falsification of historical evidence that somehow left the Lehi letter intact. - pir 12:43, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Lehi vs NMO

We have a problem here. Lehi was a different group under different leadership after Stern's death so there needs to be a distiniction between its activities before and After Stern's death.

Guy Montag 05:07, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There is no such problem. Almost all historians treat the group led by Eldad, Yellin-Mor and Shamir as the same group as previously led by Stern. As the article says, it went into an eclipse then was resuscitated. Many of the members were the same. This was also the opinion of the "new" group. To this day, members of Lehi regard Stern to have been their founder (see www.lehi.org.il for a quick proof). None of this means that the "new" group was the same in all respects as the "old" group; after all, it had different leaders and circumstances had evolved. But we should follow common practice and treat them as the same group in different time periods. --Zero 13:19, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Another problem with your changes is the use of "NMO". It is the English acronym of Irgun Zvai Leumi which was the full name of the Irgun, so using it for Stern's group can only be confusing. Stern called his group Irgun Zvai Leumi be-Yisrael both to distinguish it from the Irgun and to hint that his group was the "real" Irgun. We could use something like NMOI to distinguish it, but I've never seen that. The alternative, which is what historians tend to do, is to call it "Lehi" all the time but add a note admitting the inaccuracy. I'll do that. --Zero 13:19, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ok. That is a good compromise.

Guy Montag 10:12, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Cleanup

Aside from the usual arguments about content, bias, etc., this article is poorly structured as it is now. I'll work on it in spare moments, but I thought I'd tag it in the meantime. --Leifern 13:20, 2005 Mar 24 (UTC)

Contact with the Nazis, etc.

I haven't made any edits, but I'm not sure that the absence of death camps is a valid excuse for what Lehi did - I don't accept it as an excuse for the British authorities' unwillingness to accept Jewish refugees, and there shouldn't be a double standard.

Having said this, the whole Lehi phenomenon needs further research. Clearly, it was an organization that embraced extreme measures, but the article doesn't explain what kind of strategy lay behind it all. For example: Did they really think that killing Folke Bernadotte or Lord Moyne would solve any problems, or were they just looking for a way to destabilize the situation? To me, they seem like a bunch of nutcases, but that only tells me I don't know enough about them. --Leifern 19:58, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

Alleged errors

I am removing to here some commentary inserted into the article by a new anon:

Here are some corrections to the text below that I got from an Israeli historian:

1. Leadership of Lehi was never shared among 3 people.
2. Israel Eldad was not a leader in Lehi; rather, he was the "top engineer" -- he organized and built the bombs.
3. Ytshak (Isaac) Shamir replaced Abraham ("Yair") Stern when Yair was killed by British soldiers. Later, Shamir was caught by the British and extradited, at which time he was replaced by Natan Yalin Mor. Note: Shamir later became prime minister of Israel.
4. Uri Tsvi Greenberg was a Jewish poet and a facist, but he was not really associated with Lehi in any way. On the other hand, Yair was himself a poet, and Lehi used his poems.
5. Aba Ahi-Meir was a leader of a street gang. He was not a writer, and thus it could not be that Lehi was guided by his writing. He was a friend of Yair, and at the same time he disliked Shamir. Later, when Lehi broke up, he lead one of the parts that broke away -- the facist sect that joined the "Herut" party (Menahem Begin's political party). The other parts that broke away from Lehi were collectively lead by Shamir and by Natan Yalin Mor. Later, this group itself broke into two parts, one that joined the "Kibbutz Meuhad" movement and the other joined the Likud party.

There are some true things in here but also some very doubtful things. We need more than an unnamed source to make changes, but on the other hand we can examine these issues to see if changes are warranted. In the following "Heller" refers to Joseph Heller's book "The Stern Gang: Ideology, Politics and Terror 1940-1949" (Frank Cass, 1995; previously published in Hebrew under the title Lehi).

• On the contrary, the 3 people names in the article were joint leaders of Lehi for a long period (approx 1944-1948). They were called the 'centre'. All major decisions were made by them together. In the earlier period it was more complicated. Shamir did not take over after Stern's death because he was already in prison and didn't get out for another 7 months (Sep 1942). Meanwhile Yehoshua Cohen (later the assassin of Bernadotte) was in charge but he did little. After escaping from prison, Shamir was the leader for a while, at least after he killed his rival Giladi. Friedman-Yellin was still in prison until Nov 1943, after which the afore-mentioned triumvirate was formed. That lasted until 1948. The article should have these details; I'll work on it.
• Yisrael Scheib (Eldad) was certainly not only a bomb-maker. He was the group's main ideologue from after Stern's death until the end. Like it says in Yisrael Eldad, "He was the movement’s foremost intellectual leader and edited its underground publications."
• Stern was killed by police, not soldiers.
• Abba Achimeir in fact wrote lots of things. Heller references many of them. It was Eldad who split away from Friedman-Yellin and Shamir, when the "Fighter's Party" disintegrated.
• Comments in the article about ideological roots should be revised. I've never been happy about them. The period of Soviet orientation should also be mentioned.

--Zero 11:16, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

terrorist group???

Lehi was a militant Zionist group, a liberation movement (like the Irgun)but NOT a terrorist group. You can read about the characteristics of terrorism, and see thar the "Lehi" wasn't a terrorist group. Please correct this mistake in order to prevent misunderstanding. Aybabtu 15:35, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

• Interesting. Utter revisionist arrogant crap, but interesting. A Zionist, by any chance? I don't give a damn what the Wiki article on terrorism says, but when you go out dressed as a civilian to commit acts of murder on - amongst others - innocent civilians in order to further your own political agenda which includes the formation of a single-race state at the exclusion of all others, including the native population, then you are a terrorist. Ever heard of Deir Yassin? Bernadotte? You can read about them here. So YOU are the mistake. Israel is the only country in the world which sees fit to lecture the rest of the world on terrorism yet treat its own terrorist groups and murderers as heros and legends, and elect them national leaders. Arafat cannot be a leader becuase he was a terrorist? So what about Begin? In Israel, terrorists are simply people who do not agree with their points of view. 80.6.30.24 11:37, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Poor civilians. Those Israeli soldiers barbarously killed them. May I remind you that these "civilians" weren't so innocent like you are saying. These so called civilians (and civilians from other villages near Jerusalem) prevented (tried to prevent) the pass of supply convoys to besieged Jerusalem. Even when doctors tried to get there they were attacked and killed in cold blood. You can read about it here. I heard about Deir Yassin massacre and read about it a lot, and I noticed that there is a disagreement between the Arabs and the Jews about what really happened there. The history shows that the Arabs are used to lie and exaggerate in order to accuse the Jews (bring you some examples or you are smart enough not ask?). Lehi and other Jews liberation movements didn't want to kill the Arabs, the Arabs wanted to kill the Jews so the Jews fought back. Begin is one of the most glorious people that Israel has ever had, and his movement is one of the main reasons that "GB" left Israel. Read more about his actions and you will see that these actions were ethical. Israel is the only country in the whole world that has to deal with Arab/Muslim terror even before she was officially declared, and still she treats them with kid gloves. You should see the other side POV and stop believing to anti Semitic teachers in schools. Exiled Palestinian by any chance?Aybabtu 12:21, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Terrorism: American definition - "The calculated use of violence or threat of violence to attain goals that are political, religious or ideological in nature...through intimidation, coercion or instilling fear." British definition - "Terrorism is the use, or threat, of action which is violent, damaging or disrupting, and is intended to influence the government or intimidate the public and is for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause." So following the rule of universal application - "Act as if thy maxim were universal" - we find this applies to groups on both sides, hardly surprising. And if either one of you, or anyone else, plans on responding with crude abuse just save us both the effort and not type anything. LamontCranston 02:51, 23 January 2006

That's completely besides the point. The question is whether Lehi should be called a terrorist group, which I think should. Whatever happened in the formation of the state israel has nothing whatsoever to do with this. I support calling Lehi 'terrorist group' in the first sentence. (82.170.100.222 23:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC))

Dear Aybabtu, no I am not an exiled Palestinian, nor a racist like you appear to be. I am a secular Englishman with a Jewish grandfather. He lost family in the death camps and escaped from Austria into England in 1943. One thing he taught me is that Zionism is no better than any other "ism" - they all destroy lives in the name of greed and hatred. I have never met an anti-Semitic teacher: they are part of Israel's government-sponsored fantasy world which helps many Jews believe all Gentiles are anti-Israel racists. Indeed, my history teacher had us watching Schindler's List at age 13. And yes, Begin was so great that Ben Gurion (a real hero of the Jews, not a common criminal thug) wanted him dead at one point. Perhaps Begin, Stern et al should have spent their energies fighting Nazi Germany to defend their own....now hang on, isn't there an interesting story about that?.....Seems a new Zionist state was more important than 6 million innocent men, women and children staying free and alive in Europe. I hope it's worth it there in The Promised Land full of right-wing settlers growing fat on state money in the occupied territories while Holocaust survivors were left destitute and starving by that great defender of Zionism - Mr Netanyahu.

My Grandfather's favourite quote:

"My awareness of the essential nature of Judaism resists the idea of a Jewish state with borders, an army, and a measure of temporal power, no matter how modest. I am afraid of the inner damage Judaism will sustain - especially from the development of a narrow nationalism within our own ranks, against which we have already had to fight strongly, even without a Jewish state."

Albert Einstein 86.17.246.75 01:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I object to the statement "Lehi and other Jews liberation movements didn't want to kill the Arabs, the Arabs wanted to kill the Jews so the Jews fought back". The Zionists (pretty much all of them) wanted to rob and expel (pretty much all) the natives, right from the time of the first Aliyah. Furthermore, they carried guns for that purpose (Palestinians started noticing and protesting them as early as 1891). Lehi weren't so much different from the rest of the Zionist movement, except they didn't have wealthy foreign friends, and their guns were controlled by themselves.

And I cannot see the point of denying that Lehi were a terrorist group .... they sought to use violence to obtain their political ends. The effective terrorist groups of the world destroy policemen, civil servants and economic objectives. It's the OBL's and McVeighs of this world who target civilians - and I don't think they're the ones to ever succeed. PalestineRemembered 19:01, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Holocaust Denial & Sourcing

While I regret having to link to a website that may have such a bias, it is in fact unimportant. What is there is text from a book that has been published, and is therefore acceptable indepedent research. If you feel that the research is flawed, you must disprove the author, and not the medium that has transmitted the information. Otherwise, deletion of such a reference is irresponsible. Avengerx 10:07, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry but you are clearly mistaken. With a source as unreliable and irreputable as the one you providede are not allowed to take their word for anything. Also, it is possible for a book to be inadmissable just as much as a website. Just being published is not enough to pass the litmus test. Do you think Mein Kampf would be citable? Of course not.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 13:19, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Your Mein Kampf reference has absolutely no analogue to this situation. Avengerx 00:48, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

You are suggesting that just because a book is published it is reliable enough to reference in an encyclopedia. I am showing that that is faulty logic, and really doesn't even make any sense.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 01:12, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Terror group

according to US standards right now , they woulb be a terrorist group and they fit the old British and new US definition.

It is quite established by any reasonable yardstick that lehi was a terror group. I can believe I find my self on the same side as Homey but when he is right he is right. Zeq 10:30, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

see Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Terrorist, terrorism.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 23:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

We aren't calling Lehi a terrorist group; we're saying they've been accused on terrorism. WtA isn't applicable. CJCurrie 23:36, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

That clearly isn't the case. The category seems to be a not so subtle attempt at circumventing that policy. It clearly is not appropriate.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

There's currently a discussion to this effort on the Category talk page. You may want to take up your argument there, instead of here. CJCurrie 00:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not 100% sure whether the category is a good one. If anyone wants to go to vote for its deletion, go ahead with my blessing. One thing I do know is that, as long as this category exists, Lehi undeniably belongs in it. I don't see you removing Al Qaeda from the category. The only possible motive for wanting to remove Lehi is sympathy with this terrorist group, which is not a valid encyclopaedic reason. — Gulliver ✉ 05:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

You are clearly not assuming good faith. It is innappropriate to make accusations of malovalent motives, especially considering that I have twice removed a similar category from the Hamas article. The al qaeda article is not on my watchlist while Lehi is. Anyways, there is a clear difference between Lehi and Al Qaeda, Lehi's activities were based entirely around the establishment of a particular State, while Al qaeda's activities are not centered around a particular nation, but rather around a larger movement. I could understand the comparison to Hezbollah or even Hamas, but not Al Qaeda or Islamic Jihad.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 05:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with WP:FAITH. Wikipedia only has the right to make demands on what I do on this website, not on what I think or believe.

Whether you "understand the comparison" between X and Y is irrelevant. All the groups in the category are the same in that notable sources have accused them of terrorism. That is the only thing that matters. Neither does it matter what pages are on your watchlist. Demanding that any given group be removed from the category, but not the others, is not acceptable. It doesn't become acceptable if you claim good faith. — Gulliver ✉ 09:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I do not particularly think you are making much sense, I'm not going to look all over wikipedia to see what other articles this category been added to, I'm going to look on my watchlist and see a category that should not have been added, and then I will remove it. The reason I do not think the category should exist is because it basically seems like a copout, an attempt to include a label that is generally against policy and make it easy to do so.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 18:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

If your objection is to the category yourself then you should AFD the cat. As long as it stays, however, I don't see how you can reasonably argue that Lehi doesn't belong as they were accused of terrorism by "reliable sources" such as governments and there are few books on the history of Zionism (sympathetic or non) that don't refer to them as a terrorist group. Homey 21:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

"Without arguing that the category is legitamate or not, if we include articles like Lehi, it undoubtedly becomes meaningless"

Nonsense. Do you deny that the British, and for that matter the Yishuv leadership, considered Lehi to be a terrorist group or do you think "Stern gang" was an affectionate nickname?Homey 03:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

If Lehi described themselves as a terrorist group who are you to disagree?Homey 03:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The fact that there is a policy that states we should avoid the word "terrorist" does. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, so its inclusion is always controversial. Why not just explain the accusation in a npov manner in the article's body instead of including a category that implies the accusation was not disputed.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 08:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The fact that it is in the "accused" category instead of just Category:Terrorist organizations implies that the accusation was and is hotly disputed. In fact, are you suggesting that there is any accusation of terrorism that has ever not been disputed by someone or other?

Essentially, you are a Lehi supporter trying to make Lehi look as good as possible. Compare this with the situation with Al Qaeda. There, I am having a hard time keeping the article in Category:Organizations accused of terrorism, not because there is anyone wanting not to label the organization, but because everyone wants it in Category:Terrorist organizations! It's crazy. You partisans want your favourite terrorist organisations free of labels, and your enemies' organizations labelled as "terrorist". Since there are more Jewish and Christian people editing Wikipedia than Muslims, this means that some get the label, and others don't.

I'm afraid that this situation is not acceptable. Pro-terrorists are going to have to accept that we have an NPOV policy, and that all of these organizations will be categorised in a neutral manner.

Note also that the policy does not say to avoid using the word terrorist, but to avoid describing people are terrorists. That is to say that it is fine to give quotations or note accusations by third parties. — Gulliver ✉ 08:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I object to "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, so its inclusion is always controversial". "Freedom fighters" is a term that was being laughed out of the language back in the 1960s when I first heard it. Use of force to get your political aims is terrorism, it only morphs into something different when it's a nation that practises it. And the distinction between groups that aim to kill civilians and those who aim not to do so is fairly trivial. The big difference is that the latter group is much more likely to succeed than is the former group. PalestineRemembered 19:17, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Give me a break, and please do not make uncivil accusations, it really does not help your point, especially when the accusations do not make very much sense. I am neither a Lehi "supporter" or an opponent, and the fact that they haven't existed in almost 60 years leads me to believe "Lehi supporters" probably do not exist anymore. It is clear that inserting a category that says a groups is a terrorist and inserting a category that says a group were accused of being terrorist is almost exactly the same.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 08:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

It would be uncivil to call you a dickhead. To note that you are pro-Lehi is simply to state the obvious. Our point is so strong that there is no way to help or weaken it.

"Almost exactly the same"? The same except that one is POV and the other is NPOV. — Gulliver ✉ 08:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The Stern Gang -- that is the only name I recall hearing for them until now -- have been referred to as a terrorist group in the North American media for the four decades I can recall. That famous, vicious, anti-British, pro-Zionist terrorist group, the Stern Gang. They have always been vilified in North America. In Canada, being anti-British was considered particularly reprehensible on their part. Varlaam (talk) 07:49, 15 December 2007 (UTC) (in Toronto)

---

The Stern Gang fits the classic definition of a terrorist group. They were attempting to get the British to leave by their acts of terrorizing anyone who opposed them. The assignations were part of this program. The assignation of Count Folke Bernadotte was their most important action because he was in favor of the British control continuing. His death allowed Ralph Bunch who was sympathetic to the formation of the Jewish state to change the report to the UN. While many Jews decried the actions of the Stern Gang as being excessive, the death of Count Folke Bernadotte was seen as a necessity to create the Jewish State. Of course there is a saying if you have 3 jews, you have 5 opinions. Dont expect agreement about anything with regard to the Stern Gang. Saltysailor (talk) 15:03, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Explain removed section

Removed this, my comments in bold:

Following the example of Theodor Herzl’s meeting with Plevye (the Russian Minister of Interior responsible for the Kishinev pogrom) [no evidence the Herzl-Plevye meeting had any influence on Stern], Lehi attempted to contact German agents in order to see if common interests could exist between them. This was prior to the Wannsee Conference and Adolf Eichmann's task was still expelling Europe's Jews rather than exterminating them [but mass killings were already taking place in the east, especially by the time of Stern's Dec 1941 approaches to the Germans] (only when it was clear that no country would accept them, did Adolf Hitler realize he had silent approval to annihilate the Jews [unacceptable pov! silent approval from who?]). Stern believed that if the Nazis wanted the Jews out of Europe and Lehi wanted them all in Palestine, a mutually beneficial arrangement could be reached, especially since both Lehi and the Nazis were at war against Britain.[That's about the only good sentence here, but it is already covered by what was in the article before (and now).] By working together, the British could be expelled from Palestine and Europe would be rid of its Jews, who instead of going to death camps would set sail for their homeland.[There were no death camps yet; this sentence contradicts the earlier one. Also "their homeland" is unacceptable Zionist rhetoric.] --Zero^talk 08:01, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Just to comment on your last comment, stating that Palestine is the Jewish homeland does not seem to be Zionist rhetoric. While it may be a central tenet of the Zionist ideology, it seems that the Jews had placed a theological value on that real estate for the majority of their existence. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 01:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:MilHist Assessment

A nice article, of good length, and including a good number of pictures. Some sections look like they could use expansion, but otherwise, overall, a fine treatment of the subject. LordAmeth 17:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Delete this:

Lehi was unique in its ability to unite in its ranks Jews from diverse backgrounds. Unlike the Hagana and Irgun, which were ideologically homogeneous, the Lehi included Revisionist Zionists, Religious Zionists communists, atheists and ultra-Orthodox Jews. Although these groups would normally have nothing to do with one another, they were all united in Lehi for the purpose of creating a state without British rule.

Reasons: (1) It sounds like a recruiting poster. (2) Both Irgun and Haganah included the full range of religious observance from atheist to haredi. (3) Irgun included Revisionists too, being a branch of the Revisionist movement. (4) The only thing remaining is "communists", which I'm not sure about. Certainly the Haganah included people from the forerunners of Mapam even though it was dominated by Mapai. --Zero^talk 03:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Terror

the only relevant part is the fact the british which was the target of the Lehi , regarded them as a terrorist group in their lists. Did the U.N have a list of designated terrorist groups in the world ? If such a list exists, then that can be added with a reference. If they just accepted the British view on this, then it's irrelevant, of course they would accept the mandate view of things, but as an encyclopedia the fight was between the british and the Lehi. "terror" was used as a slur between political parties in Israel perhaps and by Lehi it meant "terror against the british" which is NOT the definition of terror in wikipedia - which is meant to target civilians - and which Lehi was very much agaisnt. This is why it's misleading and WP:POV to write that Lehi was a terrorist organziation since terror is aimed to strike fear at public and not narrowed down to fighting the officials of another force like the British. Therefore, all we can do to maintain WP:NPOV is to say how the British regarded the group - that too is misleading somewhat but is according to the "designated terrorist organizations" in some way... Amoruso 04:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• I'm not certain it's accurate to say Lehi didn't target civilians. Anyway ... CJCurrie 05:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

There is certainly evidence that they did target civillians (both British, Arab and Jewish) - despite their claims to the contrary. Someone less charitable than me might say that this makes them liars as well as terrorists. --SpinyNorman 06:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

where is the evidence that they targeted civilians then ? Present it. Note that civilian deaths are not the same as "targeting civilians". In fact, they never targeted civilians and nobody ever claimed they did. Note that British people in Palestine or relevant to Palestine aren't civilians in this sense. Amoruso 06:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Isn't that like Hamas claiming that there is no such thing as an Israeli civillians? In any case, it is irrelevant since Lehi did in fact target civillians (British and otherwise). A survey of their activities in British mandatory Palestine is enough to convince anyone of that. The assassination of Bernadotte because he favored a compromise between Jewish and Arab interests in Palestine... The slaughter of Arab civillians to induce them to flee Palestine was a well-documented policy of Jewish terrorist groups. --SpinyNorman 08:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

no, they didn't. Bernadotte is also not a civilian - civilians are innocent people walking in the streets, not government officials or policemen or soldiers or clerks etc. Your slaughter rhetoric POV is a further proof why this should be removed. In fact, Arabs could join Lehi because they were anti brittish too, it's well documented. Amoruso 09:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

about this newsletter

first, if one wants to say that a policy of Lehi is of a certain type, one needs to cite the official line of the party - for example Yair Stern's directives and principles which were cited. Citing one article from a lehi newspaper and defining it as the official policy is not encyclopedic and it is WP:OR. Furthermore, the article clearly defines what "terror" meant and it's not justification of terrorism but rather "justification of fighting against the British". Amoruso 05:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

not to mention the WP:OR that was added in "biblical references".

He Khazit was not just a Lehi newspaper. It was the official mouthpiece of the Lehi where they published their manifestos and explained their operations. This article is an official statement of policy. Whether you believe that or not is unimportant since it is the opinion of Heller who is a recognised expert on Lehi. The Biblical quotations are in the text of the article and anyone who was familiar with the Torah would recognise them immediately. This is not OR but help for the English reader. As far as justifying terrorism is concerned, they did it all the time and Lehi members continued to do it for decades afterwards: "Personal terrorism is a way of fighting that is acceptable under certain conditions and by certain movements" (Yitzhak Shamir, San Francisco Chronicle, September 5, 1991 quoting Israeli army radio).

The general irrelevance of such an addition can be explained by someone taking an article calling for genocide on all non arabs in a fatah paper (those exist) and sticking it right there in the bulk, for example. Simply irrelevant. Amoruso 05:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• This isn't just an article, it's an editorial from the paper. It's perfectly legitimate as a reflection into the group's mentality; if you have evidence as to their nuanced view of "terrorism", feel free to present it. CJCurrie 07:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

what's the significance of an editorial ? none. This will be deleted unless one finds support for terrorism for example in lehi's official site. Also the rv of the terrorist allegations will be deleted too for reasons cited above. Amoruso 07:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

(EC) Can we actually show that "Their literature regularly acknowledged the label and attempted to justify terrorist actions"? While this may be true, such a statement shouldn't be made on the basis of one editorial. I recommend that whoever claims this find a scholarly or other source. Additionally, I labeled the UN statement with a request for citation. Claiming assassination as a specialty also doesn't seem encyclopaedic - it is quite enough to simply list the numbers. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 07:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The book by Heller contains a large number of examples of justification of terrorism. What do you expect from a group who openly engaged in terrorism?. --Zero^talk 11:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

you need to start conforming to WP:RS, WP:CITE and WP:NPOV and no WP:OR by now. Amoruso 11:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

the main problem here is the misleading attempt to connect differnet intrepretations of the word "terror". The UN defines terror as "intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants" And this was never the intent of Lehi, obviously not their declared intent which is what is being hinted here deliberately and wrongfully. British policemen, soldiers and ministers are the only ones targeted by Lehi - this was called TERROR by them. That's why the editorial is irrelevant - it simply means "to strike terror in the hearts of the British". In fact, this is even more inaccurate historically because Yair Stern is famous for his policy against battling civilians , which wasn't always the policy of the Irgun or the Haganah actually. He's famous for his saying : "there are no innocent british, only innocent Arabs" - and all of Lehi's operations were aimed at that sense. It's true that during the war they participated in the early actions prior to the establishment of Zahal but that's military operations and wasn't in the era they were so called "terrorist". Amoruso 07:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

If Hamas blows up the Knesset and kills all the politicians, make sure you don't call it terrorism since politicians are not civilians. (Funny!) Actually the statement "there are no innocent British" is the statement of a terrorist and hardly any other proof is required. --Zero^talk 11:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC) Another place where you can check that they called themselves terrorists is in Stern's letter offering to fight for the Nazis. --Zero^talk 11:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

another lie. first of all, the reports over luvinchek's mission and letter have been distored. second, it said : "sabotage, espionage and intellgence up to vast military operations" as in future plans if they'll accept the offer. About the current situation, it said "fightung seriously and unstoppably against the british". nothing about terrorism. Amoruso 11:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

So many opinions, so few facts. How would you translate "Terroraktionen" and "terroristischen Taetigkeit"? --Zero^talk 14:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm reporting you what the letter said, according to Moshe Shamir's Yair and Lehi records, not the forged letter cited in certain books. Amoruso 14:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The original letter is still sitting in the German archives and was quoted in full in Yisraeli's book published by Bar-Ilan University. It was also examined by Joseph Heller, the pre-eminent Israeli expert on Lehi, who calls it "entirely authentic" (The Stern Gang, p85). The German text in Yisraeli exactly matches the text at [1]. --Zero^talk 14:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC) By the way, soon I'll be quoting two historians who doubt that Lehi was motivated by "rescue" - that can only remain in the article as one possibility. --Zero^talk 14:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

this is a known lie. The quotes found in these books are wrong. The fact is that the letter said different things than what quoted (happily by holocaust deniers btw) and others including Yisraeli's book. The quotations aren't supported by any "original letter" as the only scan made available is the covering letter. Show me a scan of the letter, signed by Lehi, not by the interpreation of the German delegate, then it will be taken more seriously. Are you by any chance Yosef Schwartz? Amoruso 14:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

If you intend to introuce the "thesis" of exterme marxists and holocaust deniers that think Lehi wanted to collaborate with nazis for fasicst reasons, you will not be permitted to do so. enough of your lies have been spread here. Amoruso 15:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

indeed if Hamas only attacked politicians or Israelis they wouldn't be terrorists. No, the statement proves they're not terrorists. They're targetting the british officials, not civilians. Amoruso 11:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Once they killed one of their own members whose "crime" was to want to join the Hagana. That's what they were like. --Zero^talk 11:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Traitors were obviously executed as with every military, and especially clandestine, organization. Nothing to do with terrorism. Amoruso 11:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

the UN quotes only refer to the bernadotte incident

one needs to have them listed in a list of groups of terrorists. Amoruso 12:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

There is no such need. Anyway, they were called a terrorist group, not only the perpetrators of a certain terrorist act. --Zero^talk 14:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

So you don't have any sources of such lists then. Your current quotes are quite irrelevant. Amoruso 14:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

removed the extremist web-site. also put the tag on the last section. Who wrote this interpretation of the bibilical reference ? There's copyright violation here or WP:OR. Which will be further WP:OR on the whole issue as it this terror in the sense of hurting innocents as contested above. Also, it's wrong, the reference if at all, is from Jeremiah 1 (although that's the bible, not the Torah, making the whole article dubious as whether it's official. Moreover, there's no justification of terrorism - "directed against representives" - terror here is something else. See above). Amoruso 10:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Wrong again. The original Hebrew is "מחה תמחה ... עד חרמה" which every religious Jew will immediately recognise as a reference to Amalek. The first two words are derived from Exodus 17:14 and the second two words from Numbers 14:45. There is nothing like this in Jeremiah 1. --Zero^talk 15:18, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Well we don't know what version you used, so Lehi used to quote this passage : "10 See, I have this day set thee over the nations and over the kingdoms, to root out, and to pull down, and to destroy, and to throw down, to build, and to plant. " Thought it meant that and lost in translation. Anyway, you admit of doing WP:OR. Amoruso 17:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Summary for edit reasons

22:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• As for the Nazi letter issue, Heller wrote an anti Lehi book claiming all sorts of extraordinary claims. I haven't seen a scan of the actual letter but only a scan of the covering letter (the german version is a supposed translate, where's the scan?). This version is used by Holocaust denier Lenni Brenner, who took it from a David Yisraeli's work, who was in the Lehi but didn't participate in the mission. he too provides no scan of this. The wording of the proposal as he put it is disputed, and all other Lehi sources provide a similar version without the use of the obvious fake word "totalitarian" which Yair Stern would have never used. Perhaps he used a 'Kingdom' related word. Moshe Shamir's version of it in the biography of Yair is different and doesn't include this either. One can't quote this version as fact because it isn't, it is simply a version, true, often cited, mainly by Holocaust Denial sites and so, but a repetitive lie is still a lie. The proposal exists of course but was flavoured with a few non existant words. Note that if this was really the version written by Yisraeli himself then it's irrelevant since Yair didn't acknowledge this, and the only thing authorative was what Luvenchek, Yair's delegate, actually said in Beirut and wrote down there.

Your opinion of Heller is irrelevant. He is a senior Israeli historian at Hebrew University and easily passes the Wikipedia threshold as a reliable source. Otherwise everything you say here is wrong or irrelevant. Yisraeli had no obligation to give a scan. He gave a complete transcription of the original letter and a citation to the German archive where it can be found. That's completely consistent with normal practice. Heller is not the only additional historian who has examined it (Yaacov Shavit also). You have not brought any reason whatever why these reliable sources should not be brought here. Your opinions and arguments don't count. --Zero^talk 13:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

My opinion is very relevant. It is your opinion that is irrelevant. The fact is the wording is disputed and you present it as fact. If you want, you can present it as opinions. We'll have no trouble with that and that way you won' be violating wikipedia policy like you did. You can say "Heller says..." and so forth, and then that can be contradicted by other sources. Of course it's WP:RS by itself but it's a view, not a fact. If you read Yisraeli's thesis yourself, can you tell us please who actually wrote this proposal ? Obviously it would be signed, so it's interesting also in order to maintain encyclopedia accuracy. For example, if this is what the German ambassador wrote, it's a significant difference. If it was written by someone other than Yair, it will also be important to note. Amoruso 06:11, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

It is the proposal Lubenchik presented to the German representatives in Beirut. It is written as an offer from Stern's group, not as a private letter. The Germans added a covering note and forwarded it to the German legation in Ankara. The German archives were captured at the end of the war, and later on Yisraeli found the letter there. The image on our page shows the Germans' covering letter. Yisraeli's book gives the text of the letter from Stern's group. Also, the use of words like "totalitarianism" doesn't disprove it. Of course they were writing in terms they thought the Germas would like to hear so they didn't necessarily describe things in the same way they normally would have. --Zero^talk 12:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Everything you wrote here is already known to everyone. What I'm asking is who signed this letter, who wrote it. Was it Luvenchek himself ? The LEHI sources and other sources cite that after their discussion the german requested it in writing and something was prepared. The reason is who did it. How did Yisraeli find it. We don't know who saw the actual letter and what was the exact wording of it. All we know is of the covering letter - that has nothing to do with proving the wording of the actual letter. Since nobody disputes that there was an approach and a proposal, I don't think adding disputed terms should be included except for solid proof or as an opinion by those who stated it - no proof of it exists in any book or webpage that I know of, and there are sources contradicting it. that's all. What I'm saying is the current version is undisputed and I don't see why it should be changed, where Lehi denys such a word was used and doesn't mention it in its policies anywhere - what you say that it was made for german behalf makes a lot of sense, but that's complicated to enter in the image frame, and source it and so on, and that's why I think current version suffices. Amoruso 13:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Whitewashing the known facts is not an option, no. And yes we do know who saw the letter and we do know what it contains. At least three historians say they have examined it in the German archives and they cite Yisraeli for a published transcript of it. Heller describes it as an "entirely authentic document on which the stamp of 'IZL in Israel' is clearly embossed". There is absolutely no reason for not quoting from it. I don't know if there is a signature on the letter but I'd be very surprised if there was. It was not a personal letter from Stern or anyone else but an offer from Stern's group. Stern sent Lubenchik to Beirut, where Lubenchik gave them this document. This meeting is also described in Von Hentig's memoirs. Who don't you read Yisraeli's account of it? --Zero^talk 06:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

For starters, Luvenchek wasn't sent with any letter. The person he met asked him for something in writing, and we know something was prepared. We don't know whehter they wrote it in German or whether it was translated, we don't know who approved it. If Yair never seen it, then it can't be seen as official ideology from Yair but perhaps the personal opinion of the one who wrote it and so on. Fact is nobody has seen the document as far as we know and can explain those details that are disputed by all other Lehi sources and by other historians and writers who wrote about lehi. Since the use of that specific word is so controversial, there's no need to push it as fact. You can say that Heller and co have said that this is the correct wording and then it will be contradicted by those who have a different version of the wording. That is all that we're concerned here, with being more precise, something the other version wasn't. IMO, the difference is small to argue on it and there's no reason to smur without evidence and with contradicting opinions with the use of a word that has nothing to do with the proposal itself, which in itself is not disputed by anyone. Amoruso 07:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• As for the Cairo Haifa bombing, the idea of the second bombing is disputed, and because of this it requires cleanup.

You did not find any source that disputes it. You only found one list that omits it and some web articles that have no known origin and so can't be used. --Zero^talk 13:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

It's disputed because Lehi doesn't recognise it, a U.N report doesn't mention it, and also it's in doubt in the Palestine Post itself since there was no proof of it, no real report and it's reported as wreck the day after. In addition, some sources seem to blame it on Haganah instead (see that article). So all we have is the wrong report of a paper on the same day acting on rumor with no WP:RS evidence. Amoruso 06:11, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I am not totally convinced that Lehi did it, but there is no doubt that it happened as we have 3 newspaper reports from major newspapers. The Times report is quite detailed. The New York Times report (Apr 1, 1948, Page 7) says "The Associated Press quoted a Jewish source attributing the wreck to the Stern group." (As you can see, the word "wreck" does not imply that it was an accident.) Also, that "UN report" has unknown origin. Just because something on the web claims to be a UN report doesn't mean anything. You can go here and try to find a reference to it in the UN library. My suspicion is that it is a really a list that was submitted to the UN, maybe the "Black Paper" submitted by the Arab Higher Committee. --Zero^talk 12:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I don't disagree with you that it was reported, but I don't think it still qualifies as enough proof of their involvement. If we have several papers who cite a bombing that happened these days, it still doesn't mean that organization is really responsible - innocent until proven otherwise. It means papers reported it as such and at the time, it probably made sense to attribute it to Lehi, but it could be shoddy work by possibly this AP. What I mean here to qualify for encyclopedia there needs stronger proof to connect a certain group to a certain incident : (1) taking responsibility of it (2) arresting someone that has to do with and proving it in such way and so on. Lehi never took responsibility of it, so going by that one source who told AP that seems far fetching and even you doubt it. Also, the fact it's not reported (if it's really an arab list then it's even more strange), and that web-site who cites that the haganah did it, it raises enough doubts to be disputed atleast somewhat for it not to be stated as flat fact. Amoruso 13:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

What I'm suggesting is that this sentence. The Associated Press quoted a Jewish source attributing the wreck to the Stern group." can be the basis for the claim - one can see how it's ambiguous, and that it won't be written just as fact. Any bombing these days is not written as fact except when there's responsibility claims or later arrrests/investigations, things that didn't happen here. Not even an editorial suggesting this either, just reports at the same instant of the bombings based on possibily on conjecture or someone not Lehi saying it to AP. Amoruso 13:55, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

• As for the Chazit article, it is unclear who made the biblical reference, and if it was the original editor, it would be classfied as WP:OR. Also there's no "justification" of terrorism in the sense we associate today. Also there's no reason to think this article is official policy, also OR.

You don't seem to know what "OR" is. Quoting from a source and explaning the translation is called encyclopedia writing.

--Zero^talk 13:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

You're right, it's worse than WP:OR, it's also not WP:encyclopedic. You present an editorial which is meaningless in itself, and then add "Justification for terrorism" which is your WP:OR since they didn't talk about terrorism there but about terror to representives of the british government, then you make your own WP:OR about a sentence referring it to biblical reference which is your own conclusion and can be easily disputed. Amoruso 06:11, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

It's not my conclusion. It is a note from the professional translator who translated the whole article for me. Since the Amalek reference would be obvious to any Hebrew reader except the most Torah-ignorant, conveying this information also to the English reader is just part of the translator's task. --Zero^talk 12:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

You're only emphasising that it's WP:OR - you now have personal translators. Well I know the torah very well and there is nothing to suggest this must be its reference. Also the OR is the mere title of the section and its perception to even be included, it's not even RS for such a claim. Amoruso 13:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Terror is what they called it. It is even the name of the article (the English word "Terror" written in Hebrew letters). Historical discussion uses the meanings of words at the time. On the other hand, there is no doubt whatever that a similar group existing today would also be called terrorist. --Zero^talk 12:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Terror in hebrew meant the fear sense and striking at representives. Today it will be called militant by most everyone except the victim of course, so what you have is them admitting they're militants, nothing more. Amoruso 13:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

No, groups that gun down politicians, police and "collaborators" will be called terrorists if they have political motivation and gangsters if they don't. Only their supporters will call them anything else. --Zero^talk 06:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

that's your opinion but it is not the wikipedia nor most encyclopedias definition of terrorism like shown above. Amoruso 07:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• As for the intro, Terrorism in the Lehi sense meant inflicting terror on the British and not inflicting harm to civilian populations. If it was this, then Lehi would also bomb buses and metro trains in London, but they didn't - it was directed against individual or various official targets , policemen, and military convoys. One can't claim that Lehi justified terrorism or was a terrorist organization by its own self simply by stating they used the word "terror" - one needs to explain the scope of the ideology and tactics. Personal terrorism means the assassination of individual, it's not terrorism. Article provided as example actually proves this.

All of this is your editorial. Take it somewhere that editorials are acceptable. --Zero^talk 13:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

No, this is the fact, and you haven't provided anything to make the libel claims you've been claiming. Amoruso 06:11, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

• UN terms in context of Bernadotte (above).

One example is enough to prove the point anyway, your case here is illogical. --Zero^talk 13:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

No, it should be important to note the context. Stop with your shoddy work. Amoruso 06:11, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

• POV term murder in article removed.
• marxists extreme site citing holocaust denier Brenner removed of course.

Since you also removed the citation to Yisraeli, your real motive is exposed. It is you who was caught quoting from holocaust deniers, and anyway Brenner is not a holocaust denier at all. Actually he called holocaust denial "whale shit". (Be careful as posting libels against living people is one of the simplest ways of getting banned.) Brenner is a communist anti-Zionist and he is not the source for this document. Yisraeli is the source, with Heller and Shavit as confirming sources. Brenner's copy is only linked as a convenience for our readers because nobody else seems to have put it on the web. You don't want anyone to read what Stern wrote; that's your problem not mine. --Zero^talk 13:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Lenni Brenner is a big holocaust denier - though commonly called one of the biggest Holocaust Falsifiers, he's a notorious anti Jewish person, and he's the one who promoted the false out of context version. His books are published under neo-nazi publishing house, Noontide. Read also this : [2]. Also don't make libel comments of other users. In conclusion, One can't link to ridicilous webpages like that. Amoruso 06:11, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

You need to read more carefully. That review did not say that Brenner is a Holcaust denier. It just says "we have holocaust denial already, now we have Brenner's new claims". It is just a standard slur by association. Brenner's book under review is readable on the web and you can look for yourself to see if Brenner denies the Holcaust there. --Zero^talk 12:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I've read his articles in the past. He's not an extreme denier, he's a "falsifier" and that's how he's widely recognized as well. Amoruso 13:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

justification for means of battle

the readers can decide whether that equals the regular term "terrorism" or not. I think it clearly shows that it's not terrorism - its "directed not against people" contradicts the term terrorism. Amoruso 14:06, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Ian Pitchford and WP:NPOV

Ian, you need to remember the wikipedia policy of WP:NPOV. You can't call them a fascist group with deragtory names simply because you're quoting from any other book you find. Perliger and Weiberger can say whatever they want but it's their opinion and it will definitely not be said in the intro of the article. I can find articles who call Arafat a homocidal nazi war criminal but I wouldn't write it in the intro of his article either. One can also find articles calling Bush the embodiment of Satan but that wouldn't go into the article either. Fact is Lehi was extremely anti-fasicst. First it was based on Zabotinsky's anti fascist feelings and then when evolved into first Lehi then Yair was very anti-fasicst - it's very documented from his time he spent in Italy. It could be nothing further than the truth since the idea was the development of one's self into something great and not the closure of ideas and original thoughts. It's also a WP:POV term just like terrorist who is used to smear one's reputation and it's not suitable to a wikipedia article. Please try to conform to wikipedia policy. The article is fine as it is, balanced enough. Amoruso 07:22, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

in other words, if you persist with this, I'll insert sourced material that says that Lehi is God's gift to mankind in the opening sentence. Neither will be WP:NPOV, but the current version however, though biased somewhat against Lehi and might need some expansions on history goals and people (factual information, not smear campaigns or wild allegations or opinion-makers) , is generally is. Amoruso 15:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Here are the relevant sections of WP:V.
  • 1. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources.
  • 2. Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may be challenged or removed by any editor.
  • 3. The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.
• The material by Leonard Weinberg and Joseph Heller is relevant and has been published by reputable sources. If there are reputable sources giving an alternative view, then you can cite them in accordance with WP:NPOV.--Ian Pitchford 16:09, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

it has nothing to do with WP:V. It has everything to do with WP:NPOV. Neutral Point of View (NPOV) is a fundamental Wikipedia principle which states that all articles must be written from a neutral point of view, that is, they must represent all significant views fairly and without bias.

Fairness of tone

If we're going to characterize disputes neutrally, we should present competing views with a consistently fair and sensitive tone. Many articles end up as partisan commentary even while presenting both points of view. Even when a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinion, an article can still radiate an implied stance through either selection of which facts to present, or more subtly their organization — for instance, refuting opposing views as one goes along makes them look a lot worse than collecting them in an opinions-of-opponents section.

We should, instead, write articles with the tone that all positions presented are at least plausible, bearing in mind the important qualification about extreme minority views. Let's present all significant, competing views sympathetically. We can write with the attitude that such-and-such is a good idea, except that, in the view of some detractors, the supporters of said view overlooked such-and-such a detail.

Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements.

