Talk:Lehi (militant group)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Edit request

{{editprotected}} Can someone link to J. Bowyer Bell in the references section please? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 09:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

 Done - Alison ^❤ 09:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Can someone change the linked 'Etzel' to unlinked Irgun, in Lehi_(group)#The_Lehi_Anthem_.22Unknown_Soldiers.22. It is the only time Etzel occurs (linked to a disambig page) in the article. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 07:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Category:Defunct organizations designated as terrorist

Would Category:Defunct organizations designated as terrorist be a possible tag? It clearly is not currently designated as such, but I would think it applies. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 23:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Done. MeteorMaker (talk) 12:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I removed the category. Explanation: this was done in the past. There is a definition over which groups can designate a group a terroirst. The U.N can do it, but it didn't designate Lehi. The article clearly says it was only Ralf Bunche. The British mandate as the occupying power can't designate the group as such. Regards. 79.176.149.242 (talk) 16:23, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Ralph Bunche was in a position of authority, acting on behalf of the United Nations. There is no requirement that only the UN can deem a person or a group to be terrorists. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 01:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, with respect I think that Yes there is. Ralf Bunche wasn't in the position of authority. Only the SC is or the assembly perhaps. I reverted.. See here for details: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Defunct_organizations_designated_as_terrorist - it specifically says UN... it will be original research to assume that Ralf Bunche is capable of designating organizations. Furthermore, in no place it does say he ever designated the group as such. Calling it like that is something entirely different. Designations appears in lists, for example : U.S terrorist organization by congress and so on. To conclude, there is nothing to suggest that Lehi was a designated terrorist group. Needless to say, category "jewish terrorism" is inappropriate and redundant regardless, but both categories do not fit the article and should be excluded. 79.180.161.175 (talk) 11:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Please read the specialist literature (After you've read the lead) on the period, both on terrorism, on the British Mandate, and the history of the 40s. No source I am familiar with, pro-Zionist, anti-Zionist, middle of the road historians, has problems with designating Lehi as a terrorist organization. That is what it specifically did, bombed and killed people for tactiocal reasons in a war of terror, and it made no bones about it, and was denominated as a terrorist group at the time, and by all leading historians of the period.Nishidani (talk) 11:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Having written several seminars on the subject and the period, I do not need to comply with your suggestion. Yes, there were many popular writers and some historians who called Lehi a terrorist organizaiton based on how the occupying power, the UK, viewed the organization. But there was no formal designation as there is with the accepted forms of designation, and the details appear on the designated lists on the category pages. You can't make up more designations to fit your political agenda I'm afraid. Lehi did no target civilians, it targeted British personnel, who were policemen. Therefore, it also doesn't fit the general criteria of terrorism. But that's not the point. The point is that historians don't designate a group, and that was your only argument really. 128.122.253.196 (talk) 12:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Nishidani. Also, 79.180.161.175, if you want WP to be consistent, there are several groups that would need to be taken off the list Category:Defunct Palestinian organizations designated as terrorist, for instance the Black Hand, which was designated as terrorist by the very same local British authorities. MeteorMaker (talk) 12:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to remove Black hand maybe. I am not responsible for other articles. Keep to the point, and see WP policies for that, it doesn't matter and doesn't concern this article. Fact is that Lehi isn't and never was designated. The British Authorities as the occupying power/mandate can't designate nor can a person called Ralf Bunche. These are the facts... 79.180.161.175 (talk) 12:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Very well. Should we remove all organizations from the list, unless there is a link to a UN document designating the organization as terrorist? Or perhaps just remove the arbitrary requirement that someone added to the category that the UN must be the designator? MeteorMaker (talk) 12:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not arbitrary at all. It was a compromise to only include organizations that are designated by these groups. 79.180.161.175 (talk) 13:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

That discussion doesn't seem to be on the talk page. MeteorMaker (talk) 14:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

It appears that it does. The category was created as a compromise because of WP:WTA. See here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_talk:Organizations_designated_as_terrorist and go to the archives as well for in depth look. Also the archives of this page contains discussions over the issue. 128.122.253.196 (talk) 14:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Can't find the compromise you're talking about there either, perhaps you mean some other talk page? MeteorMaker (talk) 14:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

It's right there. Do some reading. 128.122.253.196 (talk) 14:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Could you indicate the section where you see such a compromise agreed on? MeteorMaker (talk) 15:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

You should read the whole discussion and the deleted category discussion instead of requesting me to do the work for you. 128.122.253.228 (talk) 16:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, it's not my job to dig up support for your claims. Could you please indicate on what talk page and section you think you see it? One proper link suffices. MeteorMaker (talk) 16:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not my job to read for you what's in the pages indicated. It's you who is challenging the compromise. 128.122.253.228 (talk) 11:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I just asked you to kindly provide a link to the page and section where you think you've seen it. If you can't back it up, your claim must be regarded as null and void. MeteorMaker (talk) 12:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I provided the link to the CAT page which also has a link the deletion discussion. It has all the discussion concerning the issue. If you can't read it, it's your problem, and whatever you write next is in fact what's null and void. 128.122.253.228 (talk) 12:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

As I've pointed out, there is no dicussion there that concludes with a compromise to only include organizations that are designated by the UN, the US, and the EU. Read for yourself. Also note that that requirement sems to exist exclusively on Category:Defunct_organizations_designated_as_terrorist, where it hasn't even been discussed.MeteorMaker (talk) 12:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

No. The CAT stays, and the person trying to remove it is ignoring the facts. The newly established Israeli government declared Lehi a terrorist organization on the 20th September 1948.Nishidani (talk) 13:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

No, that's also irrelevant. Israel can't designate a group either according to the CAT rules. The elected Labor Party was a political opponent of the Revisionist Party and therefore "designated" it like that. The category is not appropriate to the article and against its own rules. 79.180.161.175 (talk) 13:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense. Israel designated Lehi as a terrorist group. Once a government is elected, be it Labour, LIberal, Conservative, Kadima, or whatever, it acts as the official and legal representative of the nation, and the fact that the Labour Party became the government in no way delegitimates the actions it took as the party of government at the time. The decision was a government decision, and when the Israeli government defined Lehi or designated Lehi as 'terrorist', the designation is legal, and that of the duly constituted government of the nation.Nishidani (talk) 13:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

If the so-called "CAT rules" that 79.180.161.175 speaks of work against the purpose of the category, namely to collect all defunct terrorist organizations, the obvious conclusion is that the "rules" should be amended or removed altogether. MeteorMaker (talk) 14:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not nonsense. Please watch your language. It's pretty clear the political agenda why labor people called lehi people terrorists. regardless, Israel obviously can't be a designator of the term. I think that's obvious. Going by this rationale, there's no reason not to mention the IDF as a terrorist organization, seems Iran designates it terrorist, or even hamas. That's why the rules exist. the category doesn't seem to be in use anyway. look hamas: "U.S. State Department designated terrorist organizations"... so what you can do is create a category "defunct designated terrorist organization by Israel" if you can find proof of an israeli law that designated it terrorist etc, and then you can create israel for current as well... of course there's no reason then not to create the same for "Hamas designated lists" listing Israel.... that's why having the U.S list, U.N, EU list... makes more sense. 128.122.253.196 (talk) 14:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

False analogy. The Israeli government determined on the 20th of September 1948 that a group of Israelis constituted a terrorist organisation. It is a government making a determination of a group within its own society. Nishidani (talk) 14:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Same issue is going on these days with both Palestinian govs. calling each other "terrorists". I suggest you all take it to a main discussion page and apply your points to a large list of groups rather than waste time talking about one group only. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Jaakobou. If anyone wants to join the discussion, they can come in here, and elaborate on it. Lehi/Stern defined itself as a terrorist organisation, the UN rep. the Yishuv, the Mandate authorities, and Israeli governments defined it as a terrorist organisation. All major historians from Martin Gilbert, to Walter Laqueur and Hller, a specialist on its history, see nothing problematical in calling it a 'terrorist' organisation. If the CAT requires a government source or intergovernmental source, the lead provides it. Its removal is pretextual. The CAT appropriateness is confirmed by bthe lead, for Christ's sake. So why retain the lead, while removing the CAT?Nishidani (talk) 15:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

That's meaningless. China labels the Dalai Lama as terrorist for example. And Iran labels Iranian homosexuals as terrorists. Wikipedia doesn't go into that depth. That's why there are more objective informed famous lists of designations, and it only goes by them. 128.122.253.196 (talk) 14:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a source for those two claims? MeteorMaker (talk) 15:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Use google. 128.122.253.228 (talk) 15:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Google finds no support for your claim that "Iran labels Iranian homosexuals as terrorists" and only some headline writers' spin on China's alleged terrorist designation of the Dalai Lama. If the Ahmaddinejad claim were true, it would definitely be in the WP article on him. Where exactly did you get that information? Maybe you're confusing him with Sally Kern?MeteorMaker (talk) 16:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Use google. 128.122.253.228 (talk) 11:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The phrase "Use Google" is WP Talk's equivalent of waving the white flag. I conclude you don't have the slightest evidence for your outlandish claims. MeteorMaker (talk) 12:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Since you can't use google obviously, here is the link to the Dalai Lama being labled a terrorist by China [1]. Please continue to post messages in the future after you learned how to use google. 128.122.253.228 (talk) 12:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

As I've pointed out already, that is only a headline writer's spin. To my knowledge, the Dalai Lama has never been officially labeled a terrorist by the Chinese government. You're of course free to use your superior Google skills to try and find such an official statement, plus one that backs up your claim that "Iran labels Iranian homosexuals as terrorists". MeteorMaker (talk) 13:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment: I figure this discussion belongs on a wider scale with a full list of defunct terrorists being listed and a consensus being applied to all rather than just one of them. Please open this discussion for wider community review at WP:IPCOLL. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Good comment. I agree this discussion doesn't belong here, but in other places. 128.122.253.196 (talk) 14:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

On closer inspection, the "rules" don't exclude national governments as designators of terrorism labels at all:

Law monopolist organizations for the purpose of this category are bodies where designation by that body would be expected to have a significant impact on the group.

United Nations Security Council

U.S. Government

EU Council

and other similar governmental and supra-governmental bodies.

And again, 128.122.253.196: Should we remove all organizations from the Category:Defunct organizations designated as terrorist list and its sub-lists until somebody provides links to UN documents that designate them as terrorist? The Palestinian Liberation Army, for instance? MeteorMaker (talk) 15:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

On closer inspection, Israel never designated the group as terrrorist. It was only the interim government that did. In fact, Lehi was integrated into the IDF straight after the first government was established. So even going by the notion that israel can designate groups, it doesn't work. There was no designation for Lehi. 128.122.253.228 (talk) 15:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Explanation: After the IDF was established, there may have been a splinter group which kept the name Lehi. It's not the same Lehi, it's not this article. This suggests that Nishidani never read the source he's quoting. 128.122.253.228 (talk) 16:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

YOu are now in serious danger of breaching standard wiki editorial practices. The article has already covered (See GFolke Bernadotte)the equivocation on Lehi ('dissolved') you use to dismiss my use of a reliable source. You are not bringing reliable sources to your defence in pushing a POV, but merely editorializing and imposing a unilateral reading of the issue.

Specifically, I read the source, the source reads:

‘Bernadotte was killed on 17 September 1948, in a well-planned ambush by Lehi members. The State’s immediate response to the assassination was more in compliance with the ‘war model’. Soldiers from the Palmach (elite army squads) unit raided Lehi military camps, closed down Lehi offices and arrested dozens of its members. However, the next significant step was more moderate, conforming to the judicial frame that took shape under the state of emergency. Three days after the murder Bernadotte, the Government declared Lehi a terrorist organisation, thus expediting the process of the indictment of Lehi-affiliated members, including those who had not been active participants in its operations.’ Ami Pedahzur, ‘The Israeli Response to Jewish terrorism and violence. Defending Democracy’, Manchester University Press, Manchester and New York 2002 p.77

I suggest you revert your edit, because you are imposing on Reliable Sources, your own interpretation of the history of the period. If you have a reliable source to counter what Ppedahzur writes cite it here. Otherwise, start behaving like a responsible editor, and refrain from unilateral dictats.Nishidani (talk) 16:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

On a different note, Category:Jewish terrorism is a sub-category of Category:Terrorism whose inclusion description is: "This category deals with topics relating to events, organizations, or people that have at some point in time been referred to as terrorism, terrorists, etc., including state terrorism." Certainly, that applies to Lehi. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 16:11, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

If that's enough to categorize ("at some point in time been REFERRED TO" by anyone???) then I have nothing more to add here... Others can add their inputs. I just hope ridicilous sentences like "Israel designated Lehi as a terrorist organization" after Lehi was already dissloved and integrated into the IDF won't be added again. Why would anyone honestly believe that this will fit the "designated" requirement I don't know. Interestingly, this discussion can be dealt elsewhere probably, whether you can designate organizations that don't exist anymore. That's my 2 cents. 128.122.253.228 (talk) 16:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

No I will restore the text I inserted and which you erased, because it is a reliable source and says that on Sept.20, 1948 (three days after the assassination of Folke Bernadotte)'the Government declared Lehi a terrorist organisation'. You are not allowed in wiki to personally challenge a reliable source. If the RS gets it wrong, cite another reliable source that corrects the error. So far you have done nothing of the kind but simply asserted your private opinions about the history of Lehi, which show you haven't read the article.Nishidani (talk) 16:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Compare

I just hope ridicilous sentences like "Israel designated Lehi as a terrorist organization" after Lehi was already dissloved and integrated into the IDF won't be added again. Why would anyone honestly believe that this will fit the "designated" requirement I don't know.(talk)

Although Lehi had stopped operating nationally after May 1948, the group continued to function in Jerusalem. On 17 September 1948, Lehi assassinated the UN Mediator, Count Folke Bernadotte, who had been sent to broker a settlement in the dispute. The assassination was directed by Yehoshua Zetler and carried out by a four-man team led by Meshulam Makover. The fatal shots were fired by Yehoshua Cohen. Three days later, the Government declared Lehi a terrorist organisation.[23]Lehi (group) article

Lehi was dissloved? Now there is a Freudian lapsus calami of calamitous proportions if every there was one, giving away the editor's real beef. Nietzsche would call it amor fatuiNishidani (talk) 16:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Please do not say what is the "beef" of other users, by showing your ignorance again. Israel does have a designating list btw, and Lehi was never there. Just because it "called it" terrorist doesn't mean it's designated. See above - the Chinese government calling the Dalai Lama a terrorist, he's still not designated. At any case, Israel "called" it (did not designate it) a terrorist organization after it was dissolved and integrated into the IDF, Lehi was still extant perhaps, but the category suggested that it was viewed as terrorist in its early days (99% of its time) which it wasn't. 128.122.253.228 (talk) 11:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

YOu have many fascinating personal opinions, of course, but nothing you have said is substantiated by documentary evidence from reliable sources. No one in here is obliged to take notice of what you assert unless you corroborate your idiosyncratic take on Israeli history and its archives by the proper evidential proof. I have a source, you don't. Until you can disprove what my source says, do me and perhaps others the courtesy of refraining from meddling with the article. Thank you. Nishidani (talk) 14:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Lehi is not designated as terrorist. Whether it was before and by whom is a different story. It doesnt correctly fit in the category per its own wording. --Shamir1 (talk) 21:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Opinion duly noted. We are however obliged to stick to reliable Sources, not to personal opinions (which happen in your case not to reflect informed historical knowledge).Nishidani (talk) 07:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Hence the "defunct", I believe. How do you suggest the category should be renamed? MeteorMaker (talk) 06:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

neutrality

somebody got to go more thoroughly over this article

--Shevashalosh (talk) 23:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

About neutrality

The neutrality of the article is in dispute, I've placed a tag of it, but they removed it.

Here are some examples:

First:"Although the name of the group became "Lehi" only after the death of its founder, Avraham Stern, this article follows the common practice of referring to it by that name throughout its history."

(The whole sentence is not true, they called themselves Lehi, some brits were name calling them so (not Lehi themselves). I only heard of what the Brits name called them once before. 3 lines, dedicated to explaining why the article will use this in stead of a Lehi..!?

second, the whole portion of contacting the Nazis is of perplex to me:

They contacted the Nazis since they thought they could play against the Brits, they figured the Nazis didn't want Jews in Europe (some what unreasonable idea to me, yet they have done so) - and not for the sake of a "Jewish state on a national and totalitarian basis" (never heard of this).

Third, "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,"

Not true. They wanted to murder Jews anyway.

What? Is this the reason for murdering 6 million Jews?

There is no reason to murder innocent 6 million Jews, not to speak of evacuating them from Europe nor if the plan is failed.

And of course, the whole article is full of name calling "terror" instead of "Lehi group" etc, as well as the category added (to it.

There is much more to it, those are just examples.

--Shevashalosh (talk) 08:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The first issue you raised is not what you think - it's not about the "stern gang" name. The paragraph is explaining that they initially didn't call themselves Lehi. They called themselves the "Etzel in Israel". The second issue you're right, but that sentence is written in the letter of the naval attache. There is also a source which explains that it may not have been written by Lehi themselves. These are the historical facts. The third issue - maybe they wanted it anyway, but these plans existed at the time, even if they were fictional, and this is what Lehi knew, and so asked them to disregard such plans... maybe you can rephrase it if you think it's important. Cheers, Amoruso (talk) 09:50, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

ThanX for your response Amoruso, I've seen your user page, you must be a reliable person to answer my questions - here is the thing:

The first issue you are right. Now that you explained it, and I read it again I get it. It does not refer to the term "The Stern Gang".

the second issue I raised, maybe the explanations after the paragraph, as to how would it be possible that this letter have gotten to the Nazis, is in some way what is needed.

but, what about, for example, the Disambiguation page of Lehi, that defines then as terrorists rather then leave it to a claim within the body of the article of Lehi Group? (As well as the fullness of words in the article regarding the use of the "T" word? I never seen such on respectible articles on Lehi?

--Shevashalosh (talk) 12:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

as well as the "T" category itself?

--Shevashalosh (talk) 12:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

It's fully explained two sections above. MeteorMaker (talk) 13:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

No it is not. those are claims laid out, not a defenition of the group.

--Shevashalosh (talk) 13:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Amoruso, What's the procedure of removing a disputed category as can be seen in the argument above this one, Talk:Lehi (group)#Category:Defunct organizations designated as terrorist??

--Shevashalosh (talk) 14:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

sorry, as well as "Category:Jewish terrorism" !?Shevashalosh (talk) 14:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

That would be close to impossible, since proper cites are given. MeteorMaker (talk) 20:09, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Removing categories of "Defunct organizations designated as terrorist" and "Jewish terrorism" and the "T" word from disambiguation page of Lehi

They never attacked civilians - the definition of terror in wikipedia:

as user:Amoruso put it:

(See above "Terror" discussion):

"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)"

Somebody placed a disputed categories on this article, despite the disagreement on the arguments above, I haven't seen an explanation as to why the person who placed it did so despite the disagreements !?

--Shevashalosh (talk) 16:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe Folke Bernadotte, Lord Moyne and the 100+ dead in Deir Yassin (to name a few of Lehi's more well-known victims) were civilians. In case you wonder who designated Lehi as terrorists, it's in the second paragraph of the lead. MeteorMaker (talk) 19:54, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

No. false on all your claims, those are disputed claims (and facts) as well. You have added the disputed category, despite the fact that on previous discussions (above), no one got to agree on anything and no consensus was reached.

--Shevashalosh (talk) 20:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Shevashalosh, I would strongly advise you to keep your personal opinions off wiki articles, and review with scruple the rulebook on wiki editing principles. Demonstrate your editorial acumen on less controversial pages, gain some experience, and then come back to join us on improving this page. So far your approach seems highly ideological window-washing, with little interest in the complex history of Lehi, as seen not by its members or their descendents (some of whom post in here), but by the scholarly community. Nishidani (talk) 20:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The only window washing is - washing away the fact that disscution were held (above) on this matter - and no one could come to agree on this matter and no consensus was reached, 'despite this, the disputed category was added. A disputed matter/category should at list get a consensus, not added as one's personal opinion against un agreeable matter.

--Shevashalosh (talk) 21:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Not all editing is pure 100% consensus. The fact that Lehio was designated a terrorist organisation is strongly documented, even in this article. The CATS simply register the content of the text, which is not challenged. If you dislike the CAT show us why the textual evidence, highly sourced, for Lehi's terrorist desiognation is wrong, or, forever hold off. Disputed matters mainly get consensus when editors are serious minded, acknowledge common principles and know how to read reliable sources. Some people keep hammering away to make these groups out not to be what they historically were, societies using terror for political end. No respectable historian denies the fact.Nishidani (talk) 21:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

But especially an edting on category "Terror" that is highly disputed, disscutions were held before something was done, and they all reached a dead end, despite this, the disputed category was added on belahf of one's personal decision against the others.

--Shevashalosh (talk) 07:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

What happened was that proper sources were added, which weren't available when the discussion started. You may want to read the entire section. MeteorMaker (talk) 08:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The category in dispute is not within the body of the article, where claims and sources are laid out, but rather laid as the conclusion. disputed tiltes such as "Terror" shouldn't be titled or be categorized as the defenition (and the conclusions) against what was discussed up on it.

--Shevashalosh (talk) 10:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Categories are typically found at the end of the article. The group was designated as terrorist, which is undisputed, and the sources are given, which is also undisputed. It's not immediately obvious to me why you think the terrorist category doesn't apply. MeteorMaker (talk) 10:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

You may consider in your heart what ever you like, however, this POV was not refleceted on the discussions on the disputed category, yet you went against others opinions on your own.

--Shevashalosh (talk) 11:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Again, the discussion ended because it was rendered moot by the inclusion of proper sources. Please read WP:PROVEIT. MeteorMaker (talk) 11:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Again, the places for such claims (or sources) to be laid out are within the body of the article , not as the "title" or "category" that determine the conclusion of the subject in dispute, yet you decided to go on your own.

--Shevashalosh (talk) 11:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

If you take a closer look at the article, the sources are right there, in the lead no less. Please read it, then, if you feel further discussion is called for, argue why you think the category does not apply. MeteorMaker (talk) 11:59, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

No body is talking about the sources (or their appropriate place within the body of the article), but rather the disputed step you have taken, against waht was disscussed in the above disscussions, on your own and without further disscutions.

--Shevashalosh (talk) 12:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Shevashalosh: Can you see the sources in the article or can't you? I find it increasingly difficult to assume good faith on your part. MeteorMaker (talk) 12:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I got nothing against the sources, Good faith on my belah as well, is exaclly the reason that I can only assume that they are fine . however, placing them as claims within the body of the article (where they belong), shouldn't allow one to draw the conclusion of the article, by turning, on his own, the claim into a conclusion of "category", without further disscution and against what other people have concluded from this claim in the disscutions above.

--Shevashalosh (talk) 13:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

A border and deeper discussion is needed, with much more participants. You should have done this from the begginig, before placing the disputed category that was against what people have concluded from such claims in the discussions above.

--Shevashalosh (talk) 13:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Just to be clear, Category:Terrorists says they must target civilians, however, this article is not in that category. Lehi has been designated a terrorist group, so that's a hard one to argue. And Category:Terrorism includes "topics relating to events, organizations, or people that have at some point in time been referred to as terrorism, terrorists, etc." Category:Jewish terrorism is a sub-category of that group. Personally, I think this latter series of categories is very sketchy, and I've complained about it, but received little point. If it's not going to be removed, it should at least be applied equally across the board. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 23:14, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Your'e exaclly right, the "t" category does not apply to this article at all. However, the opening statesments ("terror") is misleading as well as some other statesment in the article itself), so if someone come to review the article fro five seconds, he may not undersand - "whats the problem ?" - so this needs to be taken care of as well, concurrently.

--Shevashalosh (talk) 09:37, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I hope you're not suggesting we're in agreement. I actually created the Category:Jewish terrorism and added it to this article. I think the Wikipedia definition of Category:Terrorists is a more than a little problematic, because it's just that, our own definition, and not something than can be referenced as the universal definition. Something like "designated as terrorist" is far less ambiguous. Whether or not a particular group IS a terrorist organization is somewhat relative - whether or not they were designated as such is pretty clear. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 16:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Lehi gunned down and blew up civilians. That is on the record. The category applies, and I'm afraid I have to note that the little in your many remarks that is comprehensible to an English reader lacks all substance if measured against wiki criteria.Nishidani (talk) 10:56, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

There are alraedy two in here, in addition to previous disscution, and even in the article's current misleading condition, that disagree on this and that the "t" word does not apply. You may belive in your heart what ever you like, however, it is not reflected on peoples opinions, and was done on one's belah against waht is belvied to be true - and this is what applys on wiki's policy.

--Shevashalosh (talk) 11:31, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not a matter of what I believe. I have no dog in this issue. I am not descended from the victims, or, as several editors in the past seem to be, related to members of the Lehi circle. I disbelieve a good part of what I read, as a matter of temperament. I again insist: if you want to make a point understandable to your interlocutors write clear English. I don't mind spelling mistakes, but it is hard to understand what you are arguing about. The only criterion for drafting these articles is impeccable sourcing, in quality books, and not selective citation from partisan sources. Israeli historians habitually call Lehi a terrorist group, the Yishuv did, Israel did, UN observers did, the British authorities did, historians all over the place, of all backgrounds, who write on the period characteristically do call it a terrorist group, and, despite Amoruso's use of a partisan minority book regarded as unreliable, to deny the point, Lehi itself used language to define its actions as involving terror. To put it simply: 'it looks like a dog, acts like a dog, barks like a dog, everybody treats it as a dog and yet, there will be always someone around who challenges the fact'. Colloquially this is known as 'flatearthing', not only in wiki circles.Nishidani (talk) 11:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, you can't put words into the Israeli government's moths, cause they never declared them as "terrorist" (as user Gilbard reference of zionist encyclopedia), they "banned" them (for many other reasons), not declared them as such - the rest is your interpretation of this matter. As well as the misleading - second paragraph - of the opening statement - They were never declared as "t" word by the U.N, but rather someone described them so - in somebody's report. Therefore, this paragraph should be moved to the deeper within the article, attached to the relevant event that it occurred, and be rephrased as "...and mediator Ralph Bunche claimed they were terrorist" (but not the U.N or else),

as well as rephrasing the sentence "Three days later, the Government declared Lehi a terrorist organization" - to "The government banned them" - You can't put words into the Israeli governments mouth, against it's own Zionist encyclopedia (no matter what other people or sources say, as you or others cited to the article) if they banned them, and not declared them as terrorists (according to their own encyclopedia) - this is misleading both to the reader and wiki's policy.

In addition, "Stern believed that ...and that terrorist methods were an effective means for achieving those goals" - this part not only is not cited but also completely not true. Since you talk about "self definition" - they never adopted this word/goal - and Shamir was very much against it. Therefore, this sentence should be rephrased to: "Stern believed that ...and that attacking the British forces were an effective means for achieving those goals" (if you consider attacking armed forces as terror, well then this is left for the reader to make up his own mind)

--Shevashalosh (talk) 13:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

A message to eveyone:I have turned for Gwen Gale's arbitration on this matter, you can see my request at User talk:Gwen Gale

--Shevashalosh (talk) 14:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

You keep repeating

:::::Well, you can't put words into the Israeli governments moths, cause they never declared them as 'terrorist'.

For the umpteenth time, I am not putting words into the Israeli Government's mouth (or moth: this whole argument is moth-balled). I am simply, as is my duty as a Wi,i editor, pithily adding to the page a precise précis of a RS (an Israeli source), which says:-

The RS states:

'Three days after the murder Bernadotte (=20 Sept.1948), the Government declared Lehi a terrorist organisation, thus expediting the process of the indictment of Lehi-affiliated members, including those who had not been active participants in its operations.’ Ami Pedahzur, The Israeli Response to Jewish terrorism and violence. Defending Democracy, Manchester University Press, Manchester and New York 2002 p.77

Perhaps you don't fully grasp English. To insist in placing your personal unsourced opinions up against a Reliable Source, constitutes either an inability to understand that source, or prevarication. As for the rest, it is just Lehi aficionados' hearsay based on a discredited book with little if any academic distinction published in 1986. No serious Israeli scholar I am familiar with takes it seriously. Lehi did, in that document, define its activities as 'terroristic'. Mark Shabazz mediated on this with Amoruso and myself. Read that section and the evidence.Nishidani (talk) 15:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

You a-r-e putting words into the Israeli Government mouths - (Again) this is contradictory to it's own Zionist encyclopedia (no matter what other people or sources say, as you or others cited to the article) (and as Gilbard have edited it) if they banned them, and not declared them as terrorists (according to their own encyclopedia) - this is misleading both to the reader and wiki's policy. Therefore, what is needed is the rephrasing of the sentence "Three days later, the Government declared Lehi a terrorist organization" - to "The government banned them" (of course, before today's vandaliation - do it deeper within the article -where this sentence was - and attached to the specific event in which it occurred - as it was removed -before today's vandaliation- from the second paragraph of the opening statement by some mediator few days ago)

Second, "Stern believed that ...and that terrorist methods were an effective means for achieving those goals" - this part not only is not cited but also completely not true. Since you talk about "self definition" - they never adopted this word/goal - and Shamir was very much against it. Therefore, this sentence should be rephrased to: "Stern believed that ...and that attacking the British forces were an effective means for achieving those goals" (if you consider attacking armed forces as terror, well then this is left for the reader to make up his own mind).

As well as another misleading statement in - second paragraph - of the opening statement - They were never declared as "t" word by the U.N, but rather someone described them so - in somebody's report. Therefore, this paragraph should be moved to the deeper within the article, attached to the relevant event that it occurred, and be rephrased as "...and mediator Ralph Bunche claimed they were terrorist" (but not the U.N or else).

--Shevashalosh (talk) 17:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Well you can continue this prevarication till the cows come home. But you won't convince anyone in an independent review. The words declared terrorist organization come straight out of Ami Pedahzur's book, which is a reliable source. You are in short attributing to me the words I quote verbatim from an Israeli historian.

(2)Second, "Stern believed that ...and that terrorist methods were an effective means for achieving those goals" - this part not only is not cited but also completely not true.

'Neither Jewish ethics nor Jewish tradition can disqualify terrorism as a means of combat. First and foremost, terrorism is for us a part of the political battle being conducted under the present circumstances, and it has a great part to play…in our war against the occupier'. Yitzhak Shamir, Hehazit, 1943; reprinted in Al-Hamishmar, Dec. 24, 1987; translated in Middle East Report (MERIP),May-June 1988.

cited in the following secondary literature on terrorism:

• Geoffrey Galt Harpham, Getting It Right: Language, Literature, and Ethics,,1992 p.36

• Andrew C. Kimmens,The Palestinian Problem 1989 p. 222

• Joseba Zulaika, William A. Douglass, Terror and Taboo: The Follies, Fables, and Faces of Terrorism, p. 126

• Ellen Ray, William H. Schaap, Covert Action: The Roots of Terrorism, Institute for Media Analysis, 2003 p.127

• Elie Elhadji, The Islamic Shield: Arab Resistance to Democratic and Religious Reforms, 2007, p.64

• Karim H.Karim, Islamic Peril: Media and Global Violence, 2000 p.86

• Eugene R. Wittkopf, James M. McCormick, The domestic sources of American foreign policy: insights and evidence, 2007 p. 86

• Martha Crenshaw, Terrorism in Context, 1995 p. 527

• Noam, Chomsky, Fateful Triangle: The United States, Israel, and the Palestinians, 1999 p.485

• THe CIA's 1947 report called the Irgun and Lehi groups that engaged in sabotage and terrorism, and the latter especially was designated as 'extreme fanatics'.(Michelle Mart, Eye on Israel: How America Came to View the Jewish State as an Ally 2006 p.70

• • Lehi has been classified as a terrorist organisation by the following Zionist, or conservative friends and historians of Israel: Walter Laqueur, Brian Crozier, Alan Dershowitz, Bowyer Bell(who knew many of the Irgun/Lehi members), Joseph Heller (p.104. Terrorism was the first step in a three phase programme in the Stern Gang. 'In practice he could never break out of the limiting framework of a small terrorist faction' etc.), Arthur Koestler (he was an Irgun member, and see what he writes on pp.90ff. of Promise and Fulfillment), and Isaac Cronin, Confronting Fear: A History of Terrorism, 2002 p.522

One could go on all night. The documents of the Stern Gang call their actions terror. Stern was a theorist of terror. The word 'terror actions' to describer their activities since 1936 occurs in a document all historians recognize as authentic (challenged only by a partisan biographer of Stern, A. Amichal-Yeivin, in 1986, whose special-pleading on this particular, reflected in your remarks, has convinced no mainstream academic) etc.etc.Nishidani (talk) 19:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed this could go on all night, and you can bring as many citation as you like that are contarery to "self defenition" of the zionist encyclpedia by it's own words, and put it in people's mouth.

However, as I have said before, even in the article's current misleading condition, on previous discussions - your views were not reflected , yet somene decided to go alone against people's understanding of the article.

As I have said, they never addopted that word/goal nor have they have been declaired as such, not by israeli gov or U.N or else - my remarks on changes above - were only first examples of the article's misleading statements (refering to the latest misleading vandalations)- not the last one's.

--Shevashalosh (talk) 20:19, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

At "you can bring as many citations as you like", civil discourse tends to break down. MeteorMaker (talk) 20:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, Shevashalosh, but it is extremely rude to opinionize when other editors provide sources. Stern theorized terrorism, as did Shamir, and all the reliable sources quote their words. You don't, you seem to deny that what they wrote is true, you keep writing editorials on the truth (i.e. what you think is right and proper). If you wish to keep repeating your opinions, could you be kind enough to make them comprehensible. They are not, and I have read them several times over, and still do not understand what you are talking about. Unless you make the effort, I'm afraid there's no point in responding to your remarks. As you may appreciate, one cannot respond to someone who speaks a language one doesn't understand. Nishidani (talk) 20:30, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

No, I think it is extremly rude to opinionize your own views, against what was disscussed on previous discussions on this very talk page, that no one ,despite the current misleading condition of the article, could agree on the "terror" word that apply to Lehi.

By any case, I got to go to sleep, we will have to continue discussing some other time.

--Shevashalosh (talk) 21:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

duplicate sentence

removed this "and by the Israeli Government on September 20th 1948" from the lead as it appears late in the Bernadotte section. No reason to use the ref twice. Not important enough for lead anyway. This is specific to the bernadotte issue. Not to mention the syntax was wrong. It makes no sense in the lead, as this was Bernadotte specific. Else, they wouldn't honor the organization, hence it's contradictory. Amoruso (talk) 00:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd say it's pretty important, since even certain Wikipedians contend that Lehi was not a terrorist group, so it definitely belongs with the other designators in the lead. The second ref only adds a point in time. If you have information to back up your claim that the terrorist designation was "Bernadotte-specific", feel free to present it. MeteorMaker (talk) 00:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

They called it terrorist following the Bernadotte assassination. If you read the source, you'd know it. Since it was after this event, it should be detailed only in regards to this event (the last action taken ever in the name of Lehi). Don't write in articles you're not familiar with next time... Amoruso (talk) 00:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

From that doesn't follow that the terrorist designation was "Bernadotte-specific", whatever that means, or that they were less of terrorists somehow. The exact point in time an organization got officially designated as terrorist is irrelevant. The important thing is that they were, and that's what we are discussing here. MeteorMaker (talk) 01:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

You still don't understand. From the way it seems in "your" lead the government both honored the Lehi members and declared that they were terrorists. The ones they honored it didn't call terrorists, that's the whole point. Amoruso (talk) 01:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Whether it was Bernadotte-specific or not is immaterial. Since the designation of terrorist had been constantly challenged until I noted that the government itself made that determination, the reference should stay, to secure a text under constant challenge on WP:IDONTLIKE IT grounds. Your objection seems to be that the Israeli government cannot appear to act irrationally, by branding a group terroristic, and later awarding its members an honour. The problem with this objection, apart from the fact that there is no Wiki rule adduced to support the suggested change, is that it is not grounded in history. History is not logically or morally coherent, anywhere. The honours were accorded when large numbers of the former Irgun/Lehi dissidence had been absorbed into the government. Secondly, no where in the lead is any reference made to Bernadotte's assassination. If one wants to expand on the background and clarify why the Israeli government branded Lehi terrorist, one can do so in the relevant section below, pointing out the Bernadotte circumstances. I have never mentioned Bernadotte in the lead, and would automatically erase any attempt by anyone to insert his name, on good technical grounds. The lead sentence as it stands is succinct, well sourced, and above all, coherent, in listing three instances in which Lehi was condemned for its terrorism. I'm sure you will recall that the whole designation terrorist has been frequently challenged in the lead, with numerous attempts to remove the Bunsche citation, for example. Any removal of the Israeli citation will, given these precedents, look like an attempt to downplay the facts, and eventually remove all references to these designations. Lastly, my edit was challenged vigorously before, in a wild defiance of the fact it comes from a very reliable source. The person subsequently withdrew the objection. If you like call in an independent mediator on this, but I will strongly oppose attempts to cancel that note.Nishidani (talk) 07:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

You sense yourself that it makes no sense, and your solution to the problem is: "History is not logically or morally coherent". That doesn't cut it obviously. The reason history here is not logically coherent is because you distorted it. You distorted it by saying that there were several groups who designated Lehi as terrorist and the Israeli Government was one of them. This is false in its most basic and fundamental form:

Please write coherently. I can't understand the point you are making Nishidani (talk) 11:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

What didn't you understand? It was coherent to everyone else. Amoruso (talk) 14:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• Lehi is an organization that predated Israel , and its objective was to create Israel. Therefore, one can't understand why the Israeli government declares an organization that doesn't exist anymore something bad, and then honors it. The reason is that Lehi is being honored for its role in Israeli independence.

Lehi had several objectives, among them the creation of an israel very different from the one that was created. The organisation existed operatively in the Jerusalem area under the name of 'The Fatherland Front', if you wish to be more precise. If you wish to expand details, note the date and content of the law passed, specifically against members of Lehi, all contact with such people (terrorists) as a criminal offence. The law is still in place. Generally your remarks are objvious, but have nothing to do with the edit decisions.

Please write more to the point. Your soapbox paragraph is irrelevant. But I think you hit the nail here. They didn't call Lehi terrorists, they called the Front terrorists? Does that mean you previously distorted the sources? Amoruso (talk) 14:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• One violent action was made in the name of Lehi after Israel independence. Since now Israel had an army and Lehi was integrated into that army, any partisan actions are illegal and therefore Israel said that they will be considered terrorist.

As I noted above. But the law was passed, and Lehi was categorized at that time as terrorist. This is what is noted. It is reliably sourced.

So... are you now saying that they didn't call Lehi terrorists, they called the Front terrorists? Does that mean you previously distorted the sources? Amoruso (talk) 14:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• Not expanding on the circumstances on the lead is confusing and wrong. You can either remove it entirely or expand. There is no option to write one confusing sentence because you're afraid that the designation category will be challenged because of it. that's not a reason. You can't exploit other means by writing distorting stuff to article's leads. Amoruso (talk) 10:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

This is pretextual. It is normal for the lead to be expanded in the text below. The bare fact that Lehi was designated terrorist by Israel, just as it had been by the British and other authorities, is noted. In the relevant section, the source used for this is harvested for further details. I'm afraid of nothintg, except running out of pasta and wine. Fear has nothing to do with it. All the personal insinuations you make can be stood on their head, and laid against yourself. But I'm not interested in doing this. And, please note, registering an historical fact , shorn of all innuendo, does not constitute a 'distortion', in wiki or any man's language. Please use wiki editorial practices, instead of arguing the point about Lehi's wonderful role in creating Israel, a personal opinion you're quite entitled to, but which should not influence the writing of an NPOV article.Nishidani (talk) 11:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Please write more succinctly and refrain from personal attacks. Do I understand you have no argument why this should be in the lead out of context? Amoruso (talk) 14:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Lead looks much better, and is more coherent now. Amoruso (talk) 16:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Gilabrand

There is a natural sequence, the British Authorities, a UN observer and Israel all labelled Lehi a terrorist organization. Your edit elides the fact that the last in the sequence, Israel, made a determination that Lehi was terrorist. You neatly rephrase the source to say the organization was banned. The only purpose of choosing this over the prior version seems to be to avoid having the text state that officially Israel itself banned the organization as a terroristic group. Many groups are banned that are not 'terroristic'. It smacks of a politically correct subterfuge. In any case, you have never justified in talk why your personal preference is the edit to make. The result is that the text is once more destabilized, and will, on past example, be constantly challeged. Not a good way to edit at all, especially since that quote in the Brit/Bunsche/Israel sequence had not been challenged for some time, until . . . . Nishidani (talk) 17:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

If you leave the word "terrorist," my dear, there will never be stability. I am no supporter of Lehi, but in the same way that you and yours go beserk if anyone uses that term for Palestinian militants (even for people who murder schoolchildren sleeping on the floor of a school - see Maalot - to use it here (in the lead, at least) is clearly hypocritical and violates WP policy. My copyediting was not "ellision" but a way of putting an end to the edit warring but saying the same thing using other words. The Yishuv condemned Lehi and the Israeli government banned it and outlawed it. That should be enough to satisfy everyone. --Gilabrand (talk) 18:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Not at all, sweetheart. The 'terrorist' term is used in the lead which states Britain and Bunsche used it. As I say I am all for coherence. If that is what the lead say the Mandatory Authorities and Bunsche said, and then Israel itself used it, then there is no need to make a distinction between Israel use and the designations made by the prior authorities and by one UN observer. Throw by all means the whole section out. 'You and yours'? Check the record, I am not someone who brandishes the word 'terrorist' partially. Indeed, I've consistently reverted edits from 'my side' which insert the word in many pages dealing with Jewish figures. It is quite usual in here to isolate 'outside judgements' (foreign governments) from Israeli official opinion. In this instance, there was a perfect consonance between the two, something your editing smudges.Nishidani (talk) 18:14, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

So take the "namedropping" out of the lead and put it in a section discussing criticism of Lehi. As long as it remains in the lead, it will be challenged. --Gilabrand (talk) 18:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

No. As long as you persist in editing without discussing for some consensus (the text was stable for a considerable period before Amoruso returned, to make the kind of edit he always makes), I will challenge your suggestion, particularly in so far as in my last edit I cam half way towards you modification, but you refuse to compromise. This has nothing to do with namedropping, but editorial coherence.

As to Ma'alot, I fail to see why you raise that. All your comment tells me is that you think Palestinian or Arab children have never been killed in numbers in their schoolrooms, or if they have, it doesn't really matter much. For the record, that page is almost completely WP:OR, and had I the kind of bias (mirroring that of many of 'yours') you attribute to me, I could with the rulebook in hand, wiped the page clean, since its author admitted on my page it is his own personal research. Unlike 'you and yours' I defended his right to infringe the rule, since, had he not worked up his research, the page would be the poorer, but it is still a page that violates wiki rules. Ma'alot was a massacre, like many massacres of that period as the IDF napalmed Palestinian camps and Lebanese villages. The division you make between foreign condemnations of terrorism by Lehi and Israel's outlawing of Lehi's terrorism is supererogatory, and looks only liking it is obliging Lehi. You can't call the IDF, Lehi, Stern or the Irgun or the PLO, or Hamas terrorist by the fatuous rules that we are obliged to subscribe to. It is perfectly legitimate to note that these groups have been designated by international and national bodies as 'terroristic'. You edit is highly POVNishidani (talk) 19:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

ps. I see you have effectively reverted 4 times. The last revert accuseds me of introducing 'my interpretation' of the law of 1948. I'm afraid you do not know what you are talking about. The said law specifically forbade contacts with anyone belonging to terrorists groups like Irgun and Lehi. Check the law and if you don't understand it consult Moshe Neghi's famous commentary on it.(2) You have adduced a second source to effectively cancel out the first source which I provided, in order to elide the first source's content. Your edit therefore is prejudicial, and based neither on a reasoned dialogue nor a balanced assessment of both sources, while disturbing a text that has been stable. As such it will be challenged (with more sources if you need them).Nishidani (talk) 20:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I usually find you a worthy adversary, but in this case, I'm afraid, I am having trouble understanding your arguments. Obliging to Lehi?? Lehi was an underground movement that committed violent acts to rid Palestine of the British. It was a radical fringe group that broke away from the mainstream, and those who supported it were in the minority. It was even opposed by the Irgun, which was also a Jewish underground. All of this is clearly stated in the lead. I have no sympathy whatsoever for Lehi, but some editors have contacted me to complain and I can understand their distress. Insisting on labeling Lehi a terrorist group right up at the top (as opposed to a discussion later in the article) is hypocritical and clear evidence of double standards. God forbid anyone should attach that label to Arab "militants" and "freedom fighters" who deliberately choose sleeping teenagers, shoppers in a mall, diners at restaurant or people walking down the street as their targets. They would be deleted in half a second and have administrators at their necks in no time, threatening blocks and sanctions. If "neutral" language is the rule, it also applies here. --Gilabrand (talk) 20:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

That label is attached to every single organization in List of Palestinian organizations designated as terrorist. All of them have a paragraph in the lead devoted to who has designated them as terrorists. This article should follow that pattern. MeteorMaker (talk) 20:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I can see why the word "terrorist" is controversial, and why its use in articles might threaten to destabilise and undo all our work. But we're not talking about a current, live effort, we're talking about incidents on which the book was virtually closed 60 years ago. If historians 50 years in the future will call this group "terrorist" (and I feel sure they will), I think ample time has passed for us to do it here and now. PR^talk 20:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

MeteorMaker, does the lead say that a guy called Ralf Bunche or George Bush for that matter called these groups terrorist? Or maybe, and I'm throwing this hint in the air, maybe there are a few famous lists of organizations, lists that the Category relies on, and the lists of these super groups (U.S, EU) contain these organizations? DESIGNATED. Not slured by a guy called Ralph. Amoruso (talk) 22:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

No, I believe that wording is unique to this article and a result of some sort of compromise. We don't get to know the names of the individual designators in the articles on Palestinian terrorist groups. If you're suggesting we conform to that pattern and use "Britain" and "the UN" instead, I'm all for it. MeteorMaker (talk) 22:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Again you are mistaken. The EU did not exist at the time. And the reason it says "Ralf Bunche" is because he's the guy who called them that. There were no lists. You don't get to know the name of the individual designators because they were not individuals. They were governments writing official formal legal lists. Amoruso (talk) 22:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The UN, not EU. The designators, like Ralph Bunche, are mere individuals acting on behalf of governments and supra-governmental organizations. MeteorMaker (talk) 23:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

No, they're individual expressing their opinions. They're not formal lists. Amoruso (talk) 23:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Didn't they refer to themselves as terrorists on occasion?

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 20:43, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

No. Obscure article only referred to it. Cited in the article. Refuted later. Amoruso (talk) 22:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Reply to Gilabrand. And I you, and then out of the blue, you say 'you and yours', which to me personally is highly offensive. The text over the past month or two has, uncontroversially, Israel as one of the three sources that designated Lehi as a terrorist operation. Actually (see the Talk page and Mark Shabazz's mediation) Lehi in a document addressed to Nazis defined itself as engaged in terrorist operations, since 1936. Amoruso, in a series of extremely obscure objections, denied this. Most highly reliable sources I am familiar with record it. Therefore (a) Lehi defined its own activities as terrorist, unlike the Irgun, which means in wikipedia, that the rule on 'terror' can be exempted from application. (b) the British, Bunsche and then Israel after Bernadotte's assassination, designated it as a terrorist organization. That does not mean that is is a terrorist organization. As with Hamas and Hezbollah, it was recorded in the text that the group was/is widely designated as terrorist. It is for this reason that no exception, despite efforts, can be made to mentioning this in the lead. Now, what you objected to, following Amoruso, is the fact that the lead also added Israel among those countries that 'designated' Lehi as a terrorist organization. No one in wikipedia's administration has ever said on the many discussions over this issue that a lead cannot contain a mention of the fact that a group is 'designated' as terroristic. I fail to understand therefore why, hot on the heels of Amoruso's recent return to this and other texts, you support what is effectively an attempt to eliminate a rationally sequenced list of groups/persons which/who designated Lehi as terrorist. To muddle official international and national designations with outright POV labelling of one group or another as in fact 'terroristic' is an elementary error which I do not associate with your editing style.

ps. Your use of the word 'hypocritical' now twice is incomprehensible, and the suspicions about my partiality in these matters odd. I was present when my own father brusquely turned his back on a fellow ethnic Irishman for soliciting funds for the IRA. He took it as an offense on his honour that the idea could even be addressed to him. Like Chomsky identifying Ma'alot as a terrorist action, I have no problem with the word. Like him I also consider napalming villages, or shooting live ammunition into crowds, an act of terrorism. I may have my political partialities, but they are pacific, and contemptuous of all terrorism, state or otherwise. I, like a lot of other people, do not make ethnic discriminations about terror, calling up vivid images about the damage my group has sustained while ignoring the damage it has inflicted. Terror is terror tout court, whether it be what my ancestors did, what states have done, or what militants in terroristic groupuscules do. And if Israel actually designated Lehi as a terrorist group, that should stand with the other citations in the lead. There is no problem with wiki procedures I can see. And lastly I don't edit here because people contact me. I have a long interest in this and many other pages (and most of them are held hostage, so that the full historic record cannot be registered here, as elsewhere. All I can see in the last dfay or so, is national honour sensed as being at stake. Write history with national honour in mind, and only morons will read it) Nishidani (talk) 21:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Hear, hear.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 21:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• (1) "Lehi in a document addressed to Nazis defined itself as engaged in terrorist operations, since 1936" : Nishidani is talking about a paragraph from the german naval attache - "The NMO, whose terrorist activities began as early as...." These are the words of the German. The offer is attributed to Lehi, not the words of the entire letter itself. Amoruso (talk) 03:16, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

+ * (2) "Lehi defined its own activities as terrorist" - They denied it ferociously. There is a non signed article from HaHazit that uses the word "terror". But Shamir is quoted here in the article explaining they didn't see themselves as terrorist. An organization will never call itself terrorist.

• (3)"the British, Bunsche and then Israel after Bernadotte's assassination, designated it as a terrorist organization". Where exactly is this list of designated terrorist organizations by the UN and the British (the occupying power can't designate its enemies terrorist... obviously). Atleast now Nishidani is refuting himeslf by admitting it was only after Bernadotte's assassination that the government said something about Lehi - or was it about the Front?
• (4) Personal WP:SOAPBOXes are rrelevant. Amoruso (talk) 22:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Bottom line there was never any consensus for the lead, and Gilabrand's lead was much more neutral and written coherently too. The original paragraph, which was restored sadly, contradicts itself. Amoruso (talk) 22:28, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

No contradiction in any obvious sense, but perhaps some inconsistency on Istrael's part. One Israeli government branded Lehi as terrorists, the IDF under another apparently honored them. There is no rule that says governments have to be 100% consistent over the decades however, or that governments and the military have to agree on everything, and Wikipedia has no obligation to give that impression either. MeteorMaker (talk) 22:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

That inconsistency you feel is because the facts were distorted, or atleast hidden. This is the full passage from the book, which is btw very revisionist, POV, and probably not a WP:RS for this article:

"Bernadotte was killed on 17 September 1948, in a well-planned ambush by

Lehi members. The State?s immediate response to the assassination was more in compliance with the ?war model?. Soldiers from the Palmach (elite army squads) unit raided Lehi military camps, closed down Lehi offices and arrested dozens of its members. 33 However, the next significant step was more moderate, conforming to the judicial frame that took shape under the state of emergency. Three days after the murder, the Government declared Lehi a terrorist organisation,

thus expediting the process of the indictment of Lehi-affiliated members,"

- the text explicitly states that this was as a result of the murder for the purpose of indicting hte members. This has to be included therefore. Anyway, the article has been ambushed by too many editors who don't know much about Lehi. If you want to have a self contradictory lead instead of the coherhent one proposed by Gilabrand you can win by mass reverting. Amoruso (talk) 22:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the win will be by better conformity to facts. Israel has designated Lehi as terrorist, period. There is no category "Bernadotte-specific terrorism" (yet, I hasten to add). MeteorMaker (talk) 23:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not talking about the category. If you can't follow the discussion... it's not helpful. Amoruso (talk) 23:04, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I know you aren't, but earlier you put forward the theory that something you refer to as "Bernadotte-specific terrorism" is an essentially harmless subset of regular terrorism, if I understood you correctly. Can we conclude that the current revision by Ceejee presents the facts best? MeteorMaker (talk) 23:14, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

No, we can't. And you understood pretty much nothing here. Presenting the facts best will make the lead explain why and when was it declared. Amoruso (talk) 23:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, I'm done for now with this issue.. the lead is messed up, but it's not my responsibility to correct it. Too much heavy WP:POV and WP:STALK going on. Amoruso (talk) 03:16, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The lead does not explain why and when was it declared in any other article on terrorist groups either, that kind of detail is (correctly, IMO) deemed excessive in the lead. MeteorMaker (talk) 06:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Other articles are irrelevant to the discussion, see WP:POINT. If you have a similar contradictory lead in another article, take it there. Amoruso (talk) 12:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Again, there is no contradiction. The Israeli government declared Lehi terrorist, later the IDF honored them. Both are facts, like it or not. MeteorMaker (talk) 16:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Amoruso, personal gossip from Lehi circles is no argument against what the best academic scholarship on these issues, israeli and otherwise, has determined- You keep repeating the Lehi family version, but the facts are that the document in question consists of a Lehi proposal even though it speaks of the Irgun. The fact is David Yisraeli presented the document with translation in his Bar Ilan doctoral thesis in 1974 (if you get basic stuff like this wrong, you don't get a doctorate, pal). The exact words are that it is a Proposal of the Irgun (Vorschlag der Nationalen Militärischen Organisation in Palästina), and the key words are:-

'Die N.M.O., (I.er. Irgun) deren Terroraktionen schon ins Herbst des Jahres 1936 begannen, ist besonders im Sommer 1939, nach der Veröffentlichung des engl. Weissbuches, durch die erfolgreiche Intensivierung ihrer terroristischen Tätigkeit und Sabotage an englischem Besitz hervorgetreten. Diese Tätigkeit, sowie die täglichen geheimen Radiosendungen, sind ihrerzeit fast von der gesamten Weltpresse registriert und besprochen worden.'

You can quibble, complain, accuse, game things, persist in challenges, rally friends to the cause, whatever, but that is certifiably a document from the Stern group boasting of its 'terrorist actions' from the autumn of 1936 in order to obtain help from the Nazis. All serious sources outside of Lehi partisan pamphlets know this. If this is accepted by Israeli academic specialists, it is not problematical. Nishidani (talk) 10:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Nishidani, I hate to repeat myself, but if you insist, I will say this again. The letter is not in dispute. But Lehi never wrote it. Like you said yourself, there was an offer attributed to Lehi. And this is the letter available in German depicting the offer. That's all there's to it. You can continue with your childish slurs and say that it is accepted by Israeli academic specialists, that it was someone from Lehi (who? nobody knows) that chose the wording written in German. But then you'll be mistaken and also be deceiving the readers. The most WP:RS on the subject is Israeli academic specialist Ada Amichal Yevin. [[user:Zero0000] has acknowledges that this is a very WP:RS probably more than Brenner or holocaust deniers. It explains that Lehi didn't write the letter or that it is atleast very unlikely and explains who did write the letter. They made an offer, but they didn't write the letter. So your assertion that all serious sources are making the lie that Lehi boasted about 'terrorist' actions is nonsense. Amoruso (talk) 12:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Laying on the "terrorist" factor a bit much?

It seems like the editor writes the article like this: The terriorist group Lehi is terrioristicly terrorist. They do there terrorist terrorism terrabily! Well, that was a bit of an over statment, but do we have to say there terrorist every second? It looks completely bias. CindyTalk 03:28, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• Follow Up: I see theres lots of talk about this, I was partoling recent changes and stumbled across this and skimmed it over, and god, does it look biased. Adolf Hitler has a reasonable article, while he is reguarded as bad, they dont cake it on. I suggest you review the point of view rules, and words to avoid. CindyTalk 03:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

About half of the cases are in the Yitzhak Shamir quote in the section Goals and Methods, which argues that the group was not a terrorist organization. The article correctly states that the group was designated as terrorist by a number of states, then (further down) delves into the circumstances. I don't see any gratuitous use of the term, maybe you could point to a specific instance? MeteorMaker (talk) 06:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

EDIT: I see now there was a short-lived intermediate version that matched your description. Gone in a blink. MeteorMaker (talk) 07:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

In addtion to what Cyndy said above, they were not declaired as terrosit, but rather described as such in someones report. If so, then this is a claim, and should not apear in the second paragrapah of the opening statement, misleading people to think that this is their defenition. If someone Insteats on mentioning that report then he should attach it to the portion deeper in the article, where the event in which this report was handed, and say : "Ralph Bunche claimed they were terrorists" (but not the u.n or else).

--Shevashalosh (talk) 11:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Cyndy has shown no knowledge of the literature on the topic in the caricature employed, and you are, if I may be allowed to say, a newby. One would have more confidence in these suggestions were it not for the fact that, quite recently, these sensitive articles, each with a long history, have suddenly engaged the fascinated attention of many people who share one interest, scrubbing off the article a very well-documented, and consensual remark on an historical fact. To repeat, they are consistently designated by national, international and academic sources as 'terrorist', a word Lehi accepted in describing its own behaviour (uniquely, apparently). It is, as Meteormaker noted, quite consonant with Wiki procedures to remark this not insignificant fact briefly in the lead.Nishidani (talk) 12:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Please review WP:CIVIL again and again. If you repeat a lie enough times it won't become the truth. Lehi never accepted that word. See Amichal Yevin - the letter wasn't written by Lehi. Amoruso (talk) 12:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

You're quite naive in expecting me to take the word of a cherrypicked apologetic source like Ada Amichal Yevin, whose remarks on this have been dismissed by competent scholars as wholly 'unconvincing', as though it were authoritative.Nishidani (talk) 13:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

LOL. As noted by someone who is very anti Lehi above, "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". Attacking her book because you prefer to use antisemitic sources instead is by far the most ridiculous thing I've heard. Amoruso (talk) 15:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

And in addition to what Amoruso said, that they never adopted the word : (from article):"Stern thought ...and that terroristic methods were an effective means for achieving those goals.." ?? I haven't seen any evidence of that, and such sentences should be :"Stern thought ...and that operations against the brits would be affective".

