Talk:King David Hotel bombing/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Note

Regardless of the debate about Wikipedia use of terrorism/militancy, the input in the lead was WP:OR, unrelated to the article. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 05:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

As the original author of the deleted section, obviously I disagree that it was unrelated to the article. A significance of the attack in many quarters is that, for a long time, it was viewed, because of the death toll, as the worst terrorist outrage, which is what I tried to convey. Also, the statement wasn't Original Research. Although it didn't have a citation (since I thought that it was easily verifiable by checking lists of the death toll from other, so called, terrorist incidents), it was taken from a valid source, though, unfortunately, I can't remember which particular book or article that was. If you're going to start deleting things because they don't have citations (and I realise that, under Wkipedia guidelines, they should have them) then, if you want to do a thorough job, you're going to have a lot of work to do. For starters, how about deleting the sentence previous to the one you deleted. It has no citation and, as far as I'm aware, that statement was pure speculation. By the way, in the form I wrote the statement, I tried to satisfy the people who don't view the bombing as terrorism:

"If classed as terrorism, the attack was the deadliest one of its kind anywhere until the 1980s, when two other purported terrorist attacks which caused greater loss of life, the 1983 Beirut barracks bombing and the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103, which blew up over Lockerbie in Scotland, occurred.[citation needed]"

-- ZScarpia (talk) 19:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

No luck finding the original source so far; I fear it was in a book that's been returned to the library. Web-wise, what I can find in the way of comparisons are an MSN Encarta article on Terrorism which states, "the bombing ranks among the most deadly terrorist incidents of the 20th century," and Wikipedia's List of terrorist incidents article, which lists the death toll for each attack. If you're unhappy with the incidents from the 80s with a greater death toll being mentioned because you feel a non-valid comparison is being made, would you be happy with the following:

"Viewed as terrorism, the attack was the deadliest anywhere until the 1980s."

-- ZScarpia (talk) 11:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

One of the inspirations for what I wrote was "An analytical history of terrorism, 1945–2000", by William F Shughart II of the Department of Economics of The University of Mississippi. The paper says:

"The apogee of the Irgun’s terrorist campaign was reached in July 1946, when the group succeeded in placing explosives under the wing of Jerusalem’s King David Hotel housing both the British government’s secretariat and the headquarters for Britain’s security forces in Palestine and Transjordan. Ninety-one people died and 45 others were injured in what still ranks among the twentieth century’s most lethal terrorist incidents."

The source given by Shughart for the final sentence is pages 50 and 51 of: Rapoport, D. C. (2004). The Four Waves of Modern Terrorism (In Cronin, A. K. & Ludes, J. M. (eds.) Attacking Terrorism: Elements of a Grand Strategy, 46–73. Georgetown University Press: Washington, DC).

I think that what Shughart says just before the quoted section, also quoting Rapoport as the source, about Begin's methodology is quite interesting:

"The campaign was spearheaded by the Irgun, which, as noted previously, first appeared on the Palestinian scene in the 1930s. It recommenced operations against Britain’s security forces, charged by London with the ultimately futile task of controlling immigration by tens of thousands of Jews fleeing Nazi Holocaust and war-devastated Eastern Europe, in February 1944. Menachem Begin, who had assumed command of Irgun three months earlier, recognized that his group was hopelessly outgunned. He therefore aimed “not to defeat Britain militarily, but to use terrorist violence to undermine the government’s prestige and control of Palestine by striking at symbols of British rule” (ibid., p. 50). The Irgun announced the end of its wartime suspension of hostilities against Britain with coordinated bombings of immigration offices in Jerusalem, Tel Aviv and Haifa. It followed that announcement up over the next two years with a series of carefully planned attacks on British land registry offices as well as on the security forces themselves."

-- ZScarpia (talk) 20:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:NPOV

Please stop abusing sources to say something which is unrelated to the articles. The source, which discusses "the economy of terror attacks", has a one liner which you copy-pasted into the text. However, it makes absolutely no actual comparison or explanation to the meaning of this pointless one liner which only means that the author thinks the event was the first of it's kind. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 04:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

These are all, in so far as they are comprehensible, subjective assertions of dislike not grounded in wiki policy. It is not an abuse of a source specialising on terror to cite it on a specific act of terror, universally regarded as such.

You note in your edit: 'Just because there's a one liner in a book about this "beying a role model" for chcchen attack in 1990 dosen't mean the relation is correct or due for the lede'.

You are commenting personally on what you take to be a possibly inappropriate 'relation' made by two authorities on terror between two events, one of which forms the subject of this article. Your, and our, job is to cite the relevant literature on a subject, not to behave like judges in a tribunal of academic review, assuming superior knowledge to the academics cited. It is perfectly appropriate for the 'lead', because it is a generalized statement highlighting what the authors consider to be the historic significance of the King David Hotel bombing as a technical example of later mass bombings.

You elided a previous remark of a similar kind, because you rightly noted it was, being unfooted to a reliable source, 'subjective'. Now that I provide a RS, you question the a propriety of judgement of that RS. This smacks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I would suggest you take great care in providing serious policy references to any eventual objection, and obtaining consensus, therefore, before you attempt to erase the text, as you say you are minded to.Nishidani (talk) 07:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

ps. 'it's' = its Nishidani (talk) 07:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I stated my case, you've stated yours. I'm open to a WP:3O about this by an uninvovled editor giving his review of the source and the text you want to add. Whichever suggestion a 3rd uninvovled mediator makes, I will accept it. Fair enough? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

If everytime a difference of opinion over one edit, within one day, led to WP:30, wiki would be at a standstill. I suggest that precipitate haste in this is unseemly. There are several editors on this page whose views should be elicited, with a little patience. I would note that I dislike third opinions 'reviewing a source'. That source fits the highest wiki standards, being published by a first-rate university, and being authored by two specialist academics. My suggestion therefore is to festina lente. Decisions made in rash haste are never good, one way or another. I appreciate the suggestion however.Nishidani (talk) 08:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The author's qualifications were not among my concerns if you note my comment. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

When you write 'uninvovled editor giving his review of the source and the text you want to add, ' , contextually, the source is the book I cited. The authors, secondly, are two, not one. Grammatically, you are expressing a possible concern about the source, in asking it to be 'reviewed' by a third party. Therefore, ineludibly, you are expressing a 'concern' about the authors' qualifications, since the source is what those two authors wrote. The RS issue inevitably raises the issue of who wrote it. I should add that the son of one of the Arab victims of the King David Hotel bombing, as is well known, was later sentenced to an 18 year jail term in Israel for a terrorist attack, which the youth conducted in revenge for, and along the model of, the attack Begin's men made on the King David Hotel in which his own father was killed (5 part Washington Post article). So the judgement by the authors is by no means arbitrary or unsubstantiated. We have records of terrorists being inspired by that model, just as there is relatively strong documentation that the Irgun/Lehi/Stern groups took a leaf out of the book of the IRA's modus operandi in the 1910s and 1920s. Terrorists are, among other things, copycats.Nishidani (talk) 08:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I missed it, but I haven't seen any mention in the book that the son of one of the Arab victims of the KDHB was involved in an attack in Chechnia in 1990 which was, supposedly, inspired by the KDHB attack. Your comment that he was arrested in 1947 makes it quite improbable also. I have not seen any well made argument to a connection between the -- 60 plus years apart -- events in the book and all the offtopic stories about Arab "retaliation" to the Jewish terrorists are just that, offtopic.

Cordially, Jaakobou ^{Chalk Talk} 10:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Jaakobou. I mentioned that fact off the cuff, to illustrate the point. It was not 'off-topic', it was illustrative, to help you appreciate the implicit point in the cited text. It comes from another book altogether, citing a Washington Post investigation into a Palestinian terrorist who was a child when his father died in the KDHB, and later carried out terror attacks, and was hailed. Again, I didn't mention Chechnya in 1990. The edit I made represents exactly what the authors of the RS say as regards the role model of the KDHB. Chechnya, etc.etc.all the rest is irrelevant. We are to register what informed and reliable sources say, and have no brief or right to equivocate if those sources fit Wikipedia criteria, which the source does. I find your responses, I'm afraid, confusing. Nishidani (talk) 10:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Your illustrations always end up giving justification for Arab violence on Jewish-Israeli targets and it's getting really bothersome. Your on-article text suggested as fact and without any explanation, just as the book does, that there is a direct connection between the 1929 attacks and the 1980s and 1990s attacks. The only connection I've seen thus far, is a superficial one liner from one book. If other reliable sources connect, and explain, this dubiously possible connection - that could very well convince me to adding a paragraph about this in the article. Right now, the connection is extremely suerficial and I'm wholeheartedly unconvinced that this should be in the lead as "fact". I'm also open to dispute resolution. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

No, I happen to think that the historical record must be fully recorded and not just partially edited, which is what a very good number of posters in these I/P articles do. Terrorism played a significant role in the foundation of Israel, as it plays a significant role in the non-foundation of a Palestinian state. One side used it successfully to achieve statehood, and then rigorously suppressed the other side's use of the same tactic to achieve a similar end, a Palestinian state. My function is to note all examples, not to root for good terrorists as opposed to bad terrorists. To remark on these things, parallels, influences, is normal historical work, and does not imply approval. It means simply respect for the full record. I have never edited out, or protested at, instances of Arab terrorism: every edit I have made suggesting that there was and is such a thing as Jewish terrorism is strenuously opposed, and not only by yourself. So I think my approach supranational. What the others are doing in wikilawyering a unilateral historical account of these events is, well, obvious.Nishidani (talk) 15:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello Jaakobou. So, what is being or has been said that is unrelated to the article? Is saying that, if the attack is viewed as terrorism (albeit, this qualification was removed before you deleted the statement), it was the most deadly terrorist attack for four decades really saying anything unrelated to the article? And similarly for saying that the bombing was the model for later ones unrelated to the article? You entitled this section WP:NPOV, but then didn't explain why you thought that what had been written wasn't NPOV. Isn't silencing the expression of a particular point of view just a different method of point-of-view pushing? -- ZScarpia (talk) 10:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The note that it is the deadliest terror attack in four decades is a WP:PEA addition. If you have other Wiki-samples of such connections, I'm open to reconsider my position. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:PEA: "In Wikipedia articles, try to avoid peacock terms which merely promote the subject of the article without imparting real information. Examples include describing people as "important" or "among the greatest" in their field without explaining why. Peacock terms often reflect unqualified opinion, and usually do not help establish the significance of an article. They should be especially avoided in the lead section." What exactly are you trying to say? Are you saying that stating that the bombing was the deadliest "terror attack" in four decades doesn't say anything about the significance of the subject? Or are you saying that some kind of explanation or justificaation needs to be given about why it was the most deadly attack (I would have thought that it is pretty self-explanatory: it was the most deadly attack because of the number who died). I hope that you won't be too offended if I give you my opinion, that a lot of the reasons you give for exclusion (unrelatedness to the article, original research, POV and now PEA) are illogical and looks to me like pretty wild grabbing at straws. -- ZScarpia (talk) 12:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe the text is not really important to the event and that Wikipedia policy prefers to just describe the events without connecting them to generic and unrelated events such as bombings 6 decades later. For example, the September 11 attacks article has no mention on how big it was in comparison to other terrorist attacks. However, if you have other Wiki-samples of such connections, I'm open to reconsider my position. I'm also open to WP:RfC or other methods of WP:DR. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The significance of the Empire State Building was that, for many years, it was the World's tallest building. Therefore, someone has written: "It stood as the world's tallest building for more than forty years, from its completion in 1931 until construction of the World Trade Center's North Tower was completed in 1972." The significance of the Titanic sinking was that for many years it stood as the worst maritime disaster. Therefore, in the Titanic article, someone has written: "The sinking resulted in the deaths of 1,517 people, ranking it as one of the worst peacetime maritime disasters in history and by far the most infamous." They haven't mentioned that it stood for many years as the worst disaster and which sinking superceded it as the worst, but, if the author had had the information, do you think it would have been invalid to include it. If a more deadly 'terrorist attack' than the one against the World Trade Center occurs, do you think that someone won't write something about how it was the most deadly until Event X. Why, outside Israel, do you think that the King David Hotel bombing was written about a lot? Don't you think that it had something to do with the death toll and, given that, don't you think it is worth mentioning that? In the Empire State Building article, do you think that mentioning the World Trade Centre is 'connecting' it to a 'generic and unrelated' building? -- ZScarpia (talk) 15:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Jaakobou. Two things. The ref. to WP:PEA is unintelligible.ZScarpia's original point was quite obvious. The explosion was the deadliest of its kind, until latter terrorist acts. To note this is to note what is true and undisputed. Secondly, the citation of both the book and the authors in the text, only to have the same mentioned in the relevant footnote, is inappropriate to a lead. What the two authors state is succinct. To jam the lead, which by definition must be terse, with book titles (and the title has, by the way, got nothing to do with 'economical' as your edit makes out, or with what you called earlier 'the economy of terror attacks' . Political Economy has nothing to do with 'economical') and authors' names is to waste space with repetitiveness. I still wholly fail to understand why you have bulked out what was a succinct, uncontroversial and RS remark in the lead, unless you think there is something 'suspicious' about my editing intentions? Nishidani (talk) 17:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Since the book does not explain the connection but you insist that the connection is well cited. I've decided -- despite my belief that the text makes a superficial WP:PEA connection between large events -- to compromise and allow the material on the condition that we give the "fully recorded" context to the Wikipedia reader. i.e. that the Authors consider the event as a notable benchmark to other large attacks (rather than as was previously suggested, a copied event). Your concern that the reference is duplicated in the article is not based on any Wikipedia policy I'm familiar with. In fact, when the material is questioned, it is customary to note on-article who is the person/author that's making the statement. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It's a matter of aesthetics and style.Nishidani (talk) 14:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

When the material is questioned, it is customary to note on-article who is the person/author that's making the statement. I know that the style issue bothers you, but I'm bothered about the source being used to suggest something that the authors did not intend. I believe I've made a large compromise here, accepting a superficial connection being noted on the lead, and it would help end this issue if you make a small one on your part. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, we should be able to iron out this quickly. Look, my point is that the original phrasing was terse. You have rephrased it and in doing so appear to make inferences which are not explicitly there in the text: The two writers give us this passage:-

'This bombing greatly contributed to the British decision that its occupation was leading to larger costs than the benefits derived. This incident was the role model for the massive bombings of the 1980s and beyond. The 1980 Bologna railway station bombing by right-wing terrorists is one of the largest European bombings in terms of casualties until the late 1990s and the Chechen bombings in Moscow. The Madrid commuter train bombings of 11 March 2004 are the deadliest nonaerial European terrorist attack so far.'p.250

You have added a citation required for the passage attributing the success of the bombing to the British decision to withdraw. But the two authors note what all books on the episode note. I.e. that this bombing tipped the scales for the British decision to withdraw. Since the following line is cited from Sandler and Enders., I don't see why the earlier line requires a separate footnote to the same source and same page, therefore, I doubt you will disagree, I will remove it. The citatio required is here, on p.250.

Secondly you make an inference, glossing the 'role model for the massive bombings' of the 1980s, with the Bologna railway station bombing and Chechen bombings etc. Now, there were many bombings throm the 1980s onwards. Syntactically 8ask around, don't trust me), there is no explicit argument here that the 'role model' lay behind both the Bologna bombing and the Chechen bombings. These two incidents are in the next sentence, but they are adduced, from among many bombing incidents, to make a different point, re the numbers of people killed in 1980s bombings. The way you have rephrased the text suggests that the authors are attributing to the authors (still unknown) of the Bologna bombing a direct imitation of the King David bombing. That suggestion is nowhere in the text. Think this over, and get back to me. I won't adjust until we've thought this through adequately, though I think my original formulation was as close to what the authors wrote, as as succint, as the point being made required.Nishidani (talk) 14:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Nishidani,

1. I don't mind too much about the cn tag. Let's consider that issue closed.
2. I understand your perspective but I believe that the citation of both bombings is most probably related to the 1980 point and that the "different point" starts with the deadliest non-aeriel Madrid bombing. I agree that the writing style makes it impossible to fully make out which one of us is correct so either phrasing (mine and yours) are treading on WP:OR. Still, it is more than reasonable to assume that when they use the term "role model" they are discussing the "success" (apologies to the victims) of bombings which were as "successful" as was the KDHB attack rather than a copy-cat/inspiration discussion, which they don't make. Citing that these examples are unrelated is a possibility, I admit. However, they don't make it very clear since they seem to be making a grocery list rather than deep inspection into events and how they relate. I believe my writing of the issue was more accurate to the natural development in the discussion/monologue they are making when citing large scale attacks since a random mention of 1980 bombings without naming any of them (or what part of the globe they are from) is just ridiculous pseudo-scholar babble.

With respect, Jaakobou ^{Chalk Talk} 22:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Jaakobou. The cn tag, I think we now agree, was not important, because Sandler and Enders, cited immediately berlow, do make precisely that point. But if you are worried about it, I can fit in several more quotes specifically on that point. The literature does see that bombhing as a turning point in breaking British will, even Begin said so.

In my original sparse cite, I limited myself to 'role model' because that is clearly what Enders and Sandler say. Anything else, i.e., making that sentence, with its full stop, run into the following sentence (which in English prose style should have involved rather different punctuation (:/;) to create an inferential reading that takes Bologna and Chechnya as illustrative of the role model . .1980s phrase. Now, perhaps the authors intended that. The two sentences are awkward and you did well to point out the problem. But, as you say, to go beyond the text, by linking the two sentences creates an WP:OR problem. It may certyainly be 'reasonable to assume'. But we are not allowed to reasonably assume what authors are saying, because that is WP:OR, or making one of several possible constructions of a text, and then taking this reading as representative of the real (if intuited) intent of the authors. They were clumsy. Their two examples, of the many (I will try and hunt up a large list of terror incidents in the 1980s I came across the other day) look odd. Whoever did the Bologna railway station bombing (Italian fascists of 'New Order'? The Italy's 'deviated' secret services? the KGB?, the CIA?) did so because there was a prior and thick tradition in Italy of public bombings (Piazza Fontana bombing, going back to 1969. We don't know the real authors, and therefore we don't know what 'role model inspired them' specifically. I was speaking to a young economist I ocdcasionally tutor last week, who works for at UN agency, and he told me that he was amazed to find, in his fieldtrips to the Philippine jungle (borderline areas between Christian and Islamic zones) and Peru, that local informants, ex-members of guerilla groups, when they learnt his identity (Italian) could discuss in detail things like these bombings and the murder by the Red Brigades of Aldo Moro. Apparently in these third world areas, guerillas would get word by radio of attacks all over the world, and discuss in reunions whether the strategy adopted by groups otherwise unknown to them was intelligent, tactically sensible or not. I mention the anecdote because it throws light on what our two authors write. Massive bombing incidents by their very nature, being reported worldwide, create a role model, to be used or discarded. That is the point our two authors make. To say, as the wiki text now says, that they impute to the unknown authors of the Bologna bombings, or Moscow Chechnya bombings (we don't even know who is responsible for the latter, since serious literature attributing it to the KGB exists) a direct inspiration from the King David Model, is to force the text. Personally I think the authors were very clumsy. That is why I am for the very sparse quote I first used, limiting the cite to that one line about role model. Thanks for the feedback, and I apologize for the length of my reply. Nishidani (talk) 08:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I understand your perspective on this, but mine was that the text meant to explain the authors think the event was the first of it's kind, a "role model" for "successful" attacks. Since the term "role model" can be interpreted in so many ways, I was unhappy with the inclusion of just the words "role model" as it might imply, as you believed a copycat/inspiration sub-context, which I believe to be false - we cannot assume this from the awkward text. I believe the best solution/compromise on this is to keep the input within the context of the Author's paragraph rather than confine it to it's sentence which forces the reader's imagination go beyond the text... all the way to the Philippines even.

I guess I'm willing to open this for mediation if you insist, but I still believe this source doesn't make a strong case for the material to belong in the lead.

Cheers, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

from the front page of the July 23, 1946 edition of The New York Times

From my point of view there are two interesting aspects of the front page article about the bombing in the July 23, 1946 edition of the New York Times. Firstly, it gives specific details about people who were injured outside the Hotel when the main bomb went off, which contradicts those Irgun supporters who write that there were none because of the effect of the small 'petard' which went off first. Secondly, it explains that the damage done to the part of the hotel being used as a military headquarters was comparatively minor:

" JERUSALEM BOMB KILLS 41 IN ATTACK ON BRITISH OFFICES

Zionist Terror Raiders Accused of Blast in King David Hotel

SHOOT BRITISH OFFICER

Strict Curfew Imposed In Hunt for Killers—Jewish Groups Urge End of Violence

By Julian Louis Meltzer JERUSALEM. July 22

- An en-tire six-story comer and basement at the southwestern wing of the King David Hotel were destroyed and at least forty-one British, jew-ish and Arab Government officials were killed and fifty-three were injured soon after midday when terrorists, belived to belong to either Irgun Zval Leumi or the Stern gang, blew up a large part of the offices of the chief secre-tary of the Palestine Government. Prominent Britons, including British Jews, are among the casu-alties. The dead include eight uni-dentified bodies, according to the latest semi-official figures, and fifty-two missing persons are buried under a huge pile of debris. They include twelve senior British civil servants and four senior Palestinian civil servants. I was on the scene, outside the fashionable hotel - a Jerusa1em landmark overlooking the Old City — just after the heavy explosions shattered the southwestern corner. Rescue operations had already been begun by Brtish troops and police sweating under the hot July sun. They were bringing out bodies on stretchers, leaving a trail of blood over the rubble.

Postmaster General Killed

People standing outside or just entering or leaving the building were among the casualties, Post-master General Gerald Donald Kennedy was killed outside the southern wing. The Superintend-ent of Police, Kenneth Page Had-ingham, was badly injured. Rich-ard Mowrer, correspondent of The New York Post, suffered a leg fracture. The corner was destroyed by a heavy charge of gelignite planted in the basement by four or five armed gunmen. The six floors in-cluded a well-known basement cafe called LA Regence and con-sisted of thirty or thirty-five rooms, mostly occupied by the chief secretary's offices. British Army headquarters has the entire top floor or the hotel and only a small section is situated at the southwestern comer. This explains the comparatively small casualties among the British military. The first detonation occurred at about 12:10 P. M., when a small smoke-bomb exploded near a, parked automobile on Julian's Way about fifty yards south of the hotel. It was intended to hold up all cars. Then came several shots from automatic guns.

Grenade Is Thrown

The second explosion came al-most immediately as a man dressed in Arab clothing alighted from a blue limousine and threw a small grenade along a lane on the north-ern end of the hotel. A military sentry fired at him and the man threw away a submachinc gun and limped to the car, which sped off toward the Jaffa Gate—one of the main gates of the walled Old City. The car was found abandoned later at the foot of the Tower of David, not far from district police headquartcrs. Five minutes later came a third, shattering cxplosion. It was pre-ceded by a mysterious telephone warning to tho hotel's switchboard operator by a woman caller who said: "Tell everyone to leave the hotel. It is going to be blown up in a few minutes." A few minutes before this third detonation a truck drove down the sunken driveway at the northern end of the hotel and four or five men jumped out at the service en-trance to the kitchens. They as-sembled all the hotel staff—-cooks, waiters and kitchen boys—below stairs at gunpoint as one man laid several milk cans full of explosives with fuses, wires and detonators. Then the men dashed off and the ...

Continued on Page 3, Column 2 "

-- ZScarpia (talk) 20:09, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nishidani the insertion into the lead

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and

In line with the Wikipedia Neutral Point of View policy, the words "Extremist", "Terrorist" and "Freedom fighter" should be avoided unless there is a verifiable citation indicating who is calling a person or group by one of those names in the standard Wikipedia format of "X says Y". In an article the words should be avoided in the unqualified "narrative voice" of the article. As alternatives, consider less value-laden words such as insurgent, paramilitary, or partisan.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is what WP:LEAD says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Arbitrary break 1

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

This is what the source said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some measures of NPOV editing:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Abitrary break 2

Amoruso:

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

A fact? Or an opinion? #

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Furthermore the book is riddled with factual inaccuracies.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Further:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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