Talk:1517 Safed attacks

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

Pogrom[edit]

The word 'pogrom' has a very precise meaning in the history of anti-Semitism. It means that the political head of a community, region or state incites a people to single out an ethnic minority for exclusive violence. Does any source use it of the event here?Nishidani (talk) 14:57, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

POV tag[edit]

Whilst the appears to be an authentic source underlying this, this article is spun to suggest that the motive was anti-semitism. From what i can see from the sources, there is no evidence to suggest this. If we are to solve the problem of POV, we need context here. For example, this was a period of broad upheaval in the region of Palestine - was this the only massacre in the region at the time, or were Muslim and Christian villages also the subject of massacres.

I also agree the the use of the word pogrom is inappropriate. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:16, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The sources call it "anti-Jewish" violence so yes the word pogrom is in order.--Shrike (talk) 12:49, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In the English language the word 'pogrom' is not a synonym of 'anti-Jewish violence'. If it ain't in the source, it should be removed.Nishidani (talk) 16:38, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, since there is only one source, refracted in three accounts, for the incident, and the article contradicts the sources it is so hamfisted, and the page can't be built because little is known, this page, along with the other three or four Chesdovi created just to use the word 'pogrom' (WP:OR) and unhistorical, should be deleted, after requesting Chesdovi to save the information, and construct a proper page on the several events he lists over these pages. It is a flagrant abuse of wiki to make pages consisting of one or two lines over several incidents like this. I'd make the request for rapid deletion myself if I knew how to do it.Nishidani (talk) 16:45, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable sources use the term pogrom, a term coined to describe specific types of anti-Jewish violence. Which specific sentences in the article do you find to be POV? Please be explicit. Jayjg (talk) 23:09, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
{copying from 1517 Hebron pogrom} As per my original post, my problem is the general context, which is trying to push a conclusion. Two examples of this are the phrase "against the Jews" and the word "pogrom" - as a sentence later in the article says, the suggestion that the massacre was solely aimed at Jews has not been established, so we shouldn't imply it.
Please show me the reputable sources that use the word pogrom. We'll need sources which are not discussing this in the context of Israeli / Palestine politics if we are to be confident that there is no inherent POV. Oncenawhile (talk) 07:47, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Jayjg. The text is poor synthesis. 'Arab Muslims' combined one text that cites Muslims, and another that cites 'Arabs'. Check the sources against the texts cited.
Attacks against minorities of any description are part and parcel of history since the year dot. The word pogrom, badly explained in the wiki article, refers generally from the 19th century onwards to organised attacks against esp. Jews, esp. with a strong ideological and political-nationalist ideological motivation. Just as I would protest were the numerous attacks on Christian communities etc. in the premodern period be headed by pogrom I object to it here because no source I have checked uses the word 'pogrom' of what are, technically, known as razzias, acts of predatory, opportunistic violence by marauding thugs against an undefended minority community in their midst. Allow this editorializing interpretation of the past and next you'll have evangelical fundamentalists editing in articles like the Christian community of Najran that Yusuf As'ar Dhu Nuwas undertook a pogrom there, or on the Jerusalem page that the Persian conquest of Jerusalem in 614 or thereabouts eventuated in a Jewish-Persian 'pogrom' of Christians.One writes to sources, and Chesdovi has provided his interpretation of them, WP:OR. He is obliged to show cause why this spinning should stand.Nishidani (talk) 08:05, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Nishidani. Let's continue this on talk:pogrom. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:31, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[1]. Chesdovi (talk) 13:19, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Chesdovi, every single reference in that link points to exactly the same book. It's a Hebrew Language book, written by Avraham David. Per our discussion on the other page, i'm not sure usage in Hebrew can be used to support the English term "pogrom"?
Separately, what credentials does Avraham David have? Is he definitely NPOV and RS?
On the article itself, looking at the link there is a reference to a work by Tamar, also in Hebrew - Tamar appears to suggest the event did not reduce the city's population. Do you have access to that work?
Abraham David writes that David Tamar's claim, that these events did not cause a decline in the Jewish population, is "unfounded." Chesdovi (talk) 16:56, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Finally, if you have access to any of the main sources, can you add more detail into the article on "Joseph Garson"? He seems to be the only primary source for the event? Oncenawhile (talk) 13:56, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
He was an exiled Spanish scholar and preacher. His contemporary, Rabbi Eliyahu Capsali (1483-1555) also wrote an account. Chesdovi (talk) 17:39, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I provided that link was to show how "widely" used David’s articles are. As to his credentials, he seems to be a RS: [2], [3].
As to whether the word pogrom has a different meaning in Hebrew, I am not sure and don’t know whether we should be attempting not make such judgements here. Do you have a source for this claim? We cannot know for sure the exact motive for the appalling massacre of Hebron’s Jews in 1517. But what we do know is that the word has been used in English and Hebrew to describe the event. Should there be such contrived efforts to restrict its usage here? Chesdovi (talk) 16:46, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Ok great, do you have details / quotes of Capsali's writings on the event? I'm pretty sure he didn't witness the events but interesting to understand what he based his history on. Presume Capsali would also have referred to the Hebron event as well?

On your second point, we both know there are political types out there who will unscrupulously attach the word "pogrom" to an event in order to "frame" the event (On the issue of "framing", see examples in the box below). This particular event has been used, together with other events, by right-wing extremist writers to try to demonise Palestinians as anti-Semitic, and that inaccurate usage then gets copied by others. So before we decide whether the label "pogrom" may be appropriate, we should at least establish whether there really was any anti-semitism here, or whether the word is just being used in its loosest sense - "an event in which Jews were killed".

Extended content
  • Brubaker: "To impose a label or prevailing interpretive frame—to cause an event to be seen as a "pogrom" or a "riot" or a "rebellion"—is no mere matter of external interpretation, but a constitutive and often consequential act of social definition".
  • Brass "The study of the various forms of mass collective violence has been blighted by methodological deficiencies and ideological premises... Our work then becomes entangled—even through the very theories we articulate—in the diversionary tactics that are essential to the production and reproduction of violence. The diversionary process begins with the issue of labelling, which itself is part of the process of production and reproduction of violence, and the post-hoc search for causes"
  • Herbst: "[the word] pogrom has been used loosely and, according to some, misused in an inflammatory way."
  • Klier: "when applied indiscriminately to events in Eastern Europe, the term [pogrom] can be misleading, the more so when it implies that "pogroms" were regular events in the region and that they always shared common features."

Oncenawhile (talk) 10:49, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Primary sources like those have to be treated carefully. Distress in communities through poverty, assaults and massacres was alleviated by letters sent out through emissaries to secure funding to help the fafflicted community get back on its feet, and historians know that you can never take these letters, or the way their contents are reported, at face value. Exaggerations are not unknown.
David himself writes generally To Come to the Land: Immigration and Settlement in 16th-Century Eretz-Israel p.44=’the depressing conditions described in the letters borne by the emissaries were almost certainly overstated,'
Y. Barnay The Jews in Palestine in the Eighteenth Century, University of Alabama Press, 1992 pp.57-8 writes: ‘support for Palestine never came easily, and people from Palestine and community leaders in the Diaspora were forced to fight for it continually. . .The Jewish communities in the Diaspora and their institutions did indeed see support for the Yishuv as an indispensable part of their task, but frequently problems arose . .because of the difficult economic situation and legal standing, and because of the exaggerated demands for contributions on the part of the people from Palestine.’
This does not mean that what happened in Safed was 'exaggerated'. It means simply that historians must weigh reports carefully. The sourcing here, as noted, goes back to one essay and one book. It would be more profitable to eliminate those sources repeating David's work, and rather quote directly in translation the relevant two texts from the original Hebrew reports.Nishidani (talk) 16:52, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rename[edit]

If anyone contests the current title, please follow WP:RM. I'm also not very happy with it, but alternatives are often even worse sourced and might be completely illogical.GreyShark (dibra) 12:57, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK Greyshark, fair enough. Before we go to RM, can we try to narrow down the options? I think RM only works well when there is one alternative name, but it can be a mess when there are no obvious stand outs. Here are some possibilities - can people state their thoughts:
  • 1517 Ottoman–Mamluk War in Safed
  • 1517 Safed assault
  • 1517 Safed massacres
  • 1517 Safed attacks
  • 1517 in Safed
  • 1517 Ottoman–Mamluk War in Jewish communities (would require merger with the Hebron article)
  • Jews during the 1517 Ottoman–Mamluk War (would require merger with the Hebron article)
Any other ideas? Oncenawhile (talk) 17:46, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would go for "1517 Safed massacre" (singular). And my regards to some WP:GF restoration, despite our previous incident. Please don't do such unilateral RM actions again on contested pages, however, since this is clearly disruptive and a violation of community trust.GreyShark (dibra) 17:52, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What about merging both articles (Safed and Hebron) in :
  • Repression against Jewish communities during the Ottoman-Mamluk War of 1517 ?
Pluto2012 (talk) 17:52, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how the title should read. 'Pogrom', as I noted in protest to Chesdovi years ago, is wrong. I've just edited in a note on this. The 1497 census gave 300 households, and 8 years after the event, in 1526 that figure was slightly exceeded. The primary sources (a) apparently put no figure to the no. who died (b) they are on this vitiated by the nature of reports on incidents like these (see the Hebron epistolary in the 17th-18th century) since they were understandable written to dramatize a setback and, via letters, to elicit funds to reconstitute or rebuild a community. 'Repression' again can't do, because the Jews here were caught up in a clash between the old and the new powers, and the losing party apparently ransacked Jews, who took sanctuary in nearby villages. 'Massacre' is as unattested as 'pogrom'. As I also noted, the chronicles of the time report that Selim's army, the winner, murdered vast numbers of resisting people in places like Gaza and Cairo, in the latter instance the Circassian guard and its families were decimated. We do not for this write successive articles on pogroms against Circassians or Gazans. The article hasn't enough sources (clicking takes one nowhere) to justify separate articles, and therefore something along the lines of Pluto's suggestion might be right. Only, and this is important, just making 'massacre' articles without political historical context is rather pointless, esp. when we know almost nothing. The original intent was to write stuff to show Jews were massacred by Arabs sometimes in Palestine, and we have to deal with the messy result.Nishidani (talk) 20:44, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thinking overnight, I think the danger here in renaming (Safed/Hebron violence etc.) elides the fact that the articles deal with a specific community, the Jews. Any renaming should retain the fact that the incidents involved violence against Jewish communities. 'Violence against the Safed Jewish community, 1517' or something along those lines.Nishidani (talk) 09:51, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
'The 1517 Mamluk-Ottoman transition and violence against the Jews' (merging the Hebron 1517 and the Safed 1517 incidents?Nishidani (talk) 09:53, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it should be restricted to violence against. It could cover any Jewish experience during this war, good or bad. Making it only violence against is freezing in a POV. I'm not sure of the best name, but Once's suggestion "Jews during the 1517 Ottoman–Mamluk War" would be a start (with "war" not "War"). Or "Jews" could be "Jewish communities". Zerotalk 12:51, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, that's a good title, but the problem is the stuff on the page refers to just one radically underdescribed incident. I tried to provide some background on what was at stake (Istanbul rabbinical authority over Egyptian rabbinical princely authority, etc., but I see no effort by the original editor(s) to make an article on the Jews outside of that putative massacre. It was created, after all, to highlight a series of incidents in which Jews were killed. Nishidani (talk) 13:17, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


I think the merging of both articles is a good option because both are very little ones and both topics are closely linked. The events were caused by the war. So :
  • Demographic changes in the Jewish Communities during the 1517 Ottoman-Mamluk War
or
  • Jewish Communities during the 1517 Ottoman-Mamluk War
Pluto2012 (talk) 18:22, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
These comments are very helpful, thanks all. Since the RM received no comments given it was superseded by this thread, I have amended the RM to Pluto's / Zero's suggestions.
Chesdovi, thanks for the picture above. Did you write a comment anywhere? Sorry if i missed it. Oncenawhile (talk) 19:08, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the comment of Chesdovi: [4]. It was in the caption of the scan that he provided to us. Pluto2012 (talk) 06:52, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved to 1517 Safed attacks and 1517 Hebron attacks. No objection to discussing a merge as a further step, but there is not yet a consensus for a merge. EdJohnston (talk) 13:25, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

{{requested move/dated}}

– Further to discussion above and at Talk:1517 Hebron pogrom, there appears to be consensus that "pogrom" is not appropriate in the title for these articles, but limited consensus on would be an appropriate replacement. As Nishidani explains, there is not enough evidence to use the word massacre, as the number of deaths in both events is unattested. Separately, and as also discussed previously, we must avoid words that imply targeting, since whilst we know there was violence and that Jewish communities were caught up it in, we have no evidence to suggest that the Jews were the intent or focus of the violence.
My proposed renames above are not perfect, but I believe they are better than the existing. Could I please ask those participating in the discussion below to use only either support or oppose.There will continue to be many alternative suggestions, but for now could we please concentrate solely on whether "violence" is better than "pogrom" in the title. [Note from Oncenawhile at 19:10 on 17 March - following further discussion above I have amended the proposal to the suggested merge and rename option] Oncenawhile (talk) 08:25, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
  • Support faute de mieux. (I don't think one can say there is no evidence Jewish communities were targeted. One gets the impression they were seen as pro-Ottoman (sensibly so). The Mamluks twice seemed to, just as Selim targeted the Circassians.Nishidani (talk) 21:20, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - @Oncenawhile: you messed this procedure up. You started it as a rename/move and changed it into merge. Please rephrase the proposal as merger proposal and tag the articles accordingly.GreyShark (dibra) 17:16, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As I read it, there is no set process for a combined move+merge. I suggest we keep this process as is, and add merge tags to the articles as you suggest. OK? Oncenawhile (talk) 18:35, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is incorrect, you should propose merge and the merge target for both to be Jewish communities during the 1517 Ottoman-Mamluk war.GreyShark (dibra) 19:01, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can you link to the process you are referring to? I don't know it. FWIW I think this process is perfectly adequate and I don't understand the benefit of restarting it. Oncenawhile (talk) 19:16, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you want me to close this I will. You can then restart in whichever way you like? Oncenawhile (talk) 19:17, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, just minor fixes.GreyShark (dibra) 21:42, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
and the participants of related rename proposal at talk:1834 Safed pogrom as well. I see there is a systematic rename campaign here. Good luck Once.GreyShark (dibra) 21:56, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the merge. Each one of the events is notable enough for itself, and just because they happened at the same year doesn't mean they should be merged. As I've suggested, renaming the 1517 Hebron pogrom into 1517 Hebron attacks might solve the issue. Shalom11111 (talk) 20:47, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge and move. There is nearly no source for these events. Merging both articles provide more arguments to keep the article. The new title give the common global context to both these events. Pluto2012 (talk) 17:44, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I, 'Chesdovi', and 'Greyshark09' have opposed the proposal, and it's been a week since it was proposed. What's now? Shalom11111 (talk) 23:50, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually i have not specifically commented yet, but you are correct that i oppose.GreyShark (dibra) 16:24, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Requesting neutral administrator closure is possible at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Requests_for_closure.GreyShark (dibra) 16:24, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you oppose to the move ? Pluto2012 (talk) 17:13, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As a neutral admin I reviewed this discussion to see if it was ready to close. It is somewhat confusing due to the number of options, and the fact that there is no proposed draft of a merged article. See my suggestion at User talk:Oncenawhile#Your move/merge proposal at Talk:1517 Safed pogrom#Requested move. EdJohnston (talk) 03:08, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment re attacks: I would be content with 1517 Safed attacks and 1517 Hebron attacks, per the suggestion of Shalom11111, and what appears to be general consensus to move away from pogrom. In terms of a merge, and Nish's comment below about rewriting, I think Ed's suggestion re us working on a combined draft is a good one. I think the idea "renaming and merging" at the same time is simply too complicated for us to get consensus on in one go. Oncenawhile (talk) 07:53, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

How to rewrite this article, which is a mess of repetitive secondary sources[edit]

replying on two primary sources. (a) provide the narratives from (i)Garson and (ii)Capsali or paraphrases from them in secondary sources that analyse them. (b) Give Alexander David's interpretation (c) Give Tamar's review of (b) (d) Provide then a narrative of events surrounding (before and after) from works by historians who have added new angles (rather than, as we have here, repeating what Tamar and David say several times) (e) The large slab of Hebrew is in the text is without translation, which must be added. Once that is controlled, the Hebrew text can be removed. Chesdovi. Can you access the two primary sources, or provide the complete details in the two acounts as they are given successively in David and Tamar? Nishidani (talk) 16:22, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The picture Old Yishuv or Jews in Jerusalem 1895[edit]

A double left click on the picture will show that it is in fact a picture of Jews in Jerusalem 1895.

Is it relevant for this article?
I think not. Trahelliven (talk) 19:48, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, good point. Also, as the article Old Yishuv says, "The 'Old Yishuv' term was coined by members of the 'New Yishuv' in the late 19th century".
I do not see any proof that those gentleman are actually Old Yishuv, as opposed to immigrants of the First Aliyah.
I will bring it up at Template talk:Yishuv haYashan.
Oncenawhile (talk) 19:59, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect titles[edit]

The admin EdJohnston (talk · contribs) ended the above discussion saying "The result of the move request was: Moved to 1517 Safed attacks and 1517 Hebron attacks." NO ONE but 'Oncenawhile' said they support moving this page from "1517 Safed pogrom" into "1517 Safed attacks", so which consensus exactly was this decision based on? Shalom11111 (talk) 21:16, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That was your suggestion :
As I've suggested, renaming the 1517 Hebron pogrom into 1517 Hebron attacks might solve the issue. Shalom11111 (talk) 20:47, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Pluto2012 (talk) 22:34, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Four editors indicated support for changing 'pogrom' to 'attacks': Oncenawhile, Nishidani, Shalom11111 and Pluto2012. Some of these users also supported a merge. Not enough did, so the merge was not performed. EdJohnston (talk) 22:44, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Pluto2012 did you read what you were quoting? I clearly wrote that the 1517 HEBRON pogrom should be changed to "attacks", and DID NOT say that the Safed one should be changed as well.
EdJohnston, excuse me, but Oncenawhile was THE ONLY ONE that supported changing BOTH titles from "pogrom" to "attack".
This was the original proposal, which Oncenawhile herself proposed:
  • 1517 Safed pogrom → Jewish communities during the 1517 Ottoman-Mamluk war
  • 1517 Hebron pogrom → Jewish communities during the 1517 Ottoman-Mamluk war
EdJohnston, you said "Four editors indicated support for changing 'pogrom' to 'attacks': Oncenawhile, Nishidani, Shalom11111 and Pluto2012." I'll now show that this is not true, and the proposal did not even say the word "attack" in it.
Here's what Nishidani said with regards to the ORIGINAL PROPOSAL: "Support faute de mieux. (I don't think one can say there is no evidence Jewish communities were targeted. One gets the impression they were seen as pro-Ottoman (sensibly so). The Mamluks twice seemed to, just as Selim targeted the Circassians.Nishidani (talk) 21:20, 17 March 2014 (UTC)" - there's no support here whatsoever to changing from "pogrom" to "attacks"
Here's what I said: "Oppose the merge. Each one of the events is notable enough for itself, and just because they happened at the same year doesn't mean they should be merged. As I've suggested, renaming the 1517 Hebron pogrom into 1517 Hebron attacks might solve the issue. Shalom11111 (talk) 20:47, 19 March 2014 (UTC)" - I SPECIFICALLY talked ONLY about the the 1517 Hebron pogrom
Here's what Pluto2012 wrote: "Support merge and move. There is nearly no source for these events. Merging both articles provide more arguments to keep the article. The new title give the common global context to both these events. Pluto2012 (talk) 17:44, 21 March 2014 (UTC)" - No support whatsoever to changing titles to "attacks" - he supported the original proposal of merging the two articles and moving them to "Jewish communities during the 1517 Ottoman-Mamluk war". Again, the original proposal did not even say a single word about changing the titles to "attacks".
I don't know what's happening here, but I'm afraid it's bad. Shalom11111 (talk) 23:42, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This was a complex proposal (rename/merge) with many options. There were also two articles being discussed. If there is more than one question, and more to do than just an up-or-down vote, we may be unsure how everyone would have voted on every option. But you yourself favored replacing 'pogrom' with 'attacks' on at least the Hebron article, right? Are you now unhappy that the Hebron article was renamed? I could have procedurally failed the move proposal based on too many questions being asked. Would you have preferred that? EdJohnston (talk) 03:20, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is clear that this move was not an easy one because both merge and move for two articles were possible but the conclusions of EdJohnston are fair enough. The idea to move both articles from pogroms to attacks transpires from the discussion.
As far as I am concerned I didn't explicitely wrote that I was in favor of that move but EdJohnston undertstood well my tone and I confirm I am not opposed to his move given the merge didn't make consensus.
In any way, I am open to read and comment the rationale that would suggest to move Hebron and not Safed as far as secondary reliable sources from historians are provided.
Pluto2012 (talk) 07:17, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There was clear consensus on both pages to move away from pogrom; it was not supported by a single editor. I am happy to start another move discussion, given Shalom11111's concerns. Shalom11111, what titles do you think these articles should have? Oncenawhile (talk) 07:35, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If my memory doesn't fail me, I opposed the induction of 'pogrom' into these specific events when I first noted them. It was Chesdovi's idea. Note that I didn't obsess about this. I registered a protest, and waited two years until wider community output came forth. It hasn't been as wide as one would have hoped for, but given the lamentable way the articles were thrown together on extremely exiguous sources with a POV spin on history, there was really no technical grounds for opposing both the change of title and merge. They two articles need a lot of work because they fudge everything, and can't stand comfortably alone (really for this we have 3 sources, two primary (not used) and one secondary (used inadequately), which would have made it liable to the obsessive crowd for an AfD. The other secondary sources repeat what our basic secondary source says etc. All around it was therefore a call in the best interests of encyclopedic writing, which is what we are here for.Nishidani (talk) 09:34, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh wow, where should I start. The fact that you guys are willing to twist reality, my words, and your words/intention in order to now argue in favor of a change that HAD NO CONSENSUS, is unfortunately degrading yourselves, regardless of Wikipedia.
EdJohnston, your inconsistency is socking (no personal offense of course). You closed the discussion with the statement "The result of the move request was: Moved to 1517 Safed attacks and 1517 Hebron attacks." After I realized that something went wrong and wrote this post, you then said "Four editors indicated support for changing 'pogrom' to 'attacks':". All of a sudden it was not a "result", but what 4 users "indicated". After I proved that these four editors did not say they supported changing the articles' titles from "pogrom" to "attack", you replied "This was a complex proposal ... we may be unsure how everyone would have voted on every option". And now that I've provided all the evidence, you complete this 180 degree turn and acknowledge there was a violation here, defending yourself saying "I could have procedurally failed the move proposal based on too many questions being asked.". It's important to note that before Oncenawhile gave her final word and before you closed the disucssion, you wrote to her here, saying "there might be enough support to change the word 'pogrom' to 'attacks' in both articles. Do you want to respond in the move discussion and give your opinion on that option?". ...
Pluto2012, how can you still claim this move "transpires from the discussion" after all the evidence above? You're changing the reality and now even makes this absurd statement "As far as I am concerned I didn't explicitely wrote that I was in favor of that move but EdJohnston undertstood well my tone and I confirm I am not opposed to his move given the merge didn't make consensus." From your TONE? NOW you confirm it? This is too pathetic - I know very well you're supportive of this change, but you DID NOT write it in that discussion.
Oncenawhile, seeing you writing "There was clear consensus on both pages to move away from pogrom" disappoints me a little because I though you know better - a few editors expressed support to move away from pogrom, but there was definitely no consensus whatsoever to change BOTH articles from "pogrom" to "attack". To get the facts on the ground again, you supported something you didn't originally propose, and as I've said, you were the only one who explicitly said they support this change in that discussion, as opposed to what editors here now say. It's good you're "happy to start another move discussion", because obviously there'll be one, but that's the minor issue here. All of you are experienced editors, but still support this unjustified move by EdJohnston, and then defend it, showing a total POV violation - you would never let that happen to the "other side" and allow them to get away with it (for example if Deir Yassin massacre were to change to "Deir Yassin battle" after a proposal discussion with circumstances like in the one above. I challenge you all to find a 'requested move' discussion where the end result was to change the title to something that none of the participants (7 or more, other than the proposer herself) said they support, like here)
Nishidani, the only thing I want to say is that if you think these articles should be deleted, then about half of the articles in Template:Palestinian Arab villages depopulated during the 1948 Palestinian exodus will follow along as well.
To EdJohnston - I opposed the proposal and favored changing ONLY the Hebron article from "pogrom" to "attack", so yes I am "happy" about that change only and not about the Safed one, but that's not the concern now and this whole thing requires attention from uninvolved admins. Shalom11111 (talk) 19:05, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Shalom11111, I'm sorry you feel this way - hopefully we can resolve this to everyone's satisfaction. Please could you let us know what you think this article should be called and why? Oncenawhile (talk) 21:18, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I already said what I personally think the titles should be, and as I examined the options I didn't let my conflict of interest compromise my decision and decided "attacks" was possibly a better name. Forget about a new proposal or title, I care very little about this now and will not argue about this. I have no words to describe what's happening here - you're all supporting a clearly unjustified title change simply because YOU LIKE IT, and nothing will convince me or any objective wikipedian otherwise. This is a perfect example of how the Arab/Palestinian-Israeli area on en.Wikipedia (and probably in other ones too) has been handle for years. You're more powerful, using it to your advantage, and yes, evidently that includes admins too. It doesn't matter if we decide that "pogrom" is really a better name - there are countless problems here.
Oncenawhile, you changed both titles here and here and wrote "per talk", (Pluto2012 backed you up, summarizing "please respect contributors who took the time to discuss 1 yerar the topic" - [WHAT?!]) even though there wasn't a SINGLE MENTION in the talk pages of the Safed and Hebron articles to use those titles - "1517 Ottoman–Mamluk War in Safed" or "1517 Ottoman–Mamluk War in Hebron". Greyshark09 rightly reverted you, and wrote to you "don't do such unilateral RM actions again on contested pages, however, since this is clearly disruptive and a violation of community trust." I'm not saying my opinion but am just providing facts, which themselves should result in serious sanctions at WP:ARBPIA. I do not want to report anything myself because then the "other side" will mercilessly get back at me in revenge, which I don't want happening. To be honest I'm feeling uncomfortable discussing this all, but at the same time feel I have to. Shalom11111 (talk) 09:50, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your points are too unfocused to handle. I.e.

Nishidani, the only thing I want to say is that if you think these articles should be deleted, then about half of the articles in Template:Palestinian Arab villages depopulated during the 1948 Palestinian exodus will follow along as well.

I said the article was badly drafted from the outset. The implication is that many editors get passionate about retention or delete, whereas the problem is not that, but rather writing encyclopedic articles, and in this case, underreported (as is most of history) incidents cannot merit a page on their own. The Safed/Hebron articles could easily be incorporated into the city articles. Note that I didn't press that option. Some editors want many pages documenting every jot and title of incidents under the rubric 'pogrom', and that is an abuse of the encyclopedia. When you have almost nothing on Safed 1517, Hebron 1517 etc., the sensible thing is to make an inclusive article. Your analogy with the Palestinian articles is silly. Almost all the depopulated villages have a historical existence over time, from early Ottoman records down to modern ethnography, and are sited on ancient ruins. If those pages are thin, it is because few editors, outside Huldra and Zero have worked them. Their topology and reality is not paralleled by the incidents you refer to, which were acts of violence over a few days in the early 16th century on a Jewish community. Properly speaking, Chesdovi fucked up, and should have put that material in the appropriate sections of Hebron and Safed, and saved us all the trouble of futile page expansion. Nishidani (talk) 10:25, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Shalom11111, can you show me exactly where you previously stated what you think the title of this article should be? I honestly can't see such a comment anywhere (sorry if I have overlooked it). I think the feelings you are expressing result from a simple misunderstanding, combined with not heeding the advice at WP:AGF. Please tell us what you think this article title should be and why, so we can try to move on. Oncenawhile (talk) 10:28, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nishidani, okay thanks for clarifying your point. The template I referred to was obviously brought as an example to what would happen if we applied the same standards to those articles as you want to apply here. Even if they have "a historical existence over time", it doesn't rule out the possibility for an inclusive article for all pre-1948 Arab towns and villages, just like merging these two article was a considerable option. Anyway, you made a few statements sound like facts when there's a lot of room for doubt. Many would argue that the Hebron/Safed evens should be defined as "pogroms", and many would say the articles shouldn't be incorporated into the main articles and can merit a page on their own (I mean, just take a look at this article again). The issue needs proper examination, so I don't necessarily think Chesdovi messed up anything.
Oncenawhile, what do you mean, how can you not find it? You proposal was to move both articles to "Jewish communities during the 1517 Ottoman-Mamluk war". I opposed this proposal here, and suggested that only the Hebron article be changed to "attacks" and said no more, which by default means I'm offering no new changes to this article, the Safed one, as I said nothing about it, nor did I "indicated" it should be moved. This is the most basic stuff. After this edit of mine, you twisted my previous words and misused my comment to say "I would be content with 1517 Safed attacks and 1517 Hebron attacks, per the suggestion of Shalom11111,". You ignored the fact that I explicitly only favored the Hebron name change, and then 'coincidentally' EdJohnston ignored it too, while given all the above evidence it was impossible not to be aware of it. Well, not automatically assuming good faith for every single action every editors takes is somewhat normal and is far better than consistently violating the most sensitive and strictest rules on Wikipedia, which in this case wasn't only done by long-time editors, but also by an admin. Shalom11111 (talk) 15:34, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so I see two scenarios to describe the history of this discussion:
1) Your vote comment at 20:47 at 19 March was extremely clear that you supported pogrom for this article, and various evil editors and admins here have purposefully misinterpreted it for our own dastardly means, or
2) Your vote comment at 20:47 at 19 March was ambiguous as to your views on this article name and was therefore misunderstood by most if not all of us.
Which is it? This is of course a rhetorical question, since it is of course obvious that all the editors and admins on this page are evil (and dastardly).
Anyway, since you support the name "1517 Safed pogrom" for this page, please provide the sources which you believe support that title.
Oncenawhile (talk) 17:25, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Many would argue that the Hebron/Safed evens should be defined as "pogroms", and many would say the articles shouldn't be incorporated into the main articles and can merit a page on their own (I mean, just take a look at this article again).

Many who? What you are consistently failing to do is to look at the issues and protocols, with an eye to what wikipedia endeavours to do. Your failure is due to a tendency to think that invariably people are lined up according to factions, Pro-Israel/pro-Palestine. That certainly is not the case here. Chesdovi made two useless articles, and no one 'pounced' on them. He's been asked to remodulate them so that they reach very basic standars for articles. You cannot make an article on an historical incident of which almost nothing is known, out of two untranslated primary sources, and one secondary source. Nearly all wikipedians know this. Where I a POV pusher I'd have had this up for AfD, or merge years ago. