Jump to content

Talk:Ma'ale Akrabim massacre

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Background

[edit]

There's no need to rely on estimates with Israeli casualties. Both civilian and military casualties are well accounted for by the Israeli government. A total of 257 civilians were killed in the years 1949-1954. 1,049 soldiers were killed in the same period of time. Both memorial sites allow date-based searching: http://laad.btl.gov.il/Web/He/Default.aspx https://www.izkor.gov.il/

Claim of false-flag-attack

[edit]

Naeim Giladi claims, that this massacre was committed by a Jewish gang sponsored by the Israeli government and that the Israeli Goverment lied about it just as they lied about the Qibya massacre. In his book "Ben-Gurion's Scandals: How the Haganah and the Mossad Eliminated Jews" he wrote:

"David Ben-Gurion had indeed ordered the operation in spite of his denials. He also denied subsequent cover-ups, such as the massacre of the passengers of a bus near Maaleh Ha'akrabim. The Israeli government wrongfully accused Arabs, while it was a Jewish gang that committed the massacre. With much research, I later found evidence proving the involvement of yet another massacre sponsored by the Israeli government."

Source: http://www.mein-parteibuch.com/wiki/images/4/41/Ben_Gurion_Scandals.pdf (Page 4)

Concerns about neutrality and historical context

[edit]

Although this article is written in a neutral tone there is rarely only one side to a story. In many cases, one country's terrorist attack is another country's fight for liberty. The time between the founding of the modern state of Israel and the 1967 war was a time of tumult in the region. This article needs additional background put this attack in historical context. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 05:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the historical context. NoCal100 (talk) 15:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but reference #2 is broken, "unable to process request." It looks like a non-permanent URL. Please provide enough information so other editors can verify the source. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 16:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC) fixed davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 17:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ambush or Massacre?

[edit]

Is 10 a "large number"? I personally think not. In which case this should be renamed to "incident" or "attack" or similar. Otherwise any terrorist attacks that kill 10 or more people should likewise be listed as a "massacre". Wikipedia will quickly fill up with "massacres" diluting those that really are massacre of large numbers of people. Oboler (talk) 13:00, 22 November 2008 (UTC) Agree. Renaming, per the discussion here NoCal100 (talk) 19:48, 28 November 2008 (UTC) original here[reply]


Scorpion pass is referred to as an ambush by the majority.

  • Lipman ambush
  • Israel Misard Ha-huts ambush
  • Nissim bar-Yaccov Incident
  • Eedson Louis Millard Burns Incident
  • Liliental attack
  • Morris massacre/terrorist outrage

The strange use of 'massacre' by morris: On the night of 16/17 March ‘infiltrators’ ambushed a civilian bus travelling up Scorpion Pass (Ma’ale ‘Akrabim) on its way from Eilat to Tel Aviv. In the worst terrorist outrage against Israel between 1949 and 1956....Arye Efrat, complained to the government of the desperate security situation; of the burden of guard duty; and of families leaving. He concluded: ‘though nothing like Ma’ale ‘Akrabim has happened to us so far, the way things are going, if no steps are taken immediately, it could end in another such [massacere].

  • Oren massacre
  • Middle East Institute ambush
  • Ovendale ambush
  • Hutcheson ambush
  • Higgins incident
  • Love massacre/ambush
  • Neff ambush

or killing: The Palestinian Refugees in Jordan 1948-1957: 1948-1957 By Avi Plascov Published by Routledge, 1981 ISBN 0714631205 p 101

I wonder what the Israeli MFA call it:- 17 Statement to the Knesset by Prime Minister Sharett on the Ma-aleh Akrabim incident- 24 March 1954 Hmmm.

