Talk:Irgun/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Wanted Poster for Menachem Begin

IIs there anyone objecting uploading of the wanted Poster for Menachem Begin[1] along with other Irgun members. Photographs of the Irgun in action Kasaalan (talk) 21:59, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The usual issue with such things is copyright. Anything after 1939 would still be copyright unless you can find reasons why particular pictures are exempted or woudl hav a fair use justification.--Peter cohen (talk) 08:48, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Do wanted posters, have any copyright. This should be fair use. By the way since since Irgun operated between "1931 and 1948" possibly the image don't have any copyright claim. Kasaalan (talk) 11:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Well the first step would be to identify what authority issued the wanted poster, and look into their copyright laws. I believe American wanted posters and mug shots and the like are in the public domain as they are works released by the government, but not sure if other areas have similar laws. Tarc (talk) 12:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

British they are as far as I know. Kasaalan (talk) 22:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Terrorist organization

How can you blow up a hotel and not be labeled "terrorist"?√ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.222.254.1 (talk) 23:49, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree ♥Yasmina♥ (talk) 01:48, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Easily. When the hotel isn't being used as a hotel, but rather as the headquarters of an occupation force, which is exactly what the British were at the time. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 19:03, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

British occupation? -DePiep (talk) 20:11, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes. The British Mandate was explicitly an occupation. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 00:30, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

If so, they occupied Palestine, then. Let's give it back. Easily, indeed. -DePiep (talk) 01:17, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Categories

There is an edit war going on with the categories. Please discuss this, and reach wp:consensus. At the moment, the inclusion of the cats, rather than the rolled-up cat, seems best to me.- Sinneed 15:22, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree, the categories on the article page make it easier to reach related pages--Profitoftruth85 (talk) 02:46, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Links to Haganah and rift with mainstream Zionist movements

We should include two things about Irgun in this article. First, it had links according to the Times London and New York Times to the Haganah military group - specifically in reference to the King David Hotel Bombing. See this link () for the full New York Times investigative report.

We should also include that it had huge rifts with the mainstream Zionist groups who eventually hailed it as a terrorist group and condemned its attacks (see: http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F70D11FF3858147B93C5A81783D85F438485F9&scp=10&sq=irgun+terrorist&st=p). It also tried to create a civil war in early Israel in the first few years of the creation of the state by preventing the import of arms and calling for armed conflict with the state (see: http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FA091EF9395F167B93C0AB178DD85F4C8485F9&scp=5&sq=irgun+terrorist&st=p) and (http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FA061EFB385E17738DDDAE0A94D8415B8788F1D3&scp=8&sq=irgun+terrorist&st=p). I understand the worries about "one man's terrorist is anothers freedom fighter" but we need to make sure to represent all points of view here.

Also note the American Council for Judiasm criticized Begim and his connects to Irgun and called for a US Federal Investegation suspecting the group for terrorism (http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F30F17FD3854177A93C3A91789D95F4C8485F9&scp=4&sq=irgun+terrorist+king+david&st=p).

Likewise, we can note the group renounced terrorism when it became incorporated in the IDF. Yes, this is contentious and it defies a lot of nationalist narratives within Israel - however, at the time most Jewish citizens of the pre-Israel state, most observers abroad, and most proto-Israeli group criticized the group. Lets create an honest entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.126.107.140 (talk) 17:36, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Image caption

What seems to be lost in the edit war over the picture caption is that the borders of the British Mandate are irrelevant. I edited the caption because it expresses a POV — namely, that the Balfour Declaration proposed a Jewish national home in the whole of the British Mandate of Palestine. This is not, and may never be, a settled matter.

