Talk:Lehi (militant group)

Stern gang and Irgun

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

Bernadotte assassination

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

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

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

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

---

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

---

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

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

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

Lehi vs NMO

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

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

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

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

Ok. That is a good compromise.

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

Cleanup

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

Contact with the Nazis, etc.

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

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

Alleged errors

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

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

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

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

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

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

terrorist group???

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

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

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

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

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

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

My Grandfather's favourite quote:

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

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

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

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

Holocaust Denial & Sourcing

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

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

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

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

Terror group

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

Explain removed section

Removed this, my comments in bold:

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

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

WP:MilHist Assessment

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

Delete this:

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

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

Terror

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

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

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

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

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

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

about this newsletter

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

the UN quotes only refer to the bernadotte incident

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

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

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

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

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

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

Summary for edit reasons

22:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• UN terms in context of Bernadotte (above).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

justification for means of battle

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

Ian Pitchford and WP:NPOV

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

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

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

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

Fairness of tone

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

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

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

Attributing and substantiating biased statements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3RR

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

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

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

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

Intro

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ideology section

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

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

Designation as "terrorist" by the UN

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, see unindented next statement.

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

Even U.N ?

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

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

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

Anthem

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Book of Moshe Shamir

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PalestineRemembered 21:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

Comments

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

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

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

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

You just admitted it is original research.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Revisionist denial seems to be going on here

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

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

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

PalestineRemembered 21:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

PalestineRemembered 20:04, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

PalestineRemembered 19:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

PalestineRemembered 19:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

assassination of Jews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

self described as terrorist

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

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

Contacts with Fascist Italy prior to nazi contacts

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

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

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

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

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

Of course British denunciatory

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

Article being given undue weight

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Intro edit

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

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

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

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

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

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

Need translation or cannot include material.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: Explanation for alleged

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

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

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

Deir Yassin

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

recent revisions

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

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

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

Please, let's try to talk through our differences

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Summary

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q 1

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

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

Q.2

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

Reply to Q.2 The lead runs:

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

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

Q 3

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

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

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

Thank you Malik Shabazz. My replies to the questions:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|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 [11]. 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[12]

(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. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|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. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|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) — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|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 [13] 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. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|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)