Talk:King David Hotel bombing/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Copy-editing

I've recently made a change to the lead which was reverted without addressing my concerns. I've readmitted the changes[1] and make note that I don't see the logic behind repetitive use of the same structures (e.g. operating <-> operatives) and generic descriptions when there are more accurate ones (e.g. Attack <-> deadly bomb strike). I'm keeping an open mind for an explanation though if there is a desire to make one. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

As you'll probably have noticed, there has been quite a lot of editing of the Lead since your last edit. Personally, I prefer the word 'members' over 'operatives' too. Since the attack is called the King David Hotel Bombing, I think that mentioning that it was a 'bomb' strike is a bit redundant. In the first sentence, if it had been non-deadly, I think that would have been worth mentioning, but as it is, it wasn't. As the next sentence mentions that it was the most deadly attack during the Mandate, I don't think it is worth mentioning in the first sentence that it was a deadly attack. The word 'attack' is used right through the rest of the article, including elsewhere in the Lead, so I think, unless you want to change the word used throughout the article, there's not much point getting too worried about its use in the first sentence. In my part of the world, when used in a military sense as it is here, the word 'attack' doesn't carry any negative connotations. The word 'strike', though, could be read as being non-neutral. Also, to my ear, the use of the word 'strike' sounds a bit clunky. Could you explain your preference for the word, please? I think that the date of the attack should be in the initial sentence rather than the following one, which should only be about the fact that the attack was the most deadly on the Mandate administration. You sound a bit upset about your wording being changed without discussion. But, presumably you're expecting that the people whose wording you have changed without discussion should just accept it as how life is on Wikipedia? -- ZScarpia (talk) 16:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

And I'm a bit non-plussed about your title, "Copy-editing." It sounds like a naughty thing to do, but as far as I can see, without doing a thorough and rigorous investigation, the only one who has been copy-editing in the Lead is you-hoo. (Strikeout done by ZScarpia (talk) - I've found out what copy-editing means in the Wikipedia sense) -- ZScarpia (talk) 17:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, hopefully I've answered your "concerns." Your turn to answer mine? -- ZScarpia (talk) 17:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I see that user 66.122.184.26 has just "readmitted" his changes, too. Perhaps he's someone else who feels that his concerns haven't been addressed. -- ZScarpia (talk) 18:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm a bit exhausted today but I appreciate the civil discourse and will try to address your notes, which seem very reasonable upon first examination, tomorrow. Do me a favour and leave the anon. IP a note that a discussion was opened on the talk page. Would be a shame to treat him badly or "ignore" him just because he's new. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be a bit of an IP address edit war going on. It might be better to just let them get on with it. I've already reverted 66.122.184.26's changes a couple of times, so he or she might not be be up for a bit of civil discourse with me. Bye. -- ZScarpia (talk) 21:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Substituting the word 'assault' for 'attack', how does the following grab you:

The King David Hotel bombing was an assault on the headquarters of the British Mandatory authorities of Palestine, which were located in the King David Hotel in Jerusalem. It was carried out on the 22nd of July, 1946, by the Irgun, an armed Jewish group which was attempting to force the British to leave Palestine. The assault was the deadliest against the British in Palestine during the Mandate period (1920-1948).

-- ZScarpia (talk) 23:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

It's an improvement and as far as I'm concerned you can add it now. However, something there is incorrect and I would not want the Irgun description to last long-term. Best I'm aware the reasons for the attack (btw, a background section is glaringly missing from the article) were the arrest of some 3000 Jewish people along with some highly sensitive documents that the Israelis wanted destroyed before the information gets into the wrong hands. At least, that's the version of the story I'm aware of. I just thought that we should probably look for a word with a "stealth"/"saboteur" subtext. I was going to add "commando" to the mix of subtext, but it probably doesn't apply since the operation is considered a terrorist style attack. You can add the text in the meantime, but we should probably iron out an even better one.

Oh, the Irgun -- best I'm aware -- were mostly concentrating on "doing whatever it takes" so that the Jews win/not-lose. That includes "retribution"/copying the Arab random attacks on civilians as well as operations against the British who were very disruptive to the Jews trying to defend themselves (for fairly understandable political reasons).

Hmm, if you have other suggestions I'll give them a look. I need more time to iron-out my thoughts on this paragraph to make a cohesive response :D

Cheers, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 04:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

The description of the Irgun was intended to be just that, not an explanation of the reasons for the attack. Perhaps changing it to read that the Irgun was 'one' of the groups trying to force the British to leave Palestine would make taht clear. In a recent major edit of the Lead section, I left out any description of the Irgun, thinking it better to just let any readers who didn't know who the Irgun was to follow the link. But somebody else preferred to have the 'militant Zionist group' description in there and added it back in. I don't want to impose my views by removing the description again, but on the other hand, I'm not very keen on the way 'militant Zionist group' sounds, which is why I was trying to suggest an alternative.

In my opinion, the Irgun just wanted to hit major British targets. Besides a lot of other buildings, Paglin had already tried to hit the hotel once before. Members of the Haganah said later that the reason they wanted the attack was to strike a blow in return for the blow struck by the British when they 'raided' the Jewish Agency. The Irgun says that the real reason the Haganah wanted the strike was to destroy the documents taken from the Jewish agency. It said that the Haganah wanted to minimise the warning period and to raise the amount of explosives used in order to try to ensure the thorough destruction of the documents, presumably in order to: destroy evidence that might have been used in court; to prevent the British from learning more than they already knew; and to destroy anything embarrassing (among the papers were stolen secret American documents). The British had broken the Haganah or Jewish Agency codes and also had informers working for them, which is why they had lists of people they were looking for and why they already knew that the Jewish Agency was involved in the spate of bombings and killings that had taken place prior to Operation Agatha and the 'raid' on the Agency. The documents were kept in multiple locations, so the bombing of the hotel didn't destroy them all (or even the majority of them).

I like the word 'commando'; it's sexier than the word 'members' or the best that I could think of, 'squad' (and perfectly neutral). I still prefer the word 'attack' over alternatives such as 'strike' or 'assault', though.

I'm happy to wait until you feel happy too before making any changes to the Lead section. Until recently, I was concentrating my efforts on the Controversy and, in particular, the Lead sections. The middle of the article seemed a bit of a mess, so I preferred to avoid it and try to make the Lead, at least, reasonably sane. Since some of my content was shifted into the middle of the article, though, I've decided to take the plunge and concentrate my efforts there, with the end result that I don't feel very concerned about the wording of the Lead section at the moment.

Regards. -- ZScarpia (talk) 08:33, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

How about this....

The King David Hotel bombing was a covert strike on the headquarters of the British Mandatory authorities of Palestine, located in the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, by the Irgun, a militant Zionist organization promoting active retaliation towards the Arabs and the British. The operation was carried out on the 22nd of July, 1946, in response to XXX and was the deadliest attack against the British in Palestine during the Mandate period (1920-1948).

Thoughts/Suggestions? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

p.s. I didn't refer to it, but I believe -- and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong -- that 'Attack' is more of a direct context to open combat than covert operations. That is the reason I was looking for alternatives to it. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

That XXX will be a bit difficult to define both accurately and briefly and would probably be best left for the body of the article. To my mind, the word 'attack' doesn't imply anything about openness: you can have a covert attack just as you can have a covert strike. I think that the word 'covert' might be a bit of a problem. Covert actions are, by their nature, designed not to draw attention to themselves, the complete opposite of blowing up a corner of a large building. If you're happy with the phrase "a militant Zionist organization", I suggest leaving it at that. My next attempt:

The King David Hotel bombing was a {strike} on the headquarters of the British Mandatory authorities of Palestine, which were located in the King David Hotel in Jerusalem. It was carried out on the 22nd of July, 1946, by the militant Zionist organization, the Irgun. The {strike} was the deadliest against the British in Palestine during the Mandate period (1920-1948).

Operating in disguise, a small Irgun commando group planted a bomb in the basement of the hotel ...

I would have liked to have omitted the word group in the final line, but it might have given the false impression that the attack was carried out by a single, diminutive, individual. -- ZScarpia (talk) 12:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with you adding the words 'stealth', 'stealthy' or 'stealthily', by the way. -- ZScarpia (talk) 12:48, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

As far as the XXX bit goes, I wouldn't have a problem if you wanted to say something to the effect that the attack was mounted as part of a response to the British-mounted Operation Agatha, or as part of a response to the British-mounted Operation Agatha, in which the Jewish Agency was raided, mass arrests made and weapons seized. In you include the latter detail, though, I suspect others would probably want it mentioned that Operation Agatha was mounted in response to a series of bombings and shootings in which the British had evidence that the Haganah was involved. -- ZScarpia (talk) 11:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Has anyone else got any opinions on how the Lead section should be worded? -- ZScarpia (talk) 16:40, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Notes on Rockybiggs's recent changes

From the 2006 article, "British anger at terror celebration", in The Times newspaper:

Simon McDonald, the British Ambassador in Tel Aviv, and John Jenkins, the Consul-General in Jerusalem, have written to the municipality, stating: “We do not think that it is right for an act of terrorism, which led to the loss of many lives, to be commemorated.”

In particular they demanded the removal of the plaque that pays tribute to the Irgun, the Jewish resistance branch headed by Menachem Begin, the future Prime Minister, which carried out the attack on July 22, 1946.

The plaque presents as fact the Irgun’s claim that people died because the British ignored warning calls. “For reasons known only to the British, the hotel was not evacuated,” it states.

Mr McDonald and Dr Jenkins denied that the British had been warned, adding that even if they had “this does not absolve those who planted the bomb from responsibility for the deaths”.

Based on this, the Lead section has been changed. Originally it read:

Telephoned warnings were sent to the main switchboard of the hotel, the Palestine Post newspaper and the French consulate, but no evacuation was carried out, giving rise to much controversy over the reasons why people were not cleared from the building.