What is settled, however, is that IZL claimed the British Mandate territory in its entirety for a Jewish state. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:50, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Since the Balfour Declaration preceded the British Mandate for Palestine, the formation of the League of Nations, the carving up of Ottoman territories and the end of hostilities, I'd say it's fairly certain that the Balfour Declaration didn't do what was being claimed. The impression that I have is that, to satisfy various factions among the American, French and British allies and the Zionist leadership, the Balfour Declaration was deliberately worded very vaguely. It had no exact meaning, but was expressing a general intention. One thing that was kept vague was what exactly was meant by a Jewish National Home. To some, including Balfour and Lloyd George, it meant that a Jewish state would be created; to some, such as Churchill it didn't.     ←   ZScarpia   08:58, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Questionable paragraph

Please explain why this paragraph is given such a prominent place as the final paragraph of the introduction?:

The Irgun was a political predecessor to Israel's right-wing Herut (or "Freedom") party, [4] which led to today's Likud party. Likud has led or been part of most Israeli governments since 1977.

It may be true, probably is in fact, but is it really important in this article? Is the implication being given that members of Likud are the heirs of terrorists? To me, not an expert on Israeli history by any means, that seems to be what is being implied. Even if not the paragraph is not really about the topic of the article. Borock (talk) 01:36, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Too much discussion via ES

User:Lisa is using editorial allowances a bit extremely for such a subject. Discussion is (unwanted) through ES. I added the I/P ARB template, and will ask Lisa to restrain. -DePiep (talk) 01:07, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Warned Lisa here. Clear enough? -DePiep (talk) 01:14, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea what you mean by "via ES". I made an edit. It was reverted with the statement that it didn't fit the source, and that I should bring a source. So I did. I do not consider that doing so was in any way something to be criticized or warned about. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 03:35, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

"ES" is edit summary. And you're mistaken: the source says nothing remotely similar to what you've written in the article, at least not on the page cited or the rest of the section concerning the Prevention of Terrorism Ordinance, 1948. What you've written may well be true, but the source doesn't support it. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:49, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

And actually, Lisa, you did not "... made an edit". You made one, two ,three. To improve clarity, I hereby point to the general boilerplate warning re ARB I/P, ({{Palestine-Israel enforcement}}), WP:ARBPIA. -DePiep (talk) 18:27, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, Lisa, why did you not read the text I put on your talkpage, diff linked above? Why do you reply here only to the "dunno ES", but NOT to the ARB P/I reference that is all around, and that I did mention? -DePiep (talk) 18:18, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Lead - critics of the Irgun

The Lead reads:

Critics of the Irgun have seen it as a terrorist organization.

As written, a couple of implications might possibly be read into the sentence which are not true:

• Only critics of the Irgun view it as a terrorist organisation.
• Viewing the Irgun as a terrorist organisation makes a person a critic of the Irgun.

Therefore, I rewrote the sentence as follows (my edit was reverted by editor Logan's Beans, whose first (and, up to the 28th of May, only) edit it was):

Critics of the Irgun and others have seen it as a terrorist organization.

    ←   ZScarpia   14:40, 26 May 2011 (UTC) (extended: 02:02, 28 May 2011 (UTC))

As an alternative, I amended the text to read:

The Irgun has been viewed as a terrorist organization.

That has also been reverted (without an explanation being given).

The example given in the Lead section is the CIA. It's stretching it a bit to call the CIA a critic of the Irgun. The Encyclopedia Britannica describes the Irgun as an organization which carried out terrorist acts: Irgun committed acts of terrorism and assassination against the British, whom it regarded as illegal occupiers, and it was also violently anti-Arab. The Encyclopedia Britannica is not a critic of the Irgun. The Encyclopedia of the Modern Middle East and North Africa, not a critic of the Irgun, says in its article on the Irgun: During and after the Arab uprising of 1936–1939 and the British White Paper of May 1939, the Irgun embarked on a series of terrorist attacks on British and Palestinian targets. In its article on Menachem Begin it says: Begin did not flinch from terrorism, believing that the fighting Jew had to be no less ruthless than his enemies. J. Bowyer Bell, not a critic of the Irgun, describes acts carried out by it as terrorism. Other examples can be given. In the article, the etzel.org.il site is cited as saying that the Irgun rule was "no individual terror" (presumably the sending of mail bombs wasn't counted), implying that the Irgun thought of itself as practising 'group' terrorism.

Since a group that carries out acts which are seen as terrorism may not necessarily be seen as a terrorist organization, I now propose the following text:

The Irgun has been viewed as a terrorist organization or as an organization which carried out terrorist acts.

The proposed text avoids implying that the Irgun was only viewed as carrying out terrorist acts by critics while also avoiding implying that that view was universal.

    ←   ZScarpia   01:34, 28 May 2011 (UTC) (amended 12:14, 28 May 2011 (UTC))

Haganah, Palmach, Irgun - Use of the definite article

In English, it's acceptable to use the definite article before the words Haganah, Palmach and Irgun and, in my opinion, it sounds more natural.

As illustration, an excerpt from The Encyclopedia of the Modern Middle East and North Africa:

The Arabs, however, were not as effectively organized as the Jewish forces. The latter consisted of three principal groups: the Haganah, the defense organization of the mainstream Jewish community; and two dissident factions, the Irgun Zvai Leumi (IZL or Etzel; National Military Organization) and Lohamei Herut Yisrael (Lehi; Fighters for the Freedom of Israel), also known as the Stern Gang. The latter two were associated with Revisionist Zionism.

    ←   ZScarpia   11:58, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I'm reverting the editor who removed the "the"s from the articles. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:39, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

1948 action of israeli govt

The Prevention of Terrorism Ordinance passed by the Israeli government in the wake of the Folke Bernadotte assassination was used to declare Lehi to be a terrorist organization and two Lehi leaders were tried and convicted for belonging to it. It was also used as a threat to immediately disband the Irgun, but as far as I know there was never an official declaration by the Israeli government that Irgun was a terrorist organization. If someone has a source that says otherwise, please bring it. The source previously given (Schmidt) does not actually make this claim and it also incorrectly states that Irgun was involved in the asassination. Zero^talk 13:48, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Tehomi.jpg Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Tehomi.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Media without a source as of 28 June 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:50, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

File:KD 1946.JPG Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:KD 1946.JPG, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 6 September 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 00:42, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Protected - 7 Days

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

Category:Resistance movements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yesterday you went on a spree adding Category: Resistance Movement to ten articles in the span of less than five minutes.[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11] All of them anti-Israel organizations. It is impossible to find the sources and the articles in that span of time. Yet for one article about a pro-Israel organization you demand sourcing, and when a list of sources are presented you demand specificity. How audacious. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:09, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Unbalanced

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

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

End of Restraint

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

Terrorists?

It is clear that this article was written by British people and other anti-Semites. The only reason this resistance group is being called terrorist is because they were Jewish. For an example of a neutral article about another resistance group that successfully resisted British imperialism, see Patriot (American Revolution). Notice how there is no racist vilification in that article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.65.233.219 (talk) 22:23, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

"British people and other anti-Semites." Are you prone to making such generalisations? The reason the Irgun is seen as terrorist is because they used terrorist methods such as sending parcel bombs, throwing bombs into crowds, bombing market places and railway stations and raising money by carrying out robberies.     ←   ZScarpia   18:51, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

According to the article and its sources:

References to the Irgun as a terrorist organization came from sources including the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry,[52] newspapers[53][54][55][56][57] and a number of prominent world and Jewish figures.[58][59][60] Leaders within the mainstream Jewish organizations, the Jewish Agency, Haganah and Histadrut, as well as the British authorities, routinely condemned Irgun operations as terrorism and branded it an illegal organization as a result of the group's attacks on civilian targets.[57] However, privately at least the Haganah kept a dialogue with the dissident groups.[61] Ironically, in early 1947, "the British army in Mandate Palestine banned the use of the term 'terrorist' to refer to the Irgun zvai Leumi ... because it implied that British forces had reason to be terrified."[62]

Referring to the Irgun as terrorist is hardly antisemitic. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:22, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

The Irgun and the Patriots are two completely unrelated topics, with no point of comparison. Different century, different conflict, different society, different context, everything is different. Even Britain, the alleged point in common (a shared enemy) is not quite the same, the country changed in two centuries. In fact, was the term "terrorism" even used in its current form in the political discourse of the XVIII century? Because if it wasn't, pointing that the patriots were not considered terrorists does not prove anything. Cambalachero (talk) 02:37, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Complete nonsense. The Irgun and the Patriots are very related. They both fought to free their countries from British occupation and tyranny. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.127.28.67 (talk) 18:15, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

British occupation and tyrrany? Naughty Brits, first of all daring to try and rule British colonies in North America and then invading Ottoman territory after the latter declared war on the Allies and having the audacity to hang onto the bits that weren't given to the French, under League of Nations mandates. Tyranny? Hell yes, imagine having the temerity to threaten the interests of the American colonists by making treaties to limit the colonies to east of the Appalachians and declaring slavery illegitimate (the reasons that native and black Americans fought on the British side) and then, a couple of hundred years later, deciding that helping Jews to colonise Palestine over the protests of the locals wasn't quite fair.     ←   ZScarpia   18:51, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Dont waste your time, already blocked as an open-proxy. WP:RBI nableezy - 18:58, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I wouldn't have bothered if I'd known (or bothered to check).     ←   ZScarpia   19:09, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Etzel as an Acronym

I noticed in the image showing the Irgun emblem it explains that the writing on the top "Etzel" is an acronym. Will somebody tell me what the acronym stands for? Perhaps I am just too impatient with my research, but after reading the article and an admitted quick internet search I couldn't figure it out. Thank YouDirtclustit (talk) 06:45, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

National Military Organization. In Hebrew it is the initial letters of the first three words of the full name, discarding the definite article. Zero^talk 07:13, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

It's a common practice in Israel: Mapai for Mifleget Poalei Eretz Israel (Land of Israel Workers' Party), Mapam for Mifleget HaPoalim HaMeuhedet (United Workers' Party, Rakah for Reshima Komunistit Hadasha (New Communist List), Hadash for HaHazit HaDemokratit LeShalom VeLeShivion (The Democratic Front for Peace and Equality), and many more. The practice is also used for personal names ─Maimonides is usually referred to as Rambam (Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon) and poet Yonah ben Yehuda published as Yebi ─ for organisations, place names and in other circumstances. The practice can indeed be confusing, due to the omission of definnite articles and inconsistencies of transliteration. RolandR (talk) 13:29, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you kindly, you have no idea how many seemingly unrelated events are suddenly, now much more clear. As if that were one of the linguistical objects that looked as if I could reach out and grab it without having to step closer, which obviously I could not, but was sure if I just stood up I could easily touch it, and would have bet my life that if not, then no more than one baby step forward would put me close enough to bear hug it.

Every day for the last six years I take that step and could not for the life of me grab anything but air.Dirtclustit (talk) 22:54, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Size of membership

I have a 'new' book (Kirk, George (1954) Survey of International Affairs - The Middle East 1945-1950. Oxford University Press) which gives a much larger number for the membership of Irgun. A footnote (p.233) says: "The I.Z.L. was said to have increased its membership during the past year, largely by recruitment from the Haganah, from about 5,000 to something like 10,000 plus several thousand passive sympathizers (Zionist Review Jerusalem correspondent, 30 May 1947, p.4: cf. Crossman, 31 January 1947, HC Deb. 5th ser.,vol. 432, coll. 1322-4)" The footnote also quotes a statement made in the UK House of Lords saying that underground organisations collecting funds in the USA had raised $25-30 million in the first four months of 1947. Is it time to include some suggestion that Irgun may have been stronger than the usual estimates? Padres Hana (talk) 11:26, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm, maybe. A claim in the Zionist Review might have been boasting. There is no support for the numbers in the HC debate, see [12]. That same web site will have the Lords statement too, but I can't find it without the name of the speaker or the date. Zero^talk 12:07, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Weasel wording in the section on the MacDonald White Paper

The white paper set low quotas for immigration for five years, followed by a the curtailment of all Jewish immigration without the consent of the Arab population. That is, it was effectively the abrogation of the mandate. Moreover, it was not passed for the purpose of 'equitableness' but rather because the British government decided to appease the Arabs, since it knew that the Jews would take their side against the Nazis anyhow. I have a source for this, but I have to actually check which book it's in. It was seen as doubly treacherous because the limitations were imposed right in the 'hour of need'. There is an interview with Israel Eldad, where he explains that the formation of LEHI happened after he met Avraham Stern at a Betar conference held in Poland in response to the White paper, and that their faction intended to quickly overthrow the mandatory government in order to implement Jabotinsky's evacuation plan.

Jabotinsky, Begin, and David Raziel (as well as most of Betar/Irgun) decided instead on a program of political pressure, the formation of a Jewish army (in the mold of Masaryk's Czechoslovak Legion, which eventually formed the core of the military of the nascent Czechoslovak state), and illegal immigration in the mean time (the plan is fleshed out in Jabotinsky's 1940 book "The Jewish War Front"). This plan went awry with Jabotinsky's unexpected death in 1940.

I can provide links later. À demain! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.194.151.158 (talk) 21:39, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Removal of sourced text

An IP edited the article to remove the statement "The Irgun believed that any means necessary to establish the Jewish State of Israel, including terrorism, was justifiable". The ref cited was Cleveland, William L. A History of the Modern Middle East. Boulder, CO: Westview, 2004. The edit summary given was "source is talking about Lehi, not Irgun". I have checked the work cited, which states "Although the Irgun’s terrorist tactics often brought discredit to the Zionist enterprise as a whole, its ruthless single-mindedness appealed to a certain segment of the Jewish community that believed that any action taken in the cause of the creation of a Jewish state was justified".

I have restored the sentence, and find it quite difficult to believe that the edit, with its apparently deliberate misrepresentation of the source, was made in good faith. RolandR (talk) 01:14, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Propaganda

In order to increase the popularity of the Irgun organization and ideology, Irgun employed propaganda. This propaganda was mainly aimed at the British, and included the idea of Eretz Israel. According to Irgun propaganda posters, the Jewish state was not only to encompass all of Mandatory Palestine, but also The Emirate of Transjordan.

When the Labour party came into power in Britain in July of 1945, Irgun published an announcement entitled, "We shall give the Labour Government a Chance to Keep Its Word." In this publication, Irgun stated, "Before it came to power, this Party undertook to return the Land of Israel to the people of Israel as a free state... Men and parties in opposition or in their struggle with their rivals, have, for twenty-five years, made us many promises and undertaken clear obligations; but, on coming to power, they have gone back on their words." Another publication, which followed a British counter-offensive against Jewish organizations in Palestine, Irgun released a document titled, "Mobilize the Nation!" Irgun used this publication to paint the British regime as hostile to the Jewish people, even comparing the British to the Nazis. In response to what was seen as British aggression, Irgun called for a Hebrew Provisional Government, and a Hebrew Liberation Army.

Please inform me on this talk page, or my own, of any errors or suggestions, whether it be in citation, content, grammar, etc. Jackmcgovern (talk) 06:23, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

First all of "1995" is certainly a mistake.Could you please bring relevant quotes from the books that you paraphrased?Also you should cite page numbers.--Shrike (talk) 07:41, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Should be 1945. My library has this book and it appears reliable. Tavin was a senior Irgun leader and Alexander is an academic expert on terrorism. Zero^talk 08:03, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Yeah the book reliable I agree does book have much commentary or its only propaganda posters?My concern is WP:OR and WP:COPYVIO--Shrike (talk) 08:22, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

From memory, it consists of Irgun writings, transcripts of radio broadcasts, and such, with introductory commentary. Zero^talk 10:56, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

1995 was a bad typo, it has been corrected to 1945. I will add page numbers to my citations. Jackmcgovern (talk) 18:56, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Altalena and "UN resolution"

The current description of the Altalena affair in the article is not what the photograph description says: "June 1948. The ship Altalena on fire after being shelled near Tel-Aviv. Altalena was a ship of the right wing zionist organisation “Irgoun”, which tried to give weapons to the fighters of irgoun in Isel. The Israeli government refused the existence of weapons furnitures without the control of IDF, and fought against the boat." The ship wasn't sunk because of the UN resolution imposing an arms embargo in the region. It was shelled by the Israeli government (which also violated that resolution, as well as the Arabs) because the Irgun refused to hand in the weapons. Could somebody please correct that wrong (unsourced) information? Thanks--186.138.98.227 (talk) 19:19, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Irgun. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071121190556/http://stopmebeforeivoteagain.org/brenner/ to http://stopmebeforeivoteagain.org/brenner

