Talk:Killings and massacres during the 1948 Palestine war/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

NPoV issue

In May, a tag of NPoV was added to the article. NPoV means that not all points of view are given and that the article is biaised. Can the people who added this tag explains what points of views are not given and give the references to them so that we can remove the tag.
Benny Morris, 1948: A History of the First Arab-Israli War, is the main source of this article. Anyway, this work is not controversed. As proven by this review by Prof Yoav Gelber, one of the higher adversary of the New historians : review of Morris by Gelber. 80.200.4.11 (talk) 07:59, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Too much reliance on Benny Morris and other "new historians" (2)

Some editors consider this article rely too much on Benny Morris and on other new historians. Yoav Gelber and Efraim Karsh, eg, are not new historians. More, the material in this article is not controversed and when it is disputed, other sources are given. What are the other sources that could be used ? Could the people that claim other sources should be used give them ? 80.200.4.11 (talk) 08:02, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

You are mixing up things. The {{One source}} tag only mentions the fact that this article relies for most of its references on the works of one author. Whether that author or his works are under controversy or disputed is not the issue. Nor does the usage of that tag imply that those using it are familiar with other sources, or even convinced that such other sources exist. Debresser (talk) 12:16, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

The "one source" tag is not a tag people can use just to tag an article in order to state you don't like it. That is what you do. You agree you don't know the topic. If you are not able to argue why that article would rely too much on one single source, the tag has no reason to be there.

You have to give your arguments.

• How many sources are there currently ? How many should be needed ?
• How many times Morris, 1948 is used ? Why is this not appropriate ? How could it be improved if needed ?
• What are the other point of views that would not be in the article ?

91.180.158.68 (talk) 07:10, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Please refrain from accusation ("you don't like this article", "you don't know the topic"). The tag is a regular Wikipedia tag, which is one of my expertises on Wikipedia, and is used here in its appropriate way. Debresser (talk) 19:13, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

In addition I hereby warn you not to remove these tag unless you can show consensus for such a move. If you don't understand the tags' purpose or do not like it here, seek consensus. That is one of the pillars upon which Wikipedia is build. Please familiarise yourself with Wikipedia policies and guidelines first, because failing to do so might lead to community sanctions. Debresser (talk) 19:17, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Debresser, I do not find on this page an argument for the "one source" tag. It is your responsibility to provide such an argument, as you are one who insists on the presence of the tag. Do you have a good reason to believe that there are important (and reliable) sources not currently being utilized in this article? Can you give any suggestions? Why do you believe that the presence of the tag will lead to article improvement? That is the only reason a tag should be placed, as otherwise it only acts as a badge of shame, which is not permitted. Thanks. Zero^talk 02:57, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, Zero0000, but in this case you are just plain wrong, and I am surprised that although we have disagreed frequently, you decided to lend you voice to an obviously faulty argument. Just make a count and see that more than half of the references are from the works of one man. Which is precisely what the one-source template is about. So yes, the burden of proof is on me, and unequivocal proof of the appropriateness of this template is readily available. Debresser (talk) 07:21, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

The template "alerts people to encyclopedic content which appears to rely on a single source" and even by your account half of the many references in this article are to other sources, although what you are calling "one source" is actually a number of sources from probably the leading academic historian in this field. There is consensus to remove the template, but I think it can remain if you give specifics on which other editors can act to improve the article. Ian Pitchford (talk) 07:55, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Ian Pitchford and with Zero0000.

Debresser, there are 5 pillars in wikipedia : WP:5P.

• 1. WP is an encyclopadia
• 2. WP uses sources of quality
• 3. WP complies with NPOV
• 4. Be civil when you collaborate on wp
• 5. Ignore rules

This article gathers material from all/most sources of quality in that field and introduce their point of view with neutrality.

The tag you want to add in the article is used when NPOV is not respected and, in particular, to state that the articles lacks neutrality because only one pov would be given.

With the current content, Morris pov is not at all dominant. He is mainly used to underline facts (numbers mainly). When these numbers are controversed, others are mentionned. For what concerns the analyse, many different sources are given : Milstein, Karsh, Sela et al., Gelber, Morris, Laurens, Shlaim, Picaudou, Khalidi, Pappé, al-Jawad...

The tag "one source" is not appropriate.

If you think not enough sources are used, or that the article would only be based on one source, you have to argue why.

• How many sources are there currently ? How many should be needed ?
• How many times Morris, 1948 is used ? Why is this not appropriate ? How could it be improved if needed ?
• What are the other point of views that would not be in the article ?

91.180.49.82 (talk) 08:37, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Ian, but there is no such consensus. Please also notice that at least another two editors have stated the same claim as I have in the first section that addressed this subject (which was only two weeks ago). 91.180.49.82, thank you for you recapitulation of the 5 pillars of Wikipedia. Was there any specific reason you did so? You ask me to argue why more sources are needed. I have stated the reason a few times now, and fail to see how you not understand: more than half of the references are from the works of one man, which means (per definition) that the One-source tag is needed. There is no reason for me to point to any specific sources that need to be added, 91.180.49.82 and Ian, and that argument has no basis whatsoever in any of the guidlelines or the template documentation. Debresser (talk) 11:28, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I disagree, the template "alerts people to encyclopedic content which appears to rely on a single source". According to you 50% of the references are from others and therefore the template does not apply.Ian Pitchford (talk) 15:22, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Over 50%, according to me... Feel free to count for yourself. Debresser (talk) 17:52, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Benny Morris, 1948: A History of the 1st Arab-Israeli War is quoted 26 times out of 91 notes = 28.5%. 81.244.59.5 (talk) 18:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi,

• I reminded you the WP:Pillars because it is important for you to understand the purposes of the tags. They are used to underline precisely why one of the WP:principles would not be respected and to succeed in making all articles comply with the first three. In the current case, the tag you use refers to a potential issue of lack of WP:NPoV. To argue this article doesn't comply with NPoV, you have to say which POV's would not be in the article. What you refuse to do. -> Whether it is anti-collaborative, or you don't know which one. If it is anti-collaborative, the tag should be removed. If you don't know, it means you cannot evaluate if the article is in compliance or not with WP:NPoV.
• There are more than 10 different sources to this article with very different points of view on the topic it deals with. So, WP:NPoV is respected.
• The discussion you refer to, where other people wanted the tag, didn't lead to the consensus of adding this. You did so, alone, without debate, long time after. The consensus to add this was not there.

But the main issue remains in your hand : "how to improve the article". 91.180.49.82 (talk) 14:41, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Debresser, I stand by my remarks, that you did not seem to understand. A tag is not just a label for an article with a particular property, it is a call for an article to be improved in a particular way. That is what the policy pages mean when they say to not use a tag as a "badge of shame". Even if this article was even more strongly based on one source, you shouldn't place the tag unless there is a possibility for including more sources in a way that is a genuine improvement to the article. In other words, you have to argue that the tag can be removed after good editing and is not a permanent fixture. I don't think you have done that. Zero^talk 11:35, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

The first problem with your reasoning is that is starts from an incorrect premises. Tag can be permanent. Like the stub-tag, for example. Apart from that, the obvious and easy possibility to improve the specific problem we have here is to add information from other sources, or to replace sources from one author by others. Debresser (talk) 13:10, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

No, stub tags exist to mark articles that should and can be expanded. As it says at WP:STUB, such an article "should be capable of expansion". The rest of your reply only repeats definitions. You still not not give any evidence that this article can be modified in that way such that the result will be an improvement. You should provide such evidence or admit that you don't have any. Zero^talk 06:18, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi,

To satisfy you it is just a question of numbers. Ok. It is not a question of NPoV given the article complies with NPoV. Ok. To satisfy you, how many different sources would be needed ? With what proportion ? And why that number ?.

By the way, could you list all the sentences that you consider unclear ?

91.180.49.82 (talk) 14:41, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Did I say any sentences are unclear? Debresser (talk) 17:51, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

2nd tag : unclear references. What are they ?

Why don't you answer to the other questions ?

81.244.59.5 (talk) 18:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

There are no other questions that remain unanswered. I hope you are smart enough to understand the answers.

So you agree I didn't say there were unclear sentences, just references. I mean the fact that sometimes references are given in full, where they could be short, where referring in a footnote to a book from the references list. Debresser (talk) 05:36, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Debresser,

• I don't understand what you say. Could you please list them (in giving their number) so that we can improve the article ?
• You forgot this question : what would be the right proportion for sources ? If another or other sources would be added, how many times should they be used ?

I will correct everything Friday evening. 91.180.49.82 (talk) 06:03, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

As soon as a source is used in less than half of the references, the tag won't be needed any more. Debresser (talk) 10:39, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Debresser,

I will try to decrease the proportion even more and will refer to you when I have finished.

Thank you for your answer.

91.180.85.233 (talk) 12:19, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for doing good work on this article! Debresser (talk) 14:36, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Just my opinion

But this has to be one of the worst articles on WP. How many articles do we have to have on the 48 War? Why are we trying to outdo one another on who killed the most? The whole purpose here is to try to demonize one side or the other. We have a tiny handful of writers and researchers who may or may not be accurate. Both sides killed plenty. For the Jews it was a war of survival, as they had nowhere else to go. For the Arabs it was an attempt to wipe out the Jewish state. Those two facts are amply documented. This article deserves to be scrapped. Every word of it is somewhere else in WP, maybe a half dozen different articles. Stellarkid (talk) 22:58, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

This article is not at all about the "one who killed the most". That is what you read. That is not what is written.

And more, your reaction proves that the "tag" issue is just "political" (because people don't like this) and not because of the topic and the way it is dealt.

I would add that before, it was just a "list of massacres" and in that case, clearly, this article was a race to see who had massacred the more. That is not the case today.

91.180.158.68 (talk) 07:06, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Well I grant you that it was much much worse before, when every single victim of the so-called "massacres" were apparently Arabs. I get sick and tired of all the "massacres" always blamed on all the Jews, I mean, the Israelis. Further I think that all this hangup on massacres is negative for WP, collaboration, and the I-P conflict itself. Stellarkid (talk) 04:16, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

In all fairness, I believe that Ceedjee did a great job on this article back in the day. It could use more work, but it's difficult to edit such an article because of the multiplicity of offline sources which are unavailable to most Wikipedians. I have some of the sources in question and can assist anyone who wants to take a go at improving the article further. However, there are many other 1948-related articles requiring attention. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 01:24, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

No doubt you are right because I respect you, Ynhockey, but I get sick of the constant blaming of Israel for massacres. The Gaza war is a massacre, the Qana airstrike are a massacre. Jenin is a massacre. You name it, it's a massacre. I imagine the flotilla incident is a massacre as well? Stellarkid (talk) 04:16, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Stellarkid,

I agree 100% with you that these articles about massacres that occur during the I-P conflict stress most Jewish, Israeli, Palestinian and Arab contributors of wikipedia. But we are not here to deal with politics. We just write articles in respecting wp:npov as much as possible. And a "massacre" is what historians consider to be a "massacre". What politicians say is not possible to manage for us.

Believe me or not, you are more influenced by what you hear around you about the situation than by what is written in that article. Please, read this. About empathy, do you realize that during more than 50 years, the Arabs have been claimed and are still claimed to be "Nazis" who wanted to genocide the Jews in '48... See how you suffer the situation today and what the world (and Israeli leaders) has sent in their face for 50 years.

Hi Ynhockey,

I have a new source for the article and material that should be added to fully comply with wp:npov : the last book from Rosemary Esber. If you have sources in hebrew, they are more than welcome. That would also give the opportunity to develop Al-Jawad's point of view that would sound very unneutral without them. I know "Arieh Yitzachki" and an "Elrin/Elrish (?)". They published 2 important papers in Hebrew on the topic. The title of one of them is "not only at Deir Yassin".

91.180.49.82 (talk) 06:22, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know, Zionist Expulsion of the Palestinians? The title says everything we need to know about the POV of this book. What information do you feel is missing from the article that this book has? —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 07:24, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

npov

In checking some articles yesterday I realized that there lack several points of view on the causes. I will add some material Friday. 91.180.49.82 (talk) 06:35, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Azzam Pasha and Momentous Massacres

This text appears here, and other versions of it appear in many other articles:

On the eve of the Arab armies invasion, Azzam Pasha, the General Secretary of the Arab League, "describing the fate of the Jews" even declared: 'This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades.'<ref>[[Howard Sachar]] (2007), p.333.</ref>

I was always suspicious of this "quotation" since I could not find any mention of it before the late 1950s and contemporary newspaper articles tell a different story. For example in the Palestine Post of May 21, 1948 (p3), Azzam is quoted saying ""We are fighting for an Arab Palestine. Whatever the outcome the Arabs will stick to their offer of equal citizenship for Jews in Arab Palestine and let them be as Jewish as they like. In areas where they predominate they will have complete autonomy." The "momentous massacre" quote appears in many places, including WP-reliable sources, but the only claimed original source of this is an interview with the BBC. Now a new academic paper reports that the quotation "cannot be confirmed from cited sources" (A. H. Joffe and A. Romirowsky. "A Tale of Two Galloways: Notes on the Early History of UNRWA and Zionist Historiography". Middle Eastern Studies. Vol. 46, no. 5. pp. 655–675.). The question is how to handle it. My preference is to just take the quotation out. An alternative would be to leave it but append Joffe and Romirowsky's negative finding. Something must be done; what are your opinions? Zero^talk 12:29, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

First of all, I'd like to see Sachar's footnote for this text, which should shed some light on where he got the quote from. Was it the BBC interview?

If no original source is found, we should remove the quote from most articles, but leave it at those where it is especially relevant. For example, the quote should definitely be mentioned in the article on Azzam Pasha, with everything we know about it (including that the original source can't be verified). The reason is that the quote is famous in its own right. One could even make a case for it having its own article. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 17:39, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Sachar (paperback edition readable at Amazon) writes "Later too, the villagers were to recall the words of Azzam Pasha on the eve of the Arab invasion, describing the coming fate of the Jews, 'This will be ... Crusades.'" but gives no citation. Benny Morris in at least two books cites it to Collins and Lapierre (1972). Collins and Lapierre say "Azzam Pasha's declaration was made in an interview with the BBC on May 15."(p597) JVL cites it to Isi Leibler, The Case For Israel, (Australia: The Globe Press, 1972), p. 15, but this unsophisticated precursor of Myths and Facts is totally unreliable (however I will look to see if it has a citation). Another source commonly claimed is "New York Times, May 16, 1948", but that is definitely false. Zero^talk 09:06, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Considering this is mentioned by many RS, I think it's preferable to note that one RS (so far) claims it can't be verified, rather than removing it altogether. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 08:52, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

The number of copied citations in the literature is unimportant. It only matters how many claims of actual checking are made. It seems to be one versus one. Incidentally, the authors Joffe and Romirowsky are associated with right wing outlets like Middle East Forum (read Daniel Pipes), so it is a surprise to see them debunking this standard quotation (and also the "Ralph Galloway" one). Zero^talk 11:31, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Could you point me to the policy that says that it only matters how many claims of actual checking are made? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:42, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

There isn't any, just like there isn't any which says that it matters how many times a claim is copied from one source to another. Zero^talk 21:36, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Oups... This is a very important information that has to be checked. I found this book ? review ? from 1948 reporting the sentences : [1]. - The author's book is I. F. Stone... (for 111us$...). This is confirmed in the following source. It is not reliable [2] BUT there is no reason that the author lies about the content of Stone's book quoting Azzam Pacha. 80.200.19.239 (talk) 19:02, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, you made an important find! I don't have immediate access to Stone's book but I will order it on interlibrary loam and report back here when it arrives. Zero^talk 02:17, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

To fill in this loose end, I have Stone's book. It is a celebration of Israel's birth with lots of photos and no attempt at balance. The Arab=Nazi theme prevails. No sources are given for anything, including this quotation, except it says that Azzam "told the Egyptian press". The position in the story where this quote is presented is just before the UN partition resolution, which matches the 1947 source. I think this leaves us with Schechtman (1952) as the first known claim that Azzam said it in May 1948. It does not appear in the 1949 pamphlet on the refugees that Schechtman wrote anonymously. Zero^talk 13:55, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Some more information. Isi Leibler's 1972 book says "in Cairo (May 15, 1948)", no other information. An earlier tract from the same source, The Case for Israel (1956), Zionist Federation of Australia and New Zealand, says "15th May, 1948 (B.B.C. News Broadcast)", no other information. More significantly, The Arab Refugee Problem by Joseph Schechtman (1952), which is the source of many of these quotations, has this one and footnotes "Statement at a press conference in Cairo, May 15, 1948". A similar booklet from 1951 written anonymously by Schechtman doesn't have it. I checked the Summary of World Broadcasts, published by the BBC Monitoring Service, for about a week each side of May 15. This source has several pages per day of transcripts and summaries of broadcasts from Arab countries, Israel and Palestine. Azzam is quoted many times but never anything like this quote. Actually it seems quite out of kilter, as his public stand at this time was that Arab armies were entering Palestine to protect the Palestinians from the "Zionist gangs". It is also suspicious on another point: an Arab who wanted to compare the supposed coming defeat of the Jews with something historical would choose Saladin's conquest of the Crusaders — not two vast slaughters of Arabs! I have a theory (nope, can't prove it): Azzam actually claimed that if the Arabs didn't move to protect the Palestinians, then the Palestinians would be massacred by the Jews. Hardly any change to the quote is required for it to make perfect sense as part of such bluster. Zero^talk 15:18, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect to your personal opinion and original research, this quote is mentioned in many a RS. You can't just remove it because you found one article saying it's false (and you happen to personally agree). No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:48, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Here is a second recent negative source.

"the Arab leaders going to war in 1948 were very sparing in publicly describing their goals and “exterminating” the Jews never figured in their public bombast. I myself in the past have used the one divergent quote, by Arab League Secretary-General Abdul Rahman Azzam from May 15, 1948, in which he allegedly spoke of a “war of extermination” and a “momentous massacre” à la the Mongols. But in my recent history of the war, 1948 (Yale University Press, 2008), I refrained from reusing it after discovering that its pedigree is dubious." [Benny Morris (2010). "Revisionism on the West Bank". The National Interest (July/August): 73–81.]

If 100 "reliable sources" say that John Smith is dead, then John Smith appears on TV, we report that John Smith is alive. This shows that the number of sources is not the only criterion. Now that we have three historians from two different political persuasions agreeing that the quotation is doubtful, it is indeed doubtful until a supporter of the quotation publishes a response. I agree with Ynhockey that the quotation itself is of interest, so I propose to keep it, qualified, in a few key articles (I suggest this one and Azzam Pasha). It does not deserve to be all over the place like it is now. Zero^talk 10:38, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

John Smith showing up on TV is positive proof he's not dead. A group of people who'd rather something was never said claiming they couldn't find documentation it was, isn't exactly the same thing. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually all of them would prefer the quote was genuine. Joffe and Romirowsky would prefer it because they come from the political right wing. Benny Morris would prefer it since he has previously used it and now he has to admit he was wrong. Zero^talk 09:20, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Great work Zero. Thinking about all this, it is "obvious" that Azzam Pacha should not have said that. As you underlined, the comparison with Crusade or Mongol would be curious given it refers to the massacre of "Arabs".

The confirmation by Morris is important. More sources confirming all this would still be welcome.

In the current circumstances, I think we should remove all references to this sentence in all articles and describe the problem in Azzam Pacha's article. But without the agreement of many editors, we would start a wiki-war : a wider consensus and still more documentation is required.

Noisetier (talk) 12:25, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Noisetier has made another great discovery: Exactly the same alleged Azzam statement has been cited to a Jewish Agency memorandum that predates 15 May 1948. This kills the "15 May" claims stone dead (my John Smith analogy was better than I knew). The memorandum in question is reproduced in UN document S/170 (5 April 1948) available here. The cover page reads: "Memorandum on acts of Arab aggression to alter by force the settlement on the future government of Palestine approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations. Submitted to the United Nations Palestine Commission by the Jewish Agency for Palestine. Lake Success, New York. February 2, 1948." The relevant passage reads:

The "practical and effective means" contrived and advocated by the Arab States were never envisaged as being limited by the provisions of the Charter; indeed, the Secretary-General of the Arab League was thinking in terms which are quite remote from the lofty sentiments of San Francisco. "This war," he said, "will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongol massacres and the Crusades."[2] In his further observations Azzam Pasha outlined three characteristics of the future war—the belief in glorious death as a road to Paradise, the opportunities of loot, and the Bedouin love of slaughter for its own sake.
[2] Akhbar al-Yom, October 11, 1947

Did the Secretary-General of the Arab League really refer to the "opportunities of loot, and the Bedouin love of slaughter for its own sake"? It is very hard to believe. Akhbar al-Yom (also spelled Akhbar el-Yom) was a weekly newspaper published in Egypt. Checking it will be rather more difficult. If anyone can help, please let us know. Zero^talk 03:07, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Another copy is here. A "supplementary" memorandum to this one, dated March 13, 1948, is available in UN document S/721. It does not repeat the Azzam claim. These documents are war-time propaganda and are not reliable sources for the claims they make (only for the fact of the claims being made). Incidentally, I can't help but notice the absence in these documents of the supposed Arab calls for the Palestinians to leave. Zero^talk 03:52, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Just for the record, our policy is actually quite clear on the "Smith analogy." If a hundred reliable sources report that Smith is dead and Smith shows up on TV, we continue reporting that Smith is dead until such that the information is updated by reliable sources. "It's verifiability, not truth".--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:16, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

That is not true. The minimum threshold for content is that it be verifiable. That does not mean anything that is printed somewhere should be included. nableezy - 03:20, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what part of what I said you think is not true. It something is published in multiple reliable sources, it is verifiable and inclusion worthy.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:36, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Brewcrewer's claim is wrong since the TV broadcast showing Smith alive is clearly a reliable source, just as the UN document predating 15 May 1948 is a reliable source for the date of the claim. But anyway I have a very low opinion of editors who cite "rules" as an excuse to include things that they know for sure to be false. The unfortunately worded "verifiability not truth" slogan was never intended to imply that Wikipedia doesn't care about accuracy; it was intended to eliminate original research. Zero^talk 03:38, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you have a low opinion about me; I hope that changes. However it won't change if you insist that I drop my fidelity to Wikipedia's verifiability policy because its just a "slogan". if reliable sources say Smith was shot and killed, I cant change his WP entry to say that he is alive because I happened to see Smith walk by the TV cameraman.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:50, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

If it is just our personal impression that Smith was seen on TV, of course we must continue reporting he is dead. The analogy here is that Smith is interviewed on the evening news explicitly identified as Smith. That is what we have here. It is not just my personal impression that the Azzam claim predates May 15, I gave links from which you can verify it for sure. And we also have two modern reliable sources expressing doubt over the same quotation. It is enough. Zero^talk 03:59, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Since I don't like analogies, I'll give another. There are hundreds of reliable sources saying that Mercury always has the same side facing the Sun, right up to and including papers in prestigious scientific journals. However our article Mercury reports that Mercury rotates relative to the Sun. It does not present the question as one of two opposing opinions, because the newer measurements have disproved the older measurements. Sometimes new reliable sources eliminate old reliable sources. Another way to put it, more in parallel with the rules, is that sometimes one reliable source shows that another source was after all not reliable. The reliability of a source is not an absolute perpetual attribute, but a function of our state of knowledge about it. Of course there are more grey areas in history than in science, but the principle is still there provided we stay away from Original Research. If it isn't explicitly stated, try WP:COMMON. Zero^talk 04:32, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Of course newer sources should be given precedence to older sources; that's what WP:UNDUE is all about. However, the personal interpretation of newer primary sources do not trump secondary sources interpretation of older primary sources. We can't watch the news and then contradict printed reliable sources and we can't interpret primary sources to contradict secondary sources. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:29, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Please look again. The two most recent secondary sources both say explicitly that the quotation is dubious. No interpretation is required. Zero^talk 23:50, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi,

We have :

• 1 recent secondary source (dealing with another famous quote) in which authors (2 young searchers) state that the quote of Azzam Pasha is another known exemple of fake quote and that it was never possible to find the original statement (ie an egyptian newspaper). In their article, I notice they thank Benny Morris, Efraim Karsh, Yoav Gelber and many other scholars for their support to their work ;
• 1 recent secondary source, a review of Efraim Karsh last book written by Benny Morris (Benny Morris who defends the idea that the '48 war was a djihad and who should be very interested by Azzam Pasha quote that supports his thesis), who reports that Azzam quote is dubious and who dediced not to use this any more because of that discovery ;
• We have hundreds of secondary sources, all considered perfectly reliable, that refer to Azzam quote as a statement made on May 15 just before the invasion (to BBC or to an Egyptian newspaper) -> this is the mainstream and wikipedia refered to them ;
• We have some secondary sources that refers to 2 primary sources (2 Jewish Agency memorandum that are archived at UNO) published in february and march 1948. They prove the mainstream point of view is wrong.
• The original (ie, the oldest) document that we could find and that refers to Azzam quote is a Jewish Agency memorandum, written in period of war, against their enemy and that refers to this quote to an Egyptian newspaper nobody has access to.

Game is over. Stone, Schetchman, Horowitz, Kimche, Lapierre and Collins... and most first historians or journalists found a reference to Azzam quote in a "Jewish Agency memorandum reported to UNO". That was already great work to read these documents. They trusted the "Jewish Agency memorandum". They should not and should have checked the initial reference. Historians have since learned that many documents and analysis at that time were dubious (claims that everybody was happy to believe and not motivated to check - eg, the unfamous claim that Arab leaders order the Palestinian Arabs to leave).

Is this tendancy true also for Azzam quote ? It seems so : we have 2 recent secondary sources that report Azzam quote is one of them, which we could easily confirm ourselves in showing the contradiction between most secondary sources and the original document for what concerns the dates (15 May 48 is not 16 october 47) and in pointing out how strange it was for an Arab leader to refer to a coming war with "the massacres [of... Arabs] by crusaders". We don't have any other information. Based on this, we should remove the quote from all history articles, except Azzam's one. We can keep this in others dealing with the propaganda war of the I-P conflict.

Noisetier (talk) 07:06, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Can anyone report what citation Ephraim Karsch gives for this quotation in Palestine Betrayed? Zero^talk 10:26, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Now a colleague has obtained a copy of the interview with Azzam published in Ahkbar Al-Yawm, October 11, 1947. He did in fact say something similar to what is claimed, with some differences. I will bring a scan and a translation, but it will take a while since snail-mail is one of the steps. Zero^talk 12:35, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

So the game isn't over after all. Good job keeping on top of this. You should notify some historians. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:22, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Here is the story approximately. Recall that this was before the partition resolution. Azzam feared that some action of the Jews (presumably the declaration of a state, but he doesn't say) would prompt a vast number of undisciplined volunteers outnumbering the population of Palestine (even from India, Pakistan and China) to enter Palestine to fight the Jews. Then it would become an uncontrollable massacre. He doesn't mention regular Arab armies, and he describes this scenario as one he doesn't want and hopes won't happen (though he clearly thinks it would be the Jews' fault). The Jewish Agency memorandum presents this as if Azzam is describing a bloodbath he plans to unleash, but that is not a fair report. Time-shifting this to the invasion of the regular Arab armies on 15 May 1948, as Schechtman did, makes the distortion worse. Zero^talk 00:43, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Karsh original text (Palestine Betrayed, p. 209)

Buoyed up by the prognosis of his foremost military advisor, Azzam brushed aside Kirkbride's query about the size of the Jewish forces. "It does not matter how many there are," he said. "We will sweep them into the sea!" At a Cairo press conference on May 15 he was no less forthright. "This will be a war of extermination and momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacre and the Crusades," he predicted as the invading Arab forces were forging through Palestine.³⁶

Karsh's citation

Note: the citation includes both quotes so it's hard to tell which is relevant to us:

36. Hashemi, Mudhakkirat, p. 222 (diary entry for May 13, 1948); Rony E. Gabbay, A Political Study of the Arab-Jewish Conflict: The Arab Refugee Problem (A Case Study) (Geneva: Librairie E. Droz, 1959), p. 88; Sir Alec Kirkbride, From the Wings: Amman Memories 1947–1951 (London: Cass, 1976), p. 24.

—Ynhockey ^(Talk) 02:08, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I assume the May 13 diary entry is not supposed to be a source for a May 15 press conference. Kirkbride has the "sweep them into the sea" quote but not the other one. From memory I think Gabbay cites Schechtmann, but I'll check again. Btw, Morris' review of this book complains that Karsh's lumping together of citations makes them much harder to check. Zero^talk 03:18, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Game is not over. Indeed.

Great job Zero0000. Would you mind emailing me the "scan" ?

Thx Ynhockey for the quote.

All this becomes complex because all secondary sources are wrong : last historians who claim quote is dubious and traditional ones who fix everything on 15 May. The document that is closer to "truth" (between brackets) is the... Jewish Agency memorandum, which is primary source that cannot be considered as reliable !

We are 100% in WP:OR. We cannot use this. We should write to historians.

Noisetier (talk) 18:27, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I have the 1947 newspaper article (an original newspaper, not a copy) and will provide a scan and a translation soon. Zero^talk 13:55, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Katz's thesis

Whether or not Katz is an hitorian is hardly the issue. His thesis was supervised by historians, and made in a department of history.

The information I added is relevant, enriches the section, and is correct. I believe thiese are the factors that count. Bbeehvh (talk) 21:00, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

There is a section about Tantura in the article. I think that what you put in the table is inappropriate. For one thing it is one-sided. It mentions Katz' statement but not the fact that he retracted it. And it mentions that his thesis was rejected but not that he submitted a revised version and received a second-class pass for it. To tell the story neutrally in the space allowed by the table format seems to be impossible. I suggest that instead the table just says that the claim of a massacre at Tantura is highly contested and refers to the appropriate section for details. Zero^talk 07:16, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

The story of that massacre was seriously shaken, and the researcher agreed to apologize. It is true that he retracted it, but the court refused his retraction. Isn't it one-sided to ignore the court position?

His thesis includes more elements than this story, and he may have revised the tesis by removing this story.

I think that this is not a highly contested story, as you suggest, but a seriously shaken story. Serious historians, like Pail, apologized for believing it, and the main source, Katz thesis, proved faulty both factually and methodoligically.

Such a story may deserve being told in Wiki, but not as part of a summarizing list.

How about saying that "allegations of a massacre were seriously challenged, and so far there is no clear evidence to a massacre" ? Then a reference to the article is in place.

Bbeehvh (talk) 08:32, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

No, it is not acceptable for you to summarize the situation as you see it, when there are sources that meet the wikipedia definition of "reliable" that disagree with you. Some academic historians (Pappe for one) don't agree the story is disproved. And there are intermediate versions like that of Morris (reported incorrectly in the article at the moment). Morris wrote there is evidence that a war crime was committed, just not on the scale that Katz alleges. As for the court ruling, it is irrelevant to this article. Katz and the veterans agreed on a deal to settle the lawsuit, then Katz tried to renege on the deal and the judge wouldn't allow it; that's nothing to do with the historical question. Personally I think it can't have been as bad as Katz alleges, but around here we have to follow the sources. Zero^talk 09:14, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with your logic. So, where are the sources for a massacre? The only source was that thesis, and surely you won't take it to be "reliable" by wiki standards. What other sources have we? Even the great and neutral historian Peppe cannot be a substitute for a reliable source. By your defintion we have to remove the story from the list. Bbeehvh (talk) 16:08, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

You are right but all this is explained here. Noisetier (talk) 22:16, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

lack of proper background and problematic use of terms

in my opinion more should be added about the nature of the war, the lack of boundaries between military posts and civilian residential areas. you must take into consideration that in this war villages (both jewish and arab) were used also as a military base, fighters came in and out, they used it as a place of shelter and as forts, so in fact this reality created a situation that civilians and fighter encounter each other in a fighting scenario. this may encourage acts of cruelty. after you see your comrade dies you might let rage control your actions. this was a very "unclean" war with everything mixed together. this wasn't a classic european war where armies meet in a battle field, these are battle over control of villages and towns.

another thing i noticed that when referring to israeli fighers the term soldiers or troops is EXCLUSIVELY used while when referring to arab fighter they are called irregulars almost exclusively. this paints a distorted image as if they israelis had a fully trained and equipted army and the arabs were a bounch of random people with sticks. i'd like to remind all that the arabs had the armies of jordan, syria and egypt fighting by their side. also the Arab Salvation Army, and the Army of the Holy War, though i agree that those guys were not fully trained but so were large portions of the fighting jews. this is another aspect of the text that paints a controversial picture and one might think that the israeli well trained army planned massacres in advanced while crimes of arabs are just spontaneous actions and no one can blame the untrained, lacking of discipline arab irregulars. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrZaf (talk • contribs) 23:40, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

The term "irregulars" is intended to mean that the persons involved were not regular soldiers of the Arab states. A massacre done by (say) the Syrian army should say "soldiers". If there are any examples of the page where this rule is not followed, please point them out. Zero^talk 03:23, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

i find this improper. irregulars in the article refers to the fighter of the Arab Salvation Army, and the Army of the Holy War. these are not random people with guns these are fighters that are part of a militia at least. they have commanders and leaders and orders. i'm not sure that these militias can be called armies if you compare them to the army of egypt for example but you can say the same thing about the jewish forces. during the war there was no official state of israel. haganah lehi and irgun were not state armies but militias. you can argue maybe about hagana being something close to an army or not but on the case of lehi and irgun, they were always very small organizations, and were not subordinate to the yeshuv's central command, they had their own agenda, although they did cooperate with the yeshuv leadership. point is, officially the jewish forces were not armies, they were not fully comprised of trained soldiers and in my opinion the use of two different terms for fighters of a very similar nature is wrong. MrZaf (talk) 12:27, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

The thing is that we are supposed to follow the sources, and the majority of sources refer to the members of such ad hoc armies as "irregulars". The same issue occurs with members of the Irgun, who are also called "irregulars" by many sources. Zero^talk 05:08, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Deir Yassin

It is known that the events that occured at Deir Yassin, including the casualties, were inflated for propaganda. The Arab journalists who circulated stories of atrocities have admitted to this and eye witnesses denied their reports of rape, mutilation, etc. I have attempted to include this information in the article and have used two valid citations. Everything I wrote is cited, and most of it is in quotes. Therefore, please allow my edits to stand. --96.60.170.188 (talk) 21:10, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

The question of rape at Deir Yassin is rarely more than a footnote in good sources. By emphasizing the question of rape you are distorting the article by giving undue weight to a secondary aspect. Zero^talk 02:21, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

It is not about emphasizing one aspect. It is about showing that the incident was grossly exploited for propaganda, and what I wrote was just an example. And if you are going to have the article claim that "'rapes and mutilations' occured at Deir Yassin", you should at least note that eye witnesses strongly denied it. Not doing so is heavy bias. --96.60.170.188 (talk) 20:53, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

No, you are cherry picking one side of the story. For example your text does not note that the inflated number of dead was invented by the Irgun, not by Arabs, nor does it note that allegations of rape appear in the British police report. Zero^talk 22:36, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

If the issue is excess emphasis on one subject, as you said in your first response, my edit can be condensed to make it more appropriate to the situation. If it is not enough coverage, as you said in your second response, I agree that it is probably good to mention that Irgun also circulated false numbers. However, I don't think it was Irgun that first created the false death count. Hazam Nusseibeh, the news editor of the Palestine Broadcasting Service at the time, told the BBC that Hussayn Khalidi, the deputy chairman of the Higher Arab Executive of Jerusalem, was the first to exaggerate the events. --96.60.170.188 (talk) 03:21, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Haifa Oil Refinery Massacre

The Haifa Oil Refinery massacre was an Irgun grenade attack on 100 Arab workers at the gates of the refinery (Killing 6 wounding 40) which sparked a riot by the surviving Arab workers in which 39 Jewish workers at the factory were killed. The table in the article has multiple RS attesting to this chain of events. However IP editor 96.60.170.188 seems keen to remove the details of the Arabs killed during the massacre and only attest to the Jewish victims. I see this as POV pushing, both Arabs and Jews were killed in the incident and that should be reflected in the table as it is in the Haifa Oil Refinery massacre article. Dlv999 (talk) 09:38, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Agree that casualties from both sides should be mentioned and the context as well. Will keep an eye out. Tiamut^talk 19:34, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Source with lots of info not currently in our table of massacres and killings

• Israel and the Palestinian refugees, pp. 104-124 Tiamut^talk 19:33, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Title of Page

Isn't the most widely-used name for this war the "1948 Arab-Israeli War"? Why then is this page titled "Killings and massacres during the 1948 Palestine War"? --96.60.170.188 (talk) 21:21, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Have you read the first sentence of the article and clicked on 1948 Palestine War? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:21, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I understand now. --96.60.170.188 (talk) 03:40, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Al-Dawayima

This article puts the death toll at Al-Dawayima at 455. The actual article for the Al-Dawayima massacre gives varying numbers from 70-80 to "up to possibly 100" to between 100 and 200. It does not, however, say that 455 people were massacred at this location, but names a report that says 455 people were missing afterwards. Saleh Abdel Jawad gives the 100-200 figure. I think this should be corrected, and that it would be more accurate to name the other death tolls from the numerous accounts. --96.60.170.188 (talk) 00:38, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Morris refers to "hundreds" killed at Dawayima in the cited article (the Haaretz link seems to be dead, nut it can be read here [3]). I haven't seen any sources that put the death toll under 100. As the official IDF investigation said there were 100 killings, I would be very interested to know what sources you are relying on for the "70-80" figure. You are right that 455 were missing according to the account, but I think the thing to do would be to correct the account, not delete it wholesale. Dlv999 (talk) 08:27, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

The main article says the following: "According to Benny Morris, 'dozens' of people were killed, up to possibly 100. Saleh Abdel Jawad evaluates the total to 'between 100 and 200'...Ben-Gurion, quoting General Avner, briefly referred in his war diary to the 'rumours' that the army had 'slaughtered 70–80 persons.'" It also names a figure of 80-100 from Sh. Kaplan. --96.60.170.188 (talk) 18:50, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

The Benny Morris citation can be viewed on google books [4]. The "dozens" is misquoted, he is describing one particular aspect of the massacre, the rounding up of "dozens" of fleeing villagers from the surrounding plains and executing them. But he goes on to describe further killings in the actual village itself, so it is clear the "dozens" is not meant to be a description of the totality of the killings during the massacre. I haven't read the other sources yet, but I think that section of the main article needs to be looked at. Dlv999 (talk) 19:44, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

The article does not put the death toll at Al-Dawayima at 455.

It states : "Saleh Abd al-Jawad reports the village's mukhtar account that 455 people were missing following the al-Dawayima massacre, including 170 women and children.".

Pluto2012 (talk) 09:38, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Sentence to clarify in the lede

• The consequences of these massacres on the 1948 Palestinian exodus and the idea that they were performed deliberately to hasten it are a topic of controversy among historians.[clarification needed]

How can we clarify this sentence ? I added this because the main reason why these massacres are debated is because of their consequences on the exodus and all the controversies around this... Pluto2012 (talk) 06:39, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Is this better?

• Historians disagree concerning the effect these killings and massacres had on the 1948 Palestinian exodus. They also disagree whether these killings and massacres were carried out with the intent of hastening the exodus.

— Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:09, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

That's perfect for me. Pluto2012 (talk) 17:28, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll put it in the article. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:45, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok. Reading this again, I would just suggest to add the words "or not" at the end of the last sentence.

Pluto2012 (talk) 08:05, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

With the word "whether", I don't think "or not" is necessary, but add it if you'd like. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:15, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Primary source information

In the section talking about 'Deir Yassin', there is a paragraph coming from a primary source : "In 1998, Hazam Nusseibeh, the news editor of the Palestine Broadcasting Service at the time of the attack, gave an interview to the BBC. (...)".

The testimony tends to claim there were no rape during Deir Yassin on the contrary that what was said at the time. If this testimy could eventually go in the main article about 'Deir Yassin', there is no reason to keep this here. It is not linked to the controversy to know if 'Deir Yassin' was more a battle, a massacre or both; it is uselessly long (wp:undue weight) and it is not from a secondary source (wp:rs).

I shall remove this unless editors disagree. Pluto2012 (talk) 06:47, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

 Done Pluto2012 (talk) 12:03, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

For the record : moved material

n 1998, Hazam Nusseibeh, the news editor of the Palestine Broadcasting Service at the time of the attack, gave an interview to the BBC. He spoke about a discussion he had with Hussayn Khalidi, the deputy chairman of the Higher Arab Executive in Jerusalem, shortly after the killings: "I asked Dr. Khalidi how we should cover the story. He said, 'We must make the most of this.' So he wrote a press release, stating that at Deir Yassin, children were murdered, pregnant women were raped, all sorts of atrocities." Eyewitnesses denied that there had been any rapes or mutilations and complained to the Arab emergency committee. Abu Mahmud, who lived in Deir Yassin in 1948, was one of those who complained. He told the BBC: "We said, 'There was no rape.' He [Hussayn Khalidi] said, 'We have to say this so the Arab armies will come to liberate Palestine from the Jews'." "This was our biggest mistake," said Nusseibeh. "We did not realize how our people would react. As soon as they heard that women had been raped at Deir Yassin, Palestinians fled in terror. They ran away from all our villages." He told Larry Collins in 1968: "We committed a fatal error, and set the stage for the refugee problem." Irgun and Lehi also circulated false claims, as did the British and Haganah.

Recent edits

I made a few edits to this article. One was to attribute a quote to the historian who said it.

The text says that the Deir Yassin massacre caused more panic than similar incidents. I added a brief explanation for why that is and gave sources.

For the Saliha massacre, I changed the death toll from 70-80 to 60-70 because that is what the main article says.

On the section for the Deir Yassin battle-massacre dispute, I added the quote of a surviving villager who gave his opinion on the subject along with the source. The original text says the following about Deir Yassin: "In Morris' first book, he states that 'rapes and mutilations' occurred at Deir Yassin; but in subsequent books, Morris adds 'but we don't know if this is true.'" It is generally accepted that there were no rapes or mutilations at Deir Yassin, so I added that the eyewitnesses denied that this had occurred and gave several sources.

Please explain why these edits were reverted. --68.6.227.26 (talk) 23:51, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

That discussion belongs to the Deir Yassin massacre-article, not in a general "over-view" article like this. (In fact, if i recall correctly, that discussion have taken place there plenty of times already...) Cheers, Huldra (talk) 23:32, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. I agree that the part about Deir Yassin should not be excessively detailed. However, the text quotes Benny Morris saying that "rapes and mutilations" took place there. Because this is widely accepted as false, I believe that the statement that the villagers denied that these things occurred should be allowed to remain. Either that or remove Morris' claim. I gave a sourced explanation for why the Deir Yassin massacre generated more panic than other incidents, though it may have been too long. Perhaps it could simply be condensed to just saying that it was partly because the media exaggerated what actually happened.

You did not address the other things I mentioned. I see no problem with attributing the quote to Morris in the text and the Saliha massacre's main article says that 60-70 people were killed. --68.6.227.26 (talk) 03:11, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I am going to restore the edits, but the part about Deir Yassin will be less detailed. --68.6.227.26 (talk) 23:11, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I have removed the whole controversy. It is not a relevant information to know if rapes occured or not even if this is a war crime. More, eyewitness account is not a reliable source if it is not reported and supported by a secondary source.

Pluto2012 (talk) 14:33, 27 October 2012 (UTC)