Talk:King David Hotel bombing/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Ignored

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

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

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

He says that:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just a suggestion.

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

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

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

JA-JRM relationship?

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

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

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

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

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

{from By Blood and Fire}:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

United Resistance Movement

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

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

Some ordering

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

Please read the Terrorism section of the talkpage above and the second paragraph of the Lead. According to Begin, the practical purpose of the attack was to destroy Jewish Agency documents which were thought to be kept in the Secretariat (in fact, by the time of the attack, the most important ones had been taken to London and the annexe). -- ZScarpia (talk) 22:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

The intent of the warnings

{from p200, Thurston Clarke, 'By Blood and Fire' }: "Adina slipped into the Arab pharmacy on Julian's Way ... She lifted the receiver and dialed 1 ... 1 ... 1 ... 4. After two rings a male voice answered. 'King David Hotel.' She spoke rapidly in Hebrew. 'This is the Hebrew Resistance Movement. We have placed a bomb in the hotel. The building is going to blow up. You must evacuate immediately. You have been warned.' She repeated the message in English, and then hung up and ran out of the store. It was 12:22."

{from p258, Bethell, 'The Palestine Triangle' }: "Begin continues: 'We did not want to hurt one living soul. The ethics of the Irgun demanded every possible precaution to prevent civilian casualties.' For this reason, he says, a young Irgun girl, Adina Hay-Nissan, was ordered to telephone a warning to the hotel thirty minutes before the impending explosion, this period being a compromise between Paglin and Sadeh, the former having originally wanted to allow forty-five minutes for evacuation."

{from p215, Begin, 'The Revolt' }: "Despite his youth, Giddy [Paglin], had had far more practical experience in this kind of fighting than had the Haganah Operations Officer [Sadeh]. He replied that experience had taught him that when the authorities received a warning that one of their offices was about to be blown up, they left the building at high speed, and did not waste time on documents. Giddy felt that fifteen minutes might not give a safe margin for evacuating the building. Finally, agreement was reached by a compromise: half-an-hour."

{from p217, Begin, 'The Revolt' }: The next consideration was how to give warnings so as to eliminate casualties. To keep passers-by away, it was decided to let off a small, noisy but harmless, cracker bomb. Telephoned warnings would be sent to three offices as soon as the Irgunists had got away: the King David Hotel management, the Palestine Post, the French Consulate-General. Warning placards would be placed next to the cans in case British experts tried to dismantle the bombs after the warnings were sent.

Hopefully, Thurston Clarke will be an acceptable source for the statement that the intent of the warning to the hotel was to make sure it was evacuated. -- ZScarpia (talk) 23:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Proof of Warning?

Aside from a few Zionists who maintain a warning was given, what actual physical evidence is there that a warning was given? I doubt they gave a warning. I'd like to see hard-evidence, until then I suggest that the warning be referred to as "alleged warning" or perhaps, "the terrorists maintain that they issued a warning, although this cannot be substantiated." 9 October 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.140.85.63 (talk) 04:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Terrorist Project

It must emphatically be noted that placing this within 'WikiProject Terrorism' does not mean that this bombing is being categorized as an act of 'terrorism'. The Squicks (talk) 03:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Very nice. However, as an act of violence carried out in order to cause widespread terror in pursuit of a political aim, terrorism is exactly what it was. Military organisations wear uniforms, operate openly and don't hang their prisoners; terrorists skulk around in disguise, shoot at buses and blow up hotels. FergusM1970 (talk) 20:11, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Where in this article, or anywhere else, is there evidence that this bombing was "an act of violence carried out in order to cause widespread terror?" The fact that the documents had been seized is not disputed. There is no reason to suppose the objective was not the destruction of those documents and a strategic response to their seizure. The question that this article hasn't and perhaps can't answer is whether they really intended to avoid harming civilians or not. But certainly you understand that being willing to do something that might kill noncombatants and making the killing of noncombatants the only objective are simply not the same. If you expect a strategic advantage from targeting noncombatants, the only way to achieve that advantage is to state the objective [hence the word 'terror']. They didn't pick a tourist hotel. They picked the one where the British had their documents. Mskohane (talk) 08:50, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Isn't King David Hotel bombing case taken lightly

So they telephoned they placed the bomb, how nice of them, but why did they put a bomb, because British army confiscated their document and found arms in their central, really what a great reason to explode a hotel that is so highly populated. No kill policy is not bad for an armed organization, which is actually a high standard. Yet they phoned, because they knew British may act back pretty harsh on them, if they kill any British citizen, don't even claim they pity human life other than Jewish, because the statements after the bombing proves they simply don't. They can't even express sorrow for the non Jewish British victims, while not even mentioning the largest group of victims, the Arabs.

"The Irgun issued an initial statement accepting responsibility for the attack, blaming the British for the deaths due to failure to respond to the warning and mourning the Jewish victims. A year later, on July 22 1947, they issued a new statement saying that they were acting on instructions from "a letter from the headquarters of the United Resistance, demanding that we carry out an attack on the center of government at the King David Hotel as soon as possible." Menachem Begin reportedly was very saddened and upset. He was angry that the hotel was not evacuated which resulted in casualties, which was against the Irgun's policy. The Irgun's radio network announced that it would mourn for the Jewish victims, but not the British ones. This was explained by claiming that Britain had not mourned for the millions of Jews who died in the Nazi Holocaust. No mention was made of the largest group of victims, the Arab dead."

Also there is something called as a signal beacon/Warning shot. If IRA would call, you had enough reason to take them serious, since they have done that before many times. But you also know anyone can call a building and say there is bomb in it. You cannot fully evacuate a building anytime anyone calls with fake threats. Or any flight or building would have been emptied till they can no longer operate. If they need to be taken seriously, they could explode a bomb before the event to a non-populated target, showing they are serious somehow before bombing a hotel completely. Phoning for a first time event in the name of a hidden organization, not always taken seriously.

The article is a bit harsh on British forces, for they didn't evacuate the building, yet who would empty a military central upon a telephone conversation. The callers, would have also planned killing them when they got out. Evacuating a building might also be a serious security flaw. So not accusing the bomber yet accusing the bombed men is a bit off balance Kasaalan (talk) 22:35, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, it's you again. Nice stalking.

So, do you have anything to add to the article besides your original research opinion? The Squicks (talk) 00:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this is off-topic to the issue of improving the article, but I also agree with the point. Irgun claim to have given a clear telephone warning, which may or may not be true, but what absolutely is true is that I have read several explosive safety manuals, and not one of them has ever said that it is OK to take highly explosive material into a crowded area and set a fuse as long as a telephone warning is given. My opinion is that the King David Hotel bombing was a reprehensible act. New Thought (talk) 08:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I've taken issue with the phrasing of the intent of the warning before as we do not have the testimony of a neutral mindreader able to say what the intent of the message really was. Thurston Clarke does quote the warning and it mentions evacuation but we donb't know whether they really expected an evacuation to take place or were merely wanting to be seen to have called for one. Begin has written that he wanted the civilians evacuated, but he would say that. Perhaps changing the sentence to refer to the "stated intent" would avoid assumptons.--Peter cohen (talk) 10:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Well I didn't even aware that you were editing the page too. But since we discussed yesterday I made some search about your claim, while they are partly true, that are not enough for Irgun to be white listed in any way, since you missed List of Irgun attacks.