I wonder why NoCal100 has different standards on the word massacre?..Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 08:01, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not personalize disputes. It is bad form in every case, and especially in your case, when you have already been blocked for personal attacks against me. The sources used in this article call it a massacre - Time Magazine, Morris. The Israeli MFA statement you linked to also calls it a massacre, twice, as does the (http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/f45643a78fcba719852560f6005987ad/7121d70719d01c5e05256728006a84b1!OpenDocument offical UN report on the incident). NoCal100 (talk) 15:33, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It strikes me that any "incident" in which innocent civilians (unarmed men, women and children) are purposely targeted and killed, qualifies as a "massacre," no matter who does it. Tundrabuggy (talk) 16:50, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just popping in with an admin point of view: It's not about what Wikipedia editors think it should be called, it's about what the sources say. Take a look at the reliable sources which talk about this event, and see what the consensus term is, and that's probably what the Wikipedia article should be called. --Elonka 20:27, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Morris calls it killing more than massacre the UN criteria is 50 civilians before it is called a massacre. The Israeli MFA calls it incident as a title. The RS's are not consistent...NOCal100 went on numbers on al-Khisas even though some RS called al-Khisas a massacre just not the one he/she used...it would seem more appropriate to call it a bandit attack as at the end of the day that was the more probable reason for the attack...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 15:39, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not go by the UN criteria, but by what reliable sources say. Morris calls it a massacre. The Israeli MFA document you refer to calls it a massacre twice, as does the UN report on the event, the Time magazine article and may others. We do not analyze events to decide what to call them - we simply go by what reliable sources have called it. NoCal100 (talk) 15:56, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually morris uses the term massacre twice while putting into the quote of another (a mayor of some Israeli town), that is not morris using the term massacre. The rest of the time Morris uses killing in the main...and I am fully aware of 'wiki standards'...You have cherry picked to call it what you want or the harav would be a shooting not a massacre...I tend not to like the use of massacre but unfortunately the wiki standard of 'conflation for political purposes' has created stupidity where anything from 3 and up is put down as a massacre... I prefer understatement to overstatement, overstatement only gets you laughed at and only makes wiki come across as an unreliable and misleading site...But you carry on with your overstatement and I'll just plonk other RS (not 'your' extremist sites)... Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 20:34, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For best results, can we please try to keep discussions focused on the article, and not on the editors? Let's try to remove the words "you" and "your" from posts, which can help to improve the tone of discussions. Thanks, --Elonka 21:07, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Number of passengers/casualties

[edit]

The article currently says there were 14 passengers, sourced to Morris' book (which I don't have). The UN report says 15 or 16 (according to Israeli sources). The article says 11 were killed, but does not cite the source. The UN does not specify the number of casualties. The Ynet article says 12 killed, including the driver. Miri Firstenberg is the only survivor, after her brother died following 32 years in a comma. Can anyone shed more light on the details? Also, the infobox says the suspects named by Israels were proven not to be the perpetrators, but this also unsourced. -- Nudve (talk) 17:07, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the confusion arises from the differnet classification of the people on the bus. The sources that say "14 passengers" are not counting the 2 armed soldiers who were the security detail, as passengers. NoCal100 (talk) 14:52, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Does that include the driver (Miri's father)? and were all the casualties civilians? -- Nudve (talk) 15:04, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. We should look for a definitive source. NoCal100 (talk) 15:06, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, thanks for the reply :) The 11 killed figure is currently uncited. I suppose Morris is the source for it? -- Nudve (talk) 15:11, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's actually from the TIME magazine article , which says the attack left 11 dead. NoCal100 (talk) 15:21, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Right. I've added that info and ref to the Attack section. BTW, I see that you think "massacre" is the appropriate title, but maybe "incident" is more neutral? also, I think most sources translate the Hebrew name to Scorpion's Pass, so maybe that would be better? Cheers, Nudve (talk) 15:30, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Most sources, as far as I can tell, call it a massacre, including the ones used in the article. On the Hebrew wiki, it's called "טבח מעלה עקרבים" - i.e, massacre. So I think massacre is the right name. I'm ambivalent on "Scorpion pass" vs. the Hebrew name. When I created the article, I named it "Scorpion Pass", but I'm not going to edit war over this. NoCal100 (talk) 15:35, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I won't move it without clear consensus. Cheers, Nudve (talk) 15:42, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Using Israeli sources for a description of massacre or not is not NPOV. Israeli sources use conflation for political purposes...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 00:40, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These are not 'Israeli sources' - they are a Time Magazine article, and an academic history book published by Oxford University Press. NoCal100 (talk) 04:01, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Based on Israeli hand outs...On Morris, you left out all the pieces that didn't agree with your POV or you would have noticed a few gross errors that you put in...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 19:42, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

what's the basis for the claim that the Time article or the academic book of history are "Based on Israeli hand outs"? NoCal100 (talk) 19:45, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because of the similarity in wording and structure to the Israeli announcements...The UN didn't make any announcement till after the time article... The second time article has a difference...Benny hardly did any work on the Ma'ale Akrabim...It is apparent that he has used Israeli sources only, regurgitated it verbatim and then added a few words that contradict the Israeli source and then hides his conclusions out of the way undercover of Glubb 'Israel was probably wrong'...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 20:45, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In other word, it is original research, which is not allowed on this project. NoCal100 (talk) 19:20, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do not believe that you are notable enough to have a book written about your trolling activities, this makes all assessment of your work would be original research and it is perfectly allowable for any wiki editor to have their own thoughts and use their intellect in any way they see fit. Until you have control of the thought police please try to stop trolling and read up on all the wiki rules that apply to wiki editors in their own time....please show where any original research rule is applicable to talk pages....try sticking to the article....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 21:37, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop these persistent personal attacks. NoCal100 (talk) 21:39, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the article using the israeli version of events as the mainstay?

