Talk:Al-Tantura

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Al-Tantura is part of WikiProject Palestine - a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative, balanced articles related to Palestine on Wikipedia. Join us by visiting the project page where you can add your name to the list of members and contribute to the discussion. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Palestine articles.
NB: Assessment ratings and other indicators given below are used by the Project in prioritizing and managing its workload.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as mid-importance on the Project's importance scale.
	After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's ratings summary page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.

	Judaism Portal Al-Tantura is part of WikiProject Judaism, a project to improve all articles related to Judaism. If you would like to help improve this and other articles related to the subject, consider joining the project. All interested editors are welcome. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Judaism articles.
Project Judaism To-do: edit purge watch Here are some tasks you can do: Requests: Jewish and Biblical Units of Measurement or some such name, to include material of Ancient Hebrew units of measurement but also Talmudic units and use in Halacha (a la the Hebrew Wikipedia article he:מידות ומשקלות תורניים) Collaboration of the week { Cleanup: Jewish mythology - needs to be rewritten to be inline with our other mythology articles. Expand: Yom Ha'atzmaut - quite short for an article of such importance Wikiversity: School of Jewish Studies. Part of the new open content university, Wikiversity. Stubs: Category:Judaism stubs, Category:Tanakh stubs, Category:Synagogue stubs Update: Portal:Judaism is WikiProject Judaism's frequently updated portal. You can help make this the best portal on Wikipedia. Look at the talk page to see how you can help. Template loop detected: Template:WikiProject Judaism
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Contents 1 Pov 2 population figures & merge 3 Questions 4 References 5 Quoting the source 6 Referenced work 7 Museum 7.1 Watch it, Ms. K, your racism is showing 8 Discussion 9 May 9 10 Footnotes 11 Problematic section 11.1 Comments by ceedjee 12 Abd ar-Rahman Sa'd ad-Din 13 Height's of Dor 14 Al-Tantura 15 pov-flag section 16 camera 17 Price-Jones, and details on Pappé and B-G's diary 18 Technical Point 19 Meyrav Wurmser

[edit] Pov

The number of victims given is the one of Katz version, which is controversial.
Why ? You cannot ignore the controversy. Ceedjee (talk) 21:32, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems anytime anything against Israel is written, the author for the backing reference is always dismissed as controversial. Teddy Katz and Benny Morris (not just Israelis but Zionists), Walid Khalidi, Rashid Khalidi, Suleiman Abu Sitta (Palestinians), are all dismissed because they are "controversial". Just because a fact is controversial does not mean its not true. In most cases they are the only sources, do you have any that you believe are more reliable? Until then, I'm going to remove the tag; its not necessary. Plus the claim is not POV, there are no POV words like massacred, slaughtered, etc. --Al Ameer son (talk) 04:05, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

You are perfectly aware this is controversial and all version must be given. If you are not, refrain from editing this article.

You could also give more relevant sources than a website for the version of those who consider there was a massacre. There are even accessible on the internet.

Here are two *other* versions :

• [1]
• [2].

Concerning those who defend the massacre thesis :

• you can find Ilan Pappé analysis in his last book.

Given I don't have time to make an editwar with you, I just put the flag back.

Don't remove this until this article is perfectly neutral.

Ceedjee (talk) 10:25, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Perfect. I read some of the first PDF file but 'm not sure how many were killed, 88 (combatant majority), 52 + 10 others or what. If you find the right number you think we should add it with the source. Trust me, I hate edit wars and haven't been in one for over a year. We should not get into details about the number killed in this article about the town. There should be a new article called Tantura massacre or Battle of Tantura, then we could get into details about the number killed, the dates, refugees in Fureidis, Yarmouk or Damascus. Cheers and Merry Christmas! --Al Ameer son (talk) 16:58, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Still POV!? Could someone point out the POV issue here because its been a while since the tag's been on I'd really like to solve this issue. --Al Ameer son (talk) 21:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Al Ameer son,

I forgot this tag... Sorry for that.

There are numerous other versions that this : During its capture, Israeli forces allegedly massacred 70-200 unarmed civilians - mostly young men, allegedly prisoners of war.[3]. Starting with Benny Morris and endind with Yoav Gelber and the whole affair around this allegation deserves a minimum objective description.

But please, if you are not ready to describe this as if you had no mind about that or if you cannot be able to understand you don't know what happened, just no try...

Ceedjee (talk) 18:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

What? Is it the wording, the amount of people killed or just solely the person who claimed it the POV issue. If it's the latter, then just add a source thats not "controversial". Example: Morris claims 200 people were killed, however Pappe argues that 70 were killed. It doesn't have to be exactly like that obviously, but that's the general idea, it'll create a balance. The truth is, no one is going to know the exact truth, so just use a number of contrasting sources and let the readers believe what they want. This article is very short so a POV problem should not take that long to fix especially since its only a line or two. --Al Ameer son (talk) 20:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Al Ammer son,

What you write is right. Indeed. And constructive.

But why me ? ::You want to write an article about Tantura and you want it to be nice Right.

If somebody wants to add information in an article and avoid future issues, he has to look for all important information to respect NPoV, as should any wikipedia editor instead of introducing one pov that fits his own convictions. And if you don't know, refrain from editing.

I tell you what I told Zeq before : give all pov's or give none. He told me it was no mandatory to him to give all pov's. I answered it is not mandatory to me to add the information and I can as well hide behing the pov's flag.

This article is pov because the Tantura issue is not fairly introduced. <u<EGGelber considers there was no massacre. Morris claims nobody knows what exactly happened but some people should have been executed. It should also be important to try to gather other potential pov on the issues (that I don't know). Pappé also lost his job because the famous Tantura Affair is considered as a fallacy by some.

Whether editors behave a neutral way in respecting 'alone' NPoV, whether they go and pursue their A-I conflit but not on wikipedia.

I have the right to claim this article is not NPoV if I explain why. I did do. I can add the POV flag until it is corrected and I have the right to state that if you don't know the topic, you'd better keep away from this. You have the right to make me shut up in introducing all pov's in the articles.

Ceedjee (talk) 09:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Look, you really need to calm down on this "I have the right" thing and especially refrain from telling editors to "keep away". I am known not to put PoV in articles and all I suggested was that we need to find a solution to the problem and even gave a solution. I just wanted to add something that the town is notorious for and added it. Like I said, if you have a problem with the casualty figures, the wording or the author please tell me so that I/you/we/someone could fix it. You provided two sources above that we could use, so lets use them. I created the article and thats why I feel I should be involved. Now please no more personal attacks, lets just list solutions and find one thats not POV. Cheers! --Al Ameer son (talk) 17:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see where you could have seen personnal attacks in my comments.

The article is pov concerning these events. The only solution is to find an editor or a group of editors who have 1. the knowledge and 2. who can work in respect of WP:NPoV on these difficult topics and who will not be disturbed by pov-pushers.

I don't see how to solve this today on wp:en.

Regards, Ceedjee (talk) 17:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I added another source to back the claim that 70-200 people were killed and attributed to Katz. Until another published source (not blog) is added to the article saying otherwise, then there is no problem here. If you do find that source, simply put after the Katz claim, However, so and so, claimed these attacks never occurred or However, so and so claim only this many were killed. --Al Ameer son (talk) 21:17, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

You could have done this. Why didn't you ?

Ceedjee (talk) 08:19, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I see you have done this, I just added the denial by Alexandroni Brigades veterans. As for the POV tag, is it still needed? The PR website is being used for some minor historical information and nothing controversial at all. --Al Ameer son (talk) 15:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

!!substitute the word "currently" by "today"!!

quote from Wiki article: Currently the Israeli kibbutz of Nahsholim and Dor are built upon the town's land.[2]

"Currently" means in future a situation can and will change.

You should use the term "today" which includes the possibility that it can change but leaves as well the possibility that there will be no change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.139.241.143 (talk) 14:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] population figures & merge

There is a discrepancy in population figures between this page and the Tantura controversy page. Which is it? In the interests of a better page and less redunancy, I believe the Tantura expulsion page should be incorporated here. There is no reason for doubled up information, and there are more details on the village itself in that article.--Gilabrand (talk) 07:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

It most certainly could and then a separate section for the Katz controversy. The two are quite separate. only some one is trying to make out that the expulsion never happened and that the Katz controversy is the only thing. All the Historians accept that the expulsion did happen even Morris gives that there is also evidence that there was execution of POWs. Brechor Shitrit did expel the women prisoners of Tantura from Fureidis. None of that is controversial and it is recorded in documents. The Katz part is however controversial but has never been the whole of the Tantura incident. If you want to work on the Katz controversy fine but let others work on the expulsion and please try not to get the 2 confused. And please no CAMERA links, that's KKK standard.Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 11:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

CAMERA links are on a perfect par with Palestine Remembered and Pappe. Remove those sources and then you can talk about CAMERA. Otherwise that is sheer hypocrisy.--Gilabrand (talk) 16:14, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The one for this page is correct. In Sami Hadawi's 1945 land and population survey, Tantura had a population of 1,490.[3] --Al Ameer son (talk) 15:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

If CAMERA was being used to put forward an argument on a neutral subject of population figures in Tantura you would have a valid case but for POV issues the use of CAMERA is suspect. Try using a good source to back the case.Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 13:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Questions

The Naming committee became part of the Israeli Government. Where in the bible is Dor mentioned?Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 09:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

"According to the biblical book of Kings Dor was incorporated into David and Solomon's Israelite kingdom by the tenth century B.C.E. Dor became the capital of the Sharon province, under Solomon's new administrative scheme, governed by the king's son-in-law, Abinadab, the spouse of his daughter Tafath." ^[1]; also in the Book of Judges: "Dor Dwelling, the Dora of the Romans, an ancient royal city of the Canaanites (Jos 11:1, Jos 11:2; Jos 12:23). It was the most southern settlement of the Phoenicians on the coast of Syria. The original inhabitants seem never to have been expelled, although they were made tributary by David. It was one of Solomon's commissariat districts (Jdg 1:27; Kg1 4:11). It has been identified with Tantura (so named from the supposed resemblance of its tower to a tantur, i.e., "a horn"). This tower fell in 1895, and nothing remains but debris and foundation walls, the remains of an old Crusading fortress. It is about 8 miles north of Caesarea, "a sad and sickly hamlet of wretched huts on a naked sea-beach." ^[2]--Gilabrand (talk) 09:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The Bible was written in Hebrew, not Greek. It was translated into Greek (and other languages) resulting in countless mistranslations and approximations/guesses, where the word or phrase was not known to the translator or there was no translation equivalent. Biblical, scientific and archaeological research have helped to clarify many verses, but people are creatures of habit. They continue to use King James and other archaic translations that are full of mistakes or translators' idiosyncracies.--Gilabrand (talk) 10:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The Talmud was written in Aramaic. The Bible was written in Greek and Latin. However the Bible had some of the Talmud incorporated but also other writings addedAshley kennedy3 (talk) 10:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Going by your biblical references Canaanite needs to be reinstated where you changed it to Phoenicians. and Dor could also be Naphath-Dor, is that the same place where Carmel was the Heights of DorAshley kennedy3 (talk) 11:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC) Judges also puts Dor as a Canaanite city but where is Beth-shean and Taanach?Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 11:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

And I don't take electronic data as primary sources. All web sites are suspect until corroborated by at least 3 independent sources. So to me your references are highly suspect. Call me a cynic but there is a lot of disinformation on the net.Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 11:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The Biblical account of the conquest of Canaan by the Israelites recounts that Dor was one of the 'five cities of the north' which joined Jabin, king of Hazor, in opposing Joshua. In the subsequent epic Israelite victory the king of Dor was killed and his army defeated (Jos. 11:1-2; 12:23), but the town itself was not destroyed and remained a Canaanite enclave throughout the period of the judges.

You see enslavement, (set to task work) is not what I'd call a Canaanite enclave. There is a certain amount of POV at the JU.Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 11:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] References

[edit] Quoting the source

The source on land purchase reads as follows: Sheid, the chief clerk of the Rothschild's Palestinian holdings, offered him land in Tantura, an Arab coastal village about 10 km northwest of Zikhron-Ya’akov. In his offer, he did not mention the prevalent fever there and the type of the land, but promised him a carriage and two horses as a bonus. Earlier (around 1880), the pioneers of Zikhron-Ya’akov bought 30 hectare in Tantura close to the malaria-bearing Anopheles mosquitoe in the marshs. --Gilabrand (talk) 10:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

As the land became the kibbutz of Nahsholim it looks like you source is slightly incorrect. The bottling plant is in Nahsholim . That by logic means the land was not in Tantura but near.Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 11:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Nachsholim did not exist in 1891, and the sources state that the land was IN Tantura. Every time you touch this article, you seem to introduce more English mistakes and incorrect conclusions. How dare you accuse me of POV - look at the tags on your user page. I am a long-time editor on Wikipedia, with many barnstars and several featured articles to my credit. I have turned this article into something 100 times better than what it was a few days ago, although your sloppy entries have wrecked it again and again. Instead of a miserable piece of propaganda that was started in the interests of badmouthing and sowing hatred, it is now an interesting article on a fascinating place. Why don't we work together to make it even better? --Gilabrand (talk) 14:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm supplying referenced work which you are replacing with POV Galibrand.Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 11:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Referenced work

Referenced work should be left alone. Command decisions is referenced and applicable. I'll reference the labour battalions for you later Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 15:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Command decisions fully referenced and have been all the time. Try to stop interfering with referenced work to put a POV position over GilabrandAshley kennedy3 (talk) 15:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

You can bring all the references you want, but only if they refer to Tantura. That is the subject of this article. General information aimed at furthering some political agenda does not belong here. Please try to bring in information that will improve the article (and keep it encyclopedic).--Gilabrand (talk) 15:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

So you think battles just accidentally occur and the Ben-Gurion wasn't in contol. Take your POV and put references Nahsholim is not in Tantura so all the Nahsholim stuff should be removed.Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 16:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Museum

The historic 'Glasshouse' museum building, located in Kibbutz Nahsholim, some 500 m. south of the site itself, now houses the Center for Nautical and Regional Archaeology at Dor (CONRAD), consisting of the expedition workrooms and a museum displaying the finds from Dor and its region. The house is an old glass-making factory from the 19th century (built by Baron Edmond James de Rothschild).^[1]

Oh dear better tell the Dor page to remove their info. And it is part of the Judaism Project, well I never fancy them lying Gilabrand.Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 19:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Watch it, Ms. K, your racism is showing

Ms. Kennedy No. 3 - The reference in that article is the same as the one in this article, and yes, it has been misquoted. Since when is a Wikipedia article a solid source for anything? Many articles on Wikipedia are a bunch of xxx, and that is because so many semi-literate people are involved in writing them. Please read the source yourself, Ms. K. This is the chronology: There was no kibbutz there when the glass factory was established in 1891. It was built on an empty tract of land in Tantura. The enterprise failed. The building lay deserted. A kibbutz was established after Israeli independence. At some point, someone had the idea of restoring the building and turning it into a museum. What could possibly bother you about this? Why do you insist that Nahsholim existed in 1891? Your snide (and racist) remarks re the Judaism project have been duly noted.--Gilabrand (talk) 20:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

And where did the photo come from?? Nahsholim it's like in Nahsholim. The only person that now suddenly claims it's out of Nahsholim is yourself. My comment was heavy on sarcasm as you are accusing the Judaism project of lying, for your own political POV. Wiki articles could be much better and more accurate if you kept you POV out of the articles. and don't forget the direction and distance from the ruins, it will help you to place the bottling plant more accurately than "in Tantura", it's outside of Tantura by a mile.Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 20:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Hello,
Giladrand left a message on my talk page to invite me to come and comment the comment here. Just for information, Gilabrand and I have more or less already been implied in the same discussions before. I never met (or don't remember meeting) Ashley kenndy3.
I think I can bring some constructive support here. Just for information, I contributed to several articles dealing with the topic.
Give me a few time to read the article carefully (I think it has evolved much and positively) and I come back. Reading fast, my only concern is the pov of Pappe concerning the Plan Dalet. I think it is not welcome here and additionnaly, it is given as a fact whereas the way Pappe sees Plan D is not shared by all historians (I would even say, his view is in minority)...
Ceedjee (talk) 07:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

It is not Ilan Pappes POV, Ilan Pappe gives it as a direct quote from Ben-Gurion's Diary entry of the 11th May, footnote 2 to chapter 6. "The cleansing of palestine remained the prime objective of Plan dalet" Ben-Gurion uses the noun bi'ur which means either cleansing the leaven in Passover or 'root' out, eliminate.Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 09:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello Ashley,

Benny Morris and Yoav Gelber give numerous quotes and facts concerning the Plan D that tend to show that this was absolutely not a plan of cleansing (or at least not ethnic cleansing). -I will write some of them- So why this quote and not all the others ones ?

I think too that we can refer to Plan D in this article but not a bit more. And certainly not to put forward Ilan Pappe and Walid Khalidi's interpretation of it. Why should we develop the controversy concerning this here. This should be done in the article relating to the Plan.

I still have not read all the article... Sorry for that. I am very busy these days. I will proceed asap. I expect this we.

Kind Regards, Ceedjee (talk) 16:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

NB:I have just read the new section concerning this.

Sorry, but you should agree this is not acceptable.

Whatever you think about where is the truth in Plan D, you should agree (and be aware) there is a huge controversy among historians concerning Plan D. The current section is not at all neutral...

Kind Regards, Ceedjee (talk) 16:10, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] May 9

May 9th comes before May 22-23 in all calenders. Your POV is showing Gilabrand. I will be taking your vandalism outAshley kennedy3 (talk) 10:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

And who says it doesn't??? What does it have to do with POV???? What is wrong with you??? What "vandalism" are you talking about???? If you put back the same spelling mistakes, chronological errors and garbled sentences, I will keep removing them. -Gilabrand (talk) 10:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Ben-Gurions diary entry will be put back.10:41, 11 June 2008 (UTC)Ashley kennedy3 (talk)

Keep cool, guys.

We should discuss globally but we may think about the fact we should not use primary sources when writing an article on wikipedia but only secondary sources. We have one here concerning this quote. Let's discuss about this quietly (cfr Ashley's talk page).

Regards,

Ceedjee (talk) 16:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Footnotes

not references, there are notes included. That makes it foot notes. Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 10:41, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Problematic section

A decision was made on May 9, 1948 to "expel or subdue" the villages of Kafr Saba, al-Tira, Qaqun, Qalansuwa and Tantura.[17] On the 11 May 1948 Ben-Gurion convened in what Pappé describes as the “Consultancy.” [18] The outcome of the meeting was confirmed in a letter to commanders of the Haganah Brigades telling them that the Arab legion's offensive should not distract their troops from the principle tasks:

"‘the cleansing of Palestine remained the prime objective of Plan Dalet” [19]

Ilan Pappé gives it as a direct quote from Ben-Gurion's Diary entry of the 11th May, footnote 2 to chapter 6. Ben-Gurion uses the noun bi'ur which means either cleansing the leaven in Passover or 'root' out, eliminate.

Pryce-Jones claims that in interviews, Ilan Pappé backs up his claims with the argument that "we do [historiography] because of ideological reasons, not because we are truth seekers..there is no such thing as truth, only a collection of narratives" [18] see also the 1961 Correspondence in The Spectator on “Why the Refugees Left”[20]

According to 'Tiroshi' (Eitan),[21] the residents of Tantura were ready to surrender in early May but not relinquish their arms . The Haganah was not interested in a surrender of Tantura.[22]

[edit] Comments by ceedjee

• 1. "A decision was made on May 9, 1948 to "expel or subdue" the villages of Kafr Saba, al-Tira, Qaqun, Qalansuwa and Tantura.[17]". I think we should give the complete quote from Morris who gives the motivations of this decision.
• 2. "Ilan Pappé gives it as a direct quote from Ben-Gurion's Diary entry of the 11th May, footnote 2 to chapter 6". That is not correct : Pappe's source (chap.6 footnote 2) is Yehuda Sluzky, Summary of the Hagana Book, pp.486-487. This is a book that was published in 1964 by IDF in Hebrew. I didn't find any reference of this one on the internet.
• 3. "On the 11 May 1948 Ben-Gurion convened in what Pappé describes as the “Consultancy.” [18]. This is not neutral. Why should we focus on the way Ilan Pappe call all the people who participated in meeting with Ben Gurion and who lead the war of '48 for the yishuv/Israelis ? That is as if we would chose to name Irgun/PLO activits freedom fighters/terrorists...
• 4. "‘the cleansing of Palestine remained the prime objective of Plan Dalet” [19]. This is not an excerpt from BG diary but rather from a letter BG (would) have sent to brigade commanders. Pappe introduces this as if it would be a quote or an excerpt from this letter. But there is problem. This is rather a analysis from Pappe because BG would have never written : "remained" but would have rather written "is" or "remains". By the way, this is an extremally strong argument and this should be added in the article related to Plan D. But I think we cannot develop the whole polemic concerning Plan D in the article related to Tantura ! I would add that Pappe -himself- doesn't use this in the part of his book dedicated to Tantura. I would nevertheless want to point out this conclusion from Morris, 1948, p.397 : "A third and further aim which emerged among [several leaders among whom Ben Gurion] after four or five months of hostilities was to reduce the size of Israel's prospective large and hostile arab minority (...) by belligerency and expulsion".
• 5. "Pryce-Jones claims that in interviews, Ilan Pappé backs up his claims with the argument that "we do [historiography] because of ideological reasons, not because we are truth seekers..there is no such thing as truth, only a collection of narratives" [18] see also the 1961 Correspondence in The Spectator on “Why the Refugees Left”[20]". Don't you think this is not relevant ??? Why do we talk about Pryce-Jones ? Ilan Pappe's mind (true or not) is worth mentionning but again, why here in the section concerning the orders given by Hagana's leader in the article about Tantura ? I doubt very much Palestinian have a narrative concerning Plan Dalet (at least they had not before 1961.)
• 6. "The outcome of the meeting was confirmed in a letter to commanders of the Haganah Brigades telling them that the Arab legion's offensive should not distract their troops from the principle task [that was the expulsion of the Palestinian]" Again, this is not neutral. The reality of the danger of the Arab Legion is controversial. Eg, Morris, 1948, p.396 (conclusions) writes : "No doubt, had [Abdallah]'s army been larger and Zionist resistance weaker, he would have headed for Tel-Aviv and Haifa". I would like also to add (p.400) : "And in the week before 15 May, the Yishuv's leaders could not know or guess how poorly the Arabs would organize for war or how incompetently and disunitedly their armies would perform". This is the usual criticism made of Pappé's analysis, in that he is seen as picturing the events after "assuming" that Yishuv leaders knew the "future", when in fact the way they saw the future was dark : "The Haganah chiefs' assessment on 12 May of a "fifty-fifty" chance of victory or survival (sic) was sincere and typical". Whether we agree or not we cannot focus on the picture proposed by Pappe. This is currently the case in this article section. I also add that this article is about Tantura and not the causes on the '48 exodus or about the '48 war...
  

I think this should also be removed from here. What do you think ? Can we consider to shorten this section ? Please, comment. I would suggest some summary here... Ceedjee (talk) 19:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I've had a long day, and have only glanced over the article. It clearly needs a lot of work. I corrected one quotation which framed as a statement what was, on checking Morris, actually a question. The Ben Gurion 'diary' quote comes 2 days after the decision to cleanse Tantura, doesn't it? I have a vague memory that Weitz was more the operative figure in the Haifa area for cleansing it of Arabs. Weitz’s role is perhaps more central than anything in Ben-Gurion. See Birth revisited pp.130ff.ff. and the analysis of the original edition in Norman Finkelstein, Image and Reality, pp.73ff. The piece about Pappé's theory of historiography is clearly out of place. Like it or not he has the appropriate academic career and record to be considered a reliable source (2) I could cite many passages from historians writing on history, esp. after Hayden White's famous book, who interpret their function in similar terms (terms which in no way give the lie to the function of collecting relevant facts). In general there is a disarticulation. The operation describes through sources a place strewn with corpses, in a village that had informal agreements not to be belligerent, after the attack. Then the section on Katz follows on with a complete reversal, as if the evidence in the earlier section from Israeli sources, cannot be taken as pointing to a massacre. Some of the footnotes have statements that reflect editorial judgements, that are inappropriate. I'll try to look into this tomorrow for what my own uninformed judgement is worth.Nishidani (talk) 20:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The surrender issue I felt was confirmed by the night attack with no offer of surrender. The rhetorical question got an answer by the actions. The to and fro I had with Gilabrand was based on the point that the expulsion was a recorded fact well document etc. And Gilabrand was determined to make the Katz controversy a point to say that if the "Massacre" never happened then the expulsion never happened. That to me is a bit of a denial.

1. I'm all for adding, it's subtracting I don't like. I like both POV to be included. This is why I made sure the Katz controversy was included 2. Don't know. I can only read a few words of Hebrew so would never get through BG's diary on my own. And the Yehuda Sluzky is footnote 4 chapter 6 about the brotherhood being released from prison in May to join the fight. 3. Because as with the Mossad & Shabak semi informal meetings in Kibbutz there is the in crowd who decide or are informed of policy. An inner cabinet meeting with extras of news paper editors/owners, the movers and shakers of society. Government by clique. 4. it's the diary. The commanders letter only talks of expulsion. 5. Pryce-Jones' ad hom was based on the argument refuted by the correspondence. If Pryce-Jones stays then so should the refutation. 6. The collusion across the Jordan. The Jordanian Army was the best fighting force the Arabs had to offer and Abdullah did not go back on his word. The provisional Government had good reason to suspect (you can never know until it all goes wrong/right) that the Arab forces had been heavily neutralised. The Arms embargo was being enforce on the Arab protagonists while Czechoslovakia was supplying the Jewish Agency/provisional Government.

I look forward to constructive criticism. Thanks for your time. Hopefully we'll end up with a good article. Personally I think the article rates start class not B. And in all fairness the katz controversy needs going over. again thanks for your timeAshley kennedy3 (talk) 23:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello Ashley,

Thank you for your comments :-)

I will have more time next week and promise to come back.

I am open to help to improve this article (but you did most of the job already).

I would just "complain" about the fact your mind concerning all these issues is too widely visible. Concerning Katz affair, I suggest to use the Gelber/Morris/Pappe analysis given in the external links (I added these a few months ago).

Else, here are some questions from me. (I will not be on the internet before next week).

• 1. ok. I can take care of this.
• 2. ??? What is your version of the book ??? Mine is [4] from 2007. Are there several versions ??? With different footnotes for the same sentences ??? There is a mistake somewhere...
• 3. I don't understand your answer (sorry English is not my mother tongue). Do you agree "consultancy" is not "neutral" ?
• 4. I understand your point. Let's solve the edition issues (my point 2) to avoid misunderstanding. Anyway, do you agree "Plan D interpretation is highly controversed" ?
• 5. In the external links there are 3 versions of Tantura events : Gelber, Morris and Pappe. I think it is better to use them if we want to use this but this is linked with Katz affair. Do you agree it is better to source with these 3 rather than with the other one ?
• 6. the degree/level of this collusion is debated between Shlaim, Sela and Gelber. And nobody denies Israel had more weapons at the end of the war. What Morris (and other historians) point out is that there is a difference between the real balance of force and the balance of force each side perceive of the other. Morris points out here that yishuv leaders didn't know they could win. That is the difference. And for the facts concerning this :

Pappe calls this a "phony war". I think we can hardly give much weight (see WP:due weight) to his point. I permit to underline facts (which I don't like bec. I prefer 2nd sources analysis) that on the meeting on 10 may, Abdallah refused to confirm the agreement of November, that on 13 may, Arab Legion attacked Kfar Etzion and participated to the massacre of the prisonners (4 survivors out of 125 people) and took prisonners settlers of the 3 others kibbutz, that on 15 may, a section took Latrun and blocked the road to Jerusalem and that on 24 mai, there was there 2 regiments, ie 33% of Arab Legion forces there, that Israeli attacked 3 times the area without success and that without the Burma road, Jerusalem would have surrendered (100,000 people); that BG launched 3 assaults on Latroun before the first truce and 3 again during the 10 days campaign (these men could have expelled a lot a palestinians but didn't - there were few expulsions durgint that period); that he ordered the Yiftah brigade to come back from the Galilea front (where the Legion was expected) to fight on the central front, where was the Legion... If we check carefully Morris work, we can notice that between 15 may and first truce, there were few expulsions... (big Majority occured during April and after 2nd truce) I add that if Yishuv had light weapons they had nearly no heavy weapons before the first truce while the arab Legion had many forces. I don't think we can play with primary sources ourselves, particulary in this articles. Even if you don't agree, do you understand what I mean when I insist not to use primary sources and facts such as BG's diary ?

See you this WE !

Kind Regards, Ceedjee (talk) 08:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello Ceedjee:

I'm looking over Operation Misparayim (Haifa) previously known as Capture of Haifa in 1948 It was in a bit of a bad state (could always do with a bit of collaboration with that one if you have the time or if you know of an editor willing to collaborate on it), but will continue to improve the Tantura article.

It's not my article it is Al Ameer son's article, I'm just helping out.

Neutrality, I don't think I've had a neutral POV on any issue in my life, and certainly not about contentious issues. For me it is an impossibility not to have POV. But on the positive side I do look at all the sides of an issue.

Katz, that ends needs tidying up it is not elegantly written at all. I'll try to look it over and put some sort of logical structure to it. At the moment it is very higgledy piggledy. I wont be junketing any of the links but it does need a better structure and layout the arguments are not clearly laid out, maybe it needs both arguments of pro Katz and anti Katz separated to make both arguments read more clearly??

• 1.Morris uses the term "stay.... and fight"!!!! As the villagers didn't advance that should read stay and defend or the villagers were determined to stay and would put up a fight to remain. Brigade Bulletin about one Jew being killed and the attacker being killed in return!!!! Highly dubious reason for a combined naval army operation to expel a village of 1200. I think there you have excuses not reason. The nearby rail tracks would be a good military reason, the Haifa highway would be a military reason. Morris it patently selective in his "reasons". I'd use another un-selective source. See what Uri Milstein says about Tantura Uri's normally a bit more accurate.
• 2 I seem to have the same version mines the hard back, same ISBN; footnotes for Chapter 6 go

1. Levy, Jerusalem.....

2. For all meeting I quote from Ben-Gurion's Diary.

3. interview with Glubb,.......

4. Yehuda Sluzky, Summary of the haganah Book, pp 486-7.

• 3. Government by clique: an inner circle of facilitators/advisers i.e. a consultancy. Anything can become pejorative when put in quotes or stress added and Pappe does add a lot of stress to it.
• 4. Plan Dalet should get a mention, yes it is controversial, but there again so is Tantura. I'm of the opinion that readers of the article should be informed of all issues or at least linked through clearly so that a reader can become better informed; if the reader so wishes. It is one of the great strengths of wiki (also a weakness due to side tracking). I purposely kept the mention of Plan D down to a minimum but hopefully enough to pique interest.
• 5. If there were 12 sources I'd refer to the 12. If a reader wishes to follow up by checking out all sources that we can make available you can only end up with a reader who is better informed about the issues involved.
• 6 I do not believe I've referred to it as a "phoney war". There were far to many deaths/expulsions for it to be considered as phoney. Abdullah's dreams/delusions of a "Greater Syria" always put him at odds with the AHC. Abdullah had to comply with the AHC with entering Palestine because of internal politics. As explained to Golda. The Latrun salient was a Haganah assault on a Jordanian defence within the Arab partition, it is not as though the Jordanian forces did the attacking. Kfar Etzion, palmach stronghold from which raids had been carried out. And a few more survivors than 4. The non-combatants had already been given safe passage out all that remained were the fighting palmach force, I don't think any military commander would allow a commando unit to carry on operating behind their lines, the other 350 prisoners of the Kfar Etzion Block were treated well records BG. The line should stand for that reason.

Thanks for your time, I look forward to your answersAshley kennedy3 (talk) 11:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi,

I come back next week.

nb I have the paperback version and there it is 1.Levy - #2 (4.Sluzky) - #3 2.Diary - #4 3.Glubb...

The mistake is clearly in the paperback version...

Ceedjee (talk) 07:32, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Write to the publisher, ask for your money back. Demand they re-issue with a good edit. How can they get something as fundamental as the footnotes incorrect?Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 11:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Abd ar-Rahman Sa'd ad-Din

Well, I'm busy, but I will slowly work my way through this. The first thing I noted is that we need some explanation on, or link to, Abd ar-Rahman Sa'd ad-Din. Who is he, the Sufi poet? (If so, the name could be linked, from memory). The problem is the transcription of such names makes google searches for the identity behind them rather arduous.Nishidani (talk) 09:46, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I've been searching my library for him and the net and have absolutely nothing. And nothing on Sheikh al-Majrami. And what about de Merle?Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 10:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

You're best bet is to query Tiamut and ask if she can help. She's apparently now very busy in real life, but has a superlative grasp of local Palestinian lore. Add that the shrine is a maqam, with the name, and see what that brings up.regards Nishidani (talk) 11:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Height's of Dor

Sounds more like Mount Carmel than the plains of Sharon? I don't know where Gilabrand got the Sharon plains from for Ben-abinadab, I would like a fact check on that one.Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 10:37, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Can't see what edit you're pointing to. But whatever, Biblical Dor was a city on the Mediterranean seacost (Plain of Sharon) south of Mt Carmel, the Naphath-Dor of Joshua 12:13 and I Kings 4:11. The modern village is a harbourtown 15 miles south of Haifa. The two can be confused at times.Regards Nishidani (talk) 10:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

In the 10th century BCE, it became the capital of the Heights of Dor under Solomon, and was governed by his son-in-law, Ben-abinadab.[8]

At the moment I have it linked to plains of Sharon as Gilabrand had it down as Sharon in the original. I Put the Height's of Dor in over it as that's the wording in the Bible.Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 11:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Height's of Dor? That is odd. In such cases it is always 'Heights'. Haven't checked the original Bible though.Nishidani (talk) 11:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I found where she got it from now the Hebrew University site....check references where given.Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 11:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Al-Tantura

For accuracy shouldn't this be al-Tantura?Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 10:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but if its the first word in a sentence or the title it should be capitalized. As for those two shrines, I'm not sure who they're dedicated to. It could be that Sufi, or maybe just a local sage, mukhtar or imam. Almost every Arab village in pre-1948 Palestine had some kind of "notable" shrine or tomb. Until we know for sure who they were dedicated to, we shouldn't add anything on them for fear of OR. I've been working on Bayt Jibrin lately, and the town contains a shrine for a companion of Muhammad whose name is Tamim Abu Ruqayya. I haven't found squat on him online and this guy is a sahaba. --Al Ameer son (talk) 17:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. al-Tantura. I removed the capital. The sacralisation is difficult to proved and the village is destroyed nowadays. Ceedjee (talk) 07:19, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] pov-flag section

I added pov-flags in the problematic sections until these issues are resolved. Ceedjee (talk) 07:19, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Is the POV flag needed on the Massacre controversy section?Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 11:49, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] camera

All references to camera website to source facts should be removed and replace. Does someone disagree ? Ceedjee (talk) 07:22, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

In this instance no. The CAMERA article supports the expulsion descriptions. Obviously it does not support the massacre theory. But it is also a source for the "did not murder the villagers after they surrendered". this in itself is quite telling, didn't murder villages after?? by implication in the opinion of the speaker they did before. As said before I like all sources to remain.Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 10:52, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I strongly dislike Camera sources, and I agree with Ceedjee, Ashley. I am strongly disposed to believe indeed, however, that there was a massacre in Tantura. But this does not dispose me to favouring sources I otherwise find disreputable because they happen to lend substance to my view of the events or situation. 'By implication' is again an inference, and we cannot violate the rules. Your predicament is one I am familiar with, and sympathise with, as often I have had the same problem. Israeli sources predominate overwhelmingly, and, in the absence of a comparable documentation in accessible Arab sources or archives, it means we just have to work that much harder than our pro-Israeli collaborators. I would ask however Ceedjee a small editorial favour, rather like the large one I suggested on the Ma'alot massacre talk-page (there, by the first editor's admission, the whole article is poorly sourced, based on the editor's OR in loco, and written up as notes for a novel the author is writing. Strictly speaking, I or anyone else, could justr walk in and wipe off most of the page, since it is admittedly in violation of WP:OR. Yet that would be, I argued, using the rules to erase work that could well serve to fleshen out a reasonable good article, merely because it tells against a Palestinian (spinter) group. Unfortunately, however, this sentiment is not reciprocated: there is a far amount of literature saying that event was preceded by massive Israeli strafing and napalm bombing of the refugee camps from where these particular terrorists tailed, but it keeps being edited out). In short, let us admit that the CAMERA sourcing is plainly inadequate, to be supplanted by reliable sources, and extend to Ashley and other editors time to find those sources? Remove those CAMERA sources promptly, and editors forget what they are supposed to be looking for.Nishidani (talk) 12:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

The Camera facts are in fact from an article in Ma'ariv. Nishidani (talk) 13:21, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Now reference to the Ma'ariv article is far superior to Camera. I agree that Camera articles are written with extreme POV but they can be useful pointers. Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 13:47, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think one could have the boldness to remove the camera sourcing in conformity with general opinion on it as not a RS, and replace it with ((fact|date=June 2008)), pending verification from the Ma'ariv source. That should make all happy? Not every text has to have the reference required in lieu of which it is eraased.Nishidani (talk) 15:07, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Price-Jones, and details on Pappé and B-G's diary

The edit I have made is not meant to prejudice the outcome of the discussion on the exact source for the Ben-Gurion quote, and anything else. The point is, the detail in the text following that quote should be in the footnote to that quote, as I have now relocated it. This makes for narrative smoothness, uninterrupted by technical matters.

(2) I have removed also the following:

Pryce-Jones claims that in interviews, Ilan Pappé backs up his claims with the argument that "we do [historiography] because of ideological reasons, not because we are truth seekers..there is no such thing as truth, only a collection of narratives" ^[2] see also the 1961 Correspondence in The Spectator on “Why the Refugees Left”^[3]

Now this is absolutely irrelevant to the page's narrative. It is introduced, I presume to undercut the thrust of Pappé's citation from Ben-Gurion's diary. It refers to a general criticism as far as I know, of Pappé's historical method, not specifically to the fact that he adduced this passage from B-G's diary to elucidate what happened at al-Tanturea? If so, it is irrelevant. The same criticism is found, appropriately, if I recall on the Ilan Pappé page. My edits here have been purely in the order of proper narrative flow, and thus are not intended as edits on content.Nishidani (talk) 12:58, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

My personal feeling is that it should come under foot notes and not in the main text. I was semi-forced to put the rebuttal into the main text. Or as you've done remove the lot.Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 13:37, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I can't see any justification for it, narrative-wise, but let's wait for Ceedjee's input, just in case.Nishidani (talk) 15:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

The Ilan Pappé Article is missing the Pryce-Jones ad hom.Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 14:02, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Well I haven't checked it for a while, but some time back it did have the remark about:'we do [historiography] because of ideological reasons, not because we are truth seekers..there is no such thing as truth, only a collection of narratives'. If it doesn't it should be put back in there.Nishidani (talk) 15:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Technical Point

The text says the Alexandroni Brigade's 33rd Battalion. In military terms this is nonsense, since, at least in Western armies, Brigades have an upper limit of 5 battalions. I suspect what is meant is the Haganah's 33rd battalion. Needs checking out.Nishidani (talk) 13:19, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

It always seemed a bit of a leap with a newly formed Army. However the numbering is consistent with bluff. As in calling it the 33rd even though Brigade numbers 2-32 are missing. It was used in the run up to the "D" Day landings, making up armies that weren't in existence.Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 13:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Meyrav Wurmser

I've adjusted to put Meyrav Wurmser, the source for the summary of the Katz trial, into the text. She belongs, it should be born in mind, to a rather extremist right-wing ideological bloc. She is not, as the linked page asserts, a 'scholar of the Arab world' so far as I have been able to check, but a person with a doctorate on Hebrew political parties, Likud and Herut.Nishidani (talk) 15:28, 14 June 2008 (UTC)