Talk:King David Hotel bombing/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Concern over article bias

How come Wikipedia only thinks it's terrorism if it's done by Jews? Why doesn't Wikipedia ever call attacks by Muslims terrorism? How is an attack on illegal European occupiers illegally occupying the Jewish homeland "terrorism" and not resistance to illegal foreign occupation? Why are Muslims allowed to control Jewish articles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.153.96.140 (talk) 00:24, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Please see WP:SOAPBOX. Thank you. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 17 Adar 5775 00:29, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
That does not explain the incredible anti-Semitic bias employed by you people.
Please read WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, and the Hebrew calendar date that appears after each of my signatures. Do you have any suggestions for improving the article? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 17 Adar 5775 00:40, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia always calls Arab terrorist attacks on Jews "militant attacks."

The phrasing of such articles is not relevant here as it's not so must a consistency issue as a source issue. We should go by how the sources characterise an event. That way we give the most neutral representation. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 17 Adar 5775 01:28, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
In what way is "terrorist attack" MORE neutral than just "an attack"? I invented "it's not you, it's me" (talk) 04:50, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Neutral for us would be following the sources as close as we can. Zero's argument up top has swayed me though. It's best not to attach any label when the reader can draw their own conclusions based on the facts in the article itself. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 17 Adar 5775 14:51, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Alright, then. Can we now go back to the long-standing version of the article which does not attach this label to the attack? I invented "it's not you, it's me" (talk) 20:48, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
This is not the section for that decision to be made. The correct one is the section above this section. The original reason for this section can be seen here. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 17 Adar 5775 21:16, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Policy is clear about the undesirability of labelling events with descriptions such as terrorism ([1],[2]). Also, to state something as a fact on Wikipedia, it has to be uncontentious, which is by no means certain as far as calling the King David Hotel bombing a terrorist attack. It looks to me as though the current consensus is to not label the attack as a terrorist one, and that has certainly been the long-term position. Therefore, I'm going to revert the Lead to its original form.     ←   ZScarpia   09:37, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Arutz Sheva

Has been discussed any number of times at RS/N, and it is not a reliable source. And especially on a topic like this, newspapers in general shouldn't be used as sources for historical events. nableezy - 16:21, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

And regarding terrorist, see #terrorist attack in opening sentence, and further look at the history of this article and recognize that you need consensus to change long-standing material. nableezy - 16:42, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Actually, i took that out, cus honestly who cares. Arutz Sheva on the other hand, that aint gonna fly. nableezy - 16:45, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm not aware of a decision in RSN that Arutz Sheva is unreliable (even with attribution). Please show the link where such a decision was made.--Averysoda (talk) 18:52, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_75#Arutz_Sheva, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_50#Arutz_Sheva (and Im looking at views of uninvolved editors). But that misses the more important point here, this is not a news topic, this is a historical event. Newspapers shouldnt be used as sources for history, they should be used for news. This is covered in any number of sources of substantially higher quality and reliability, and those are the sources that should be used. nableezy - 19:22, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see a final decision in those RSN archives banning the use of Arutz Sheva or declaring it a non-reliable source.--Averysoda (talk) 20:16, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
The uninvolved editors were pretty much on one side of that discussion. There arent really final decision(s) made at RS/N, but I think anybody can see where outside opinion on the general value of Arutz Sheva ended up. But, again, the more important point here, this is not a news topic, this is a historical event. Newspapers shouldnt be used as sources for history, they should be used for news. This is covered in any number of sources of substantially higher quality and reliability, and those are the sources that should be used. nableezy - 21:20, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "The uninvolved editors were pretty much on one side of that discussion" @ Nableezy
I am not sure that your conclusion is right. Any way, Archive_75#Arutz_Sheva discussion was in 2010. IMHO, it's time to initiate a new discussion to resolve an "A7 issue" what seems me as "Like a red rag to a bull" for some editors ):)
As, in fact, like almost any (pro) Israeli source, Times of Israel, for example. --Igorp_lj (talk) 17:15, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm sure Nableezy's conclusion is right. That discussion looked pretty one-sided. We should be avoiding any clearly pro-Israeli source (without heavy attribution). As we should be avoiding any clearly anti-Israeli source. We like to maintain WP:N here on wikipedia. NickCT (talk) 17:39, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
You are sure, I am not (w/out involved editors' POVs & arguments).
  • "We like to maintain WP:N here on wikipedia" @NickCT:
It's just what I propose, especially a same fair approach to Israeli and other sides' sources. --Igorp_lj (talk) 21:02, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
This is an historical event.
There is no newspaper that could be considered wp:rs here: Ha'aretz, Jerusalem Post, al-Jazeera, Le Monde Diplomatique, ... Whatever. We have access to peer-reviewed books written by different Prof. who studied this topic in details. Pluto2012 (talk) 21:19, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Agree with Pluto here. The only exception I'd make is when a newpaper article is written by a noted historian. Otherwise you are more likely to read popular mythology than factual history. Another problem is that journalists regularly use Wikipedia as a source for background material without citing it. I believe this happens far more often than people realise. Zerotalk 00:22, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
"journalists regularly use Wikipedia as a source for background material without citing it" (...) lol! Really? That would be funny, since Wikipedia is entirely based on external sources. Despite being practical and having a lot of information about different topics, it's not a reliable source on its own.--Averysoda (talk) 04:15, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
I meant what I said and I've seen it happen many times. If you pay attention to newspapers you will find whole passages that are clearly based on Wikipedia articles. Journalists have to produce articles with very tight deadlines and they don't have time to visit a library or consult a specialist historian. What do you think comes up first or second when they google for the information they need? The most pernicious aspect of this is when the spin that a biased or ignorant journalist puts on material derived from Wikipedia comes back into Wikipedia as from a "reliable source". Another thing that really happens is that an uncited and possibly false claim in Wikipedia is repeated by a journalist and then the resulting newspaper article is added as a citation. To get the most accurate account of a historical event, there is no alternative but to consult a trained historian who has weighed the primary sources. Zerotalk 14:44, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

