Talk:1660 destruction of Safed

1660 Safed massacre
17th century Palestine/Israel is far outside my area of special knowledge, but the sources here are highly partisan and do not represent particular expertise on the subject matter at hand. They may not constitute reliable sources on the issue. One specialist history of the period, disagrees in large measure with the information presented here. Specifically from page 368 (see Google books):
 * "The reports about the utter destruction, in 1662, of the Jewish settlement there [in Safed] seem greatly exaggerated, and the conclusions based on them are false. … the community declined in numbers but continued to exist … A very lively account of the Jewish community is given by French trader d'Arvieux who visited Safed in 1660. [etc.]"

This should be an example of why reliance on tertiary sources who touch lightly on a subject, often in a sentence or two, tends to amplify misunderstandings into facts. Expert guidance might help to clarify the situation.--Carwil (talk) 00:31, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Of course anti-semitic people want to cover up the crimes Arabs/Muslims committed against the indigenous Jewish population of Israel. It seems that wikipedia is full of anti-semites and genocide sympathizers. For example, my own family had to immigrate to South America in 1834 due to the Safed Plunder yet Arabs/Muslims will claim these events didn't happen and that Arabs/Muslims treated the indigenous Jews well. It's so sad there are so many hateful people out there that want to hide these crimes against humanity. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:31, 30 March 2011 (UTC).
 * I have extreme doubt that Gershom Gerhard Scholem is an antisemite. Further, I have no objection to covering this event, just to covering it inaccurately or with an overt POV. Address the issue and improve the sources, please.--Carwil (talk) 21:01, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I edited the article to remove one self published source and one non-historical work published by a Bible and Christian publisher. That leaves just the reference to From Time Immemorial, which was pretty much denounced by critics (including Israeli historians) as ranging somewhere between gross incompetence and purposeful falsehood. I also found that histories of Safed in the Jewish Virtual Library and on the web site of the Israeli city of Safed itself make no mention of a 1660 massacre. Neither does our article on Safed. Jonathanwallace (talk) 05:22, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

It should be noted that Gershom Gerhard Scholem makes this statement introducing several pages of detailed discussion of Kabbalah scholars and Jewish faithful in Safed in the Sabbatai movement in the years 1665 and onwards.--Carwil (talk) 18:48, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Removal of RS
We have multiple sources citing a massacre or pogrom, and the one you added saying it was exaggerated. Conflicting sources doesn't mean you flip a coin and choose one over the other, you show all sources so the reader can decide the strength or weakness. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:52, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * This article began with a serious over-reliance on tertiary sources, contrary to policy: see WP:PRIMARY. The issue is not exaggeration, but verifiability, and sources which devote half a sentence to this event are not really reliable for describing it.--Carwil (talk) 12:05, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

The only tertiary source is the encyclopedia. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:44, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Unreliable sources
I don't want to get into an edit war, but most of the sources you keep adding to the article are not reliable. Dolan is not a reliable source for disputed historical fact--his publisher B&H specializes in Bibles and Christian tracts and has no reputation for independent historical works. From a press release on the B&H web site: “B&H exists to impact the world with the truth of the gospel,” Hunt said. “Publishing is moving faster and faster toward the digital realm and this trend will help us take the message of God’s Word to the world.” Also, the Thoedor Herzl Foundation is a Zionist organization and not reliable for the assertion that a massacre by Arabs occurred in 1660. Finally, using snippet views on Google book searches is disfavored in citing sources here, as vital and contradictory information may be missed. Jonathanwallace (talk) 06:57, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * T. Nelson is the publisher of the Dolan book. I know of no Wikipedia rule that says we cannot use the publications of the Thoedor Herzl Foundation for the history of Palestine. The source you added has the exact same information, so why is one biased and the other not biased? When sources disagree you put them side by side so the reader can decide, not flip a coin and choose one over the other. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:08, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I am saying that in order to have an article with a lede saying Arabs murdered Jews in Safed in 1660, you should be able to cite one respected independent historian who says that. You don't have that now. Zionist sources (of which Jacob de Haas was also one) are not independent on this issue. At best the article if retained needs to be retitled something like "Dispute about 1660 massacre". Jonathanwallace (talk) 07:12, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * All of history is written by biased people, bias is human nature. All information is filtered through a human brain which distorts objective reality. I don't think we need to see which author is circumcised and which isn't. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:27, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:REDFLAG says that "Exceptional claims require high quality sources". You don't have a single actual professional historian who says a massacre occurred in Safed in 1660. T. Nelson, by the way, also identifies itself on its web site as a Christian inspirational publisher. Doesn't it concern you our article on Safed doesn't make the claim? Why don't you try adding it there and see what happens? By the way, I am Jewish myself (not that it should be really relevant) and am working very hard here to make sure we have a careful, neutral encyclopedia. I have posted all of your sources at the reliable source noticeboard, so please join us over there for discussion. Jonathanwallace (talk) 07:40, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You are confusing your own standards with Wikipedia standards. God or Thor or Zeus do not have to actually exist to have an article on them. We also do not need historians or scientists to bless UFOs or Yetis or ESP to have articles on them. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:43, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Also the Jewish Encyclopedia article on Safed says nothing about the massacre and should therefore be removed as a source from the main article--your snippet view was apparently incorrect. Jonathanwallace (talk) 13:58, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yet there it is. If Richard Nixon meets Elvis and it isn't in Richard Nixon's biography but it does appear in Elvis' biography, does that mean it did not occur? You are arguing about the evidence of absence, a logical fallacy. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:35, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I am saying that the snippet view you cited is incorrect and that the encyclopedia apparently does not say what you cite it for Consensus on the reliable sources noticeboard is that snippet views shouldn't be used as sources for exactly this reason. Jonathanwallace (talk) 15:39, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Dude, at this point you are not making sense at all. There is no "snippet" involved, the 1912 Jewish Encyclopedia has the full text available online. Me quoting the exact line of text is not a "snippet" it is me quoting the exact reference. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:47, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I was mistaken about that one. Please watch your tone. We are all in good faith here. I am not trying to keep properly sourced information out of Wikipedia, just doing my part to clean up after an editor who created a half dozen articles in two days with a severe POV problem all of which were sourced to blogs and self published polemics. Jonathanwallace (talk) 17:55, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Coatrack
According to Joan Peters in From Time Immemorial, a historical work the accuracy of which was disputed by Norman Finkelstein and many other critics, the Jewish community of Safed, under Ottoman rule, was massacred by Arabs in 1660.