[edit]

Thefts were quite common, mostly among the poorer Bedouin who utilised the opportunity to steal valuable property and machinery used by the Israeli Government in developing the southern part of the country. The shooting of these Bedouin by Israelis incited blood feuds and resulted in vendettas which caused a chain reactions, culminating in additional killings. Many such incidents occurred in the Negev and might be explained as Bedouin actions of blood revenge. The massacre of the bus passengers in maleh ha-Akrabim (The Scorpion Pass) on the way to Eilat was possibly one of them. The Palestinian Refugees in Jordan 1948-1957: 1948-1957 By Avi Plascov Published by Routledge, 1981 ISBN 0714631205 p 86

On Wednesday of last week, the Mixed Armistice Commission was shocked by the news of an attack on an Israel bus near Ma'ale Akrabim [Scorpion Pass]. United Nations military observers were sent immediately to the scene of the incident, and their initial reports were graphic in describing this horrible crime. Since that first day, most of the military observers assigned to the Jordan-Israel Mixed Armistice Commission have working on this case. These observers, working with members of the Israel delegation to the Mixed Armistice Commission, Israel police and army officials, dog handlers with highly trained tracking hounds, expert Israel trackers, joined later by experienced Bedouin trackers from Jordan, have worked almost beyond endurance to establish the guilt for this crime. At no time during the years since the conclusion of the armistice agreement has a more intensive investigation been carried out. Even so, the evidence brought out is far from being conclusive. I do regret the Israel delegation's refusal to allow the Mixed Armistice Commission the opportunity completely to investigate Israel's claim of knowledge concerning the actual perpetrators of this crime. The possibility of Jordanians being responsible for this crime still exists; however, persons from outside Jordan could also be guilty of this outrage. True, tracks were found, perhaps connected to this crime, but they were lost approximately 10 kilometers in a straight line from the demarcation line. The empty cartridges found at the scene of the incident do not point conclusively to any one group. The testimony of the witnesses indicates that Arabs were involved; however, the description of the two men who allegedly entered the bus a doubt as to whether they were all Arabs. And the establishment of the fact that Arabs were involved does not in the least connect this crime to the inhabitants of any one country. This Mixed Armistice Commission will always avoid condemning a government on inconclusive evidence.

[1]

Israeli government statement

Israeli government statement to the UN and list of 6 April 1954

Time magazine Fingered Triggers Monday, Apr. 05, 1954

Dead 9 men 2 women injured 2, young woman and 9 year old, uninjured 2. //Rosalyn Higgins (1981) United Nations Peacekeeping, 1946-1967: Documents and Commentary under the auspices of the Royal Institute of International Affairs by Oxford University Press, pp 121-122//

Jordanian Legion Commander John Glubb reported to the British Government on the results of an investigation he had conducted, which pointed to ‘tribesmen from Beersheba area driven from their lands and relatives massacred various times by Jews...the gang appears centred in Qusema...in Sinai. All planned and carried out from Sinai.[1]

When Israel occupied the Gaza Strip in 1956, two years later, considerable evidence was found that the Scorpion Pass incident was the work of Arab Bedouins.[2]

Nahhalin doesn't appear in aftermath;

Another gesture came in March when Israel declared Jordan responsible for the massacre of 11 civilians in the Negev’s scorpion Pass (Ma’aleh Akravim), though evidence pointed to Gaza as the attackers’ base. The IDF retaliated –ominously without Sharett’s approval- against Nahhalin village in the West bank.//Oren, Michael B. (1992) Origins of the Second Arab-Israel War: Egypt, Israel, and the Great Powers, 1952-56 Routledge, ISBN 0714634301 p 20//

..Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 00:42, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article's main sources are a Time magazine article, UN documents, and an academic book published by Oxford University Press. None of these seem to be 'the israeli version of events'. NoCal100 (talk)`

No it wasn't, it was cherry picked and selected for POV. Had the UN Doc been read you would have noted the lack of connection between the two sets of tracks (Shod tracks in the attack, unshod in the second set, the date of the second set going towards Jordan earlier than the attack). The Bedouin connection would have been made...The banditry in the area, the Israeli raids on Bedouin..what about the other academic sources available?...Why just the Jordanian/Israel set of figures why not Egypt/Israel (I've removed the Jordanian set so you can add the egyptian/Israel set or it would be WP:UNDUE....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 09:26, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to add the Egyptian/Isreali casualties, if you have those figures handy, but don;t remove sourced material. NoCal100 (talk)`

WP:UNDUE says both or none. You also need the incidents within Israel to add to your collection. Until you do the POV banner has to stay....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 19:08, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, WP:UNDUE does not say that, but whatever. I've added the Egyptian incidents, and the incidents inside Israel are also mentioned. What else do you think needs to be there? —Preceding unsigned comment added by NoCal100 (talk • contribs) 19:21, December 20, 2008

WP:UNDUE says that if you only have one sides views you get a POV tag until you clean the article up..Me I'm just trying to get you to do some work on your own article...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 19:40, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not my own article - people don't own articles on WP. I've added the Egyptian incidents, and the incidents inside Israel are also mentioned. What else do you think needs to be there? NoCal100 (talk) 20:08, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Like you I wouldn't want to put my name to this 'article'...The Israelis killing, maiming, raping and ethnic cleansing of the Negev sort of caused quite a few feuds...or maybe you'd like to blame the victim there as well...me I just wondering how all these blood feuds got started if it was only the unarmed Arabs that was doing all this killing....maybe you'd like to explain to the readers how 30,000 Bedouin being ethnically cleansed from the Negev 1950-1951 (according to Morris Birth of, notice post war and post armistice agreements) never played any part in any blood feuds? ...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 20:54, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop soapboxing and focus on specific changes you'd like to see in this article. NoCal100 (talk) 00:25, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Derori, Zeʼev (2005) Israel's Reprisal Policy, 1953-1956: The Dynamics of Military Retaliation Routledge, ISBN 0714656321 pp 126-127
  2. ^ Political Affairs By Trade Union Educational League (U.S.), Earl Browder, Herbert Aptheker, Communist Party of the United States of America, Gus Hall Published by Political Affairs Pub., 1967 P 15

terrorism

[edit]

Numerous sources refer to this as terrorism - see this as just one example. I am restoring the category. NoCal100 (talk) 03:45, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

include it in the possible terrorism category....Numerous sources do not say terrorism..JVL is not an RS source...It is a pure POV source....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 09:30, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

there is no "possible terrorism" category. The JVL has been discussed numerous times at WP:RSN and the consensus is that it is a reliable source. NoCal100 (talk) 14:51, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In fact Benny Morris calls it a "the worst terrorist outrage against Israel between 1949 and 1956" [2] Israel's Border Wars, 1949-1956: Arab Infiltration, Israeli Retaliation, and the Countdown to the Suez War Oxford University Press, 1993 ISBN 0198292627, 9780198292623 --page 309.Tundrabuggy (talk) 15:56, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not un-typical of Morris to classify before assessing evidence. Much the same way as the Israeli government at the time..Even Morris's own conclusions that it was probably bandits from Gaza Egypt or places unknown has not stopped his classification. If Morris is unable to say who did it, how can he claim knowledge of the motivation for the attack? Other historians say differently and do not indulge in flights of fancy...But there again I'm not cherry picking...JVL; as you have, cherry picked that makes them unRS...I do not care a jot what wiki classify them as; I am talking of the real world, the real world where education establishments would laugh in you face if you handed in work based on JVL...Your attitude to POV is the cause of inaccurate and misleading articles and a drop in education standards. This is one of those articles.. Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 19:05, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Morris is a trained historian, and his book is an academic publication of Oxford University Press. It is a reliable source. Here on wikipedia , we do not perform our own analysis of such reliable sources, we do not second guess them, we just quote them and refer to them. NoCal100 (talk) 20:11, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

call him what you want, I read, and not just Morris I can also see when facts do not support the given conclusions...Sorry to inform you but I do analyse and when there are several versions of events with some forming extremist conclusions I tend to not use the extremist version or use it very carefully....But there again I've been taught not to cherry pick and not to go quote mining...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 21:02, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