terrorist attack in opening sentence

The September 11 attacks are described as a terrorist attack in the opening sentence, why should this article not use the same description? Gouncbeatduke (talk) 14:12, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Some reasons include WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, WP:WTA, the fact that there is dispute whether this attack which targeted a military HQ qualifies as "terrorism" in a way that 9/11 undisputedly does and the fact that clear case of Palestinian terrorism are not typically described as such. More importantly, this has been debated on the talk pages ad nauseum, and there is no consensus to include this descriptor here- as evidence by the fact that several users have already reverted you. I invented "it's not you, it's me" (talk) 22:27, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Some argue that the 9/11 attacks are not terrorist because they included the The Pentagon. Arguments that some military objective justifies a target that will include significant civilian casualties are WP:FRINGE. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 01:34, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Those people are idiots, since the mode of attack was by hitting it with a civilian airliner. If suicide bombers self-exploded there, or someone planted explosive and fled, it indeed would not have been a terrorist attack. Arguments that some military objective justifies a target that will include significant civilian casualties, far from being WP:FRINGE are at the CORE of international law regarding proportionality. More importantly, this has been debated on the talk pages ad nauseum, and there is no consensus to include this descriptor here- as evidence by the fact that several users have already reverted you. Stop your disruption here. I invented "it's not you, it's me" (talk) 01:48, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
It would probably be good if we can get some other editors to comment, as it appears we don't agree. I see the British Government as the author of the Balfour Declaration and the greatest force in Europe towards the defeat of Nazism that ended the Holocaust. I have to admit to finding the whole effort to legitimize them as a military target in modern Israeli history to be a little weird. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 23:15, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
I disagree with the term "terrorist" in the opening sentence as per WP:WTA and as to be consistent with other articles in Arab-Israel conflict. The term "terrorist attack" is not as often used to describe this attack as compared to the 9-11 attack. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:26, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Irgun are widely viewed as a terrorist organization. Israel declares the modern day attacks of today against them as terror attacks but tries to declare their own (they largely invented terror after all) from the past as not. Sorry doesn't work that way.--Rockybiggs (talk) 10:37, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Many attacks against Israelis are described as "terror attacks" in articles here so this is far from unusual. --IRISZOOM (talk) 12:50, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
The fact there was a warning call, as indicated in the article, shows their main goal was not to hurt people. I believe 'terrorist attack' is not right. Ashtul (talk) 19:41, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

The British aided the Germans in committing the Holocaust by deporting Jewish refugees to Israel back to Europe to be murdered by the Germans. The British also imprisoned Jewish refugees in concentration camps in Cyprus and illegally occupied the Jewish homeland. They also illegally executed Jewish prisoners of war, in contravention of international law. Therefore, attacks on the illegal British occupiers of the Jewish homeland by the Jewish people was entirely legitimate and not terrorism.

The Jewish homeland only existed because the British imported Jews into Palestine after World War I. Jews were occupying Palestine because of the UK, so no terrorist actions by Jewish paramilitary groups can be justified. (IssacWiseman (talk) 17:47, 1 November 2015 (UTC))
We are currently discussing labeling of the attack as a terrorist attack or just an attack. I'm not entirely sure the above the statement really aids our discussion. Finding out how the reliable sources characterise it would aid us in this matter. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 17 Adar 5775 00:44, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

There is no objective way to sample sources, but my impression after reading many of them (for sure more than a hundred) is that use of the word "terrorism" to describe this action is overwhelming. At the time it was more or less universal, including all Jewish sources not aligned with the Irgun (for example the Palestine Post said "terrorist attack" right in the headline, the Jewish Agency for Palestine called it that, etc etc). It is particularly noteworthy that sources which are not specifically concerned with the Arab-Israeli conflict, such as academic studies of terrorism in general, nearly all count this as a terrorist act. However, despite all this, I won't be the one using the word in the first sentence of this article, because on principle I'm opposed to the game of fighting over labels. The facts about the action are not changed depending on whether or not a particular shock-adjective is applied to it. Zerotalk 02:43, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm, well, I am also a strong opponent of labeling, and you're right about application of adjectives meant to shock readers when the facts of the situation should allow those readers to draw their own conclusions. All right, I change my position to just using attack in this instance. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 17 Adar 5775 14:47, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Alright then. Per the above, as well as the discussion in the section below, can we now go back to the long-standing version of the article which does not attach this label to the attack? I invented "it's not you, it's me" (talk) 21:25, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
That depends. Do we have a consensus? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 17 Adar 5775 21:34, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
No, that's not the way it works. The question is - is there consensus to change the long standing version (without "terrorist")? Seems to me that with you, Zero000, Brewcrewer,, Ashtul and myself not supporting its inclusion, it is quite clear that there no consensus for it. I invented "it's not you, it's me" (talk) 22:33, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Well, if we all (and I don't know about IRISZOOM and Rockybiggs yet) agreed that it shouldn't be changed it just means we have a consensus not to change it. Anyone have any objections to leaving out terror? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 17 Adar 5775 22:54, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
I agree with what Zero0000 wrote. It is very known as a terrorist attack and many attacks against Israelis (see for example this) are described as such but okay then, his argument makes sense. --IRISZOOM (talk) 01:16, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Terrorist attack should remain--Rockybiggs (talk) 14:04, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Observation: Actually, it looks like just saying an attack is how it's been for most of the article's history. The addition of the terrorist attack wording seems to be the result of six separate instances of apparent POV-pushing by IPs and a single purpose account[3] over more than a year. [4]. Here are the IP ones: [5], [6], [7], [8] and [9], and [10] and lastly [11], which began the current debate over this. As you can see, each instance is without an edit summary or any justification for this change. In fact, the only edit that had any sort of summary or given justification before the current debate over the label was this one, but the addition is clearly not uncontroversial as the user thought, and they were soon reverted. So, as I said, and though I hate to agree with a now-banned sock, it would seem that the original wording was just an attack. This would mean that we are trying to reach a consensus on whether we should add the word, terrorist, rather than remove it. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 18 Adar 5775 14:52, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
If I were writing Wikipedia, I would not use the term “terrorist attack” in the opening sentence of any article. However, given the vast majority of editors insist “terrorist attack” be the opening sentence term used in articles about attacks committed by Arabs, such as the 9/11 article, it feels racist to me not to use the same term for similar attacks by non-Arabs. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 18:25, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Hmmm, it might be worth revisiting some of those articles and seeing if we can't get a policy-based consensus on each for removing terrorist attack from the lead as the nature of the attack is self-evident from reading. I would make an exception for 9/11 as there's a lot of emotion surrounding that one and it would be impossible to reach a consensus in the article of so significant event (that and I am a self-outted editor from New York who saw the smoke as an 11 year-old boy, and while I have nothing against removing terrorist from the lead there as it is so self-evident, I don't fancy the inevitable long public conversations questioning my patriotism and the other possibilities). Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 19 Adar 5775 18:37, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Sourcing is not really the issue here. There is no shortage of sources calling the PLO a terrorist organization, but we don't do that on the Wikipedia page about the PLO, because it is POV. There is no shortage of source describing, e.g Coastal Road massacre or Yeshivat Beit Yisrael massacre as a terrorist attack, but we don't do that in our article, because that is POV. Byutiful Kampus (talk) 18:12, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Actually Coastal Road massacre does include a description that uses the word terrorist - Time magazine characterized it as "the worst terrorist attack in Israel's history." I see no reason why the lede should not include RS which describe the bombing as either terrorist or militant or any phrase. We just cannot use the unattributed phrase terrorist in wikipedia's voice.Johnmcintyre1959 (talk) 20:17, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the issue over sources and phrasing in the introduction

Wikipedia's articles should follow its own guidelines more than the sources. We typically call Palestinian fighters militants rather than terrorist, all while citing Israeli sources. Suppose, instead, we began using the term "terrorist" simply because the sources say so. Just because the source says so, doesn't mean it belongs here. We use plenty of biased sources, all while knowing what to put in and what to leave out. Suppose, for example, I was to rewrite articles involving the 2006 Lebanon War saying Hezbollah "terrorists" rather than "fighters" or "militants" simply because some cited sources call Hezbollah terrorists.

Also, this opens a can of worms, as whether or not this was a terrorist attack depends on different interpretations of the term. It's beyond dispute that the King David Hotel was a legitimate target under the laws of war, meaning the attack wasn't terrorism according to certain interpretations of the word. This is one reason terrorism is a word to avoid.

In short, I think the title introduction should be changed, not only because we should not put everything a source says in it, but because it's debatable whether this attack even was terrorism.--RM (Be my friend) 16:39, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Just two comments: the Laws of War would probably regard organisations such as the Irgun as francs tireurs and their acts, therefore, outside those laws; also, the bombing targetted the wing of the hotel where the civil administration, not the military one, was housed (and where the Jewish Agency and Irgun incorrectly thought the documents seized from the Jewish Agency during Operation Agatha were being kept), which undermines claims that the target was a legitimate military one. Having said that, I think that policy clearly indicates that the article shouldn't be labelling the bombing as terrorism.     ←   ZScarpia   09:49, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
The laws of war treat guerrillas, or francs-tireurs, and internal conflicts differently than international conflicts and regular militaries, but they do recognize them and give certain obligations and protections. So they do cover this. Also, civilian government offices are legitimate targets for attack in certain circumstances. In any event, the terms "terrorist" and "terrorism" are still subject to debate as their actual definition, and in any event probably also violate Wikipedia's neutrality policy due to the fact that they are largely used as pejorative terms today (although not at the time of the bombing). We need a firm, clear, and consistent policy: either we go with whatever the sources say regardless of possible violations of Wikipedia's guidelines, or we follow some clear-cut rules and know what to put in and what to leave out according to certain rules. There can be no in-betweens. The latter is supposed to be Wikipedia's current policy, and the opening term blatantly violates it. I'd like to hear from some other people first, though, and get a community consensus, as I see that many people seem to oppose a change.--RM (Be my friend) 19:13, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
As far as francs-tireurs go, under the Laws of War they're liable to be shot out of hand I think.     ←   ZScarpia   04:50, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Terrorism

Sock of banned editor HarveyCarter. BMK (talk) 03:28, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Since the Irgun were disguised as Arabs when they planted the bombs it was clearly a terrorist attack. This should be mentioned in the lede. (Sdjkl1 (talk) 12:59, 25 November 2015 (UTC))

The fact that they were disguised as Arabs is described in the article lead.Johnmcintyre1959 (talk) 19:34, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Therefore it was a terrorist attack. (Sdjkl1 (talk) 19:37, 25 November 2015 (UTC))
Since when does a disguise worn by the perpetrators define if their actions are "terrorism"? When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 23:13, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Disguising oneself in order to plant bombs to blow up civilians is certainly terrorism. One should remember that Jews were only in Palestine because of the British. (Sdjkl1 (talk) 08:33, 27 November 2015 (UTC))
No, it; snot part of any definition of terrorism. You may be confused with the concept of militants who need to be in uniform in order to benefit from the protections of the geneva conventions, but it has nothing to do with terrorism. More importantly, per the note I left on your page, you are not tallowed to edit here until you have 30 days tenure and 500 edits. Go work on some other part of the encyclopedia, then we'll talk. When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 15:16, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
The Irgun was internationally recognized as a terrorist organisation. (Sdjkl1 (talk) 17:35, 27 November 2015 (UTC))

Terrorist attack

Why is it not described as a terrorist attack in the article? (79.67.100.97 (talk) 16:11, 14 November 2015 (UTC))

Interesting related discussion on the USS Cole bombing page "I dispute the defintion of terrorism as written in the Terrorism article. The dictionary definiton of this term is "The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons." Based on this definition the use of the word terrorism is appropriate. What dictionary is that from? Here is the definition from WordNet 2.0 (emphasis mine): terrorism - n : the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimindation or coercion or instilling fear [syn: {act of terrorism}, {terrorist act}] We could throw dictionary definitions back and forth all day.. but when it comes down to it, Wikipedia should at least be self-consistent" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.37.215.34 (talk) 12:56, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 December 2015

It was only a terrorist attack according to the British.

Azelmano (talk) 01:50, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Datbubblegumdoe[talk – contribs] 02:50, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
The attack was universally condemned as an act of terrorism. (DavidRichardLlewelyn (talk) 16:55, 15 January 2016 (UTC))

Terrorist attack again

Why is this again being described as a "terrorist attack"? Aside from the fact that it's debatable whether this even was a terrorist attack as the King David Hotel was clearly a legitimate military target, it's a blatant violation of neutrality rules. What's next, calling the French Resistance and Soviet Partisans terrorists?--RM (Be my friend) 10:53, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Of course it was a terrorist attack. The Irgun disguised themselves as Arab civilians in order to murder women and children at a hotel. The Jews were only occupying Palestine because the British planted them there, so they were exactly the same as the Germans in France. In fact the King David Hotel bombing was very much like the Oradour-sur-Glane massacre. (79.67.111.123 (talk) 11:38, 8 February 2016 (UTC))
I don't much like getting into history debates on talk pages, but that's highly opinionated. The Jews were not only in Palestine because the British had planted them there, and it's nonsense to suggest they were equivalent to the Germans in France. Look into the basic history of Palestine, such as the immigration of Jews during the Ottoman period (as well as large-scale Arab immigration to Palestine during that time) for a better understanding. In any event, the Jews were the local resident population, and by 1946 many of them had been born in Palestine. In fact, almost all of the principal commanders of the King David Hotel bombing (Yitzhak Avinoam, Yisrael Levi, Yosef Avni) had been born in Jerusalem. The King David Hotel bombing was not at all like that massacre, because it was against a legitimate military target, so the line between terrorism and insurgency/guerrilla action blurs. Terrorist is a word that is better avoided.--RM (Be my friend) 21:56, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
You don't like getting into history debate on talk pages but that's exactly what you appear to have done. Immigration of Palestine or where the perpetrators were born have no bearing on whether this was a terrorist attack or not. Should we stop calling the 7 July 2005 London bombings a terrorist attack because the perpetrators were born in England?
The attack and target being a "legitimate "military target" is a matter of opinion/POV therefore we should look at if there's enough independent, reliable sources defining the attack as terrorism. Tanbircdq (talk) 01:00, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
I think you misunderstood me. I'm not going to get into an extended debate on this subject, but given the blatant falsehoods the person above me was writing, I felt I had to respond. The user above me seemed to be claiming that the Palestinian Jews were foreign invaders imported by the British, and that this somehow legitimized calling this attack terrorism, so I noted that those claims were inaccurate. Anyway, my main argument still stands. The King David Hotel was the military headquarters of British forces in Palestine and Transjordan, and home the the Mandate government office. As a major military and political headquarters, it was a legitimate target. It's not at all equivalent to the 7/7 bombings, which were against purely civilian targets.--RM (Be my friend) 02:43, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
The issue is not whether the sources call it terrorism, but Wikipedia's guidelines. I could go through I-P articles and rewrite dozens of articles on Palestinian attacks describing them as terrorism, as that's what the sources say. Look at Contentious labels section in the words to watch guideline. I thought the rules were that we insert information and leave labels out of it. Or do we just blindly insert everything regardless of what the guidelines are. Besides, for every reliable source calling it terrorism, I could probably bring up another that does not give that description.--RM (Be my friend) 02:43, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
The kind of right wing Israel supporters attracted to Wikipedia and all of their socks have already gone through I-P articles on Palestinian attacks describing and categorizing them as terrorism 'blindly insert[ing] everything regardless of what the guidelines are'. It's the norm and it has been like that for years. You could go and fix that then come back here. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:10, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
If we include the King David Hotel as a legitimate military target, then the entire state of Israel must be considered so as well. The Jews stole the land from the natives, and the state itself was exactly the same as Vichy France. (79.67.117.59 (talk) 14:37, 11 February 2016 (UTC))
Be aware of the WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 prohibition, which applies to ANY page (including talkpages presumably) which can be "reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict" and under which edits made by "anonymous IP editors" may be reverted.     ←   ZScarpia   17:35, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Following on from Sean's comment, I would like to invite editors to take an interest in the List of Terrorist Incidents articles, of which the chronologically latest three cover the periods January-June 2015, July-December 2015 and January-June 2016.
From my point of view, problems exhibited by the articles include:
  • Contravening the neutrality requirement, which underlies the guidance contained in WP:TERRORIST, the introductions to many, if not most, of the articles state that the incidents listed ARE terrorism. I made a failed attempt at changing the wording of the introduction of the January-June 2016 article to say, more neutrally and objectively, that the listed incidents had been "labelled as terrorism" (as does the introduction of the chronologically earliest yearly article, the one for 1970).
  • Incidents have been included without citations supporting their labelling as "terrorism". Inclusion has been justified on the subjective grounds that "they fit the criteria". The January-June 2015 list compounds the problem by (clunkily) stating in the introduction that the motivations for included incidents may not be known, which pretty much reduces the "criteria" to "if I think the perpetrators were terrorists, then the incident was terrorism".
    ←   ZScarpia   18:28, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
The Irgun was recognized as a terrorist group by every country in the world. The Zionists were murdering people so they could steal a country from the Palestinians. (79.67.117.59 (talk) 19:16, 11 February 2016 (UTC))
Did you read the comment I addressed to you at 17:35, 11 February 2016 (UTC)?     ←   ZScarpia   19:40, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
The definition of terrorism, or at least the way the word is used, has changed greatly. Back then, European resistance movements to the Nazis were referred to as "terrorists" (I can source that if needed). It was not used as the pejorative it is today. Furthermore, exactly what constitutes a terrorist is under dispute, under this definition, we'd lump guerrillas/insurgents as terrorists.--RM (Be my friend) 20:21, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
(Note that I am against using "terrorist" in Wikipedia's voice; my rationale is higher up on this page.) Even though the meaning of the word has slid over time, when the Irgun was called terrorist in the wake of this bombing, the intention was obviously just as pejorative as it would be today. This is true even of the Jewish organizations, and for proof of that you just have to see what other words they used at the same time. Words like "unspeakable outrage", "gang of desperadoes", "horror" etc etc. So on this point I believe you are quite incorrect. Zerotalk 00:59, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
If we pretend the King David Hotel was a legitimate target, then any hotel in the state of Israel must be considered a legitimate target for Hamas. (79.67.112.193 (talk) 09:45, 12 February 2016 (UTC))
Irrespective of the POV justification that it was a legitimate target because it was major military and political headquarters, there are reliable sources that explicitly calls the attack an act of terrorism or a terrorist attack. A reliable source that just calls it an attack is not contradicting that, there needs to be reliable sources that explicitly disputes the statement of calling it "act of terrorism" or "terrorist attack".
Also, defining one act as extremist/radical/fundamental terrorism but defining another as freedom fighting/insurgency/guerrilla warfare is clearly POV. Either you remove terrorism/terrorist from all articles regardless of sources or you include it where there's RS supporting. You can't have it both ways. Wikipedia should be objective on this matter and not be driven by any biased, partial, double standard narrative of right-wing corporate media. Tanbircdq (talk) 15:09, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
RM, my attitude can also be gauged from previous talkpage comments (including one still currently visible in a section above) and from the many article edits similar in nature to this one which I've made; in fact, I probably would have just reverted the article if it wasn't for a talkpage discussion having already started and, also, that I think it's somebody else's turn to play gatekeeper. Rather than depending on untenable (see here for contemporaneous pejorativish uses of the word 'terrorism', including by Barnett Janner, a leading British Zionist) and fairly irrelevant reasoning (there's no point getting into arguments about definitions - there is no overarching, standard definition of what terrorism is - and whether guerrilla warfare and terrorim are equivalent), as I think you are, I think that you should be using valid policy-based arguments (specifically, ones based on the neutrality requirements and the justifable claim that the original wording had an long-established consensus behind it). Note that, it is precisely because of the pejorative associations of the word 'terrorism' and its use as a smear that it is a word to avoid.     ←   ZScarpia   18:11, 12 February 2016 (UTC) (I notice that you recently added the first citation to Hoffman's "Anonymous Soldiers" to the article. Did you read the bit which says: "Indeed, for decades to come, the Irgun’s bombing of the King David Hotel would hold the infamous distinction as the most lethal terrorist attack in history, surpassed only in 1983 with the suicide bomb attack on the U.S. Marines barracks in Beirut, Lebanon, by a fanatical Shia terrorist organization." Worth adding a mention of in the article, next to the other Hoffman quote, do you think?)

The attack is referred to as a terrorist attack by most major scholars, and, per below, other encyclopaedias. There is really nothing to discuss here. We could, perhaps, note that right wing politicians such as Netanyahu (see here) have disputed this characterization.

  • Cindy C. Combs; Martin W. Slann (1 January 2009). Encyclopedia of Terrorism, Revised Edition. Infobase Publishing. pp. 162–. ISBN 978-1-4381-1019-6.
  • Peter Chalk (21 November 2012). Encyclopedia of Terrorism [2 volumes]. ABC-CLIO. pp. 561–. ISBN 978-0-313-38535-3.

Oncenawhile (talk) 22:59, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

On the other hand, here's an Israeli source: The Jerusalem Post, Michael Omer-Man, This Week in History: The King David Hotel bombing, 22 July 2011. While, being a newspaper article, it's not a source of the highest quality, it shows signs of having been cribbed from Wikipedia and it is, at best, highly misleading about important details (for example, saying that the bomb was planted under the military headquarters), I should think it is a reliable source for the statement, "The bombing, which remains the deadliest to have taken place in Israel since, is rarely called an act of terrorism today in Israel." If, as is likely, the bombing isn't seen as an act of terrorism in Israel today (and we have the further evidence, in the article, of Netanyahu's explanation of the difference between the KDH bombing and Palestinian attacks), is it neutral to state in the Wikipedia voice that it was a terrorist attack when that is only a viewpoint, albeit probably a majority one? It's probably best not to view the treatment of this article in isolation (what is sauce for the goose ...): attacks by both sides should be described as terrorism right across the ARBPIA area or not at all. Consistency would be nice.     ←   ZScarpia   13:16, 13 February 2016 (UTC) (To the list of sources describing the bombing as a terrorist attack and Irgunists as terrorists, you can add all the detailed ones used in the article: Thurston Clarke, Bowyer Bell, Bethell, Hoffman)

WP:UNDUE in lead

Approximately one third of the lead is currently focused on the warnings, despite the warnings section comprising only a couple of paragraphs (5-10%?) in the article itself. Can anyone justify this? Oncenawhile (talk) 08:37, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

@Oncenawhile: - I think it's just folks trying to push the POV that this was a humane terrorist attack. NickCT (talk) 08:45, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
It could maybe be cut down to:
The Irgun sent warnings by telephone, including one to the hotel's own switchboard, though none directly to the British authorities. Controversy has arisen over the timing and adequacy of the warnings and the reasons why the hotel was not evacuated.
    ←   ZScarpia   13:41, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

FAQ

All five talk page archives here are full of discussion regarding the word terrorist / terrorism in the lead. These discussions have taken much too much time away from improving this article more broadly. That makes this a good candidate for its own one of the Category:Wikipedia article FAQs.

Here is a draft below. It is intended to provide a succinct and simple explanation of the reasons underlying the consensus here.

Q1: Why is this event being described as a "terrorist attack"? Or Irgun as a "terrorist organization?
A1: Guidance at WP:TERRORIST states that such a label is "best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources". Numerous editor discussions at this talk page, over more than a decade, have concluded that the event (a) was widely described as a terrorist attack at the time, (b) that most modern scholars of Israel / Palestine history continue to use this terminology, and (c) that most modern scholars of terrorism continue to use this terminology.
Q2: But wasn't this a legitimate military target? And numerous warnings were provided?
A2: The partial military usage of the hotel, and the attempted warnings, are the two primary counter arguments given by commentators who dispute the terrorist nature of the event. This argument is based on those of the various definitions of terrorism which require the targets to be non-combatants and the violence to be deliberate. Counter-arguments include the fact that the primary target was the Secretariat, not the military, and the bombings went ahead despite the warnings having gone unheeded. Either way, Wikipedia policy requires articles to follow the views of reliable sources, so the answer to question 1 above prevails.

Comments on the drafting would be appreciated. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:17, 13 February 2016 (UTC)


The "military target" argument can be a bit ambiguous. Often, what is being claimed is that the British military headquarters was the target, which the detailed sources make clear was not true. Sometimes, though, what is being argued is that the Secretariat, the actual target, was a legitimate target, particularly, as was wrongly thought by the bombing's instigators, all the documents confiscated during Operation Agatha were being kept there. What tends to underly the argument is the view that the Irgun was a 'legitimate' military organisation engaged on an operation with a military purpose during a 'war'. Needless to say, detractors view the Irgun as a 'terrorist' organisation, meaning it operated using terrorist methods and objectives, of which the King David Hotel bombing was an example. Pretty much the same split is seen when it comes to the operations of any paramilitary non-state-controlled organisation. I think that it's pretty certain that a FAQ explaining why the bombing has been described as terrorism is going to cause much arguing over its neutrality.     ←   ZScarpia   14:18, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, this is helpful. To get consensus on an FAQ takes a bit of effort, but if it can help us avoid another decade of arguments over this, it will be an investment well worth being made.
One of the best examples of a talk page FAQ is at Talk:Jesus. Many of these points were extremely contentious, but the existence of the FAQ has made things altogether more efficient.
Oncenawhile (talk) 14:41, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 February 2016

The article contains a detailed claim that a warning was phoned in. That is not only contradicted by all reports, but is an obvious lie. The 12 milk cans packed with TNT were wired together with primacord in the basement, where the hotel staff worked. If a warning had been called in, then anyone trying to warn the staff would have discovered them tied up in the basement, as well as the obviously wired milk cans. So clearly there could NOT have been any warning. 75.161.40.91 (talk) 19:32, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Moreover, you only provide your opinion and personal analysis without giving reliable sources. Please see WP:RS and WP:NOR. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:27, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on King David Hotel bombing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:53, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Irgun

The lede should make clear that the Irgun was universally regarded as a terrorist group, just like the Provisional IRA. (79.67.126.225 (talk) 12:15, 15 February 2016 (UTC))

Universally including Israel?     ←   ZScarpia   12:48, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Most Israeli groups condemned the terrorist attack in 1946, and when the state of Israel was created it immediately took extreme action against the Irgun. (79.67.126.225 (talk) 12:57, 15 February 2016 (UTC))
Israel did not exist until 1948, two years after the terrorist attack on the King David Hotel. (217.35.237.15 (talk) 11:34, 9 April 2016 (UTC))

Army and police reports

In the Army and police reports section, based on a note tucked away at the back of Thurston Clarke's book, I mentioned in the article that the official reports state incorrectly that the telephone warning sent to the French consulate was received after the explosion. It's worth noting, though, that the French consul himself stated at the official inquiry that that was so.     ←   ZScarpia   12:54, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Casualties

A detailed list from 15/8/1946 offers the following figures: 107 civilian casualties (75 dead, 31 treated for dangerous or severe injuries, 1 treated for slight injuries) and 11 government officials (2 dead, 9 treated for slight injuries). Total: 77 dead and 41 injured (of whom only 7 remained in hospital at the time). We know that only 78 of 91 dead were recovered. I suspect civilians with slight injuries weren't counted (given only one is listed), and that the figure of 46 wounded is likely an understatement given the high figure of dead and severely injured. --ארינמל (talk) 15:51, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

A letter from the chief secretary's office in March 1947 lists as many as 22 wounded (10 Muslims, 7 Christians, 5 Jews) who were treated on the spot for slight injuries in connection with claims for compensation. --ארינמל (talk) 18:21, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on King David Hotel bombing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:48, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

The documents motivating the bombing

British troops had searched the Jewish Agency on June 29 and confiscated large quantities of documents directly implicating the Haganah in the Jewish insurgency against Britain. The intelligence information was taken to the King David Hotel, ... the Irgun therefore determined to destroy that wing of the hotel.

The last part of the quoted section needs to be referenced. While the explanation seem logical, could it have been an after-the-fact justification? How did the Irgun know where the documentation were stored? We need to know who claimed that these documents were the motivation for the attack. ImTheIP (talk) 17:09, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

There was no telephone warning

The Irgun only pretended there had been a telephone call afterwards. In reality they gave no warning. (5.81.223.190 (talk) 21:29, 23 March 2016 (UTC))

Do you have a source for this claim? Oncenawhile (talk) 04:00, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
That's right. There was no warning, which is why the hotel was not evacuated. (217.35.237.15 (talk) 11:33, 9 April 2016 (UTC))
We need an WP:RS to support this. Oncenawhile (talk) 19:56, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
There was a warning placed to "The Palestine Post" and the nearby French Consulate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.17.146.144 (talk) 12:05, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Sara Agassi who scouted the hotel for the bomb does not deny that the bombing was planned and committed on purpose and says nothing about it being called off. See the BBC series “Empire” in which speaks about this. I think this sugarcoats what these Jewish terrorists did. The British promised Palestine to both the Arabs and the Jews and as a result we have the mess that is the Middle East today and both sides have committed atrocities. This article does not come across as unbiased or as factual. Debsterd (talk) 14:56, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Sara Agassi does say she'd phoned the hotel: Sarah Agassi says it was she who telephoned the warning to the King David in 1946 after her Irgun colleagues — dressed as Arabs — carried the bombs hidden in milk churns into the hotel.

“I think they didn’t believe we had put a bomb,” she told AFP by telephone from her home in Tel Aviv.

She said the British official she spoke to refused to evacuate the hotel, telling her that “we don’t take orders from Jews”. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.17.146.144 (talk) 13:12, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Agassi also said this, which indicates how far you can believe an exterminationist fanatic like that: '“The Palestinians can go to other countries. This is our land. You can read that in the Bible,” Agassi said.' Khamba Tendal (talk) 18:47, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

I think what is more relevant is that even if they DID call in a warning, they can't, or shouldn't have expected the British to take it seriously and evacuate the whole building. It is clear that they were CONSTANTLY getting bomb threats. This was the second one that had received that day alone, with many before. A hotel cannot do business evacuating the whole staff and clientele 2-3 times a day, and bomb threats stop being taken seriously when you've heard dozens of them without any resulting explosions. Perhaps they went around opening windows at least, just in case (I think it more likely that the staff was just opening windows to air the building). Or even more likely, they assumed the bomb treat was in relation to the small bomb that had already one off outside in the street. If an explosion happened outside my hotel, doing little damage, and then 3 minutes later a person called me to warn me "we are going to blow up your hotel", I would assume they were incompetents who had mis-judged the size of the bomb required and badly coordinated the pone call...or that the bomb had prematurely detonated before they could get inside, which is a very common problem with IEDs. In any case, its quite rich that they BLAME the British for the deaths. The persons who planted explosives under a building packed full of civilians (and government officials are civilians as well, especially clerks, secretaries, etc) is ultimately responsible for the deaths, even if they didn't intend them. Their plan was badly judged, since it relied on the British to promptly do exactly as they had planned. When your plan doesn't work right, its YOUR fault. You may lament that the building wasn't evacuated, and offer your intentions as ameliorating circumstances, but you cannot blame someone else because YOUR bomb killed a bunch of people. By the standards of the Irgun, the people who flew the plane into the Pentagon were not terrorists, because they were not trying to kill civilians. They were all government employees, after all, an therefore are legitimate targets. Of course one could use the US and UK's own WWII logic and claim "we were merely trying to destroy the buildings, which are symbols of American empire; the fact that they were packed full of people was an unfortunate circumstance". However, that doesn't absolve the Jewish terrorists from blame here. And I guarantee that even if a group started only blowing up brides and equipment and empty government buildings, the US would still classify them as 'terrorists', if it met their needs. I also thought the part that said... 

  The attack led the British government to enact widely unpopular restrictions on the civil liberties of Jews in Palestine, which included a renewed use of random personal searches, random searches of homes, military curfews, road blocks, and mass arrests. The measures shifted British public opinion further against the Mandate system.[36] They also alienated the Jewish populace from their government, which had been Begin's intention from the beginning.[21]

...was very ironic, in light of the whole situation today with the Palestinians.

64.222.158.24 (talk) 05:15, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 November 2019

The language used is pejorative and biased. "Militant" should be removed. 24.90.127.81 (talk) 20:48, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

When you're blowing up hotels, that's pretty "militant". Andy Dingley (talk) 21:25, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
And the word "militant" is pretty mild compared to some of the alternatives, "fascistic" and "terrorist".     ←   ZScarpia   11:08, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:King_David_Hotel_bombing/Archive_5&oldid=1136877757"