--Shevashalosh (talk) 13:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you read the academic literature on Stern, his ideology and his gang's operations. There is a substantial amount of it in Hebrew, French, German and English. You can start with the bibliography on the page. By the way 'operations againstthe brits would be affective,' only in the sense that they would tickle that inimitable English sense of humour? Nishidani (talk) 13:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Nishidani, your petty comments about typos/grammar are getting old by now. You've been asked to stop attacking users like this by many users and you even banned yourself because of this in the past. Stop using personal attacks. Amoruso (talk) 15:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Changes in lead should have consensus first

Nishidani recently wrote in the lead that the Israeli government described Lehi as terrorists. The esntence he duplicated with distortion appears later in the aricle - "Although Lehi had stopped operating nationally after May 1948, the group continued to function in Jerusalem. On 17 September 1948, Lehi assassinated the UN Mediator, Count Folke Bernadotte, who had been sent to broker a settlement in the dispute. The assassination was directed by Yehoshua Zetler and carried out by a four-man team led by Meshulam Makover. The fatal shots were fired by Yehoshua Cohen. Three days later, the Government declared Lehi a terrorist organisation." . No consensus was reached that it is important to write this sentence again in the lead. It's written where it belongs. Amoruso (talk) 13:28, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't duplicate anything. A sentence in the lead, is expanded in a subsection. To use the expanded subsection's text as a pretext to eliminate the brief note in the lead is, methodologically, to play havoc with wiki principles of composition. The lead indicates the gist of what is expanded below. It 'anticipates': it does not 'replicate' or 'duplicate (3) You quote more bits from Pedahzur, fine. I have no objection to that extra material from his page in the relevant section (4) On grounds of pure coherence, if' the lead has long had a sentence referring to various sources that designated Lehi as a terrorist group, then to list all of the relevant authorities who did so is normal. To make an exception of the Israeli government's determination, and excise it from this section, (remove the date if you like greater brevity) is irrational. (5) The lead is as it has been for some time, unchallenged. You have reentered wiki to edit-war on it, without seeking consensus, and, having asserted your preferred version, now ask for consensus before anyone alters what was established without consensus. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. If you want to change the lead as it was before you initiated this campaign, discuss it, we'll go to mediation, and then arbitration, but you cannot proceed irrationally, as you have so far, in demanding one set of rules for others, and another for yourself. Nishidani (talk) 13:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Contrary to your unbacked claims, you did duplicate it. You wrote it in the lead very recently, then a neutral user put it where it belongs but you didn't back down, without reaching consensus - that is not allowed. The lead therefore HAS been challenged. It's a lie to say that it was unchallenged, as demonstrated your edit was very controversial. The edit is very controversial becausethe Israeli government didn't "describe" Lehi as terrorist. They declared it terrorist after a specific event happened. It is IMO poor English to use the word "described" in this context because governments are not in the job of describing events. It looks as if it contradicts its act of honoring the Lehi members and doesn't explain that at this point Lehi no longer was supposed to exist by law - the integration with the IDF. It is therefore out of context - the whole story is described in order later. There is no reason to include this in the lead and no such reason has been put forth, except maybe trying to manipulate the readers and confuse them - whhy would anyone want to do that? Amoruso (talk) 13:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

So they "declared" rather than "described"; that's not a reason to take it out of the lead. Just correct the wording.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 14:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

No argument was made why this declaration which is written later in the article should also be in the lead. It is a singular act, not like the constant battle between the British and Lehi, where the British always referred to Lehi as terrorists. That's the difference here. Amoruso (talk) 14:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Three things. I did not duplicate the text. I came across, quite fortuitously the cited remark by Pedahzur, and recalled that this article made no such mention of the designation at all, though it lists other designations. I added it. I admit I find most of these articles unreadable for their ineptness and POVed dishonesty, and didn't check the section to see if that source was used there. But my use of it was independent.

I called for the lock-in which Gwen Gale has now obliged us with. Note, Amoruso, that I did not do so after reverting you to the text I, along with several other editors, two of them neutral to the debate, thought the proper point of departure. So far the text is locked in to the censorious version you prefer.

The reasons, substantial, why in a list of organisations and authorities designating Lehi as terrorist, Israel, which was one, should not be excluded, to exclude it is tendentious, has been made over and over in this thread. If you wish, we'll redebate it. So far, no reasonable objection exists to this, other than your suspicion, unfounded, that I copied it from the section below. This is your only ground for an objection, i.e., I was in bad faith. The simple matter is, I like coherent editing, and lists, where they exist, should be complete, and not pruned to cover up unpleasant facts. Nishidani (talk) 14:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

My grounds for objection are completely different and have been detailed over and over again. So far no reason was made why this sentence should be put out of context in the lead. Obviously, it's not a list, it's not the same description, it has nothing to do with the British or Bunche's descriptions. So far not one reason was made why this particular declaration of the Israeli government should be placed in the lead. To repeat what I said above, Tthe edit is very controversial because the Israeli government didn't "describe" Lehi as terrorist. They declared it terrorist after a specific event happened. It is IMO poor English to use the word "described" in this context because governments are not in the job of describing events. It looks as if it contradicts its act of honoring the Lehi members and doesn't explain that at this point Lehi no longer was supposed to exist by law - the integration with the IDF. It is therefore out of context - the whole story is described in order later. There is no reason to include this in the lead and no such reason has been put forth, except maybe trying to manipulate the readers and confuse them - why would anyone want to do that? Israeli government, especially during and after Levi Eshkol considered the Lehi members as heroes and soldiers to the cause. This is why they created the ribbons. Saying that it was described as terrorist, not understanding the particular context and chain of events that occured, as described nicely in the article itself, is misleading and makes the article look like a joke. It's not that complicated really. There is simply no place for that out of context issue in the lead, and your controversial addition of it to the lead should have been made after consensus. There aren't any "neutral" people here, each one takes the side he chooses for his reasons. There are at least 3 users here who are unhappy with the lead you proposed. Amoruso (talk) 14:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

A declaration sounds even more definitive than a description. Your argument seems pretty weak to me, Amoruso.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 15:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

That's not my argument. Amoruso (talk) 15:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

No, it's just part of your argument, all of which seems pretty weak.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 15:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Your opinion is appreciated, but it's pretty meaningless unless you explain why you want out of context singular events that contradict the next paragraph to be inserted in the lead, out of all things. Amoruso (talk) 15:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't want "out of context singular events that contradict the next paragraph to be inserted in the lead". What you removed was in context. I hope my opinion is still appreciated, and perhaps more meaningful to you now.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 17:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

It's rather standard practise to include this kind of information in the lead. Look at Hezbollah, Aryan Nations, Earth Liberation Front, etc. Being designated a terrorist organization is an important detail that deserves space in the lead. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 16:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

protected

I have protected the article from editing for 3 days, pending discussion and editor consensus on this talk page. Please don't edit war but rather, talk about content worries here and find a way to handle them which is agreed upon by a consensus of editors. Thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Gwen Gale. My content worry about the lead was the way a sentence was unilaterally taken out of context and cherry picked to be placed in the lead. There seem to be many concerns here about the lead by various users, and the longstanding lead before the recent edit should not be changed until there is an agreement. Amoruso (talk) 14:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Leads can be tricky as to WP:WEIGHT, I'm hoping y'all can agree on something soon. Let me know if I can be of any help. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The gist of the dispute

(A)Lehi was described as a terrorist organization by the British authorities, the mainstream Yishuv, by the United Nations mediator Ralph Bunche.and by the Israeli Government on September 20th 1948. Lehi was responsible for the assassination of Lord Moyne, and other attacks on the British authorities. Jews were sometimes killed in these attacks, and occasionally targeted for assassination. Israel has honored the group by instituting the military decoration of the Lehi ribbon, which may be worn by the organization's former members.

(B)Lehi was described as a terrorist organization by the British authorities, the mainstream Yishuv, and by the United Nations mediator Ralph Bunche. Lehi was responsible for the assassination of Lord Moyne, and other attacks on the British authorities. Jews were sometimes killed in these attacks, and occasionally targeted for assassination. Israel has honored the group by instituting the military decoration of the Lehi ribbon, which may be worn by the organization's former members.

(i)A brief history.
(a) I had long held in mind the sequence of authorities who, in this article, were listed as 'describing' Lehi as a 'terrorist group'.

(b) This had in the past been subject to challenge, but the text had over time been stabilized.

(c) I came across a reference in Ami Pedahzur's book (not by reading about it on this page) to the fact, new to me, that the state of Israel had also marked Lehi as a 'terrorist group' by specific legislation.

(d) I therefore added this fact to the list, since Pedahzur's information showed that the list was incomplete.

(e) This was briefly challenged, but for roughly a month, stayed put.

(f) On July 1, Amoruso started removing the sentence on the grounds that it reduplicated a passage in the subsection.

(g) After a revert war between User:Amoruso and User:Meteormaker, in which both nudged the 3RR level, User:Gilabrand stepped in, and rephrased the passage to satisfy Amoruso's complaint, removing both the Yishuv and the Israeli government from the list, and saying only that Lehi was simply 'banned'. In her change, she added a new source used to supplant with a different content what Pedahzur wrote, while retaining the reference to his book in a footnote, which is improper. She added that:-

'I have no sympathy whatsoever for Lehi, but some editors have contacted me to complain and I can understand their distress[2]

(h) This patently violates WP:CANVASSING, particularly since I can find no evidence that she had edited the page (checking back to September 2006) prior to this. There is no evidence either that User:Micov, or User:Shevashalosh, who both pitched in out of the blue to question the page and support Amoruso, had ever taken an interest in the page, or know anything about the literature on the subject. Since Gilabrand, in her honesty, refers to a plurality of people contacting her, it is not unreasonable for an editor like myself to infer (as I did, without notifying it publicly, for reasons of mere discretion) that improper procedures may have been used to challenge a text which only Amoruso had taken strong exception to.

(i) I asked for the page to be locked, preferably on the version preceding Amoruso’s challenge. We have the page as Amoruso wants it. Nota bene I did not revert Amoruso to place my version up front before making a block request. My scruples disallow such gaming of the system, though it is a common technique in such cases.

(ii)Logic of the edit

What we had is a sentence noting authorities who described Lehi as a terrorist group. Evidence came to hand that, among these, the Israeli government was to be also included. I included, in a brief few words, that evidence. All hell broke loose, though no one questions the truth of the Reliable Source which documents the point.

If you have an incomplete list, and the list is acceptable, and then find that a missing member of the list exists, to include that missing member in the sequence is methodologically impeccable.

This is all my edit did. I completed a list. On the talk page all sorts of arguments have been made, but no one has shown why, in a list of national or international organizations describing/designating Lehi as a terrorist group, Israel should be excluded, though in the law passed in September 1948, it did both designate Lehi as a terrorist organization and imposed heavy penal sanctions on whoever might enter into contact with its members.

So, in logic, in challenging the edit that includes Israel, one should challenge, or contest, the whole sentence listing all the other bodies or authorities that made the same designation. Either the list goes, partial as it now is, or it stays, complete as it was when I introduced Pedahzur's reference to Israel.

It is simple as that, and no amount of Nacht und Nebel equivocation can alter that simple choice, since it is a question of of methodological coherence.Nishidani (talk) 17:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

A correction, for the record. I did NOT take out mention of the Yishuv. On the contrary, I strengthened that point with an explanation of what the Yishuv is. Another point you seem to have missed: The fact the Israeli government disassociated itself from a band of fanatics and extremists is a source of pride - not shame. If only Arab leaders had as much guts. The lead as it is now is a badly-written, hodge-podge of disjointed facts. Step away from it and look at it with fresh eyes. To a new reader (myself included) it is plain confusing. For one thing, it says nothing about why the state banned the group (my version does offer some rationale) and then all of a sudden, decades later, honors its members (this should not be in the lead at all, but if you insist, because it fits in with some agenda (I will refrain from stating what I believe that agenda is), then it must be explained in some way). --Gilabrand (talk) 17:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the mention of state honours should be in the lead either. The page, not just the lead, shows strong traces of suffering from WP:OWN, and if you look back, it's pretty obvious why it's in such a lamentable state. I never edited in what I wrote thinking of the passage below. Obviously it creates a dissonance, which explains why editors with strong emotional attachments to Lehi's memory are so recalcitrant. But a list is a list, and to remove Israel from that list is to play with the politics of national image.

My apologies re Yishuv. I hate doing diffs, but in checking so many pages I clearly confused your edit on this with another.

I don't edit thinking, but what about Arabs, or what about Israel or what about us or them. I edit according to what I know about a subject, usually having studied it. Morris didn't write his magnum opus looking at consequences. To its credit Israel passed that law (and now uses its provisions exclusively against anyone who contacts Palestinian or Arab groups they define as terrorist, hence the great irony of the Israeli jurist who advised that no one contact Shamir or Begin when they became PMs because they might be arrested for contacting terrorists). But history is always light and shadow.

When Bernadotte arrived at Calandia airport, he entrusted his security to the local authorities. The Jordanians imposed a strong escort. Then, Bernadotte, with Sérot who sat unarmed by him, in gratitude for the fact that Bernadotte had saved his wife from dying in Dachau, passed over the Israeli line, where no escort was provided, just single liaison officer. Bunsche was supposed to tour with him that day, but, inexplicably for such a high ranking official, he and his staff were held up for hours at Haifa over redtape. The law had to be passed because the outraged UN charged Israel with responsibility, which in a sense it had, because unlike other governments in hot areas, it alone never gave such a senior statesman the protection required.

Israel passed its law, but, nota bene never conducted any serious enquiry to identify those culpable. The Israeli liaison officer identified one of the murderers, but received threats and was advised by Moshe Dayan to forget what he knew and shut up. Yalin-Mor, one of the three who approved the assassination, and one other member of the group were, it is true, sentenced to 15 years and 8 years respectively on a generic charge of terrorism, and almost immediately amnestied 15 days later, in the usual travesty. Shamir was hired by the Secret Service. Shamir and Begin rose to be PMs, and establish a doctrine of never dealing with terrorists, if they happened to be Arab. The memory of Lehi was showered with state honours and and its members had distinguished careers. The sons, grandsons and nephews of Irgun and Lehi now grace Israeli politics, Livni, Netanyahu, Olmert etc.etc. That doesn't make Israel unusual. Postwar European countries have many similar anomalies. George Bush's granddad's bank was closed by the US gov. in 1942 (from memory) when it was discovered they were connected with Nazi money laundering. The Italian parliament until recently had many former antisemites in it attached to the Nazi Republic of Salò (pronounce that 'salaud'). The protégé of Giorgio Almirante, who carried the fascist heritage into the post-war period, is now President of the Lower House.Nishidani (talk) 19:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and this claim that someone who never edited the article before is not allowed to step in and change things is contrary to Wikipedia policy. I have just as much right to edit as you and anyone else. As I noted, I was asked to "take a look" at the page by a number of editors with no rationale given for that request. If I made changes, it was not in keeping with anyone's directives. When I feel improvements are needed I make them. So Nishidani, I would advise you to drop this "conspiracy theory" - it is entirely your own invention.--Gilabrand (talk) 18:07, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I am more than comfortable with your editing here, and I did not mention you as a newby to insinuate a lack of entitlement. You at least are an experienced editor. What disturbed me (having suffered in the past from gaming tag-team tactics from you know who) was your otherwise splendidly honest upfront remark that worried readers had complained to you. Thank goodness they complained to you. You were canvassed in short, by whom I don't care to know, and edited in a way approved of by Amoruso. The two real newbies who posted on the article and talk page show no sign of minimal interest or competence in bringing wiki articles up to snuff. Their presence there was odd. And please don't use 'conspiracy theories' in this context, which I can't help, having deeply absorbed lessons from Norman Cohn's magisterial books and having had these words thrown at me by several radically ultra-Zionist editors as code-language for protocols-of-the-elders- paranoia, can't help but read in that light, for the suggestion I have a taint of the classic ethnic paranoia we call antisemitism. As you will know, modern reading, since Conan Doyle's day at least, is based on the hermeneutics of suspicion. I don't happen to subscribe to much of the postmodernist version of that approach to texts, but at the same time, I don't disavow the utility of keeping all possibilities of interpretation in mind. In any case, canvassing occurred, and when one is subject to it, caveat editor. There, Tutto qua. regards Nishidani (talk) 19:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The gist of the dispute was written by me above but I'll repeat it. user:Nishidani is apparently trying to clog up the place with personal attacks and comments about people's language skills like he usually does. Nishidani recently made a controversial edit to a longstanding lead which says that the Israeli government described Lehi as a terrorist organization on a certain date. When you place words into the lead, without consensus, like Nishidani did, it can be damaging to the article. This was eloquently explained before by the neutral party who referred (in general) to the issue of WP:WEIGHT.

• The actual sentence about the Israeli government is written in context in a section below, concerning the Bernadotte assassination. The sentence as Nishidani put it clumsily into the lead is confusing for many reasons. The main reason for the confusion is that the next paragraph, in the same lead, explains that Israel actually honored the Lehi members. So they honored those who were designated as terrorists? No, it doesn't make sense. Maybe it makes sense to Nishidani who says that he knows the whole story. But if he does - why is he trying to confuse the readers?
• The whole story is that the Yishuv never liked Lehi mostly on political grounds - this is referenced in all history books. After the war was over, the two sides wanted to let go of the past, and Lehi was integrated into the IDF. This is very important to understand. Some members of Lehi still gathered illegally and performed the Berndaotte assassination. After this, the government declared that they were terrorists - obviously - because Lehi wasn't supposed to exist anymore - it actually had a designated IDF unit (they were all integrated together in a grand ceremony). That is the extreme out of context way that Nishidani wanted to push without having any consensus, and without discussing it in talk page, and after another user placed the sentence in its proper place, in its proper section. He now came up with the brilliant idea that there's some sort of "list" - that is the British, the Yishuv, Ralf Bunche and the Israeli government. But he doesn't seem to get it that Lehi was almost entirely a Pre-Israel organization - this fact is what goes into the lead - not the offshoot incident of the Berndaotte assassination - you don't describe any odd thing you like in the lead. The article has many sections which can be duplicated in the lead. Why this of all things? Maybe the other "descriptions" of terrorism should also be taken out from the lead, maybe not, but certainly not post Israel events having to do with an singular illegal act of breaking ISRAELI LAW after the Mandate ceased to exist and after Lehi members were integrated into the IDF. The history behind Israel's position of Lehi is too complex and long for the lead. Lehi is a Pre-Israel organization and the lead doesn't go into the integration of Lehi into the IDF and the Bernadotte assassination which is the only thing Lehi did after Israel created and the only reason that the government called it 'terrorist'. Amoruso (talk) 21:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Amoruso is correct. The Jewish Yishuv (community), didn't like Lehi because they were the smaller group of right wing politics, and the majority of jews (even today), were on the center-left, as represented Haganah and labor party - and not because of their oppsition to the brits. All the Jewish community oposed the brits, this was not in dispute.

--Shevashalosh (talk) 22:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Gilabrand, maby you can be the arbitrator by any case?

Since Nishidani claims he is conferrable with your edits as well?

Someone has vandalized the article with misleading statement that did not exist a month ago (timing from Amoruso), adding the "t" word all over the place.

They were never declared as such, nor have they adopted this word/goal.

Amoruso, has only noticed it, finally yesterday.

But the main point is that it was done against what people's view of this subject, hence, one's person decision against the all other peoples view.

Nobody seriously thinks they were terrorists (as can be seen on the discussions on talk page, even in the articles' current misleading condition), and when you read: paragraph 2 in the opening statement: "terrorists" or "Jews were sometimes killed in these attacks, and occasionally targeted for assassination"

or in the body of the article:

"Stern believed that ..And hat terrorist methods were an effective means for achieving those goals"

They don't think this is a serious site.

The urgency, is first to delete the second paragraph of the opening statement. Don't determine a narrative, let people read the facts.

Second, (as to the body of the article) this whole "terror" typos/grammar doesn't sound serious (as reflected in previous discussions) and therefore does not serve wiki's neutral policy's face.

if you insist, ad some where deeper in the article that "Ralph Bunche claimed they were terrorists" (but not the U.N or else), though it sound a poorly argument and as if you are including some minority's claim.

--Shevashalosh (talk) 21:07, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Just a short bedtime note, sir. You are asking Gilabrand to assume a role as arbiter in a case where she is involved as editor, simply because I, who happen to be the same person you say 'vandalized' the article a month ago, approve of her as a responsible co-editor? I'm reasonably familiar with many forms of logic, even with Nagarjuna, but don't quite manage to, uh, understand this. Nishidani (talk) 21:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Shevashalosh, you're mistaken when you write that the article's first mention of terrorism was added about a month ago. It's been there for several years.

I know you're relatively new to Wikipedia, but you ought to take a look at the article's history before you make statements about when things were added to the article. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 21:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

No need to go even a month ago:

1) "Some left-wing members of the terrorist group Lehi founded a political party ...

79.23.102.172, Revision as of 02:55 , 3 July 2008

2) The conflict between terrorist group Lehi and mainstream Jewish and subsequently Israeli organizations came to an end when ...

same date and hour,

3) known as the Stern Gang, was a terrorist Resistance movement

one minute later

4) "Israel has honored the terrorist group by instituting

02:59, july 3

5) the Stern Gang, was a Zionist terrorist group with ...(and)... ethnic cleansing against the Palestinian population

21:40, 2 July, 196.205.240.236

6) The Israeli government outlawed terrorism and Lehi's

18:00, 2 July

--Shevashalosh (talk) 22:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

(timing of those [vandalistic] edits are of corse as they apear on my computer)

--Shevashalosh (talk) 22:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you didn't go back into the article's edit history. 500 edits ago, on September 28, 2006, the article said that:

• Lehi was described as a terrorist organisation by the British authorities, the mainstream Yishuv, and by the United Nations mediator Ralph Bunche.

• The group is also known as the Stern Gang (after its first commander, Avraham Stern), a denunciatory label originated by the British that persists in many historical accounts.

As I wrote, this information wasn't added last month; it's been in the article for years. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 22:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

That sentence "Lehi was described as a terrorist organisation by the British authorities, the mainstream Yishuv, and by the United Nations mediator Ralph Bunche" without the Israeli government has been for a long time. After mention of terrorists, including categories, is new. There is also one more instance in the first paragraph after the lead, probably placed by a vandal at some point and not noticed. Amoruso (talk) 22:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

And the former one "as terrorist group" , also been vandelized, probebly much earlier, and had not been noticed by people like Amoruso up till a day or two ago (even when I initially asked him to read it), and by any case a misleading statement.

--Shevashalosh (talk) 06:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Shevashalosh, I suggest you check how long the particular version your six quotes are from lasted. Re the categories, they are entirely appropriate for a group that was undisputedly declared terrorist. MeteorMaker (talk) 14:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

This is your opinion on the matter, however, it was not reflected by previous disscussion, even in the articles' current misleading condition - yet the categories were added against all other people's understanding of this article (even with in it's current - misleading condition).

--Shevashalosh (talk) 14:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not merely my opinion that the version you quoted from lasted only nine minutes, it's a documented fact. It's also a documented fact that Lehi was declared a terrorist org, like it or not. Neither you nor anybody else has a veto privilege on what gets added to the article. You cannot obstruct the addition of relevant and sourced material, and you cannot forbid inclusion in categories that are not to your personal liking. MeteorMaker (talk) 15:32, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

protected again

Since edit warring began again straight off, I've now protected the page for a week. When this expires, if edit warring carries on, I'll be looking at the behaviour of editors rather than protecting for longer spans of time. Please use this talk page to discuss sources, not personal opinions, then find a consensus which can be agreed upon. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:26, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. But the conflict here is between editors who wish to edit in according to Reliable Sources, and editors who never mention them, but keep confusing citations from Secondary Sources with personal beliefs attributed to those who cite them, and argue from private convictions. Since this is so, a consensus is almost impossible. Still, I'm all for trying for the upteenth time.Nishidani (talk) 19:52, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Nishidani stopped discussing, after I've shown that the source doesn't belong in the lead for weight and out of of context issues. He just edited quickly and surprisingly got his version turned to the one he wanted, without discussing it first. I will not be dragged to RV fighting anyway. He seems to have ambushed the article in an WP:OWN way. Amoruso (talk) 00:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're talking about. There are a number of us that believe the word terrorism belongs in the lead, and the reference obviously belongs with the statement. -TheMightyQuill (talk) 15:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Well you haven't responded to the discussion where I talked about how out of context this 'references' is. Amoruso (talk) 15:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Nishidani did not 'stop discussing' after your 'disproof'. We were under mediation with Malik Shabazz.

Your only objection to the many works I cite or might cite to link the Stern document found in Turkey, addressed to the Nazis, which speaks of its operations as 'Terror activities' comes from a biography in Hebrew by Ada Amichal Yevin (1986) whose account of this particular fact was immediately judged by Yaacov Shavit, historian of the Jewish people at Tel Aviv University, as 'apologetic and unconvincing' (Jabotinsky and the Revisionist Movement, 1925-1948 Frank Cass, London 1988 p. p.397 n.40). You take her apologetics for the document, published by David Yisraeli in 1973, and 1974 (D.Yisraeli, The German Reich and Palestine, (Hebrew) Ramat Gan, 1974 pp.315-317), as the 'truth'. Yevin's 'in-house' apologetics don't wash.

On the Pedahzur material, no one here has denied that Pedahzur, an Israeli historian, is an eminently reliable source. The text in the lead contains verbatim his words that the government 'declared Lehi a terrorist organisation' on 20th Sept.1948. It did so by applying a prior law on terrorism to Jerusalem. I can supply the technical details of that law if they are needed. It outlaws terrorism, and indeed its provisions have never been challenged. Lehi fell under them. Subsequent to the decree, Lehi members like Yellin-Mor and Shmulevitz were rounded up and tried (in a rather farcical manner, nod nod wink wink, but this occurred under the provisions of the law against terrorist organisations and associations, which was particularly urgent since a lot of Jews had been assassinated over the preceding decade (see Nachman Ben-Yehuda's book).

My lengthy arguments on all of these features are in the thread. I have found insistent (and at times, unfortunately, illiterate) opposition, but none of that opposition is based on reliable sources, as is required by wiki procedures.

My last edit, which Gwen locked, is the edit prior to her first block which represented the text more or less as it was on June 5th,. before, three weeks later, the assault on the lead took place. In it, I went out of my way, not to edit-war, but to include the word 'banned' as Gilabrand argued, a word which glosses the fact that it was banned under a law dealing with terror.

I apologize to her if this looked like a strategy to lock in that version. Instead it was a compromise, after three days of jabberwocky in a version of English I find incomprehensible, whose author flourished many personal opinions, but not once referred to reliable sources.

I have not ambushed this article. It is, rather, apparently, under quite consistent surveillance from editors who, unlike many others, feel strongly attached to Lehi's memory. No crime in that. But this is a global encyclopedia, which must conform to WP:NPOV, and the repeated attempts to wikilawyer out of the lead the widely acknowledged fact that (a) Lehi did enter into negotiations with the Nazis (as did Mohammad Amin al-Husayni) in wartime, and presented its credentials in its own words as a terrorist group and (b) was declared/regarded/designated by Jewish (Yishuv/government) and international bodies and institutions (CIA/UN representative/the British Mandatory Authority etc) as a terrorist organisation can only be disputed by editors who object to reliable sources. I have left the self-designation in the Lehi-Nazi document out of the lead: it can be put in the relevant section. But to endeavour to elide mention of the Israeli government's declaration of Sept.20th., in line with that of the Yishuv, Bunsche, the Mandatory Authorities, etc., out of the lead, is to suppress one element in a logical series, whose presence in the lead has been stable over time. To elide that element constitutes a political choice, not an editorial choice, and is improper. The challenge reads as though it were a return to the long campaign to get rid of this whole designation list from the lead, get Bunsche out, and give the impression only the hated and biased Mandatory authorities who denied immigration during the Holocaust thought it, rather subjectively, as 'terrorist'. Nishidani (talk) 16:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

if you want to make a convincing argument, try to narrow it down. You've been rv fighting in this manipulative way to get the right (i.e. wrong) version and I don't see anything new here. Your attempt to discredit Ada Amichal Yevin is not going to work. Even user:Zero0000 has admitted that it's an WP:RS and an authoritative source. Right now the paragraph above is unreadable. And you have the audacity of calling people 'illiterate'. What a proof of WP:OWN and WP:POV. Like I said, you completely took control of the article and you're not willing to discuss any changes from your lead. I have no time nor desire in playing your games. The emphasis on the terrorist descriptions in the lead has serious WEIGHT ISSUES. Nisidahni is confused (or ignorant of) of the difference between the time before Israel and after Israel (hence Nishidani's proven POV that he wants to equate the Israeli designation with the British one although we're talking about different Lehi's all together). Nishidani has an agenda here, and obviously he shouldn't be editing the article. He even tries now to equate Lehi with the antisemitic Mohammad Amin al-Husayni who he regularly supports in its article, because they both share the same views Amoruso (talk) 16:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Amoruso, suggesting that an editor is NPOV and wants to own the article, then in the same paragraph, suggesting that he is antisemitic (because of edits to a different article) and that he shouldn't even be editing the article, makes you look more than a little hypocritical. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 20:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Not willing? I'm here, and I am ready to discuss. I will note for eventual administrative eyes that User:Amoruso (this is not the first time) has intimated that I am an antisemite, because, in his judgement, my attempts to clean up an article Mohammad Amin al-Husayni), after I was asked to help do so by a pro-Israeli editor who found it, and its editors, intolerably biased, constitute support for an antisemite. Fortunately, everything is recorded in the relevant threads. If you have any mere hint of evidence that I am an antisemite, call in any administrator of your choice, or, in default, call back Malik Shabazz, who is familiar with our controversy, and showed impeccable neutrality and judgement in mediating.

Just to keep things objective. Shevashalosh called Pedahzur's words 'my personal opinion', when they happen simply to be my verbatim citation of a reliable source.

You say I am discrediting Ada Amichai Yevin when it is Yaacov Shavit, an Israeli historian, who discredited her apologetics on the Nazi connection as 'unconvincing'.

I was quite specific in noting that Shavit's remarks refer to her specific apologetics over Lehi's approaches to the Nazis, not to the whole book, which, being sourced to Lehi's archives and members' knowledge, undoubtedly has valuable documentation. But on this point, a university specialist in Jewish historian has questioned her objectivity, and those pages thus constitute, in terms of standard historiography a WP:FRINGE defense.

So, Amoruso, don't confuse what Reliable Sources say with what those who edit them into the page verbatim may or may not think. You and the other editor disagree with what the reliable secondary sources say. I just happen to be a bystander, in that regard, since I have merely noted what has been written. To blur this distinction, makes your remarks look like an assault on the foreign puppet, when you should attack the ventriloquists, who happen to be Israeli historians.

If you find my remarks 'unreadable', reflect on Shevashalosh's many remarks, a model of lucid Johnsonian prose? Nishidani (talk) 17:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

If you don't object, Amoruso, I have edited your remarks on my antisemitism, putting them in bold. There is not a shadow of doubt that in asserting I share the views of someone with a record for antisemitism, you are asserting that I am an antisemite, and my editing is influenced by this Nishidani (talk) 17:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I haven't called you an antiesmite. I meant you both share anti zionist views. you don't believe he even was antisemite do you. It's you who called me a lehi afficoando or whatever. You claim to have found a source which disputed Ada Amichael Yevin, but she's regularly quoted by scholars. I showed you that. You ignored that. There's no dispute she's aa great scholar. Benny Morris is always attacked too by historians. So i guess we can't quote him anymore. OK. Your one source is definitely the final word isn't it. If there's a dispute among historians it just means it's controversial and it's undue weight for the lead. Amoruso (talk) 17:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

proof of anti-Semitism? how about The Protocols of the Elders of Zion - the fraudulent antisemitic document that was one of the reasons that my family along with other 6 milion Jews were murdered in The Holocaust. I read one of your conversetions on wiki - that you belive in it.

Just a bystander !?

--Shevashalosh (talk) 17:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I've notified and warned Shevashalosh for his disruptive talk page conduct. PhilKnight (talk) 20:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

can we remove this? nishidani?

"Stern believed that the Jewish population of Palestine should fight, rather than support, the British in the War, and that terroristic methods were an effective means for achieving those goals." --> this is not part of the dispute, it's not in the lead. It's in the paragraph after the lead. Not referenced and not said by authoritative source. WP:WTA: terroristic should change to a different word like paramilitary. Amoruso (talk) 17:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I have the source for this.

I will bring them. Just let me a few days.

NB: I have read on the talk pages your (ie Amoruso's and sheva's) personal attacks versus Nishidani. I suggest you cool down. There is no reason to go that far for your disagreements. What you wrote is also -particulary- outrageous and diffaming.

For the numerous discussion I have had with Nishidani, I can tell you he is neither antisemite, nor anti-Israeli and that he doesn't like at all Amin al-Husseini (on the contrary). But it is true that he is moved by what Isralis (in particular soldiers and settlers) do to Palestinian civilians in the occupied territories and that -as I have understood- he witnessed by himself.

So keep cool. Ceedjee (talk) 20:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I have never personally attacked Nishidani. But he did attack me numerous occasions, and as part of them I gathered he is an anti zionist, and I think proud one. Which is what I meant. But to stay on topic. Terroristic is WP:WTA and you can only say "X says that" , you can't use it in a paragraph like that. If your source is the Nazi letter, it's too controversial as we don't know that Lehi ever wrote it. Ada Amichal Yevin, leading scholar on Lehi, raised serious doubts over this. And nobody has any indication who in Lehi wrote this. Therefore, it's unusable. An historian claiming that Lehi engaged in terroristic methods is of course still POV and can't be used. Therefore, it has to be removed. Amoruso (talk) 23:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I was a bit out of line, I should have kept it to myself, yet ever since this whole thing started, I never participated in this "edit war", yet, while I am talking all on talk page, things are being put back into the article, despite the fact that a mediator has removed them (Israel has never declaired them "terrorist", nor has the U.N, but rather someone claimed in his report that they are so and so - this is misleading).

--Shevashalosh (talk) 20:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Shevashalosh. But Gwen did not remove anything. She fixed the page on the last edit, which happened to be the new edit which removed what had been on the page since June 5. My addition on Israel comes from a reliable source. The rest of the text, citing the Yishuv, Ralph Bunsche, and the British Mandatory Authorities' views, has been there for a year. I haven't even troubled to add from a reliable source I possess that the CIA called it a 'terrorist group' in 1947, since there is no need to exaggerate. You appear to be challenging the whole section, and not just my edit. Bunsche was Bernadotte's colleague, and they were working for the UN. Don't underestimate the significance of this. A representative of the UN, a great man who had saved thousands of Jews from Dachau, had been assassinated by Lehi, and Bunsche spoke for a whole class of people horrified at that act of terrorism. The text says nothing of this: it simply notes that Bunsche called them 'terrorists'. The decree of the 20th of September outlawed Lehi by extending the pre-existing law on terrorism and association with terrorists, to Jerusalem. Yellin-Mor and others were not arrested for stealing bicycles, they were arrested under the provisions of a law against terrorism, and put on trial. Challenge that edit amounts to challenging Pedazhur, an Israeli historian. All I have done is cite his exact words. You may disagree with Pedahzur, but we are not allowed to use our private disagreement with secondary reliable sources to appear in our edits. Find a reliable sources that challenges Pedahzur, and we'll put it in with his quotation.Nishidani (talk) 21:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Your are talking of "self defenition", and since its own zionist encyclopedia says they "banned them" and not otherwise (As Gilbard brought it), you can't put analysis words into the Israeli government's mouth.

It was removed by a mediator (I'm not talking about Gwen), few days ago, yet you decided, to "go alone" and revert this article (this is why it was onnce again protected), while I have been doing all the talk on talk page, and I have never participated all this "Edit war".

The same goes to the "t" categories (that were added lately), someone decided, against what was reflected in previos discussions, even in the article's current misleading condition, that "t" word can not apply to Lehi, to "go alone" and add this disputed category to the article.

--Shevashalosh (talk) 22:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I know you've repeated this. I don't know what you mean by 'its own zionist encyclopedia'.

Gilabrand is not a mediator. You asked her to be one. She is an editor like the rest of us, and defends, as is her right, an Israeli perspective.

I am not talking about self-definition.(Lehi in the document surviving in the Nazi archives described itself, defined itself as engaged in terrorist actions). I am talking about the lead where for more than a year, a list exists of organisations that declared Lehi a terrorist group, the Yishuv, the British authorities, and also the senior UN representative at the time. These remarks are not 'self-definitions'. They are definitions of Lehi given by authoritative people or groups or institutional authorities at the time.

By all means provide information on what Lehi members later said about themselves. I have cited Shamir's 1943 remarks justifying the use of terror. I have cited (and have several sources for) the Nazi document and its avowal of 'terroristic acts'). All RS say it engaged in terrorist activities. I simply do not understand what the problem is.A lot of people engage in terrorism, and then become respectable citizens. Look at Germany, or South Africa, or the United States, or China. Look anywhere Nishidani (talk) 22:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

You are mixing facts and topic-issues. I talked of how Gilbard brought it, not Gilbard's mediation (Or Gwen's). (Again) I was talking in my last posted message about the fact that the Israeli Gov never declared them as such, or the U.N, but rather someone's reports claimed so. This is misleading.

It was removed by a mediator (I'm not talking about Gwen or Gilbard), few days ago, yet you decided, to "go alone" and revert this article (this is why it was onnce again protected), the same happened with the "t" catecories, on may.

If you wish to bring other claims about this article, you need to disscuss it on talk page, since your views were not reflected on previous disscussions on this talk page.

--Shevashalosh (talk) 22:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Look, I'll be sincere. Give me diffs that help me understand the extremely confusing remarks you make, and I may be able to reply. I cannot understand at all what on earth you are talking about, since what you appear to be saying does not in any way correspond to my memory of the record. Who is Gilbard? Who is the mediator? Above all, why is it Pedahzur's quotation is a lie? he is an Israeli scholar of these things, and you are simply saying 'don't believe what you read in an academic book, believe me'. You are not a reliable source Nishidani (talk) 22:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

You probably can remember why this article was re-protected, cause all the first edit after first protection amounted to - is you reverting it, "go alone" against what was never agreed up on previous discussions, that have not reflected your views.

I think this is very clear, any other claims about the article - discuss them on talk page. And for now, I have to go to sleep.

--Shevashalosh (talk) 23:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The gist of the contention is simple. Two editors refuse to acknowledge that Pedahzur's book, that of an Israeli academic, is a reliable source. They have provided no evidence for this. Here we argue on the basis of evidence from sources. Please source your statements with precise references. Nishidani (talk) 12:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Amoruso wrote that "An historian claiming that Lehi engaged in terroristic methods is of course still POV and can't be used." I think you misunderstand NPOV. So long as the description of Lehi or its actions as terrorist is attributed to a reliable source, it can be used. That's the whole point of NPOV: "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." (emphasis in original) — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 23:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

We misunderstood one another. WP:WTA says that the word should not be used in a netural voice. That's all I said and we agreed on this point. Amoruso (talk) 23:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Reference

The disputed sentence is :

Stern believed that the Jewish population of Palestine should fight, rather than support, the British in the War, and that terroristic methods were an effective means for achieving those goals.

Marius Schattner, Histoire de la droite israélienne (History of Israeli rightwing), Editions complexe, 1991 reports p.210 and p.362 the existence of an article published in Hebrew and French in a LHI review :

The French version (dated 1944) is a translation of the Hebrew version (dated 1943). It is titled Terrorism and it claims that "Les actes terroristes stimulent l'imagination populaire, réveillent les énergies dormantes, donnent une impulsion au mouvement revolutionnaire" ("Terrorist (sic) acts stir people's imagination, waken sleeping energies, give an impetus to the revolutionary movement").

Marius Schattner comments that : "l'organe du mouvement (...) se lance dans un éloge dythirambique du terrorisme" (which I would translate : "the movement's broadsheet/mouthpiece launched into a laudatory dithyramb on terrorism"). Ceedjee (talk) 08:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Ceedjee. I have similar sources, but I think your helpful annotation will be less controversial with editors than anything I might add. I've made some slight adjustments to the translation.Nishidani (talk) 12:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC) ps. had translated with a pleonastic phrasing, have adjusted.Nishidani (talk) 17:47, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I haven't seen it in their adoption of 18 principles, if he "thought" that he probably would have declared (and adopt) it in their platform of 18 principles, you know like today's terror group that publiclly declare: "the destruction of Israel" or something in that nature, but they never addopted that word/goal, not on 18 principle platform (nor any where elese), otherwise, this is an analysis of somebody's brain.

But besides that, there is a bit of a problem with your source ... since it is dated 1943-44, and Lehi oprerated up untill 1948 (when the state of Israel was created), so it is imposible that they summed up all "History of Israeli rightwing" cinse the israel state did not exsit at the time... ?

--Shevashalosh (talk) 15:05, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

In dealing with a group's views, all the available literature produced by that group is pertinent, not just one select document of principles. Lehi published, and records of their publications survived, and Ceedjee's quote cites one of them, as I earlier cited another

'Neither Jewish ethics nor Jewish tradition can disqualify terrorism as a means of combat. First and foremost, terrorism is for us a part of the political battle being conducted under the present circumstances, and it has a great part to play…in our war against the occupier.' Yitzhak Shamir, in Hehazit, 1943)

You haven't shown what is problematical with this, or Ceedjee's source. In contesting this, you are challenging the sources, which are universally recognized by the literature on this subject.Nishidani (talk) 16:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Ceedjee's source is historically impossible... I will say no more than that.

Second, as to the quote you brought form Hehazit, let's be precise on this matter (not misleading), even the current source (see current article' reference) says - it was not signed by anybody - so no Shamir "said" or else - should be in the "mix of facts" - and they never adopted such word/goal from such article to their 18 platform principles (also see current article) - nor have they adopted a separated article by some anonymous and his own principles - on the contrary -right after this quotation (in current article)- shamir denies accusations of "terror". if he "thought" that, then he probably would have declared (and adopt) it in their platform of 18 principles, like today's terror groups that publicly declare: "the destruction of Israel" or something in that nature, but he denied it.

And third (again), You may think in your heart what ever you like, as you keep posting your views, yet your views were not reflected by previous discussions to mine - on this very talk page, yet you decided to "go alone" against all people's view on this matter.

--Shevashalosh (talk) 16:37, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Suggesting that the lack of specific reference in their 18 principles proves they weren't terrorist is not only ridiculous, it's clearly Original Research. (When you say, "if xx was true then xxx would have happened," you are stating your beliefs and no one else's) As Nishidani has repeatedly stated, your personal opinion is not a legitimate source.

:I don't even understand what you're talking about with Ceedjee's source. Are you saying that, because Israel did not exist as an independent state in 1943, that no book about Israel could exist? That Schattner wrote no such book and that Ceedjee is lying? Or, when you say "since it is dated 1943-44, and Lehi oprerated up untill 1948 (when the state of Israel was created), so it is imposible that they summed up all 'History of Israeli rightwing'" that no history book written of an organization while that organization still exists is valid? These arguments are getting increasingly silly.

Third, a consensus decided on the talk page does not last forever. Including referenced material is a good example of being bold. If you disagree with the material, it's your job to find referenced material that contradicts it. There's no expectation that people sit around waiting to make sure everyone agrees before adding content. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 17:05, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

It is not possible that books have been written on "Israel" before it's establishment, since they only decided prior to it's declaration (towards 1948) to be named "Israel", they also took under considerations name such as "Canaan" (from bible, and few other) -so this term was never in use in 1943, as well as the use of the term "rightwing" - that did not exist prior 1948 - cause there was only Lehi and Irgun and Hagana (Israeli parliament was established of cores only in 1948 - along with the establishment of the state of Israel, and only then people started using "parliamentary" terms as right wing or left etc.)

Book from the times dated back to 1943, could only have been written on the "Jewish Yishuv" (see that link to the article). This is basic History.

Second, I'm not trying to prove here a disputive view that they some how fit in to wiki's policy of "terror", but rather Nishidani is, and if he believes that attacking an armed forces (The Brits) is "Terror" - well, this should be left for the reader to make up his own mind.

I gotta go now - any 'other claims - I'll always be happy to listen, but unfortunately some other time.

--Shevashalosh (talk) 17:51, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Shevshalosh,

There is misunderstanding.

The book was published in 1993.

The author refers to a review published by Lehi in French and in Hebrew.

The review dated 1943 and 1944.

Ceedjee (talk) 18:13, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Shevashalosh, I'm not sure what wiki policy you're referring to. There is a general consensus on the Category:Terrorists, but that certainly doesn't supersede actual wikipedia content policies like Wikipedia:Verifiability

Thank you Ceedjee, for clarifying. I'll refer to your comment in a moment, but let me clarify my previous answer first:

Let me divide my (previous) answer to TheMightyQuill (if I'm not mistaken) on wiki's policy to this:

1) They attacked an armed forces (the Brits) – this is even how this article defines their enemy (the Brits)– If you consider this "terror", then turn to wiki's policy maker – so far, this does not fall into that category.

So what you have left with is to argue is that, well maybe they called themselves "terrorists"? So even if they only attacked an armed forces –I will claim that they themselves adopted that word/Goal? , however:

2) They have adopted (in the 40s) 18 platform principles – this does not appear in it – (I am not saying this is the reason you need not to claim so, – I am saying on this specific basis it does not apply - they never adopted that word/Goal – by "self definition" – like say today's terror organizations that publicly state their goal as : "the destruction of Israel" or something of that nature – to the contrary – Shamir argued against it.

3) Having ShevaShalosh (myself) and Amoruso against it – is by no means consensus.

And as to Ceedjee' refernce (of 1943-44)– I am still not clear enough about this source, did Lehi – during it's exsiting as an organization (1940-1948) – say in an on going events of "present" times (1943)– what they achieved (Israeli state) in the in the "future" (1948)– but worded it in "past tense"? (But you are still talking about an on going battle (1943) that ended only in the "future" of 1948 – With the achievement of the creation of the state of Israel? It sounds to me more like this book is about the movie "Back to the future"…!?

Or maybe this wasn't a review published by Lehi, but rather a remark of the author of the book in 1991?

I won't be here until tomorrow, I wish you all good night.

--Shevashalosh (talk) 22:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Nisihdani has claimed in the past too that "Lehi defined itself terroristic". This was long time ago in November 2007, but he lost the argument. He RV fought about it back then [3] until a consensus was reached that he was mistaken. Raising the issue now again is troubling and misleading. There is not enough support that Lehi ever defined itself or its activties as terrorist. There's no support whatsoever that Yair Stern ever defined Lehi like that. We have the unsigned nazi letter, which scholar Ada Amichal Yevin explains that it was probably not written by Lehi, and we have the unsigned article of HeHazit which is already used in the article. Amoruso (talk) 23:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Shevashalosh and Amoruso,

Lehi published in 1943 (in he) and in 1944 (in fr) a review in which the author praised the use of terrorism.

So, they indeed claimed that "that terroristic methods were an effective means for achieving those goals"

That's all.

It doens't mean they were terrorist/activist/freedom fighter. It just means they considered that "terroristic methods were an effective means for achieving those goals".

This is not wp:or (or pov or ...) given it is reported by a wp:rs secondary source. Nishidani provided you another one. I could find a third one. Ceedjee (talk) 08:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Ceedjee, let's not "mix facts" here - The reference tryed to prove the sentance of the article : " Stern believed that the Jewish population of Palestine should fight, rather than support, the British in the War, and that terroristic methods were an effective means for achieving those goals.

This wasn't claimed by Lehi, this was a remark by the Author of the book in 1991 (You can immidiattly recognize it just by the dates provied)

--Shevashalosh (talk) 11:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Reminder of WP:WTA

"In line with the Wikipedia Neutral Point of View policy, the words "Extremist", "Terrorist" and "Freedom fighter" should be avoided unless there is a verifiable citation indicating who is calling a person or group by one of those names in the standard Wikipedia format of "X says Y". In an article the words should be avoided in the unqualified "narrative voice" of the article. As alternatives, consider less value-laden words such as insurgent, paramilitary, or partisan.

• So you see dear user:Ceedjee, it doesn't matter which source says what. It's still WP:WTA because it's used in the unqualified "narrative voice" of the article. Therefore, an alternative should be used. This is not new. For example, in this article, which user:Nishidani was involved tirelessly in order to remove all the WP:POV he could possibly find, it says that Tali Hatuel "was shot and killed at close range by Palestinian militants". The word should be removed or changed to an alternative. In contrast to the lead, the authorities issue, the Israel reference etc, there's no possible dispute here that I can detect. This should be agreed in consensus with no trouble, the change should be made, so one can move on to the dispute (deciding on a lead). Btw, the article of HaHazit is already cited, so that source is not useful (how many times exactly should this unsigned irrelevant article should be used?). The article was never signed, so it's false to say that it was written by Shamir. It's peculiar to suggest otherwise, the current version itself says "He Khazit (underground publication of Lehi), Issue 2, August 1943. No author is stated, as was usual for this publication." This was also a result of a consensus in the past. In fact, Shamir writes that they never did any terrorism, so it's clearly just a lie to say that he wrote it, unless you have a source that says he changed his mind. Anyway, it's not him. And it's not Stern which is what the sentence said in the first place. So there's no argument to keep that nonsensical sentence obviously. Cheers, Amoruso (talk) 23:12, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

But the word "terrorist" isn't used in the narrative voice of the article (with one possible exception). It's attributed to the British, to the UN, to the Yishuv, and to the Israeli government, or it's used in a direct quotation.

The only place you could argue it's used in a narrative voice is the phrase "terroristic methods" under "Foundations and founding". I think you may have a point there. Perhaps the article should be clearer about the means Stern felt were acceptable without using the word "terroristic".

And once again, your argument against the sources is mistaken. Please read the first paragraph of WP:NPOV. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 23:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Amoruso, Please read the policy you refer to, it doesn't support what you say. (2)I did not involve myself tirelessly to remove all the WP:POV in the Tali Hatuel page. I spent some time discussing on the talk page the problem with User:Sposer, who was editing that text. Once more, you misrepresent me.(3) Lehi documents, as everybody knowledgeable about the history knows, explicitly speak of their acts as involving terror.(4) They are designated or declared terrorist by state or official or representatives of national and international organs, and framed in this way, mentioning the fact that they are so designated comforms to the WP:WTA guidelines (see Hamas, Hezbollash. Not to mention this would be to suppress crucial information). (5) Many reliable sources identify Shamir as having penned the article in He Hazit. Whether he did so is immaterial. As one of the triumvirate of Lehi, which produced the paper, it represents both his and Lehi's views, and those views explicitly praise terrorism. I cited it simply because one editor denied that Lehi thought of itself as involved in terror. Its own documents, including the one in the Nazi archives, disprove this. You repeat your arguments, I'll repeat mine, but with sources.Nishidani (talk) 23:40, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Dear Malik Shabazz, thank you for your reply. I'm clearly talking only about the phrase "terroristic methods" . I said so explicitly that the lead issues are different, so I thank you for agreeing on this one point. Obviously, we have a clear violation of WP:WTA here and "terroristic methods" should change. That's all I'm asking, it's not part of the dispute. (I guess one would argue that Stern himeslf said "terroristic methods" somewhere - but this is not proven: if it's the HeHazit article then it's not Stern and it's not signed either/signed by Shamir? and already cited in full later - see WP:WEIGHT. If it's the nazi letter, it's also disputed by scholarship sources, and it's again not signed). So we agree to remove this ? Nisidahni, clearly you have no argument here for this WP:WTA violation. It's used in an unqualified voice. There is no source that says STERN ever used this word, and there's no source which claims explicitly that Shamir wrote it. Heller explicitly says it was unsigned. This one article has been given serious undue WP:WEIGHT anyway. The nazi letter quote is of course also controversial and disputed. Therefore, there's no argument whatsoever to keep this "terroristic methods" phrase. Amoruso (talk) 23:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

There is a deep confusion here. All mainstream academic scholarly sources have thoroughly documented that in its underground broadsheets and doctrinal literature the Lehi advocated, praised and even boasted of its use of terroristic methods. It defined itself as terrorist, and was defined by both British and Jewish authorities as employing terrorist methods, and in this, therefore, Lehi constitutes a unique case for wiki, since by its own propaganda's terms, it clearly lies outside the strictures on loose or partisan employment of the term 'terrorist' in describing political militants. It specialized in assassinating fellow Jews, the British and Arabs. All Amoruso has done is (a) to rephrase this as an attribution in which we, all other editors, are ostensibly identifying the said documents as personally authorized by 'Stern' or 'Shamir', and then (b)arguing that it cannot be shown that the documents issued by the tightly hierarchically bound Lehi group in which terrorism is eulogised and vaunted to be the hallmark of their specific organization were personally written by, respectively Stern or Shamir, who were its historic leaders, without whose directive permission nothing was done. (c)Since there is no signature 'A.Stern' or 'I.Shamir' on the Lehi documents which advocate, praise and define terrorism as Lehi's distinctive strategy, Lehi cannot be said to be engaged in terrorism, or to avail itself of terroristic methods, or to boast of its 'terroristic actions'. Make your choice: this in formal logic is called either a non sequitur or a red herring.

The point of the argument made is not whether 'Stern' or 'Shamir' (to whom respectively mainstream scholarship assigns the authorship or authorization of the 'incriminating' Lehi documents) wrote these documents (one can accept ex hypothesi they might not have). The point of our argument, opposed only by Amoruso and Shevashalosh, is that Lehi did, in several documents, justify terrorism and describe its acts as terroristic(Terroraktionen in the Stern Gang document published by David Yisraeli in 1974). So the gravamen of their insistent pushing for changes is based upon an equivocation or red-herring. This is why I find Gwen's adoption of Amoruso's point in the text incomprehensible. For 'militant' can be used to describe many groups, the Irgun, and even Palmach. But those groups disavowed 'terrorism' as an explicit strategy, refused to acknowledge what they were doing in Mandatory Palestine as 'terror', unlike Lehi. Gwen's recent editorial accommodation of the term according to WP:WTA thus ignores the germinal fact that the academic literature on Lehi, and Lehi itself, recognizes/recognized the group as terroristic because that was explicitly how that group designated itself, to distinguish itself from other militant Jewish forces in Palestine.

A minor note for the administrator's attention. Amoruso not only insinuated that, in my edits, I show my true colours, i.e., that I am an antisemite diff here, but now is spreading rumours that I have branded him as a 'fanatic terrorist' here, after having taken on the task of psychoanalysing me as an 'egotist' with an inferiority and superiority complex suggestive of paranoid symptoms as evidenced here. I have tried to be humorous about some of this, not making a request for administrative action, as is my right, but my editing this article with scruple has brought about what looks like a sustained whispering campaign against my integrity as an editor. Calling someone an antisemite, when not a skerrick of evidence exists for the charge, alone usually elicits rapid sanctions. I note this here because this is how he reads my edits, not on their merits but as though they had pathological motivations associated with antisemitism, and this prejudice is creating problems for a rational assessment of what is simply a series of historical records. Nishidani (talk) 07:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposal for compromise on lead

Thanks Malik Shabazz again. What I suggest now is that we try to work on a better lead. It seems consensus can be reached. I propose that we should fuse what user:Gilabrand wrote together with current lead and other suggestions. A lead accepted by both Malik Shabazz and user:Gilabrand for example, users that are "from both sides" seems to be the best way. There is some bad blood here, and these users can come up with a non disputed lead, with others commenting. I ask these users to help write the lead together. Btw, personally I'm OK with it. Nisihdani ruined it quite a bit with his addition of "and" twice and the "described"/then "banned" with another use of the word "terrorist" so that no-one will miss it but generally it seems alright. Israel government should be excluded from the "described" list and be under the "banned" sentence if the particular wording fits the sources. The order of the sentences should also change a little, because it reads improperly. And he also added non English words like "assassined". Amoruso (talk) 00:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I suggest Gwen change my digital slip in writing 'assassined' to assassinated, which I was about to do before the text was locked in. Perhaps she could do us the courtesy of correcting the misspelling now. Nishidani (talk) 08:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Amoruso,

From my side, I suggest you keep cool once more.

Your insinuations are not welcome.

Note Malik shabazz, you praise here, pointed out here above you was wrong with your argumentation.

Ceedjee (talk) 08:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Ceedjee, it's difficult to stay cool in the face of so many personal attacks by user:Nishidani. But I do think I stayed cool in the circumstances. Not only he accused me of calling him an antisemite, something I never did, and I politely explained his mistake to him, he keeps ignoring this and accusing me in order to confuse someone and attack me on every occasion. He keeps saying Lehi is a terrorist organization but this is how he called me: a Lehi aficionado - aficionado means fanatic, fan, enthusiastic follower , which means he claims I'm a terrorist organization fanatic. He's difficult to discuss with because when in content dispute, he claims the other party to be a vandal. Me he called in a myriad of slurs one of which was that I engage in chronic vandalism. Now, after a consensus was reached many times, that Lehi never defined itself as terroristic, he keeps perpetuating this myth, even though he has failed with this argument a year ago. There are 2 single sources that show such absurdity. The first is the unsigned article from the Front magazine, which is again unsigned, and I think he no longer 'claims' it was by Shamir. This unsigned article is already in the article. It says "means of terror" but it also says who is the "true terrorist", so it certainly shows that the word is not something that was used, but it was more in a cynical way. From this Nisihdani gathered that Lehi defined itself as terrorist. Unbelievable. Shamir also says they weren't terrorists (in his view) so what gives? Anyway, one article is undue weight, it's already in, so what else does he want? Nobody knows. The second is a letter in German written by we don't whom. It's unsigned and a leading scholar says it wasn't written by Lehi. It's also a sporadic mention of the word probably written by a German naval attache. So there's nothing to perpetuate this myth. Just because Nishidani doesn't like Lehi, he can't call it terrorist in contradiction to WP:WTA. To equate a 1930-1940 organization called Lehi (and btw, Stern Gang is a pejorative term created by the British - all historians say it was. It's not 'ALSO KNOWN' as the Stern Gang) which targeted mostly British officers to the 21'st heinous massacre machine of suicide bombing of women and children in buses, cafes, discos, schools done by Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad and to argue that they're militant but Lehi is terrorist, is to make a travesty out of the encyclopedia and of history itself. I'm not exactly sure what you meant to Malik Shabazz, but he was right on the money, and followed WP:WTA. He, in contrast to Nishidani, apparently believes in WP:NPOV, WP:WTA and doesn't treat the article in WP:OWN. Malik Shabazz said so very eloquently, quote: "The only place you could argue it's used in a narrative voice is the phrase "terroristic methods" under "Foundations and founding". I think you may have a point there. Perhaps the article should be clearer about the means Stern felt were acceptable without using the word "terroristic"." This refuted invention that Lehi endorsed the use of the word "terrorism" is already discussed in the section [Goals and Methods]. How many times does Nishidani want the word to be used in the article exactly? Like commented here by a neutral reader user:Micov: "Laying on the "terrorist" factor a bit much?..... but do we have to say there terrorist every second? It looks completely bias ."Cheers, Amoruso (talk) 11:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Amoruso and Ceedjee, lets focus our efforts on the article we are disscussing - not otherwise; Amoruso and Shabazz were disscussing the matter pretty well - if they managed to reach at list one consensus.

I suggest we move our focus on additional matters to Amoruso's propsel.

--Shevashalosh (talk) 13:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Amoruso. You win. I promised myself, and have often asserted, I would never report anyone, because following these things, they appear to be instruments of power, often drivelling shenangans over petty differences, and a waste mostly of administrators' time. Your continual distortions of my words (I used the word 'aficionado' of Lehi circles and their fans, while replying to Shevashalosh, not directly to you), and the distortion after the fact, of your own words with me about my sharing the views of a notorious antisemite, have forced me to break a promise I've held to for 2 years. I will notify you on your page, and then report you, if I can work out how to do it, never having taken this extreme, and to me, distasteful measure.Nishidani (talk) 13:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Nishidani, thank you for this message. No, you called me directly a Lehi aficioando, not Shevashalosh. This will serve as further evidence against you if you continue to spread lie and report me. If you bothered to read what I posted , you'd know. Thank you for your threats. Amoruso (talk) 13:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)