- 1 Disambiguation link notification for May 25
- 2 Palestine
- 3 Just in case you missed it
- 4 For the record
- 5 Reference Errors on 30 July
- 6 Your advice on response to talk:Antisemitism
- 7 Something funny
- 8 Move review for Anti-Semitism:Requested move
- 9 inquiry
- 10 Asselineau
- 11 Nakba - Misuse of primary source
- 12 2014-12 traduction
- 13 Uri Milstein
- 14 Talkback
- 15 More about Uri Milstein
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 1948 Arab–Israeli War, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Corpus separatum and Transjordan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
- Hello Lciaccio,
Just in case you missed it
Benny Morris Before the Kidnappings, There Was a Massacre. How the national trauma of Kfar Etzion helped bring Israeli Yeshiva boys to the West Bank Tablet magazine June 25, 2014 It's interesting that he only mentions Deir Yassin (and dozens of women and children, not the overall figure) to explain a reported shout at the Kfar Etzion massacre, and then philosophises as to why the Dawayima massacre occurred:-
In the Middle East, as perhaps elsewhere, massacres tend to breed counter-massacres; revenge is a basic value and fact of life. On Oct. 29, 1948, IDF troops of the 8th Brigade, 89th Battalion, conquered the Arab village of Dawayima
I ask myself, why did that not preface his introduction to the Kfar Etzion massacre (Deir Yassin bred it as a counter-massacre) but employs it to 'explain' why Jews murdered the inhabitants of Dawayima. It's is little things like this that tell me how to 'read' the depths behind Morris's otherwise commendably erudite histories. Best Nishidani (talk) 21:06, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- Hi Nish,
- Thank you for the link.
- I don't think that Morris wants to "employ() [Kfar Etzion massacre] to 'explain' why Jews murdered the inhabitantsof Dawayima". The topic of his article is the events of '48 in the area of Kfar Etzion (and Hebron). I rather think that he wans to illustrate the "spiral of violence" mechanism. Others could even have claimed he wanted to minimize Kfar Etzion massacre in reporting a massacre of Arabs that preceeded it and another one that followed the Kfar Etzion one.
- I think that Morris sometimes lack humanity in his reports and victims and massacres are just facts as others in his work.
- Pluto2012 (talk) 14:14, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks. I was showing more how a reader like myself takes his organization of material and priorities than proving anything about BM. It was used as background for the 2014 kidnapping of Israeli teens, which however because of the poverty of reactions to the Beitunia killings in May can't be contextualized. Deit Yassin-Kfar Etzion/Beitunia-2014 kidnapping. (Causes are never excuses, for anyside, of course. But grasping them with a cold eye attuned to the logic of events certainly is more illuminating than selective focus on one event to the detriment of the structure of events. In any case, I think this is certainly RS for the Kfar Etzion massacre, and will be a test for maintaining neutrality in reportage, since BM here certainly is far more dismissive of the other side's various POVs than he was, from memory, in his book accounts. But we can't be intimidtaed by that. RS are RS, whatever one's personal beliefs may be. Cheers friend.Nishidani (talk) 16:12, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
For the record
Reference Errors on 30 July
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Your advice on response to talk:Antisemitism
What are your thoughts about raising the behaviour of VQuakr and Fleenier at talk:Antisemitism.
There's also User_talk:VQuakr#Category:Prejudice_and_discrimination_navigation which includes "This is a relevant question - is English your first language?"
Also: User_talk:Gregkaye#Your_level_of_involvement_at_Talk:Antisemitism giving private requests that I cut back contributions to the discussion.
- I don't think much about this... I am not even sure to understand what is the issue... I suggest you just "ignore" what I would call "attempt of intimidiation" or "uncivility" (but without investing time to investigate) and I think you should go on commenting the way you like this discussion.
- On the other, if I would close this discussion, my conclusion would be "no consensus" ; so I don't think either it's worth investing much time in it.
- Pluto2012 (talk) 10:26, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Move review for Anti-Semitism:Requested move
Hi, I have asked for a move review, see Wikipedia:Move review#Anti-Semitism, pertaining to Anti-Semitism#Requested move. Because you were/are involved in the discussion/s for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page/topic, you might want to participate in the move review. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 08:47, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Cher ami I wonder if you could be so kind as to consult your copy of Morris, 1948: A History of the First Arab–Israeli War, p. 13 and if possible transcribe for me the context on 'After Saturday Sunday,' regarding it as 'popular during the revolt'. I don't think it has a footnote, but if it has I'd appreciate a note on that as well. I hope things are going well with you. Best regards Nishidani (talk) 16:23, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
- This is the whole paragraph, pp. 12-13:
- A major fault line ran between the Muslim majority and the generally more prosperous, better-educated Christians, who were concentrated in the large towns. The British authorities favored the Christians with contracts, permits, and jobs, further alienating the majority. Through the Mandate, and especially in such crisis periods as the Arab Revolt of 1936–1939 and 1947–1948, Muslims suspected Christians of collaborating with the “enemy” and secretly hoping for continued (Christian) British rule or even Zionist victory. These suspicions were expressed in slogans, popular during the revolt, such as “After Saturday, Sunday”—that is, that the Muslims would take care of the Christians after they had “sorted out” the Jews. This probably further alienated the Christians from Muslim political aspirations, though many, to be sure, kept up nationalist appearances. “The Christians [of Jaffa] had participated in the 1936–1937 disturbances under duress and out of fear of the Muslims. The Christians’ hearts now and generally are not with the rioting,” reported the Haganah Intelligence Service (HIS).17
- A Haganah list from the mid-1940s of Arabs with a “tendency to cooperation with the Jews” included “many . . . Christians” but few Muslims.18
- Ref.17: Talmi, “The Christians in Jaffa,” 2 May 1947, HA 105/193 bet.