 * None of the sources call it a pogrom. That is complete synthesis. Jonathanwallace (talk) 07:34, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * How did you go from saying there are no reliable sources and the article needs to be deleted to saying: "None of the sources call it a pogrom". You seem to discard references and then embrace them in the space of a breath of air. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:27, 1 April 2011 (UTC)


 * You seem to be taking this personally. Again, I was just responding to the overnight creation of a half dozen articles by an editor (Chasteroue, who as far as I know is not associated with you) with a self-proclaimed agenda, sourced to blogs and self published sources. There is nothing inconsistent in my statement, which I will rephrase as "The unreliable sources cited do not even refer to this as a pogrom. So you are synthesizing unreliable sources to get to that name." Anyway, you agreed with me before, so why is this coming up now?Jonathanwallace (talk) 02:46, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, massacre it stays. Good call. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:44, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Further evidence of absence…
From on p. 14:
 * In the middle of the seventeenth century Tiberias was destroyed as a result of the incessant wars, and its Jewish community was dispersed. In the second half of the seventeenth century the Jewish presence in Palestine dwindled, and the Jewish presence in the Galilee also shrank. Only in Safed was there a small community.

Hope this helps.--Carwil (talk) 22:21, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Further close sourcing
It turns out that there is an underlying event with at least some mildly specific historical writing on it. To begin with, however, the relevant event occurred in 1662 (as GGS mentioned) and appears to have been a general raid on the town as a whole. From :
 * thirty to forty years later, the French traveller Roger mentions 200 Jewish and 100 Moslem houses, elsewhere in his book putting the number of Jews at 4,000 persons. According to the Turkish traveller Evlia Chelebi there were about 1,300 Jewish houses, although he probably meant families. It seems, therefore, that at about the middle of the XVIIth century there were some 4000 to 5000 Jews in Safed. The position deteriorated still further later in the century. In 1662, Safed and Tiberias were destroyed in a raid by Druzes from the Lebanon, and the inhabitants fled to the adjacent villages, to Sidon or to Jerusalem (p. 62)

This is the best I can do with Google book's snippet viewer. It seems pretty clear that the inhabitants returned from adjacent villages. This is far from the only trauma in Safed documented in this text, including a 1584 famine, epidemics, and other turmoil. Suggest we merge this material back to Safed and try to do it well there unless there is a more in-depth treatment to justify notability.

Pure speculation: the destruction of the physical town turned in some text to the destruction of the community, and was picked up by further sources as the destruction of the Jewish community in Safed, which also at some point became a massacre of Jews. Also 1662 morphed to 1660 (perhaps to 1660s along the way). --Carwil (talk) 18:14, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Destruction of town was probably the same as the destruction of the community (dispersed), however as you say it might have somehow become "massacre" in the words of unprofessional sources (we don't know how many died in the destruction, but no featured RS say massacre).Greyshark09 (talk) 06:51, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit identifying Zionist sources
I made an edit identifying the two remaining sources asserting the "near total destruction" as Zionist authors. Jacob de Haas was an early Zionist leader who (per our own article on him) served on the Zionist Organization propaganda committee. He was not a credentialed historian and I think his "History of Palestine" should clearly be understood as a work of advocacy. The Theodore Herzl foundation also describes itself as a Zionist organization and as promoting the Zionist idea on its web site and mentions the Safed events in a single sentence, in passing, without any references. I am not sure that either of these sources should stand as a reliable historical source pertaining to the murder of one population by another. However, identifying them as Zionist at least puts their assertions in context for the reader.

I was also unable to verify that de Haas actually asserts the destruction of Safed. His work is cited (without a page reference) for this proposition on numerous polemical blogs, but did anyone actually verify this in the work itself? I note there is currently nothing in ref tags and no page number given for the de Haas citation. I was unable to turn up a citation in Google Books (which only gives limited snippets of the work) and a pdf of the entire book available on the Kobo site failed to download properly. I will probably delete the de Haas reference at some point in the next few weeks unless someone can verify it. Jonathanwallace (talk) 12:04, 10 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I tracked back through the article history and found there was originally a citation to page 345 of de Haas, which I re-added to the article. Following the link given however, produces a Google Books snippet which says nothing about the destruction of Safed. So I stand by my suggestion that the ref be deleted unless someone can verify it from the full text. Jonathanwallace (talk) 12:37, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Here's more assembled from the snippets (you have to know the right search terms to get the material:
 * The ferment created by Zebi long troubled Palestine, but it is to the credit of Jerusalem that it rejected his claims. Safed, hotbed of mystics, is not mentioned in the Zebi adventure. Its community had been massacred in 1660, when the town was destroyed by Arabs, and only one Jew escaped.
 * In 1652 Ali, Sanjak of Safed, had captured all of Galilee and ruled it with a firm hand. He died in 1658; then civil war broke out in the course of which Safed suffered most. The disturbance was only ended by the Viceroy of Damascus taking Galilee and Nazareth under his personal administration. A struggle for power, which did much local damage, took place in 1675, when the Sultan made the governorship of Gaza hereditary. The Viceroy of Damascus objected to this loss of authority. As he supported his protest with armed force he won his couse, and Palestine remained under Damascus on the old conditions.
 * Not entirely consistent, but clearer. I've checked that the previous and following paragraphs shed no further light on this event.--Carwil (talk) 12:34, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that helps clarify things. Jonathanwallace (talk) 15:32, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

No, this is not appropriate. Let me repeat what I wrote in response to your previous question about this issue, over at WP:RSN: De Haas's "History of Palestine" was published by MacMillan, a mainstream publishing house, and not a 'Zionist organization'. It was reviewed by an academic, peer-reviewed journal (The Jewish Quarterly Review) which is a publication of the University of Pennsylvania Press, that according to its publisher "is the oldest English-language journal in the fields of Jewish studies. Edited at the Center for Advanced Judaic Studies at the University of Pennsylvania, the journal aims to publish the finest work in all areas of Jewish studies." The review of the book found it to be "encyclopedic in content and style" and "valuable as a ready reference book on the history of Palestine." The only fault found in it was that it "attempts to be too complete" and thus "not conducive to making it a popular book". This is clearly a reliable source by our standards. Your personal opinion that it "should clearly be understood as a work of advocacy." does not trump policy. Tzu Zha Men (talk) 23:38, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The salient fact here is that he was not a professional historian and in fact, per our own biography on him, served on the Propaganda Committee of the Zionist Organization. I am not recommending the source be deleted but it has to be carefully handled for neutrality and weight issues. Jonathanwallace (talk) 02:47, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This is from our bio of him: "He was the secretary of the First Zionist Congress and he introduced Theodor Herzl to the UK in the Jewish World newspaper. At the Third Zionist Congress in 1899, he and L. J. Greenberg were elected as members of the Zionist Organization's Propaganda Committee." The Herzl Foundation also calls itself a Zionist organization on its web site. Please explain why you are opposed to identifying them as Zionist in the article? They are advocating what seems to be a view on the incident distinct from the other sources, which may be related to advocacy. If we identify them properly, the reader can decide what to think. Jonathanwallace (talk) 02:52, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * What I am opposed to is the attempt to frame this as "Zionist propaganda" or "Zionist advocacy" vs. "Established historical fact", when our sources don't support such framing - only your personal interpretation of them. I disagree that the "The salient fact here is that he was not a professional historian", I think the salient fact here that his work was peer reviewed by an academic publication of the highest order, and found to be "encyclopedic in content and style" and "valuable as a ready reference book on the history of Palestine." Tzu Zha Men (talk) 00:07, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You are conflating a review with peer review; they are not the same thing. Nor is Macmillan a publisher just of historically accurate peer reviewed works; it also publishes works of argument and advocacy. Finally, I am not arguing that de Haas should be eliminated as not RS; I am saying that someone who served on the Propaganda Committee should be identified as an advocate. It is not neutral and gives undue weight to de Haas if he is not so identified. Jonathanwallace (talk) 00:51, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, no. Macmillan is mainstream publisher, and a reliable source. The specific work in question, de Haas's "History of Palestine" was reviewed  by an academic journal specializing in the subject  matter - The Jewish Quarterly Review. The JQR found it to be "encyclopedic in content and style" and "valuable as a ready reference book on the history of Palestine." The only fault found in it was that it "attempts to be too complete" and thus "not conducive to making it a popular book". This is clearly a reliable source by our standards, and no further qualification of the source is needed - especially when you agree that you would revert, on sight, a similar qualification if applied to a source you apparently approve of. It further makes no sense to identify de Haas as a Zionist ,but not do the same for Scholem, who was also a Zionist. Tzu Zha Men (talk) 20:10, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

De Haas served on the Zionist Org Propaganda Committee and was not a professional historian. Scholem may also be a Zionist but is a professional. Neutrality and the reader are served by the identification. A number of other editors, including Kmkh and Grayshark on this Talk page, and Roscelesce and TFD here question de Haas as a source. Keeping him but neutrally identifying his affiliation is a compromise solution. Jonathanwallace (talk) 20:56, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, well-poisoning by "identifying" the author through the selective use of qualifications that YOU think are relevant is the epitome of NON Neutrality, as evidenced by the fact that you admit you would remove such "identification" were it used on a source you happen to like. Neutrality is served by linking to Jacob de Haas, and letting the reader decide what value we should give his opinion - not by spoon feeding him your editorial comments which serve to say, in effect "don't listen to him- he's a propagandist, vs. this other guy who is a historian". This discussion on RSN concluded with the following words: "The assertions made that justify Jacob de Haas' "unreliability" do no such thing. That he is a Zionist, as mentioned, is neither here nor there in this regard. And it is no indication of "unreliability" that his book was published in 1934 ... His is one of the most in-depth histories of the Palestine region we have. It is often cited by other authorities and is suitable for reference in an encyclopedia." What you are doing now is nothing short of disruptive editing, and if you continue, I will take this to the suitable administrative board. Tzu Zha Men (talk) 23:21, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I will be happy to take this back toWP:RSN for further discussion. Calling it disruptive editing is harsh and adversarial and does not assume good faith. I am trying to do my best by this article, and we have an honest dispute about whether the source belongs here or not. Mine is not a minority view, but was backed by other editors I mentioned above. And I am offering a compromise solution. Truthfully, you have the Jewish Encyclopedia and the council already cited, so you are fighting to make sure a third source of questionable significance stays in the article. Jonathanwallace (talk) 00:42, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Why don't you take it back to WP:RSN, instead of adding this without consensus to the article? Tzu Zha Men (talk) 00:25, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Right now, you are the only one arguing for its retention without mention of his role in the Zionist organization. See the comment Zero just added to "Sources" below. There is significant opinion on this page and from the last RSN posting regarding de Haas which you are unilaterally over-ruling with your reverts. Jonathanwallace (talk) 11:43, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Then I will chime in at this point. It seems to me a double standard to introduce de Haas with the epithet "Zionist" but not do the same in the case of Gershom Scholem – or rather the other way around, to communicate to the reader that Scholem is an impartial historian but de Haas is not. For the sake of consistency, best would be to leave that epithet out for both individuals. Beyond that, though, following the convention at Orientalism and at George Antonius, for example, the name of the historian is not to be prefixed by his or her professional orientation. Edward Said was "a Palestinian American literary theorist and advocate for Palestinian rights"; but when discussing Orientalism, as an author he is simply "Edward Said." The same is true for Antonius. The tone of his writing was sympathetic toward Arab nationalist movements in the twentieth century, but when it comes to characterizing him as a historian, these considerations aren't germane. de Haas has an article of his own. Don't activate the reader's biases by invoking epithets where they're not essential.—Biosketch (talk) 12:42, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * De Haas served on the Propaganda Committee of the Zionist Organization, as our bio of him reveals. If Edward Said had served on the PLO Propaganda Committee, I would also be in favor of identifying him that way. Propaganda is defined as "information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc." Jonathanwallace (talk) 13:06, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Invoking a dictionary definition to describe the function of the ZO's Propaganda Committee is spurious logic. It's like saying that an antisemite is also prejudiced against Arabs because Arabs are Semites. Unless you can prove to me that the Propaganda Committee actually engaged in propaganda, the argument is invalid. In fact, I'm willing to bet that the Propaganda Committee was little more than a public relations division of the ZO. Regardless, though, the contested word is "Zionist," not "member of the Propaganda Committee of the Zionist Organization." There's an attempt in the article to prefix de Haas with the epithet "Zionist"; but here at the Discussion page the argument isn't even about whether or not de Haas was a Zionist – it's about whether he's a credible historian given that he served on the Propaganda Committee of the Zionist Organization. So don't insist on adding "Zionist" anymore when that feature of his identity isn't even the issue.—Biosketch (talk) 14:04, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, in the reverted edit, I identified him as "journalist and early Zionist leader", which is an accurate and respectful description I doubt de Haas would have had any issue with. The neutrality violation here is presenting an advocacy source as if it were an objective historical one. I don't think de Haas really should be cited in the article at all, unless he is described as an advocate. Five other editors have agreed de Haas is problematic. Describing him as a "journalist and Zionist leader" was a proposed compromise solution. Jonathanwallace (talk) 04:58, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That it is 'an advocacy source' is your opinion. On the other hand, we have a reliable, third party academic evaluation of it as "encyclopedic in content and style" and "valuable as a ready reference book on the history of Palestine." Tzu Zha Men (talk) 21:40, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Tzu Zha and Jonathan, i would like you both to agree on a compromise - either to entitle De Haas with a proper description ("journalist and early Zionist leader" was mine and Jonathan's compromise, but we can use another if you both agree upon), but certainly leave him (because it seems to be a WP:RS, occording to WP:VERIFY claims made by Tzu Zha). Anyway, it is much more important to bring Rosanes (Rosanes, Salomon A. Divrei yemei Yisra'el be-Togarmah (History of the Jews in Turkey). Devir publishing, Tel Aviv, 1930), since he might clarify this issue once and for all.Greyshark09 (talk) 07:33, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Anti-Semitism?
The article claims that a community, Safed, which contained a majority of Jews and a minority of Muslims, was destroyed by Druses and that the inhabitants fled. Like some of the other articles originally created by a SPA with a professed agenda of showing Ottoman cruelty to Jews, this article does not clearly describe an attack mounted specifically against a Jewish population because of their identity, but may actually describe a routine raid for plunder or other military advantage of the type which has occurred everywhere in history. Speaking as a Jewish guy who knows anti-Semitism exists but is also interested in hewing to Wikipedia standards of verifiability and neutrality, it seems inappropriate to me, and in fact an act of synthesis to identify this as part of an anti-Semitism category. Jonathanwallace (talk) 12:45, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The only sentence from the above comment that's relevant is, this article does not clearly describe an attack mounted specifically against a Jewish population because of their identity, but may actually describe a routine raid for plunder or other military advantage of the type which has occurred everywhere in history. The rest is personal background and speculative criticism about the article's creator that's a separate matter from the content of the article. What WP:RS is the title 1660 sack of Safed relying on?—Biosketch (talk) 13:36, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Origins of the article are relevant. It began as a badly sourced polemic from a SPA who in about 36 hours contributed five or six of these with a declared motive of proving to the world that Ottoman tolerance of Jews was a crock. This created a tremendous amount of work on the part of other editors to fix all of these articles, some of which have now been deleted while others have been continuously renamed and moved (this one started out as '1660 Safed genocide", has been renamed "pogrom" then "massacre" etc). Although the article has been greatly improved by the addition of more reliable sources, it still seems difficult to determine exactly what happened (if anything) in Safed in 1660 (or 1662). The article despite improvement continues to have major problems--notably the huge anti-Semitism box on the right hand corner with the impressive yellow patch photo which may not belong on this article at all. By the way, I can't answer your question regarding reliable sources for the latest "sack of" title as I didn't pick it. It seems like a more neutral description of what may have happened there than "genocide", "pogrom" or "massacre" though. Jonathanwallace (talk) 14:52, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Some further background on the Druze-Ottoman conflict is now at an expanded Maan family article, including the negative Druze reaction to an Ottoman attempt to increase control over Lebanon and the Galilee through the territorial reorganization of the Safed and Sidon-Beirut districts into the Sidon province in 1660. The Druze, led by this dynasty, appear to have had a century of occasional power struggles and wars with their nominal Ottoman rulers. Plenty of non-antisemitic motives seem to have been at work. Most of the sources mention neither the sack of Safed nor Jews, so it's not technically evidence of absence of antisemitism, but the accusation of antisemitism and the need for a template here seem increasingly dubious.--Carwil (talk) 15:50, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * @, like before, what does the size of and color of the star have to do with whether or not the template belongs in the article? The decision as to whether or not the article is related to antisemitism should be made irrespective of the graphic features of Template:Antisemitism. Anyway, the WP:BOP is on the editor who added the template to the article, so I have no problem with 's bold removal of it pending Discussion. And at the moment I regrettably don't have anything to contribute either way.—Biosketch (talk) 18:14, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Requests for offline sources
I strongly suspect there is sufficient source material out there to clarify this article. I'm leaving this as a place to list suggestions.--Carwil (talk) 14:23, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Page move
Greyshark, please explain why you have moved the page back to "1660 Safed massacre" when none of the sources support the "massacre" claim. Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 15:00, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This originally polemical badly sourced article, originally entitled "1660 Safed genocide" has been renamed and moved several times in search of some kind of neutrality and stability. Since this is essentially a very uncertain historical event (not even mentioned in some histories of Safed and the region), it does not seem to have acquired a standard name which can be adopted as the article title. Since there is some dispute about casualties etc. I agree that "sack" is a more neutral title than "massacre". Jonathanwallace (talk) 15:04, 10 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm thinking perhaps "Sack of Safed (1662)" would be a more elegant solution at this point. Although I'm still yet to be persuaded that the apparently tiny amount of information available for this topic merits a standalone article at all. Gatoclass (talk) 15:36, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The question should be, How do independent third-party sources identify the event? Whether the name is charged or provocative is less of a consideration. If there are more sources that identify the event as a "massacre," then that should be the title. If there are more sources that identify it as a "sack," then it should be that. So far there appear not to be any sources that use "sack." What is the source for "massacre," then?—Biosketch (talk) 18:09, 10 April 2011 (UTC)


 * There were a couple of sources that used the term "massacre" but they were unreliable and I removed them. Most of the sources appear to use the word "destruction", but then the only source we have that goes into any detail argues that the severity of the event has been "greatly exaggerated", so on that basis I thought "Sack" would be a workable compromise. Gatoclass (talk) 18:16, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Are these the sources in question?

—Biosketch (talk) 18:25, 10 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The subject is certainly standing for an article - the 1660 event is described in Jewish sources, even though it wasn't a subject of a serious historic research. The number of sources should not reflect the importance of an event - in this case something happened in Safed around 1660, and the question is what exactly happened. I think there are more sources, perhaps in other languages (Arabic, Turkic, Hebrew).Greyshark09 (talk) 16:29, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Not quite. I left the Herzl Foundation ref in for the time being. The third source I removed was:




 * It's clear from the author's website that he's not a reliable source. Gatoclass (talk) 07:03, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Also, Dolan's publishers are self described charismatic Christian organizations with no history of peer review or fact checking for historical assertions. Jonathanwallace (talk) 15:30, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


 * It doesn't matter what Dolan does, what matters is that he is a journalist, not a Professor of history (or even Dr. of history). A journalist is not a WP:RS on the issues of history. The same applies to all other journalist sources, which try to describe history. In some cases we can rely on that, but here with a lacking information, which is probably tertiary, we should go to primary and secondary academic sources for clear information.Greyshark09 (talk) 16:13, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I see the discussion is already going on. Anyway it is useless to ping-pong the title, even if the current one might not be correct, but the new one might not be correct as well. A consensus should be made according to reliable sources. As you see there is no mainstream version here.Greyshark09 (talk) 16:10, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Given there is no academically or widely accepted name for the incident (which may not even have happened) how about going for something really neutral like "1660 Safed events"? I think we can all agree that in Safed in 1660 some events happened (births, deaths, taxes). The subject of the article is whether the 1660 events included a "massacre". Jonathanwallace (talk) 16:34, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually i see Safed destruction seems starring here among the sources, second place Safed massacre, but no sack of Safed or Safed incident or Safed event. I would like to search for more information on this matter. Let's give it some time and wait for more editor opinions.Greyshark09 (talk) 19:51, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


 * "Massacre" makes the most sense at this time because most of the sources discussing the event have used the term. "Event" sound like the circus came to town so that's a non-starter. "Sack" is also a non-starter for numerous reasons, chiefly because like "event" not one source uses that term.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 00:29, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * "Massacre" isn't used by any of the reliable sources. I should point out that the sources using "destruction" aren't all that good either - the best source available argues that the event is "greatly exaggerated". In those circumstances I still think "Sack" is a worthwhile compromise - although given the apparent poor coverage of this event, it would still be much more appropriate IMO to simply delete this article and add a line or two to Safed. Gatoclass (talk) 05:26, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * We seem to be speaking of different definitions about WP:RS. There are clear guidelines on WP:RS and some of the cited sources are sufficient for WP:VERIFY. It is very supporting evidense that the nearby city of Tiberias was destroyed the same time, but unlike Safed was not resettled. I also propose to create 1660 Tiberias destruction page.Greyshark09 (talk) 17:00, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Gershom Gerhard Scholem writes
 * "In Safed, too, the [Sabbatai] movement gathered strength during the autumn of 1665. The reports about the utter destruction, in 1662 [sic], of the Jewish settlement there seem greatly exaggerated, and the conclusions based on them are false. ... Rosanes' account of the destruction of the Safed community is based on a misunderstanding of his sources; the community declined in numbers but continued to exist ... A very lively account of the Jewish community is given by French trader d'Arvieux who visited Safed in 1660."

Well, he says the event is exaggerated, but never the less he doesn't say "didn't happen". If nearby Tiberias was entirely destroyed and stayed abandoned for decades, Safed was unlikely spared. In addition, how does "1660 lively account" of French trader suggest that the massacre didn't happen later that year or in 1662? On the contrary, we know that Safed population plummetted in 17th century, so something happened between his visit and 1700.

Considering the siege of Safed in 1628 by Druze Emir and consequent looting and massacre, and another looting by Ottoman army in 1633 - it seems that many of the events were caused by the Druze, rather by Muslims. Vaad Leumi places 1660 attack blame on the Druze too, so i'm not sure if category "Anti-Jewish pogroms by Muslims" applies here (unless we take Druze for Muslims, which is disputed).Greyshark09 (talk) 16:57, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * If "reports of the utter destruction of Safed ... seem greatly exaggerated", then that would seem to me to be a pretty good reason to avoid the term "destruction" in the title since it's an absolute term. And I don't know why you are talking about Tiberias - it still exists as a city today, and a 1660 destruction isn't even mentioned in the main article, so it hardly seems as if this was a major event either. Gatoclass (talk) 18:02, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Greyshark, your supposition is incorrect. As I noted above, "Gershom Gerhard Scholem makes this statement introducing several pages of detailed discussion of Kabbalah scholars and Jewish faithful in Safed in the Sabbatai movement in the years 1665 and onwards." Scholem also discusses how kabbalist Ben ha-Levi returned to spend his last ten years in his native city, after having traveled in Italy (1656-59)." There were no decades of disappearance of Safed.–Carwil (talk) 18:47, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * You must have misread my remark, since i said that in 1660 the nearby city of Tiberias was destroyed and abandoned, not Safed.


 * Tiberias destruction in 1660 and consequent decades long abandonment is a good indication that something was going on in the area around 1660 (Druze power struggle), and nearby Safed was probably attacked too as other sources indicate. I think a more clear answer could be found in Druze history articles, but this is sufficient to tell that a serious attack happened in Safed, and the city could have been ruined, but not abandoned. I would not call the event a "destruction of Safed" (misleading), and we don't have a good source to tell how many died in Safed to clearly make it a "massacre of Safed" as some sources say. "Sack of Safed" makes sense, but is not used by the sources. Certainly a dilemma. I would say "Sack of Safed" and "Safed massacre" are the better choice for title, but not ideal.Greyshark09 (talk) 19:35, 13 April 2011 (UTC)


 * We don't have reliable sources using either term, but then, this event doesn't seem to have a name at all as it's too obscure. However, "massacre" is obviously a contentious claim, whereas there seems to be little doubt that the town was plundered, ie, sacked. "Sack" is a word that also usually means widespread killing and destruction, so it seems to me to be the most appropriate term. Although I still think this article would be better merged to Safed, and may make a formal proposal to do so. Gatoclass (talk) 05:14, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Here is another source by Sidney Mendelssohn, "The Jews of Asia: especially in the sixteenth and seventeenth century." (1920) p.241, saying Long before the culmination of Sabbathai's mad career, Safed had been destroyed by the Arabs and the Jews had suffered severely, while in the same year (1660) there was a great fire in Constantinople in which they endured heavy losses.... Here the "culmination of Sabbathai" surely means his proclamation as messiah, which happened in 1666. I'm not sure however whether Mendelsohn is a credible RS.Greyshark09 (talk) 13:12, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Can we agree on "Sack of Safed" then? There's no support in reliable sources for "massacre" and "destruction" has been challenged by our best available source, so it seems to me that "Sack" ATM is the best available alternative. Gatoclass (talk) 05:14, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I changed the lede to indicate that most sources agree there was some sort of destruction of houses, etc. but don't support "massacre" which is very much a minority viewpoint. It should not remain in the article title. I prefer "sack" but would settle for "Destruction of Safed". Jonathanwallace (talk) 16:56, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree we have no indication of large scale massacre, but all RS agree on "destruction of Safed". I don't stand for "Sack of Safed", because sack is more a robbery than destruction, and is not used by sources (also not "plunder"). I would like to cite the following source by Dr. Joel Rappel, History of Eretz Israel from Prehistory up to 1882 (1980), Vol.2, p.531.
 * In 1662 Sabbathai Sevi arrived to Jerusalem. It was the time when the Jewish settlements of Galilee were destroyed by the Druze: Tiberias was completely desolate and only a few of former Safed residents had returned...
 * This is quite a good source to rely on - it seems first of all the destruction was not done by Muslims, but by Druze, so i would remove the category "Anti-Jewish pogroms by Muslims"; secondly Reppel says that the destruction was not in the year 1662, but "at the time", so in 1662 the cities of Tiberias and Safed were already ruined, but Safed resettled by a small group of Jews - it may explain the confusion 1660/1662 among other sources (Reppel doesn't say the exact year, but it is clear it happened before 1662). If you ask me then i would agree on "1660 destruction of Safed".Greyshark09 (talk) 17:35, 16 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I quite like the rewrite Jonathan has done - it's well balanced, and contextualizes the events appropriately. If you want to move it to "destruction of" at this point, I will probably acquiesce - it's certainly a lot better than "massacre", for which we have no reliable sources. But I will still probably place a "merge" tag on it shortly. Gatoclass (talk) 18:06, 16 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I think we have reached consensus, so would someone pls make the move to "1660's Destruction of Safed"? Jonathanwallace (talk) 09:31, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree, just would it be "1660 destruction of Safed" or "1660 Destruction of Safed" (capital D)?Greyshark09 (talk) 09:58, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Small "d" is better. Jonathanwallace (talk) 13:22, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Congrads, the move is complete. I want to thank all the editors for the cooperation on this issue, it was a good experience, which has enriched wikipedia and my personal knowledge of this period. Namely thanks to Jonathanwallace and Gatoclass, i hope we will keep our productive civil discussions.Greyshark09 (talk) 14:38, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Likewise, one of the more rewarding experiences I have had here working with other editors. Jonathanwallace (talk) 14:45, 17 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Excuse the quibble, but I would prefer to see the article at "Destruction of Safed (1660)", would anyone object to the move? Gatoclass (talk) 15:21, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Then, you should also consider appropriate renaming of 1660 destruction of Tiberias to "Destruction of Tiberias (1660)". I think in wiki your can find both forms. Any specific reason for your suggestion? (examples)Greyshark09 (talk) 15:46, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

De Haas and sources in historical articles
I am starting a new section to continue the discussion of Jacob de Haas as a source for the proposition that a massacre of all the Jews in Safed occurred in 1660. De Haas, according to our bio of him, was an early leader within the Zionist Organization and served on its Propaganda Committee. He was a journalist and wrote a well-received "History of Palestine" published by Macmillan.

In the discussion so far, there have been three points of view espoused by various editors. 1. Keep the citation to de Haas as an objective historical source for the assertion there was a massacre. 2. Remove de Haas entirely on various grounds--polemical or advocacy source, primary source, and an old or otherwise inadequate source are various arguments that have been made. 3. Compromise solution I boldly implemented which has been continually reverted: keep de Haas but identify him as an advocacy source.

I am now going to argue for his removal from the article. The gold standard in historical article-writing on Wikipedia is the Military History project, which has the following to say about sources: "[A]rticles on military history should aim to be based primarily on published secondary works by reputable historians. The use of high-quality primary sources is also appropriate, but care should be taken to use them correctly, without straying into original research. Editors are encouraged to extensively survey the available literature—and, in particular, any available historiographic commentary—regarding an article's topic in order to identify every source considered to be authoritative or significant; these sources should, if possible, be directly consulted when writing the article." There has been a trend at reliable sources noticeboard to reference the military history standards in discussion of other, non-military, historical fields.

Not one of the assertions of a complete massacre of Jews in this article can be (or has ever been, in any previous version) sourced to "published secondary works by reputable historians". In order to allege a massacre, we have to turn to primary sources (the Zionist Council cited in the article), tertiary sources (the Jewish Encyclopedia) and works by non-historians (de Haas). There is also a WP:REDFLAG issue: the total extermination of a Jewish population is an extraordinary claim, and should be made based only on the highest quality sources. Jonathanwallace (talk) 14:07, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * One more Wikipedia standard which is relevant to this discussion is WP:UNDUE which says: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views.... it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view. In addition, the majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader can understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding aspects of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained." I believe that the assertion that there was a wholesale massacre of Jews in Safed in 1660 is such a minority view, and therefore edits clearly identifying it as such are appropriate. I therefore believe that the article in its present state, giving equal weight to primary, tertiary and non-historical sources on the one hand, and a professional historian such as Scholem on the other, violates WP:UNDUE. Jonathanwallace (talk) 14:41, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * BTW, you have previously offered to pass to Safed Plunder, so i'm now trying to improve that article - you are welcome to join. I think it is useless to battle over De Haas credibility, until we have Rosanes and perhaps another source to consider. From my point of view, it would be unwise to remove such source, and even though i did remain silent on rm of Herzl Foundation source, i don't see a solid reason to remove De Haas, unless you refute his credibility. Again from my point of view you can put background info on who he was, or "verify source" tag if you are not sure, but removing him is a violation of WP:NPOV and WP:VERIFY - all credible sources need to be presented. Accordingly, the article name has already been changed, since massacre is a minority view. So, what is the problem now? Let's do some real work on other pages, which are in much worse status.Greyshark09 (talk) 18:26, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * And how exactly Military History project is related to this article? I'm still in favor of the compromise - state that De Haas wasn't a historian, but who wrote a well received piece of history (certainly not "Zionist writer", but his job can be mentioned). In any case i think De Haas is citing Rosanes, so in case i'm right, i would agree to remove De Haas (if he is a tertiary source), and keep Rosanes (who is anyway highly needed for this article completeness).Greyshark09 (talk) 17:48, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Merge
Not sure i understand why this is a separate article from the 1660 destruction of Tiberias - the towns are right next to each other and the sources are the same. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:37, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - both are verifable and notable events per WP:RS (both events are mentioned in historical chonicles to affect the Safed Jews and respectively Tiberian Jewish community) and the locations are essensially separate - some 15km apart.Greyshark09 (talk) 04:36, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I respect the fact that you wrote the Tiberias article, but if you look at it cold it consists only of a background section which ends in 1624 and an aftermath section which begins in 1720 (i.e. given the 40-60 year gaps neither are particularly relevant) with the following points of substance about the event:
 * "occurred during Druze power struggle in the Galilee"
 * "resulted in abandonment of the city by its Jewish community"
 * "became desolate"
 * That really is it - 20 measly words. There are no details at all, and the rest is all very loosely connected. Oncenawhile (talk) 10:42, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * This article needs development, but the event is notable (mentioned in several sources, having historical importance). If you want to improve verifability, let's go over it and add sources with more precise info (same was done to Safed article).Greyshark09 (talk) 16:32, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I removed the proposal due to lack of consensus, following a long period of inactivity of this discussion.Greyshark09 (talk) 20:41, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I am reopening this merger discussion since 1660 destruction of Tiberias has not improved since the non-discussion above. As Oncenawhile correctly pointed out, almost none of 1660 destruction of Tiberias is about events of 1660, but refers to periods decades before or after 1660. Moreover, what is in that article ostensibly on the subject (a) is already present in this Safed article, (b) appears to violate WP:NOR. In more detail:
 * The sentence "The destruction of Tiberias by the Druze resulted in abandonment of the city by its Jewish community." has two citations.
 * The first one, a book published by the Israeli Ministry of Defence (which doesn't rule it out, but means we must investigate the reliability of the author), says "In 1662 Sabbathai Sevi arrived to Jerusalem. It was the time when the Jewish settlements of Galilee were destroyed by the Druze: Tiberias was completely desolate and only a few of former Safed residents had returned..." so it does not mention a destruction in 1660 but only that it was desolate in 1662. The indirectness of the reference also makes this a fairly poor source.
 * The second one, a book by Barnay, says only "When Tiberias was destroyed in the middle of the seventeenth century, the family [of Rabbi Abulafia] moved to Hebron". Connecting this to a specific event of 1660 is obviously Original Research.  In fact, another article by the same author is somewhat different: "In the middle of the 17th century, when the town was ruined by the economic deterioration of the region and by the wars between local rulers, Tiberias was abandoned by its inhabitants, among them also the Jews.  The latter moved to Safad, to al-Halil and to other places." (Jacob Barnai, The Jewish Settlement in Palestine in the 17th and 18th Centuries, Chap 7 of .)  Is "ruined by economic deterioration and wars" the same as "destroyed"?  Maybe, but still there is no "1660" mentioned.

In summary, the article 1660 destruction of Tiberias does not have material enough to justify its existence. Proposing a "merger" is actually rather generous, since listing at WP:AFD is what it most calls for. Zerotalk 06:18, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The sentence "Unlike Tiberias, which became desolate for many years, Safad..." is of course primarily about Safad, but this is the only other sentence pertaining to the topic. At least the words "became desolate for many years" are apparently about Tiberias, but what is the source for them?  Two sources are provided, with quotations, but neither quotation even mentions Tiberias!  Moreoever, the second one questions the destruction of Safad.  On p187 of Scholem's book, he says that Tiberias was destroyed "about 1660" and its occupants moved to Safed!
 * I have nothing further to add to this excellent summary, other than it has my full support. Greyshark, I hope this is ok with you - if it can be improved with meaningful detail I would be supportive of leaving it as a separate article, but its current state doesn't work at all. Oncenawhile (talk) 12:19, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * My opinion stands, the event is notable and the issue of NOR, you have raised, is not correct. You probably mean WP:SYNTH, because the facts here are well sourced, but maybe to some opinion their presentation may seem as synthetic. I.e. the fact that in 1662 Jewish settlements in the Galilee laid waste is not necessarily meaning of their destruction in 1660, but that is not a strong argument when you know the political developments of the 17th century Galilee and the Druze campaign of 1660. It seems to me, that more opinions are required here, thus you may post invitation to this discussion on relevant wikiprojects (Israel, Palestine, Ottoman Empire, Cities), or ask a neutral administrator to close this discussion.Greyshark09 (talk) 19:19, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The overall structure of the article is WP:SYNTH since you added material from one generation earlier and two generations after without a source that ties it to the alleged events of 1660. But your interpretation of "in the middle of the seventeenth century" as being a reference to 1660 (or 1662) is a textbook case of OR. Zerotalk 01:22, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Added source on 1660 CE and added an overall article on Druze power struggle (1658-1667).Greyshark09 (talk) 17:36, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Removal of category
user:Uishaki removed the category category:Jews and Judaism in Ottoman Syria for no reason. This may be considered vandalism.GreyShark (dibra) 14:23, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Ottoman "Syria"
This section had originally been located at User talk:Greyshark09 Palestine was never a part of Syria during the Ottoman rule.--Uishaki (talk) 14:37, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * see Ottoman Syria: Eyalet of Syria and Damascus Vilayet.GreyShark (dibra) 14:39, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

These articles has nothing to do with our subject. You are just trying to offer people an idea that the name of Palestine are newborn.--Uishaki (talk) 14:44, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * you are doing Palestinization of Ottoman issues. This is unrelated - Ottoman Palestine redirects to Ottoman Syria, because Ottoman Syria was the name of the administrative region - this is editor consensus supported by numerous literature.GreyShark (dibra) 14:48, 18 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Actually the consensus on this consists of one Greyshark09. The name for the region used by the great majority of scholarly writers is "Palestine".  At this point of time, Safed was a sanjak in the province of Damascus.  Calling it "Ottoman Syria" is not wrong, but it is not the majority usage and there is definitely no consensus of editors to use it. Zerotalk 07:26, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Administratively it was Ottoman Empire in 1660 - and that is relevant to the administrative tags (Years in ); there is a clear-cut consensus to avoid anachronism, and clearly there was no State of Palestine or Palestinian Authority (Palestinian territories if you like) at the time - see this. If you want also to list it in "History of Israel" and/or "History of Palestine" - that is fine.GreyShark (dibra) 20:35, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Greyshark. It's been evident for some time that you have a programme, i.e. to desconstruct the descriptive historical term Palestine, which is universal, by using 'administrative division categories' throughout its history to replace 'Palestine'. Historians don't do that, only you do. This is simple to show even in the sources on every page where you do this (Firro has no problem with describing Safed in 'northern Palestine') It looks like an ideological bee in your bonnet, and a stark refusal to accept the fact that 'Palestine' is used not to denote a political entity, but as a default term for a general geographical reality constant in historical usage since Herodotus's day. Your confusion of the modern state of Palestine, (the fear that the word must connote Palestinian political interests), with the geophysical-historical Palestine is, frankly, astonishing. In 60 years, it's the first time I've encountered this simple Simon misreading.Nishidani (talk) 21:19, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure, i also do that for anachronistic usage cases of Syria, Lebanon, Israel, Jordan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and other modern states. This "programme" is pretty much a community consensus - you cannot use modern polities to refer retroactively; meaning Alexander the Great didn't conquer Syria, but Persian Achaeminid province of Eber-Nari; the Mamluks didn't defeat crusaders in Israel and Lebanon, but in the Crusader states.GreyShark (dibra) 06:44, 10 April 2016 (UTC)