Talk:Irgun

Category:Resistance movements

A sock recently added cat "resistant movement", two notorious non neutral editors have reverted back to the socks edit. To call Irgun a resistance movement is very contentious and consensus is needed at talkpage if someone wants to include it. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:03, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

While the Irgun was part of the resistance to the British occupation of Palestine and therefore belongs in the category, it probably is unnecessary. The article already is in Category:Revisionist Zionism, which is a sub-sub-cat of Category:National liberation movements, which is in turn a sub-category of Category:Resistance movements. The only question is whether the article belongs in the parent as well as the sub-sub-sub, or whether its membership in Category:Revisionist Zionism is sufficient. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:14, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Why did you reinstate the socks edit without getting consensus? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:19, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

This I agree with SD: no reverse without Talked consensus.

SD: what is "notorious non neutral editors" at? Are you including me? Prove or withdraw. -DePiep (talk) 23:23, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

No not you. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:39, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks but just a little a bit. Because still: smearing someone this vague way is not helpful. So don´t write it or point it out & use it in dialogue. -DePiep (talk) 23:45, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I've self-reverted. I strongly object to Supreme Deliciousness's edit summary: it doesn't matter at this point whether the category first was added by a sock; many other editors have seen it and agree with it. Also, it is not contentious, except maybe in her mind. Irgun is already in the category in question. See my explanation above. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:31, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

There are at least 3 who don't agree with it. So that is half the people here. This is the first line of the article in the Restistance movement article: "A resistance movement is a group or collection of individual groups, dedicated to opposing an invader in an occupied country or the government of a sovereign state.", in this case Irgun consisted of people from Europe who went to another continent - Asia (where Palestine is located) and fought people there, so the invaders were themselves. 10 years ago, Americans went to another country and continent, Afghanistan in Asia, and there they are resisting the Taliban, are the US armed force a resistance movement also? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:39, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I have no interest in debating Zionist history with you. As I wrote, the article is already in a sub-sub-sub-category of Category:Resistance movements. The only question to discuss is whether it also belongs in the higher-level category. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:46, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Speeches aside, there are sources in abundance that describe the Irgun as a "resistance movement." This seems to be the only relevant issue and I ask editors to stick to it. Thanks.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:09, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

You can not just make a google search and say "look here", bring the specific sources you want to make your case. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:52, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

How about the first ten on the page listed. Which one of the ten is not a reliable source? Better yet, what's wrong with the first source listed?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:12, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

What are the ten first sources saying? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 01:26, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm not interested in playing games. All the sources listed are reliable and directly support the inclusion of content at issue here.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:29, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

It isnt a game when somebody asks you to back up your edit. The first source doesnt actually say that the Irgun is a resistance movement, it says that the Irgun, the Lehi, and the Haganah combined to form the Jewish Resistance Movement as a means of combating British policy on illegal Jewish immigration to Palestine. Thats the problem with users simply googling a phrase and then claiming that some unknown result is obviously a reliable source for some statement without actually reading the source. The game here is with users attempting to pretend that they have complied with policy by waving at some unknown source. You were asked what source supports the inclusion and what in that source does so. You have refused to actually answer that question. Please do so. It really shouldnt be that hard, though it will require a bit more effort than googling irgun resistance movement. You may have to, horrors, actually read something. nableezy - 16:57, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Sources are characterizing Irgun as a resistance movement. That characterization is not challenged in any source as yet presented by any editor here. I think our Categorization should follow suit and place Irgun in the Category of resistance movements. This could only facilitate the use of Wikipedia as a research resource. A potential reader does not have to view Israeli-Palestinian relations in any particular light, but a potential reader should be apprised of the existence of the entity embodied in the characterization of Irgun as a resistance movement. Bus stop (talk) 17:19, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Which sources? nableezy - 17:34, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

This would be one such source: "During the last years of the British Mandate and the first months in the life of Israel, the rivalry between the two main resistance movements, Haganah and Irgun, seemed not only to endanger the consolidation of authority in the young State, but also to threaten eventual civil war." At the link, click on "Page 245". Bus stop (talk) 17:44, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Im not sure that would be a reliable source, but it does support the claim, so thank you for bringing that. nableezy - 17:56, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. I just want to point out that we have an article on the author of that book, Arthur Koestler. Bus stop (talk) 18:01, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I was aware, but thanks anyway. nableezy - 18:32, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I find it fascinating that the two editors who oppose the inclusion of the subject category have no problem whatsoever with applying this "Resistance Movements" category to the article dealing with Hamas, a group recognized as a terrorist organization by most of the free world. Lacking any other objective reason or criteria for the strange and arbitrary discrepancy, it appears that the only standard that these two editors are adopting is the political one. And that represents tendentious editing at its most extreme.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:08, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