The Lead now reads:

Telephoned warnings were sent to the main switchboard of the hotel, the Palestine Post newspaper and the French consulate[1][2], however this has been denied by the British Government [3]. This has led to much controversy as to why no evacuation was carried out.

The new form misrepresents what the article said. The article doesn't say that the Ambassador and Consul-General denied that the warnings had been sent, only that the British had been warned. The original form of the Lead very carefully indicated that it was the switchboard for the hotel, which was still operating as a hotel despite the presence in part of it of the Secretariat and Military headquarters, that a warning was sent to. It didn't say that a warning had been sent to the British. The Secretariat and military had their own switchboards, which the public could call directly.

Another problem with using the article as a source about what the British Government said, is that it doesn't quote the words that the Ambassador and Consul-General actually spoke. That is, we have no proof that the report is accurate. The Hindu, writing about the same incident says:

In their protest letter to the Israeli administration, Mr. McDonald and Mr. Jenkins said there was no "credible" evidence that any warning was given and pointed out that even it was, "this does not absolve those who planted the bomb from responsibility for the deaths."

Obviously, saying that there is no credible evidence that something happened and that something definitely didn't happen are very different. The contradiction between the articles implies that, in order to determine what the British diplomats said, you would need to try to find other sources.

According to Arthur Koestler, what the British Government said about warnings, once the inquest into the bombing had been completed, was that no warning had been received by anyone at the Secretariat "in an official position with any power to take action." Perhaps the Secretariat was mentioned specifically because the Irgun and Haganah were claiming that John Shaw, the Chief Secretary, had given an order not to evacuate. Thurston Clarke writes (if memory serves me correctly) that the staff in the reception area of the hotel decided to ignore the warning sent by the Irgun. Many hoax calls (some by the Irgun itself) were being sent at the time, including ones by people who just hoped to see the inconvenience caused and even ones sent by civil servants seeking to extend their lunch hours. Perhaps the staff may have been influenced by the fact that a warning about a bomb having been planted in the basement of the hotel had been sent early that morning and a search had been carried out without, of course, because the bomb hadn't been planted yet, finding anything. When the warning was sent to the Palestine Post, the recipient passed it on, as a matter of routine, to the police. Having received dozens of hoax calls in the preceding months, she then wouldn't have done anything more. However, knowing someone who worked in the reception area of the hotel, she rang there. Alarm began to grow at the hotel and the manager was called. As described by the first time in writing by Clarke, he rang some unknown military person (note, not anybody at the Secretartiat) and was advised, an ambush being feared, not to evacuate. The manager then went to speak to a policeman outside (who had just been informed about the men in arab costume with milk churns who had held-up the kitchen staff) and told him about the warning. The policeman went to investigate. As he was walking along the corridor towards the bomb it exploded (its timing mechanism having worked more quickly than it was designed to). When the bomb exploded, because of flying debris, conditions in the street outside the hotel were lethal, so it is possible that, if the hotel had been evacuated, the death toll might actually have been higher.

The controversy over why the hotel was not evacuated started immediately after the bombing. Rockybiggs seems to have become confused between that controversy and the further controversy that ensued sixty years after the bombing when a celebration was held and a plaque set up outside the hotel. He writes that the Irgun erected the plaque, which, of course isn't true. He also, in the Warnings section, has quoted the wording on the plaque as though it was the statement the Irgun released after the bombing.

In the Layout section, the text "the six-storey hotel, which was opened in 1932 as the first, modern, luxury one in Jerusalem" has been changed to "the six-storey hotel, which was opened in 1932 as the first, modern, luxury hotel in Jerusalem" citing incorrect grammer [sic]. Perhaps I'm being stupid, but I can't see anything wrong with the original wording. Neither can I see a reason why the link to the wikipage listing events which happened in 1932 was removed.

A superfluous second citation for the Times article about the 60th anniversary celebration has been added.

-- ZScarpia (talk) 10:57, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the history of this page, a cause for concern is WP:OWN issues on this article, and i will be going through this entire article and taking up any POV (which seems to have been raised earlier Talk:King David Hotel bombing#Pathetic) additions i see. I wish to make no comments to anything raised on this talk page at this moment and wish no additional comments made to myself until i have time to look into this matter.--Rockybiggs (talk) 23:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Description of the Irgun in the Lead section

It's probably worth pointing out that the description of the Irgun in the Lead section as a right-wing Zionist underground movement is derived from that given in the Encyclopaedia Britannica:

Irgun Zvai Leumi - Jewish right-wing underground movement, byname Etzel (Hebrew: National Military Organization) - Jewish right-wing underground movement in Palestine, founded in 1931. At first supported by many non-Socialist Zionist parties, in opposition to the Haganah, it became in 1936 an instrument of the Revisionist Party, an extreme nationalist group that had seceded from the World Zionist Organization and whose policies called for the use of force, if necessary, to establish a Jewish state on both sides of the Jordan.

-- ZScarpia (talk) 15:20, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Terrorism

Interesting, CM.'an attack on the military HQ of an occupying army is not terrorism,' There's a discussion around the traps on the appropriateness of the category 'Jewish terrorism' (see Rolland R's page and links), and the page defines it as religiously inspired. I don't happen to agree. I think there is a muddle here on that and other pages. However, just on a technical point. What was the legal status of the British in Palestine, a pure army of occupation? or, having a Mandate from the League of Nations, a de jure, legitimate interim governing authority?Nishidani (talk) 08:17, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not interested in another semantic debate with you. The main point is that an attack on the military HQ of an army is not terrorism. Canadian Monkey (talk) 23:44, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Of course you're not. You have a subjective opinion, adduce no sources, and push it as NPOV. So, since you can't defend it, I put on record that you are revertible on this. It's not semantics, by the way. For an outlawed group, with a history of also killing civilians, to blow up any structure, military or otherwise, of a duly constituted government is terrorism. Nishidani (talk) 08:35, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Do you extend the same "terrorism" label to all attacks on the IDF or its installations? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:08, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Considering that the state of Israel treats these attacks as military acts of war, no.Shabeki (talk) 10:40, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

If "an attack on the military HQ of an occupying army is not terrorism", shouldn't Lebanese/Hamas attacks to Israel be defined as "not terrorism" ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.161.160.195 (talk) 20:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

An Israeli pizzeria filled with families, or an Israeli disco filled with kids, are not "occupying armies". Jayjg ^(talk) 02:35, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Canadian Monkey, the principal reason given for attacking the King David Hotel was to destroy documents taken during the raid by the British on the Jewish Agency. These were being held in the Secretariat, not the military headquarters. Paglin's aim was to destroy the south wing of the hotel of the hotel by planting the explosives in the basement next to the columns supporting that wing. The Secretariat was wholly contained in that wing whereas only a small part of the military headquarters was. In the event, only half of the wing was destroyed. Another reason given for the attack was that it was a response, an attack on the British administration (note that the 'administration', not the military, was the target) in return for the British attack carried out when the Jewish administration was raided. The intention was not to kill people, as attacks on military targets would normally be, but to humiliate the British and 'terrorise' them into leaving Palestine by destroying their supposedly impregnable base. To characterise the bombing as an attack on the British military headquarters is, therefore, a very big distortion. Note that there are many different definitions of what constitutes terrorism. Most people (in the West anyway) would have no problem with the bombing of the French and American bases in Beirut being described as terrorism. In those cases it makes no difference that they were military targets. As you can see from the article, books written by academics with no axe to grind and published by reputable academic publishing houses describe the attack as terrorism, so it is entirely justified to list the bombing in some of the terrorism categories. Personally, I don't particularly like it being classed as 'Jewish' terrorism, but then I don't like things being classed as 'Christian' or 'Islamic' terrorism either, which categories also exist. -- ZScarpia (talk) 21:59, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

In fact, the Haganah's belief that most of the documents taken from the Jewish Agency were being kept in the Secretariat was wrong; most of them were in the CID headquarters in the Russian compound and the most incriminating ones had already been taken to London by the time of the attack. -- ZScarpia (talk) 23:39, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

The attack was not for religious reasons, so it wouldn't qualify as "Jewish terrorism" in any event. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:02, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree, given that Jewish Terrorism has been defined as a form of Religious Terrorism, and, in trying to define it, Religious Terrorism has been variously characterised as having a religious motivation, justification, organisation, or world view or of using religious scriptures as justification and recruitment tool and of being directed by religious leaders. Although Begin himself used religious justifications to underpin his acts, the impression I have gained is that religion wasn't central to the Revisionist movement as a whole, with that being particularly true of its founder, Jabotinsky. However, since the term Jewish is used to describe a national or ethnic, as well as religious, identity (with figures such as Karl Marx and Benjamin Disraeli being identified as Jews despite being baptised Christians), perhaps the definition of Jewish Terrorism as a form of Religious Terrorism would be seen by many as being too narrow. They would extend the definition to include terrorism by people motivated by their self-identification as members of 'the Jewish race'. Zionism being categorised as a form of nationalism, this would include what could be called Zionist Terrorism. Personally, though, as I said before, I'm not in favour of anything being categorised as 'Jewish' terrorism. -- ZScarpia (talk) 11:15, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Pathetic

The pseudo-logic at play here is pathetic. Some editors do not want to work in good faith. Rather than starting with premises and advancing from there, they begin with the conclusion they want ("The bombing of the King David Hotel was not terrorism") then move backward, seizing at every opportunity to obfuscate, rationalize or stonewall. I have been absent for awhile and I suppose I hoped Wiki had either matured or found a way to deal with cyber-mob editing. Sadly it appears the problem has not improved it has got worse. I notice a couple of Irgun casualties are noted. I swear we are not far away from calls to rename the article "The Battle of the King David Hotel." RomaC (talk) 00:05, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, this is laughable. Nothing but double standards and idiocy. 129.100.201.96 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 13:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC).

I have to agree here as well, RomaC. At this point, I believe that several of these editors are incredibly biased and should be restricted from editing this article.Shabeki (talk) 10:40, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The section on Shaw

The former section title referring to his role seems to imply that he might have been responsible for the deaths. However, the discussion of the two libel successful suits makes it clear that he was not responsible for the deaths. Therfore the section is about the allegations by Irgun and their attempt to shift the blame for the civilian deaths not about anything Shaw actually did.--Peter cohen (talk) 12:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Peter, my personal view is that the insertion of the words alleged or allegations (note that there is a 't' missing in the title of your new version, by the way) in Wikipedia titles is a blight which should be suppressed; it looks horrible and it acts as a signpost to readers that they should reject whatever it is that has been said (and is therefore inherently non-neutral). My preference would be for the title to stay the way it was and for the contents of the section (albeit they need a bit of rewriting) to speak for themselves. Note that it was me who wrote the original title and inserted all the material about the libel suits. I also deleted the material relating to what Shmuel Katz wrote (because it is either speculation or contradicts what Begin and the Haganah actually said about themselves), but it was reinserted (on the grounds that the change had not been discussed - clearly, no effort had been made to check the talkpage properly). -- ZScarpia (talk) 14:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Has anyone else got any views on the naming of the section? -- ZScarpia (talk) 23:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Brewcrewer

You are stating in your reverts an allegation as though it were a fact. The alleged statement is in any case discussed extensively in the following remarks by Shmuel Katz. The allegation came from a newspaperman, Carter Davidson, who informed Boris Guriel, who told the Haganah's Galili who told Begin who told Katz, at least six people (counting Shaw to someone who in turn would have told Davidson, if we are to believe his account, as we have it from hearsay) from the person to whom the statement is attributed, who in fact sued anyone who tried to affirm he'd said anything of the sort years later. So one cannot state this, whatever the source, as true. (It may be, for all I or you know), as you just did.Nishidani (talk) 17:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey, that's a great section name, all the glory to me! If I had initiated this thread, I probably would have named it the same, but if I were in a more humble mood I might have named the section: "The argument for the removal of sourced content that has been around for quite a long time." But this name is fine. Really. But turning to the underlying issue, WP:RS makes no requirement that we analyze the reliable sources' source. There would otherwise be endless litigation going on. We would have all these hearsay and hearsay exception legal memorandums being bandied about. That being said, I have no problem if the sentence would indicated the source in the main text. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with personally analysing an RS. I supplied info you appear not to be aware of, just to clarify that this is an allegation, and if an otherwise RS states it not as an allegation, against all major specialized accounts, esp. that by Katz who was involved in the operation, but rather as something actually said, then the direct source, Katz, is to be preferred to the source that gets Katz wrong. This happens all the time if you read all available quality sources, and choosing the most reliable sources, as against any source that is otherwise reliable, but not on some detail or another, one exercises editorial judgement. Without that, you can slap in a huge amount of wrong information from reliable sources, i.e. say over 200 people were massacred in Deir Yassin because old reliable sources state this, whereas the best sources say 110-120. If your reasoning were correct, I could edit Deir Yassin and insist on 200+ because some RS repeat that.

Katz's following remarks discuss the alleged statement in full. By reinserting a text above it

One British official who refused to evacuate said, "We don't take orders from the Jews".

You are stating what Katz himself, and every other historian of the events, regards as hearsay or presents as an allegation. By saying 'one British official' you create the impression that someone else than Shaw might have also said this, esp. since the JVL says 'We don't take orders' whereas other versions have 'I don't take orders', and secondly the JLV version uses 'evacuate' absolutely, not with a direct object, which means 'the official refused to evacuate', whereas other versions say Shaw refused to have the building evacuated. In other words, you use a secondary source that is inferior to specialised sources readily available (b) in doing so create confusion because the source differs in two points from better sources (c) create an impression two different statements were putatively made when we are dealing with one alleged statement. I could go on, but this is just poor editorial judgement. Unless one removes it, its presence there will invite people to stack up a large variety of sources to untangle the mess its presence creates. It adds nothing new, but opens up the section to confusion.Nishidani (talk) 17:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

There are many important books on the period regarding the event, the quote, etc. Indeed, in my own files, I have five different versions of the words attributed to Shaw (understandable since remarks change as they pass from mouth to mouth). D'ya want all this dissonance crammed in as well?Nishidani (talk) 17:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I have just re-read the actual wording in the source (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/King_David.html). While it strongly IMPLIES that the "We don't take orders from Jews" statement is factual, it doesn't quite say it outright. The exact wording is: "Begin quotes one British official who supposedly refused to evacuate the building, saying: "We don't take orders from the Jews."". Therefore, even if one regards JVL as reliable, one still cannot state this expression as an outright fact. Going off topic now, having researched this aspect of this event, my own belief is that the probability that this expression was used as described is significantly less than 50%. I should also state that, while I believe this judgement to be impartial, I am British. New Thought (talk) 18:59, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't look to me as though any conclusion about the reliability or otherwise of the Jewish Virtual Library was reached on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Personally, I go along with the contributor who commented that the JVL is an unreliable source with reliable articles. Some of the articles are very scholarly. But, it only takes a quick look to see that the one on the King David Hotel bombing isn't one of them. The JVL drew on the revised (1979) edition of Begin's The Revolt for its statement about what Begin said about the (alleged) refusal to evacuate the hotel. The last occasion I can find when Begin attributed the refusal directly to Shaw occurred in 1976. In the revised edition of The Revolt, the references to Shaw have been excised. Begin says (on p221): "I subsequently learned that when the warning to evacuate the hotel reached a high official he exclaimed: 'We are not here to take orders from the Jews. We give them orders.' " The JVL article says that Begin quoted an official; I think that that's a bit of a misrepresentation of what Begin actually did.
Begin heard the story about Shaw from Galili at a meeting they had the day after the bombing in Tel Aviv. Begin demanded that Kol Israel broadcast the account and Galili agreed. Galili later claimed that he heard the story from Boris Guriel, who had heard it in turn from Carter Davidson. Yet when Guriel was asked about it, he denied being Galili's source. Thurston Clarke wrote: "In fact, the story was a baseless rumour promoted by the Haganah in order to mollify the Irgun and fix responsibility for the carnage on Shaw."
In The Revolt, Begin describes an article coming from the same source which was supposed to be the statement of a reliable witness. It appeared in Eshnab, a publication of the Haganah. The witness was in the hotel at the time of the bombing: "When I heard the noise caused by the warning explosion, I decided it was best to get out of the hotel. Many others tried to do so too but the soldiers barred any exit by shooting in the direction of the people trying to get out."
Finally, some words about Katz's version of events. It includes the erroneous (that Begin heard the story about Shaw from the radio); the far-fetched (that, contradicting Begin, the attack was timed to save lives because, though the rest of the hotel was at its busiest time of the week, the Regencé Café was empty); and speculation (that the Haganah thought that Shaw could only have survived by slinking away [all it took was for him to be in his office, which was in the undamaged part of the wing] and that the British didn't believe the warnings because they thought the hotel was impregnable [a: they didn't think that the hotel was impregnable {though they did think that the underground organisations wouldn't try anything that would harm the Jewish employees}; b: the staff in the hotel's reception area decided to ignore the warning sent there by Adina Hay and it was never passed on]). Two reliable sources say that, at the time of the bombing, Katz was the Irgun High Command member in charge of propaganda. Anyone wanting to give him a different job title should provide sources (and then the differnt job titles can be given next to each other).
-- ZScarpia (talk) 03:15, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Just a query,ZScarpia. Since both were involved, are Begin and Katz's accounts to be considered Primary or Secondary Sources?Nishidani (talk) 10:07, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Good question. The contents of the books have the characteristics of primary and secondary sources in different parts. I would say that the sections being used here should properly be seen as primary source material. What's your opinion? -- ZScarpia (talk) 12:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Further discussion, as per ZScarpia's suggestion, moved to my page.Nishidani (talk) 15:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Terrorism section

I recently added the sentence beginning "Its labelling as terrorism" in the article's Terrorism section:

'The bombing appears in literature about terrorism, its practice and history. It has been called one of the most lethal terrorist attacks of the 20th century (Rapoport 2004, pp. 50-51). A book on political terrorism published in 2006 theorises that it provided a model for bombings in the 1980s. Its labelling as terrorism, which is hard to define and tends to be done subjectively, is contentious however (see Definitions of terrorism, History of terrorism and Terrorism). In relation to the historical significance of the way the Irgun fought, Begin himself said: "We actually provided the example of what the urban guerrilla is, we created the method of the urban guerrilla."'

Jayjg has just reverted the section back to its original form by removing the new sentence, citing as his reason that it was done to remove personal opinion and references to Wikipedia.

My reasons for adding the sentence were threefold:

• To make the section more neutral by mentioning the contention around calling the attack terrorism and the uncertainty around how to define what terrorism is.
• To act as bridge between the first part of the section and the final sentence so that the whole reads more smoothly.
• To direct readers to three other articles, which explain the difficulties around defining terrorism, list definitions terrorism and put the bombing in its historical context.

In the Wikipedia:Verifiability page, it says, "Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed.". I didn't provide a source for my statement because I thought that it would appear as self-evidently true as, for example, writing the milch-cow is a useful beast in an article on farmyard animals to all but extreme quibblers, especially to anyone who has been involved in editing the King David Hotel bombing article for any length of time.

Jayjg, I can't really believe that you would disagree with anything in the sentence or that you would think that anyone else would disagree with it, so what exactly was your motivation for removing it? If your objection is to unsourced statements, then why have you picked on that particular sentence and not on any of the unsourced ones?

I added the links to the three Wikipedia articles because I thought that they would be of interest to readers of the Terrorism section. I cannot see the problem with that; I can find examples of other articles where the same has been done and, also, one of principal purposes of hyperlinks is to perform the same task (I could have modified the first sentence to read the bombing appears in literature about terrorism, its practice and history to achieve the same thing, but less explicitly). Jayjg, would you explain what your objection to the links was, please?

For sources on the difficulty of defining terrorism and the subjective way it is done, see:

• Bruce Hoffman, Inside Terrorism
• Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Terrorism
• United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Definitions of Terrorism
• Tamilnation.org, What is terrorism? - Law and Practise
• CDI Center for Fefense Information, A Brief History of Terrorism
• UNSW Law Journal, What is 'terrorism'? Problems of Legal Definition
• Foreign Policy Association, Classifying Terrorism

As a quick reminder of how contentious the classification of the Bombing as terrorism is (if this Talk page does not serve as a practical enough example), look at The Times article about the 60th anniversary celebration of the bombing, where British diplomats say that it is not right for an act of terrorism to be celebrated and Netanyahu says, "It’s very important to make the distinction between terror groups and freedom fighters" (which, as Ben Hoffman points out, is the politically correct way that all terrorists, including Arafat, like to justify their actions nowadays).

--- ZScarpia (talk) 03:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

To try and put your spin on this that this was not Terrorism is a nonsense. To place a bomb is a terrorist act wherever you put the bomb, let alone a hotel. To be honest with you i`m totally insulted and disgusted by your comments to try and add your exteme POV to this article considering the amount of people killed. Furthermore your edit [2] Much controversy has arisen over whose responsibility the deaths were This comment highlights your extremist views (which has been noted by the admin in question), to try and put the blame on everyone but these Terrorists.(No doubt your provide more propaganda `sources` to try and back up your extreme views and please also note your WP:OWN of this article).--Rockybiggs (talk) 10:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Rockybiggs, let's open up another talkpage section for a conversation between ourselves. It wouldn't surpise me to learn that Jayjg thinks that I have extremist views, but in the opposite direction to the one you think. I take it that you think that Jayjg deleted the sentence because it was muddying the case for the Bombing being terrorism? That idea will probably bemuse him a little. -- ZScarpia (talk) 12:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

People, please keep your discussions here on this page, it is important to note who believes that Wikipedia should describe the bombing of a hotel as not an act of terrorism. RomaC (talk) 12:29, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Zscarpia, Wikipedia articles should not self-reference other Wikipedia articles for definitions, or, really, anything else. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for replying Jayjg, though you don't seem to have understood the explanation I gave above. You say that articles should not self-reference other Wikipedia articles. As the only way of interpreting that which makes any sense is that articles should not use other Wikipedia articles as sources for verification purposes (that is, other Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources), I'll assume that is what you meant. As explained above, the articles weren't being used as sources; the links were there to guide readers to articles of interest. In a similar way, the article on The Beatles points readers towards an article on the Decca Audition: "Dick Rowe turned Epstein down flat, informing him that "guitar groups are on the way out, Mr. Epstein."[28] (See The Decca audition.)" Also in a similar manner, the Ocean article points readers towards an article on marine snow: "since plants can only survive with photosynthesis any life found lower than this must either rely on material floating down from above (see marine snow)." I could have listed the articles linked to in the See Also section, but I thought it better to link to them locally from within the relevant section. As explained above, I could as an alternative have linked to the articles by modifying the first sentence to read the bombing appears in literature about terrorism, its practice and history, but thought it better to make the links more explicit. I explained the three reasons why I included the sentence that you removed, which I think are still valid. Perhaps you'd like to suggest a more acceptable version? -- ZScarpia (talk) 16:00, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

In this case, however, you were using the Wikipedia articles as sources for claims, which, of course, one cannot do. They aren't appropriate for the "See also" section either, since they are broad articles that could be included in the "See also" section of every article regarding an alleged terrorist incident. "See also" sections are for article with a specific, not general, relationship to the current article. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Please re-read what I wrote. I spent a long time writing it. It was written carefully. I doubt that it can be that unclear. As I repeated several times, I wasn't using the Wikipedia articles as sources; the links are there to point readers to articles of interest. I didn't include any sources. The reason I didn't is because I assumed that the sentence was so self-evidently true that only the most extreme of quibblers would object. Since someone has objected, though, I can easily provide sources. The reason that I added articles to the See Also section was that you deleted the links to them from the Terrorism section, where they were appropriate. You'll notice that there are some questions in among what I wrote which are addressed to you. -- ZScarpia (talk) 01:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

In understand your intent, but the actual effect was to source the statement to Wikipedia articles; or are you asserting they were sourced to something else? Was there a citation on the sentence that I missed somehow? Regarding adding the links to the See also section, "See also" sections are for article with a specific, not general, relationship to the current article. Please explain how those links are specifically related to this article, any more than the hundreds of other article on alleged terrorist incidents. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:05, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

{reply to Jayjg's comment of 10 February, 2009} Was there a citation on the sentences that you missed somehow? No, there wasn't. As I said above:

• "In the Wikipedia:Verifiability page, it says, "Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed.". I didn't provide a source for my statement because I thought that it would appear as self-evidently true as, for example, writing the milch-cow is a useful beast in an article on farmyard animals to all but extreme quibblers, especially to anyone who has been involved in editing the King David Hotel bombing article for any length of time."
• "I didn't include any sources. The reason I didn't is because I assumed that the sentence was so self-evidently true that only the most extreme of quibblers would object. Since someone has objected, though, I can easily provide sources."

If I included acceptable sources, would the deleted sentence cease being objectionable? -- ZScarpia (talk) 23:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

As long as the sources were directly related to the topic of the King David Hotel bombing. BTW, the way to know if they are directly related is if they actually make that point about the King David Hotel bombing. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:29, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Would an acceptable source for the statement that the labelling of the bombing as terrorism is contentious be references to articles about the 60th anniversary celebrations where Netanyahu rejected that description? Sources for the statement that terrorism is hard to define and tends to be done subjectively are given above. -- ZScarpia (talk) 12:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure you understood my point. Do any of the sources you just mentioned refer to the King David Hotel bombing? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

[reply to Jayjg 's message of 03:30, 25 February] The connecting sentence which you deleted said:

• "Its labelling as terrorism, which is hard to define and tends to be done subjectively, is contentious however."

The sentence has two parts:

• A part which says that the labelling of the bombing as terrorism is contentious.
• A part which says that terrorism is hard to define and tends to be done subjectively.

As sources to support the first part, we have:

• Netanyahu's speech at the 60th anniversary celebrations where he said that the bombing was freedom fighting not terrorism.
• Begin's comments on the bombing which say something similar (though I'll have to dig around to locate these).

As sources to support the second part, that terrorism is hard to define and tends to be done subjectively, we have the sources that I listed above. You asked, "Do any of the sources you just mentioned refer to the King David Hotel bombing?" Yes, the sources given for supporting the statement that the labelling of the bombing as terrorism is contentious do refer directly to the bombing. -- ZScarpia (talk) 04:59, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I still don't think you've understood my point. Regarding the "sources to support the second part, that terrorism is hard to define and tends to be done subjectively", do any of those sources "listed above" refer to the King David Hotel bombing? Jayjg ^(talk) 04:53, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see, after I made my comment, you modified yours, making mine look silly. Please don't do that again. Now, regarding those sources, I don't see how, in relation to the topic of this article, the King David Hotel bombing, they say that terrorism is hard to define. Can you quote a sentence or two that makes that specific point? Jayjg ^(talk) 05:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

We have been simultaneously editing. I didn't change my previous comment to "make yours look silly," because I hadn't read yours while I was trying to save the addition that I made to my own comment.

While you were changing your last comment, I was typing this (also caught-out by simultaneous editing):

In those sources, there is a discussion of terrorism in general, including end-of-Mandate Zionist terrorism, but not of the King David Hotel bombing specifically. Have you got any objection to the part of the sentence which says that the labelling of the bombing as terrorism is contentious? I think that it is relevant in a sentence pointing out that the labelling of the bombing as terrorism is contentious to point out the general difficulties of labelling anything as terrorism. Have you got any reason why sources supporting that should be directly describing the King David Hotel bombing rather than terrorism in general?

-- ZScarpia (talk) 05:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

My objection is that, on top of being WP:NOR, it's boiler-plate and fairly meaningless: you might as well put it in a template, and add it to the bottom of every single article on every alleged terrorist act. If you have sources that say that the designation of the King David Hotel bombing was specifically or unusually or especially or uniquely "hard to define" or "subjective", then it would be relevant for this article. Generic boiler-plate? Not so much. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you have objections to both parts of the sentence, or just the middle part? -- ZScarpia (talk) 06:17, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Boiler-plate? Maybe. But then the sentence was just there to make a smooth connection between two parts of the section, the first dealing with the terroristic view of of the bombing, the second with the non-terroristic. I did say that I thought that the contents of the sentence were self-evidently (meaning obviously) true. Original research? Perhaps if I'd been trying to say that the definition of terrorism as applied specifically to the King David Hotel bombing is hard to do and tends to be done subjectively it might have been. But that's not what I was trying to say. I was pointing out that the definition of terrorism in general is hard to do and tends to be done subjectively. Hence the general phenomenon, which also applies in this case, of members of underground groups claiming that what they were doing wasn't, as it seemed to others, terrorism, but freedom fighting or guerrilla warfare. -- ZScarpia (talk) 06:17, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm against any text sourced to materials that aren't directly related to the topic of the King David Hotel bombing. If it's a generic statement about terrorism, then it belongs in the Terrorism article, not this one. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:17, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Another question for you. At the top of the article there is generic description of the Irgun. Do you think that it is permissible to have a generic description of the Irgun in every article about an Irgun attack, or do you think that only those features of the Irgun which are specific to each of the attacks should be mentioned? -- ZScarpia (talk) 08:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

The generic description of Irgun helps define the term for those who are unfamiliar with the organization. Terrorism, on the other hand, is a common term, and the material you were adding weren't attempt to define it. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:17, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

{reply to Jayjg's comments of 3 March 2009}:
Terrorism may be a commonly used term, but it is one with no widely-accepted or internationally-agreed definition. Those given are often contradictory and often derived subjectively by extracting common features from a set of acts which the definer views as terrorism. I described how I define terrorism for myself in a conversation with Ceedjee. It is inevitable, though, that, though some would agree with me, many people would disagree. Many readers and editors of the article will have fixed ideas about what terrorism is and I thought that it would be useful to direct them, in a section of the article which examines how the bombing is viewed (or otherwise) in term of terrorism, to articles which list many different definitions of terrorism and demonstrate the lack of agreement involved. At a time when it was causing edit-warring, I removed the definition of the Irgun from the Lead section, leaving just the wikilink to guide readers who needed an explanation of who the Irgun was to the relevant article. Subsequently, a definition was re-added; clearly, people thought that a short explanation in addition to the wikilink was useful. In the same way, I thought (and still think) that it was useful to have a short definitional statement about terrorism in the Terrorism section. The problem is that, because there is no widely agreed definition of terrorism and because there are so many different ones, it is impossible to write a short definition of terrorism that would be widely acceptable. Therefore, instead of writing a short definition, you have to write a short statement about the definition. Would it become acceptable to you if, instead of making an indirect statement about the difficulty of defining terrorism, a direct statement about the definition of terrorism, such as that there is no internationally-agreed or widely-accepted definition, was substituted?
On the subject of sources, is it acceptable to you that the description of the Irgun in the Lead section comes from an Encyclopaedia Britannica article which does not mention the bombing? Brewcrewer has been asked to find sources for his statement that Katz was the Irgun's information officer. Would it be acceptable to you if sources which didn't specifically mention the bombing were used for that purpose? How big a reference to the bombing would be required in order to make the source acceptable? Just a few sentences, as is the case with Koestler's work, or are you looking for something more substantial?
In order to make progress with finding a compromise solution, it would be useful to have an answer to the question about whether you find the part of the deleted sentence which said that the categorisation of the bombing as terrorism is contentious is acceptable.
-- ZScarpia (talk) 13:41, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it would be better if the description of the Irgun came from a source that directly discussed this bombing. That way we could rely on secondary sources to indicate which aspects of the Irgun are relevant to this article. Regarding the rest, I don't understand what you are asking that I haven't already answered multiple times; material about terrorism should come from secondary sources that discuss it in the specific context of this topic, the King David Hotel bombing. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Lead addition

I've removed

'and, ironically, became the paradigm for what has come to be regarded as Middle Eastern Arab terrorism.'

Unless this is reliably sourced, it looks like an editorial comment, and as such, subject to contention likely to spark off edit-warring. It can be sourced, since the position is well-known, and often argued. But sc scruple requires that such things, particularly in leads, be anchored in authoritative judgements. Nishidani (talk) 11:15, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

At such a time it is sourced, can I suggest that the word "ironically" is removed before the clause is reinstated?--Peter cohen (talk) 11:35, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. It was what caught my eye, too. I think a year or two ago the same 'ironically' kept being inserted. For the record, Arafat's own use of terror, though reflecting his experience of terror by Jewish groups (themselves inspired by IRA terrorists) as an instrument to wrest a state from an unwilling interlocutor, drew more from Algeria's FLN than it did by a study of Irgun's method's, though one PLO operative, later caught by Israel, lost his father in the King David explosion.Nishidani (talk) 12:00, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I doubt that such a statement (even whioeut "ironic" , can be sourced, certainly it cannot be sourced as more than one among several opinions. Although User:Nishidani is correct about Algeris, it is just as important to note that Arab terror attacks against Jesish settlement is almost as old as Zionism. Army of Shadows, Palestinian Collaboration with Zionism, 1917-1948 is a good source on well-organized, widespread Arab terrorism decades before the King David bombing. True, much of the murder was of Arabs "collaborators," but Arabs began killing Zionist and non-Zionist Jews in ways that we now describe as terrorism very earlyHistoricist (talk) 18:04, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Name the key events and the key figures, dating from 1919, roughly when Ze'ev Jabotinsky began organizing armed militias.Nishidani (talk) 21:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

British Military Headquarters

A great many extremely reliable csources describe the King David as "British Military Headquarters" in Palestine at the time of the bombing. The opening sentence calls it the "central offices of the British Mandatory authorities of Palestine" This is misleading since it sounds like civilian administration. I believe that the sentence should read "British Military Headquarters."Historicist (talk) 18:19, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree and will accordingly modify. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I have reversed this change as it was more than just a military headquarters but also the centre of the civilian administration for the mandate.--Peter cohen (talk) 16:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Was the Pentagon bombing a terrorist attack?

I'm curious. Of course this curiosity has nothing to do with the history or with Jewish history in general, but with the particular and selective applications of the term "terrorism" to certain events and not others. I'm also disappointed that someone removed "terroristic" from the lede. It was the perfect word, and spoke volumes: terrorism, but not terrorism. Terrorist-like, but not actually terrorist. Terrorist-lite; not terrorist classic. -Stevertigo 21:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

This also crossed my mind. We need to remember that in the Pentagon bombing there were civilains on the plane which was turned into a missle. Chesdovi (talk) 01:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Recognizing that there is no bright line dividing terrorism from warfare, there are several things that put this attack into a gray area. If you want to argue that it was not terrorism you argue that the attack was part of a legitimate war of national liberation, that it was an attack on a military target, the headquarters of Britain, an illegitimate occupying power, that no imperial occupation can be legitimate, and that an occupied people has a right to freedom, and a right of armed rebellion, and that Britain cynically or irresponsibly put its civilians at risk when it housed them in a builting that was rendered a legitimate military target by the presence fo the military headquarters. If you want to argue that it was terrorism, you argue that the British occupation of Israel/Palestine was legitimate because of the League of Nations mandate, that the attack took place in a peaceful colony not during a time of war, that soldiers are not a legitimate target in atime of peace, and that at least part fo the hotel was a civilian target, making this terorism even if there had been awar in progress.-- Frankly, I cannot imagine settling this argument to everyone's satisfaction. Therefore I urge that we continue to use specitif, objective terms like "bombing" rather than terrorism. But, out of curiosity, does anyone know what term wikipedia applies when Arab militants attack and murder Israeli soldiers in time of peace?Historicist (talk) 16:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Lead section: the controversy - a dialogue

Hello Rockybiggs. Recently you reverted the sentence in the Lead section reading, "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", back to, "much controversy has arisen over the issues of whether warnings were sent, when they were sent, whether they were adequate and, if received, why they were ignored by the British authorities". Could you explain your reasons in a bit more detail please? The reason given in your comment was: "the responsibility of the deaths is the bombers". -- ZScarpia (talk) 13:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Say a fire is lit by A 100 miles from B's house that under normal conditions would travel toward B's house. C sees what is happening, wants to kill B, and ties B to a bed in B's house. B cannot escape his house and dies when the fire eventually reaches his house. Who is "responsible" for B's death? A or C? --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

If the fire actually was lit 100 miles away, B probably died of starvation long before the fire reached his house, in which case C would be responsible. You can bring your example somewhat closer to reality by having A set fire to B's house, and C smell the fumes from his own house, but fail to warn B because he misidentifies the source as something harmless, like burning leaves. MeteorMaker (talk) 18:41, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Or even closer to reality - A person named A lights a fire 100 miles from B's house and tells B about the impending fire. B decides to ignore the warning, for whatever reason, and doesn't tell the inhabitants of B's house about the warning. B's house is burnt down and all the inhabitants die. Who is responsible for the inhabitants' death, A or B? --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:48, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

What does the "100 miles away" part of the analogy represent? One hundred miles away from King David Hotel is in Damascus. MeteorMaker (talk) 20:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Time.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:55, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

So the warning was given several days, possibly weeks, in advance? Or does B's house sit in a Lake Ontario-size sea of kerosene?MeteorMaker (talk) 21:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Within a time span that had the warning been listened to (instead of ordering subjects to stay) a significant number of lives would have been saved.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:10, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, if the arsonist actually was considerate enough to keep a full 100 miles safety distance, I guess we can't really blame him for the death of B, can we? That B's house burned down seems almost coincidental in your analogy. If you ask me, C drew a pretty reasonable conclusion, that A was just joking when he told C about his magnificent and daring plan to burn down a particular house from two counties away. MeteorMaker (talk) 21:35, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The latest analogy didn't involve a "C". So I presume with "C" you meant "B". You think it's reasonable to ignore such warnings. Fair enough. I guess a major factor would be the opinion B held of A. Did A attack B previously? Does B think A would do something like this? (Answering this question puts you in a pickle, I think.) In any case, while you might think it's reasonable to ignore warnings of actions that put people's lives in danger and then order people not take remedial action in accordance with the warnings, you surely must admit that acting to the contrary is somewhat reasonable as well. No?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:58, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I have only been pointing out the obvious flaws in your analogy, and by now it has transmogrified into something where we have to consider the involved parties' history with each other, B's level of paranoia, the likelihood of A to act on his threats, other people who may or may not be affected by B's ultimate decision, their readiness to follow B's orders, their own assessment of A's dangerousness, and so on. Not so different from the actual situation your analogy was supposed to be a simplified model of. Does A still start his fire from 100 miles away? MeteorMaker (talk) 22:47, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't understand what you're saying.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Short version: Your analogy went up in flames. Signing off for today now. MeteorMaker (talk) 23:10, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

No problem, MeteorMaker. Have a great evening. But when you get a chance, please explain a little better and clearer how my analogy "went up on flames". Thanks, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Looking at your analogy, it seems from your analogy that if a Palestinian group were to announce now that they consider all Jewish homes in the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) on land seized from Arab owners since the Six Day War were fare game, then you would hold that the occupants of said homes would be to blame if and when they were blown up.--Peter cohen (talk) 14:49, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

If a Palestinian group warned about a specific attack on a specific home and the parents took no steps in response the parents are partly responsible for the inhabitants death. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Or, how would it be viewed if A and his friends had been sending lots of hoax warnings round the neighbourhood, then A planted a real bomb and said that the resulting deaths were the landlord's fault because warnings had been sent to the occupants of the bombed building's attic, a newspaper and the building opposite? -- ZScarpia (talk) 15:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The landlord's fault would then be questioned. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

And what do you think the result would be? -- ZScarpia (talk) 19:06, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

As a result, a Wikipedia article describing the incident should state that "the extent of responsibility for the deaths is unclear". --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Layout of the hotel

Of what significance is the section entitled "Layout of the hotel" to the article? This page is not about the hotel, but the attack? Chesdovi (talk) 10:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The layout section is to help explain where the Irgun men entered the hotel, where the government and military offices were, where the French consulate-general was, where the porterage team waited, where the Irgun men were fired on when they escaped, where the truck was abandoned, where the getaway was made from and where the two barrow bombs were wheeled into the road. -- ZScarpia (talk) 00:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

A separate section is not needed and elongates the article unnecessarily. Any infomation infoming of the location of events can be merged into the relevant section. Most the paragraph is superfulous: Why do we need to be told that it "which was opened in 1932 as the first, modern, luxury one in Jerusalem", or that "Gardens and an olive grove, which had been designated as a park, surrounded the other sides"? The fact that it is wikilinked to its own article is sufficient. The locations of events you mention, "where the porterage team waited, where the Irgun men were fired on when they escaped, where the truck was abandoned, where the getaway was made from and where the two barrow bombs were wheeled into the road." are not even clearly mentioned in the article. Chesdovi (talk) 01:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The article is still under development and has a long way to go. And its going to get even longer before it gets shorter, so prepare for more reading. Those events may not be mentioned yet, but that's because nobody's got around to writing about them. I've found it a weakness of other accounts that they don't explain clearly where everything lay in relation to each other and that they don't have a centralised explanation of that. Ideally, the article would contain a map. I have removed material before, thinking that it was better for readers to obtain it by following the links, but it has been re-added; some things people like duplicated. In other cases, I have left text alone, including recent changes by you Chesdovi, where I've thought it superfluous or wordy, on grounds of courtesy and that, although seeming unimportant to me, it was probably important to the person who wrote it. -- ZScarpia (talk) 08:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

There is a very good notated map of the area round the hotel on page 138 of By Blood and Fire, a version of which it would be good to have in the article if anyone is looking for a project. -- ZScarpia (talk) 14:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

How generous of you to not to delete the additions I made. You say the article has a long way to go and is still under development, yet I note you have been working on the page for nearly three years. We should not include a summery of intricate details which are not referred to here in the course of events, waiting indefinately and hoping that the relevant info will be added at some stage in the future. Chesdovi (talk) 15:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

You'll notice that it took me a long while between first becoming involved on the talkpage and actually editing the article. The reason for that was that I didn't want to start editing the article until I thought I had a reasonable grasp of the subject. You should also note that a large part of the reason why I haven't added more to the article is that I have to spend so much time, particularly in the talkpage, trying to fend off people whose main or only knowledge of the bombing comes from unreliable sources. -- ZScarpia (talk) 19:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

You are to be commended for your efforts regarding this article, but I still feel a section dedicated to the "layout of the hotel" is really unwarranted here. Even when other incidents are added, there is really no need to have this section. All locations should be explained at the relevant juncture. E.g. When I was reading the Warnings section I got the impression that the French Consulate was located in the hotel, so I added "adjacent to the hotel". This should be done at every instance, making it much clearer, so that one will not need to go back and re-read this section to picture where the event occured. Chesdovi (talk) 00:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Earlier, attempted, attack on the hotel by the Irgun

Of what significance is the section entitled "Earlier, attempted, attack on the hotel by the Irgun" to this article. This page is about the bombing only. Mention of previous attempts can be summed up in a sentence. Chesdovi (talk) 10:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I concur with User:Chesdovi. This is an article (already long) about a specific incident. It is not a history either of the hotel or of Zionist anti-British acrtivity.Historicist (talk) 18:14, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

You'll notice that the information about the previous attack comes from "By Blood and Fire", a book dedicated to the King David Hotel bombing. I think the standard would be whether readers will find it relevant and useful to know that the Irgun had already tried to attack the hotel. My opinion is that they will. The account of the first attack is five lines long - a paragraph - not really what you would call a monograph. -- ZScarpia (talk) 01:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that it has its own sub-heading which gives it undue weight. A book can elaborate on background infomation, but this page should deal with the bombing only. Chesdovi (talk) 01:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

In the same way that the fact that Al-Qaeda bombed the World Trade Center with limited success in the nineties is relevant to the attack in 2001, I think that the previous Irgun attempt to attack the hotel is relevant to the later bombing. The idea of headings is to divide an article up and give it some structure, making it easier to follow than if it was an amorphous mass. Arguments about weight are usually attached to the emphasis given to different viewpoints, not to whether particular parts of an article have a heading or not. -- ZScarpia (talk) 10:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I am not saying completely remove mention of earlier attempted attacks, but rather this should be shortened and merged into another section. You will notice how the 1993 World Trade Center bombing is not even referred to in September 11 attacks. Chesdovi (talk) 13:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The reason that it may not be mentioned is because the 93 bombers only attended Al-Qaeda training camps, but weren't, after all, actually Al-Qaeda members. Otherwise, I think that the earlier attempt would be mentioned in the Al-Qaeda section of the September 11 attacks article. What form would your rewrite take? I think that the earlier attack should exist under some sort of heading of its own. -- ZScarpia (talk) 13:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that the King David Hotel was the correct place to copy the detail about the previous attempted attack from this article (and I'm sure that someone will delete it soon). The current article is a more suitable place for that text. If you really think there is too much detail here, then you should create a new article and link to it. My feeling is that the the change in length of the current article made by doing so would be minimal, though. Perhaps the best candidate for forking off into a new article is the material on John Shaw. I don't agree that the article is too long at the moment. It is certainly not long by the standards of a lot of other articles. Presumably, part of your concern about length is due to download times? If that's the case, you might like to remove the pictures of Menahem Begin and the milk churns. -- ZScarpia (talk) 16:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree. That the hotel was a long-term repeated target is surely a key fact about the attack. There is an argument for an article on Shaw, who is pictured here [3] should anyone want to produce such an article.--Peter cohen (talk) 16:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I have not said the article is too long, just that it is being elongated unecessarily. Please note that WP:NNC states: However, because of the nature of an encyclopedia, the concept of notability nonetheless affects article content. Treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Attend to anything that may construe undue weight, including depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements. Keep in mind that an encyclopedia article is a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject, not a complete exposition of all possible details. Chesdovi (talk) 15:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that the article is really being elongated unnecessarily (that is, there isn't a problem with excessive detail) or that 5 lines spent on describing the first attack is excessive weight, particularly since that attack isn't detailed anywhere else in Wikipedia (except in the King David Hotel article, where you shouldn't have copied it). In any case, the time to judge will be when the article is more mature. -- ZScarpia (talk) 18:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Most of the material contained in the following paragraph is really not essential to the bombing:

Amichai Paglin, the Chief of Operations of the Irgun, developed a remote-controlled mortar with a range of four miles, which was nicknamed the V3 by British military engineers. In 1945, after they had been used to bombard some police stations, six V3s were buried in the olive grove park south of the King David Hotel, three being aimed at the government printing press and three at the hotel itself. The intention was to fire them on the King' birthday, but the Haganah learned about the plan and warned the British through Teddy Kollek of the Jewish Agency]. Army sappers dug them up. On another occasion and during a smaller-scale attack, members of an unknown group threw grenades at the hotel, but missed.

Is it really necessary to note in this article the range of the remote-controlled mortar and its British nickname? Or that Paglin had developed them; Or that some had been used to bomb police stations; Or that 3 were aimed at the government printing press(!); Or on who's birthday they were intended to be fired? This infomation included here is really off subject and seems to be an attempt to provide "of all possible details", something one would expect to see in a book on the subject, not an encyclopeadic entry. Chesdovi (talk) 23:54, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Army and police reports

Please explain why this section should not be merged with the Warnings section. Chesdovi (talk) 00:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

As editors, we should translate ancient nomenclature to more contemporary usage

In this edit, User:ZScarpia maintains to the contrary. Any other opinions?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:34, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

No problem, all that is needed is a source for the claim that the Irgun calls it "information officer" today. MeteorMaker (talk) 08:17, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello Brewcrewer. What's the specific guideline that you're referring to? Don't you think that referring to a term which was taken from (in the case of the Silver biography of Begin) a book that was published in 1984 as ancient nomenclature is stretching things a bit? I wonder how long it will be before the term "information officer" is no longer viewed as contemporary usage. If you can find a source justifying it, I would suggest inserting text saying that, in modern terms, Katz's role, described in earlier sources as that of propaganda chief, would be viewed as that of {something like} Information Officer. -- ZScarpia (talk) 13:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

What's the point of disagreement here? That "information officer" is not a more contemporary terminology for a "propaganda chief"? --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

No I don't think that information officer is an accurate, more contemporary term for propaganda chief. -- ZScarpia (talk) 14:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

What's the difference between the two, or "spokeperson", for that matter, besides for the POV Goebbels-esque ring to "propaganda chief"?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The use of ancient to describe a post used within th elife time of many people still alive strikes me as rather strange. One of the phrasings uses the word in the person's job description and one of them doesn't. If they chose to use Goebbels's term, it isn't our fault. --Peter cohen (talk) 21:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Since when does a person's job description depend on how the person with the job describes his job?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, since someone mentioned Goebbels, I'd like to own up to having wondered whether, to be contemporary, we should be referring to him as the Information Officer (or Spokesman) for the Third Reich. -- ZScarpia (talk) 23:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Great point. Propagating for the murder of an entire race is the same as propagating for the overthrow of a colonial power. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that the word you meant to use was "propagandising". -- ZScarpia (talk) 09:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I take it that you support the selective use of "contemporary terminology" then? -- ZScarpia (talk) 09:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Under contemporary terminology, propaganda has a negative connotation. So yes, we should only use it when someone is clearly bad. Of course we we would need a consensus that unlike the spokesperson for the Irgun, Goebbels was clearly a bad dude. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 11:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

So then, a moral compass determines whether to point to "contemporary terminology"? RomaC (talk) 12:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec)"Propaganda" is a contemporary terminology. But unlike its historical usage, nowadays it connotes evil. And no, a "moral compass" should not determine whether to use "propaganda" or "spokesperson", the general consensus of humanity should determine.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 12:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that Goebbels was a very bad dude indeed, but, then, it's not what we think that counts, but what the sources say. In the case of Katz, what happens if, like me, an editor views him as a deluded proponent of terrorism and and an irredentist nationalistic ideology which incorporated ideas including racial separation and blood purity - in other words, not exactly a "good" dude. My opinion, presumably shared by the sources, is that, where describing historical events, albeit in the recent past, its best to stick with the terminology of the period unless there are very good reasons not to. I don't think that those reasons exist here. -- ZScarpia (talk) 12:57, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I see. If the Irgun spokesperson cannot be equated with Goebbels we would remove "propaganda". But now that the two can be equated, the term has to stay. Interesting.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 13:03, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Not at all. The position is that we asked you to provide sources to justify your change. -- ZScarpia (talk) 13:22, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for backtracking. But can you care to explain the difference between a "chief propaganda officer" and a "spokesperson" besides for a more modern terminology? If the job description of the two are fundamentally different I might start searching for a source that he was one but not the other. But if they're essentially the same, no sources are needed to copy edit to more NPOV description. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 13:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Please don't misrepresent. And, I'm sure that the sources had good reasons to describe Katz's role the way they did. I don't believe that the terms that you are trying to substitute are equivalent. "Contemporary euphemism" is probably a more accurate description than "contemporary terminology". The descriptions given were taken from reliable sources. Those sources are probably the most contemporary reliable ones that you will find. If you have other reliable sources which call Katz something else, use them. You've said that you don't support the use of "contemporary terminology" in the case of someone who was contemporaneous with Katz on the grounds that he was a "bad dude". Clearly your position is subjective. NPOV consists of detailing all the significant viewpoints, giving appropriate weight to each. -- ZScarpia (talk) 13:44, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Given that Britain was the colonial power (albeit with the figleaf of a League of Nations mandate), who were the colonisers and who the colonised? -- ZScarpia (talk) 13:44, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

What's the difference between a "propaganda chief" and a "spokesperson"? --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 14:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, for starters, I don't think that Katz actually did any speaking in the manner of a spokesperson on behalf of the Irgun. What's the difference between a "propaganda chief" and a "spokesperson" in the case of Goebbels (not that I don't have my own opinions)? -- ZScarpia (talk) 14:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

As I've said above a few times, there essentially is no difference between the two except one is POV-laden and one is NPOV. If you think it's a POV violation to use this strong word when describing Goebbels then bring it up at the Goebbels talkpage. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 14:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

No, YOU should be the one doing that since you think that the term is NPOV. -- ZScarpia (talk) 14:46, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

You don't think that "spokesperson" is more NPOV then "propaganda chief"?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 14:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Being NPOV means detailing all significant viewpoints, giving them the appropriate weight. All the sources describe Katz as a propaganda chief and therefore I think that describing him as such is neutral. That would apply equally in every case and is why I don't have a problem with Goebbels being described that way. I don't believe that spokesman or information officer are contemporary terms for Katz's role in the Irgun. Spokesmen are generally people who attend news conferences or stand in front of television cameras and explain an organisation's point of view. That wasn't Katz's role. I think that he would have lost his South African diplomatic pass extremely quickly if he'd done anything similar. All the information officers that I know do things like supplying figures for kids receiving free school meals. That wasn't Katz's role either. In short, I don't think that the two terms you've chosen are modern equivalents for the term "propaganda chief". In fact, I believe that the modern equivalent for the term, as used in the sources, would still be "propaganda chief" and you haven't produced any evidence to the contrary. If someone whom all the sources described as a "propaganda chief" was described in an article as a spokesman, I don't think that would be neutral, just as I don't think it would be neutral to describe someone as a "propaganda chief" whom all the sources described as a spokesman. If you were consistent, you would want other people who all the sources called a "propaganda chiefs" to be called spokesmen or information officers, but you don't. Instead you've divide people up into "good dudes" and "bad dudes" and state your belief that the general consensus would be that Katz fell into the former category. I think you're wrong both in your methodology and wrong about what the general consensus would be. I think that the general consensus would be that Katz was an extremist. -- ZScarpia (talk) 18:07, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I would like to get to rest of your post, but can you just answer this question for now: Can you name a current "propaganda chief"? --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:07, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Do a Google search. You'll notice that the first current usage is in The Times newspaper, a newspaper that's used as a source in many articles including the King David Hotel bombing one. -- ZScarpia (talk) 19:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

You just proved my point. 99% of the links refer back to Al-Quada. You don't have to respond that you consider Irgun equal with Al-Quada. I understand that. The point is, the Ghits clearly indicate that it's not considered a NPOV term. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Not at all. What I showed is that the term you specified, propaganda chief, which isn't used in the article, is currently used. The first result returned is a Times article referring to the Chinese government. The other results refer to Al-Qaeda because Al-Qaeda's propaganda chief just happens to have died. What's your proof that what may be considered as the more "reliable" of the returns are not being neutral and that other sources would have described the people concerned as spokesmen of information officers. -- ZScarpia (talk) 20:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll be reverting that edit presently. All major sources, even Begin and Katz's own accounts of the period (Shmuel Katz, Days of Fire, Doubleday, New York 1968 pp.44,130), or Ben Hecht'swho was close to the Irgun, had no problem speaking of the Irgun's propaganda. There is even a book on the subject of their propaganda as an instrument of psychological warfare. Since you appear unfamiliar with historical usage, and understand the word as a synonym for 'Goebbels', you inability to distinguish what a 'spokesman' from what a propaganda officer is, is understandable. Spokesmen do not invent, or develop a line of explanation or policy explanation. They convey to the public a position worked out by their superiors. As a propaganda chief, Katz worked out strategies for winning the 'battle of ideas', for persuading the public, and then other people down the line diffused those views or interpretations. Nishidani (talk) 14:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Nishdani: Being condensing [condescending] won't earn your opinions greater respect neither here nor in the real world. If anything to the contrary. Do you have any basis for your claims that (a) spokespersons are not involved in the development of the "lines of explanation" while propaganda chiefs are? (b) that Katz was involved in developing lines of explanation? --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 14:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that you should withdraw that first sentence. Presumably, the word you meant to use was "condescending"? -- ZScarpia (talk) 17:30, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for pointing that out. And I thought you weren't even reading my posts :) --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I cannot see anything in Nishidani's comment to justify calling him condescending, so, unless you can justify yourself, I think you should remove that first sentence. -- ZScarpia (talk) 18:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Read his post again. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I've already read it multiple times. It reads quite neutrally in tone to me. Which particular part do you think justifies you in calling it condescending? -- ZScarpia (talk) 19:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Read it again. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, Nishidani was being remarkably restrained. -- ZScarpia (talk) 20:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

It was Nishidani's first remark on this thread. LOL. Your act is up. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

As I said before, I'm not playing games. And what you've just said doesn't change my opinion. -- ZScarpia (talk) 21:52, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

There you go, shift the goalposts to develop another huge thread on an irrelevancy. Look you had an unsure grasp of (1) historical method (2) conventions in historiography of using period names (3)the language used specifically for Katz's functions (see Bowyer Bell, Shmuel Katz, Ben Hecht,Robert I.Friedman, ‘Zealot for Zion' etc.). He was a propganada chief for the Irgun, and historians retain that term.

You seem unaware that all historians of WW2 describe what the Allies did at a level of influencing opinions as propaganda. They had propaganda offices, and that is how they are described. Stanley Payne's recent book (Yale UP, 2008) on Spanish-German relations at the period specifically calls the Allied attempt to counter German influence, a propaganda campaign by the Allies (Westerners, see, not Goebbels, the good guys, not the thugs). Jesus, this is elementary, fa Chrissake. Stop 'sanitizing' according to misguided political convictions about images.Nishidani (talk) 14:54, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any basis for your claims that (a) spokespersons are not involved in the development of the "lines of explanation" while propaganda chiefs are? (b) that Katz was involved in developing lines of explanation?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 14:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, the Jayjg gambit. I'll play it myself. Do you have any evidence that in historical literature the word 'propaganda' used by all belligerents in the 1940s is now written up as 'statements by spokespersons' by reputable historians? Nishidani (talk) 15:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence that Bowyer Bell's account, which is strongly pro-Zionist, of the period and esp. the Irgun, and revised as late as 1996, is subject to revision to remove the word 'propaganda', mentioned according to the index on some 30 pages, because people might be mislead into thinking of Goebbels, as you did?Nishidani (talk) 15:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I have no such evidence, and I'll happily admit it. However, I did not begin searching yet. I'm hoping we can first agree that that "spokesperson" is a more modernized and NPOV word for the same thing. Interesting that you, Nishidani, have suddenly become a stickler for historical usages.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:47, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

That's what epistemologists call an 'arse-over-tit methodology', editing before mugging up on a subject. If you can give me a reliable source that 'spokesperson', rather than 'spin-doctor' is a synonym for 'propaganda chief', and that it is historical practice to rewrite the past according to modern terminology for offices and functions, and not hew to the period terminology etc., I'll listen. As to your second point, you should think twice before making quips. There is no contradiction. Both Israeli and foreign academic sources speak of the Irgun's operation as one of 'propaganda' and the word is retained in descriptive narratives. Whereas, only Israelis tend to call the West Bank 'Judea and Samaria', whereas foreign politicians, international courts, the UN, and most anglophone speakers refer to the West Bank, the neutral term since the 1950s. Nishidani (talk) 16:11, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Nishidan: Let's please avoid sexual innuendo and stay on-topic. Before I commence my search for evidence that a "spokesperson" is the more contemporary term for "a person in charge of propaganda" can I get you to admit that the former has more of a NPOV-ring than the latter? I don't want to waste my time. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:46, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Can I get you to recognize that when writing of the past, the best historical practice is to use the terms used by people, esp. by the historical actors themselves, and within the institutional framework and language of the period. We do not write of Attic demes being exurbs of Athens. Writing of diocesan missions after WW2, Michael Mullaney in his relatively recent book Incardination and the Universal Dimension of the Priestly Ministry, Pontificia Università Gregoriana, 2002 notes that they were under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Propaganda Fide, (p.80). Being a good historian, and not a wiki editor, he did not 'update' on specious NPOV grounds to Congregatio pro Gentium Evangelisatione, which is how the Sacra Congregatio de Propaganda Fide is now called, since 1982. I dunno why one has to harp on the obvious. This is standard practice everywhere in the intelligent world of bookwriting.Nishidani (talk) 17:09, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Your approach to editing is incorrect. Oscar Wilde is not described as "queer" instead of "gay" even if the former was the more prevalent term in the Victorian era. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

In the Oscar Wilde article you'll find that the term being used is homosexual. I suspect that's the word that was used in older sources as well. -- ZScarpia (talk) 17:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Assuming queer was the most prevalent term at that time (whatever. there was a time in history when "queer" was the more prevalent term), would you support changing "homosexual" to "queer"?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:47, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that your example works. Try another one. The sources we are using were published in the last half-century. I believe that if new editions came out today, they would still use the same term. -- ZScarpia (talk) 18:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Please stop wikilawyering. The example is only being used to illustrate my point. There was a time and place where "queer" was the mainstream term used to describe a person known now as a "homosexual". Should a description of a homosexual who was alive at that time in that place be described as "queer" because that was the term used then and there? Of course not. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I pointed out that the word used to describe Oscar Wilde in the relevant article and that I thought that was probably the word that would have been used to describe him in what would have been the equivalent of reliable sources at the time. That is why I said your example doesn't work. I doubt very much whether "queer" would have been used. Have you got any evidence to the contrary. -- ZScarpia (talk) 19:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Can you please read my posts instead of checking for spelling mistakes? Again, it's irrelevant whether they used the term in Oscar Wilde's era. I'm using an example to illustrate my point. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

But it doesn't illustrate your point because your example depends on the use of a word that would have been used in the equivalent of responsible sources in the past that isn't acceptable today. That is why I've told you to try another example, preferably one that works over the same timespan that the current set of sources being used have existed. -- ZScarpia (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Example: "Queer" was at one time used to describe homosexuals. The term is no longer accepted.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:05, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Another wild assertion, shifting goalposts, making a bad suggestion metastasize from the Irgun and informational officer to the cant relating to Victorian words for homosexual. Neither 'gay', nor 'queer' were used in Oscar Wilde's circle. I could divagate on this but, as you suggested above, 'Let's please avoid sexual innuendo and stay on-topic'. Cripes, a chap can hardly come back from a serene cup of tea without suffering from heart flutters as the screen winds up with more posers for a wrinkled brain which crackles back, when requested for info, 'What's this got to do with the frice of pish?'Nishidani (talk) 18:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Since you (immaturely?) responded off-topic, I'll take it that you want to avoid admitting that (a) a "propaganda chief" is a "spokesperson" (b) the former is not used contemporaneously (c) Wikipedia articles should be updated lest they read like Shakespearean plays (d) the former is more POV-esque then the latter. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

You called a previous comment of Nishidani's condescending and refused to retract it when asked. Now you've used the word "immaturely" in relation to another of his comments. I think that you should change your editing style. -- ZScarpia (talk) 19:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Zscarpia: Please stop playing these games.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not playing games. I think that you should be more careful over what you write. -- ZScarpia (talk) 19:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Brewcrewer. Whatever piddling game you are playing, it is jejune. Anyone who believes queer and gay were Victorian terms, that an official in charge of propaganda is interchangeable with the quite distinct function of spokesman (spokesperson didn't exist either in ther 1940s) has such a thin grasp of the English language ('I did not begin searching yet.' earlier is not even grammatical. = 'I have not begun searching yet'). If you have such problems with the feel for the historical and contemporary usage of English, don't hammer away and waste everybody's time. Read a book on the period, find something in sources that may help the article. Nishidani (talk) 20:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I've just again reverted you. I'm beginning to suspect you are trying to fire up an edit-war, using your provocative incompetence to assess correct English usage, historical terminology as bait to drag us into one. So, if you have a bee in your bonnet over this, check through the bibliography, google if you like, and come up with what was requested of you, some evidence for your bizarre proposition that a propaganda organizer in the 1940s is equivalent to a 'spokesperson'. There are whole books on the subject of propaganda, its organization, from Russia, the United States to the British Empire and Germany. Read something, don't just edit off the top of your head.Nishidani (talk) 21:04, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I've just done your homework for you. Michael Tracy Thomas in his American Policy Toward Israel: The Power and Limits of Beliefs, out two years ago in (Routledge, 2007) uses the words 'the Irgun's propaganda chief' of Katz. He's a scholar, writing two years ago, and feels like everyone else, that this is perfectly straightforward Englisdh, comprehensible, appropriate, and reflecting historical usage and sources. So take up your beef on something else. If it is good enough for scholars writing today to use this term of Katz, you as an anonymous editor on wiki shouldn't fuss and waste everyone's time on your private objections to that convention. Move on. Good evening Nishidani (talk) 21:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Nishidani who I think has been remarkably civil and reasonable here. Brewcrewer you have twice attacked this editor, calling him 'condescending' and saying he edited 'immaturely' this is not constructive kindly refrain. Thanks. RomaC (talk) 00:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh please. Roma and ZScarpia: I have respect for both of your intelligence. You can contribute constructively to Wikipedia. You don't have to be Nishidani's henchmen. All the more so when the hypocrisy is smacking you in the face. Right below Nishadin't post/diatribe where calls my edits "provocative incompetence" you post how I should be civil. If you guys want to sit at Wikipedia and play henchmen, fine, just don't make it so transparent.

Now that we got the nonsense out of the way, I would like to turn to the substantive issue. It is now clear that "propaganda chief" is more POV then "spokesperson." Notwithstanding the POV violation, I've offered a compromise in which the POV term can stay, but in parentheses. But that was also quickly reverted with a snide edit summary. Who again is the uncivil edit-warrior around here?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:26, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Your technique here is to raise a personal doubt, the point of which is hard to grasp, then rapidly edit it in, and, when reverted on commonsensical grounds, to wage a discursive war of attrition that shifts the goalposts, seeking for a compromise that doesn't exist, because your original gambit was, frankly, silly. I've interacted with ZScarpia and RomaC over two years perhaps three or four times. They were here before me, and I am not their padrino. You offered 'nothing' except a clunky phrase. You said the language was 'archaic', presumably that means 'in desuetude', 'fallen out of common use'. I showed you that it has been used by a scholarly work as recently as 2007, and therefore your objection to it as an archaism is invalid, reflecting a poor knowledge of English usage, a blindness to the elementary fact that 'spokesperson' is not a synonym for 'propaganda chief', (Scott McClellan is not Karl Rove, or the shadowy figure described in Ron Suskind's Reality-based community piece, nor was Goebbels' role, as head of the Nazis' Propagandaministerium interchangeable with that of a figure like Hans Fritzsche etc.etc.etc.) and a lack of understanding of historical method. So please desist, and allow editors to move on.Nishidani (talk) 08:58, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Nishdani: Asserting that a "compromise doesn't exist" is not in the spirit of an encyclopedia that is built by a collaborative effort. There's nothing to indicate that Katz was a shady behind the scenes operative like Karl Rove and noone described Rove as a "propaganda chief". The term is clearly a POV hackneyed term and should be used when a more contemporary word can be used.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Consensus is not based on a compromise between reliable sources and personal opinions.Nishidani (talk) 11:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

A misrepresentation of the wording, meaning and spirit of what Nishidani wrote. -- ZScarpia (talk) 11:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

So far you haven't provided evidence to support any of your assertions. Until you do that, the changes you are trying to make will amount to you trying to insert your own personal opinion.

Henchman? You may or may not know that Nishidani has been singled out by the goons at the Jewish Internet Defense Force. That being so, I feel duty-bound to insist that he's shown the degree of courtesy that wiki etiquete requires.

-- ZScarpia (talk) 12:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy to see that you finally agree with me. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Which part of what I said are you interpreting as an agreement? -- ZScarpia (talk) 10:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Brewcrewer. Yada is the Qal form of a verb in Hebrew meaning 'to ascertain by seeing', 'to know', and therefore is used of rational knowledge. Yadayada is slang for the pitter-patter of mindless natter. Decide how you want to live up to your handle, to 'ascertain the facts by observation' or to just engage in endless chitchat like a famished dog nagging at a bone. There is no bone of contention here, since we have already ascertained the facts by seeing what reliable sources say.Nishidani (talk) 12:09, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

A new low, comparing me to a famished dog. The silence and transparency of the civility police patrolling this thread is hilarious.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 13:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

If you can persuade me that you're the target of an organised group then I'll stand up for you too. Note that you're not being "compared to a famished dog" as such. The point of the simile is that the dog is trying to extract meat from a bone when there is none left on it. -- ZScarpia (talk) 14:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Would it be too much to ask for you guys to stop comparing me to a famished dog? --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, as an old man, and Irish, I'll give myself a Paddywhack. Happy? Can we call it a day, now, sir?Nishidani (talk) 17:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC)