Talk:King David Hotel bombing

Big argument about what should go in the introduction (WP:NPOV continued ...)

It has also been cited by Walter Enders and Todd Sandler's book The Political Economy of Terrorism as an event that provided a role model for other massive bombings in the 1980s and beyond such as the Bologna railway station bombing (1980) and Chechen bombings in Moscow.

While this information is possibly of interesting value, find how to integrate it if you wish, but not in the lead... it's not notable or specific enough to the attack. Amoruso (talk) 00:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

After all, it was a seminal event. Nothing wrong in stating that it inspired copycats for generations. MeteorMaker (talk) 00:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Nothing wrong, but not lead material. It's one source on non central issue, academic stuff, not encyclopedic. Btw, your fact tag was unnecessary, it's known historic fact and mentioned in the content. Amoruso (talk) 00:59, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Still not lead material after Nishidani's recent edit. It's a one book about a fringe theory. "Some" is weasel word. It's not some. And what does "other" mean? This bombing was not in the 1980's. Amoruso (talk) 10:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Your view is that it is a 'fringe theory'. They are specialists in terrorism. If you need further documentation, I look to providing it. The IRA influenced the Irgun/Lehi, and these techniques influenced later terrorist bombings. Terrorists, as any specialist will tell you, thrive on mimicry. Israel was the first government in the area to hijack a plane in order to obtain a prisoner exchange. The practice was then taken up by the PLO and many others. These things are noted.Nishidani (talk) 11:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Israel was the first to hijack a plane? Israel was the first to murder Olympic athletes as well? The first to explode in civilian buses? What else? Fringe theories by one book doesn't belong in the lead and it will be taken out... Amoruso (talk) 11:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I see your problem. You don't know much about history. On the Syrian airplane hijacking, consult a reliable Hebrew source by one of your Prime Ministers, namely Moshe Sharett's diary entries in hias posthumous (Yoman Ishi, Ma'ariv, Tel Aviv, 1979) for Dec. 1954, where he records the State Department's comment on this unprecedented act. In English 'unprecedented' means 'first'. All I have had from you so far is WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments, and brandishing WP:FRINGE about a mainstream piece of academic literature on terrorism. It's not fringe, and if you or anyone else tries to remove it on these flimsy grounds, it will be restored, and your behaviour reported.Nishidani (talk) 16:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Please refrain from personal attacks and keep your fantasies to yourself. Also be mindful of Wikipedia:Etiquette. You are breaching many wikipedia policies. Amoruso (talk) 16:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Ipse dixitNishidani (talk) 18:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Fie Amoruso, complaining about personal attacks, admonishing Nishidani to observe Wikipedia etiquette - and then telling him to keep his fantasies to himself! Would you care to elucidate on the 'many' policies that he's 'breached'? By the way, although the Zionist terrorist groups may not have initiated the holding hostage and then murder of Olympic athletes, they did hold British troops and a judge hostage, hanging two sergeants (then booby-trapping their bodies for good measure) when they didn't get their way. -- ZScarpia (talk) 20:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and as for who first started bombing busses, throwing bombs into crowds etc ..... -- ZScarpia (talk) 23:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the behavior of all of you here is deplorable. Instead of discussing the content of the article, this has devolved into an argument over the conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians. Such behavior does not belong here. Amoruso, Nishidani and ZScarpia, shame on you all. Knock it off and find a more rational way to settle this using facts and citations. If you can't, then you three should refrain from editing this page further. Shabeki (talk) 06:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Nishidani the insertion into the lead

.Some authorities argue the act furnished a model for other massive bombings in the 1980s.

suffers from a number of fatal flaws. It is a highly speculative, exceptional claim - and therefore probably does not belong anywhere in the article, but if it does, certainly not the lede. And, of course, "some authorities" are weasel words which give the impression of more authority for this claim than it warrants. In fact the claim is made by Walter Enders and Todd Sandler, two otherwise unknown authors. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:24, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not an exceptional claim when it comes from professional academics. I have a large amount of academic references to the fact that Irgun and Lehi copied IRA techniques, for instance. The specialist literature on terrorism, if you are familiar with it, highlights the mimicry effect. I can document that a relative of one of the Arabs killed in the bombing later served a sentence for a bombing against Israelis (not Original research, to anticipate). It's not your job or mine to judge RS on a subject as 'speculative', to do so, is to arrogate yourself as a judge of the competence of the scholars concerned, and review as though you were a competent authority the content of their work. As with David Shulman, when you say 'otherwise unknown' by highlighting their lack of a wiki biography, you are only saying you do not know of their work. That is not an argument. Were it so, most articles would be scraped. It is perfectly appropriate to the lead because leads customarily deal with aftermaths, succinctly, just as the Lehi lead notes the aftermath of that group being honoured later, etc.etc. I find your objections therefore wholly arbitrary. Nishidani (talk) 10:42, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Nishidani, I thought we discussed this already and reached a consensus -- #WP:NPOV -- and now I find out that you've changed the agreed upon consensus text and rephrased it in a differnt manner. Being that this is contested material, esp. with it's current phrasing unsupported by the original, I am removing the text from the lead (see WP:LEAD and WP:UNDUE) until we can resolve an agreed upon version on the talk page. That is, a version that we agree upon and you don't chnage a few weeks later.
With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:58, 4 July 2008 (UTC) add link. 11:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

We achieved consensus, it is true. Then systematically our consensual version was eliminated. Why did you not object to that? I hung round for hours waiting for you to note to other editors that this had been discussed, and that you and I had agreed, and no one else objected, to the mention of this. Our consensual version was then successively challenged. I tried, as is my practice, to find a mediation, by shortening the text to meet lead requirements, and satisfy these new objections.

So, since we did obtain consensus, and you acknowledge that this is okay, why don't you restore the text. I'm not to blame for this, Jaakobou. Your fellow editors are to blame. The proper thing for you to do in this case is to restore our text. We agreed to it, no one else challenged it for a while, and now I find the whole text removed. This is extremely irrational. We have as you note already agreed on the page to the prior version. Awaiting your response, and I hope, coherent textual restoration of our consensual version. I am finding the incoherence in policy on consensus deeply troubling here. You and I are the most unlikely people to find consensus, but we managed it with civility, and now with no regard for our work, it is botched and scotched, and not a murmur from the corridors Nishidani (talk) 11:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

As to the copycat, mimesis, imitation effect in terrorism's history, and the way it flows through from the 18th. century, what Walter Laqueur calls the 'echo effect', it is a staple of the academic analysis of terrorism, and before anyone restarts up the claim that this is 'extraordinary' I would seriously advise them, if they are not familiar with the academic cliché, to at least google about. They will find it is a standard element in studies of terrorism. I'm tired of harvesting my own background reading for the lazy, and have more important work to do for wiki that instruct those who edit without studying the subjects they edit.Nishidani (talk) 12:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I second Nishidani's comments. Jaakobou, the polite way would have been to have a discussion here before carrying out any more deletions (and it doesn't look good that you stayed silent while Nishidani was being roughed-upPersonal attack removed. -- ZScarpia (talk) 13:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Please do not engage in personal attacks and other violations of civility. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:43, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear, did my metaphor cross the borderline between forthrightness and incivility? In the definition of what a personal attack is, it says: comments should not be personalized and should be directed at content and actions rather than people. Wouldn't you say that my comment was directed at the actions of you and Amoruso rather than you as individuals? -- ZScarpia (talk) 19:37, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment on article content, not other contributors. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:46, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Content and 'actions', apparently. I was referring to the way that, after Nishidani reached a compromise with him, Jaakobou remained silent while he fought to keep his material in the article. -- ZScarpia (talk) 23:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I've stopped watching this page for a while and my first look into diffs was just today and I didn't like the last one with good reason. We achieved some type of compromise where the "benchmark" notation was listed despite my objection, albeit without Nishidani's WP:OR "inspiration/copycat" interpretation of the text. Nishidani hadn't reverted to a version which we agreed upon, but rather reverted to the version which interprets the source in a manner I disagreed with. I felt this was cleared up in our previous discussion and the (very large) compromise to which I agreed upon and that this edit, in short, broke our consensus and the trust I placed in [to uphold our agreed compromise] when I stopped following every diff on this page. I still find the material to be poorly sourced but am not objecting to the compromise we achieved before. However, please don't misinterpret this lack of objection as acceptance of the "inspiration" interpretation. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

In fact, Nishidani did revert to the compromise version quite a lot of times, before getting fed-up with the struggle. -- ZScarpia (talk) 14:36, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

As I never touched the passage from the moment we agreed on a compromise, and, as ZScarpia corroborates, I protected our agreement by restoring it, before making the modification under pressure you take as a breaking of a trust (that goes two ways), and since you admit you didn't run through all the diffs, I think you should reconsider. People now, a month later, from your side of I/P articles, without consensus building, have challenged it. I would ask you not to confuse this issue. My modification came because our consensus version was subject to challenge. My remarks on mimesis/imitation are here on the talk page, because people removing the text thought this an 'exteraordinary claim' illegitimately judging both the authors of an RS and their content. In making that assertion, they showed their ignorance of the relevant background literature, seen against which Enders and Sanders claim is not 'exceptional' but quite normal.

You have no evidence whatsoever our 'trust' and 'consensus' was broken. The simple fact is that you never defended the text when it was under attack, and even now, as I draw attention to the record, you blame me, and not the editors who disrupted the consensual text. I have remained faithful to the agreement, and I expect you to understand your responsibilities. At this point it is a matter of maintaining one's honour, or word. If you don't restore the consensual version, which would be so much more elegant, I will. By all means join the others who challenged it without discussion, afterwards, and achieve a new consensus to challenge it and chuck it out. But this is a serious question of honouring agreements and rules, not changing signed agreements as the ground shifts to your side. This is called respect for order, method and coeditors. Nishidani (talk) 15:07, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

The entire paragraph from this book that our friend (Nishidani) found, as interesting as it may be, violated WP:WEIGHT for the lead. Economic political analysis and comparisons with other events will always be a contentious issue, and is not directly concerned with the article. Such a paragraph may belong in an article called for example History of bombings etc. It doesn't belong in a lead in this article. I don't mind if it has even an entire section later in the article of course. it seems odd that Nishidani's idea of consensus is that both he and Meteormaker agree while others disagree. Amoruso (talk) 15:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Amoruso, you don't seem to understand what NPOV is about. It means that if there are multiple points of view, each is represented fairly. If you delete material outlining a particular point of view because you don't like it, then you are, in fact, making non-NPOV edits. The stuff that you just deleted bears directly on the subject of the bombing: it stated the importance with which the bombing is commonly viewed in terms of terrorist attacks (and it is commonly viewed as a terrorist attack, even by Jews) and also stated that it inspired other bombings. What's your problem with that? Nishidani was just restoring the final sentence to the form reached as a compromise. Don't you think that you should have discussed what you wanted to change without wading in and making deletions? -- ZScarpia (talk) 15:51, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Amoruso, if you bothered to read back further in the Talk page, you'd see that the consensus was reached between Nishidani and Jaakobou, not Nishidani and Meteormaker. You're going to have to justify deleting all the changes I just made, including changes outside the introduction, other than by making the ridiculous statement that the whole of the last paragraph of the introduction was POV. -- ZScarpia (talk) 16:07, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I see you've clashed with Meteormaker before, by the way. -- ZScarpia (talk) 00:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Amoruso has not checked the record. My original edit had the bare bones of a reference. I am beginning to suspect that when he sees me edit, he goes and reverts on automatic. This was challenged by Jaakobou, who, consulting the source, then expanded it. I challenged his expansion (precisely for fear that it constituted, if expanded so heavily in the lead, Undue weight). We discussed it, and settled on that form (I would still trim it, but, I honour an agreement). So in challenging it on Undue weight, you must take your complaint to Jaakobou, not to me. The rest of your comment is editorializing, and has nothing to do with wiki policy. The form I restored had the benefit of a discussed version achieved consensually between two people who almost are invariably at the extreme ends of the great divide. Therefore, don't touch it when it is restored, until we can sort this out. I am in favour of trimming it back, as I said to Jaakobou originally, there is, in a lead absolutely no need to mention the authors' names and their book. That is what he wanted, I yielded. The proper procedure is to redepart from that agreement, and I hope Jaakobou himself assists me in bringing some order into what risks like being another silly editwar. Nishidani (talk) 15:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

There might have been some confusion on my part concerning the consensus, I'll review the discussion again and won't RV again. No need for paranoid sentiments. Sorry. Point remains there is still undue weight for the mention of this book in the lead, in short or long. ZScarpia for someone who knows so much about wikipedia policies you should be careful not to call someone in a content dispute a vandal. I'll let it go this time. Amoruso (talk) 16:41, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Also you should know that wiki articles can't be used as sources. That's pretty basic. You should read the pillars of wikipedia again before teaching people about WP:NPOV. "For those who view it as terrorism, it was one of the most lethal terrorist attacks of the 20th century" is the most 'weaselly' sentence I've ever read. Terrorist is usually a word to avoid. Amoruso (talk) 16:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank-you for the advice about using wiki articles as sources, though there doesn't seem to be anything about it in the Five pillars as you suggest. So how would you like the sentence expressed? Would you prefer "the attack is viewed as one of the most lethal terrorist attacks of the 20th century," which is true, but might be taken to imply that it is viewed as such universally. I think you need to check out exactly what weasel words are: "weasel words are deliberately misleading or ambiguous elements of language used to avoid making a straightforward statement while simultaneously generating the illusion that a direct, clear form communication is being utilized. This type of language is used to deceive, distract, or manipulate an audience." How does what I wrote fit that description? And, by the way, I may have referred in my edit summary to the wholesale reversion of a lot of changes I'd made as vandalism, but I didn't refer to you, contrary to what you said in yours, as a vandal. -- ZScarpia (talk) 17:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

A person who engages in vandalism is a vandal I believe so it's the same thing, and you should have realized it wasn't vandalism. Vandalism is blanking a page and saying "HA HA" for example. We all make this mistake but you seemed to be very experienced in wikipedia doctrines and policies. Terrorist is WP:WTA. One of the compromises was to use the word only to organizations designated by the U.N, U.S, EU. I suggest rewriting the sentence without using the word terrorism to begin with. Amoruso (talk) 17:24, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's too unreasonable to refer to reverting a whole series of changes rather than just the thing that is objected too as vandalism. Nobody is calling the Irgun a terrorist organisation. In any case, when the Irgun was alive and kicking, the EU didn't exist (though, since Begin was behinds attempts to murder Konrad Adenauer, among others, maybe the EU should list the Irgun retrospectively), the UN had only just been born and the US probably wasn't maintaining lists of terrorist organisations (though you might want to talk to the FBI about what they they on their site [1]). What WP:WTA says is the following:

There is no word that should never be used in a Wikipedia article ....

and

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.

Since the King David Hotel bombing is widely discussed in 'authoritative' sources dealing with terrorism, I don't think that it is unreasonable to talk about it from that point of view in the article, so long as it isn't stated as a fact that the bombing was terrorism, which is why I wrote the sentence you objected to the way that I did. -- ZScarpia (talk) 00:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

IMO, you should focus on "As alternatives, consider less value-laden words such as insurgent, paramilitary, or partisan" if you want to maintain that sentence in the lead. Right now it looks awful. By authoritative sources they don't mean a popular/history book. They mean someone like the EU. Amoruso (talk) 18:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

And how exactly are you supposed to say that the bombing is viewed as one of the most lethal terrorist attacks of the 20th century without using the word terrorist? I'm sure that if the intention had been to make the WP:WTA section mean what you say it means, the authors could very well have written it to state that; as it is, it doesn't. Perhaps you need to focus on the phrase, "there is no word that should never be used in a Wikipedia article." I don't think that my source fits the description popular/history hook. In any case, it's not just one history book or souce which describes the King David Hotel bombing as terrorism, it's just about every one which is written by someone who isn't a partisan of the Zionist right-wing, and that obviously includes ones written by the Zionist left. -- ZScarpia (talk) 18:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you're being a little bit unkind describing my sentence as looking awful when you've got so many real pearls lower down in the article to have a go at. -- ZScarpia (talk) 18:41, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Historians are simply not authoritative sources to call the word terrorist, or else it would be used all the time in every article. They're not authoritative, they're writers. The authorities are authoritative, that's the point there. Your question - I'll simply not use that in the lead. It's undue WP:WEIGHT for the lead. And if did, which I wouldn't, I would advise you to consider less value-laden words such as insurgent, paramilitary, or partisan and then combine with the word attacks. Amoruso (talk) 18:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that historians might disagree that only politicians or bureaucrats can be authorities on what was or wasn't terrorism. The fact is that the bombing is widely seen as one of the most important, not insurgent, not paramilitary, not partisan, but terrorist attacks and I think that its widespread perceived importance should be mentioned, though, of course, mentioned in a way which keeps the NPOV balance of the article. By the way, there is no WP:WEIGHT section anymore; if you try to go to it, you just get redirected to the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view section. -- ZScarpia (talk) 19:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

removed this btw "Subsequently, the section in English, but not that in Hebrew, was changed." Not referenced, not encyclopedic or important detail. If it's a deadly terrorist attack it's also a deadly 'insert synonym here' attack. Wikipedia:Undue weight. It's a section within NPOV. Also relevant WP:LEAD. Amoruso (talk) 19:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

You know what Amoruso, I'm beginning to gain the impression that you don't like me. So far, I'm managing to resist the urge to go round deleting bits off your edits, but its hard. I restored the text and put in a reference. I think that it is important to state that only the meaning of part of the sign was changed, otherwise people will gain a misleading impression. Your logic is lacking: insurgent, paramilitary, and partisan aren't synonyms for terrorist in this case, but if you manage to think of one, do let me know. -- ZScarpia (talk) 20:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

This is what WP:LEAD says:

The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should establish context, summarize the most important points, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describe its notable controversies, if there are any.

Wouldn't you say that outlining the widespread perception of the bombing as one of the most lethal terrorist attacks of the 20th century is doing something to explain why the bombing is interesting or notable? -- ZScarpia (talk) 20:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank-you for explaining where to find the WP:WEIGHT section. This is what it says:

NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all.

I would say that I was outlining a significant viewpoint, one that is published by many 'reliable' sources, and a pretty prominent one at that. -- ZScarpia (talk) 21:05, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Amoruso, I think I'm beginning to see where you're coming from. I see you inserted the following in the article in September, 2006:

......... [Deleted by: ZScarpia (talk) 10:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)]

I do get the impression that, back in 2006, you were rather confused about the difference between Wikipedia and the Eretz Israel Forever site [2]. -- ZScarpia (talk) 13:01, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 1

Zscarpira, your PERSONAL ATTACKS have reached a very high point and I won't be dragged to it. I have nothing against you and I don't dislike you. I haven't formed any opinion and this issue is not important for me at all btw. Your paragraphs you inserted have ironically proven that I adhere by WP:NPOV. These paragraphs were a result of good solid cooperation between I and a user who is very much against Israel. The point of the paragraphs was to show that the myth that the British didn't evacuate because "they don't take orders from Jews" is NOT true. So you proved that I'm a WP:NPOV editor unlike you. Good job. Amoruso (talk) 15:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

This is what the source said:

"To prevent a diplomatic incident, and over the objections of MK Reuven Rivlin (Likud), who brought the matter up in the Knesset, the text was changed - especially in the English version.

In English, the text now reads, "Warning phone calls has [sic] been made to the hotel, The Palestine Post and the French Consulate, urging the hotel's occupants to leave immediately. The hotel was not evacuated and after 25 minutes the bombs exploded… to the Irgun's regret, 92 persons were killed." The count of 92 includes Avraham Abramovitz, the IZL fighter who was killed inside the hotel. But only the Hebrew version makes that clear."

So why does ZScarpia say "Subsequently the English version was changed but the Hebrew version wasn't"? When it says both were changed but ESPECIALLY the English version? Don't insert this manipulative and false sentence in the paragraph again and don't go into WP:SOAPBOX and personal attacks or threats like you did above to cloud that. I don't think you had bad faith when you inserted the sentence and you didn't realize it was manipulative, but it is. Amoruso (talk) 15:54, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

The difference between the two versions is that the English say 92 were killed and the Hebrew says 91 were killed, because an Etzel member died too. Cheers, and a good day, Amoruso (talk) 15:56, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank-you for pointing out my error, the Hebrew version was changed too. But, I believe that the differences between the Hebrew and English versions after the changes amount to more than the casualty count, otherwise why would the source report Sarah Agassi ('Yael') as saying subsequently:

I don't care about the English, I only care about the Hebrew, because that's our language. And the Hebrew tells the truth.

I included examples of your edits to the article to show that they include examples of things that you have criticised others for. NPOV editing means fairly representing all major points of view, giving each a proper weighting. I think that you're deluding yourself if you think that's what your edits do. I think that if your main sources are Begin and Katz, which is the impression your edits give, you don't stand a chance of being able to write neutrally. Look back through the Talk page to refresh your memory; I think that you'll find there wasn't a lot of 'good solid co-operation' involved.

By the way, the comment about not liking me was supposed to be tongue-in-cheek. -- ZScarpia (talk) 18:10, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

The examples proved exactly the opposite of what you wanted to prove. Some of them weren't even mine. And one of the examples I wrote was anti Begin - it refuted the version that the British made a sort of an antisemitic comment. I'm quite used to childish personal petty attacks and heinous accusations from the likes of Nishidani, but I don't expect much of him. It's also a problem discussing with users who openly support the destruction of Israel. But with you it's not the case so why not like. Anyway, to be on topic, I think that he meant that the Hebrew version mentions the Etzel fighter, although we can't be sure - the source at least doesn't say that. Cheers, Amoruso (talk) 20:43, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

We'll have to differ over what the examples prove. Having looked back at the changes you made, I accept that some of the text isn't your original work, which absolves you from blame for some of the style problems, but, in the cases where you weren't the originator, it is all material that you thought necessary to add back into the article after it was deleted.

The example which you say is anti-Begin isn't; what it is, is Katz putting the blame on to the Haganah for the "We don't take orders from the Jews" story. Bethell investigated where the story came from and found that Katz's version was untrue; Begin was the first to spread the story. Also, Katz's explanation for why the Haganah supposedly developed the story is ridiculous. The simple explanation for why Shaw survived was because his office was in the south-east corner of the south wing and it was the south-west corner that collapsed, which was explained on the front pages of the newspapers immediately after the explosion. Don't you think that Katz, who, being a journalist who had a special reason to read the newspapers in the aftermath, knew that?

I disagree with your characterisation of Nishidani. Perhaps if you hadn't been quite so quick or keen with the Undo button or your deletion key, and perhaps if you had sounded a little less curt or dismissive in your comments, you wouldn't have got the reaction you did. I always think that it's better to edit text rather than delete it out of hand. Personally I haven't seen anyone here advocating the destruction of Israel. Hopefully, even if they would like Israel to change, nobody wants to see massacres taking place or columns of refugees hitting the roads. Perhaps some of the people you're locking horns with think that, in your desire to defend Israel, you're going so far that you're trying to defend the indefensible.

The source says that both versions on the sign say that the death count was 92, but only the Hebrew one explains that one of those was one of the bombers (who, not that it may make a difference, wasn't killed by the bomb and didn't die at the hotel). It implies that there are other differences in the meanings of the two versions because it says that the Hebrew one wasn't modified to the same extent as the English one and because 'Yael', a former Irun member who was involved in the bombing, still approved of the Hebrew version after the changes were made.

-- ZScarpia (talk) 02:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I realise that I was, at the very least, pushing the civilness envelope, so I've edited my 5th of July comment. I've also edited the article's introduction and hope it reads a bit better now. -- ZScarpia (talk) 10:46, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

There's quite a bit of red ink on links that will never develop. On aesthetic grounds I think unless the person has a known and knowable life, they should not be linked. So goes for Buildings of minor note etc. I have eliminated ref to Begin's future career. At this point, one would end up noting everyone's future career, Sneh's son's in Lebanon, and as military governor of the West Bank in 1987 etc.etc. It looks like an editorial prod towards 'irony', and not quite proper because of this.Nishidani (talk) 20:23, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

It was me who removed the note about the Irgun having been led by Begin at the time of the bombing from the introduction. I did that because the note had become ambiguous after an edit and seemed to be incorrectly implying that Begin had led the attack. I'd been thinking about adding it back, in a sentence of its own to remove the ambiguity. It's the kind of information that people may feel is notable enough to be at the head of the article, it was displayed there for a long time and, sooner or later, I suspect someone will add it back anyway. I'm quite happy to let someone else make the decision, though. As far as links for things like the David Brothers Building is concerned, I did think afterwards that I'd made a mistake putting some of the ones I added in. If they're still there the next time I do an edit, I'll remove them. -- ZScarpia (talk) 20:46, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm only going to comment on the on topic issue and not the off topic remarks. Obviously what I said didn't relate to here in the first place. I see you clarified the source about the plaque. I think it's not very interesting info and not encyclopedic, and shouldn't have been expanded. But I won't fight for it to be removed. You're wrong about the Katz issue. He never blamed the Haganah here. That statement about the Haganah radio is one that existed even before, it's immaterial. Katz is saying that Shaw was discredited because he stayed alive, and he speculates that this is the motive behind the allegation. Then he says what he believes was the reason. It has nothing to do with the Haganah. Katz knows that Begin believed this story. He translated his book "Days of Fire" to English. Of course Shaw survived because of other reasons - Katz doesn't claim otherwise, in fact that is his point, that this was an untrue allegation. Amoruso (talk) 22:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I've just rechecked Bethell and Silver's books and found that my memory failed a little bit. The books say that Katz is wrong that Begin got the story from Haganah radio. But it was someone from the Haganah, Israel Galili, rather than someone from the Irgun, who told Begin the story. Galili had heard it from Boris Guriel, a senior Haganah intelligence officer, who said that he had heard it from Associated Press correspondent Carter Davidson. Nobody knows where Carter Davidson heard it from (he died in 1958 and can't be asked) or how anyone would be party to hearing a conversation going on in the Chief Secretary's office. The point at issue, though, is that you said the text you'd added showed that you're an NPOV editor because it is an anti-Begin story. Really? A story showing that Begin was misled by the Haganah? -- ZScarpia (talk) 02:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's anti Begin in the sense it's anti irgun and anti the whole theory. In the interview you cited, they repeat it. It's a Begin story and a strong case FOR the Jewish side of the story insinuating that the British guy was an antisemite of sort and thus the attack seems more moral/less immoral. I think that's pretty obvious. If he didn't say it, it damages that angle. Like I also said, it has nothing to do about being misled by the Haganah. That was never the intention nor is it appearing from the text. Nor is being misled by the Haganah a pro Begin issue. Begin always repeated this. This is getting trivial. Amoruso (talk) 02:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Amoruso, I wonder if you have difficulty understanding what I say as much as I do what you say. We seem to be using a language that sounds the same but means different things. I find some of the things you write a bit like an optical illusion where, if you move your head a tiny amount, you see things very differently. I trip over what to me are discontinuities in the logical flow of your arguments and end up having to infer a great deal in order to make sense of what you're saying. That applies particularly to what you wrote about the "I give orders to Jews" story, where, once you told me that it is anti-Begin, I thought it had a different meaning to what I first thought it had. But I'm still flumoxed; what you're saying is hard to make sense of. All I can say is, that if you think what you wrote is anti-Begin, when you write something pro-Begin it's truly going to be a sight to behold. I edited my 6th of July message because I thought afterwards that it was a bit ungentlemanly to invite others to ridicule what you'd earlier inserted in the article (albeit some of it had been written by others and you were re-inserting it). It sounds as though you couldn't see anything wrong with it, though. Presumably the same works in reverse and it puzzles you that I can't see what is wrong with what I write. -- ZScarpia (talk) 13:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I do have difficulty understanding what you're saying. Of course the passage from Katz is anti Begin, is anti the Irgun's line and anti Jewish there. It's only a small issue but it IS anti Begin. I think it's very obvious why, and I can't explain it better than I did. "I don't get orders from Jews" is an antisemitic comment and discrediting this official line that Begin and the Irgun held is very Pro British and anti the Irgun. If you can't see it, I suggest you read it again. I wonder what's so difficult in understanding this. Very baffling. I'll say it again then: "The line "I don't get orders from Jews" is an antisemitic comment. It makes the British look bad. It changes the focus as it insinuates that because of antisemitism or hibris, the British didn't save themselves despite the early warnings. Hence, the Irgun was the good side in the whole story. Discredting this statement, which Begin always repeated, means that the British weren't antisemitic nor cocky, and that this story is malicious and unjustly changes the focus of the discussion. How more negative Begin and Irgun can proving this be then? I hope you understand now. Anyway, it's off topic but your comments and accusations here make no sense whatsoever. It seems as if you just want to argue. Amoruso (talk) 13:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Initially, I'd thought that there wasn't any point continuing with this conversation, but, since most of your don't take orders from Jews edit is still in the article, I changed my mind. Presumably, what you wanted to say in the article is that Katz has dismissed the version of the King David Hotel bombing story that has somebody British, or John Shaw in particular, refusing to heed a warning that may have been passed on to them because they say they don't take orders from Jews? That would have agreed with what the books by Bethell and Silver say. What you've written, though, comes across differently: it sounds as though Katz is saying that the Haganah version of the don't take orders from Jews story may be dismissed. First, you present Begin's version of the don't take orders from Jews story. You then say 'however' and present the Haganah version of the don't take orders from Jews story, which differs in that it specifically identifies John Shaw as the official giving the response and, further, says that he forbade anyone from leaving the building. Next, you say that Katz dismissed that version, without specifying what it was a version of, before detailing the reasons that Katz gave for why a story featuring John Shaw, who only appears in the Haganah version of the don't give orders to Jews story, may have arisen. The overall effect is, as I said, to make it look as though you're saying that Katz was dismissing the Haganah's version of the don't take orders story from Jews story, rather than the whole don't take orders from Jews version of the King David Hotel bombing story. You compounded that in your original edit by saying that Begin claimed that the British were warned three times, rather than that three warnings were sent (to different destinations). The point of NPOV editing, which you claim yours was, is to fairly represent all the main viewpoints. It's goes beyond being willing to include admissions from people whose viewpoint you share that there may not be any justification for what they've said. What you've presented is an incomplete description of something, viewed solely from one side. You've presented the most anodyne version of what was said on the Irgun side, that an unspecified British official refused to evacuate the hotel because he didn't take orders from Jews. Some Irgun-supporting sites have elaborated on the story so that they have John Shaw saying he doesn't take orders from Jews, telling people not to leave, locking the doors and then getting as far away as possible so as to save his own skin. In an NPOV version, there would have been a critique of Katz's reasoning. The reason why John Shaw didn't die is simple and was widely published. Also, the King David Hotel was very far from being a fortress, as must have been known by anyone who visited or used the hotel, including the members of the Irgun who cased it out and including the people who worked there, who criticised Shaw for not strongly beefing-up the security. The critique could have included other reasons why the British might not have expected an attack, including the facts that, up until that point, the Haganah had been making sure that nothing like an attack on the hotel took place and that there was probably a British mole in the Irgun. An NPOV version might mention that Shaw sued a London Jewish newspaper for repeating the story and it was withdrawn without any defence being made. An NPOV version might have mentioned one of the possible reasons why the story was spread, that is, that it was just a nice piece of propaganda. Finally, an NPOV version of the story would have mentioned that nobody who had been in the hotel has ever verified any aspect of the don't take orders from Jews story. -- ZScarpia (talk) 18:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Any mention that Shaw hasn't said what he was accused of saying is an anti Begin/Irgun/Jewish edit, and a user who writes it while presenting also pro Jewish edits on other instances is obviously an WP:NPOV editor. Any elaborations and further analysis is interesting, but not relevant to the discussion. Amoruso (talk) 19:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

You're saying "pro-Jewish" as if every Jew were a terrorist supporter. MeteorMaker (talk) 21:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

That does sound a bit like the NPOV-editing equivalent of the kind of logic being used by someone who says, "I'm not racist because I have white/brown/black/yellow friends." Isn't it a bad sign when you start thinking of comments as pro-my-viewpoint or anti-my-viewpoint? If you're going to view things in that way, in given situations, shouldn't you be trying to ensure that you present all the anti and all the pro viewpoints fairly?

Some measures of NPOV editing:

*"The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly."

*"Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves."

*"NPOV requires views to be represented without bias. All editors and all sources have biases—what matters is how we combine them to create a neutral article. One can think of unbiased writing as the fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate, including the mutual perspectives and the published evidence. When editorial bias toward one particular point of view can be detected, the article needs to be fixed."

*"The neutral point of view is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject."

*"If we are going to characterize disputes neutrally, we should present competing views with a consistently fair and sensitive tone."

......Personally, I need to work on the last one in particular. -- ZScarpia (talk) 23:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, if describing how Katz, the Irgun's propaganda chief, dismissed the don't take orders story is anti-Irgun, would describing how Condoleeza Rice admitted that errors had been made in Iraq be anti-American? -- ZScarpia (talk) 01:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm tired of this argument. The inclusion of the sentence was obviously pro-british and anti-jewish (basically, yes, all jews were pro evicting the British at this point of history). Your analogy could be correct, but we're talking about the inclusion of Katz's(the word you wanted is spokesman) quote, not the actual quote. A more correct analogy would be an inclusion of an explanation from Condoleeza saying for example that Bin Laden didn't really mean harm to the americans. The inclusion of it by a user would show an WP:NPOV from a user who is believed to Pro american, absolutely, yes. Amoruso (talk) 00:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

A comment on your last statement: actually, many Jews, including David Ben Gurion, didn't want to evict the British at that point of history. They wanted the British to stay until the Jews were strong enough to stand against the non-Jewish Palestinians. What was at stake was persuading or forcing the British to relax the immigration quotas, which they didn't want to do for fear of driving the Arabs into the Soviet camp and out of fear of provoking another Arab rebellion. By the way, if you look back, you'll see that I was saying that you were guilty of a lot of things you accused other people of. I listed some of your inclusions so that other people could form their own opinion about your editing. You seem to have jumped to the conclusion that I was speaking specifically about your neutrality. -- ZScarpia (talk) 19:00, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Spokesman? And Joseph Goebbels was a 'spokesman' for the Nazi Party? In all the sources I have (Silver etc.) which refer to the role of Katz in the Irgun, it calls him its propaganda chief or head of English propaganda. All that is, apart from the article on him in Wikipedia, where someone felt fit to traduce the original quote, which called him the Irgun's propaganda chief, so that it now states that, you've guessed it, he was a spokesman. Such squeamishness! -- ZScarpia (talk) 16:20, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

If you want to define content as, for example, anti or pro-American, wouldn't a better definition of anti-American content be something whose source is anti, rather than pro, American. -- ZScarpia (talk) 16:20, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Abitrary break 2

Amoruso:

"The Irgun, although not hesitating to use force against the British, usually took pride in giving warning where innocent lives were at stake."