First of all, who said I oppose the inclusion of the category? Also, most of the "free world" actually does not recognize or consider Hamas to be a terrorist organization, and there are several sources that say that Hamas is a resistance organization. The only standard here, something that you seemingly do not understand, is that sources are required to support encyclopedia content. Given your penchant for distorting sources I can understand why you would rather disregard that requirement, but it remains a requirement of the website, and disregarding that is tendentious editing at its most extreme. nableezy - 18:32, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Yesterday you went on a spree adding Category: Resistance Movement to ten articles in the span of less than five minutes.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10] All of them anti-Israel organizations. It is impossible to find the sources and the articles in that span of time. Yet for one article about a pro-Israel organization you demand sourcing, and when a list of sources are presented you demand specificity. How audacious. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:09, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

That was actually after you made this and this and this. Rather than revert those edits I decided to maintain some semblance of consistency across articles and categories, that if you and your pals insist on putting groups that even mainstream Zionist organizations label as terrorist in such a category then so too would groups that even mainstream Palestinian groups would label terrorist be in that same category. Im fine with either way, its up to you. And it isnt audacity that is behind my request that you actually read what you pretend supports you. Rather it was the shock that I encountered at such an audacious statement as to say that all of the results of a google books search are reliable sources for the statement, that shock caused me to look at those results and see that you had either a. not considered that typing irgun resistance movement in a search bar may give you results that dont back the idea that the Irgun was a resistance movement, or b. thought nobody would call you on the bluff because if you did look at the results you would not have so gleefully exclaimed that the first source listed is sufficient to prove your case when it did no such thing except as a way of projecting such confidence in the assertion that nobody would believe it was in fact false. nableezy - 00:55, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Your comment sort of looks like an attempt to respond to my allegations of inconsistency (adding unsourced material while demanding sourcing that exists), but I don't see how it was ever resolved. I'll give you another chance if you like, but anything beyond that will most likely be ignored.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:08, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

It was actually about the absurdity of the claim that a list of sources were presented when you either had not read the sources as you would not have claimed they support what they clearly do not or you did know and actively deceived others into believing that they supported what they clearly did not. I dont know which one is true, but due either to an act of negligence or an act of deception, you did claim that a list of sources supported something they did not. The part about consistency, if you insist on including the cat in the articles and categories of Zionist terrorist organizations than I will also place the category in the articles of what you so delightfully call anti-Israel organizations. If you would rather remove the cat from all the articles and categories I support that as well. Consistency across them will however be maintained, whichever way you want. nableezy - 15:47, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

re Brewcewer: "anti-Israel organisations", "a pro-Israel organization" - your judgenment. POV from point zero. -DePiep (talk) 00:31, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, being a resistance movement and being a terrorist organisation are not mutually exclusive. A resistance movement could use terrorism as its method of resistance could it not? Secondly, since the Irgun was widely considered a terrorist organisation, including by its Zionist opposition, by your reasoning, for consistency, shouldn't you be opposing the the Irgun's inclusion in the category rather than forwarding it?     ←   ZScarpia   23:37, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Not really knowing the rules on inclusion, I don't have any firm opinions on whether or not the Irgun should be included in the Resistance Movement category. Supporters of the Irgun would obviously see it as a resistance movement. Opponents, which, at the time, included the majority of the Zionist movement as a whole, probably wouldn't. Arthur Koestler, the author of Promise and Fulfilment, counted as one of the Irgun's supporters. I can't remember whether he was actually a member, but he actively worked for the Irgun. Promise and Fulfilment isn't a great source. It was published in 1949 before much of what is known today came out. Therefore it reports propaganda as fact. It is also very biased. Koestler either didn't understand all the points of view or didn't want to present them. He also was either ignorant of facts which counted for the opponents of Zionism, or against the Zionist cause, or he deliberately omitted or misrepresented them.     ←   ZScarpia   20:51, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I largely agree with ZScarpia. "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter". The basic fact is you're going to be able to dredge up oodles of WP:RS that refer the this group as either a "Resistance Movement" or a "Terrorist Group". Frankly, if we're categorizing Hamas as a "Resistance Movement" I see little reason not to categorize Irgun as such (though I do appreciate SD's comment re "Irgun consisted of people from Europe who went to another continent"). Anyone want me to workup an RfC on this? NickCT (talk) 16:32, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Resistance against what? Any earlier conclusion on that here? -16:38, 9 December 2011 (UTC) (correcting incomplete sign: -DePiep (talk) 21:51, 9 December 2011 (UTC))