By the way how people can claim Irgun has no kill policy since they killed dozens of Arabs in public bombings over 87 arabs, more than 20 british, and more than 22 jewish people has been killed in public attacks untill they forcefully shut down. So they would keep going for more. Over the 9 years maybe only if you don't call Arabs as human you may say they have no kill policy. Kasaalan (talk) 13:30, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

"Irgun committed the attack in response to Operation Agatha, known within Israel then and now as "Black Saturday"[6] British troops had invaded the Jewish Agency on June 29 and confiscated large quantities of documents about the group's operations." Also as far as I researched, not only documents confiscated, there were arms too, while British army searched the Jewish agency. Also added List of Irgun attacks to the see also section for a better understanding of Irgun in action. Kasaalan (talk) 12:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Another good source In the Beginning, There Was Terror, Ronald Bleier, Americans for Middle East Understanding. Kasaalan (talk) 21:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

This was a terrorist attack

Wether or not the intent was to kill civilians it was a terrorist attack. Even if they hadn't had killed anyone they would have damaged the hotel which belonged to innocent people who did nothing to them. Is it that hard to figure out? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.224.97.111 (talk) 21:07, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

If they didn't intend to kill civilians, it's safe to say that they wouldn't have placed a very large bomb in a building with hundreds of civilians in it. FergusM1970 (talk) 20:13, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you're complaining, given that around 10% or so of the article is about how people have called it a 'terrorist attack'. The Squicks (talk) 23:36, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Calling an attack terrorist or any other way won't help article much anyway. Wikipedia has a policy not calling groups as terrorist, and referring terror by 3rd party sourcing. What is your exact issue by stressing terror. Do you have any suggestions. Kasaalan (talk) 23:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I am against repeating terror word over and over again. But zionist parties mainly alleges "Irgun's strategy was not deliberately to target or wantonly harm civilians" can anyone tell, how that may even be possible after reading List of Irgun attacks. Kasaalan (talk) 23:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Also the evidence advanced that they didn't intend to kill civilians tends to be along the lines of "Menachen Begin said so". WP:RS rules out self-interested sources.--Peter cohen (talk) 23:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Cohen, I know you're Jewish but you must understand that for us non-Jews this was pure TERRORIST attack, or more precisely Jewish terrorist attack. --Orijentolog (talk) 12:28, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Orijentolog: Please read Mr. Cohen's contributions to this discussion with the aim of understanding more than his surname. You will see that he is actually questioning Begin's statements about the bombing, and also the legitimacy of those statements as evidence of intent. I.e., while not saying it was terrorism, he is clearly challenging assertions here that it was not. In even plainer terms, you have just accused [someone almost certainly Jewish] of defending something he is actually attacking, and you have done so based solely on your [reasonable] assumption that he is Jewish, with total disregard for the content of his remarks. You then presume to speak for all non-Jews, but let's leave that alone. The article, as is, does its job of informing us about salient details and the fact that the event is controversial. People who are interested in learning will be moved to find more information, and those who are interested in confirming their biases, whatever they are, have more than enough to work with.Mskohane (talk) 08:27, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Orijentolog was "blocked indefinitely from editing for block evasion and sockpuppetry" at the end of September, 2009. Prior to that he had been criticised for referring to the religion of at least one other editor in a derogatory manner. I'm not normally in favour of deleting comments, but given that the user has been blocked (which probably alters the situation with regard to deleting comments and the rules) and that his comment here is both offensive (repulsive even) and unjustifiable, I think that the one above should be. -- ZScarpia (talk) 18:01, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks both for noticing the remark by someone who appears to be a Persian/Iranian nationalist living in Croatia who speaks the local dialect of the Serbo-Croat language and, when not attacking Jews, puts effort into being an apologist defending the execution of gay 16 year olds. If I had noticed the remark at the time, I would be all for getting him/her/it blocked. Given that your comments make it absolutely clear how ridiculous it was, I am inclined against deleting the post.--Peter cohen (talk) 19:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Personally, while I applaud the expulsion of the commenter, I'd like to see the comment itself remain, as a reminder of some of the realities of open editing--leave the gun smoking. As for the expressed anti-Semitism itself, Oliver Wendell Holmes and Louis Brandeis were a couple of guys whose opinions on such matters I hold in high esteem; one would exhort us to be vigilant even against the censorship of that which we find despicable, and the other would encourage us to expose it rather than attempt to suppress it.Mskohane (talk) 05:19, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Shmuel Katz

Using Israel, a History by Martin Gilbert as a source, Shmuel Katz was referred to until recently in the article as spokesman for the Irgun, as though this was his official or normal role. What the book says is only that Katz was the spokesman for Begin at a press conference in Jerusalem which was held in response to an ultimatum demanding the dissolution of the Irgun.     ←   ZScarpia   11:29, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

His role as Irgun propagandist is documented at Shmuel Katz (somewhat euphemised). Many recent authors called him that, too. Zero^talk 11:55, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Thurston Clarke and Bethell say that he was in charge of producing propaganda (or, more restrictively, English propaganda). The article used to say that until somebody substituted the word spokesman, using Martin's book invalidly as a source to justify the change. You can probably tell that I'm not Katz's No. 1 fan can't you?     ←   ZScarpia   17:29, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Lead - destination of telephoned warnings

The statement that none of the warnings was sent to the British authorities is not controversial. Irgun sources including Menahem Begin said that warnings were sent to the Palestine Post, the French Consulate and the Hotel's own telephone exchange (which was separate from the Secretariat and Military's separate exchanges). If my memory serves correctly, the hotel staff decided to ignore the warning sent to the hotel because Jerusalem was rife with hoax bomb alerts (they were even being sent by disaffected civil servants in order to get extended lunchtimes or shortened working days). In fact, a bomb warning had been sent to the hotel that very morning and a search was carried out, but, of course, nothing was found because the bomb was only planted shortly before it detonated. It was only afterwards, when the person who received the call sent to the Palestine Post (who knew one of the people working at the hotel) phoned, that alarm began to set in.     ←   ZScarpia   00:25, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

ZScar - I'm not an expert on the subject, but I see nothing contraversial in what you're saying. Are you proposing a rewrite? If so, what exactly are you proposing we change? NickCT (talk) 00:46, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Nick, it's Wikieditorpro rather me who wants the Lead changed. He thinks that the statement that none of the warnings were sent to the British authorities is controversial. I disagree and pointed out that even Menahem Begin doesn't claim otherwise.     ←   ZScarpia   03:07, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry ZScar. I've reviewed the edit history more carefully. I understand your position and points. I agree w/ you w/ no reservations. NickCT (talk) 03:13, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

In fact, the hotel staff passed on the warning to the army security officers who told them to ignore the warnings. There are also other sources that the British received the warnings.Wikieditorpro (talk) 04:12, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I should also add that the distinction between where the messages were sent and who received them is artificial and misleading in the lead part of the article. Wikieditorpro (talk) 04:17, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Which are your sources? The ones quoted say that the hotel staff decided to ignore the warning call made to the hotel telephone operator. My opinion, obviously, is that, in the Lead, it is not enough to simply state that warning calls were sent without mentioning that they were not sent to any of the British authorities.     ←   ZScarpia   09:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree w/ ZScar. Wiki - your source please? NickCT (talk) 13:42, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Questionable whether warnings belong in the lead at all. Facts are that a group planted a bomb and blew up a hotel, killing people. Anything on alleged and/or ineffective "warnings", more properly belongs as background, in the body of the article. RomaC (talk) 14:23, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Two new newspaper articles of relevance

ynetnews.com - Uri Misgav - "Then I saw a giant cloud – like in Hiroshima", 27 July 2010: Former Irgun fighter recalls bombing of British headquarters in Jerusalem's King David Hotel, which left more than 90 people dead. Sarah Agassi says armed Jewish group warned occupants to evacuate building. "My conscience is clear," she says 64 years after the operation, "it was war." (interview with Sarah Agassi, one of the two Irgunists responsible for sending the warnings)

The Jerusalem Post - Larry Derfner - Rattling the Cage: One man’s terrorist, 28 July 2010: The greatest denouncers of Palestinian violence against Israel also tend to be the greatest defenders of pre-state Zionist violence against Britain.

    ←   ZScarpia   17:08, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Curiously, in the ynetnew.com interview, Agassi says:

We informed them on time. Two minutes after 12:30. Everything happened so quickly. They had a half-hour. Had they evacuated the building at 12:35, things would never have developed as they did."

Of course, one of the rare things about the bombing which is an agreed fact is that the explosion happened at 12:37. If the warning was sent at 12:32, that obviously would have left only 5 minutes to act. It is hardly credible, though, that warning calls could then have been sent to the Palestine Post and the French consulate, that the Palestine Post rang the police and that the Palestine Post and police both managed to phone the hotel in the period between the first warning and the bomb detonating if the length of that period was less than five minutes. The fuses were supposed to have been set to go off after half-an-hour, but it is known that they went off sooner, probably because the chemical reaction they worked off took less time to complete than expected. After the fuses were set, the bombers escaped from the hotel (under gunfire). Once the bombers were clear of the hotel, Adina Hay and Agassi went to various public phones to send the warnings.

    ←   ZScarpia   11:11, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Controversy has arisen over the timing and adequacy of these warnings and the reasons why the hotel was not evacuated.

This is in the lead. Can someone provide a source that says this? It's not enough that one guy says so, that doesn't mean there is "controversy" RomaC ^TALK 14:58, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

It's spread throughout the article. Begin, various Irgun members, and historians give specific warning times(some of which contradict each other but that's in the sources) while the British government has stated that they either weren't warned or warnings were given but not to anyone who could have evacuated the building. Either way it's given a lot of coverage for an issue that's mainly academic. Sol Goldstone (talk) 16:15, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Is there a source that says there is "controversy" on this? RomaC ^TALK 16:23, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

[edit conflict] That sentence is one of those that has been mauled and knocked into its current form by a long series of edits over a long period of time. The first part (the bit about timings and adequacy of the warnings) comes pretty directly from Bethell, I think. The second part was an attempt to note in summarised form the part that the fact that there was no evacuation plays in the attribution of blame for the resultant deaths. A senior member of the Haganah fed Begin a story that Shaw had forbidden an evacuation on the grounds that he did not "take orders from Jews." From the Irgun's point of view, that indicated that their warning had been received and that the failure to carry out the expected evacuation was due to antisemitism on Shaw's part, exonerating the Irgun of any part of the blame. Members of the Irgun still maintain that the story is true (see Sarah Agassi's statement in the section above). Shaw denied receiving a warning and said that he would not have said what was attributed to him even if he had. His staff (the ones who survived) confirmed that. Shaw sued a London Jewish periodical which repeated the story. The periodical had to concede the case because they could not produce any evidence to back the story up. The Haganah member who had given the story to Begin said that he had heard it from another Haganah member. The second Haganah member denied it. That version of events is supported by Bethell and Thurston Clarke in combination. If you think that saying there is a controversy over the reason why there was no evacuation is a fair representation of that version of events, then those two books can be used as a source for the second part of the sentence in question.     ←   ZScarpia   16:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I've been meaning to work on this article for quite a while, but never managed to knucke down and get on with it. Anyone interested in hanging around and making a collaborative effort?     ←   ZScarpia   17:33, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I feel that the article is pretty mature: details, sources, NPOV are all in. What do you think needs improvement? --Super.zhid (talk) 20:07, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks ZS, I have a few concerns when I see "there is controversy about..." as it sometimes is a weaselly way to say "some people disagree". My main concern with the article is the weight given the question of "warnings" is such that it suggests a fault the victim narrative which, given the text of the plaque at the hotel, seems to reflect the official Israeli POV. I had a look at some other articles about bombings where warnings were given, in 1983 United States Senate bombing the word "warning" appears once, in Sydney Hilton bombing "warning" appears once, in Bombing of the Hebrew Benevolent Congregation Temple, "warning" appears once. In this article the word "warning" appears 25 times, it's really hammered home isn't it? RomaC ^TALK 23:32, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Re Brewcrewer's revert

Here. This is a snappy edit summary and I will feel foolish if I missed the phrasing of the source that may or may not support the content in the lead. I see only a ref to an offline source, am I missing something? RomaC ^TALK 16:21, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Did you look up the source to see whether it supports or does not support the sentence or did you just revert because you didn't like it?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:13, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I reverted because the phrasing sucks. "A sent X to B," or "A did not send X to B" are both clear. What we had, "A did not send X to B, at least not directly" is weaselly. The latest edit is "Telephoned warnings were sent, but not, at least directly or through the route expected by the Irgun, to the British authorities" which seems to further illustrate how awkward it is to twist the information round so as to suggest that the people who planted the bomb in the hotel were not such bad chaps because they say they sort of warned someone, not directly. RomaC ^TALK 22:54, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

In your edit summary you said you reverted because it was not sourced. At the start of the section you repeated the claim. Now you're claiming you removed it because you don't like the wording. Which one is it? I'm not interested in a goalpost-shifting discussion.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:07, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

P.S. I like when you honor me by naming talk page sections after me. It makes me feel warm all over.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:08, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Let me try and be clear: Does the source support the content as it appears? Because the awkward phrasing, "A did not send X to B directly or by the way A expected", I'd like to see where that gem comes from. Is there a link to somewhere editors can have a look for themselves? RomaC ^TALK 23:14, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

An explanation (either Bethell or Thusrston Clarke would act as sources): The Secretariat and British Military had their own exchanges, whose numbers were publicly known. The warning sent by the Irgun to the hotel, though, was sent to the hotel's own switchboard. The Irgun expected that the operator would activate some kind of warning signal and that everybody would quickly exit from the hotel. Instead, after a discussion, the hotel staff decided to ignore the warning (after all, hoax warnings were being sent all the time [even by the Irgun] and the hotel had already been searched for non-existent bombs once already that day). Meanwhile, the Irgun phoned warnings to the Palestine Post newspaper and the French consulate. The person at the Palestinian Post who took the call phoned the police and then, knowing the phone operator at the hotel, rang to check how she was. The police also rang the hotel (again, the hotel's own switchboard). Alarm began to grow. At that point, it is thought, the manager of the hotel rang somebody in the British military administration (though, who it was who was phoned is unknown). According to one or two of the hotel staff who were witnesses at the inquest, the person who had been called said that there should be no evacuation. Mr Hamburger, the hotel manager, then went outside to talk to an officer who'd arrived to investigate the "petard" that had been detonated earlier out in the street. The officer, having been told about a disturbance involving men dressed as Arabs, entered the basement of the hotel. While he was walking towards the where the bomb had been placed, it exploded. Hence, a warning was sent, but not directly to the British. It appears that somebody in the military was told about the warning before the bomb went off, but the information didn't reach him by the route or with the timeliness that the Irgun expected. Later, the British said that no warning had been passed early enough or to anyone in a position to do anything about it.     ←   ZScarpia   23:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks and I've reviewed the previous discussions. Could we just say "The Irgun said they sent warnings to the hotel, the Palestine Post and the French consulate; the British said no warnings were received early enough or by anyone in a position to do anything about them." And slash the rest of the content on warnings? RomaC ^TALK 00:15, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Nobody who knows anything about the bombing disputes that the three warnings were sent or that the warning sent to the hotel was sent to the hotel's own switchboard rather than any of the British administration's own. So, you start off with a statement such as telephoned warnings were sent, but not to the British authorities. Short, sweet and factual, no? But then, someone kicks up a fuss because they want to include words which indicate that, although, no warning was sent to the British, the Irgun expected its warning to be passed on and that, although the warning wasn't passed on the way the Irgun expected, it's reasonably probable that the British were informed, albeit by chance and after a delay. How do you express that? As I see it, the problems with your suggested wording are that it implies that things are in dispute which aren't (informed sources accept that the three warnings were sent) and that it doesn't mention that the warning sent to the hotel wasn't sent to the British and wasn't passed on. Also (though I'd have to check), the British statement was probably referring to anybody British who was in a position to do anything rather than anybody in general. I think it's inevitable that any statement which accurately and completely says everything that anybody could want to say about the warnings is going to end up a bit unwieldy. And then you'd still find editors coming along who'd want to hack your carefully crafted sentences about.     ←   ZScarpia   01:09, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I think RomaC has nailed it. The long discussion over the warnings is superfluous and does not merit such a lengthy section. It might have happened but no law or definition of terrorism says "it's ok if you called ahead". The bombing is the meat of the article, not the debate over what etiquette was observed. If someone were to include a POV about why the warnings would have made the bombings legitimate under international law then it could work but the current wording gives too much weight to a detail. Sol Goldstone (talk) 05:57, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Sol, and ZS I appreciate your efforts. I think we may be overthinking this. A problem with "telephoned warnings were sent, but not to the British authorities" is that it says where a warning was not sent. In cases such as this we might simply say what each side did per my suggestion above. Again, the article using the word "warning" 25 times and editors still not finding consensus suggests to me we should slash/simplify this part. RomaC ^TALK 07:34, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Somewhat related and easier than starting a new section, the labeling of the King David Hotel bombing as a terrorist act only seems to be contended on the bizarre basis of "We didn't mean to hurt anyone, we called ahead". Unless we can pull up a good analysis of how calling ahead relieves a bomber of responsibility under the relevant law, I don't think it makes sense. 'Contentious' gives a lot of weight to a weak argument voiced by a politician. It's a minor point but I wanted to provide reasons for reverting the change. Sol Goldstone (talk) 06:19, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Your opinion of what is "bizarre" does not trump the understanding of reliable sources.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:43, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

My objection is the undue weight given to a minority perspective. All terrorist attacks are contended as valid military actions by their perpetrators and supporters. Should we describe 9/11's labeling as terrorism contentious because bin Laden believes it was justified? Netanyahu is a politician, not a legal scholar. Sol Goldstone (talk) 15:48, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not only Netanyahu. Perhaps you should read the source used. Interestingly you came to your conclusion based on a deadlink.[1] This, and your comments above, would lead an objective reader to assume that you're not interested in what the sources say, but on your opinion. You may want to clear up the misconception you're creating. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:47, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I've read the article. The people that directly contend the bombing wasn't a terrorist act are Netanyahu and the Irgun members who committed it. Maybe we should use the rules for fringeand directly attribute the claims to the sources. If there are legal academics debating the label (as they do for the legality of targeted killings, etc.) then the theory isn't fringe and could be labeled contentious. If we have those sources then great, I'd have no objections, but until then perhaps sourcing the claims is the best bet for giving proper weight. Sol Goldstone (talk) 18:59, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

See page 21 of this book.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:15, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Brewcrewer, I think that the sentence that you're restoring is one of mine, so, of course, I'm all in favour of using it. The source you're using is incorrect, though, and doesn't deal with the King David Hotel bombing in any great depth (in other words, not really a very reliable source for this article). The bomb was aimed at the Secretariat, not, as your source says, the military, who hardly had any offices in the wing bombed. I think I wrote the sentence as a way of introducing and marking a switch to an opposing point of view after somebody else included the text about Netanyahu's speech. I think I thought that my sentence was justified by the sourced text which followed, but, in any case, I think that it is one of those statements which is so obviously true that it's unlikely to be challenged (reading back through the archives for this talkpage would demonstrate its truth pretty well).     ←   ZScarpia   23:41, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Is UPS a typo?

In the Leaks and Rumors section, it says that "Shortly after noon, Palestine time, the London bureau of UPS received a message".

UPS? What's that? The link brings up an article about Universal Press Syndicate, "the world's largest independent press syndicate." However, it goes on to say that "Universal Press Syndicate was founded by John McMeel and Jim Andrews in 1970". It can therefore not be the same organization that was mentioned in the King David Hotel bombing article since that event took place in 1946.

Perhaps we are dealing with a mere typo and the actual agency was UPI, as "United Press International (UPI) is a news agency that has roots dating back to 1907 ".

I wouldn't make the switch without being absolutely certain but, for the time being, I think it's a safe bet that UPS was a mistake. Oclupak (talk) 23:14, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Another possibility is that "UPS" is correct but refers to "United Press Syndicate". I don't know much about that organization except that existed in the 1930s, see this example. I didn't find any examples from the late 1940s though, so I'm not confident about this. Zero^talk 00:06, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

A better guess: United Press Service. This was active at the right time, see just under the newspaper title. Zero^talk 00:10, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Interesting proposals. I'm glad I didn't rush to boldly change UPS to UPI as I was first inclined to do. However, I feel that we can not leave things as they now stand as the link to a non-existent agency at the time is clearly inaccurate. Perhaps the best thing to do, for the time being, would be to circumvent the problem by saying "Shortly after noon, Palestine time, the London bureau of a news agency received a message". Oclupak (talk) 00:35, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

No I think we should just repeat what the source says and not try to interpret it. On the other hand, I have this source beside me and I cannot find this incident mentioned at all. Maybe I am overlooking it. Zero^talk 01:04, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Oclupak, you are right: it should read UPI, not UPS. From Chapter 18 (11:55 am - 12:10 pm) of Thurston Clarke:

"Jewish terrorists have just blown up the King David Hotel!" This short message was received by the London Bureau of United Press International (UPI) shortly after noon, Palestine time. It was signed by a UPI stringer in Palestine who was also a secret member of the Irgun. The stringer had learned about Operation Chick but did not know it had been postponed for an hour. Hoping to scoop his colleagues, he had filed a report minutes before 11:00. A British censor had routinely stamped his cable without reading it. The UPI London Bureau chief thought the message too terse. There were not enough details. He decided against putting it on the agency's wire for radio and press until receiving further confirmation that the hotel had been destroyed.

The Shmuel Katz citation only covers the final section of the paragraph. From page 94 of Days of Fire: The news spread so quickly that by the time the explosion occurred several newspapermen had arrived in the neighbourhood and were eyewitnesses to the event.

The only journalists mentioned in the other sources are New York Post reporter Richard Mowrer, who was staying in a hotel near the King David Hotel, and a small number of others who were in one of the Kind David Hotel bars during the attack. Thurston Clarke wrote that Mowrer left his own hotel to investigate after hearing one of the barrow bombs detonate. When the main bomb went off, he was injured in the leg. Katz's account is strange in that, even though he wrote it shortly after translating Begin's The Revolt into English, it contradicts Begin's account. Also he gets details such as the extent of the damage and the death toll wrong. He wrote that the whole of the south wing, rather than one half of it, was destroyed and that the death toll was eighty rather than the accepted figure, ninety-one.

    ←   ZScarpia   03:50, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

La Régence nightclub (spelling)

The article says: "The columns were in a basement nightclub known as the Regencé". This is quite obviously a spelling mistake. La Régence is a French word and If an accent was placed on one of the three "e"s comprised in the word, it would have been on the first one, not the last one. It is also possible that no accent was used, as seems to be the case for the present-day Regence nightclub located in the same area of the King David Hotel. In any case, "Regencé" was most definitely a mistake and it seems to me most likely that the spelling at the time must have been "Régence" and I have edited the text accordingly. I also corrected a second instance of Régence which was not accentuated at all. I eventually stumbled upon a third instance of the word further down the page. Of the three, it was the only one which was correctly accentuated and I left it alone. Oclupak (talk) 12:29, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I've seen instances of both accented and unaccented spellings. On the Web, the unaccented spelling seems to predominate. I'll have a look at the books I have to see which author uses which variant if you like.     ←   ZScarpia   15:38, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Might it still exist? Zero^talk 03:39, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

The restaurant still exists under the name "La Regence" as can be ascertained on the website of the Johnson & Wales University where the full menu is on display. The name is quite clearly unaccented today. One could argue, however, that in view of the fact that in 1946 the French embassy was located in close proximity to the hotel, it seems to me very unlikely that the name would have been written without its proper accent. It is, after all, a French restaurant and one can easily imagine that the French diplomats who were no doubt frequent customers would have frowned upon the absence of an accent in the name of what was after all a French restaurant, whose menu, even today, is written in French-English-Hebrew, in that order. My guess is that, for some reason or other, the present-day owners simply dropped the accent which must have been there in the old days. My 2¢. Oclupak (talk) 14:15, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Advertisements in the Palestine Post of the 1940s did not use an accent, even when the name was written in large letters. I looked at quite a few. On the other hand I found one example in 1940 where the name was written as La Régence in the text (not an advertisement). I'm guessing the restaurant did not use an accent. Zero^talk 14:44, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Zero, your post has prompted me to search through the old newspapers which are available online. I thus learnt that as of May 21, 2011, Google has terminated its project of digitizing old newspapers[2]. On the upside, this sad news has led me to discover alternate resources such as the Historical Jewish Press archive where I found numerous old issues of the Palestine Post.

You reported that "Advertisements in the Palestine Post of the 1940s did not use an accent, even when the name was written in large letters." By "large letters" I gather you meant capital letters. It must be noted that it is customary, even in France, not to put accents on capital letters. (Where I live, in Québec, it is customary to put an accent on all letters that deserve one, be they uppercase or lowercase, but I will not dwell into that here.)

I have to admit that most other instances of "La Regence" that I came across were also unaccented but I did stumble upon three cases of "La Régence" which were properly accented in the Palestine Post issues of April 7, 1939, March 14, 1941 and February 22, 1944.

I respectfully submit that the lack of accents is most likely due to ignorance or neglect on the part of journalists and typesetters while it is doubtful that the reverse would be true, that is to say that I feel that it is unlikely that a journalist or a typesetter would, on at least three occasions, accentuate a word which does not require an accent.

That being said, I realize how futile and superficial this whole conversation is in view of the seriousness of the dreadful event which is the main subject of the article. Nonetheless, this quest for the proper spelling of a name has led me to a throve of news clippings which I might find quite useful, later on, when I investigate the core of the story. So, without any hard feelings, I rest my case on this particular issue. Oclupak (talk) 18:52, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

By "large letters" I meant larger than regular text size, such as in a displayed advertisement. Many of them are uppercase but quite a few are lowercase. An advertisement is where I would most expect the spelling to be according to the customer's wishes, but I could not find any advertisement using an accent. The example I found and the three you found of accents in the plain text might just mean that some hack on the PP staff knew a bit of French. Zero^talk 02:05, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Izahk Zadok

Dear Zscarpia, while I am a neophyte in the matter of the King David Hotel bombing incident, you seem to be very knowledgeable on this subject and, glancing through the history, it appears you are a major contributor to this Wikipedia article.

It was more or less by chance that I landed on this page this morning after I stumbled upon a YouTube video (at [3]) which featured, at the very beginning, one of the participants of the attack, a gentleman by the name of Izahk Zadok, who seemed quite proud of his achievement when, as a young man, he was an active participant in the 1946 event.

Flabbergasted to witness such an admission of guilt devoid of any corresponding sentiment, and wanting to know more about him, I naturally ended up reading the Wikipedia article on the subject and, in passing, I could not help noticing the obvious misplacement of an acute accent in the name of the Régence Café, where seven milk (or was it butter?) churns of 50 kg capacity each had been deposited after their contents had been replaced with explosives.

I was disappointed to find no reference to a Mr. Izahk Zadok in the Wikipedia article and further investigation with Google did not yield much more info, even when using alternate spellings such as Izaak Zadok or Isaac Zadok.

I was mostly intrigued by one particular aspect of his testimony to the camera. It was his statement to the effect that "We were yelling at people to get out of the way, threatened some with our weapons, as we carried it in." I have great difficulty believing that a terrorist would threaten people on his way in and thus reveal the plot ahead of the explosion, which could inevitably compromise the success of his mission.

As you seem to have a few books dealing with this subject, I would like to ask you if you have any information about Izahk Zadok. Does he really exist, is it really him that we see in the video and did he really say what he claims to have said? If so, shouldn't the article mention his participation in the attack? Thanks. Oclupak (talk) 19:47, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello and apologies for taking so long to reply. Also, apologies for spelling and grammatical mistakes in what follows as I'm going to post it without reading through it first.

I haven't come across Izahk Zadok's name before, but I should think that the chances are that his story is true. It would be a fairly silly story to make up because it would be exposed as a fabrication fairly quickly. You might find that if you Googled the Hebrew form of his name that some results are thrown up. Did he mention what his codename was?

You might be interested in this 2010 interview of Sarah Agassi (codename Yael). In connection with your difficulty finding material on Izahk Zadok, it's worth noting that none of the main books on the bombing include Sarah Agassi's full name. At the most, they give her first name and codename. Bethell doesn't mention her at all, only mentioning Adina Hai's role in sending the warning messages. The article gives a reason why Irgun participants might not have wanted to publicise their involvement: Agassi lost her job when hers was revealed. Agassi explains why she felt no remorse at taking part. She still believed the story about John Shaw forbidding an evacuation of the building. It's a bit startling when she says that the warning to the hotel was sent at 12:32, which, of course, would have been only five minutes before the bomb went off (albeit it's thought that the fuses worked faster than intended). Her mention of the Irgunist whose job it was to fire the road by igniting petrol over it is interesting in that hers is the only account (that I've come across anyway) by a member of the Irgun which says what the intention of the trolleys loaded with petrol was and also the only account which says that the intention was to pour the petrol on the road and then ignite it.

When it came to trying to plant the bomb inconspicuously, one reason for the chosen timing of the operation was that it was carried out when the Regence café was empty and so fewer people were around to interfere (though the operation did start two hours later than planned). The intention was that, when they arrived at the service entrance, the bombers, most of whom were in arab costume, would look like they were delivering milk. After their arrival, guns were pulled on the staff who'd gathered at the entrance. The doorman was held under guard at his office (where, unobserved, he managed to trigger the alarm connected to the police) while most of the rest of the staff in the basement were bundled into the kitchen. However, one member of staff, who hadn't been spotted, managed to warn the hotel security about the hold-up being staged by a group of armed "arabs". In the basement was also the room containing the military telephone switchboard, whose staff also managed to raise the alarm. The bomb was rigged so that tampering with it would detonate it, so the risk wasn't so much that the operation would be thwarted by the bomb being defused as that the bombers would be prevented from making a getaway. In the event, they did have to shoot their way out. Of course, the staff who had been in the basement didn't know that the churns contained a bomb.

None of the three books I've checked spell the name of the café using an acute accent in it. Of the four books that I've checked, only one, Silver, spells the name of the restaurant with an acute accent (Régence). J. Bowyer Bell refers to the Regency. Nicholas Bethell refers to the Regence. Thurston Clarke refers to La Regence.

It was an interest in the bombing which caused me to first register as a Wikipedia editor. My first registered edit was to ask some questions on this talk page. Since I registered, I've always been meaning to add a substantial amount of material to the article. The problems are that I'm too disorganised, that there is a large amount of significant information that could or should be added and that it would actually be a lot easier to write a new article than to slot the information into what has already been written (which, I'm sure, would probably not be universally popular). If you're interested in making a co-operative effort, perhaps that would finally provoke me into turning intention into action.

Hope there's something useful in that lot. Regards     ←   ZScarpia   15:30, 1 June 2011 (UTC) (Amended: 02:48, 2 June 2011 (UTC))

Thank you for your response, ZScarpia.

First, allow me to apologize myself for a mistake I made when I attempted to quote what Mr. Zadok is heard saying in the video. Actually, it turns out the words I mentioned were not from the video but from one of the rare articles I found about him and his involvement in the King David Hotel bombing on www.asianoutlook.com. I think it was pure laziness on my part that made me copy/paste what resembled what I had heard instead of painstakingly writing down word for word what was actually being said in the video. Again I apologize for this lack of accuracy.

About the video, I managed to locate a more complete segment of the documentary on YouTube. This extended excerpt is almost nine minutes long and includes interviews with other key participants, such as Yechiel Kadishai, Former Private Secretary to Menachem Begin and Shrage Elis, Irgun Commander in Jerusalem, as well as a few unidentified others.

Later on, I managed to locate the original source of the video. It is part of a series of educational films broadly titled "The Age of Terror: A Survey of Modern Terrorism " which was produced in 2002 by Films Media Group. There are about half a dozen titles in the series, one of which is called "In the Name of Liberation: Freedom by Any Means". The duration of that item is a mere 47 minutes but the price is pretty steep: $169.95. Fortunately, there is a short clip (3:17) available for free preview at | ffh.films.com.

I do not believe there would be any copyright issue in providing a link to this short clip in the footnotes of the article although I would obviously much prefer to include a link to the nine-minute video available on YouTube. Are you familiar with the copyright constraints in these matters? Please, let me know what you think would be appropriate.

I was pleased to hear of your offer of a co-operative effort to work on this article but, for the time being, I am afraid I would not be of any great help as I am a genuine newbie about this subject. I must even confess that I still haven't read the article in its entirety, as I am constantly diverted left and right on the many occasions when I stumble upon a name, a place, an incident that I know nothing about and that I feel the urge to investigate before proceeding any further.

Case in point, I started reading the interview you mentioned about Sarah Agassi and before I could finish it, I realized that there were 121 comments in the talkback section at the end, which I most certainly would like to peruse because it sometimes happens that it is in these off the cuff scribblings that some of the most precious bits of information can be found.

So, from what I've gathered so far, yes, I would be extremely interested in collaborating with you in bringing this article to the best degree of quality possible in view of its pivotal importance in modern history. As the video proclaims, "This is the birth of modern terrorism", and everything we have witnessed ever since stems from that single event.

In the meantime, I have a lot of reading to do.

Regards. Oclupak (talk) 21:50, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I've found a mention of your man. He features on page 260 of Bethell as one of the two men who were hit by gunfire as the bombers were escaping from the hotel. Bethell spells his name Itzhak Tsadok. The two were found by the police in the Old City on the day after the bombing. The second man, Aharon Avrahami, had died of his wounds by then.     ←   ZScarpia   02:48, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

As regards reading material, would you like me to email you some more. My first edit as a registered user was to ask some questions on this talk page. Zero responded by sending me some material. I still have it and will forward it on to you if you like.     ←   ZScarpia   04:45, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

ZScarpia, I've finished reading the article. I find the ending absolutely incredible. Who would have thought that in this day and age the Prime Minister of Israel would have attended a celebration honoring the terrorists who carried out the attack? I'm looking forward to what's in store for the 65th anniversary which will occur in less than two months' time.

Until then, I still have an awful lot of reading to do. I nevertheless appreciate your offer of forwarding some additional material. Be forewarned though that my mother tongue is French, that I am equally at ease in English but that my language skills go no further. No need to transfer any writings in Hebrew or in Arabic, they would be totally incomprehensible to me. Regards. Oclupak (talk) 17:57, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Something to remember about Netanyahu's presence at the anniversary celebration is that he was the leader of Likud, the successor of Herut, the political party formed on the dissolution of the Irgun in 1948, both parties having been founded by Menachem Begin.

I'll try to find somewhere to post the files online so that you can download them. Or if you would like me to post them to you directly, send me an email address.

    ←   ZScarpia   17:01, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

ZScarpia, I have sent you my email address. Oclupak (talk) 05:07, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

How many milk churns were there? Six or seven?

In the Execution section, it says "The attack used approximately 350 kg (770 lb) of explosives spread over six charges."

However, in a documentary available on YouTube, the narrator says, at 05:24 from the beginning, that there were seven milk containers.

Later on, at 06:13, Izahk Zadok, one of the terrorists who actually carried out the attack, says "And there were seven churns, weighing 350 kilos in all".

So, what is it? Six or seven? Oclupak (talk) 00:04, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

From an indirect reference I think Bowyer Bell says seven. This is a detail that even a participant might get wrong. If both numbers occur in reliable sources, we can just note that fact. Zero^talk 00:18, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Thurston Clarke says seven, also. About the fuses, he wrote that the ambient temperature affected how quickly they worked, which wasn't taken account of. According to him, the bomb detonated six minutes earlier than intended.     ←   ZScarpia   03:54, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Bethell says seven.     ←   ZScarpia   05:01, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

New section: Film, video, TV

I added a new section, between Further reading and the Endnotes. Oclupak (talk) 12:53, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

What did Netanyahu say?

So just because the hotel management got a phonecall (as if), then terrorism is not to do with it? Come to think of it, even ETA makes phonecalls, but we still call them the worst terror organisation in Europe. --83.108.28.69 (talk) 22:18, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Do you have any suggestion regarding the article content? Please remember: Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 23:04, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

File:KD 1946.JPG Nominated for Deletion

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

Opening Windows And Closing Curtains

Are there any other cases of people responding to an anticipated explosion by opening windows and closing curtains? It doesn't seem especially sensible to me. Firstly, it exposes people to being killed by the blast as they carry out this preparation. Secondly, opening windows might reduce the risk of flying glass, but it increases the risk of blast damage and fragments from the explosion. Finally, it seems to be an unnatural reaction to receiving news of a pending explosion in the building opposite: you'd expect people to move to the other side of the building and take cover under tables or stairs. New Thought (talk) 23:17, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Generally speaking, open windows will a) not break due to pressure difference b) reduce the effect of shock wave in otherwise closed area (for example, see 20 July plot - windows were open, Hitler survived). --ElComandanteChe (talk) 10:32, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. I agree that opening windows is a good idea if the blast will be coming from inside the building - but in this case, the blast was expected from the building opposite. The article stipulates that an eyewitness saw windows being opened and curtains being closed in the French embassy, and that this represents evidence that the French embassy had received the warning about the bomb in the King David Hotel. As previously stated, this doesn't seem like a natural reaction to me - it seems like a way to keep a building cool on a hot day. New Thought (talk) 12:52, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

The French consulate was set off to the north of the hotel and was therefore some distance from where the bomb went off. The bulk of the hotel was between it and the corner of the hotel that was destroyed. We know that windows elsewhere in the hotel weren't blown out, so I'd say that the probability of the the French consulate's windows being blown out if they hadn't been opened would have been small. Windows were blown in in the annexe situated opposite the south side of the hotel, however. At least one death was caused there by flying glass. An interesting thing is that the officers who had gone to investigate the bomb and were in the basement close to it when it went off survived, which perhaps suggests that the blast, which blew the part of the roof which was overhead high in the air, was quite directional. I think that the interesting question is why the French consulate, which wasn't the closest building to the hotel (the YMCA was closer) should have been sent a warning. I haven't seen that discussed anywhere. There is an obvious answer, though. The French were arming and financing the Irgun in revenge for British involvement in ending the French Mandate for the areas to the north of Palestine. Presumably the Irgun would have therefore wanted to make sure that they were seen to be ensuring that there were no French casualties.     ←   ZScarpia   15:27, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

That's an absolutely excellent answer - thanks very much! It makes sense that the blast would have been directional - it would have been upwards from the top of the milk churns, which probably behaved a little bit like gun barrels. From what we know about the damage, it sounds as though it was a dull, slowly forming, but very high powered pressure wave (a little like a thermobaric weapon), more than the sharp, cutting blast wave you'd get from a professional HE device. Your theory about the warning to the French embassy is interesting: the behaviour of going around the building opening windows and closing curtains "feels" as though it was thought out in advance. New Thought (talk) 21:14, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll check some sources if you'd like, but I think that the warning sent to the consulate included instructions to open the windows. Something that I'll try to check at some stage is whether it was a blast wave, flying debris or a combination which smashed the windows in the annexe. With regards to the direction of the blast, I should think that the arrangement of heavier internal walls, which bisected the two halves of the south wing and divided the south wing from the rest of the hotel, also had an effect.     ←   ZScarpia   22:34, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

If you like, something else I can do is check what type of explosive was used. Presumably that would help to indicate what form the explosion took. If memory serves correctly, each churn had it's own fuse whose timing was chemically based. I suppose that it was very unlikely that the fuses went off simultaneously, being non-precision and not having been set simultaneously, which presumably would have caused the explosion to be drawn out and reduced in peak magnitude.     ←   ZScarpia   14:22, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I would be very surprised if the milk churns had separate fuses: firstly, chemical fuses would be expected to give explosions several minutes apart. Secondly, the first explosion would be expected to damage the remaining fuses and bombs. It would be useful to know the type of explosive used: this may also give people in the future a basis to speculate as to where they were obtained from. New Thought (talk) 08:04, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

On page 177 of Thurston Clarke's By Blood and Fire there's a description of the fuses and the explosive contents of each churn. Fuses were set, one after the other, in four of the churns. Presumably, the first churn to detonate would probably have caused the other churns to go off? At one end, the fuses consisted of a glass vial of acid which was closed by a screwcap covered by a bulbous wooden top. At the opposite end, holes had been drilled into the wooden tops into which number-eight commercial detonators, which used three-quarter inch long thin-walled, tubular, aluminium casings, had been pushed. When turned over, the acid ate through the wood and set-off fulminate in the detonators. In tests, the fuses took thirty minutes to work. The fuses had been modelled on British army acid (or pencil) delay switches. These came with a warning that, in hot weather, the time until detonation would be greatly reduced. Each fuse was pushed into a waxed paper cylinder which was coated with four grammes of gelignite. Surrounding the paper cylinder was fifty kilos of light-brown TNT. After the fuses, an anti-tampering device in the base the four churns was set. These are described on page 180 of the book and consisted of brass tubes full of fulminate and sprung strikers restrained by flat pins. If its churn was lifted more than half-an inch from the ground, the flat pin would fall out and the the striker be released. A curious thing is that it looks as though the bombs could have been deactivated by simply lifting the tops off the four churns and pulling the fuses out and pulling the brass tubes of the anti-tamper devices out of their sides. The warning sent to the French consulate did, by the way, include instructions to open the windows.     ←   ZScarpia   19:24, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Image capt

User The Madras has been changing the caption under the image in the Lead from what it has been from some time, Mandate Palestine, to British Mandate of Palestine, breaching the 1RR rule on the article to do so. The latter term was shown, by a large margin, to be a minority one when the latest incarnation of the Mandatory Palestine was last renamed. I propose that, as a best solution, we adopt the term used in that article, Mandatory Palestine, in the caption of the current article.     ←   ZScarpia   19:27, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:King David Hotel bombing/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 19:50, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll begin this review later today or tomorrow. Looking forward to working with you, -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:50, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

First read-through

I'm doing my first read-through, and I'll note down some points big and small here as I go. Tomorrow or Thursday I'll begin the formal checklist, but this will give you a head start.

Overall this looks like a quality article to me. It's detailed about background, the event, and its consequences, and draws on a variety of sources. The only pervasive issue I see is the lack of page numbers, which seriously complicates verifiability. Do you still have these books, and would it be possible to add some of these?

I don't, and never actually had these books. I didn't add those references. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 14:22, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I looked for more guidance on the page numbers issue and found this essay, which appears to me to give good advice.

"Page numbers (or similar details) are only needed when the inline citation concerns one of the above five types of statement and it would be difficult for the reader to find the location in the source without a page number (or similar detail)."

Given the controversy over the KDH bomb, many of the article's statements can be considered controversial; others are direct quotations. This will therefore need at least some page numbers from Clarke, Bethell, and some of the other authors, or these statements will need to be rewritten from other sources. (Also, since one instance of close paraphrasing has already popped up, I'm concerned that we should double-check the sources for more.) I'm willing to put a week's hold on this if you think you can find these, or replace them with other sources. Otherwise, I may need to fail this for now. -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:24, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Other issues:

• "The attack, which initially had the approval of the Haganah (the principal Jewish paramilitary group in Palestine) and was conceived of as a response to Operation Agatha (in which widespread raids, including one on the Jewish Agency, had been carried out), was the deadliest directed at the British during the Mandate era (1920–1948)." This sentence is overly dense--perhaps split this into two sentences to avoid so many parenthetical clauses.

Done. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 14:22, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

• "Controversy has arisen over the timing and adequacy of the warnings and the reasons why the hotel was not evacuated." This is a bit vague; it could be made more clear here when and where the controversy/ies arose.
• "In plan form" -- This phrase confused me. Was the hotel's final shape different than its plans?
• Are the "Criminal Investigation Division" of British military command and the "Criminal Investigation Department" of the Palestine Police the same group?
• I'm correcting much of this as I go, but the article appears to have general problems with WP:OVERLINK--Irgun, for example, is getting re-linked in several sections.
• "The columns were in a basement nightclub known as the Régence.[5] In the final review of the plan, it was decided that the attack would take place on July 22 at 11:00, a time when there would be no people in the coffee shop in the basement in the area where the bomb was to be planted." -- I'm lost here. Is the coffee shop part of the Regence, or near the Regence, or is the Regence both a coffee shop and nightclub?
• "although no evidence has ever been produced to support this." Appears to be original research--can a citation be given here?
• "Irgun did not explain how the group would have been able to move 350 kg of home-made explosives into the hotel with the guards already alerted." Do you mean Katz here, instead of "Irgun"? This critique of the account also appears to be original research.
• "and is more credible" This appears to be editorializing and original research. If it does come from a secondary source, perhaps this could be made clearer.
• I'll need to double-check our policies on this, but I'm not sure it's a good idea to link to a commercial site selling this film here, just as we don't link to Amazon or other booksellers in articles on books.
• The sentence "Speaker after speaker in the House of Commons expressed outrage" appears to be close paraphrasing of the source: [4]. Please rewrite in original language.
• "the enemy of the Jewish people" -- as a quotation, this should be followed by a citation. Is it also from the Simon book?
• "The only criticism made" -- by the witnesses, or by Bethell?
• "The police report makes the likely claim that the warning sent to the French Consulate was received five minutes after the main explosion. This is contradicted by multiple eyewitnesses who reported seeing staff opening the Consulate windows five minutes after that happened." I'm lost in these two sentences. Can you clarify why this is a likely claim, if the eyewitnesses contradict it? In the phrase "after that happened", what does "that happened" refer to?

-- Khazar2 (talk) 21:09, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Checklist

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	See below.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Inline citations are mostly included, but page numbers are not, including for some quotations, opinions, and controversial material.
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	I removed one image that appeared less relevant (it pictured Attlee, but meeting with Stalin) and substituted a simple picture of Attlee. Images have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	see below

1b.

The article largely complies with style guidelines, but the lead gives an incomplete summary of the article. The warnings before the bombing are perhaps excessively detailed, while the reactions, consequences, and later controversies are not adequately summarized. Please rewrite this section to proportionately summarize the article.

Conclusion

This one is close, but can't be listed for now due to lack of page numbers for book quotations, and an incomplete lead. Thanks for your work to improve this article to this point, and I hope it makes it soon. -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:22, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Arab workers

Ref this The Arab workers in the kitchen fled after being told to do so.[13] This source http://www.apnewsarchive.com/1990/Former-Commander-Of-Deadly-King-David-Hotel-Attack-Dies/id-e5df8808719296a179445ce521a66e52 states that

No customers were in the cafe. The attackers locked La Regence's 15 Arab workers in a side room and set the timers to go off 30 minutes later.

Can anyone help reconcile these? Maureendepreezedent (talk) 16:34, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

The hotel staff found in the basement were detained under guard in the kitchen or, in the case of the doorman, at his cubicle at the door. After the fuses, which worked faster than expected, had been set, the Irgunists made their getaway, warning the staff in the kitchen, if I remember correctly, not to move until a certain period of time had passed.     ←   ZScarpia   05:37, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Lead - distribution of British occupancy in the hotel

Regarding this edit: 82.113.183.204 objected to what the article currently says about the distribution of British occupancy in the hotel, using the Institute of Historical Review as a source to claim that the military were also housed in the south wing. The material currently in the Lead summarises what is said in the body of the article, which is cited to a reliable source. It will be noticed that the number of military casualties caused by the bombing was comparatively light. General Barker's office was on the top floor in the middle of the central axis of the hotel. He heard the explosion and saw falling debris, but, being well away horizontally from where the bombs were planted, his office suffered no damage at all.     ←   ZScarpia   15:25, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Irgun terrorist

The wikipedia article on the Irgun has this section in it. The Irgun has been viewed as a terrorist organization or organization which carried out terrorist acts.[3][4] In particular the Irgun was branded a terrorist organisation by Britain,[5] the 1946 Zionist Congress[6] and the Jewish Agency.[7]

Check the RS in that. No other sources are required. The word terrorist should be used in this article as well. 199.119.128.74 (talk) 01:37, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Why do you want to use the word terrorist ? What value do you think it adds ? And why do you think the text you cite above justifies describing the organization as 'terrorist' using the unattributed neutral narrative voice of the encyclopedia ? Sean.hoyland - talk 12:27, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

[EC] See WP:TERRORIST. The problem with labelling groups as terrorist is that what constitutes terrorism is subjective. Typically, supporters of the group will not see its acts of political violence as terrorism because they think those acts are in a good cause and, therefore, justified. It's better to let readers make up their own minds. Whether to label the Irgun as a terrorist organisation or the bombing as terrorism comes up quite frequently here and a kind of loose consensus, based on the principles of WP:TERRORIST, exists that they should not be. There Terrorism section of the article is a place where what sources say about the bombing in the context of terrorism can be described.     ←   ZScarpia   12:45, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

The word terrorist is already used on wikipedia to refer to this group in the main article. Why would it not be used here? It would of course be acceptable to state that some groups call Irgun terrorist and some call it militant, with the relevant RS. But we should not use the POV word militant in isolation when the Irgun are widely described as a terrorist group. [199.119.128.74 02:16, 31 October 2013 (UTC)]

I agree with ZScarpia on this issue. I never understood why (other than the obvious politics) people are so eager to apply labels like "terrorist" to people and groups. Surely what they actually did is the important thing. This article is about a certain event. The reaction of others to the event is relevant and it is fine to cite people calling it an act of terrorism. But that's different from labeling the group. Zero^talk 00:19, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

199.119.128.74

199.119.128.74, your most recent edit removed the word 'militant' as a descriptor for the Irgun in the Lead, giving the edit reason as: "Removec POV labelling. This does not belong in the lede, it is in the body already." In what way is the word 'militant' POV? You think that it's too weak? Saying that something shouldn't be in the Lead because it is already in the body of the article is non-sensical as the Lead is supposed to summarise what the rest of the article says.     ←   ZScarpia   14:26, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

The word militant is clearly POV. Why is it required? The description Zionist right wing is accurate. MIlitsnt is just as POV as terrorist. The Irgun are described by various organisations as miltant or terrorist in the body. Why would we only include one without the other? 81.159.118.161 (talk) 22:47, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Again, in what way is the word 'militant' POV? Words and expressions such as 'terrorist' and 'freedom fighter' are avoided because they are value-laden (see WP:TERRORIST). As far as I can tell, there are no such connotations associated with the word 'militant' in the sense that it was being used here; all it expresses is the fact that the Irgun used violent means. Unlike 'terrorist', the word 'militant' is not one of the words to watch. The Irgun may be described as terrorist in the body of the article, but only because a couple of editors, you being one, have insisted in squeezing it in. The proper place for dealing with the nature of the Irgun is the Irgun article; here the relevant question is the specific place of the King David Hotel bombing in the historiography of terrorism. Think about how boring it would be if anytime some other particular organisation is mention somewhere in Wikipedia some editor insisted in shoehorning in a statement saying that some country/organisation/author viewed it as terroristic.     ←   ZScarpia   14:39, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I'll give 199.119.128.74 a short amount of more time to reply; if no reply is received, I'll revert the article.     ←   ZScarpia   21:23, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Nothing heard from 199.119.128.74, so revert is being carried out.     ←   ZScarpia   02:41, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Margaret Thatcher

In 1986 PM Margaret Thatcher was the first British PM to visit Israel since the war years. As a symbol, she stayed in the same wing and floor or the hotel as a guest of the Israeli PM. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.12.58 (talk) 10:39, 11 January 2014 (UTC)