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:27, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

"Led by Menachem Begin, a future Prime Minister of Israel"

Icewhiz (talk · contribs) claims it is synth to add "Led by Menachem Begin, a future Prime Minister of Israel" to the article. In a later change, I added 2 academic sources on terrorism that say that exact thing. Al-Andalusi (talk) 22:09, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Pretty much every source about the Irgun makes the point that Begin later became PM. So it isn't synth but just context the follows the sources. However the sentence has the problem that Begin only led the Irgun for a part of its history. Zero^talk 23:47, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Leadership of the Irgun should be discussd separately - it might be DUE for the lead, buf if it is - we should be discussing the leadership through the years. Per WP:TERRORIST we should state exactly who viewed the Irgun as such and use in-text attribution. "has been viewed" does not cut it.Icewhiz (talk) 03:10, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Terrorist organization

I wrote 'widely described as a terrorist organisation' impeccably sourced.

This is a descriptive summation of a general inrterpretation. The reference to WP:Terrorist ignores the explicit words of that policy:

alue-laden labels—such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion—may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution.

Numerous secondary sources confirm this as also a view shared by Yishuv views and subsequently Israel itself:

The British had already classified Irgun as a terrorist organization. The Jewish Agency for Palestinje, Haganah and Histadrut had all declared its operations as terrorist acts.'[ Richard Edwards, 'Menachem Begin', in Spencer C. Tucker, Priscilla Roberts (eds.) The Encyclopedia of the Arab-Israeli Conflict: A Political, Social, and Military History, ABC-CLIO, Vol.1 2008 pp.201-203 p.202

On May 28, 1948, the provisional government of the newly declared State of Israel transformed Haganah into its national military, the IDF, and outlawed all other armed forces. In September 1948.Paul P.Pierpaoli,Jr 'Haganah,' in Spencer C. Tucker, Priscilla Roberts (eds.) The Encyclopedia of the Arab-Israeli Conflict: A Political, Social, and Military History, ABC-CLIO, Vol.1 2008 p.414.

Most importantly, the source removed this text: Marshall Sklare, Jonathan D. Sarna Observing America's Jews, University Press of New England/ Brandeis University Press, 1993 p.104 n.4:'Widely regarded as a terrorist group,' which states exactly what our lead documents,

The Irgun has been viewed as a terrorist organization or organization which carried out terrorist acts. Specifically the organization "committed acts of terrorism and assassination against the British, whom it regarded as illegal occupiers, and it was also violently anti-Arab" according to the Encyclopædia Britannica. In particular the Irgun was described as a terrorist organization by the United Nations, British, and United States governments; in media such as The New York Times newspaper; as well as by the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry, the 1946 Zionist Congress and the Jewish Agency.

So there was no argument against removal, since (a) the page already notes this fact extensively (b) the refinement I added was a generalization of views, not a descriptor of an assumed fact. I'll be putting the source back in.Nishidani (talk) 14:46, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

It was a duplicate. We already have a full paragraph - paragraph 4 of the lede - that leads off with "The Irgun has been viewed as a terrorist organization or organization which carried out terrorist acts" and continues to list various organizations who held/hold that viewpoint.Icewhiz (talk) 14:51, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 August 2022

The "End of restraint" section twice mentions when they began making attacks on Arab villages. These could be combined for simplicity.

Irgun members continued to defend settlements, but at the same time began attacks on Arab villages, thus ending the policy of restraint.

The first attacks began around April 1936, and by the end of World War II

should become

While continuing to defend settlements, Irgun members began attacks on Arab villages around April 1936, thus ending the policy of restraint.

By the end of World War II

Finally, note that the whole section has just one source, which is appended to just one sentence; the rest of the section should be marked with {{citation needed}}. Thank you. 123.51.107.94 (talk) 01:37, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

 Done Except I tagged the section with {{refimprove section}} rather than multiple {{citation needed}} * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:18, 17 August 2022 (UTC)