you are of course free to analyze, and to form your personal opinion of Morris. You may not, however, rely on that analysis for the purpose of excluding Morris as a reliable source. Again - an academic book by a trained historian published by the press of one of the world's leading universities is a reliable source beyond any shadow of doubt. NoCal100 (talk) 00:20, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do believe that Elonka had something to say about the use of YOU. I am so glad that the thought police haven't been called in. There have been many shadows cast over Benny's work from many reliable sources. I wouldn't dream of placing Benny as a none-RS, he is such an unrepentant rouge that it is quite useful to have a couple of his books around from which to quote. Ceedjee loves Benny, me I tend to have to wash my hands after reading his books. It is one of the reasons why multiple sources should be used and not just one. An article based on 'Jewish agency of Israel' the 'Israeli ministry for Foreign Affairs' and 'Benny' with the majority perspective missing (the Israeli perspective is a minority perspective) will never get past a POV banner stage....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 11:02, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let me understand this last sentence- you are saying that an article which relies on Morris will never get past a POV banner stage? NoCal100 (talk) 14:17, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not if the sole source is Morris and the Israeli MFA...Then no, it would always be a spoof article...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 14:45, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Once again: The sources for this article are original UN documents, a Time magazine article, and academic book by Morris. The article does not rely on Morris and the Israeli MFA as "the sole source". If this is the alleged reason for the POV tag, I will remove that tag. NoCal100 (talk) 14:47, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The original source was the Israeli MFA report, the rest was forced into the article. If Morris had been used properly then the information I included would have appeared earlier. Had the UN reports been read then the information about 2 separate sets of tracks would have been noted earlier. The number of passengers and injured the relevant suspicions of who the perpetrators were...Therefore the original article was only extremist POV with pertinent information missing, information that was is very easy to obtain and within the book and UN document referenced early on. It can only be assumed that the original extremist POV from the original layout was done in Bad Faith as it made no attempt at an NPOV position....The end section is still extremist POV from the Israeli MFA and so the POV tag should remain....The POV tag is not for what you used but for the way it was used or more correctly the way it was ignored what it contained and then misrepresented as though the information in the reference material had been used...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 18:38, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it wasn't. I should know, as I wrote it. The original sources were Morris's book and the Time Magazine article. What is the change you are requesting that will address the POV tag? Please be specific. NoCal100 (talk) 19:25, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know you started the article and you did an awful job of reading to be able to insert that much POV....You inserted the UN Doc by misrepresentation as though it backed up your POV which it most certainly didn't...Morris had the Glubb suspects you completely missed them out in an effort to follow a pure Israeli POV...Sorry but I find your argument disingenuous...Morris includes the Bedouin 'Azazame quotes....every possible interpretation of your work is that you cherry picked for POV....I've been specific see below..POV TagAshley kennedy3 (talk) 19:48, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please avoid commenting on editors, and comment on edits. The Glubb suspects are already in the article, as is the Bedouin 'Azazame quotes. What is the change you are requesting that will address the POV tag? Please be specific - make a suggestion for sentences to be added or removed. NoCal100 (talk) 20:02, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The quote are only there because I put them there. ...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 21:41, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's great. Can we remove the tag, then? NoCal100 (talk) 21:43, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

bedouin

[edit]

Ashley kennedy added 'and other' to the statement about Israeli shooting of thieves in the Negev, claiming this is more context from the sources. The full quote however, from the source, is "Thefts were quite common, mostly among the poorer Bedouin who utilised the opportunity to steal valuable property and machinery used by the Israeli Government in developing the southern part of the country. The shooting of these Bedouin by Israelis incited blood feuds and resulted in vendettas which caused a chain reactions, culminating in additional killings." The "and other" part does not appear there, and it is quite clear that the text refers to the shooting of "these Bedouin" - i.e. Bedouins involved in theft. NoCal100 (talk) 15:44, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed "and other" since it does not reflect the source. Tundrabuggy (talk) 16:07, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Other' does reflect the original source. additional killings...and the second source is about Israeli infiltration into Jordanian controlled territory (try finding out where al-Burj is first) to carry out the murders or should we say the massacre of 5 Bedouin shepherds and subsequent mutilations; these sorts of incidents caused blood feuds...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 18:50, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The full quote from the original source was reproduced above. It says "Thefts were quite common, mostly among the poorer Bedouin who utilised the opportunity to steal valuable property and machinery used by the Israeli Government in developing the southern part of the country. The shooting of these Bedouin by Israelis incited blood feuds and resulted in vendettas which caused a chain reactions, culminating in additional killings." The "additional killings" are not described as killings of Bedouins by Israeli forces, and the context (vendetta) makes it clear that these additional killings were performed by the Bedouins. Your second source (a) does not refer to Bedouins but to "Arab Shepherds", and does not say they were killed at Al-Burj. Rather, it says there were conflicting claims - the IDF claiming they were infiltrators killed in Israeli territory, and the Arab legion alleging they were killed in Jordanian territory. Needless to say, the second source does not refer to this incident as causing blood feuds. NoCal100 (talk) 19:18, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And my RS shows Israelis infiltrating into Jordanian controlled territory to carry out murder and mutilation and the UN said the Israelis dragged the bodies over (the blood trails gave it away)...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 19:32, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

