Talk:Killings and massacres during the 1948 Palestine war

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Palestine (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic :Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Wikipedia. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Death (Rated List-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 


What is this doing here?[edit]

Against Jews outside Palestine[edit]

Jewish population centers in Arab countries outside Palestine also became threatened, in relation to the partition plan. On November 14, 1947, the Egyptian delegate at the United Nations stated that: 'The proposed solution might endanger a million Jews living in the Muslim countries. Partition of Palestine might create in those countries an anti-Semitism even more difficult to root out than the antisemitism which the Allies tried to eradicate in Germany'.[1] The UN partition resolution was followed by violence against Jews, as in Aden, in which on 2 December 1947 82 Jews were killed[2] or in Aleppo where ten synagogues, five schools and 150 houses were destroyed soon after.[3]

The New York Times reported a memorandum of the World Jewish Congress expressing concerns about this situation in the edition of 16 May 1948 in an article entitled : "Jews in grave danger in all Moslem lands: Nine hundred thousand in Africa and Asia face the wrath of their foes".[4] In Cairo in Egypt, between June and November 1948, several bombing attacks took place against Jews, killing several dozens of them with an unknown number of victims.[5]

None of this has anything to do textually with the topic,, which visibly focuses on events in Israel/Palestine during the 1947/1948 period.Nishidani (talk) 06:42, 5 May 2015 (UTC)


NPOV[edit]

If whether or not these killings and massacres were carried out with the intent of hastening the exodus, is part of the effects caused by these massacres (it is already mentioned in the previous phrase)[1]. This sentence is repetitive and reduce the historical dispute to this particular controversy. This issue should be discuss further in the article, along with disputed issues and theories concerning the causes and the existence of theses massacres. The matter is, if you repeat it twice, it exclude all the other possibilities. I am concerned by the fact that there is only one sentence about other than the conventional "new historian POV": According to Avi Shlaim, "purity of arms" is one of the key features of 'the conventional Zionist account or old history' whose 'popular-heroic-moralistic version of the 1948 war' is 'taught in Israeli schools and used extensively in the quest for legitimacy abroad'.

Israel archives do not confirm any massacre' especially not according to the source. It is only according to some historians, whose have based their works upon thoses archives. Better sources are needed. "Israeli archives do not confirm massacres and the relevant IDF and haganah archives were completely closed due to the Israelis Archives Law (1955). We need more material to alleged this controversial claim".

--... Point by point ... (talk) 22:53, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

You mean the archives law of 1955 that who's principle is that all material is to be released after thirty years, subject to limitations based on damage to state security, foreign policy or personal privacy. If you want to cast doubt on the reliability of a source this really doesn't make your case. You might also start by mentioning the exact sources you are casting doubt on.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:05, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello -Serialjoepsycho-, I think it was rather 50 years when the law passed. Here is the source Serialjoepsycho, Esber 2009, p.356. Morris for example, admitted that he did not had access to many relevant files, because of this law. Of course, my only purpose is to add the template <better source>.

--... Point by point ... (talk) 01:00, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

@Point by point: Since most of the documentation produced by Morris and others regarding the massacres came from the Israeli archives, your statement is factually false. In fact Morris often quotes explicit admissions from the archives. You should read his book before reverting again. Regarding access to Israeli archives, I recommend the informative podcast by Shay Hazkani. Zerotalk 05:27, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Verification policy requires only the possibility of verification is my interpretation of WP:SOURCEACCESS. However we aren't using the Israeli archives as a source. The question would be if this source being discussed is reliable. I don't have the book but it seems widely available. Evidence that the writer had not viewed the Israeli archives and that he used the archives as a source for his book would open up questions to the reliability of the book but it seems this evidence is lacking. Zero I am assuming here that you have read the source and you have not found where the writer did not have access to the relevant files to make the case that he made? -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:03, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
If we are talking about the book of Benny Morris, he is one of the most prominent Israeli historians and his book is very famous. He had access to a lot of archival files, some which have since been reclassified. He didn't have access to all possible files, but that is true for every historian who works on modern history. Future historians who get access to additional files can correct the record if necessary and we will cite them. It isn't acceptable to omit or tag something just on the off-chance that there might be other evidence hidden somewhere. It is also wrong to assume that The Truth is always to be found in government archives. Actually many files are written by people with axes to grind or things to hide. Zerotalk 01:02, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Ok, anyway, there is no reasonable reason to remove a template asking for better sources (that implicitly contribute to improvement of the article), it is indeed highly controversial amongst historians. Could you show, an IDF files that prove explicitly that killings occurred in numerous Arab villages ? This is why adding a template <better source> is needed. First, the actual source, Esber 2009, p.356 is not even reliable. This discussion about adding or not, a template, allow to understand the severity of the situation. Secondly, the article is clearly politically-oriented. Almost, All the sources are made of, Benny Morris, Pappé, Esber and Khalidi. Again, I am not a "fan" of old and cranky historians. but, this is too much "neutrality" for me.

--... Point by point ... (talk) 03:31, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like you need to go to wp:RSN then.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:15, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
I don't need to show you any files. That's what we have secondary sources for. Look here, page 481. All of the citations on that page are to Israeli archives. There are more quotations from the documents in the footnotes (page 500 if you can see it). You actually need to do some reading; you don't have a case here. Zerotalk 04:17, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
He himself admitted that he did not had access to many important files. But why are you talking about morris now? Where are the criticsm of "new historian/arab narrative"?[2]. There is many historians, not just Morris, or "the political-historian group" praised by those who wrote this article.