- Ref.18: Unsigned, “Arabs with a Tendency to Cooperation with the Jews,” undated, HA 105/54, where HA is Haganah Archive. In short: the only sources that Morris cites for this section, is the Haganah Archive. Hope this helps, Huldra (talk) 20:34, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
- Hi Huldra and Nishidani,
- Even more widely, this "After Saterday, Sunday" is one of the arguments used by Benny Morris to argue that the 1948 war (and globally the I-P conflict) was not a nationalist conflict but was part of a "clash between civilisations". Indeed, in a nationalist conflict, the Palestinian Arabs would not have threatened other Arabs sharing the same nationality but not the same religion. In his approach, Christians and Jews were seen as representatives of the Western civilisation.
- Useless to say that his thesis is not followed by his pairs. A reference article against this thesis is Yoav Gelber's review of Morris book: The Jihad that wasn't.
- Pluto2012 (talk) 05:47, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your help. No problem, I'll amend the templates in due time.
I am quite aware of the problem, which is why I mentioned I would need some time to fix the various sources (translated from the French article, with French templates). Moreover, some of the templates have no direct equivalent one between the two WPs.
- Thanks again for your help all along on this difficult article. You may have noticed in the discussions that D0kkaebi is one of the leaders of Asselineau's UPR, as anyone can easily check, googling "UPR Lawren00" (Lawren00 is D0kkaebi's former identity here); hence some "reluctance" to amend the article, as always when WP:AUTO and WP:CoI have been violated. --Azurfrog (talk) 19:54, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Nakba - Misuse of primary source
Dear Sir. The text I added to clarify the term Nakba has been removed under the explanation there is a misuse of a primary source.
Je crois que fr:Fonds national juif#Critique de la politique de reboisement mériterait d'être traduit en anglais (et réciproquement des critiques présentes dans Jewish National Fund pourraient être traduites en français). bonus Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:31, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
THANK YOU FOR YOUR CRITICISM, AS FOR THE POINTS YOU RAISE ;
While studying Israeli wars, I came across Milsteins books. I saw that the man has a lot to say, AND, did/does his homework. His books are hard to find, though I see on Amazon that they go used for 2-3 times their original retail price. Clearly, there is some interest in him, so when I first started using WIKIPEDIA I looked up his page to see what was available on him. There was basically nothing, a little of this and a little of that, some of it having preciously little to do with him (such as his calling Yigal Amir a good student). Personally, I think many things he says are ridiculous, but that should`nt prevent those interested in accessing information about someone, especially someone who despite my opinion of some of his, is admittedly much smarter then me and practically everyone else I`ve ever come across. My first reaction was, admittedly, hasty and stupid. Immediately I began editing his page. But his total of printed book pages may total up to 5-6000, and although the book on,say,the YOM KIPPUR WAR is not essential to an elementary understanding of him per se, still severalbooks [notably THE RABIN FILE, ON THIS WE DREAMED and THE SECURITY PRINCIPLE] ARE essential, and I did not at the time have a firm grasp in them. Thus much of my edits were the more shocking things I well remembered, which do not much help the uninitiated in getting to know about him. I have since realized my mistake, and have taken the responsibility to enable anyone interested in him to get ALL RELEVANT INFORMATION ON HIM, and am currently working on this by studying his books. I am also working on the present references, though its slow going because, for instance, he sticks autobiographical information in THE RABIN FILE, which makes it quite difficult to find, but I`m getting there. As for his own lack of reliability, what shall I write when, as is usually the case, there`s no other source? How about quoting him directly on it? Thank youDale Stern (talk) 01:42, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
More about Uri Milstein
Hi Pluto; I would like your opinion again please on my editing. Mainly I would like you to explain what you said last time that sometimes it may be asked for a direct quote, when is that sometimes? Also, as I was largely quoting only Milstein, you said it seemed a violation of impartiality. I have done significant homework, and discovered that what Milstein says is true-his books are ignored and most have no reviews to speak of, so I want to know; should it be kept as is, or would it be better to write relevant facts about the things he writes about, and thus allowing the reader to attain a more balanced view? I particularly have in mind that Milsteins practically only source for Rabin`s fleeing the battlefield is his subordinate-Yosef Tabenkin, on whom Mistein said that he had an agenda against Rabin`s being commander, and was besides-according to Milstein-a thoroughly vile creature, and should not be considered a valid source on so sensitive a matter. Thank You Dale Stern (talk) 02:07, 27 January 2015 (UTC)