your sources says there were conflicting accounts, and does not refer to to this incident as causing blood feuds.NoCal100 (talk) 19:41, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Read it up in the UN some time, read other sources, not just one version. Please go see Ceedjee on how to start an article. He uses the normal editors method, gather all the available sources, read all of the available sources and only then start writing....Your method of taking one extremist version and push it as far as you can does not work...Come on the Jewish agency for Israel is hardly RS and the 'Hebrew wiki says'... please...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 19:51, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let's please discuss content and not contributors. For best results, keep discussions focused strictly on the article. A useful exercise is to try and avoid using the words "you" and "your" in posts. Keeping things in the third person can be very useful towards de-escalating a dispute. --Elonka 20:01, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The sources provided so far do not refer to "other killings causing blood feuds". Unless such sources are provided, that sentence will have to be removed. NoCal100 (talk) 20:12, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am discussing content. Content from protagonists is always none-RS. No problemo..I'll change the wording for you...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 21:04, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. when you write "Please go see Ceedjee on how to start an article....Your method..." you are discussing editors, not edits. Please review WP:RS as the statement that "Content from protagonists is always none-RS" is simply not true. NoCal100 (talk) 00:23, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am discussing what is good for this article and advising editors to seek a more inclusive method of article writing. please review WP:RS, Wikipedia:Article development in particular the section on Research. "Content from protagonists" should always be viewed with scepticism as a protagonist has a vested interest and have prove to have been selective on many occasions...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 11:16, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the statement that "Content from protagonists is always none-RS" is simply not true. If you have this misconception, please review WP:RS. If you agree that the statement is not true, stop trying to discredit reliable sources on the grounds that the come from protagonists.
  1. Don't forget to sign...
  2. protagonists statements are always suspect and should be treated with circumspection.
  3. The Israeli version has been soundly refuted by Benny and others from Israel's own archives....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 14:42, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So you agree that Benny Morris is a reliable source which can be used? NoCal100 (talk) 14:45, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ceedjee would say he's the best source, me I say Morris should be used with great care as he is a 'protagonist'... There are very few book written covering the period and this is why Morris is used, it's by default and not because he is thought of as 'good'...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 18:53, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So you agree that Benny Morris is a reliable source which can be used? NoCal100 (talk) 19:26, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

POV tag

[edit]

What is the specific issue behind the POV tag? Originally it was placed because infiltrations and incident on the Egyptian border were not mentioned - but that has been fixed. NoCal100 (talk) 19:19, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're missing the Israeli attacks on Bedouin within Israel..Your reliance on the Israeli only version...The exclusion of pertinent facts (I liked the ducking on the second set of footprints, footprints as in unshod unlike the bandits)...the general POV of the article...The way you try to make out that Israel were the good guys and never did a thing wrong...The number of condemnations that Israel received shows that the Israeli version was not accepted world wide. The laughable bit about Sharret at the end. Sharret saying it was military with no looting whereas facts flew in his face. you haven't said anything about the 'policy of retaliation' was never ended merely reduced to one raid a month after Qibya. You've missed the inciting to violence that also occurred within Israel. that means it needs a POV tag..Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 19:32, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The incidents within Israel(Bedouin theft of property resulting in Israeli killings, resulting in vendettas, etc..) is already mentioned. What is the specific change you want introduced with regards to the second set of tracks? Please focus on content, not editors, and stop interjecting what you think about my motivations into the Talk page. NoCal100 (talk) 19:39, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've mentioned Bedouin attacks but forgotten the Israeli attacks on Bedouin and then the 30,000 ethnic cleansing post war, little things like gang rapes for 'unarmed infiltration', the sort of things that got Bedouin angry..Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 21:20, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

what is the change you are proposing to make to address what you see as a POV presentation? NoCal100 (talk) 00:22, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ashley, are you trying to claim that the Ma'ale Akrabim massacre was somehow justified by these unreferenced accusations that you are making here? Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:43, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • So now you want references on the talk pages?UN Doc S/PV.630 of 27 October 1953. Now the tit for tat cycle of violence is fully reference.
  • Tundra are you trying to ignore a cycle of violence? I don't claim any justification for Ma'ale Akrabim but also none for Qibya, Nahhalin, Beit Jala, Bureij etc etc etc. I do think that cutting someone's manhood off and skinning his buttocks after shooting him 15 times [Morris, Border Wars, p 183] was not conducive to a stable border or would this quieten down the border: Four Israeli policemen rape a Palestinian “infiltrator”, Khadija Bint Suliman Hussein of the West Bank village of Qatana at the Agu Gosh police station where she was being held. She was caught picking fruit in a grove that her family owned.[Benny Morris, Israel's Border Wars, 1949-1956: page 180]. Altogether between 2,700 and 5,000 'infiltrators' were killed in the period 1949-1956, the great majority of whom were unarmed.[3]. And how about the infiltrators who were not infiltrators:-The following year, on 13 January 1952, a nine man IDF patrol seized two Arab villagers, Abdullah Ahmad dagash and Ibrahim Khalil, in a field 300 metres inside Jordan, near Cremisan, and led them back into Israel. Two of the soldiers then murdered the Arabs in a house in the abandoned village of Walaja. The two Israelis subsequently told the UN investigators that the ‘infiltrators’ had been killed inside Israeli territory when they had jumped out from behind a rock. The UN men and Jordanian cross-examiners were unable to shake the Israelis’ testimony. The Israeli MAC delegate, Major Shmuel Nutuv, who knew the facts, privately averred that the patrol had not been acting under orders and that ‘the Jordanians guessed the truth but are unsure about it.’[Morris Border wars p 183]

References to blogs? Are you suggesting that every act of violence or war documented on wiki be presented with "background" in terms of provocation, revenge etc? The articles would be endless, and very much WP:OR. Each incident must really be addressed in itself, without POV background justification (unless the attack is specifically referred to by the perpetrators as "revenge" for something in particular). Great fleas have little fleas upon their backs to bite 'em, And little fleas have lesser fleas, and so ad infinitum. And the great fleas themselves, in turn, have greater fleas to go on; While these again have greater still, and greater still, and so on. It is endless. Tundrabuggy (talk) 17:50, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

what is the change you are proposing to make to address what you see as a POV presentation? NoCal100 (talk) 14:12, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Get the idea that 'it was Jordan what done it' put into perspective.
  2. Put the incident into context. and not as though it occurred in a vacuum.
  3. put the minority perspective as the minority perspective. (believe it or not Israel's perspective was the minority)...
  4. I propose using even more sources...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 14:31, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let's stop with the generalities. what is the specific change - a sentence you what added or deleted - that you think needs to be made? NoCal100 (talk) 14:49, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I'm not a deletionist.
  2. on aftermath (very POV wording of that section title), ending of restraint and restart of retaliatory policy needs working on.
  3. Historical significance, if you want to keep that then the whole retaliatory list should also be included to show the patent absurdity of such a glib statement.
  4. Why remove references to the second set of tracks? The Jordanian aid should be noted as should the Israeli refusal to look for tracks to the west. The number of tracks leading east is missing (only 5 or 6 out of a group of 10 or 11).
  5. You started the article you should at least try to get it completed to a reasonable standard...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 19:11, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
what is the specific change - a sentence you what added or deleted - that you think needs to be made? If you do not address this question I will remove the POV tag. NoCal100 (talk) 19:27, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The areas that the article needs working on are as above.... When the works done I mark it, if it is satisfactory I'll remove the tag. If the work is not done then the POV tags stays....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 21:46, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You don't run wikipedia, nor own this article, and it is not up to youto approve of it, or deem it "satisfactory". What is the specific change - a sentence you what added or deleted - that you think needs to be made? If you do not address this question I will remove the POV tag. NoCal100 (talk)`

Unsourced statement

[edit]

The background section currently has the statement 'The barbaric murder and mutilation by Israeli forces of 5 Shepherds (one as a 13 year old boy) caused blood feuds and vendettas' The reference to this is p. 184 of Benny Morris's , Israel's Border Wars, 1949-1956 ISBN 0198292627, Oxford University Press. That page, as can be seen here, does not make that claim. Specifically, it does not claim the incident 'caused blood feuds and vendettas', nor does it refer to it as a 'barbaric murder and mutilation by Israeli forces'. As it is unsourced, I will remove it. NoCal100 (talk) 00:37, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"The barbaric murder and mutilation" part is editorializing by a wiki editor, nor is there any mention of this "causing blood feuds and vendettas", as NoCal points out above. In fact the footnote to the incident comments that " The Jerusalem Post of 3 March(1953) described the story as Arab 'propaganda', and suggested that one of the shepherds had been armed. It does appear that the sentence has been re-inserted (reverted) into the article at this point. I am not sure what encyclopedic purpose is achieved by including it. Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:31, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
exactly the same reason as pointing out that there was border tensions caused by tit for tat raids counter raids. encyclopaedic means including all...or is encyclopaedic to now have the meaning of size of a booklet?...No definitely means comprehensive...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 11:48, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
the statement is not sourced - it does not appear in the reference you gave. source it, or it is out. NoCal100 (talk) 14:11, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The statement is not un-sourced as you are try to suggest it is one of many incidents that Morris has chose to list in a whole long line of tit for tat raids and counter raids which proved to be counter productive in that it produced a spiralling cycle of violence of blood feuds and vendettas...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 14:37, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The statement is unsourced. The reference given does NOT say anything about this incident causing blood feuds or vendettas. It needs to be sourced or it will be removed. NoCal100 (talk) 14:43, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The statement is perfectly sourced read the whole chapter on retaliatory raids by Morris...In Morris you will find many quotes on how counter productive the retaliatory raids were from US ambassadors etc etc. The whole chapter is about the spiralling escalation in the cycle of violence. I've just chosen one of many incidents to represent the whole chapter...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 18:43, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the reference given - p. 184 of Morris - does not support what is claimed. I am removing it. NoCal100 (talk) 19:15, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Page ban

[edit]

Per the discretionary sanctions authorized by Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles, Ashley kennedy3 (talk · contribs) has been banned from editing the Ma'ale Akrabim massacre article, and this talkpage, until January 19, 2009.[4] If this ban is violated, please contact me or any other administrator, or post a request at the Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard. Thanks, and let me know if you have any questions, --Elonka 22:08, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

spell check

[edit]

I put a copy editing tag, but was removed in bad faith (see the edit summary) by Brewcrewer. The tag was put because there is a significant number of spelling and grammar errors that need fixing and I had no time to do so, and actually no inclination. I will fix them, and that will be that. Had Brewcrewer bothered to check the article he would have noticed these errors, and possibly fixed himself, instead of launching uncivil attacks. Oy!--Cerejota (talk) 21:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the article but was unable to find any misspellings. Surely you're not referring to the British-variety English that shouldn't be "corrected" per WP:ENGVAR. In any case, I'm looking forward to your substantive improvements to the article. Best,--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Actually I eat my words: my spell checker was not set to auto-recognize British spellings. Total Brain Fart. I do apologize, but please try to assume a little good faith. The tag was not a content tag but a wikifairy tag.--Cerejota (talk) 21:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, Cerejota. I really do apologize for not assuming that your spellchecker was not set correctly, but the fiasco regarding the placement of irrelevant tags at roof knocking is still fresh in my memory. In the future, I will try to assume good faith when you place incorrect tags on articles. Best,--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I wouldn't have blame you if they were content tags, but edit warring over "copy edit"? SHit I wwould have reported myself to 3RR... this article is pretty decent. Maybe the WP:WTA admonition on one man's terrorist being another's freedom fighter migth apply, but for an WP:ARBPIA violence article, pretty decent. Hell, fix those WTA, a little more balance in sourcing (ie the New Historians view this event slightly different than do the "Old Historians") and I'll nominate it for GA. I promise.
That said am not ocming to edit, this barely qualifies as military history... more like land piracy, a bedouin specialty until oil was developed in Saudi Arabia. I only do the apartheid article and those about wars: I stay on the kiddie side of the cesspool. Not the deep POV articles about Mosques-on-top-of-Chruches-on-Top-of-Synagogues-on-top-of-Caanite-Temples or obscure villages where 18 year olds fired sten guns with ammo manufactured via lipstick machine at some goats that led to a reprisal attack by 17 year old Druzes against Jordanian olive growers using bows and arrows. :D--Cerejota (talk) 22:07, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

references

[edit]

Some references are long text. Those direct quotation should be stored in the talk page archive, and the references given to the document, and possibyt the page/paragraph. It makes the references hard to read. This is done in many other articles.--Cerejota (talk) 05:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. This is not Wikisource. Many of the refs are the same link, and should be consolidated. -- Nudve (talk) 06:17, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Usually when quoting long documents, we do use multiple references to the same link, specifying page number and paragraph of a given edition. So I am not sure consolidation is needed, but definitely this needs work, preferably by whoever put the sourcing (you know, so it isn't controversial). Its wikifairy crap.--Cerejota (talk) 14:50, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Without the footnotes (not references) the nuances applicable to the event would be lost. In this case the extensive footnotes are required.Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 14:05, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

[edit]

The text in the last section (Suspected perpetrator(s)) of the infobox doesn't look very consistent.

  • though it's without any line break there are three "By ..."
  • I don't understand the third claim "UN Bedouin ..." and I don't see any source for that claim.

--Túrelio (talk) 07:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Ma'ale Akrabim massacre. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 06:34, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ma'ale Akrabim massacre. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 03:52, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jordanian casualties

[edit]

The cited source lists no such number ("629 killed and injured from Israeli incursions"). The table at the bottom lists only 8 deaths under Jordan's allegation for "June 1949 through 1952" and 11 for "1 January through 15 October 1953". Even if all the other figures (presumably injured) are added up there is nowhere near 600.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ma%27ale_Akrabim_massacre&oldid=1252384096"