Talk:Semiramis Hotel bombing

wp:rs
For wp:rs sources on historical articles, editors have to find historians. Henry Cattan is not one. the encyclopaedia of Palestine even less and let's not talk about the Jaboc G. xxx. I removed Yoav Gelber who never writes p.78 of his book that "[the event] was aimed at sowing terror among the Arab population to drive them out of the city".

WP:RS sources for this event are eg : Tom Segev, Walid Khalidi, Rashid Khalidi, Nur Masalha, Yoav Gelber, Benny Morris, Simha Flapan, Efraim Karsh, Ilan Pappé. Dominique Lapierre and Larry Collins would be acceptable too. There are many other anyway such all traditionnal historians.

WP:NPOV requires to give all minds and for the title to use a wording satisfying all of them. If somebody is not sure to have access to all minds or if he cannot at least check, he should refrain from editing related articles in wikipedia.

After some reading, you will see only some talk about a massacre for this event and that "Semiranis hotel bombing" is far more appropriate. Ceedjee (talk) 20:46, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Well I disagree with your very strict interpretation of RS in this regard. I have added information from John B. Quigley, he's an international lawyer. If you have a problem with it, I have no problem atributing it to his voice.


 * Also, I deleted your insertion on Irgun, as the party Pappe lists as responsible for the Semirami Hotel. I'd appreciate it if you could provide the next three or four sentences after the excerpt you provided.


 * "In the first week of January alone, Irgun executed more terrorist attacks than in any period before. These included [the Sarraya house attack]. It continued with the bombing of the Semiranis hotel (...)".


 * It's not clear to me if Pappe is saying the Semiramis Hotel was the work the of the Irgun or not from the fragment you gave there. Thanks.  T i a m u t talk 23:09, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Tiamut.
 * This is an article about an historical event.
 * a lawyer at this stage : wp:undue.
 * Ceedjee (talk) 07:51, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think Pappe is referring to the Irgun. Anyway, I have another source that says so: J. Bowyer Bell's Terror out of Zion. -- Nudve (talk) 13:25, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you Nudve.
 * The bombing was due to Haganah. No problem with that.
 * Ceedjee (talk) 13:42, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "due to Haganah"? -- Nudve (talk) 14:09, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Haganah soldiers performed the attack, not Irgun.
 * 4 specialists in explosives with the support of 10 others. If I remember well, they [claimed they] had to open fire to cover their escape. Ceedjee (talk) 15:34, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Source? -- Nudve (talk) 15:44, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Update: Well, it seems like the Haganah did assume responsibility at the time. -- Nudve (talk) 15:55, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Nuvde,
 * The source was my memory, which is far from being a wp:rs :-)
 * But... in Dominique Lapierre and Larry Collins, O Jerusalem, p.130 it is written : "The four-man demolition team would be covered by as quad of Haganah riflemen." and p.133 ; "Twenty-six people died in the explosion of the Semiramis Hotel."
 * This is from google.book. I have only the French version of the book. Sorry for that. Ceedjee (talk) 08:27, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Benny Morris, in Righteous Victims, also says Haganah. Does he discuss this in 1948? Anyway, we have two sources saying Irgun, so maybe we should treat this as conflicting views? -- Nudve (talk) 08:33, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Nuvde,
 * I missed something : what is the 2nd source that say it was Irgun ?
 * Pappé and ?
 * That was Haganah. There is no single doubt about that :-) Ceedjee (talk) 12:30, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * As I said, J. Bowyer Bell's Terror out of Zion. However, he only mentions it incidentally while discussing an Arab attack that took place later, so any source talking directly about it might be preferable. -- Nudve (talk) 13:15, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. It was not clear to me. It is good to add that "some commentators" (we cannot talk about scholars given they don't even know such a basic information) attribute the bombing to Irgun. Benny Morris, 1948 writes about this, p.104 writes : "The Haganah made other mistakes. On the night of 5-6 January 1948, a squad of sappers (...) blew up a part of Semiramis Hotel, suspected of housing an Arab irregulars headquarters." Ceedjee (talk) 18:03, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Morris's is the most recent study, so it's probably the most reliable. -- Nudve (talk) 07:33, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I have to disagree.
 * Anybody who studied a minimum the events knows that Haganah performed that attack as well as the circumstances.
 * A MS student in M-E history would have been sacked for such a mistake.
 * But we are not MS student. We just report wp:rs information. Ceedjee (talk) 09:10, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Not sure I understand. Morris says it was the Haganah, and I say Morris is reliable. So what is it that you disagree with? -- Nudve (talk) 15:12, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry. Sometimes I am not clear.
 * You wrote : "so it's probably the most reliable".
 * I agree Morris is reliable but not fully with your statement because it would mean the others we talked about would also be reliable, which I disagree with.
 * Which ones would you consider unreliable and why? -- Nudve (talk) 05:36, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Nuvde,
 * even if you would agree with me, it would not change anything.
 * I don't mind much the consequences of the 1948 War on the I-P conflict. I just mind history. ::::::In that context, Ilan Pappé is terrible. I still don't know if he is just incompetent, a liar, or both. Ceedjee (talk) 07:03, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Now I'm confused. Earlier you said that he is reliable. -- Nudve (talk) 07:29, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * For wikipedia today, Ilan Pappé is a wp:rs source. That is what I wrote here above and to which you refer.
 * For me and I am convinced all serious historians without agenda, Ilan Pappé is not reliable for a wide number of facts and analysis. That is what I have just written and that confuses you.
 * That is the reason why, "even if you would agree with me" for the 2nd point, the 1st point means that "it would not change anything" because we are on wp.
 * Ceedjee (talk) 12:40, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

UN S/740
Would you mind posting a link where the full text of this resolution could be read? I could not find it on-line. NoCal100 (talk) 01:05, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You are right. That is why I added a "reference needed". Ceedjee (talk) 07:52, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Obviously Taimut has a link to a copy - she can post it. NoCal100 (talk) 15:23, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I did not post the information, and accepted it in good faith, without digging further. But after you both raised concerns, I did some digging, and found nothing in the UN databases on the issue. It's possible their "Supplements" are not archived for public access or that I did not do the search correctly, but I could not confirm the information in UN primary sources.
 * I did find this link in a google search, which seems to be the source for this information. The website is obviously not an WP:RS, so I think that Ceedjee's tagging was a right step forward, and that the information should be deleted until it can be found in an WP:RS.  T i a m u t talk 20:57, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I removed it, per the above discussion. Next - which reliable sources call it a "massacre"? It seems that the sources quote din the article call it a "bombing", or an "attack". NoCal100 (talk) 04:30, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Since no reliable sources have been presented which call it a massacre, I've renamed it. I notice that was done once before, and someone moved it back to "massacre" - please do not do that again unless it can be shown that a significant number of reliable sources call it a massacre. NoCal100 (talk) 15:27, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

"that turned out to be false"
I am quite confident that this sentence is just the author pov. I will check if I can find more information and will bring the wp:rs sources, if any. Ceedjee (talk) 08:35, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Quibley
Ceedjee (talk) 10:38, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think what Quibley reports is wp:undue.
 * except that, i don't see an wp:npov issue and we could remove the tag.


 * I don't think it's undue at all. But if you would like, we can attribute the statement directly to him, per WP:NPOV and WP:ATT.  T i a m u t talk 11:01, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * If we summarize by "The Mandatory authorities strongly condemned the action", ok. We could even write that the "The Mandatory authorities commented that the bombing was an "offence to civilisation", that I can source.
 * But the whole story about the discussion (with comments and replies) is useless. More, the end is particularly misleading because on 22 february, some men of al-Husseini put a bomb in the "Ben Yehuda market" that killed 53 people... If the British at that time could not know the future, we should not give voice to Quibley when he tries to argue that one side was kind and the other wicked. Or, at least, we have to add whole his analysis (as polemists) but not just the facts he biasedly reports.
 * Ceedjee (talk) 12:11, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Per NPOV, we represent all significant viewpoints on a subject. The viewpoint of the Mandatory authorities in significant. That of Quigley's is as well. If you have sources that express other viewpoints, please bring them forward. The information in Quigley's book is relevant to this article and is going in, attributed to him if necessary. There's no policy that discounts reporting "the facts he biasedly reports." The very essence of NPOV is not to "neutralize" people's statements, but to express as many POVs as possible. So bring it on. But keep what others add, attributed and sourced, in.  T i a m u t talk 00:33, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Christian persecution?
A few editors have added to this page. I strongly disagree with applying that category to this page. The "Persecution of Christians" category is intended to be for articles that are about or related to intentional crimes/persecution against Christians as a result of their religion. This article contains only one reference to Christianity, and does not in any way suggest that the business was targeted due to the faith of the owners - quite the opposite, actually. If we broadly define "persecution of Christians" as every crime against a Christian ever, then I might as well go around and add every single article about a serial killer in the US to the category, as it's almost assured that at least one of their victims is Christian. As that reductio ad absurdum hopefully convinces the editors involved, we should not define "persecution of Christians" so broadly as to include this article. Doing so would make the category meaningless. Please provide thoughts here so as to reach a consensus. ~ RobTalk 11:39, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that category should not be here. Undoing its deletion was an error of mine. Zerotalk 12:09, 23 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree 100%. You explained the point better than me. I just reverted myself because Zero0000 warned me that I was breaking 1RR, despite I thought reverting anonymous IP wasn't included within 1RR. If nobody has a reasonable objection to remove the category, I'll do it myself after 24 hours. Unless there is no answer here and Zero or Rob decide to do it first.--Averysoda (talk) 21:19, 23 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Alright, it looks like another editor has removed it for now. We can leave this discussion here, so that if anyone objects, we have it as a reference. Thanks for your input. ~ RobTalk 22:28, 23 June 2015 (UTC)