Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:45, 23 March 2007

Expansion

This article badly needs to be expanded. If we compare this to the article 'Deir Yassin massacre', the difference is striking. Please join in and expand. --Daniel575 | (talk) 14:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Survivor accounts

There is nothing wrong with the account of Rabbi Kaplan. If anybody minds the site which it is hosted on, I will place it on my own site and link to that. That solves that problem. All survivor accounts are welcome, whether they are pro-Zionist or anti-Zionist. I believe the account by Rabbi Kaplan to be fully factual and correct. If anybody disagrees, they are welcome to add other survivor accounts also. But deleting this one merely because it does not portray the Zionists in a positive light is crazy. It was written by a very well-respected rabbi who later became the head of one of the biggest Jewish girl's schools in New York. His religious views on Zionism are not controversial either, they are held by hundreds of thousands of other Haredi Jews. --Daniel575 | (talk) 14:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Can you provide a reliable source for his quotation ? Amoruso 14:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

As it says, it is a transcript from a speech he held in Yiddish. I have spoken to people who knew him. He died a while ago. The speech can be found on several websites, and is well known in Haredi circles. There is nothing unreliable about it. There are also German and Dutch translations of it around. --Daniel575 | (talk) 14:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok. now, I propse deleting this . And have a "see also" for 1929 riots. :

The other major centers of violence were in Safed, where 18 Jews were killed in a brief attack.

During the week of riots, the fatalities were:

Killed: 133 Jews, 116 Arabs.

Wounded: 339 Jews, 232 Arabs.

Amoruso 14:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

"Rabbi Kaplans tape is available in the Otzer Emunah Tape Library of Monsey: (845)426-6812" Or go to Rabbi Kaplan's family, they run the Beis Yaakov of Boro Park, where he was the principle. Now - what do you propose deleting? --Daniel575 | (talk) 14:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Added a 'see also'. --Daniel575 | (talk) 14:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

"The next Friday, 23 August, Arabs, inflamed by rumors that two Arabs had been killed by Jews, started an attack on Jews in the Old City." Which Old City? Jerusalem or Hebron? Needs to be clarified. The current link 'Old City' redirects to 'Jerusalem's Old City walls'. If we are talking about the Old City of Hebron, this is incorrect. --Daniel575 | (talk) 14:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I want to delete the section about the riots elsewhere (it's not the place, it should only be in the 1929 riots article), not the quote. About the old city, it's jerusalem, maybe should also be deleted. Amoruso 14:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Survivor Accounts Part Deux

I think Kaplan account, particularly the characterization that the "Zionists are to blame" is irrelevant to the 1929 Hebron Massacre itself. This is not an article about Zionism. Its an article about a historical event. --Meshulam 19:09, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

It is about the reasons for what happened. The background. Everything that happened. Delete this and we delete the whole article. And, indeed the Zionists are to blame for it, as he explains. Also, note that this is not just 'some idiot' or so, but the founder and long-time director of the largest BY of Boro Park. --Daniel575 | (talk) 21:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

The issue isn't his credibility. The issue is the relevance of his statement that the Zionists are at fault. That kind of theological argument has nothing to do with the event itself. Your statement "delete this and we delete the while article" is rather strange. The event exists in isolation, though there might have been historical factors that contributed to its occurrence. The opinions of one person regarding the theological implications of the event after the fact don't have anything to do with the event itself. I'm seeking a consensus. Right now there are only the two of us. Perhaps someone else will chime in and break the tie. --Meshulam 22:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

People, let's keep the original version. Daniel has been polite and very productive on the article - Meshulam , he's the one who pushed the article to be created and he wants to show all the arab atrocities and so on - he's not against the zionists. He just wanted to bring this account. He himself is the one who added the disagreement sentence which shows good faith from him. This section will be expanded So think about it as 1 account in what will become 10 or more - this person too is entitled to his opinion. Let's not fight over this. One person saying it doesn't make it true Meshulam and it says that others disagree with him. It's only cited as an account, not as something with great importance, and it's NPOV . Amoruso 00:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The issue was relevance, not POV. I care little about Daniel's motives. It is the relevance of certain statements that I question. Regardless, a consensus has been met (in the absence of any other opinions). I'm willing to go along with it. --Meshulam 03:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I am against the Zionists, Amoruso. But on religious grounds only. I am an Israeli and a Jew, and I am a realist. On religious grounds I am strongly anti-Zionist. I am convinced that Rav Kaplan's account of the background of what happened is the most correct one. And correct- there should be at least 10 accounts. Many people did survive and I am sure that there are many survivor accounts. We should have more of them. Having few is not a reason to exclude one of them. If you don't like what this survivor says, bring stories of other survivors, instead of censoring this one. --Daniel575 | (talk) 07:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Daniel, you changed the line even though this was the original line you wrote (I think) . I think "many" is now also not balanced, i'll propose something else. Amoruso 07:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

btw, I also think Kaplan is correct in the sense that the attacks occured mostly because of Zionism. If jews had no national aspirations and would have been polite and nice enough to the Arabs then pogroms would happen from time to time but probably not something like this. Arabs generally accept Jews living as dhimmi and as what many will perceive as humiliated. Amoruso 08:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I have no desire to censor. But I think this is more than an account per se. Rather, this is retroactive opinion mongering on the part of someone who is really in no better position to assess the theological aspects of the situation than you or myself. I would like to see some accounts, as in what happened at that time! It is clear that you know more than I do about the 1929 massacres. Perhaps you should find some accounts.--Meshulam 18:15, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I will add more accounts... but it's all very time consuming you know. Btw, interestingly, Meir Kahane agreed that this massacre occured because of Zionism - because the Arabs' refusal for any recognition of a Jewish political state, of any power. This is on youtube. Thing is, Kaplan believes this to be some revelation that diminishes the evilness of the Arabs and I think not. The murders are evil regardless of the Arabs' motives. Obvioiusly SOME motive exists with every murder. Amoruso 04:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to dedicate an entire section of this article to Kaplan, other than to promote a certain POV. ←Humus sapiens 08:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

This article comes across with a strong "Arabs were murderous and hated the Jews" sub-text.

It may be normal to write in this fashion in some parts of the world, but in western nations it will tend to be seen as expressing "racist hatred", and its presence in the encyclopedia will look like a considerable demerit.

If bitterness has to be included, then it is of the utmost importance to include clear mention of the other sources putting the trouble down to aggressive immigrants, not native Jews. (Kaplan comes across as pretty credible, he's by no means alone in his attitude).

PalestineRemembered 16:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Correct. I placed it back. With that, the tags are also gone. I hope the article remains normal, now. --Daniel575 | (talk) 18:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

One fringe opinion (even if corresponds to your own) doesn't make it "normal". See WP:NPOV#Undue weight. ←Humus sapiens 09:31, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

The issue of the Kaplan account has been discussed too many times. There was already a consensus on it: the statement goes in like Daniel wants. Lets not have edit wars about it. Furthermore, the statement "some people agree, some do not" that appears in the article (and, for some reason, has a citation needed tag) is silly. Obviously people can disagree about something, we don't need a statement confirming that fact after every controversial account or opinion reported. --Meshulam 04:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

In the latest version I made a compromise and left a part of the text about Kaplan. However, JAZ website does not comply with WP:RS requirements. Please bring reliable encyclopedic sources. ←Humus sapiens 11:28, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

This matter has been discussed and decided. You can't unilaterally change the article. You have not indentified what is wrong with the JAZ site. Since this matter has already been decided on by a consensus, and since there is a consensus here now that has affirmed the previous consensus, I'm going to ask that you repsect that consensus instead of unilaterally changing the article.--Meshulam 15:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

JewsAgainstZionism is not neutral, but the municipality of Hebron (ie, the Zionist settlers there), a journalist from Kiryat Arba and the organization 'Professors for a Strong Israel' are reliable sources? The only fitting answer to such a claim is one that I as a religious person shall not write down. I can, however, hint that it relates to the rear part of the body. --Daniel575 | (talk) 21:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Humus, you are refusing to answer. We need to keep this discussion in ONE PLACE, in ONE SECTION, instead of talking past each others noses in different sections. --Daniel575 | (talk) 12:12, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Further, Rabbi Weissmandl, the link to whose article you are continuously deleting, is not some kind of 'NK' extremist. You can check the article about him: Chaim Michael Dov Weissmandl. "Results 1 - 10 of about 2,070 for "Chaim Michael Dov Weissmandl". (0.39 seconds)" Also see here. Your continuous deleting of that link constitutes vandalism. The fact that his analysis does not follow your lines does not make it invalid, forbidden, or whatever. You can claim that he wasn't there - so what? Was that journalist from Kiryat Arba there? You refuse to answer my question: if you claim JAZ is not reliable, fine. Then on WHAT basis are you going to call those other links reliable?! The current-day Jewish Community of Hebron, a journalist from Kiryat Arba, the website zionism-israel.com (which I have shown on Talk:Haredim and Zionism to contain plain lies), 'Professors for a Strong Israel'? You *do* call those reliable, yet you remove every reference to JAZ because it would not be notable, and you claim that this constitutes NPOV? In that case, the only appropriate response would be one which would get me blocked. --Daniel575 | (talk) 18:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Rabbi Kaplan's words are a primary source, so they are important for anyone doing an honest study of the event

Biased Article

This article appears to me to be pretty biased in pro-jewish/pro-zionist way. No context on why the massacre occurred, but detailed accounts of what was done to the Jews. It seems to me that the debate above about quoting Rabbi Baruch Kaplan is all about obscuring any possible role that the Jewish/Zionist community had in the days leading up to the massacre. Proper context is not irrelevent to the event contrary to Meshulam's claims above.

There is no such thing as pro-jewish/pro-zionist - if you are pro-jewish you are anti-zionist and if you are pro-zionist you are anti-jewish --me

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.84.235.236 (talk) 20:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC).

Agreed. Those who try to hide Rabbi Kaplan's testimony do so in a false attempt to hide the fact that the Zionists are the ones responsible for what happened. --Daniel575 | (talk) 22:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

It is not fact, but an opinion, a condescending, racist and offensive opinion. As if the Arabs are little children, easily provoked and irresponsible for their own actions. Adults should take responsibility for their actions. Equality please. ←Humus sapiens 09:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Humus, I don't think that is a good case. We should be dispassionately reporting what the opinions of eyewitnesses were, not arguing whether those opinions were good, bad or ugly. --Zero 23:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

The passage is not "dispassionately reporting what the opinions of eyewitnesses" and does not describe the event - it assigns blame and promotes POV. And its sours is not a WP:RS. ←Humus sapiens 23:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

The causes of the event are clearly a reasonable thing in include. Concerning that there are multiple opinions: British, Arab, Zionist authorities, victims. A perfect article would record all of them, don't you think? Also the source is a fine source for what the anti-Zinoist Jewish opinion was. Nobody is proposing it be treated as the ultimate truth on the event itself. --Zero

Either the section remains, or the article will be permanently marked POV and disputed. I will not agree or succumb to Zionist POV pushing on this article. Some people will surely find his comments offensive. Just like I find all Zionist opinions offensive and racist. I am not deleting other testimonies from the article either. Not everyone agrees with your view, accept that. I am reverting once more to my last version. If you again remove the section, the article will be permanenently labeled POV and Disputed. --Daniel575 | (talk) 09:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

You mean labeled POV, it has nothing to do with disputed. You know, WH questions. I don't think the article deals with the WHY anyway, so it's not POV either, but certainly your objections doesn't deal with the what. Amoruso 10:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

The truthful nature of the article is disputed, if that section is again removed. As I have said before, I am not going to allow a Zionist take-over of this article. All viewpoints have to be presented. You don't like this testimony? Fine, then find others which you do like and add them, instead of deleting this one. What he writes is true and according to many others who were involved - such as the son of a survivor I have personally spoken to a few months ago - rabbi Kaplan's account is completely correct. --Daniel575 | (talk) 13:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

For content issue, see WP:NPOV#Undue weight. For that attitude, see WP:OWN. ←Humus sapiens 22:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

It would be better to have a solid third-party report, but this opinion should be represented somehow (I'm not necessarily supporting the offered version). A considerable part of the Jewish community in Hebron were anti-Zionist Jews who blamed the Zionists for the animosity between the Jews and the Arabs. That is a true feature of the story that is almost always suppressed. We should not be arguing about whether the fact that this opinion was held should be included, but only about how to include it. --Zero 23:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Correct. The vast majority of those killed were yeshiva students, like Rabbi Kaplan. If you want to know the truth of what happened, ask the other yeshiva students. The Zionist version of it is completely twisted to fit their view of the world. Ask the ones who represent the yeshiva world. --Daniel575 | (talk) 08:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

The traumatized and victimized people are not the best source for encyclpoedic information. Please do not use the tragedy to promote your POV. ←Humus sapiens 23:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that traumatized victums can make poor witnesses, but this opinion that Daniel575 wants to include is not derived from their trauma. It was the opinion extant in the community already. Already in the 1880s it was a common (if not majority) opinion of the haredim in Palestine that the Zionists were causing trouble between the Arabs and the Jews. I don't see any reason to suppress it. On the other hand, I'd much prefer to be able to cite an independent source (I'm looking). --Zero 07:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

This article is a wrong place for analysis of Jewish attitudes since 1880s and using this tragedy is wrong to promote a scandalous website such as JAZ. ←Humus sapiens 10:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

That as well as the fact that the reversions adding it also seem to cut out other facts does not seem proper. Tewfik 14:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The Kaplan quote if from an unreliable source and is not so much an eyewitness account as a religio-political polemic. Those who insist that information from historians like Shmuel Katz should be kept out of Israel-related articles should be working twice as hard to keep this kind of stuff out. Jayjg 22:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

It would be good to use only peer-reviewed sources, but even they are routinely deleted, e.g., . --Ian Pitchford 22:30, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Thad diff odes not show any source which was deleted. Perhaps you are a little confused. Isarig 23:23, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I apologise to Jay. This example is much clearer: . --Ian Pitchford 19:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

There needs to be some mention of Rabbi Kaplan's opinion because this massacre is always used by zionists to proove their opinions, there needs to be representation of this view as well. if you can find a peer review document that brings this view than place it instead, but until then the article should stayBobover1 00:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Some Jews survived by hiding in their Arab neighbors' houses

What shtussim and lokshen kugul!! Who hid in an arab house? What was their name?! Provide a source or this is going out pronto! Chavatshimshon 11:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Mmmmm, kugul! In fact it isn't "some Jews" but "many Jews" and quite a few authors say "most Jews". Here is one source that I happen to have handy. There are many more, including the testimony given by the Hebron Jews to the commission of enquiry (which is all published).

Most of Hebron's Jews were saved because Arabs hid them in their homes. The community confirmed this, writing, "Had it not been for a few Arab families not a Jewish soul would have remained in Hebron." The Zionist Archives preserves lists of Hebron Jews who were saved by Arabs; one list contains 435 names. Over two-thirds of the community, then, found refuge in twenty-eight Arab homes, some of which took in dozens of Jews. "Arabs were hurt defending their neighbors," one Jew testified afterward. Dr. Abdal Aal, an Egyptian doctor, received a letter of gratitude from Colonel Kisch for the assistance he rendered the Jews of Hebron; in addition to the care he gave the wounded, he himself protected an entire family.

--Zero 12:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

When im wrong, im wrong. But next time I'm there I will be on the case. Thanks. Chavatshimshon 12:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure the Jewish settlers of Hebron / Kiryat Arba are an excellent neutral source for you to get information. *cough* --Daniel575 | (talk) 12:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Of course Jews hid in Arab houses. Jews also hid in many Polish houses. It's always like that... There are some good people everywhere. Amoruso 22:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Yellow journalism

Somehow my edit summary got cut off when I removed the newspaper scan. This is pure yellow journalism and adds nothing to the article. --Zero 12:29, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Contemorary newspapers show historical record, and The Baltimore News is not a yellow press. OTOH, you do not seem to have any problem with a clearly unreliable source like JAZ website. ←Humus sapiens 10:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

JAZ does not have any racist language like "Arab Horde Slaughtered Little Children During Mad Orgy" and if it did I would not quote it. And why is it necessary to copy this filth into the image caption when it is clearly legible in the image? --Zero 11:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Are you trying to apply the 21st century political correctness to a 1929 event? Even though I think it is OK to reflect contemporary reports as historical evidence, I made a compromise and removed from the caption all but the big letters header. Now I'd like to see my opponents remove JAZ as an unreliable source. If Kaplan is so notable, there should be no problem with sources. ←Humus sapiens 12:09, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

If the Baltimore News quoted an eye-witness to the massacre speaking of "Arab hordes", then that would be acceptable (if there is some information content). I don't claim the Baltimore News is an unreliable source, nor do I believe that eye-witness reports should be censored. However the lurid headlines were just hysterical prose that some editor in Baltimore made up. Daniel575 is not trying to quote headlines from JAZ or even editorial comment from them. He is trying to directly quote the words of an eye-witness as reported by JAZ. Given that the witness was a member of the community that JAZ represents, there is no reason to believe that the report of his words is unreliable. In summary, I don't agree that there's a symmetry. However, I won't delete the image with the new caption, thanks for changing it. --Zero 12:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

JAZ does not qualify as WP:RS and therefore cannot be relied upon and should be removed. Do you stand for upholding WP policies or your POV? ←Humus sapiens 04:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Correct, Zero. Regarding HS, I will no longer respond to this blind bigot. I have asked him NUMEROUS TIMES to defend his position, which considers 'zionism-israel.com', a journalist from Kiryat Arba and the 'Jewish Community of Hebron' (meaning, extreme-right wing Israeli settlers) 'reliable sources', but meanwhile attacks JAZ as not being a 'reliable source'. Whenever I ask him this - read this talk page - he just ignores it. --Daniel575 | (talk) 08:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Even if I were to accept JAZ as an RS, what does the Kaplan quote actually add? Is he saying that the 'Zionists' somehow started the riots, or in some other way challenging what happened? Tewfik 16:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the JAZ material; aside from its many other issues, it's not a reliable source, the claims listed there are not verifiable, so it cannot be used here. Jayjg 16:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)