."I don't need to show you any files.". Is not a valuable argument. How could you claim that the IdF files prove the existence of massacres, while you keep refusing to show up evidences to back up your claim!The template is about the Esber source named "Esber 2009, p. 356". --... Point by point ... (talk) 05:00, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

There is no reason to leave a template asking for better sources given the source is reliable. (And everybody who has read books on the topic knows these archives were opened to researchers in the eighties.) Pluto2012 (talk) 04:45, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
I have already answer to this. The archives? Wich archives. This is not serious. I don't have to argue about nonsense with somebody who ignore blatantly my arguments.

--... Point by point ... (talk) 05:00, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

As soon as, you are not persuaded by my arguments. As soon as you ignore them. Your comments "does not deserve serious attention or reply". Upon thus far, I will do absolutely nothing.

--... Point by point ... (talk) 20:39, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

That's not what's been said. They have argued that this source is a reliable source and as such there is no need for the template. That's pretty simple to understand. Now WP:RSN the reliable sources noticeboard is a location you can try to get a consensus that this is not a reliable source. The consensus as it stands is that this source is a reliable source.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 03:01, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
I am not interested he can proclaim loudly that the source is reliable, it doesn't change anything. Does the Israel archives confirm any massacre? No, therefore this is unacceptable and I guess by reading books, not just - Pappé or Finkelstein - he knows it too.

--... Point by point ... (talk) 05:11, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Take it to WP:RSN or drop the stick.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 05:27, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Look, this debate about adding a template is exciting. You should do it yourself.

--... Point by point ... (talk) 06:20, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:RSN is not a template. It is the reliable sources noticeboard.You need a concensus for your change, that's a simple enough matter. Two people here suggest that the source is reliable, you suggest it's not. You can either drop the stick or do something to get a consensus. I'll remind you that this article is under WP:ARBPIA sanctions that you have already been notified about on your talk page. Your failure or refusal to get the point is becoming disruptive. Drop the stick or move on o an action that can result in a consensus for your changes, suggest as going to Reliable source noticeboard.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 06:31, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
In a case study Benny Morris writes:
Few such documents have surfaced in Israel’s archives during the past fifty years, partly because soldiers and officers who committed atrocities rarely left written descriptions behind, partly because those that do exist are mostly deposited in the IDF Archive, where internal censors make sure that documents explicitly pertaining to massacres or expulsions never see the light of day. But occasionally slips occur.
Pluto2012 (talk) 05:50, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Hasten the exodus or not ?[edit]

The lead summarizes the article and the question of the (potential) motivation for these massacres is discussed among scholars. That's here. Pluto2012 (talk) 08:46, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

If whether or not these killings and massacres were carried out with the intent of hastening the exodus, is part of the effects caused by these massacres (it is already mentioned in the previous phrase)[3]. This sentence is repetitive and reduce the historical dispute to this particular controversy. This issue should be discuss further in the article, along with disputed issues and theories concerning the causes and the existence of theses massacres. The matter is, if you repeat it twice, it exclude all the other possibilities. I am concerned by the fact that there is only one sentence about other than the conventional "new historian POV": According to Avi Shlaim, "purity of arms" is one of the key features of 'the conventional Zionist account or old history' whose 'popular-heroic-moralistic version of the 1948 war' is 'taught in Israeli schools and used extensively in the quest for legitimacy abroad'.--... Point by point ... (talk) 02:47, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Actually no it's not saying the same thing twice. Effect and intent are two separate concepts.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:14, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Although Pluto2012 I wouldn't say this lead summarizes the article. It's not up to MOS:LEAD standards. By that I mean it could be expanded. But I'm sure that will be fixed before the deadline.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:55, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi user:Serialjoepsycho,
On wp:fr, we always summarize WP:LEAD in stating that the lead summarizes the article; a good reason why it doesn't need to be sourced and why it can only gather material coming from the core of the article.
But on wp:en, it seems the same. In MOS:LEAD, I can read : "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects."
Pluto2012 (talk) 12:52, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
This sentence is repetitive and reduce the historical dispute to this particular controversy. (Ignored argument)

--... Point by point ... (talk) 06:08, 26 October 2015 (UTC)Italic text

It's not been ignored. I've already directly responded to it.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 06:34, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Neutrality[edit]

Where are the criticsm of "new historian/arab narrative"?[4]. There is many historians, not just Morris, or "the political-historian group" praised by those who wrote this article.

Secondly, the article is clearly politically-oriented. Almost, All the sources are made of, Benny Morris, Pappé, Esber and Khalidi. Again, I am not a "fan" of old and cranky historians. but, this is too much "neutrality" for me.

I am concerned by the fact that there is only one sentence about other than the conventional "new historian POV": According to Avi Shlaim, "purity of arms" is one of the key features of 'the conventional Zionist account or old history' whose 'popular-heroic-moralistic version of the 1948 war' is 'taught in Israeli schools and used extensively in the quest for legitimacy abroad'.

--... Point by point ... (talk) 06:08, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Most of you argument is "I don't like it". Anything that isn't can simple be responded to with WP:SOFIXIT.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 06:45, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
I see also Efraim Karsh, Yoav Gelber, Uri Milstein, Howard Sachar and Anita Shapira who are not exactly New historians but rather traditionnal ones. Henry Laurens (scholar) is impossible to categorize
Benny Morris is The Reference on the topic and it is difficult to categorize him as well. Let's say pro-Israeli anyway.
The only one whose presence could be discussed is Saleh Abd al-Jawad but we have to use Palestinian historians too...
Pluto2012 (talk) 11:58, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

References[edit]

  1. ^ Malka Hillel Shulewitz (2000), p.84.
  2. ^ Reuben Ahroni, The Jews of the British Crown Colony of Aden: history, culture, and ethnic relations, Brill, 1994 p.210
  3. ^ Benny Morris (2006), p.412.
  4. ^ New York Times, 16 May 1948, retrievable here
  5. ^ Joel Beinin (1998), pp.68-69.