A fact? Or an opinion? #

Lead-like or not lead-like: "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should establish context, summarize the most important points, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describe its notable controversies, if there are any?" (# "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves. By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute.")

Regards -- ZScarpia (talk) 00:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the unusual speculation by individual and not particularly notable sources from the lead. Please stick to widely held, mainstream views for the lead, and keep the singular opinions for the body of the text, if anywhere. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:43, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

personal attack removed Please read back through the talk page for the justifications for why the material was there and why it was where it was. I disagree that the text represents non-mainstream speculation. In fact, the reason that it was there was an attempt to ensure that the mainstream viewpoing was represented. -- ZScarpia (talk) 07:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Please Comment on content, not on the contributor.. And specifically, the content of this article. I fail to see how a singular opinion represents the "mainstream viewpoint". Jayjg ^(talk) 22:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The mainstream view is that the bombing was a pivotal terrorist attack. The previous state of the article represents the results of trying to present that viewpoint while defending it against those, on the one hand, who would like to see the word terrorism plastered all over the article and those, on the other, who can't bear to see the word associated with the Irgun and who, if they can't remove all references to it, will try to push them as far down the article as they can. -- ZScarpia (talk) 10:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

It's the "mainstream view"? Good, find other sources that back that up, it should be easy. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

In addition, as remarked earlier, the objections are based on subject editorial judgements against academic sources. It's not our job to dispute sources like this, or cherrypick them according to personal preferences. Nishidani (talk) 12:06, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

No, these objections are based on the fact that the opinion appears to be held by only two individuals. Please comply with policy. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Jayjg, try doing Internet searches on the authors of the sources that you are referring to as individual and not particularly notable. You will find that D C Rapoport, Walter Enders and Todd Sandler are academics who have have each written a number of academic books which have been produced by such publishers as Cambridge University Press and John Wiley. You should be able to find lots of citations for their works on terrorism.

Taking just one example, Todd Sanders, he is described by the publisher of The Political Economy of Terrorism in the following way:

Todd Sandler holds the Robert R. and Katheryn A. Dockson Professorship of International Relations and Economics at the University of Southern California. He has written or edited nineteen books, including Global Collective Action, Economic Concepts for the Social Sciences, The Political Economy of NATO (with Keith Kartley) and Global Challenges: An Approach to Economic, Political, and Environmental Problems, all published by Cambridge University Press, as well as over two hundred journal articles in economics and political science. Professor Sandlerâs work on terrorism dates back to 1983. In 2003 he was the co-recipient (with Walter Enders) of the National Academy of Sciences Award for Behavioral Research Relevant to the Prevention of Nuclear War.

He sounds as though he's recognised for knowing a thing or two about terrorism. The book is described in the following way:

Presenting a widely accessible approach to the study of terrorism, this volume combines economic methods with political analysis and realities. It applies economic methodology--theoretical and empirical--with political analysis to the study of domestic and transnational terrorism, to provide a qualitative and quantitative investigation of terrorism in a balanced up-to-date presentation for students, policymakers, researchers, and the general reader. Included are historical aspects of the phenomenon, a discussion of watershed events, the rise of modern-day terrorism, examination of current trends, the dilemma of liberal democracies, evaluation of counterterrorism, and analysis of hostage incidents.

It sounds like a pretty thorough kind of book to me. Note that it says that it "combines economic methods with political analysis and realities." It also sounds to me as though they've produced more than "unusual specualtion."

In the Lead section, you'll also notice that Professor Arnold Blumberg's 218 page, History of Israel is also given as a source. Now try doing an Internet search for Arnold Blumberg. You won't find very much. But, what you'll find (besides some information about his rather dubious right-wing Zionist views) is the following review by P.R. Kumaraswamy of The Hebrew University of Jerusalem of the History of Israel which says things like:

In his introduction the author maintains that the book is aimed at those "readers seriously interested in the origin and development of the modern State of Israel." (p. xiii) Unfortunately, however, the book is anything but serious. The author has taken upon himself to discuss too many issues and subjects to provide a serious treatment of any of them. The entire book contains no references and the narration lacks analytical depth.

Furthermore the book is riddled with factual inaccuracies.

On numerous occasions the book reads more like a badly written publicity folder for promoting tourism than a serious scholarly work.

In short, The History of Israel is anything but a serious and scholarly work.

I think you're being a little bit selective about which sources you choose to regard as acceptable. Why choose to move what you did when there are many badly or un-sourced statements in the rest of the article and, for years, it has contained outrageously false information. -- ZScarpia (talk) 19:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. Who wrote that bio and book description? Also, more importantly, who else holds those views? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

You'd have to ask Cambridge University Press who wrote the bio and book descriptions. You can get an independent review [here] (if you're willing to pay for it). A review on Amazon.com is [here]. A mention from the University of Southern California is [here]. A mention from the University of Alabama is [here]. A description in the Cambridge University Press catalogue is [here]. Todd Sandler's homepage is [here]. Since the King David Hotel bombing is widely regarded as the seminal event in modern terrorism, I should think quite a lot of people believe that it inspired later terrorist attacks. -- ZScarpia (talk) 23:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Great, then you'll have no difficulty finding "quite a lot of people" who support that view. Reliable sources, please. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Do you want a show of hands? Jayjg, you know that if I turned other sources up, you'd only start questioning their notability / individuality / reliability / relevance etc. In the meantime, I think that I've shown that the current set of sources are different from the way you characterised them. -- ZScarpia (talk) 00:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

No, I'd like a show of reliable sources. Please provide them. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I've ordered a copy of Thurston Clarke's book. Let's see what he has to say about it. How about getting stuck-in to clean-up the rest of the article? The sentence about the bombing being a major factor in the British factor to relinquish the Mandate is a good place to start; how many reliable sources (and I think Irgun ones might be a bit iffy in this case) do you think you'd find to support that one, I wonder? -- ZScarpia (talk) 01:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The source should definitely be in the article. In the section "Reactions". It's just one source who claimed this, as scholarly as it may be, it's still undue WP:WEIGHT for the lead. The article deals mainly with the incident, not an analytic seminar about its consequences. Amoruso (talk) 00:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

And so it is in the article, in the body of the text, where it belongs. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:56, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Amoruso, just a gentle reminder that you haven't answered the questions I asked above yet. And I think you better find a better source for your last insert. Oh, you better try and find more than one;Personal attach removed -- ZScarpia (talk) 01:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Personal attack removed -- ZScarpia (talk) 01:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Please comment on article content, not other editors. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Please go and check out what the definition of a personal attack is. Editors may comment on content and actions. Explain how saying, "I'm disappointed in you. How unsporting. I definitely hope you'll renew my trust in your impariality by cleaning-up all the dodgy stuff in the rest of the article now," is a personal attack and how it rises above the level of anything on this talkpage that you've chosen not to delete. Perhaps you've mistaken the tone in which it was written. By unsporting, I meant that, after all the effort I put into discussing things on this Talk page, you would actually give me the chance to find more sources before deleting anything. -- ZScarpia (talk) 07:48, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Article Talk: pages are for discussing article content, not other editors. Please focus your efforts on finding sources for your claims. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:20, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Amoruso, you're jumping the gun. What you mean is that you'd like to think that it's just one source who claimed it. [Material removed by Amoruso at 14:02 on 9 July 2008, giving as reason that it was a personal attack on him -- ZScarpia (talk) 21:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)] -- ZScarpia (talk) 01:23, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't attribute claims to other editors that they have not made. Instead, focus on article content, and find sources for your claims. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:20, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Amoruso 00:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC) - "It's just one source who claimed this, as scholarly as it may be ..." -- ZScarpia (talk) 20:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Jayjg, please stop deleting legitimate comments from this talk page. Please note the following:

• "Article talk pages are intended for discussion of editing and sources cited in the article they are attached to. In the course of such discussion, such dialogue may properly include information about editing behavior."
• "Personal attacks do not include civil language used to describe an editor's actions."
• "When there are disagreements about content, referring to other editors is not always a personal attack."
• There is no bright-line rule about what constitutes a personal attack as opposed to constructive discussion."

Despite repeated requests to check on the definition of what a personal attack is, you've continued to assert that only the content of articles and not the actions or behaviour of editors should be discussed on talk pages. From the quotes, you should be able to see that, provided abusive language isn't used, that isn't true.

Further:

• "The remove personal attacks guideline (and the application thereof) is controversial. It has often been abused by malefactors, and may not have community consensus. It should, at most, be interpreted strictly and used sparingly."
• There is no official policy regarding when or whether most personal attacks should be removed, although it has been a topic of substantial debate. Removing unquestionable personal attacks from your own user talk page is rarely a matter of concern. On other talk pages, especially where such text is directed against you, removal should typically be limited."

In no way have you been applying the removal guideline on this talk page strictly or sparingly and all the deletions you have made concerned you. You are therefore in breach of these guidelines.

In a recent edit of the Academic boycotts of Israel talkpage, you referred to another editor: "One wonders why CJCurrie wouldn't target far more egregious examples of link-spamming from truly non-encyclopedic propaganda sites ..." Apparently, then, you've been applying one rule for yourself and a different one for me.

I expect you to rectify your mistakes. Please restore the text that you've deleted. Quickly. -- ZScarpia (talk) 20:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment on content, not on the contributor; and of course, those weren't even comments on editor behavior, they were pejorative speculations and comments about your feelings regarding me. Feel free to remove that other comment, if you feel it violates WP:CIVIL. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:16, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Then up the winding arbitration road we'll wend our way ... -- ZScarpia (talk) 07:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

As someone with a great deal of experience in this area, I can assure you that arbitration is the last step in dispute resolution, not the first one. One should go through earlier steps of dispute resolution; in this case, I've asked for a Wikipedia:Third opinion on the matter. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:16, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I did say "arbitration road" (meaning arbitration in the broad sense), not "arbitration". What's the correct term? Conflict resolution? -- ZScarpia (talk) 08:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, "dispute resolution". -- ZScarpia (talk) 08:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Vassyana removed the KDHB talkpage item from the Third Opinion list. His given reason was that "third opinion is not for behavioral disputes". My interpretation of that is that Third Opinion is for resolving article content, rather than talkpage disputes. It doesn't say that anywhere as far as I can see, though. The only requirement given for something to be listed is that it should be a dispute between two editors only, which is what we have. Since we're both happy to try to resolve things by seeking a third opinion, perhaps we should point that out to Vassyana and ask for a clarification of the Third Opinion rules. I suppose that the next step would be Requesting a Comment or Informal Mediation -- ZScarpia (talk) 08:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Left a comment on Vassyana's Talk page asking for advise on what the appropriate initial place to go for resolution of this conflict would be (Link to the Third Opinion page where a request for conflict resolution was placed). -- ZScarpia (talk) 16:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Amoruso, since you've been making claims about your neutrality, pointing out the political tendentiousness of your sources is a legitimate thing to do. Please restore the text that you deleted. Also, before deleting comments on the grounds of their being a personal attack, you might like to revisit some of your earlier comments, including the one about Nishidani: "I'm quite used to childish personal petty attacks and heinous accusations from the likes of Nishidani, but I don't expect much of him." -- ZScarpia (talk) 21:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Copy-editing

I've recently made a change to the lead which was reverted without addressing my concerns. I've readmitted the changes[3] and make note that I don't see the logic behind repetitive use of the same structures (e.g. operating <-> operatives) and generic descriptions when there are more accurate ones (e.g. Attack <-> deadly bomb strike). I'm keeping an open mind for an explanation though if there is a desire to make one. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

As you'll probably have noticed, there has been quite a lot of editing of the Lead since your last edit. Personally, I prefer the word 'members' over 'operatives' too. Since the attack is called the King David Hotel Bombing, I think that mentioning that it was a 'bomb' strike is a bit redundant. In the first sentence, if it had been non-deadly, I think that would have been worth mentioning, but as it is, it wasn't. As the next sentence mentions that it was the most deadly attack during the Mandate, I don't think it is worth mentioning in the first sentence that it was a deadly attack. The word 'attack' is used right through the rest of the article, including elsewhere in the Lead, so I think, unless you want to change the word used throughout the article, there's not much point getting too worried about its use in the first sentence. In my part of the world, when used in a military sense as it is here, the word 'attack' doesn't carry any negative connotations. The word 'strike', though, could be read as being non-neutral. Also, to my ear, the use of the word 'strike' sounds a bit clunky. Could you explain your preference for the word, please? I think that the date of the attack should be in the initial sentence rather than the following one, which should only be about the fact that the attack was the most deadly on the Mandate administration. You sound a bit upset about your wording being changed without discussion. But, presumably you're expecting that the people whose wording you have changed without discussion should just accept it as how life is on Wikipedia? -- ZScarpia (talk) 16:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

And I'm a bit non-plussed about your title, "Copy-editing." It sounds like a naughty thing to do, but as far as I can see, without doing a thorough and rigorous investigation, the only one who has been copy-editing in the Lead is you-hoo. (Strikeout done by ZScarpia (talk) - I've found out what copy-editing means in the Wikipedia sense) -- ZScarpia (talk) 17:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, hopefully I've answered your "concerns." Your turn to answer mine? -- ZScarpia (talk) 17:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I see that user 66.122.184.26 has just "readmitted" his changes, too. Perhaps he's someone else who feels that his concerns haven't been addressed. -- ZScarpia (talk) 18:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm a bit exhausted today but I appreciate the civil discourse and will try to address your notes, which seem very reasonable upon first examination, tomorrow. Do me a favour and leave the anon. IP a note that a discussion was opened on the talk page. Would be a shame to treat him badly or "ignore" him just because he's new. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be a bit of an IP address edit war going on. It might be better to just let them get on with it. I've already reverted 66.122.184.26's changes a couple of times, so he or she might not be be up for a bit of civil discourse with me. Bye. -- ZScarpia (talk) 21:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Substituting the word 'assault' for 'attack', how does the following grab you:

The King David Hotel bombing was an assault on the headquarters of the British Mandatory authorities of Palestine, which were located in the King David Hotel in Jerusalem. It was carried out on the 22nd of July, 1946, by the Irgun, an armed Jewish group which was attempting to force the British to leave Palestine. The assault was the deadliest against the British in Palestine during the Mandate period (1920-1948).

-- ZScarpia (talk) 23:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

It's an improvement and as far as I'm concerned you can add it now. However, something there is incorrect and I would not want the Irgun description to last long-term. Best I'm aware the reasons for the attack (btw, a background section is glaringly missing from the article) were the arrest of some 3000 Jewish people along with some highly sensitive documents that the Israelis wanted destroyed before the information gets into the wrong hands. At least, that's the version of the story I'm aware of. I just thought that we should probably look for a word with a "stealth"/"saboteur" subtext. I was going to add "commando" to the mix of subtext, but it probably doesn't apply since the operation is considered a terrorist style attack. You can add the text in the meantime, but we should probably iron out an even better one.

Oh, the Irgun -- best I'm aware -- were mostly concentrating on "doing whatever it takes" so that the Jews win/not-lose. That includes "retribution"/copying the Arab random attacks on civilians as well as operations against the British who were very disruptive to the Jews trying to defend themselves (for fairly understandable political reasons).

Hmm, if you have other suggestions I'll give them a look. I need more time to iron-out my thoughts on this paragraph to make a cohesive response :D

Cheers, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 04:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

The description of the Irgun was intended to be just that, not an explanation of the reasons for the attack. Perhaps changing it to read that the Irgun was 'one' of the groups trying to force the British to leave Palestine would make taht clear. In a recent major edit of the Lead section, I left out any description of the Irgun, thinking it better to just let any readers who didn't know who the Irgun was to follow the link. But somebody else preferred to have the 'militant Zionist group' description in there and added it back in. I don't want to impose my views by removing the description again, but on the other hand, I'm not very keen on the way 'militant Zionist group' sounds, which is why I was trying to suggest an alternative.

In my opinion, the Irgun just wanted to hit major British targets. Besides a lot of other buildings, Paglin had already tried to hit the hotel once before. Members of the Haganah said later that the reason they wanted the attack was to strike a blow in return for the blow struck by the British when they 'raided' the Jewish Agency. The Irgun says that the real reason the Haganah wanted the strike was to destroy the documents taken from the Jewish agency. It said that the Haganah wanted to minimise the warning period and to raise the amount of explosives used in order to try to ensure the thorough destruction of the documents, presumably in order to: destroy evidence that might have been used in court; to prevent the British from learning more than they already knew; and to destroy anything embarrassing (among the papers were stolen secret American documents). The British had broken the Haganah or Jewish Agency codes and also had informers working for them, which is why they had lists of people they were looking for and why they already knew that the Jewish Agency was involved in the spate of bombings and killings that had taken place prior to Operation Agatha and the 'raid' on the Agency. The documents were kept in multiple locations, so the bombing of the hotel didn't destroy them all (or even the majority of them).

I like the word 'commando'; it's sexier than the word 'members' or the best that I could think of, 'squad' (and perfectly neutral). I still prefer the word 'attack' over alternatives such as 'strike' or 'assault', though.

I'm happy to wait until you feel happy too before making any changes to the Lead section. Until recently, I was concentrating my efforts on the Controversy and, in particular, the Lead sections. The middle of the article seemed a bit of a mess, so I preferred to avoid it and try to make the Lead, at least, reasonably sane. Since some of my content was shifted into the middle of the article, though, I've decided to take the plunge and concentrate my efforts there, with the end result that I don't feel very concerned about the wording of the Lead section at the moment.

Regards. -- ZScarpia (talk) 08:33, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

How about this....

The King David Hotel bombing was a covert strike on the headquarters of the British Mandatory authorities of Palestine, located in the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, by the Irgun, a militant Zionist organization promoting active retaliation towards the Arabs and the British. The operation was carried out on the 22nd of July, 1946, in response to XXX and was the deadliest attack against the British in Palestine during the Mandate period (1920-1948).

Thoughts/Suggestions? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

p.s. I didn't refer to it, but I believe -- and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong -- that 'Attack' is more of a direct context to open combat than covert operations. That is the reason I was looking for alternatives to it. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

That XXX will be a bit difficult to define both accurately and briefly and would probably be best left for the body of the article. To my mind, the word 'attack' doesn't imply anything about openness: you can have a covert attack just as you can have a covert strike. I think that the word 'covert' might be a bit of a problem. Covert actions are, by their nature, designed not to draw attention to themselves, the complete opposite of blowing up a corner of a large building. If you're happy with the phrase "a militant Zionist organization", I suggest leaving it at that. My next attempt:

The King David Hotel bombing was a {strike} on the headquarters of the British Mandatory authorities of Palestine, which were located in the King David Hotel in Jerusalem. It was carried out on the 22nd of July, 1946, by the militant Zionist organization, the Irgun. The {strike} was the deadliest against the British in Palestine during the Mandate period (1920-1948).

Operating in disguise, a small Irgun commando group planted a bomb in the basement of the hotel ...

I would have liked to have omitted the word group in the final line, but it might have given the false impression that the attack was carried out by a single, diminutive, individual. -- ZScarpia (talk) 12:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with you adding the words 'stealth', 'stealthy' or 'stealthily', by the way. -- ZScarpia (talk) 12:48, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

As far as the XXX bit goes, I wouldn't have a problem if you wanted to say something to the effect that the attack was mounted as part of a response to the British-mounted Operation Agatha, or as part of a response to the British-mounted Operation Agatha, in which the Jewish Agency was raided, mass arrests made and weapons seized. In you include the latter detail, though, I suspect others would probably want it mentioned that Operation Agatha was mounted in response to a series of bombings and shootings in which the British had evidence that the Haganah was involved. -- ZScarpia (talk) 11:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Has anyone else got any opinions on how the Lead section should be worded? -- ZScarpia (talk) 16:40, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Terrorism

Interesting, CM.'an attack on the military HQ of an occupying army is not terrorism,' There's a discussion around the traps on the appropriateness of the category 'Jewish terrorism' (see Rolland R's page and links), and the page defines it as religiously inspired. I don't happen to agree. I think there is a muddle here on that and other pages. However, just on a technical point. What was the legal status of the British in Palestine, a pure army of occupation? or, having a Mandate from the League of Nations, a de jure, legitimate interim governing authority?Nishidani (talk) 08:17, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not interested in another semantic debate with you. The main point is that an attack on the military HQ of an army is not terrorism. Canadian Monkey (talk) 23:44, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Of course you're not. You have a subjective opinion, adduce no sources, and push it as NPOV. So, since you can't defend it, I put on record that you are revertible on this. It's not semantics, by the way. For an outlawed group, with a history of also killing civilians, to blow up any structure, military or otherwise, of a duly constituted government is terrorism. Nishidani (talk) 08:35, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Do you extend the same "terrorism" label to all attacks on the IDF or its installations? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:08, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Considering that the state of Israel treats these attacks as military acts of war, no.Shabeki (talk) 10:40, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

If "an attack on the military HQ of an occupying army is not terrorism", shouldn't Lebanese/Hamas attacks to Israel be defined as "not terrorism" ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.161.160.195 (talk) 20:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

An Israeli pizzeria filled with families, or an Israeli disco filled with kids, are not "occupying armies". Jayjg ^(talk) 02:35, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Canadian Monkey, the principal reason given for attacking the King David Hotel was to destroy documents taken during the raid by the British on the Jewish Agency. These were being held in the Secretariat, not the military headquarters. Paglin's aim was to destroy the south wing of the hotel of the hotel by planting the explosives in the basement next to the columns supporting that wing. The Secretariat was wholly contained in that wing whereas only a small part of the military headquarters was. In the event, only half of the wing was destroyed. Another reason given for the attack was that it was a response, an attack on the British administration (note that the 'administration', not the military, was the target) in return for the British attack carried out when the Jewish administration was raided. The intention was not to kill people, as attacks on military targets would normally be, but to humiliate the British and 'terrorise' them into leaving Palestine by destroying their supposedly impregnable base. To characterise the bombing as an attack on the British military headquarters is, therefore, a very big distortion. Note that there are many different definitions of what constitutes terrorism. Most people (in the West anyway) would have no problem with the bombing of the French and American bases in Beirut being described as terrorism. In those cases it makes no difference that they were military targets. As you can see from the article, books written by academics with no axe to grind and published by reputable academic publishing houses describe the attack as terrorism, so it is entirely justified to list the bombing in some of the terrorism categories. Personally, I don't particularly like it being classed as 'Jewish' terrorism, but then I don't like things being classed as 'Christian' or 'Islamic' terrorism either, which categories also exist. -- ZScarpia (talk) 21:59, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

In fact, the Haganah's belief that most of the documents taken from the Jewish Agency were being kept in the Secretariat was wrong; most of them were in the CID headquarters in the Russian compound and the most incriminating ones had already been taken to London by the time of the attack. -- ZScarpia (talk) 23:39, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

The attack was not for religious reasons, so it wouldn't qualify as "Jewish terrorism" in any event. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:02, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree, given that Jewish Terrorism has been defined as a form of Religious Terrorism, and, in trying to define it, Religious Terrorism has been variously characterised as having a religious motivation, justification, organisation, or world view or of using religious scriptures as justification and recruitment tool and of being directed by religious leaders. Although Begin himself used religious justifications to underpin his acts, the impression I have gained is that religion wasn't central to the Revisionist movement as a whole, with that being particularly true of its founder, Jabotinsky. However, since the term Jewish is used to describe a national or ethnic, as well as religious, identity (with figures such as Karl Marx and Benjamin Disraeli being identified as Jews despite being baptised Christians), perhaps the definition of Jewish Terrorism as a form of Religious Terrorism would be seen by many as being too narrow. They would extend the definition to include terrorism by people motivated by their self-identification as members of 'the Jewish race'. Zionism being categorised as a form of nationalism, this would include what could be called Zionist Terrorism. Personally, though, as I said before, I'm not in favour of anything being categorised as 'Jewish' terrorism. -- ZScarpia (talk) 11:15, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Pathetic

The pseudo-logic at play here is pathetic. Some editors do not want to work in good faith. Rather than starting with premises and advancing from there, they begin with the conclusion they want ("The bombing of the King David Hotel was not terrorism") then move backward, seizing at every opportunity to obfuscate, rationalize or stonewall. I have been absent for awhile and I suppose I hoped Wiki had either matured or found a way to deal with cyber-mob editing. Sadly it appears the problem has not improved it has got worse. I notice a couple of Irgun casualties are noted. I swear we are not far away from calls to rename the article "The Battle of the King David Hotel." RomaC (talk) 00:05, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, this is laughable. Nothing but double standards and idiocy. 129.100.201.96 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 13:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC).

I have to agree here as well, RomaC. At this point, I believe that several of these editors are incredibly biased and should be restricted from editing this article.Shabeki (talk) 10:40, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Notes on Rockybiggs's recent changes

From the 2006 article, "British anger at terror celebration", in The Times newspaper:

Simon McDonald, the British Ambassador in Tel Aviv, and John Jenkins, the Consul-General in Jerusalem, have written to the municipality, stating: “We do not think that it is right for an act of terrorism, which led to the loss of many lives, to be commemorated.”

In particular they demanded the removal of the plaque that pays tribute to the Irgun, the Jewish resistance branch headed by Menachem Begin, the future Prime Minister, which carried out the attack on July 22, 1946.

The plaque presents as fact the Irgun’s claim that people died because the British ignored warning calls. “For reasons known only to the British, the hotel was not evacuated,” it states.

Mr McDonald and Dr Jenkins denied that the British had been warned, adding that even if they had “this does not absolve those who planted the bomb from responsibility for the deaths”.

Based on this, the Lead section has been changed. Originally it read:

Telephoned warnings were sent to the main switchboard of the hotel, the Palestine Post newspaper and the French consulate, but no evacuation was carried out, giving rise to much controversy over the reasons why people were not cleared from the building.

The Lead now reads:

Telephoned warnings were sent to the main switchboard of the hotel, the Palestine Post newspaper and the French consulate[1][2], however this has been denied by the British Government [3]. This has led to much controversy as to why no evacuation was carried out.

The new form misrepresents what the article said. The article doesn't say that the Ambassador and Consul-General denied that the warnings had been sent, only that the British had been warned. The original form of the Lead very carefully indicated that it was the switchboard for the hotel, which was still operating as a hotel despite the presence in part of it of the Secretariat and Military headquarters, that a warning was sent to. It didn't say that a warning had been sent to the British. The Secretariat and military had their own switchboards, which the public could call directly.

Another problem with using the article as a source about what the British Government said, is that it doesn't quote the words that the Ambassador and Consul-General actually spoke. That is, we have no proof that the report is accurate. The Hindu, writing about the same incident says:

In their protest letter to the Israeli administration, Mr. McDonald and Mr. Jenkins said there was no "credible" evidence that any warning was given and pointed out that even it was, "this does not absolve those who planted the bomb from responsibility for the deaths."

Obviously, saying that there is no credible evidence that something happened and that something definitely didn't happen are very different. The contradiction between the articles implies that, in order to determine what the British diplomats said, you would need to try to find other sources.

According to Arthur Koestler, what the British Government said about warnings, once the inquest into the bombing had been completed, was that no warning had been received by anyone at the Secretariat "in an official position with any power to take action." Perhaps the Secretariat was mentioned specifically because the Irgun and Haganah were claiming that John Shaw, the Chief Secretary, had given an order not to evacuate. Thurston Clarke writes (if memory serves me correctly) that the staff in the reception area of the hotel decided to ignore the warning sent by the Irgun. Many hoax calls (some by the Irgun itself) were being sent at the time, including ones by people who just hoped to see the inconvenience caused and even ones sent by civil servants seeking to extend their lunch hours. Perhaps the staff may have been influenced by the fact that a warning about a bomb having been planted in the basement of the hotel had been sent early that morning and a search had been carried out without, of course, because the bomb hadn't been planted yet, finding anything. When the warning was sent to the Palestine Post, the recipient passed it on, as a matter of routine, to the police. Having received dozens of hoax calls in the preceding months, she then wouldn't have done anything more. However, knowing someone who worked in the reception area of the hotel, she rang there. Alarm began to grow at the hotel and the manager was called. As described by the first time in writing by Clarke, he rang some unknown military person (note, not anybody at the Secretartiat) and was advised, an ambush being feared, not to evacuate. The manager then went to speak to a policeman outside (who had just been informed about the men in arab costume with milk churns who had held-up the kitchen staff) and told him about the warning. The policeman went to investigate. As he was walking along the corridor towards the bomb it exploded (its timing mechanism having worked more quickly than it was designed to). When the bomb exploded, because of flying debris, conditions in the street outside the hotel were lethal, so it is possible that, if the hotel had been evacuated, the death toll might actually have been higher.

The controversy over why the hotel was not evacuated started immediately after the bombing. Rockybiggs seems to have become confused between that controversy and the further controversy that ensued sixty years after the bombing when a celebration was held and a plaque set up outside the hotel. He writes that the Irgun erected the plaque, which, of course isn't true. He also, in the Warnings section, has quoted the wording on the plaque as though it was the statement the Irgun released after the bombing.

In the Layout section, the text "the six-storey hotel, which was opened in 1932 as the first, modern, luxury one in Jerusalem" has been changed to "the six-storey hotel, which was opened in 1932 as the first, modern, luxury hotel in Jerusalem" citing incorrect grammer [sic]. Perhaps I'm being stupid, but I can't see anything wrong with the original wording. Neither can I see a reason why the link to the wikipage listing events which happened in 1932 was removed.

A superfluous second citation for the Times article about the 60th anniversary celebration has been added.

-- ZScarpia (talk) 10:57, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the history of this page, a cause for concern is WP:OWN issues on this article, and i will be going through this entire article and taking up any POV (which seems to have been raised earlier Talk:King David Hotel bombing#Pathetic) additions i see. I wish to make no comments to anything raised on this talk page at this moment and wish no additional comments made to myself until i have time to look into this matter.--Rockybiggs (talk) 23:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Terrorism section

I recently added the sentence beginning "Its labelling as terrorism" in the article's Terrorism section:

'The bombing appears in literature about terrorism, its practice and history. It has been called one of the most lethal terrorist attacks of the 20th century (Rapoport 2004, pp. 50-51). A book on political terrorism published in 2006 theorises that it provided a model for bombings in the 1980s. Its labelling as terrorism, which is hard to define and tends to be done subjectively, is contentious however (see Definitions of terrorism, History of terrorism and Terrorism). In relation to the historical significance of the way the Irgun fought, Begin himself said: "We actually provided the example of what the urban guerrilla is, we created the method of the urban guerrilla."'

Jayjg has just reverted the section back to its original form by removing the new sentence, citing as his reason that it was done to remove personal opinion and references to Wikipedia.

My reasons for adding the sentence were threefold:

• To make the section more neutral by mentioning the contention around calling the attack terrorism and the uncertainty around how to define what terrorism is.
• To act as bridge between the first part of the section and the final sentence so that the whole reads more smoothly.
• To direct readers to three other articles, which explain the difficulties around defining terrorism, list definitions terrorism and put the bombing in its historical context.

In the Wikipedia:Verifiability page, it says, "Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed.". I didn't provide a source for my statement because I thought that it would appear as self-evidently true as, for example, writing the milch-cow is a useful beast in an article on farmyard animals to all but extreme quibblers, especially to anyone who has been involved in editing the King David Hotel bombing article for any length of time.

Jayjg, I can't really believe that you would disagree with anything in the sentence or that you would think that anyone else would disagree with it, so what exactly was your motivation for removing it? If your objection is to unsourced statements, then why have you picked on that particular sentence and not on any of the unsourced ones?

I added the links to the three Wikipedia articles because I thought that they would be of interest to readers of the Terrorism section. I cannot see the problem with that; I can find examples of other articles where the same has been done and, also, one of principal purposes of hyperlinks is to perform the same task (I could have modified the first sentence to read the bombing appears in literature about terrorism, its practice and history to achieve the same thing, but less explicitly). Jayjg, would you explain what your objection to the links was, please?

For sources on the difficulty of defining terrorism and the subjective way it is done, see:

• Bruce Hoffman, Inside Terrorism
• Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Terrorism
• United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Definitions of Terrorism
• Tamilnation.org, What is terrorism? - Law and Practise
• CDI Center for Fefense Information, A Brief History of Terrorism
• UNSW Law Journal, What is 'terrorism'? Problems of Legal Definition
• Foreign Policy Association, Classifying Terrorism

As a quick reminder of how contentious the classification of the Bombing as terrorism is (if this Talk page does not serve as a practical enough example), look at The Times article about the 60th anniversary celebration of the bombing, where British diplomats say that it is not right for an act of terrorism to be celebrated and Netanyahu says, "It’s very important to make the distinction between terror groups and freedom fighters" (which, as Ben Hoffman points out, is the politically correct way that all terrorists, including Arafat, like to justify their actions nowadays).

--- ZScarpia (talk) 03:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

To try and put your spin on this that this was not Terrorism is a nonsense. To place a bomb is a terrorist act wherever you put the bomb, let alone a hotel. To be honest with you i`m totally insulted and disgusted by your comments to try and add your exteme POV to this article considering the amount of people killed. Furthermore your edit [4] Much controversy has arisen over whose responsibility the deaths were This comment highlights your extremist views (which has been noted by the admin in question), to try and put the blame on everyone but these Terrorists.(No doubt your provide more propaganda `sources` to try and back up your extreme views and please also note your WP:OWN of this article).--Rockybiggs (talk) 10:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Rockybiggs, let's open up another talkpage section for a conversation between ourselves. It wouldn't surpise me to learn that Jayjg thinks that I have extremist views, but in the opposite direction to the one you think. I take it that you think that Jayjg deleted the sentence because it was muddying the case for the Bombing being terrorism? That idea will probably bemuse him a little. -- ZScarpia (talk) 12:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

People, please keep your discussions here on this page, it is important to note who believes that Wikipedia should describe the bombing of a hotel as not an act of terrorism. RomaC (talk) 12:29, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Zscarpia, Wikipedia articles should not self-reference other Wikipedia articles for definitions, or, really, anything else. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for replying Jayjg, though you don't seem to have understood the explanation I gave above. You say that articles should not self-reference other Wikipedia articles. As the only way of interpreting that which makes any sense is that articles should not use other Wikipedia articles as sources for verification purposes (that is, other Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources), I'll assume that is what you meant. As explained above, the articles weren't being used as sources; the links were there to guide readers to articles of interest. In a similar way, the article on The Beatles points readers towards an article on the Decca Audition: "Dick Rowe turned Epstein down flat, informing him that "guitar groups are on the way out, Mr. Epstein."[28] (See The Decca audition.)" Also in a similar manner, the Ocean article points readers towards an article on marine snow: "since plants can only survive with photosynthesis any life found lower than this must either rely on material floating down from above (see marine snow)." I could have listed the articles linked to in the See Also section, but I thought it better to link to them locally from within the relevant section. As explained above, I could as an alternative have linked to the articles by modifying the first sentence to read the bombing appears in literature about terrorism, its practice and history, but thought it better to make the links more explicit. I explained the three reasons why I included the sentence that you removed, which I think are still valid. Perhaps you'd like to suggest a more acceptable version? -- ZScarpia (talk) 16:00, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

In this case, however, you were using the Wikipedia articles as sources for claims, which, of course, one cannot do. They aren't appropriate for the "See also" section either, since they are broad articles that could be included in the "See also" section of every article regarding an alleged terrorist incident. "See also" sections are for article with a specific, not general, relationship to the current article. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Please re-read what I wrote. I spent a long time writing it. It was written carefully. I doubt that it can be that unclear. As I repeated several times, I wasn't using the Wikipedia articles as sources; the links are there to point readers to articles of interest. I didn't include any sources. The reason I didn't is because I assumed that the sentence was so self-evidently true that only the most extreme of quibblers would object. Since someone has objected, though, I can easily provide sources. The reason that I added articles to the See Also section was that you deleted the links to them from the Terrorism section, where they were appropriate. You'll notice that there are some questions in among what I wrote which are addressed to you. -- ZScarpia (talk) 01:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

In understand your intent, but the actual effect was to source the statement to Wikipedia articles; or are you asserting they were sourced to something else? Was there a citation on the sentence that I missed somehow? Regarding adding the links to the See also section, "See also" sections are for article with a specific, not general, relationship to the current article. Please explain how those links are specifically related to this article, any more than the hundreds of other article on alleged terrorist incidents. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:05, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

{reply to Jayjg's comment of 10 February, 2009} Was there a citation on the sentences that you missed somehow? No, there wasn't. As I said above:

• "In the Wikipedia:Verifiability page, it says, "Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed.". I didn't provide a source for my statement because I thought that it would appear as self-evidently true as, for example, writing the milch-cow is a useful beast in an article on farmyard animals to all but extreme quibblers, especially to anyone who has been involved in editing the King David Hotel bombing article for any length of time."
• "I didn't include any sources. The reason I didn't is because I assumed that the sentence was so self-evidently true that only the most extreme of quibblers would object. Since someone has objected, though, I can easily provide sources."

If I included acceptable sources, would the deleted sentence cease being objectionable? -- ZScarpia (talk) 23:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

As long as the sources were directly related to the topic of the King David Hotel bombing. BTW, the way to know if they are directly related is if they actually make that point about the King David Hotel bombing. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:29, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Would an acceptable source for the statement that the labelling of the bombing as terrorism is contentious be references to articles about the 60th anniversary celebrations where Netanyahu rejected that description? Sources for the statement that terrorism is hard to define and tends to be done subjectively are given above. -- ZScarpia (talk) 12:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure you understood my point. Do any of the sources you just mentioned refer to the King David Hotel bombing? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

[reply to Jayjg 's message of 03:30, 25 February] The connecting sentence which you deleted said:

• "Its labelling as terrorism, which is hard to define and tends to be done subjectively, is contentious however."

The sentence has two parts:

• A part which says that the labelling of the bombing as terrorism is contentious.
• A part which says that terrorism is hard to define and tends to be done subjectively.

As sources to support the first part, we have:

• Netanyahu's speech at the 60th anniversary celebrations where he said that the bombing was freedom fighting not terrorism.
• Begin's comments on the bombing which say something similar (though I'll have to dig around to locate these).

As sources to support the second part, that terrorism is hard to define and tends to be done subjectively, we have the sources that I listed above. You asked, "Do any of the sources you just mentioned refer to the King David Hotel bombing?" Yes, the sources given for supporting the statement that the labelling of the bombing as terrorism is contentious do refer directly to the bombing. -- ZScarpia (talk) 04:59, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I still don't think you've understood my point. Regarding the "sources to support the second part, that terrorism is hard to define and tends to be done subjectively", do any of those sources "listed above" refer to the King David Hotel bombing? Jayjg ^(talk) 04:53, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see, after I made my comment, you modified yours, making mine look silly. Please don't do that again. Now, regarding those sources, I don't see how, in relation to the topic of this article, the King David Hotel bombing, they say that terrorism is hard to define. Can you quote a sentence or two that makes that specific point? Jayjg ^(talk) 05:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

We have been simultaneously editing. I didn't change my previous comment to "make yours look silly," because I hadn't read yours while I was trying to save the addition that I made to my own comment.

While you were changing your last comment, I was typing this (also caught-out by simultaneous editing):

In those sources, there is a discussion of terrorism in general, including end-of-Mandate Zionist terrorism, but not of the King David Hotel bombing specifically. Have you got any objection to the part of the sentence which says that the labelling of the bombing as terrorism is contentious? I think that it is relevant in a sentence pointing out that the labelling of the bombing as terrorism is contentious to point out the general difficulties of labelling anything as terrorism. Have you got any reason why sources supporting that should be directly describing the King David Hotel bombing rather than terrorism in general?

-- ZScarpia (talk) 05:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

My objection is that, on top of being WP:NOR, it's boiler-plate and fairly meaningless: you might as well put it in a template, and add it to the bottom of every single article on every alleged terrorist act. If you have sources that say that the designation of the King David Hotel bombing was specifically or unusually or especially or uniquely "hard to define" or "subjective", then it would be relevant for this article. Generic boiler-plate? Not so much. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you have objections to both parts of the sentence, or just the middle part? -- ZScarpia (talk) 06:17, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Boiler-plate? Maybe. But then the sentence was just there to make a smooth connection between two parts of the section, the first dealing with the terroristic view of of the bombing, the second with the non-terroristic. I did say that I thought that the contents of the sentence were self-evidently (meaning obviously) true. Original research? Perhaps if I'd been trying to say that the definition of terrorism as applied specifically to the King David Hotel bombing is hard to do and tends to be done subjectively it might have been. But that's not what I was trying to say. I was pointing out that the definition of terrorism in general is hard to do and tends to be done subjectively. Hence the general phenomenon, which also applies in this case, of members of underground groups claiming that what they were doing wasn't, as it seemed to others, terrorism, but freedom fighting or guerrilla warfare. -- ZScarpia (talk) 06:17, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm against any text sourced to materials that aren't directly related to the topic of the King David Hotel bombing. If it's a generic statement about terrorism, then it belongs in the Terrorism article, not this one. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:17, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Another question for you. At the top of the article there is generic description of the Irgun. Do you think that it is permissible to have a generic description of the Irgun in every article about an Irgun attack, or do you think that only those features of the Irgun which are specific to each of the attacks should be mentioned? -- ZScarpia (talk) 08:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

The generic description of Irgun helps define the term for those who are unfamiliar with the organization. Terrorism, on the other hand, is a common term, and the material you were adding weren't attempt to define it. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:17, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

{reply to Jayjg's comments of 3 March 2009}:
Terrorism may be a commonly used term, but it is one with no widely-accepted or internationally-agreed definition. Those given are often contradictory and often derived subjectively by extracting common features from a set of acts which the definer views as terrorism. I described how I define terrorism for myself in a conversation with Ceedjee. It is inevitable, though, that, though some would agree with me, many people would disagree. Many readers and editors of the article will have fixed ideas about what terrorism is and I thought that it would be useful to direct them, in a section of the article which examines how the bombing is viewed (or otherwise) in term of terrorism, to articles which list many different definitions of terrorism and demonstrate the lack of agreement involved. At a time when it was causing edit-warring, I removed the definition of the Irgun from the Lead section, leaving just the wikilink to guide readers who needed an explanation of who the Irgun was to the relevant article. Subsequently, a definition was re-added; clearly, people thought that a short explanation in addition to the wikilink was useful. In the same way, I thought (and still think) that it was useful to have a short definitional statement about terrorism in the Terrorism section. The problem is that, because there is no widely agreed definition of terrorism and because there are so many different ones, it is impossible to write a short definition of terrorism that would be widely acceptable. Therefore, instead of writing a short definition, you have to write a short statement about the definition. Would it become acceptable to you if, instead of making an indirect statement about the difficulty of defining terrorism, a direct statement about the definition of terrorism, such as that there is no internationally-agreed or widely-accepted definition, was substituted?
On the subject of sources, is it acceptable to you that the description of the Irgun in the Lead section comes from an Encyclopaedia Britannica article which does not mention the bombing? Brewcrewer has been asked to find sources for his statement that Katz was the Irgun's information officer. Would it be acceptable to you if sources which didn't specifically mention the bombing were used for that purpose? How big a reference to the bombing would be required in order to make the source acceptable? Just a few sentences, as is the case with Koestler's work, or are you looking for something more substantial?
In order to make progress with finding a compromise solution, it would be useful to have an answer to the question about whether you find the part of the deleted sentence which said that the categorisation of the bombing as terrorism is contentious is acceptable.
-- ZScarpia (talk) 13:41, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it would be better if the description of the Irgun came from a source that directly discussed this bombing. That way we could rely on secondary sources to indicate which aspects of the Irgun are relevant to this article. Regarding the rest, I don't understand what you are asking that I haven't already answered multiple times; material about terrorism should come from secondary sources that discuss it in the specific context of this topic, the King David Hotel bombing. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The section on Shaw

The former section title referring to his role seems to imply that he might have been responsible for the deaths. However, the discussion of the two libel successful suits makes it clear that he was not responsible for the deaths. Therfore the section is about the allegations by Irgun and their attempt to shift the blame for the civilian deaths not about anything Shaw actually did.--Peter cohen (talk) 12:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Peter, my personal view is that the insertion of the words alleged or allegations (note that there is a 't' missing in the title of your new version, by the way) in Wikipedia titles is a blight which should be suppressed; it looks horrible and it acts as a signpost to readers that they should reject whatever it is that has been said (and is therefore inherently non-neutral). My preference would be for the title to stay the way it was and for the contents of the section (albeit they need a bit of rewriting) to speak for themselves. Note that it was me who wrote the original title and inserted all the material about the libel suits. I also deleted the material relating to what Shmuel Katz wrote (because it is either speculation or contradicts what Begin and the Haganah actually said about themselves), but it was reinserted (on the grounds that the change had not been discussed - clearly, no effort had been made to check the talkpage properly). -- ZScarpia (talk) 14:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Has anyone else got any views on the naming of the section? -- ZScarpia (talk) 23:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Description of the Irgun in the Lead section

It's probably worth pointing out that the description of the Irgun in the Lead section as a right-wing Zionist underground movement is derived from that given in the Encyclopaedia Britannica:

Irgun Zvai Leumi - Jewish right-wing underground movement, byname Etzel (Hebrew: National Military Organization) - Jewish right-wing underground movement in Palestine, founded in 1931. At first supported by many non-Socialist Zionist parties, in opposition to the Haganah, it became in 1936 an instrument of the Revisionist Party, an extreme nationalist group that had seceded from the World Zionist Organization and whose policies called for the use of force, if necessary, to establish a Jewish state on both sides of the Jordan.

-- ZScarpia (talk) 15:20, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Lead section: the controversy - a dialogue

Hello Rockybiggs. Recently you reverted the sentence in the Lead section reading, "from the question of responsibility for the deaths, much controversy has arisen over the issues of when the warnings were sent, whether they were adequate and why no evacuation was carried out", back to, "much controversy has arisen over the issues of whether warnings were sent, when they were sent, whether they were adequate and, if received, why they were ignored by the British authorities". Could you explain your reasons in a bit more detail please? The reason given in your comment was: "the responsibility of the deaths is the bombers". -- ZScarpia (talk) 13:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Say a fire is lit by A 100 miles from B's house that under normal conditions would travel toward B's house. C sees what is happening, wants to kill B, and ties B to a bed in B's house. B cannot escape his house and dies when the fire eventually reaches his house. Who is "responsible" for B's death? A or C? --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

If the fire actually was lit 100 miles away, B probably died of starvation long before the fire reached his house, in which case C would be responsible. You can bring your example somewhat closer to reality by having A set fire to B's house, and C smell the fumes from his own house, but fail to warn B because he misidentifies the source as something harmless, like burning leaves. MeteorMaker (talk) 18:41, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Or even closer to reality - A person named A lights a fire 100 miles from B's house and tells B about the impending fire. B decides to ignore the warning, for whatever reason, and doesn't tell the inhabitants of B's house about the warning. B's house is burnt down and all the inhabitants die. Who is responsible for the inhabitants' death, A or B? --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:48, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

What does the "100 miles away" part of the analogy represent? One hundred miles away from King David Hotel is in Damascus. MeteorMaker (talk) 20:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Time.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:55, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

So the warning was given several days, possibly weeks, in advance? Or does B's house sit in a Lake Ontario-size sea of kerosene?MeteorMaker (talk) 21:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Within a time span that had the warning been listened to (instead of ordering subjects to stay) a significant number of lives would have been saved.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:10, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, if the arsonist actually was considerate enough to keep a full 100 miles safety distance, I guess we can't really blame him for the death of B, can we? That B's house burned down seems almost coincidental in your analogy. If you ask me, C drew a pretty reasonable conclusion, that A was just joking when he told C about his magnificent and daring plan to burn down a particular house from two counties away. MeteorMaker (talk) 21:35, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The latest analogy didn't involve a "C". So I presume with "C" you meant "B". You think it's reasonable to ignore such warnings. Fair enough. I guess a major factor would be the opinion B held of A. Did A attack B previously? Does B think A would do something like this? (Answering this question puts you in a pickle, I think.) In any case, while you might think it's reasonable to ignore warnings of actions that put people's lives in danger and then order people not take remedial action in accordance with the warnings, you surely must admit that acting to the contrary is somewhat reasonable as well. No?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:58, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I have only been pointing out the obvious flaws in your analogy, and by now it has transmogrified into something where we have to consider the involved parties' history with each other, B's level of paranoia, the likelihood of A to act on his threats, other people who may or may not be affected by B's ultimate decision, their readiness to follow B's orders, their own assessment of A's dangerousness, and so on. Not so different from the actual situation your analogy was supposed to be a simplified model of. Does A still start his fire from 100 miles away? MeteorMaker (talk) 22:47, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't understand what you're saying.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Short version: Your analogy went up in flames. Signing off for today now. MeteorMaker (talk) 23:10, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

No problem, MeteorMaker. Have a great evening. But when you get a chance, please explain a little better and clearer how my analogy "went up on flames". Thanks, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Looking at your analogy, it seems from your analogy that if a Palestinian group were to announce now that they consider all Jewish homes in the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) on land seized from Arab owners since the Six Day War were fare game, then you would hold that the occupants of said homes would be to blame if and when they were blown up.--Peter cohen (talk) 14:49, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

If a Palestinian group warned about a specific attack on a specific home and the parents took no steps in response the parents are partly responsible for the inhabitants death. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Or, how would it be viewed if A and his friends had been sending lots of hoax warnings round the neighbourhood, then A planted a real bomb and said that the resulting deaths were the landlord's fault because warnings had been sent to the occupants of the bombed building's attic, a newspaper and the building opposite? -- ZScarpia (talk) 15:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The landlord's fault would then be questioned. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

And what do you think the result would be? -- ZScarpia (talk) 19:06, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

As a result, a Wikipedia article describing the incident should state that "the extent of responsibility for the deaths is unclear". --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Brewcrewer

You are stating in your reverts an allegation as though it were a fact. The alleged statement is in any case discussed extensively in the following remarks by Shmuel Katz. The allegation came from a newspaperman, Carter Davidson, who informed Boris Guriel, who told the Haganah's Galili who told Begin who told Katz, at least six people (counting Shaw to someone who in turn would have told Davidson, if we are to believe his account, as we have it from hearsay) from the person to whom the statement is attributed, who in fact sued anyone who tried to affirm he'd said anything of the sort years later. So one cannot state this, whatever the source, as true. (It may be, for all I or you know), as you just did.Nishidani (talk) 17:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey, that's a great section name, all the glory to me! If I had initiated this thread, I probably would have named it the same, but if I were in a more humble mood I might have named the section: "The argument for the removal of sourced content that has been around for quite a long time." But this name is fine. Really. But turning to the underlying issue, WP:RS makes no requirement that we analyze the reliable sources' source. There would otherwise be endless litigation going on. We would have all these hearsay and hearsay exception legal memorandums being bandied about. That being said, I have no problem if the sentence would indicated the source in the main text. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with personally analysing an RS. I supplied info you appear not to be aware of, just to clarify that this is an allegation, and if an otherwise RS states it not as an allegation, against all major specialized accounts, esp. that by Katz who was involved in the operation, but rather as something actually said, then the direct source, Katz, is to be preferred to the source that gets Katz wrong. This happens all the time if you read all available quality sources, and choosing the most reliable sources, as against any source that is otherwise reliable, but not on some detail or another, one exercises editorial judgement. Without that, you can slap in a huge amount of wrong information from reliable sources, i.e. say over 200 people were massacred in Deir Yassin because old reliable sources state this, whereas the best sources say 110-120. If your reasoning were correct, I could edit Deir Yassin and insist on 200+ because some RS repeat that.