Attributing and substantiating biased statements

Sometimes, a potentially biased statement can be reframed into an NPOV statement by attributing or substantiating it.

For instance, "John Doe is the best baseball player" is, by itself, merely an expression of opinion. One way to make it suitable for Wikipedia is to change it into a statement about someone whose opinion it is: "John Doe's baseball skills have been praised by baseball insiders such as Al Kaline and Joe Torre," as long as those statements are correct and can be verified. The goal here is to attribute the opinion to some subject-matter expert, rather than to merely state it as true.

A different approach is to substantiate the statement, by giving factual details that back it up: "John Doe had the highest batting average in the major leagues from 2003 through 2006." Instead of using the vague word "best," this statement spells out a particular way in which Doe excels.

There's a temptation to rephrase biased or opinion statements with weasel words: "Many people think John Doe is the best baseball player." But statements of this form are subject to obvious attacks: "Yes, many people think so, but only ignorant people"; and "Just how many is 'many'? I think it's only 'a few' who think that!" By attributing the claim to a known authority, or substantiating the facts behind it, you can avoid these problems.

What you have done is quote someone's opinion and use what he said as fact, and you've added sin to crime and actually integrated it into the introduction of the article ! Amoruso 16:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

What I've done is to cite the view of an expert as published in a peer reviewed journal. If you can cite works of a similar quality and significance expressing a different view then please do so. --Ian Pitchford 18:36, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

what you've done is serious violations of wikipedia rules. First of all, you've stated them as fact and not as opinion. That will be changed. Secondly, you put them in an introduction and mixed several subjects together, that will be changed as well. Thirdly, you also reverted the previos changes, which should have stayed the way they were as explained before. That will indeed be changed too. Amoruso 20:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

3RR

Amoruso: You are currently in violation of the 3RR on this page. If you do not self-revert your last edit, you will be at risk of having your account blocked. CJCurrie 16:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC) Actually, never mind. Technically, putting up a Disputed notice counts as a normal edit, but it's a borderline situation and I doubt anyone would block you for it. CJCurrie 17:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Not only you don't know what 3RR is and didn't understand it, you also don't know where to put a warning, even if in this case it's completely irrelevant, you in fact were closer to be in violation of the rule. Amoruso 18:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Techically, putting up a "disputed" template counts as a normal edit for the purposes of the 3RR. But, as I said, it's borderline. CJCurrie 18:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

3RR is about reverting. you really are compeltely unaware of the rules. Amoruso 19:06, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Intro

Amoruso, for reasons I really don't know, asked me to stick my head in here and look around... So I'm here. However, first off, I don't think that all this edit warring's a good way to achieve goals, but on the other hand, this article is written with a very heavy handed bias, it seems. That intro is, metaphorically, a trainwreck. I agree with Amoruso that this intro, which says that a group whose motivations can be debated, and whose methods can be questioned deeply, is nothing but a quasi-fascist terrorist group, needs revision. The quote cited assessing the group's behaviors and motivations comes about 60 years after the fact. It can go into the sections of the group's ideology, or historical perspectives on their actions, but to place it in the intro is at best faulty judgement and at worst intentionally coloring the article to new readers. Putting the quote into a section discussing the controversies in modern scholarship, or regarding the debate about their methods of the time would be appropriate, I think.ThuranX 20:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

As you've correctly spotted - the reason for my approach to you is that I appreciate your keen eye on matters like these - User:Ian_Pitchford is using bad faith in violently editing this article , and therefore he shouldn't even be allowed to edit it. As a first step, the version shall begin with that of 16:28 , and then work from there. The edits put into the intro will then be put into a different category and contradicted as well. I will do it myself tomorrow. Amoruso 21:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it's my counsel that you, Amoruso, not Ian, stop editing this article for a day. You're not going to stop him, and it would be better for you to ake a text copy of the page, re-write it in a sandbox off your own userpage, and when satisfied that it is NEUTRAL, (not pro, not con, but balanced), submit a link here. Getting angry after lots of reverts and boldness based edits isn't working for you. Go figure out a neutral approach first, propose it here, and get feedback. I personally will support any page where the major difference is simply moving that quotation to an appropriate position in the article.ThuranX 23:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Derex, take the time to read through my edit summaries. Th eUNSC is part of th eUN, but the references to UNSC doscuments did not refer to Lehi, but to unnamed terrorists. See above on other editors' comments on the heavy bias and POV tone of the intro.

Yes, i read talk, and i read the documents, and UNSCRS 57 refers to the assassins of of Bernadotte as _terrorists_. The article states Lehi killed him. Looks to me like you're running around deleting stuff you just don't like on the flimsiest of excuses. I don't like that. It's counter to what wikipedia is trying to accomplish. I have absolutely no interest in Lehi, and never even heard about them before. But, your edits give the appearance that you have a POV to push. Why else erase referenced material on flimsy pretexts? Derex 05:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

the last version was balanced to both sides and included sourced material from both sides. Do not revert again please because you're also deleting sourced material from Moshe Shamir and other expansions. I think there was nothing wrong with that last version. If you specifically have a problem with one issue, then we'll debate that one issue. The revert you made deleted sourced material. Respectfully, Amoruso 11:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The material was not deleted, it was moved from the intro into a "criticism" section, per suggestions on this Talk page. It is an extreme, minority position, and as such, does not belong in the intro. As far as the UNSC , I have to run now, but I will write a detalied explantion later. You can take a look at the Hezbollah article and the related issue there. Isarig 15:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed well-sourced material has been deleted yet again, e.g. "To this end, he initiated contact with Nazi authorities offering to "actively take part in the war on Germany's side" in return for German support for "the establishment of the historic Jewish state on a national and totalitarian basis, bound by a treaty with the German Reich". (Heller, 1995, p. 70.) and "Most Lehi members were admirers of the Italian Fascist movement." (Perliger and Weinberg, 2003, p. 107.) and instead we have the unsourced "no Lehi member ever made comments in this regard and fascist principles do not appear in the Principles of Birth" and other stuff from a novel by extreme right-winger Moshe Shamir quoted as fact. --Ian Pitchford 21:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

This material was not deleted by me. I only removed the obviously unverifiable claim that "Most Lehi members were admirers of the Italian Fascist movement." Unless P&W held an opinion poll of the Lehi membership (which of course they did not) they are in no position to make that statement, and it has no place in the intro. The most you can do is say that P&W allege that to be the case, and add it to th ecriticism section, where I will point ut that this allegation is not supported by anything in their work.Isarig 22:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Nothing was deleted. It all moved into the criticism section. The nazi part is dealt in depth in its own section including quotes from heller. What I wrote is FACT (not in the principles of birth and nobody ever said those things - if you have, bring quotes) and SOURCE - Moshe Shamir is a respected maybe the most respected writer in Israel... he belonged actually to the left side of the Haganah at the time, and he had no symphaty to Lehi whatsoever. He wrote a biography and therefore it is relevant. Amoruso 08:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Ideology section

This article is missing a detailed section on Lehi's evolving ideology and the differences between Abba Ahimeir and Uri Zvi Greenberg. For example, Abba was interested in setting up a corporatist religious agricultural state and Greenberg was interested in setting up a Jewish kingdom and rebuilding the Third Temple. Its a rich section of the article thats patently missing. Guy Montag 17:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

You are right, but making any substantial changes is impossible while Stern's personal representative is here. Another glaring omission is Lehi's strong alignment to the USSR in its last few years. --Zero^talk 11:52, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Designation as "terrorist" by the UN

'Terrorist' is a word to avoid, per WP:WTA. The only way we can use that word is in the formula "Source X says Y is a terrorist organization". The sources used for the claim that "The UN said Lehi is a terrorist organization" (which I removed) did not use that formulation. They said 'The peole who killed Bernadotte were terorists". We can not decide that since the UN said "unkown persons who comitted act X are terroists", and since it was later discovered that the unkown assassins were members of Lehi, that the "UN said Lehi is a terrorist organization". For starters, that would be a violation of WP:NOR, which clearly states that this would be a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research [3]. But even if the UN documents were to explictly state that "The people who killed Bernadotte, who are members of Lehi, are terrorists" - that would not be enough to brand the entire organization as terrorist. For a case study on how this is handled on WP, I refer you to the Hezbollah article. The EU has clearly labeled a senior member of Hezbollah (Imad Mugniyah)as a "terrorist", and placed him on a "wanted terrorists" list - but that is not enough for Hezbollah to be labeled a terrorist organization , or even for the WP article to claim that "The EU has labeled Hezbollah a terrorist organization". We know a certain member has been called a terrorist by the EU - and that's all we can say.

---

Specious reasoning. It was not just people who _happened_ to be members of Lehi who killed Bernadotte. It was a Lehi operation.

Encyclopedia Britannica "Zionist terrorist organization" [4] Derex 05:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually that is a disputed matter until this day, whether it was official Lehi who was already dissolved at the time, that needs its own section. Anyway, the above argument is true, it POV and OR to call them terrorist. As for Britannica, that has nothing to do with it, he was talking whether the U.N designated them as such or not. "Zionist terrorist organization" is extreme POV and almost anti-semitic with the use of "zionist X ... "in these days. Amoruso 08:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Lehi wasn't Zionist? Unless I'm mistaken in my reading, that's basic history. Just because some now use the term with hatred doesn't make a proper historical usage of the term anti-anything. And what exactly is POV about the phrase? They clearly were Zionists. They clearly engaged in terrorist acts. Derex 02:44, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

They clearly were Zionist it's true. Your second sentence is wrong. If they regularly would blow civilian targets then yes, but their primary activity was aimed at British policemen and political targets. It may be convenient to you to ignore that, but there's a difference between that and targeting children for instance - which is more typical of terrorism. Amoruso 02:49, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Convenient? What do you mean by that. I just happen to have the crazy opinion that blowing up policemen is terrorism. Not that they didn't do their fair share of killing civilians as well. If Hamas blew up the police station in Tel Aviv, would that be terrorism to you? Derex 03:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I assume your extended silence answers that last question. Derex 08:20, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Ha ? No, targetting only military/police sources are not terrorism. Terrorism is targetting civilians, you can look it up. Lehi never targeted civilians, not even once. Amoruso 00:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Your moral bankruptcy is stunning. You are also wrong under almost all national laws, as police are non-combatants. I suppose that's not always a sufficient criterion however, since under Israeli law, Israeli-Arab civilians cannot legally be the victims of terrorism.[5] However, I would be quite surprised if the Israeli government agreed with you in this instance. See, for example, the Prevention of Terrorism Ordinance No. 33, which defines a terrorist organization as “a body of persons resorting in its activities to acts of violence calculated to cause death or injury to a person or to threats of such acts of violence.” Unless policeman are not individuals who can be violently killed, it looks to me like you're wrong even under Israeli law. Derex 04:43, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

You're wrong and misleading on all accounts. First of all, Police forces of an occupying state in anothre country, like the Mandate's police are not considered civilians per international law. Secondly, Israeli Arabs being killed by designated terrorist organizations by the Israeli government of course are also classified as terrorist victims. What you're referring to is an act of murder by another Israeli civilian, so of course it won't be classified as terrorism whether he killed Jews or Arabs. Nor is this any relevant either. It is simply a fact that Lehi had the British forces in Palestine (not even in Britian) as their primary and generally only target, while Palstinian groups don't have only the IDF and Israeli forces as their target but primarly children and civilians on buses, malls, markets, disco clubs and so on. What's worse or not is for anyone's judgement, but there's a definiton and distinction here regarding terrorism - not that it matters, because I don't see how this relates to anything written in the article, so you're obviously arguing a moot point by now. Wikipedia's policy is not to name any organization as terrorist and only site those who designated it as such anyway. Amoruso 04:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

So you're saying that Israel is an occupying state in Tel Aviv? Because that was the question. Basically, you are making up the definition of terrorism as you go along. Instead, I researched the legal definition, and I cited you one such. If you are not simply pulling this stuff out your ass, I'd appreciate a reference to definition of terrorism you are using, preferably a legal one. Derex 05:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't understand what you're saying. As for legal defitiniton, I haven't seen you providing any. Police officers in a distant country shooting down people are certainly combatants if that's what you mean. Amoruso 05:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Let me spell it out for you. You said blowing up the police station in Tel Aviv would not be terrorism. I said it would be, and I cited you a legal definition. You then said that police of an occupying state cannot be victims of terrorism. Now as to law, I did cite you one Israeli law.

Further, the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism defines it, in part, as any act intended to cause injury or death to any person not taking "an active part in hostilities in a situation of armed conflict" when its purpose is to "intimidate a government or an international organization". Police do not take active part in armed conflict, also Bernadotte was clearly terrorism under this definition. The UN Draft Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism Article 2(1) states that it is terrorism to cause "death or bodily injury to _any_ person" or to a "government facility" (e.g. police station) or to "public transportation" (eg train) with intent to "compel a Government or an international organization to do or abstain from any act". Likewise, bombing police would clearly be terrorism under Australian law, see Security Legislation Amendment (Terrorism) Act 2002. Unquestionably, under the U.S. Executive Order on Blocking Property and Prohibiting Transactions with Persons Who Commit, Threaten to Commit, or Support Terrorism Section 3(d) which requires only a "violent act" "intended to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion". Title 18 of the U.S. PATRIOT Act defines it as "criminal acts" designed to intimidate or coerce a government. The UK Terrorism Act 2000 defines it, in part (sufficient conditions), as an act of serious violence against a person, or causing serious damage to property, or endangering a person's life, or causing a serious risk to the health or safety of any section of the public. Canada is about the same, and so on and so on. But I'm tired of typing.Derex 07:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC) 07:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Can you explain to me why we're having this coversation ? It has nothing to do with content in article. Just to clarify, British policemen did take an active part in a situation of armed conflict by going around and shooting unarmed Lehi members for example. An occupying police force is an armed military force in international law. furthermore, all your examples are irrelevant because they're recent conventions drafted after events like 9/11 - they're not retroactive, and they can't possibly relate to events concerning pre-WW2 times (!) If you don't realies this basic timeline importance, then you have some way to go before bringing up legal reasoning. The basic premise of international law dating from the Geneva Conventions is that there's a difference between non combatants, civilians who are totally uninvolved and those that are involved in military or some other affairs of the conflict. It is for this reason targetting a child on a bus to school is differnet than targetting policemen who are essentially soldiers of an exterior force or even politicians directing forces like this. I would explain to you as for the killing of bernadotte, it is an act of assassination, a murder depending on the local law but the question of inflicting fear on a group of people, but this all discussion is redundant since it relates to nothing in the article, and it's just a debate that has nothing to do with the material . Amoruso 07:31, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, see unindented next statement.

Certainly, Amoruso. The relationship to the article is whether they engaged in terrorism. To that end, I asked for a reference to the definition you were applying. You had none. I then supplied details of both international and national law which defined terrorism. Under all of the cited law, the actions of Lehi definetely qualify under the modern defintion of terrorism. That is why we are having this discussion. So that we can actually base the article on fact, and not your personal feelings about what constitutes terrorism. Now, you may reject current standards. Ok then, at the time, the internationally recognized government called them terrorists. Then, now, whenever, it was terrorism. I personally can understand and sympathize (though not agree) with their actions under the circumstances. But it was still terrorism under every citable definition anyone has presented here. However, if you don't find the discussion on point, then perhaps you should stop participating. Derex 07:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Internationally recognised government is a funny statement, no doubt. But that's not the issue. If you actually think about it for a second, you'll see you are discussing about nothing. Wikipedia policy is not to say "X is a terrorist organization" no matter what it does, so your discussion belongs to a discussion board, not here. Amoruso 07:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Correct. We actually report what others say. Encyclopedia Britannica stated they were Zionist terrorist. You said that was irrelevant because they actually weren't terrorists. I, foolishly, took the time to demonstrate that you were incorrect. It's enough to simply state that EB describes them as a "Zionist terrorist organization". As Jimbo says, that's really the essence of NPOV. Derex 08:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any articles that say "Britannica says X is a terrorist". you need to have someone designate them as such. You also didn't demonstrate they were terrorist. Amoruso 12:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, you might meet one real soon if the mood strikes me. You should perhaps go review what Jimbo says about NPOV if you mistakenly think that wouldn't meet the standard. Derex 12:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

---

Britain was the legal authority in Palestine, not an occupying power. --Zero^talk 04:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Britian continually violated their mandate, and the status of the occupation is meaningless for this distinction. Police of a mandate are not regarded as civilians. And this of course includes the Jewish policemen acting under the mandate. In fact, this includes any person of a country's active security forces. Amoruso 04:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

No, it's obvious. "nothing to do with it"? I don't think so. Even UN has called them terrorists. "Anti-semitic"? This phrase is usually used to label others, and is POV either.--Hossein.ir 10:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Even U.N ?

Lehi was not already dissolved at that time; it was dissolved by force after killing Bernadotte. And the fact that the Bernadotte murder was decided by the Lehi center is not in the least controversial. Almost every involved person except Yellin-Mor eventually admitted it. --Zero^talk 11:56, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Details of the event are still very controversial actually. Amoruso 22:31, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Two things. First, don't mistake guidelines for policy. WP:WTA is a guideline. If there's a clear consensus to do so in a specific case, it can and should be ignored. Second, there's no one who seriously disputes Lehi having been a terrorist group, so it's ridiculous to not have it in a "terrorist group" category. — Red XIV ^(talk) 06:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Anthem

Amoruso, Format that stuff so it doesn't have excessive white space and give a source for it. --Zero^talk 08:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I didn't bring it. If I have time I'll do it. Amoruso 09:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I misread the history. If you can check and source it, that would be good. --Zero^talk 11:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

done.Amoruso 13:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

The reason that the terror justficiation is POV is because it's cherry picked. This is likely to be Shamir who did repeat something similar in the future, though he also said that it wasn't terror and terror was what the british did thus contradiciting it. The thing is others never said something like this, and therefore it's misleading and POV. It is sourced, reliable and everything but the inclusion of a specfic quotation does not show a wide view of this. Amoruso 09:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Then please un-cherrypick it by adding a sourced description of what you just said. I assume you have a reference backing up that view. Derex 11:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Right. Actually it is not out of character for this group. My opinion (which I can't prove, obviously) is that Eldad was more likely to be the author than Shamir. --Zero^talk 11:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

It is probably Shamir because he repeated the same thing in 1991, something which you also quoted. He also wrote an article saying the exact opposite though. Do you have a quote of any other person saying something similar ? Amoruso 12:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I add npov-sect to it for now. Amoruso 16:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Book of Moshe Shamir

The book "Ya'ir" by Moshe Shamir is a novel. That means it can't be used as a source of historical data. It is not just my opinion that this book is a novel (in fact I have no opinion since I never read it). Rather, it is what it says right on the cover of the book! Take a look at the cover here. The two words in small red letters say "biographical novel". That's the end of the argument about this source. --Zero^talk 07:44, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

It's a biographical novel with biography details with relevant references. Shamir explains in his book that he called it a novel because of various reasons but there's no doubt over the details referenced. Amoruso 10:18, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Novels of any kind - least of all foreign-language novels - are not reliable sources for an encyclopedia article. You've been asked to stop adding this material many times. Please cite reliable sources. --Ian Pitchford 13:32, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Shamir's account of Lehi is reliable. The fact it's a biographical novel (it's just a name for selling the book) it's because he adds some personal inputs of his life in it and flavours it, in other words it's not only about Yair. What is cited is part of the biography details. It's reliable as they come. Not only that but what he cites is based on external references and none of what I used from the book is controversial in any way or disputed in any way or by anyone. That seems an idea of using every possible excuse in order to blank out material that it's even closely not negative towards Lehi or anyone who is a "Zionist". I suggest you won't attempt incessantly to make these articles unbalanced to your side and try to maintain WP:NPOV and respect toward others by using good faith motives. A proof of this is because you previously attacked this material on the notion that Moshe Shamir is a non WP:RS extremist and now you moved to a different excuse - it seems unreliable and questionable. Shamir lived in the time and has better access to information concerning Yair or Lehi than any other person obviously. Cheers. Amoruso 13:36, 11 November

In reference to notion that Moshe Shamir is a non WP:RS extremist and now you moved to a different excuse - it seems unreliable and questionable. Shamir lived in the time and has better access to information concerning Yair or Lehi than any other person obviously. Cheers. Amoruso 13:36, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Novels cannot be used as sources. Your opinion is interesting, but it doesn't alter the fact that we must still abide by Wikipedia policies on reliable sources. Please point out the section on verifiability that you believe supports the use of fictional foreign-language material in Wikipedia. --Ian Pitchford 13:45, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not a fictional novel, it's a biography, therefore a WP:RS and WP:V. WP:RS doesn't go by Ian Pitchord's definitions. Your attempt to falsely claim Shmuel Katz is a non WP:RSbecause "you don't like him" says everything really. the Book is reliable source. I'm really sorry, but you're going to have to learn to live with sources you don't like and not blank them out on strange pretexts. Amoruso 13:47, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Reliable and verifiable sources confirm that Katz is an Irgun propagandist whose works are circulated by extremist organizations. Please cite a reliable source in support of your claim that this foreign-language novel by Shamir is credible. --Ian Pitchford 13:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Just because someone extreme used his book doesn't say anything about it. And just because Ian Pitchford doesn't like Shmuel Katz's biography also is meaningless. Katz is a respected historian with many cites in Google Scholar and positive endorsements and was published by Bantam books being one of their best selling and respected books. And Moshe Shamir is a respected knowledable person himself acquainted with Lehi who wrore some non controversial known facts about it which can be cited from this biography. Hope you understand what's WP:RS and how WP:RS is not necessarily anything that meets your WP:POV only. Cheers, Amoruso 14:20, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Verified from Ada Amichal (scholary fully referenced biography) and will expand from it more in time, lots of interesting expansions possible. Amoruso 20:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I suppose I should congratulate you on buying a second book. After giving us the benefit of the propagandist Katz, you're now going to introduce fiction to your edits to the project.

PalestineRemembered 21:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

This comment of yours shows your ignorance. This book from a library is a biography by a historian, what fiction are you talking about ? Perhaps you're just a vandal butting in articles you know nothing about ? perhaps ? Amoruso 21:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I recently did some copy editing here without first reading this. From reading the article, I had no idea that the Moshe Shamir book was a novel. In general a novel is not a citable source. There are times when it is OK to cite a partially fictionalized work, but (1) one must be extremely clear that is the nature of the work being cited. This acknowledgment belongs in the main line of the text, not in a footnote. (2) There should be at least one solid citation from a conventional reliable source attesting that the account in the novel is essentially factual. - Jmabel | Talk 16:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

You were right before because Shamir's book is not a novel, it's a biography. he calls it a biographical novel because of reasons stated before but it's definitely not fiction of course. It's 100% non fiction, not partly , not anything. Anyway, this is in the past - it's now re-verified and sourced with Ada Amichal's biography. Amoruso 19:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Comments

• Well I'm looking at the article right now and Shamir's book is only used twice as a reference: [6][7]. In the first place the claim being source doesn't seem controversial. In the second place (where it says Yair refused to join the Fascist student association) the claim is a little more controversial, but there's also another source backing the statement up. So it appears to me that the inclusion (or exclusion) of the Shamir source would not much difference (if any) on the actual content of the article. So this whole argument over the reliability of the source is not really necessary right now. I suggest we leave the source up the way it is. But I also suggest Amoruso use more reliable/verifiable sources (maybe also in English) if he's going to make any controversial claims (but that doesn't seem to be the case here). Taxico 09:08, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Sources that satisfy the rules are required for all claims, and any claims that are indeed not controversial should be easy enough to source properly. However, these two claims, especially the second, are indeed controversial. For example we have the sentence "However, authoritarianist principles do not appear in the Principles of Rebirth which is the organization's Charter." whose source is unclear. It looks like OR unless it is quoted from an acceptable source, since both the claim about the interpretation of the Principles and the claim about their significance are opinions. Whose opinions? We can't quote opinions from a novel. However, Heller somewhat supports this assertion. He writes (p81) that Stern's lieutenant Hanoch Kalay (Kalai) wanted to include an explicitly fascist clause but Stern overruled him because he wanted Lehi to have a non-party image. --Zero^talk 12:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

The statement starting with "However, authoritarianist principles [...]" doesn't seem to have anything to do with Shamir (at least when one reads the article. So the proper way to ask for sources is to add a "fact" template. I'm going to do that for you. Taxico 20:46, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

That statement is sourced to the principles themselves. It's like saying they don't talk about Texas. It doesn't need another source as far as I see it, and i think you'd agree. It doesn't talk about a dictator etc. Amoruso 20:49, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

You just admitted it is original research.

Now...the book by A. Amichal-Yeivin is acceptable since it has the nod from scholars like Joseph Heller and Nachman Ben-Yehuda who cite it. So a direct quotation from there would be fine. Incidentally, one of the things that Heller cites to A-Y (and also to archival documents) is that Stern intended to approach the Italian Fascists before approaching the Nazis, and only changed his mind after Italian military defeats. According to Heller, A-Y reproduces Stern's letter to the Italians on p313. --Zero^talk 12:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

In reference to the request for comments, I have no problem with this book used as a reference for these claims. A novel is a long narrative in prose, and a biographical novel may not be a scientific work, but it is also not fiction. I say keep. --Regebro 15:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Regebro (isn't there supposed to be here an annoucement if there's an RFC btw?), for others see also my above comments - this isn't a novel despite the confusion, and now (not that it had to as you eloquently explained) it's also referenced by Ada Amichal which is the main source used for Shamir. Saying that authoritarianist don't appear in the principles is of course not WP:OR. It's why I changed fascist to authoritarianist because militant principles are also facist principles but there's nothing authoritarianist there, it's simply not in the text. Amoruso 19:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

A "biographical novel" is a novel written in the setting of the life of a real person. It is like "historical novel" which is a novel written in the setting of real historical events. Both of them are types of novel. Ask a librarian. Calling it a biographical novel rather than a biography allows the author to make up things to fill in the gaps between the facts, to conflate separate events into one to make the story flow better, to present events in the wrong order, and lots of similar things. All these devices used by writers of biographical novels are perfectly fine but mean we can't use them as sources of fact. Finally, RFC's don't override policy even if they are unanimous. --Zero^talk 00:49, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree about the OR above, it's evident. As for Shamir he's not used anymore by himself but no he did not make it up - it's all written down in the foreward and the details of yair are refrenced . Amoruso 00:52, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

A "biographical novel" is a novel, a work of fiction. If it has a non-fictional foreword, fine, that should be clarified, and the foreword is citable. And if the foreword asserts that certain elements of the novel are non-fictional, it would probably be an acceptable citation on a non-controversial matter, but it is pretty thin gruel in an area of controversy. In general, you can cite a novel only for its own over plot and its narrator's (not even author's) opinions; anything more requires an independent, non-fictional, citable source to vouch for a particular portion of the novel being based in fact. - Jmabel | Talk 00:16, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Revisionist denial seems to be going on here

I'm no expert, but the statement been added here today looks a lot like WP:OR and revisionist denial:

However, fascist principles do not appear in the Principles of Birth (above) which is the organization's "charter". Moreover, the founder of the group, Yair Stern, was a known anti-fascist. While he studied in Italy he explained that they must not come close to Fascist Italy, despite any interest temptations, because it would be wrong and unacceptable. He refused to join the Fascist student association that foreign students were invited to, in spite of the fact that those joined were given serious reductions in tuition.

The leader of a group that bombed the Mandate administration of Palestine (even while it was fighting Hitler, before D-Day) should not be defended in it's (literally) criminal behaviour in this misleading and insubstantial fashion. The reference could be WP:RS but it's not saying what the edit claims he's saying.

PalestineRemembered 21:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, he's not being defended for the activities, but simply for the fact he was not fascist. You can be a "terrorist" but still not a fascist. This sentence wasn't added today, it was blanked. Please take your misgivings about Lehi elsewhere. Amoruso 07:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Personally I'm not convinced that Stern was a fascist. If there is a reliable source that defends him of that charge, we can quote it. The issue here is over using a novel as a source, which obviously cannot be allowed. It is clear enough from this quotation why using fictional sources is so dangerous. It is complete nonsense to say that Stern believed that "they must not come close to Fascist Italy", since Stern's multiple attempts to ingratiate himself with the Italians and obtain their support are well documented. That was not because Stern was a fascist himself, but because he would have accepted aid from devil himself if it was offered. --Zero^talk 12:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually the coming close to fascist italy thing was fake and a hoax, but it's true like you said he would have accepted it because of mutual interest, but not on the ideological level which is what the quote said. The biography is not fiction. It says so in the book itself , it's based on the Lehi members memoirs, the thesis work by Eda Amichal in Bargman which is a comprehsnvie biography of Yair and more. In essense, the book is a secondary source which is also allowed on wikipedia, and not fiction of course like explained already. Amoruso 10:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC) Since it's a secondary source btw, I might quote directly from Amichal when I get to it. At the maximum, verfibality tag can be added (although not necessary), not blanking. Cheers. Amoruso 13:11, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I advise you to read the policy: WP:V "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sources should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require stronger sources.... English-language sources should be given whenever possible, and should always be used in preference to foreign-language sources, so that readers can easily verify that the source material has been used correctly... In general, sources of dubious reliability are sources with a poor reputation for fact-checking or with no fact-checking facilities or editorial oversight. Sources of dubious reliability should only be used in articles about themselves." Cleary, the works in question by Katz and Shamir do not qualify. The former is a unreliable work by a Revisionist propagandist; the latter is a foreign language novel. --Ian Pitchford 15:05, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the first is the reliable scholarly appreciated work by historian Shmuel Katz, an excellent reference, the other a comprehensive biography of Yair quoting from secondary sources which are very reliable. Amoruso 18:53, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I've yet to see anything by Katz that looks like a WP:RS. All I see is material such as this, ahistorical and frankly nasty United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East: Katz, Shmuel (1973) Battleground: Fact and Fantasy in Palestine , p.36 ISBN 0933503032 "....... The economic interest of the individual Arab in the perpetuation of the refugee problem and of his free keep is backed by the accumulating vested interest of UNRWA itself to keep itself in being and to expand. The United Nations Relief and Works Agency is thought of as some Olympian, philanthropic body directed and operated by a band of dedicated humanitarians, devoted exclusively to the task of helping suffering refugees. The fact is that the organisation consists of some 11,000 officials of whom all but a handful are Arabs who are themselves inscribed on the rolls as "refugees." They perform the field work; they, that is, hand out the relief. The remaining handful consists of some 120 Americans and Europeans who man the organisation’s central offices. Since UNRWA itself is thus a source of livelihood for some 50,000 people, no one connected with it has the slightest interest in seeing its task end or in protesting the fraud and deception it has perpetuated for over twenty years. The myth continues to live and to thrive, feeding on itself."

PalestineRemembered 20:04, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

UNRWA itself has admitted, and documented, the fact that refugee counts are inflated, for precisely the reasons Katz has suggested - there is economic benefit to being listed as a refugee, to hiding the fact that a refugee member of your family has died etc... It is quot epointless to dispute things Katz has claimed in this regard, when th eobject of his criticism has admitted them to be true. Isarig 01:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Nobody here would tolerate revisionists attempting to downplay the number of victims by other racists - why do you think it's acceptable in this case?

Even more to the point, why do you think it's tolerable to ruin articles such as the one on UNWRA by flooding them with ahistorical denial of the kind that Katz is guilty of here?

This is the talk-page of an article about a terrorist group (we don't call it as much in the article, but we all know what we're talking about). In this article, it suggests that the victims at Deir Yassin were "allegedly the old women and children", and there are editors (not you?) who bitterly defend keeping that word in there.

And yet, when it comes to an article on people of good-faith (such as the UNWRA, not a job you or I would do), you're suggesting it's perfectly acceptable to jeer at and slander them in the polemical fashion that Katz does (not a Reliable Source in sight).

Perhaps a review of Neutral Point of View would be in order - along with some sense of respect for victims and humanitarian workers.

PalestineRemembered 19:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

btw, regardless of the fact that Katz is WP:RS per above and in general, there was nothing and never was anything from Katz written in this article. Pointless imaginary excuses of Ian Pitchford and others to blank out anything they don't like without knowing what they blanked out. Amoruso 01:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I notice you don't defend Katz in his article, you simply blank out anything you don't like.

I came to these parts determined not to practise edit-warring with anyone in here .... and I won't, no matter how much I'm provoked. I'll get over the handicap of being a newby as quickly as I can and find ways to improve the project over POV-pushers.

PalestineRemembered 19:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

What do you want and what does Katz have to do with the article, he's not mentioned or referenced even once - it's confusing to readers who will come to this page, and why do you feel your political bullshit needs to be presented with full stadium lights in every talk page in wikipedia ? stop making talk pages your personal blogs. Amoruso 19:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Please remain civil and stop personal attacks. Thanks. --Hossein.ir 09:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Amoruso has been warned many times now to stop using fictional and foreign-langugage sources for controversial claims in Wikipedia articles. The policy on verifiability is very clear on these points. --Ian Pitchford 10:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Foreign langauge is allowed of course when it has use and value that doesn't exist in english [[8]] (and see examples of use of Persian, Romanian and other sources), and the information is not fiction. It's now all well sourced to scholary materials anyway, Cheers. Amoruso 17:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Heller's book confirms that Stern "uncompromisingly admired both Mussolini and Pilsudski" and Shindler that Stern "was greatly impressed and influenced by Mussolini's regime". I'll add these verifiable sources to the article in due course. The article also needs a section on Lehi's assassination of Palestinian Jews - half of their victims. --Ian Pitchford 21:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

There's no "confirmed" it, just an allegation that's obviously false when examining Yair's biography but their allegation is written, although it might be given too undue weight already. Heller is a popular writer of fiction who wrote Catch-22. As for Palestinian Jews allegation, are we talking about traitors being executed in the underground ? That's of course common practice in all undergrounds including Haganah, but Yair was very much against any killing of Jews and he wrote about it extensively and he was very upset when any Jews died (while he was alive under his watch that is). Of course the British and others tried to make up other tales. Amoruso 20:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

You've got a good sense of humour. Heller is Emeritus Professor of International Relations at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Lehi killings are detailed in Crime and Criminal Justice in Israel by Robert Friedmann, Professor and Chair of the Department of Criminal Justice at Georgia State University. Sorry, no British involved. --Ian Pitchford 21:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I said British and others and I said that obviously traitors were executed, very common in undergrounds at the time and in general. Amoruso 21:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

A pity you don't have any sources. --Ian Pitchford 22:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I have all the sources in the world on issues of Lehi actually. Btw, this is already dealt in the article. Amoruso 23:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

assassination of Jews

Ian just added this information : Of those Lehi assassinations that Ben-Yehuda classified as political, more than half the victims were Jews. I think it could be very interesting for NPoV to give some examples in the article because currently there is no one (I think) and main topics about assassinations are : Bernadotte, Moyne and Deir Yassin massacre. Personnaly I never heard about this or at least don't have any exemple in mind. Alithien 10:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I just added it this to where it already was discussed in the later history section. There are a lot of operations by lehi or against lehi that should be added and are much more interesting. killing the collaborators/traitors is something that's very common and understood in that context. Irgun and Haganah did it too as did undergrounds in europe and everywhere else, it's a must for an underground to exist. Amoruso 10:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello. I see you moved the information. That is ok for me.

You know, I don't mind if this is "very common and understood in that context". I am neither Lehi member nor their judge. :-)

I would just like to know what Jews were killed by Lehi. And now, after what you wrote, what Jew kill the Haganah too...

it's certainly interesting I agree, it can be expanded. But not in lead. Amoruso 15:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

You also removed this : "described themselves as a terrorist group and adopted the tactics". Can you explain why (next section). Thank you. Alithien 14:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

self described as terrorist

"[they] described themselves as a terrorist group and adopted the tactics (...)". Where is the problem with this sentence ? Alithien 14:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

the problem with that sentence is that it's wrong. It's taken out of the context like in the terror section. They certainly didn't see themselves as terrorists, they kept repeating basically the famous one man's terrorist is one man's freedom fighter in their version. This was their point though terror as a word was used but not as self described but how the British observed that action. Amoruso 15:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Contacts with Fascist Italy prior to nazi contacts

The nazi stuff is there but can an authority on the group confirm if there were prior contacts with Italian fascists?

"Avraham Stern who had formed a breakaway 'Irgun in Israel' movement (also known as the Stern Gang), tried to make contact with Fascist Italy in the hope that, if Mussolini were to conquer the Middle East, he would allow a Jewish State to be set up in Palestine. When Mussolini's troops were defeated in North Africa, Stern tried to make contacts with Nazi Germany, hoping to sign a pact with Hitler which would lead to a Jewish State once Hitler had defeated Britain. After two members of the Stern's Gang had killed the Tel Aviv [British] police chief and two of his officers, Stern himself was caught and killed. His followers [chief among them Yitzhak Shamir who led the Stern Gang after Stern's death] continued on their path of terror." (Martin Gillbert - Israel: A History, p. 111-112) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.29.226.213 (talk) 20:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC).

Yes, it is true. Heller's book gives details. I'll add them soon. --Zero^talk 11:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Lenni Brenner has written two books on the extensive Fascist and Nazi connections of the Zionists, particularily the most extreme and violent ones. One is "Zionism in the age of dictators", out of print but all on the web at [9]. Chapter 4 concerns "Zionism and Italian Fascism, 1922-1933"[10] and says "The World Zionist Organisation’s attitude toward Italian Fascism was determined by one criterion: Italy’s position on Zionism. When Mussolini was hostile to them, Weizmann was critical of him; but when he became pro-Zionist, the Zionist leadership enthusiastically supported him. On the day Hitler came to power they were already friends with the first Fascist leader."

The second book is "51 Documents, Zionist collaboration with the Nazis" 2002, a collection of historical documents that prove these connections. Just one of the explosive revelations is that Yitzak Shamir, later leader of Lehi and later again Prime Minister of Israel, definitely joined the Stern Gang while determined efforts were being made to ally to the Nazi Third Reich. PalestineRemembered 11:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Of course British denunciatory

The lead of this article apparently seeks to whitewash this group - while simultaneously, understating their importance to the history of Israel. Of course the generally used term, by the authorities of the time, was denunciatory - but it's also what the group was commonly called, then and since. And the fact that a future Prime Minister was once the leader of the gang is highly pertinent. If the information duplicates what comes later, then the later parts need re-writing. Otherwise, it appears the article is trying to conceal something very significant. PalestineRemembered 20:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Article being given undue weight

Not doubt Beit Or is right here. Zero0000 has not presented any evidence on why this particular article is important to even be included let alone quote at length. It has been presented before how this article is misleading and not representative of anything, and it seems it's all WP:OR by Zero. Amoruso 18:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

The uncompromising religious driving force of Lehi is clear in its writings, something needs inclusion by WP:NPOV.

There is no danger of "undue weight" from including this passage: "We are quite far from moral hesitations on the national battlefield. We see before us the command of the Torah, the most moral teaching in the world: Obliterate—until destruction. We are particularly far from this sort of hesitation in regard to an enemy whose moral perversion is admitted by all."

In fact, we should be including something about the Amalekites too eg "David would strike the land (of the Amalekites) and would leave neither man nor woman alive" to make clear what utter destruction Lehi wished on the British in 1943. PalestineRemembered 12:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

PalestineRemembered, Lehi may have quoted biblical passages to suit its purposes, but no serious historian would characterize the movement as "religious." --Leifern 12:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

No serious historian would suggest that the group's own explanation of the ideological/religious justification of its terrorism should be ignored.

Nor would anyone reading this article think the proposed inclusion was "undue weight" - in fact, most informed readers would think more weight should be placed on the Amalekite reference, especially when directed at the British in 1943.

In fact, anyone reading this would be puzzled and wonder how on earth these references came to be taken out! PalestineRemembered 14:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Stern was an atheist, as were most other leaders of the group, and the Zionist leadership in general. At the time, Zionism was not a religious movement, if anything, it went against the established views in Judaism. Likewise, Lehi was in no way based on religion, nor did it need any religious justifications for its actions: even the quoted article cites plenty of more mundane and practical justifications for the organization's tactics. Beit Or 16:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

You've fallen into the classic OR trap. You may have good evidence that Stern (and/or most other Lehi leaders) was an/were atheist, but you cannot use that to argue that Irgun did not have a religious dimension. (In practise, evidence these people "were atheists" wouldn't prove much anyway, only a personal statement would be sufficient, and even that might be rendered untrue only a short time later).

In the meantime, we have unequivocable evidence (amounting to that rare thing, "undisputed proof") that the driving force of Irgun was religious. Such undisputed proof belongs in the article by WP:NPOV. PalestineRemembered 17:12, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

It is true that the leaders of Lehi were mostly atheist or at least non-religious. However, that did not stop them from making Biblical references in justification of their actions. Most of the atheist Zionists did that (Ben-Gurion was a fine example). We should also remember that their writings were intended to impress their readers (many of them doubtless religious) and not just candid inner thoughts. The passage in question is from an article Lehi published to justify themselves and there is no reason we shouldn't report what they wrote. So far nobody has given a good reason to censor it. Just wanting people to not know about these things is definitely not an acceptable reason. --Zero^talk 01:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Intro edit

The intro should, according to Wikipedia policy, contain a summary of the article's content. I have added such summary information. Please do not remove it, without clear justification. Trakow 19:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

The justification is simply that it's not true. It's not primarly known for what you said, and you provided false info without sources. The current lead is also a summary of the article I would believe. G'day, Amoruso 10:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I've altered the phrasing to reflect your comments, in the spirit of constructive compromise. Note that the intro should include a summary of the article, and everything mentioned in the paragraph is discussed further in the article. Your wholesale deletion is clearly inappropriate. Trakow 09:33, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but whoever said they're associated with it ? The cairo train bombing wasn't done by Lehi and they're not known for it either... they ARE known for Lord Moyne's assassination, that's true... but how important is the honouring of it by Israel for the lead ? Not really. I don't see how this adds to the article, with due respect. I don't mind you add a summary, but clearly that one isn't appropriate. Amoruso 17:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The honouring of assasins by a state is always highly significant. If prominent Israelis were being killed this way and Iran were honouring their killers you'd be outraged, and you know it. And this is an organisation which tried hard to ally themselves to the Nazis. The article needs to reflect just how bad this looks - far worse than an exiled non-leader of the Palestinians (imposed by the British, but with no power and no funds) joining the Nazis. PalestineRemembered 11:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Please stop using Wikipedia Talk: pages as a soapbox for far-fetched pejorative hypothetical analogies. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Need translation or cannot include material.

This article repeatedly references "Amichal" a 1986 Hebrew text. (See #6, #14, #29, #30, #31). Policy requires that we have access to a translation, with some confidence that the translation is accurate. Otherwise we do not have verifiability an official policy of Wikipedia, and cannot include this material. PalestineRemembered 13:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

This is a scholary work which was quoted by english scholars. See comments above. Amoruso 17:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The policy on sources in languages other than English is extremely clear:

…when the original material is in a language other than English:

• Where sources are directly quoted, published translations are generally preferred over editors performing their own translations directly.
• Where editors use their own English translation of a non-English source as a quote in an article, there should be clear citation of the foreign-language original, so that readers can check what the original source said and the accuracy of the translation.

In short, there is no inherent problem with sources in a foreign language. Languages such as Hebrew are not secret codes.

If there is a published translation available, that would generally be preferred, but I want to point to that word generally. I know from working in languages such as Spanish and Romanian that we have several times encountered issues where we have reached a clear consensus that a published translation was incompetently done (or, occasionally, appears to be a deliberate misrepresentation) and that a consensus translation by the editors would be preferred even to a published translation.

In any case, I don't see such subtle issues arising here. The Hebrew-language document is perfectly citable if no English translation is available. I would further point out that there are literally hundreds of Wikipedia editors of widely varying political views who can read Hebrew, and if you think that the source may have been abused, it should not be difficult to find someone who can verify whether it has been used appropriately. - Jmabel | Talk 18:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Read the policy again, your interpretation doesn't match what you've posted. Translations must be available (obviously, otherwise we'd have wrecked one of the core principles of the encyclopaedia, that of verifiability). The question is whether we must have professional translations or whether we can use amateur ones. In this case, we have neither. PalestineRemembered 19:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Please note the wording: "…editors performing their own translations directly".

I honestly haven't looked closely at this particular case. My suggestion is that if the original is being cited without being quoted, and if there is sincere doubt as to whether it is being cited accurately, the footnote should contain relevant material both in the original Hebrew and in English translation. Another possibility would be that if, as is suggested above, the relevant passage has been quoted or paraphrased in English-language scholarly work, citing an example of that work would be useful. - Jmabel | Talk 00:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Please examine the article - here are all the relevant parts (bunched up together, but you should be able to follow): "Avraham Stern crystallized the ideology of his organization in what was called the "18 Principles of Rebirth":[6] ............ In any case, Der Marvitz delivered the offer, classified as secret, to the German Ambassador in Turkey and on January 21, 1941 it was sent to Berlin. There was never any response to the offer. Von Hentig would later say that he believed it was important to help the Jews establish a country. [13] [14] German plans such as the Madagascar Plan eventually failed and ultimately led the Nazis to initiate the Holocaust, the "Final Solution to the Jewish Question" in 1942, but at the time of the Lehi proposal, this was still in the future. ............ While Yair Stern studied in Italy he refused to join the Fascist student association called "Gruppo Universitario Fascista" that foreign students were invited to, in spite of the fact that those joined were given serious reductions in tuition. [29] Moreover, during the time he spent in Russia, Stern was actually a member of the Pioneer movement which was the young pre-Komsomol layer of the communist Party in the USSR.[30] He also created the Histadrut of the Hebrew Tzofim Hashomer Hatzair in Suwalki which derived its ideology from youth organizations Hatzofim and socialist movements like Hashomer Hatzair and Hehalutz. [31] ............ 6. ^ Amichal, page 316, a copy on the web exists here.......... 14. ^ Full details depicted in Ada Amichal Yevin, "In Purple", The Life of Yair - Abraham Stern", Hadar Publishing House Tel Aviv, 1986, pp. 225-230...... 29. ^ Amichal, 77, 30. ^ Amichal, 14, 31. ^ Amichal, page 16 - References - * (Hebrew) Amichal Yevin, Ada (1986). In purple: the life of Yair-Abraham Stern. Tel Aviv: Hadar Publishing House.".

The first reference (No 6) gives us a translation of their song - we need an opportunity to view it in context (perhaps there are more verses?). The rest is all paraphrases, no attempt at quotations. We have no verifiability whatsoever.

Note - collaboration with the Nazis is quite significant, and this whole article appears to glorify this group. So the danger of there being a mis-quote is considerable. The reputation of the encyclopaedia is diminished with referencing that is apparently deliberately opaque. PalestineRemembered 14:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

PalestineRemembered, you seem to be going through Wikipedia challenging any material that is sourced to Hebrew sources, claiming it is in violation of WP:V, when, in fact, it has been explained to you many times that it is not in violation of WP:V in any way. If you have a specific reason to believe that a specific source has been used incorrectly, then please state exactly and explicitly what your concern is with that particular usage. General suspicion regarding Hebrew language sources is not good enough. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Verifiability is clear in wording and in meaning "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed." Inserting non-English references drives a cart-and-horses through this core principle of the encyclopaedia. I don't understand why I need to be telling you this, as this section is entitled "Need translation or cannot include material". PalestineRemembered 21:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

As has been explained to you several times, including in this very Talk: page section, WP:V#Sources_in_languages_other_than_English in no way precludes using foreign language sources. Just because you can't read Hebrew, it doesn't mean it is some complicated code impervious to translation. Please stop inventing policy, and then applying that invented policy exclusively to Hebrew language sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

My apologies, I didn't fully appreciate that, "any reader" of the encyclopaedia means Israelis or other readers of Hebrew and nobody else. PalestineRemembered 09:40, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

PalestineRemembered, may I suggest that the most constructive way to proceed would be for you to pick the two or three issues that you most question (and I don't mean two or three per article) and request that the relevant passages from the sources be translated for you?

The "any reader" criterion is about what might be done in principle. I assure you, very few readers could usefully validate a source in any article on particle physics, but it doesn't mean we cannot write about the topic. - Jmabel | Talk 09:50, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Policy requires translations of all non-English references. In addition, accessible third party translations are preferable over editors own translations. Hence, providing me/readers with full translations of all non-English material in this article (and all others where it has been inserted) would still only deliver half-hearted compliance with one of the core priniciples of the encyclopaedia. PalestineRemembered 09:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Explanation for alleged

The section contact with Nazi officials is based on Ada Amichal Yevin, "In Purple", The Life of Yair - Abraham Stern", Hadar Publishing House Tel Aviv, 1986, pp. 225-230, which is a scholary source. The section clearly states that the letter wasn't written by Lehi nor sent by Lehi, and that it could have been invented because of a personal rivalry. The wording is certainly not Lehi's which is why it is alleged (at most). Cheers, Amoruso 08:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

The only problem with this explanation is that Yevin isn't the only source that we're using for the section. (I've read your dispute with Zero above; he wasn't convinced by your attempt to cast doubt on this situation, nor am I. I'm changing the reference back, again.) CJCurrie 01:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually with all due respect you're showing you're not informative about the situation. If you don't know the material, please stop reverting, it is rude and unacceptable. The debate with Zero0000 above was before we used the source of Yevin. After I used the source, the debate was obsolete since the content is already used. The section clearly writes that the offer may have been invented. Therefore it is alleged. You're battling a hopeless battle. Cheers, Amoruso 07:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Deir Yassin

It seems to me that the involvement of Lehi in the Deir Yassin massacre was similar to that of the other Jewish groups involved. Consequently, I don't understand why there is an edit war over the description of Deir Yassin here. Unless this article needs to describe the events at Deir Yassin differently in order to highlight Lehi's unique role there, the paragraph should basically resemble the lede at Deir Yassin massacre. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 23:26, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The paragraph is simply a copy paste of the current intro of the Deir Yassin article. It can either be removed completely or copy from there - it can't be a seperate forum for fighting disputes over the issue - that won't make sense. Amoruso 07:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

It was badly phrased. One doesn't "take part in the events referred to as XXXXXXXXX", one "takes part in XXXXX". There are lots of other serious faults in this article like the "denunciatory label originated by the British". PalestineRemembered 13:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

What's the fault in that ? It was previously decided as the best way to phrase that sentence. As for Deir Yassin, one takes part in alleged XXXXX or in something referred (by antisemitic propaganda) as a massacre.... Amoruso 08:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I understand that you don't believe the events at Deir Yassin constituted a massacre. You have the right to hold that opinion, but you should also know that it's a fringe minority opinion. Describing the majority view as "antisemitic propaganda" is not acceptable. CJCurrie 21:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

No historian holds that it was a massacre. If you have sources that say otherwise, Take it to the Deir Yassin article. Malik Shabazz, impartial here, has set the compromise. It's a copy paste from there. Amoruso 22:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm speechless ... and I doubt that Malik was aware of the problems at Deir Yassin Massacre when he wrote the above. CJCurrie 22:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Why do you want to take the "problems at Deir Yassin Massacre" to here ? Does that make any sense to you ? How about we discuss Deir Yassin in 200 articles ? It's simply an expanded link. We can keep just the link and delete the entire paragraph if you wish. Amoruso 22:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Rather than responding to your questions, I'll simply note the following: the presence of unencyclopedic language at Deir Yassin massacre should not be interpreted as justification for unencyclopedic language here concerning the Deir Yassin massacre. CJCurrie 22:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

It's dishonest to refer to the content dispute as a matter of encyclopedic language. Amoruso 22:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Fine, I'll rephrase: the presence of unencyclopedic content at Deir Yassin massacre should not be used as justification for unencyclopedic content here concerning the Deir Yassin massacre. CJCurrie 23:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeeed, it would not. It's a bit strange, though, that you would try to "fix" this alleged unencyclopedic content about Deir Yassin here, a peripherally relevant article, rather than in the main article itself. Isarig 23:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of the dispute at Deir Yassin massacre until after I tried to fix this particular article. Incidentally, are you familiar with the ArbComm ruling on the Deir Yassin massacre page from a few years ago? CJCurrie 23:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Like CJCurrie, I wasn't aware of the controversy at Deir Yassin massacre. Nor did I pay close attention to the lede, which starts with the phrase "Deir Yassin massacre refers to the killing ...." That wording doesn't work in a sentence that starts with Lehi as a subject, and Amoruso's phrase ("events referred to as the Deir Yassin massacre") only makes it worse, because two consecutive sentences use the word "refer". (Please note: I'm not picking on that viewpoint, I'm only pointing out the grammar.)

I have a suggestion. Instead of starting the paragraph with "Lehi took part in the events referred to as the Deir Yassin massacre" or "Lehi took part in the Deir Yassin massacre", what if we started with:

Lehi [and Irgun] took part in the killing of about 107 to 120 Palestinian Arabs at the village of Deir Yassin, an incident referred to as the Deir Yassin massacre. [Then continue with the lede from Deir Yassin massacre.]

I think we all agree that Lehi was there, they took part in the killing, and the incident is referred to — rightly or wrongly — as a massacre. What do others think of this proposal? — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 00:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd be willing to accept this wording. CJCurrie 00:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Me too. Thanks again Shabazz. Amoruso 14:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

How do we introduce the claimed religious basis of this group? Here are their words: "We are quite far from moral hesitations on the national battlefield. We see before us the command of the Torah, the most moral teaching in the world: Obliterate—until destruction" (The italicised quotation is a combination of two Biblical references "Utterly blot out their remembrance... and destroy them completely."). This is what Lehi (at the height of their own importance) wished on the British in 1943. PalestineRemembered 14:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

It's already in the article: "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lehi_%28group%29#Goals_and_methods" - the first part of the paragraph is written the rest referenced. Most of the Lehi members were seculars and one paragraph is not enough to establish "religous basis of the group", but it's an interesting subject. Amoruso 14:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be a degree of concealment bordering on falsehood going on here. The words I've quoted above are not in the article. It seems quite an odd claim to say that they are. The article currently says "An article titled "Terror" in He Khazit (The Front, a Lehi underground newspaper) argued as follows: "Neither Jewish morality nor Jewish tradition can negate the use of terror as a means of battle... We are particularly far from this sort of hesitation in regard to an enemy whose moral perversion is admitted by all."

Naturally, I'd hesitate to accuse anyone of real dishonesty in this matter, just as I avoided doing so yesterday in a somewhat similar episode, see here. On that occasion, I intended to have an RfC, unfortunately, my posting was in the wrong place, which explains why most people didn't see it. You knew it was there because I informed you of it, but you archived my notification just 10 minutes after the notification. Your response on that occasion was quite intemperate, as we'd not like to see repeated.

I think that when Palestinians ascribe their violent actions to the command of the Koran, they should be called "religiously inspired terrorists", and when the Lehi ascribe their actions on the "national battlefield" to the command of the Torah, then they should be called "religiously inspired terrorists". What do you think? PalestineRemembered 16:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the following passage, using the same criteria as are employed in the article with reference to, to cite one example, the Cairo-Haifa train bombings. Where a full page exists elaborating an incident, there is no need to give numerous partial details on it, as is done here.

This occurred during a period of increasing local Arab-Jewish fighting about one month prior to the regional outbreak of the much larger 1948 Arab-Israeli War. Contemporary reports of this event, with their initial estimate of 250 killed, had considerable impact on the conflict, and were a major cause of Arab civilian flight from Palestine. The circumstances, nature, evaluation, and scope of the Deir Yassin incident remain a source of controversy and debate decades later as the incident has been described as either harsh fighting in a fortified village which resulted in the need for the use of grenades or that the village did not allow for a military force to take position and that a massacre of innocent civilians had occurred..

These pages are linked and the vice of rehashing what is elaborately set forth on the linked page (here Deir Yassin), by giving a one-sided pro-Lehi account (contextualising the conflict in a wider war, recounting the 'exaggerations' of death reports, which were in any case initiated by Lehi-Irgun commandoes) of a complex historical narrative breaks several rules. To 'qualify' the famous massacres in this way, while dealing lightly with the assassinations of many Jews by Lehi activists tilts the story Nishidani 14:10, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

recent revisions

(1) The information about the alleged German proposal is repetitive, since it's described in length by the scholary source of Amichal Yevin. This has been explained many times, and it appears in two places. Therefore, do not restore this information. (2) the information about "</ref>, and is on record as defining its own activities as terroristic." is pure WP:OR. This is not "on record", it's a newspaper article, one article, already described later in the page. Therefore, also repetitive. Please do not restore WP:OR information using WP:WTA language which obstruct the article. Amoruso (talk) 15:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Take up your complaints with David Yisraeli,who first cited the material in his doctorate at Bar Ilan University in 1974, The Palestine Problem in German Politics, 1889-1945.Reread WP:OR, and improve your knowledge of English (and German). Nishidani (talk) 17:10, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

What you said had nothing to do with the issue. Don't enter sources you've never looked at or stick your nose into subjects you know nothing about. Your ignorance is showing. Amoruso (talk) 20:44, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Please, let's try to talk through our differences

I would like to ask all the editors who have been involved in the recent reversion warring — and there have been more than two — to please stop. Keep in mind that WP:3RR "does not convey an entitlement to revert three times each day ... Editors may still be blocked even if they have made three or fewer reverts in a 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive."

To help other editors join in an effort to reach a consensus or compromise, I would also like to ask editors to please summarize the issues in bullet-point fashion so that other editors can review the changes at issue and your explanation. To make things easier for others, please limit each bullet point to a single issue — in other words, "The National Enquirer is not a reliable source. Everybody knows that the word Kibbutz should always be capitalized." should be two bullet points unless The National Enquirer is being used as a source concerning the capitalization of the word kibbutz.

I hope we can reach agreement among ourselves by talking through the individual issues, instead of wholesale reversion of large sections of text. If necessary, we can consider inviting editors who have had no previous involvement with this article to offer their opinions. There is no good reason to keep reverting the same changes. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 23:32, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Malik Shabazz. Basically, there are two issues here:

• Nishidani has been adding that "Lehi saw themselves as terrorists" based on an unsigned uncredited article that is already mentioned in the section "Goals and Methods". I've presented another source showing that Lehi in fact was against the use of this word. I think that is clear then why this was removed. Btw, the WP:OR in saying what Nishidani implied, even without taking note of WP:WTA and without taking into account my source which Nishidani simply erased, is particularly grave, since the article itself said "it demonstrates... against the true terrorist" - so concluding from this isolated article that "Lehi is on record defining itself as terrorist" is extremely peculiar.

• Nishidani has also been adding to the intro section information about the attributed Nazi offer, with deliberate controversial choice of words, which is already described in detail in its own section: "Contact with Nazi Authorities". Therefore, this was removed for repetitiveness. Amoruso (talk) 03:32, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Malik Shabazz. Sorry for the delay. Real life occasionally intrudes, proving more disruptive than time-consuming edit-wars. I share Amoruso's sentiments of appreciation. This is a sensible move, and I look forward to settling this by rational discussion. Before proceding, I will admit I am somewhat confused by Amoruso's objections in so far as they have varied over the last week. So may I profit from what Amoruso says above to synthesize my understanding of his objections, and see if my understanding is correct?

• Amoruso objects to (1) my edit that Lehi 'is on record as defining its own activities as terroristic'. (2) He also protests that my edit is 'repetitive' because some of the information is already available in a later section.

• Clearly therefore there are two objections. One to phrasing, the other to placement.

• On phrasing, Amoruso says he has a source proving Lehi was opposed to the use of the word 'terroristic' (to describe its activities). If so, his objection here consists of denying the truthfulness of my edit.

• On placement, Amoruso appears to be saying that my edit mentions what is already discussed in the text, and therefore is pleonastic, i.e., it suffers from 'repetitiveness'.

• Is this the substance of the objection? Regards Nishidani (talk) 21:10, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Summary

Thank you both for your comments. I'll try to summarize the specific changes in the article (based on the last set of changes before the page was locked) and your comments regarding them. If any other editors would like to add comments or questions, please jump in.

If you think I've summarized the changes or your views incorrectly, please let me know. Also, please write if you think there are other changes that should be discussed.

1. In the second paragraph of the lede, Nishidani would like the article to say that Lehi "is on record as defining its own activities as terroristic". Amoruso says that it's based on an unsigned uncredited article and it's already mentioned in "Goals and methods".
2. In "Goals and methods", Amoruso would like to include a quote from Yitzhak Shamir in which he "argued that Lehi never engaged in terrorism".
3. In "Foundations and founding", Nishidani would like to include a sentence that "To this end, he [Stern] initiated contact with Nazi authorities, in order to enlist their aid in establishing a totalitarian state on Nazi lines." Amoruso says that the wording is deliberately controversial and it's already discussed in "Contact with Nazi authorities".
4. Amoruso would like to include Amos Keinan among the "Prominent members of Lehi" while Nishidani would like to include him in the "See also" section.
5. Amoruso would like to remove the article from Category:Organizations designated as terrorist.

We all have "real" lives, and I don't think anybody will expect immediate responses to any comments or questions. Thank you again. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 04:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• I think we can discard points 4 and 5.
• No problem with Amos Keinan going anywhere where others, including Amoruso, would wish to place him, so that is not a problem.
• On point 5. Since the lead says it was viewed by Yishuv, Bunsche, and other authorities as a terrorist group, I can't see how the Category:Organizations designated as terrorist can be controversial, or controverted, unless Amoruso wishes to challenge the lead text generally. The crux is not this, but whether it is self-described as such, I hazard to suggest Nishidani (talk) 16:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that point 4 is a non issue, I don't mind it other way. As for 5, the category says "Organizations designated as terrorist are non-governmental organizations that are currently designated by a state or organization of states as terrorist." - this is clealy not relevant. Perhaps a subcategory can be addressed, but that too is wrong, since, and this is an old debate, the designation here was never formal - the lists of organizations desginated as such is recent and didn't exist at the time, and the U.N too didn't have a formal designation. Amoruso 16:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, here obviously, I concede the point made by Amoruso, since evidently the category which, culpably I did not check, refers to contemporary organizations. Hence points 4 and 5 are agreed on.Nishidani 16:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

---

Thank you for your patience and goodwill. I'm glad you were able to reach agreement on some points. Regarding the first 3 points, I'd like to make some observations and ask a few questions:

1) The phrase in the opening section that Lehi "is on record as defining its own activities as terroristic" is cited to The Iron Wall by Lenni Brenner, chapter 15 and appendix 2. As it happens, The Iron Wall is available online. Appendix 2 is the overture to the Nazis, attributed to Lehi, and it does describe the organization's activities as "terroristic".

Question for Nishidani: Do you think that attributing the phrase to Brenner gives it more credibility than if it were cited to the Nazi proposal discussed in the article? If the phrase were to stay in the article, which attribution do you think would be more appropriate?

Question for Amoruso: One of your objections to including the phrase in the introduction is that this issue is discussed in "Goals and methods". While that section suggests that Lehi justified the use of terrorism, do you think it goes as far as the Nazi proposal in terms of actually describing Lehi's actions as terroristic?

2) The quote from Shamir in "Goals and methods" seems a little ambiguous to me. I think it can be read as "arguing that Lehi never engaged in terrorism" or as another rationalization that terrorism is appropriate in some situations.

Question for Amoruso: If this quote were to stay in the article, would it be acceptable if, instead of introducing the quote a sentence that seems to leads the reader to a conclusion ("Shamir argued that Lehi never engaged in terrorism"), it left the issue open-ended (for example, a sentence such as "Shamir responded to those who said that Lehi engaged in terrorism")?

Question for Nishidani: Do you think that the thoughts of a Lehi leader concerning the use of terrorism are relevant here?

3) The sentence in "Foundations and founding" concerning contact with the Nazis seems to repeat information already in "Contact with Nazi authorities", except for the phrase concerning Lehi's goal of "establishing a totalitarian state on Nazi lines". The sentence is cited to the Nazi proposal in Brenner, which refers to "the establishment of the historic Jewish state on a national and totalitarian basis".

Question for Amoruso: Is information concerning the form of government envisioned by Lehi relevant? Would it be relevant if a state governed on strict religious principles was proposed?

Questions for Nishidani: (1) If this phrase or sentence were to stay in the article, would it be more appropriate in the "Contact with Nazi authorities" section? (2) Do you think the same meaning could be conveyed with less polarizing language by describing the proposed state simply as "a totalitarian state"?

Please consider these comments and questions, and feel free to add any further thoughts of your own. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 01:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Dear Malik Shabazz, I have, after an administrative decision that was injurious as it was erroneous, decided to take an extended break from Wiki editing, but have broken my resolution to refrain from editing in order to clear up this unfinished business by answering your questions, since you have been kind enough to mediate. I will respect whatever you decide is the appropriate call, on reviewing my remarks (and those of Amoruso) that follow. Best regards Nishidani (talk) 18:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Q 1

'Question for Nishidani: Do you think that attributing the phrase to Brenner gives it more credibility than if it were cited to the Nazi proposal discussed in the article? If the phrase were to stay in the article, which attribution do you think would be more appropriate?'

Reply to Q 1. Brenner (one could cite other authorities) gives the details and the documentation. It is a source available on line, and thus readily verifiable. It is an important source, since it provides the complete German text and English translation, and should be in the article, in my view.

Q.2

(Question for Nishidani: Do you think that the thoughts of a Lehi leader concerning the use of terrorism are relevant here?)

Reply to Q.2 The lead runs:

‘Lehi was described as a terrorist organisation[1] by the British authorities, the mainstream Yishuv, and by the United Nations mediator Ralph Bunche.'

This has been delicately worded to attribute to third parties the charge of terrorism, implicitly suspending the question as to whether it was terrorism (i.e. ‘one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter,’ as the cliché goes). In Wiki there are strict rules on the use of the designation ‘terrorist’, which I have checked. The ambiguity in the phrasing, and Wiki’s caution against slipshod usage for POV ends, is resolved by citing an historical document drafted by Stern, its leader, in the name of Lehi, where he explicitly describes the group’s activities as ‘terroristic’. Since the founder of the group thought this was what they were doing, it is undoubtedly relevant, indeed of seminal value. It is not POV, but simply an historical fact, part of the record.

Q 3

(i) If this phrase or sentence were to stay in the article, would it be more appropriate in the "Contact with Nazi authorities" section? (2) Do you think the same meaning could be conveyed with less polarizing language by describing the proposed state simply as "a totalitarian state"?)

Technically a ‘lead’ should summarize the essential elements of the article (see comments over at Finkelstein talk page, under GA review). Notably in this article’s lead, one of those essential elements, given considerable space in the section ‘Contact with Nazi authorities’, is wholly ignored, though it is a crucial incident in Lehi’s history. Amoruso generally objected that my note ‘repeated’ what had already been mentioned in that section, but overlooks, I believe, the function of a lead, which technically, should ‘anticipate’ pithily the content. It was not thus repetition, but a very laconic adjustment pruned to complete the ‘lead’ requirements, by anticipating the later section.

As to part two of your third question, I was trained to write history strictly as the historical record left to us testifies to it, and, in surveying the documentary record, follow it, whatever the consequences (see Hilberg’s advice on this towards the end of the wiki page, Raul Hilberg, which I largely edited). If the documentary record, once given, is to be subject to review and pruning because potentially ‘polarizing’ to some readers, then history, as an objective discipline would have to submit to self-censorship along lines that are politically correct (a notion that changes like a weathervane). In mentioning the ‘totalitarian state’ I give the full phrasing because that is what the record stated. Though not of a religious persuasion, in dealing with the facts I cannot but stand by them, with Luther’s declaration in mind, ‘Hier stehe ich und kann nicht anders! Gott helfe mir, Amen!’. It is a matter of textual probity, and fidelity to the past 'wie es eigentlich gewesen . .' (Leopold von Ranke), at least for me. Best wishes Nishidani (talk) 18:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Malik Shabazz. My replies to the questions:

• (1) Like you said, this letter was not written by Lehi, but by another source. This source described what Lehi allegedly said. This is why it's attributed to Lehi, by a quote. Using the word "terroristic activities" there doesn't mean they saw themselves as a terrorist organization. It could have been used in cynicism as far as we know, if it was ever really used. Saying that an organization described itself as a terrorist needs strong evidence - it needs actual proof that this was a real opinion of Lehi, that this is how they formally defined them - not some obscure sentence about its terroristic activities described by someone else, the naval attache. It's weak and original research to suggest that this proves that Lehi saw themselves as a terrorist organization - it also doesn't make much sense. Organizations don't define themselves as terroristic even if they ARE, they use terms like Freedom Fighters, which Lehi actually did. Lehi means Fighters for Freedom of Israel. This is a contradiction right there. I think the attempt here to say that they saw themselves as a terrorist organization throws the reader away to think they deplored themselves - on the contrary - if they ever used the term it would be to show hypocrisy behind the term, or simply so that a party (especially a Turkish, German or French party) would understand what they're saying and referring to. It is by no means the moral opinion of the activity. Shamir's quote also clearly explains that I think so we can draw the more logical conclusion out of this. Amoruso (talk) 23:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

• (2) I have no problem with your suggestion concering ->(for example, a sentence such as "Shamir responded to those who said that Lehi engaged in terrorism"). Of course there's no problem with that, making it more accurate. Btw, I think Nishidani didn't understand this part of the question as he referred to Yair Stern's 'comment' - and mistakingly - Stern never used the word terroristic, the proposal was not his either, it was Lubenchek's proposal and by an unknown article writer. I'd say this shows that the argument with Nishidani has do more with confusion on his part than actual issues, and that can be settled more quickly. 23:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

• (3) Yes, the "totalitarian" issue. The thing is, this contradicts some basic thought of Lehi and Yair. It is very likely that this word is there since this is how the Germans would be more keen to accept the proposal, and this was very likely not uttered by Lubenchek himself. What I've been tried to explain is that the offer is attributed and what is written in the offer is not an accurate description of what Lehi said. Ada Amichal Yevin, who is the leading scholar on the issue, and is cited in all the relevant works, including - if you see past discussion with Zero0000 - in the books that attack Lehi vehemently -and is an indisputable source - has doubts on who wrote the offer and for what motivations (actually she says that it was not written by Lehi at all). This is what I've been trying to convey also using Yevin's own words. Now, some have been trying to highlight this word in purpose, and I think it's wrong. It appears in the translation, but it should not be treated as fact as if Lehi used this word. We should be more careful having the source casting doubt over the whole origin of the document and being based on the fact that factually nobody ever claimed that Lehi wrote the letter itself or signed it. It is what one calls hearsay at best, and not a bona fide one either. Amoruso (talk) 23:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks, Amoruso (talk) 23:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Regarding: Contact with Nazi authorities; Spelling of von der Marwitz

The name "Der Marvitz" is misspelled. The actual name of the man is Ralf von der Marwitz. Who ever can edit this page should correct it as follows:

1. "a letter was sent from Der Marvitz, the German Naval" should be changed to: "a letter was sent from Vice Admiral Ralf von der Marwitz, the German Naval"

2. All subsequent occurrences of "Der Marvitz" or the plain "Marvitz" should be replaced by "von der Marwitz"

Please find here a link to the German Federal Archive showing a picture of von der Marwitz and his full name, rank and position:

http://www.bundesarchiv.de/aktuelles/aus_dem_archiv/galerie/00060/index.html?index=0&id=1&nr=5

thank you, this is very helpful. Amoruso 16:37, 1 December 2007 (UTC)