British "occupation"? NickCT (talk) 16:45, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, against British occupation, the pernicious aspects of that occupation being: from the Jewish point of view, the limits put on Jewish immigration and the announcement in 1938 that the Mandate would be ended after ten years, when Palestine would still have a non-Jewish majority; from the Arab point of view, the vicious crushing of the Arab Revolt and the continuing Jewish immigration. To the Jews, the British presence in Palestine was illegitimate (thus an occupation) because it was endangering the creation of a Jewish state; to non-Jews, the British presence was illegitimate because it was blocking Arab national aspirations in Palestine by assisting the creation of a Jewish state there (Palestinians would pass from Ottoman, to British to Jewish overlordship).

I think that there are analogies with the independence of Texas. Depending on which side you identify with, you would identify the Texan rebels as either usurpers or strugglers for liberation.

    ←   ZScarpia   21:36, 9 December 2011 (UTC) (amended 10:11, 10 December 2011 (UTC))

Well, not that convincing. I go with the question mark and the quotes by NickCT: questionable twice. ZScarpia: if you are correct, than we could & should read that in the article - not here (really, I am not here to be convinced). -DePiep (talk) 19:12, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

But, I wasn't trying to convince anyone of anything, just making a stab at answering the question and presenting what I think the opposing viewpoints are. One viewpoint is that the Irgun was a resistance or liberation movement. Another is that it was the opposite of those things. If we dig hard enough, I'm sure that we'd find reliable sources presenting both of those views. The question is, how to handle the opposing viewpoints in terms of including the Irgun in categories. Perhaps, if there is, say, an "irredentist, ethno-nationalistic terrorism and colonisation movement led by deluded hatemongers" category, or something similar, we could include the Irgun in that as well as the Resistance Movement one?     ←   ZScarpia   22:36, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Maybe in all the noise my original message got lost. Like it or not, The article already is in a sub-category of Category:Resistance movements. The article is in Category:Revisionist Zionism, which is a sub-sub-cat of Category:National liberation movements, which is in turn a sub-category of Category:Resistance movements. The only question is whether the article belongs in the parent as well as the sub-sub-sub, or whether its membership in Category:Revisionist Zionism is sufficient. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:52, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Malik, what's your opinion on the matter? If I've read between the lines correctly, you think think that adding the article to the parent category would be superfluous?     ←   ZScarpia   09:57, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

According to WP:DIFFUSE, articles in a subcategory generally are not also in the parent category. However, Category:Revisionist Zionism may be a non-diffusing subcategory, in which case including this article in the parent would be appropriate. I don't feel strongly one way or the other. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:58, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Your comment did get lost Malik. WP:DIFFUSE makes this whole debate irrelevant. NickCT (talk) 15:52, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Protected - 7 Days

Under ARBPIA this page now protected 7 days for edit warring. 1RR applies to this article and constant reverting a category does nothing but cause disruption. Please discuss and work out the differences. --WGFinley (talk) 02:24, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Unbalanced

Is there any logic behind not identifying the Irgun as a nationalist, Jewish terrorist organization? They were motivated by both political purposes and religious ideology. This seems like a classic dogpile where the only victim is the truth. Perhaps we should say the Irgun were great people, some of whom sit in the Israel Knesset today - although they poisoned wells and blew up innocents. There is a great deal of whitewashing going on here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.94.43.164 (talk) 17:41, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

As I explained to you elsewhere, Wikipedia does not make value-laden judgments in the editorial voice. In other words, you won't see a sentence that says "Irgun were terrorists"; instead, you'll see sentences that say "XXX said that Irgun were terrorists". — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:47, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

End of Restraint

This claim is completly OR. 'The trend of activities was an attempt to respond "an eye for an eye" in the form of violent operations against Arab violence, and often to match the form of retaliation or its location to correspond to the attack that provoked it. A number of examples:' Unless RS can be provided to attribute this claim to, it will be removed. Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 20:16, 10 July 2012 (UTC)