Katz's following remarks discuss the alleged statement in full. By reinserting a text above it

One British official who refused to evacuate said, "We don't take orders from the Jews".

You are stating what Katz himself, and every other historian of the events, regards as hearsay or presents as an allegation. By saying 'one British official' you create the impression that someone else than Shaw might have also said this, esp. since the JVL says 'We don't take orders' whereas other versions have 'I don't take orders', and secondly the JLV version uses 'evacuate' absolutely, not with a direct object, which means 'the official refused to evacuate', whereas other versions say Shaw refused to have the building evacuated. In other words, you use a secondary source that is inferior to specialised sources readily available (b) in doing so create confusion because the source differs in two points from better sources (c) create an impression two different statements were putatively made when we are dealing with one alleged statement. I could go on, but this is just poor editorial judgement. Unless one removes it, its presence there will invite people to stack up a large variety of sources to untangle the mess its presence creates. It adds nothing new, but opens up the section to confusion.Nishidani (talk) 17:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

There are many important books on the period regarding the event, the quote, etc. Indeed, in my own files, I have five different versions of the words attributed to Shaw (understandable since remarks change as they pass from mouth to mouth). D'ya want all this dissonance crammed in as well?Nishidani (talk) 17:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I have just re-read the actual wording in the source (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/King_David.html). While it strongly IMPLIES that the "We don't take orders from Jews" statement is factual, it doesn't quite say it outright. The exact wording is: "Begin quotes one British official who supposedly refused to evacuate the building, saying: "We don't take orders from the Jews."". Therefore, even if one regards JVL as reliable, one still cannot state this expression as an outright fact. Going off topic now, having researched this aspect of this event, my own belief is that the probability that this expression was used as described is significantly less than 50%. I should also state that, while I believe this judgement to be impartial, I am British. New Thought (talk) 18:59, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't look to me as though any conclusion about the reliability or otherwise of the Jewish Virtual Library was reached on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Personally, I go along with the contributor who commented that the JVL is an unreliable source with reliable articles. Some of the articles are very scholarly. But, it only takes a quick look to see that the one on the King David Hotel bombing isn't one of them. The JVL drew on the revised (1979) edition of Begin's The Revolt for its statement about what Begin said about the (alleged) refusal to evacuate the hotel. The last occasion I can find when Begin attributed the refusal directly to Shaw occurred in 1976. In the revised edition of The Revolt, the references to Shaw have been excised. Begin says (on p221): "I subsequently learned that when the warning to evacuate the hotel reached a high official he exclaimed: 'We are not here to take orders from the Jews. We give them orders.' " The JVL article says that Begin quoted an official; I think that that's a bit of a misrepresentation of what Begin actually did.
Begin heard the story about Shaw from Galili at a meeting they had the day after the bombing in Tel Aviv. Begin demanded that Kol Israel broadcast the account and Galili agreed. Galili later claimed that he heard the story from Boris Guriel, who had heard it in turn from Carter Davidson. Yet when Guriel was asked about it, he denied being Galili's source. Thurston Clarke wrote: "In fact, the story was a baseless rumour promoted by the Haganah in order to mollify the Irgun and fix responsibility for the carnage on Shaw."
In The Revolt, Begin describes an article coming from the same source which was supposed to be the statement of a reliable witness. It appeared in Eshnab, a publication of the Haganah. The witness was in the hotel at the time of the bombing: "When I heard the noise caused by the warning explosion, I decided it was best to get out of the hotel. Many others tried to do so too but the soldiers barred any exit by shooting in the direction of the people trying to get out."
Finally, some words about Katz's version of events. It includes the erroneous (that Begin heard the story about Shaw from the radio); the far-fetched (that, contradicting Begin, the attack was timed to save lives because, though the rest of the hotel was at its busiest time of the week, the Regencé Café was empty); and speculation (that the Haganah thought that Shaw could only have survived by slinking away [all it took was for him to be in his office, which was in the undamaged part of the wing] and that the British didn't believe the warnings because they thought the hotel was impregnable [a: they didn't think that the hotel was impregnable {though they did think that the underground organisations wouldn't try anything that would harm the Jewish employees}; b: the staff in the hotel's reception area decided to ignore the warning sent there by Adina Hay and it was never passed on]). Two reliable sources say that, at the time of the bombing, Katz was the Irgun High Command member in charge of propaganda. Anyone wanting to give him a different job title should provide sources (and then the differnt job titles can be given next to each other).
-- ZScarpia (talk) 03:15, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Just a query,ZScarpia. Since both were involved, are Begin and Katz's accounts to be considered Primary or Secondary Sources?Nishidani (talk) 10:07, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Good question. The contents of the books have the characteristics of primary and secondary sources in different parts. I would say that the sections being used here should properly be seen as primary source material. What's your opinion? -- ZScarpia (talk) 12:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Further discussion, as per ZScarpia's suggestion, moved to my page.Nishidani (talk) 15:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

As editors, we should translate ancient nomenclature to more contemporary usage

In this edit, User:ZScarpia maintains to the contrary. Any other opinions?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:34, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

No problem, all that is needed is a source for the claim that the Irgun calls it "information officer" today. MeteorMaker (talk) 08:17, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello Brewcrewer. What's the specific guideline that you're referring to? Don't you think that referring to a term which was taken from (in the case of the Silver biography of Begin) a book that was published in 1984 as ancient nomenclature is stretching things a bit? I wonder how long it will be before the term "information officer" is no longer viewed as contemporary usage. If you can find a source justifying it, I would suggest inserting text saying that, in modern terms, Katz's role, described in earlier sources as that of propaganda chief, would be viewed as that of {something like} Information Officer. -- ZScarpia (talk) 13:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

What's the point of disagreement here? That "information officer" is not a more contemporary terminology for a "propaganda chief"? --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

No I don't think that information officer is an accurate, more contemporary term for propaganda chief. -- ZScarpia (talk) 14:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

What's the difference between the two, or "spokeperson", for that matter, besides for the POV Goebbels-esque ring to "propaganda chief"?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The use of ancient to describe a post used within th elife time of many people still alive strikes me as rather strange. One of the phrasings uses the word in the person's job description and one of them doesn't. If they chose to use Goebbels's term, it isn't our fault. --Peter cohen (talk) 21:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Since when does a person's job description depend on how the person with the job describes his job?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, since someone mentioned Goebbels, I'd like to own up to having wondered whether, to be contemporary, we should be referring to him as the Information Officer (or Spokesman) for the Third Reich. -- ZScarpia (talk) 23:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Great point. Propagating for the murder of an entire race is the same as propagating for the overthrow of a colonial power. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that the word you meant to use was "propagandising". -- ZScarpia (talk) 09:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I take it that you support the selective use of "contemporary terminology" then? -- ZScarpia (talk) 09:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Under contemporary terminology, propaganda has a negative connotation. So yes, we should only use it when someone is clearly bad. Of course we we would need a consensus that unlike the spokesperson for the Irgun, Goebbels was clearly a bad dude. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 11:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

So then, a moral compass determines whether to point to "contemporary terminology"? RomaC (talk) 12:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec)"Propaganda" is a contemporary terminology. But unlike its historical usage, nowadays it connotes evil. And no, a "moral compass" should not determine whether to use "propaganda" or "spokesperson", the general consensus of humanity should determine.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 12:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that Goebbels was a very bad dude indeed, but, then, it's not what we think that counts, but what the sources say. In the case of Katz, what happens if, like me, an editor views him as a deluded proponent of terrorism and and an irredentist nationalistic ideology which incorporated ideas including racial separation and blood purity - in other words, not exactly a "good" dude. My opinion, presumably shared by the sources, is that, where describing historical events, albeit in the recent past, its best to stick with the terminology of the period unless there are very good reasons not to. I don't think that those reasons exist here. -- ZScarpia (talk) 12:57, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I see. If the Irgun spokesperson cannot be equated with Goebbels we would remove "propaganda". But now that the two can be equated, the term has to stay. Interesting.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 13:03, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Not at all. The position is that we asked you to provide sources to justify your change. -- ZScarpia (talk) 13:22, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for backtracking. But can you care to explain the difference between a "chief propaganda officer" and a "spokesperson" besides for a more modern terminology? If the job description of the two are fundamentally different I might start searching for a source that he was one but not the other. But if they're essentially the same, no sources are needed to copy edit to more NPOV description. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 13:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Please don't misrepresent. And, I'm sure that the sources had good reasons to describe Katz's role the way they did. I don't believe that the terms that you are trying to substitute are equivalent. "Contemporary euphemism" is probably a more accurate description than "contemporary terminology". The descriptions given were taken from reliable sources. Those sources are probably the most contemporary reliable ones that you will find. If you have other reliable sources which call Katz something else, use them. You've said that you don't support the use of "contemporary terminology" in the case of someone who was contemporaneous with Katz on the grounds that he was a "bad dude". Clearly your position is subjective. NPOV consists of detailing all the significant viewpoints, giving appropriate weight to each. -- ZScarpia (talk) 13:44, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Given that Britain was the colonial power (albeit with the figleaf of a League of Nations mandate), who were the colonisers and who the colonised? -- ZScarpia (talk) 13:44, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

What's the difference between a "propaganda chief" and a "spokesperson"? --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 14:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, for starters, I don't think that Katz actually did any speaking in the manner of a spokesperson on behalf of the Irgun. What's the difference between a "propaganda chief" and a "spokesperson" in the case of Goebbels (not that I don't have my own opinions)? -- ZScarpia (talk) 14:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

As I've said above a few times, there essentially is no difference between the two except one is POV-laden and one is NPOV. If you think it's a POV violation to use this strong word when describing Goebbels then bring it up at the Goebbels talkpage. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 14:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

No, YOU should be the one doing that since you think that the term is NPOV. -- ZScarpia (talk) 14:46, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

You don't think that "spokesperson" is more NPOV then "propaganda chief"?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 14:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Being NPOV means detailing all significant viewpoints, giving them the appropriate weight. All the sources describe Katz as a propaganda chief and therefore I think that describing him as such is neutral. That would apply equally in every case and is why I don't have a problem with Goebbels being described that way. I don't believe that spokesman or information officer are contemporary terms for Katz's role in the Irgun. Spokesmen are generally people who attend news conferences or stand in front of television cameras and explain an organisation's point of view. That wasn't Katz's role. I think that he would have lost his South African diplomatic pass extremely quickly if he'd done anything similar. All the information officers that I know do things like supplying figures for kids receiving free school meals. That wasn't Katz's role either. In short, I don't think that the two terms you've chosen are modern equivalents for the term "propaganda chief". In fact, I believe that the modern equivalent for the term, as used in the sources, would still be "propaganda chief" and you haven't produced any evidence to the contrary. If someone whom all the sources described as a "propaganda chief" was described in an article as a spokesman, I don't think that would be neutral, just as I don't think it would be neutral to describe someone as a "propaganda chief" whom all the sources described as a spokesman. If you were consistent, you would want other people who all the sources called a "propaganda chiefs" to be called spokesmen or information officers, but you don't. Instead you've divide people up into "good dudes" and "bad dudes" and state your belief that the general consensus would be that Katz fell into the former category. I think you're wrong both in your methodology and wrong about what the general consensus would be. I think that the general consensus would be that Katz was an extremist. -- ZScarpia (talk) 18:07, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I would like to get to rest of your post, but can you just answer this question for now: Can you name a current "propaganda chief"? --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:07, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Do a Google search. You'll notice that the first current usage is in The Times newspaper, a newspaper that's used as a source in many articles including the King David Hotel bombing one. -- ZScarpia (talk) 19:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

You just proved my point. 99% of the links refer back to Al-Quada. You don't have to respond that you consider Irgun equal with Al-Quada. I understand that. The point is, the Ghits clearly indicate that it's not considered a NPOV term. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Not at all. What I showed is that the term you specified, propaganda chief, which isn't used in the article, is currently used. The first result returned is a Times article referring to the Chinese government. The other results refer to Al-Qaeda because Al-Qaeda's propaganda chief just happens to have died. What's your proof that what may be considered as the more "reliable" of the returns are not being neutral and that other sources would have described the people concerned as spokesmen of information officers. -- ZScarpia (talk) 20:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll be reverting that edit presently. All major sources, even Begin and Katz's own accounts of the period (Shmuel Katz, Days of Fire, Doubleday, New York 1968 pp.44,130), or Ben Hecht'swho was close to the Irgun, had no problem speaking of the Irgun's propaganda. There is even a book on the subject of their propaganda as an instrument of psychological warfare. Since you appear unfamiliar with historical usage, and understand the word as a synonym for 'Goebbels', you inability to distinguish what a 'spokesman' from what a propaganda officer is, is understandable. Spokesmen do not invent, or develop a line of explanation or policy explanation. They convey to the public a position worked out by their superiors. As a propaganda chief, Katz worked out strategies for winning the 'battle of ideas', for persuading the public, and then other people down the line diffused those views or interpretations. Nishidani (talk) 14:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Nishdani: Being condensing [condescending] won't earn your opinions greater respect neither here nor in the real world. If anything to the contrary. Do you have any basis for your claims that (a) spokespersons are not involved in the development of the "lines of explanation" while propaganda chiefs are? (b) that Katz was involved in developing lines of explanation? --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 14:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that you should withdraw that first sentence. Presumably, the word you meant to use was "condescending"? -- ZScarpia (talk) 17:30, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for pointing that out. And I thought you weren't even reading my posts :) --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I cannot see anything in Nishidani's comment to justify calling him condescending, so, unless you can justify yourself, I think you should remove that first sentence. -- ZScarpia (talk) 18:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Read his post again. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I've already read it multiple times. It reads quite neutrally in tone to me. Which particular part do you think justifies you in calling it condescending? -- ZScarpia (talk) 19:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Read it again. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, Nishidani was being remarkably restrained. -- ZScarpia (talk) 20:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

It was Nishidani's first remark on this thread. LOL. Your act is up. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

As I said before, I'm not playing games. And what you've just said doesn't change my opinion. -- ZScarpia (talk) 21:52, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

There you go, shift the goalposts to develop another huge thread on an irrelevancy. Look you had an unsure grasp of (1) historical method (2) conventions in historiography of using period names (3)the language used specifically for Katz's functions (see Bowyer Bell, Shmuel Katz, Ben Hecht,Robert I.Friedman, ‘Zealot for Zion' etc.). He was a propganada chief for the Irgun, and historians retain that term.

You seem unaware that all historians of WW2 describe what the Allies did at a level of influencing opinions as propaganda. They had propaganda offices, and that is how they are described. Stanley Payne's recent book (Yale UP, 2008) on Spanish-German relations at the period specifically calls the Allied attempt to counter German influence, a propaganda campaign by the Allies (Westerners, see, not Goebbels, the good guys, not the thugs). Jesus, this is elementary, fa Chrissake. Stop 'sanitizing' according to misguided political convictions about images.Nishidani (talk) 14:54, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any basis for your claims that (a) spokespersons are not involved in the development of the "lines of explanation" while propaganda chiefs are? (b) that Katz was involved in developing lines of explanation?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 14:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, the Jayjg gambit. I'll play it myself. Do you have any evidence that in historical literature the word 'propaganda' used by all belligerents in the 1940s is now written up as 'statements by spokespersons' by reputable historians? Nishidani (talk) 15:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence that Bowyer Bell's account, which is strongly pro-Zionist, of the period and esp. the Irgun, and revised as late as 1996, is subject to revision to remove the word 'propaganda', mentioned according to the index on some 30 pages, because people might be mislead into thinking of Goebbels, as you did?Nishidani (talk) 15:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I have no such evidence, and I'll happily admit it. However, I did not begin searching yet. I'm hoping we can first agree that that "spokesperson" is a more modernized and NPOV word for the same thing. Interesting that you, Nishidani, have suddenly become a stickler for historical usages.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:47, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

That's what epistemologists call an 'arse-over-tit methodology', editing before mugging up on a subject. If you can give me a reliable source that 'spokesperson', rather than 'spin-doctor' is a synonym for 'propaganda chief', and that it is historical practice to rewrite the past according to modern terminology for offices and functions, and not hew to the period terminology etc., I'll listen. As to your second point, you should think twice before making quips. There is no contradiction. Both Israeli and foreign academic sources speak of the Irgun's operation as one of 'propaganda' and the word is retained in descriptive narratives. Whereas, only Israelis tend to call the West Bank 'Judea and Samaria', whereas foreign politicians, international courts, the UN, and most anglophone speakers refer to the West Bank, the neutral term since the 1950s. Nishidani (talk) 16:11, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Nishidan: Let's please avoid sexual innuendo and stay on-topic. Before I commence my search for evidence that a "spokesperson" is the more contemporary term for "a person in charge of propaganda" can I get you to admit that the former has more of a NPOV-ring than the latter? I don't want to waste my time. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:46, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Can I get you to recognize that when writing of the past, the best historical practice is to use the terms used by people, esp. by the historical actors themselves, and within the institutional framework and language of the period. We do not write of Attic demes being exurbs of Athens. Writing of diocesan missions after WW2, Michael Mullaney in his relatively recent book Incardination and the Universal Dimension of the Priestly Ministry, Pontificia Università Gregoriana, 2002 notes that they were under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Propaganda Fide, (p.80). Being a good historian, and not a wiki editor, he did not 'update' on specious NPOV grounds to Congregatio pro Gentium Evangelisatione, which is how the Sacra Congregatio de Propaganda Fide is now called, since 1982. I dunno why one has to harp on the obvious. This is standard practice everywhere in the intelligent world of bookwriting.Nishidani (talk) 17:09, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Your approach to editing is incorrect. Oscar Wilde is not described as "queer" instead of "gay" even if the former was the more prevalent term in the Victorian era. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

In the Oscar Wilde article you'll find that the term being used is homosexual. I suspect that's the word that was used in older sources as well. -- ZScarpia (talk) 17:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Assuming queer was the most prevalent term at that time (whatever. there was a time in history when "queer" was the more prevalent term), would you support changing "homosexual" to "queer"?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:47, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that your example works. Try another one. The sources we are using were published in the last half-century. I believe that if new editions came out today, they would still use the same term. -- ZScarpia (talk) 18:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Please stop wikilawyering. The example is only being used to illustrate my point. There was a time and place where "queer" was the mainstream term used to describe a person known now as a "homosexual". Should a description of a homosexual who was alive at that time in that place be described as "queer" because that was the term used then and there? Of course not. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I pointed out that the word used to describe Oscar Wilde in the relevant article and that I thought that was probably the word that would have been used to describe him in what would have been the equivalent of reliable sources at the time. That is why I said your example doesn't work. I doubt very much whether "queer" would have been used. Have you got any evidence to the contrary. -- ZScarpia (talk) 19:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Can you please read my posts instead of checking for spelling mistakes? Again, it's irrelevant whether they used the term in Oscar Wilde's era. I'm using an example to illustrate my point. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

But it doesn't illustrate your point because your example depends on the use of a word that would have been used in the equivalent of responsible sources in the past that isn't acceptable today. That is why I've told you to try another example, preferably one that works over the same timespan that the current set of sources being used have existed. -- ZScarpia (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Example: "Queer" was at one time used to describe homosexuals. The term is no longer accepted.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:05, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Another wild assertion, shifting goalposts, making a bad suggestion metastasize from the Irgun and informational officer to the cant relating to Victorian words for homosexual. Neither 'gay', nor 'queer' were used in Oscar Wilde's circle. I could divagate on this but, as you suggested above, 'Let's please avoid sexual innuendo and stay on-topic'. Cripes, a chap can hardly come back from a serene cup of tea without suffering from heart flutters as the screen winds up with more posers for a wrinkled brain which crackles back, when requested for info, 'What's this got to do with the frice of pish?'Nishidani (talk) 18:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Since you (immaturely?) responded off-topic, I'll take it that you want to avoid admitting that (a) a "propaganda chief" is a "spokesperson" (b) the former is not used contemporaneously (c) Wikipedia articles should be updated lest they read like Shakespearean plays (d) the former is more POV-esque then the latter. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

You called a previous comment of Nishidani's condescending and refused to retract it when asked. Now you've used the word "immaturely" in relation to another of his comments. I think that you should change your editing style. -- ZScarpia (talk) 19:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Zscarpia: Please stop playing these games.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not playing games. I think that you should be more careful over what you write. -- ZScarpia (talk) 19:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Brewcrewer. Whatever piddling game you are playing, it is jejune. Anyone who believes queer and gay were Victorian terms, that an official in charge of propaganda is interchangeable with the quite distinct function of spokesman (spokesperson didn't exist either in ther 1940s) has such a thin grasp of the English language ('I did not begin searching yet.' earlier is not even grammatical. = 'I have not begun searching yet'). If you have such problems with the feel for the historical and contemporary usage of English, don't hammer away and waste everybody's time. Read a book on the period, find something in sources that may help the article. Nishidani (talk) 20:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I've just again reverted you. I'm beginning to suspect you are trying to fire up an edit-war, using your provocative incompetence to assess correct English usage, historical terminology as bait to drag us into one. So, if you have a bee in your bonnet over this, check through the bibliography, google if you like, and come up with what was requested of you, some evidence for your bizarre proposition that a propaganda organizer in the 1940s is equivalent to a 'spokesperson'. There are whole books on the subject of propaganda, its organization, from Russia, the United States to the British Empire and Germany. Read something, don't just edit off the top of your head.Nishidani (talk) 21:04, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I've just done your homework for you. Michael Tracy Thomas in his American Policy Toward Israel: The Power and Limits of Beliefs, out two years ago in (Routledge, 2007) uses the words 'the Irgun's propaganda chief' of Katz. He's a scholar, writing two years ago, and feels like everyone else, that this is perfectly straightforward Englisdh, comprehensible, appropriate, and reflecting historical usage and sources. So take up your beef on something else. If it is good enough for scholars writing today to use this term of Katz, you as an anonymous editor on wiki shouldn't fuss and waste everyone's time on your private objections to that convention. Move on. Good evening Nishidani (talk) 21:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Nishidani who I think has been remarkably civil and reasonable here. Brewcrewer you have twice attacked this editor, calling him 'condescending' and saying he edited 'immaturely' this is not constructive kindly refrain. Thanks. RomaC (talk) 00:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh please. Roma and ZScarpia: I have respect for both of your intelligence. You can contribute constructively to Wikipedia. You don't have to be Nishidani's henchmen. All the more so when the hypocrisy is smacking you in the face. Right below Nishadin't post/diatribe where calls my edits "provocative incompetence" you post how I should be civil. If you guys want to sit at Wikipedia and play henchmen, fine, just don't make it so transparent.

Now that we got the nonsense out of the way, I would like to turn to the substantive issue. It is now clear that "propaganda chief" is more POV then "spokesperson." Notwithstanding the POV violation, I've offered a compromise in which the POV term can stay, but in parentheses. But that was also quickly reverted with a snide edit summary. Who again is the uncivil edit-warrior around here?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:26, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Your technique here is to raise a personal doubt, the point of which is hard to grasp, then rapidly edit it in, and, when reverted on commonsensical grounds, to wage a discursive war of attrition that shifts the goalposts, seeking for a compromise that doesn't exist, because your original gambit was, frankly, silly. I've interacted with ZScarpia and RomaC over two years perhaps three or four times. They were here before me, and I am not their padrino. You offered 'nothing' except a clunky phrase. You said the language was 'archaic', presumably that means 'in desuetude', 'fallen out of common use'. I showed you that it has been used by a scholarly work as recently as 2007, and therefore your objection to it as an archaism is invalid, reflecting a poor knowledge of English usage, a blindness to the elementary fact that 'spokesperson' is not a synonym for 'propaganda chief', (Scott McClellan is not Karl Rove, or the shadowy figure described in Ron Suskind's Reality-based community piece, nor was Goebbels' role, as head of the Nazis' Propagandaministerium interchangeable with that of a figure like Hans Fritzsche etc.etc.etc.) and a lack of understanding of historical method. So please desist, and allow editors to move on.Nishidani (talk) 08:58, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Nishdani: Asserting that a "compromise doesn't exist" is not in the spirit of an encyclopedia that is built by a collaborative effort. There's nothing to indicate that Katz was a shady behind the scenes operative like Karl Rove and noone described Rove as a "propaganda chief". The term is clearly a POV hackneyed term and should be used when a more contemporary word can be used.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Consensus is not based on a compromise between reliable sources and personal opinions.Nishidani (talk) 11:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

A misrepresentation of the wording, meaning and spirit of what Nishidani wrote. -- ZScarpia (talk) 11:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

So far you haven't provided evidence to support any of your assertions. Until you do that, the changes you are trying to make will amount to you trying to insert your own personal opinion.

Henchman? You may or may not know that Nishidani has been singled out by the goons at the Jewish Internet Defense Force. That being so, I feel duty-bound to insist that he's shown the degree of courtesy that wiki etiquete requires.

-- ZScarpia (talk) 12:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy to see that you finally agree with me. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Which part of what I said are you interpreting as an agreement? -- ZScarpia (talk) 10:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Brewcrewer. Yada is the Qal form of a verb in Hebrew meaning 'to ascertain by seeing', 'to know', and therefore is used of rational knowledge. Yadayada is slang for the pitter-patter of mindless natter. Decide how you want to live up to your handle, to 'ascertain the facts by observation' or to just engage in endless chitchat like a famished dog nagging at a bone. There is no bone of contention here, since we have already ascertained the facts by seeing what reliable sources say.Nishidani (talk) 12:09, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

A new low, comparing me to a famished dog. The silence and transparency of the civility police patrolling this thread is hilarious.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 13:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

If you can persuade me that you're the target of an organised group then I'll stand up for you too. Note that you're not being "compared to a famished dog" as such. The point of the simile is that the dog is trying to extract meat from a bone when there is none left on it. -- ZScarpia (talk) 14:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Would it be too much to ask for you guys to stop comparing me to a famished dog? --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, as an old man, and Irish, I'll give myself a Paddywhack. Happy? Can we call it a day, now, sir?Nishidani (talk) 17:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Ignored

Peter, I haven't checked Bethel, but while commending your adjustment just now, ask myself if one shouldn't add, and, if sent, 'why they were not acted upon by the British authorities'. One doesn't want to engage in violations of WP:OR, but narratively, the first part of the sentence puts a question-mark over the reports, and the second part assumes they were true. Thoughts anybody?Nishidani (talk) 16:29, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Something that I think is worth pointing out is that the controversy over whether warnings were sent appears to be a manufactured one. Irgun supporters say that the British said that no warnings were sent. From what I've read, they didn't and it would have been ridiculous for them to do that seeing as there were so many witnesses. According to Thurston Clarke, on the morning after the bombing, Irgunists pasted up posters which contained the following text (p243 of By Blood and Fire):

The warnings given by telephone were given between 12:10 and 12:15 so that the British had 22 minutes to evacuate the building and therefore the whole responsibility falls on the British ...

He says that:

The Government Information Office immediately denied that any warnings had been received by anyone in a position of authority. Shaw told one of the Jewish widows, "I would never risk ignoring a warning. I have a wife and young children. I wasn't told. Maybe the hotel was warned."

So, what was said immediately after the bombing wasn't that warnings hadn't been sent, but that they hadn't been received by anyone who could do anything about it. Five months after the bombing, according to Arthur Koestler, once the inquest had been completed, the statement released said specifically that nobody at the Secretariat in an official position and in a position to do anything had received a warning (this was when claims were being made that John Shaw had forbidden an evacuation. Bowyer Bell does state that Attlee said that no warnings had been sent, but none of the other published sources cited in the article apart from perhaps Katz (and I'll try to check Days of Fire tonight) do. Bowyer Bell doesn't state when or where Attlee is supposed to have made the statement, but I've searched the archives of The Times and The Palestine Post without managing to turn anything up. Attlee certainly didn't make that statement in one of his Parliamentary statements, anyway. I suspect that, along with a lot of what Bowyer Bell wrote, he was just reporting what was told him by the those who had been Irgun leaders. RockyBiggs has pointed out that The Times report on the 60th anniversary celebrations says that the British diplomats denied that a warning had been sent. But, I've seen various versions of what they supposedly said, so that, until somebody publishes their actual statement and until it is confirmed that they had official backing, I wouldn't attach any significance to it. Thurston Clarke says that the staff at the hotel's reception desk decided to ignore the warning phoned to them by the Irgun. It was at a time when scores of hoax calls, including by the Irgun, were being sent. Even disgruntled civil servants who had recently been on strike were phoning in hoax calls in order to be able to head home early. The operator at The Palestine Post who received the warning sent there had received many hoax calls in the preceding months. Out of routine, she forwarded the warning to the police, who logged the time of the call as 12:20. Afterwards, because the Palestine Post operator had a friend at the King David Hotel reception desk, she rang there. When the police also called, the hotel staff called Max Hamburger, the hotel manager, who called somebody at the military GHQ to ask for advice. He said that he was advised not to evacuate, the reason being that an ambush was suspected. Hamburger then walked down the steps of the hotel to talk to Inspector Haddingham, who went down into the basement of the hotel. As he was walking along the corridor towards the Regencé Café, the bomb exploded. Witnesses reported that the windows of the French Consulate-General, which was also sent a warning, were thrown open five minutes before the bomb went off.
According to Thurston Clarke, if people had been ordered to evacuate, a lot of them would have been on the stairway directly above the bomb when it exploded. As it was, people died who were drawn there to spectate after one of the barrow bombs exploded in Julian's Way. People standing in Julian's Way were killed when the basement bomb went off because of the blast (one person was impaled on railings and others were blown against the wall of the neighbouring YMCA) and because of flying debris (one poor victim died because a safe which had been blown high in the air landed on him). So, even had an evacuation taken place, it probably wouldn't have saved lives. People who were saved because they were in the part of the south wing which didn't collapse would have been killed because they were standing in the blast zone outside the hotel.
An interesting part of the story which isn't detailed as yet in the article is that a search of the basement had been made earlier that morning because of a tip-off, but of course nothing was found because the bomb hadn't been planted at that point. There had been a lot of leaks about the bombing, so a larger number of people than normal hadn't turned up for work. One Jewish employee was taken aside by a member of the Irgun porterage team, who recognised him, while he was on his way to work and given a warning. He telephoned the manager of the typing pool (I think) to tell him to get out, but was told that the basement had already been checked and found to be clear. The other big leak, of course, albeit accidental, was the phonecall to the news agency in London announcing that the hotel had been bombed. It arrived before the bombing actually took place because the caller didn't know that the start of the operation had been delayed by an hour.
Something else stated by the Irgun posters was:

On every bomb a placard was placed written in three official languages warning that any touch on the bombs would set them off. Despite this they tried to disarm the bombs and the explosion happened.

The fuses worked faster than expected so that the bombs exploded six minutes early. Gidi Paglin assumed that the bombs must have exploded early because someone tried tampering with them. When the bombs exploded, police officers were walking down the corridor towards them. Had they actually reached the bombs, there would have been little of them left. As it was, they survived.
-- ZScarpia (talk) 18:49, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Nishidani, thanks for correcting the spelling of Attlee. I thought it had two ts, but my spelling checker said that was wrong. -- ZScarpia (talk) 18:49, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I prefer to mispell that trust those moronic automatic mongrels that second-guess while a human author thinks. I can remember the duffer, that's why I got it right. By the way, do sources call it an 'attack'? Is setting a bomb in a building classified as an attack? The word implies a military assault on a position. Just the usual twitch twitting my niggling nostrils flairing for nuance.Nishidani (talk) 21:14, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The problem is finding alternatives. The words assault and strike have been tried, but, to me, they have far greater conventional warfare connotations. The word attack is used in situations such as board and field games and political debates, so, to me, it is quite neutral, carrying no judgemental overtones or strong associations with a particular context. -- ZScarpia (talk) 12:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Since the controversy over whether warnings were sent is an artificial one, I thought that it was better to omit mentioning it in the final sentence of the Lead section. Therefore, the last version of the sentence that I wrote read: From the question of responsibility for the deaths, much controversy has arisen over the issues of when the warnings were sent, whether they were adequate and why no evacuation was carried out. -- ZScarpia (talk) 19:26, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Just a suggestion.

Given conflicting accounts of the way warnings were given and handled, controversy still surrounds the question of where ultimate responsibility for the death-toll lies. Nishidani (talk) 21:24, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

When a bomb is set to go off to destroy property that does not belong to the bombers, it doesn't matter whether or not warnings were given.Shabeki (talk) 10:40, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Of course it matters. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Lead addition

I've removed

'and, ironically, became the paradigm for what has come to be regarded as Middle Eastern Arab terrorism.'

Unless this is reliably sourced, it looks like an editorial comment, and as such, subject to contention likely to spark off edit-warring. It can be sourced, since the position is well-known, and often argued. But sc scruple requires that such things, particularly in leads, be anchored in authoritative judgements. Nishidani (talk) 11:15, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

At such a time it is sourced, can I suggest that the word "ironically" is removed before the clause is reinstated?--Peter cohen (talk) 11:35, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. It was what caught my eye, too. I think a year or two ago the same 'ironically' kept being inserted. For the record, Arafat's own use of terror, though reflecting his experience of terror by Jewish groups (themselves inspired by IRA terrorists) as an instrument to wrest a state from an unwilling interlocutor, drew more from Algeria's FLN than it did by a study of Irgun's method's, though one PLO operative, later caught by Israel, lost his father in the King David explosion.Nishidani (talk) 12:00, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I doubt that such a statement (even whioeut "ironic" , can be sourced, certainly it cannot be sourced as more than one among several opinions. Although User:Nishidani is correct about Algeris, it is just as important to note that Arab terror attacks against Jesish settlement is almost as old as Zionism. Army of Shadows, Palestinian Collaboration with Zionism, 1917-1948 is a good source on well-organized, widespread Arab terrorism decades before the King David bombing. True, much of the murder was of Arabs "collaborators," but Arabs began killing Zionist and non-Zionist Jews in ways that we now describe as terrorism very earlyHistoricist (talk) 18:04, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Name the key events and the key figures, dating from 1919, roughly when Ze'ev Jabotinsky began organizing armed militias.Nishidani (talk) 21:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

JA-JRM relationship?

"The Jewish political leadership publicly condemned these attacks. The Jewish Agency expressed "their feelings of horror at the base and unparalleled act perpetrated today by a gang of criminals". In fact, the Irgun was acting in response to instructions from the Jewish Resistance Movement."

What was the relationship between the two? Chesdovi (talk) 23:26, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

The Haganah, which, through the Committee X, had to approve each operation of the other parts of the Jewish Resistance Movement, was under the command of the Jewish Agency. -- ZScarpia (talk) 14:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Chesdovi (talk) 17:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

In fact, if I remember rightly, Begin says in The Revolt that he was acting under instructions from the Haganah. One difficulty is that Committee X rescinded the order, but Moshe Sneh, who was carrying out liaison, for his own reasons, didn't tell the Irgun that, but only asked them to delay the operation. Again if I remember rightly, a reason suggested why Sneh didn't tell the Irgun outright that the order had been cancelled was that he, along with Ben-Gurion, belonged to a more "activist" wing of the Jewish agency and he was afraid that telling the Irgun about the cancellation would split the Jewish Resistance Movement apart. -- ZScarpia (talk) 01:22, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

{from By Blood and Fire}:

"The Haganah and the Jewish Agency split into two factions: moderates such as Weizmann, who continued to believe in the traditional application of Havlagah; and activists led by Moshe Sneh and David Ben-Gurion, who wanted to wage an offensive underground war against British rule."

"After the announcement by the Colonial Office in August 1945 that the White Paper would continue, the activists led the Haganah into an alliance, 'The Joint Command,' with the Stern Gang and the Irgun. Beginning in October 1945, units from all three groups staged separate coordinated attacks on government installations. Because it was the most powerful member of the alliance, the Haganah had the power to veto operations proposed by the Stern Gang or Irgun."

"Activists further corrupted the doctrine of Havlagah by announcing that counterattacks were permissible if 'the scope of the Jewish reprisal is equal to the magnitude of the British attack.' "

"During the first half of 1946 Weizmann and other moderates fought these compromises. They denounced the Haganah's alliance with the Sternists and Irgun, tried to minimize the number of sabotage operations approved by the Joint Command, and denounced as immoral operations which posed any threat to human life. Yet, although most moderates feared that violence would corrupt Zionism, they also sympathized with the outrage that motivated the activists and terrorists."

"Weizmann feared that Agatha would provoke the underground groups to still greater violence ('The scope of the reprisal must be equal to the magnitude of the attack'). He tried to head off this violence by asking Cunningham to release the leaders. The High Commissioner refused. Now Weizmann's only hope was to persuade the activists to forgo the counterattack he was certain they would begin planning once the government lifted the curfew."

"Early on Monday morning, July 1, six members of the Haganah High Command met in a Tel Aviv apartment to plan the Yishuv's 'reply'. The Haganah's stocky thirty-six-year-old commander, Moshe Sneh, proposed coordinated attacks on the government by all three underground organizations."

[Sneh said] " 'The Palmach will raid the the British arsenal at Bat Galim and retake the arms taken from us at Yagour. The LEHI[Stern Gang] will bomb the David Brothers Building [which contained the offices of the Palestine Information Office] and the Etzel [Irgun] will blow up the government and military headquarters in the King David Hotel.' "

"He argued that the King David operation fulfilled the condition that the scope of reprisal equal the magnitude of the attack. 'They attacked our government body and sought to paralyze it; we will attack and paralyze their government bodies.' The High Command approved the operations unanimously. Once they had accepted Sneh's skewed premise that destroying the King David and searching the Jewish Agency were equivalent acts, then blowing up the King David became not an act of terrorism but a reasonable military operation, a justified counterattack.'

[the X Committee] 'In 1945 the Jewish Agency had set up this five-man committee of activists and moderates to be the Haganah's moral brakes. It could veto any military operation on the grounds that it posed a substantial threat to human life. Sneh, as commander of the Haganah, was automatically a member, so was the Haganah's treasurer Levi Eshkol."

[Sneh seeking X Committee approval] "Next he asked permission for 'an attack directed against two central buildings of the Palestine Government.' One member of the X said, 'We must be careful to choose operations which will mobilize world sympathy and will also be supported by public opinion in Palestine.' 'These proposed operations will have those effects,' Sneh said. 'The public will see them as counterattacks.' The X approved both operations by a vote of three to two."

Hope that's of help. -- ZScarpia (talk) 02:11, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Layout of the hotel

Of what significance is the section entitled "Layout of the hotel" to the article? This page is not about the hotel, but the attack? Chesdovi (talk) 10:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The layout section is to help explain where the Irgun men entered the hotel, where the government and military offices were, where the French consulate-general was, where the porterage team waited, where the Irgun men were fired on when they escaped, where the truck was abandoned, where the getaway was made from and where the two barrow bombs were wheeled into the road. -- ZScarpia (talk) 00:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

A separate section is not needed and elongates the article unnecessarily. Any infomation infoming of the location of events can be merged into the relevant section. Most the paragraph is superfulous: Why do we need to be told that it "which was opened in 1932 as the first, modern, luxury one in Jerusalem", or that "Gardens and an olive grove, which had been designated as a park, surrounded the other sides"? The fact that it is wikilinked to its own article is sufficient. The locations of events you mention, "where the porterage team waited, where the Irgun men were fired on when they escaped, where the truck was abandoned, where the getaway was made from and where the two barrow bombs were wheeled into the road." are not even clearly mentioned in the article. Chesdovi (talk) 01:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The article is still under development and has a long way to go. And its going to get even longer before it gets shorter, so prepare for more reading. Those events may not be mentioned yet, but that's because nobody's got around to writing about them. I've found it a weakness of other accounts that they don't explain clearly where everything lay in relation to each other and that they don't have a centralised explanation of that. Ideally, the article would contain a map. I have removed material before, thinking that it was better for readers to obtain it by following the links, but it has been re-added; some things people like duplicated. In other cases, I have left text alone, including recent changes by you Chesdovi, where I've thought it superfluous or wordy, on grounds of courtesy and that, although seeming unimportant to me, it was probably important to the person who wrote it. -- ZScarpia (talk) 08:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

There is a very good notated map of the area round the hotel on page 138 of By Blood and Fire, a version of which it would be good to have in the article if anyone is looking for a project. -- ZScarpia (talk) 14:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

How generous of you to not to delete the additions I made. You say the article has a long way to go and is still under development, yet I note you have been working on the page for nearly three years. We should not include a summery of intricate details which are not referred to here in the course of events, waiting indefinately and hoping that the relevant info will be added at some stage in the future. Chesdovi (talk) 15:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

You'll notice that it took me a long while between first becoming involved on the talkpage and actually editing the article. The reason for that was that I didn't want to start editing the article until I thought I had a reasonable grasp of the subject. You should also note that a large part of the reason why I haven't added more to the article is that I have to spend so much time, particularly in the talkpage, trying to fend off people whose main or only knowledge of the bombing comes from unreliable sources. -- ZScarpia (talk) 19:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

You are to be commended for your efforts regarding this article, but I still feel a section dedicated to the "layout of the hotel" is really unwarranted here. Even when other incidents are added, there is really no need to have this section. All locations should be explained at the relevant juncture. E.g. When I was reading the Warnings section I got the impression that the French Consulate was located in the hotel, so I added "adjacent to the hotel". This should be done at every instance, making it much clearer, so that one will not need to go back and re-read this section to picture where the event occured. Chesdovi (talk) 00:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Earlier, attempted, attack on the hotel by the Irgun

Of what significance is the section entitled "Earlier, attempted, attack on the hotel by the Irgun" to this article. This page is about the bombing only. Mention of previous attempts can be summed up in a sentence. Chesdovi (talk) 10:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I concur with User:Chesdovi. This is an article (already long) about a specific incident. It is not a history either of the hotel or of Zionist anti-British acrtivity.Historicist (talk) 18:14, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

You'll notice that the information about the previous attack comes from "By Blood and Fire", a book dedicated to the King David Hotel bombing. I think the standard would be whether readers will find it relevant and useful to know that the Irgun had already tried to attack the hotel. My opinion is that they will. The account of the first attack is five lines long - a paragraph - not really what you would call a monograph. -- ZScarpia (talk) 01:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that it has its own sub-heading which gives it undue weight. A book can elaborate on background infomation, but this page should deal with the bombing only. Chesdovi (talk) 01:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

In the same way that the fact that Al-Qaeda bombed the World Trade Center with limited success in the nineties is relevant to the attack in 2001, I think that the previous Irgun attempt to attack the hotel is relevant to the later bombing. The idea of headings is to divide an article up and give it some structure, making it easier to follow than if it was an amorphous mass. Arguments about weight are usually attached to the emphasis given to different viewpoints, not to whether particular parts of an article have a heading or not. -- ZScarpia (talk) 10:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I am not saying completely remove mention of earlier attempted attacks, but rather this should be shortened and merged into another section. You will notice how the 1993 World Trade Center bombing is not even referred to in September 11 attacks. Chesdovi (talk) 13:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The reason that it may not be mentioned is because the 93 bombers only attended Al-Qaeda training camps, but weren't, after all, actually Al-Qaeda members. Otherwise, I think that the earlier attempt would be mentioned in the Al-Qaeda section of the September 11 attacks article. What form would your rewrite take? I think that the earlier attack should exist under some sort of heading of its own. -- ZScarpia (talk) 13:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that the King David Hotel was the correct place to copy the detail about the previous attempted attack from this article (and I'm sure that someone will delete it soon). The current article is a more suitable place for that text. If you really think there is too much detail here, then you should create a new article and link to it. My feeling is that the the change in length of the current article made by doing so would be minimal, though. Perhaps the best candidate for forking off into a new article is the material on John Shaw. I don't agree that the article is too long at the moment. It is certainly not long by the standards of a lot of other articles. Presumably, part of your concern about length is due to download times? If that's the case, you might like to remove the pictures of Menahem Begin and the milk churns. -- ZScarpia (talk) 16:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree. That the hotel was a long-term repeated target is surely a key fact about the attack. There is an argument for an article on Shaw, who is pictured here [5] should anyone want to produce such an article.--Peter cohen (talk) 16:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I have not said the article is too long, just that it is being elongated unecessarily. Please note that WP:NNC states: However, because of the nature of an encyclopedia, the concept of notability nonetheless affects article content. Treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Attend to anything that may construe undue weight, including depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements. Keep in mind that an encyclopedia article is a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject, not a complete exposition of all possible details. Chesdovi (talk) 15:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that the article is really being elongated unnecessarily (that is, there isn't a problem with excessive detail) or that 5 lines spent on describing the first attack is excessive weight, particularly since that attack isn't detailed anywhere else in Wikipedia (except in the King David Hotel article, where you shouldn't have copied it). In any case, the time to judge will be when the article is more mature. -- ZScarpia (talk) 18:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Most of the material contained in the following paragraph is really not essential to the bombing:

Amichai Paglin, the Chief of Operations of the Irgun, developed a remote-controlled mortar with a range of four miles, which was nicknamed the V3 by British military engineers. In 1945, after they had been used to bombard some police stations, six V3s were buried in the olive grove park south of the King David Hotel, three being aimed at the government printing press and three at the hotel itself. The intention was to fire them on the King' birthday, but the Haganah learned about the plan and warned the British through Teddy Kollek of the Jewish Agency]. Army sappers dug them up. On another occasion and during a smaller-scale attack, members of an unknown group threw grenades at the hotel, but missed.

Is it really necessary to note in this article the range of the remote-controlled mortar and its British nickname? Or that Paglin had developed them; Or that some had been used to bomb police stations; Or that 3 were aimed at the government printing press(!); Or on who's birthday they were intended to be fired? This infomation included here is really off subject and seems to be an attempt to provide "of all possible details", something one would expect to see in a book on the subject, not an encyclopeadic entry. Chesdovi (talk) 23:54, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

British Military Headquarters

A great many extremely reliable csources describe the King David as "British Military Headquarters" in Palestine at the time of the bombing. The opening sentence calls it the "central offices of the British Mandatory authorities of Palestine" This is misleading since it sounds like civilian administration. I believe that the sentence should read "British Military Headquarters."Historicist (talk) 18:19, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree and will accordingly modify. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I have reversed this change as it was more than just a military headquarters but also the centre of the civilian administration for the mandate.--Peter cohen (talk) 16:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Was the Pentagon bombing a terrorist attack?

I'm curious. Of course this curiosity has nothing to do with the history or with Jewish history in general, but with the particular and selective applications of the term "terrorism" to certain events and not others. I'm also disappointed that someone removed "terroristic" from the lede. It was the perfect word, and spoke volumes: terrorism, but not terrorism. Terrorist-like, but not actually terrorist. Terrorist-lite; not terrorist classic. -Stevertigo 21:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

This also crossed my mind. We need to remember that in the Pentagon bombing there were civilains on the plane which was turned into a missle. Chesdovi (talk) 01:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Recognizing that there is no bright line dividing terrorism from warfare, there are several things that put this attack into a gray area. If you want to argue that it was not terrorism you argue that the attack was part of a legitimate war of national liberation, that it was an attack on a military target, the headquarters of Britain, an illegitimate occupying power, that no imperial occupation can be legitimate, and that an occupied people has a right to freedom, and a right of armed rebellion, and that Britain cynically or irresponsibly put its civilians at risk when it housed them in a builting that was rendered a legitimate military target by the presence fo the military headquarters. If you want to argue that it was terrorism, you argue that the British occupation of Israel/Palestine was legitimate because of the League of Nations mandate, that the attack took place in a peaceful colony not during a time of war, that soldiers are not a legitimate target in atime of peace, and that at least part fo the hotel was a civilian target, making this terorism even if there had been awar in progress.-- Frankly, I cannot imagine settling this argument to everyone's satisfaction. Therefore I urge that we continue to use specitif, objective terms like "bombing" rather than terrorism. But, out of curiosity, does anyone know what term wikipedia applies when Arab militants attack and murder Israeli soldiers in time of peace?Historicist (talk) 16:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

United Resistance Movement

I note that the wiki article Jewish resistance movement which the text refers to translates the Hebrew phrase Tenu'at Ha-Meri Ha-Ivri, literally, 'Hebrew Rebellion Movement'. Joseph Heller, and Bowyer Bell, among both refer to the United Resistance Movement, and the latter throughout his Terror Out of Zion even gives the phrase of the time without 'Ha-Ivri'. Cross-wiki contamination is not a good thing, and one should sources these things to the best historical works.Nishidani (talk) 18:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think that the terms I've come across most often are United Resistance Movement and Hebrew Resistance Movement. -- ZScarpia (talk) 12:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Army and police reports

Please explain why this section should not be merged with the Warnings section. Chesdovi (talk) 00:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Some ordering

It is only prudent to list first the generally agreed-upon target of the attack and not the other functions of the building. As a more extreme example of how this may be phrased is '... attacked a Hotel housing tourists which also housed the (...)'. I'd also personally go as listing under 'attack on' only the intended target of the attack, but first things first. 132.66.126.200 (talk) 17:51, 15 March 2009 (UTC)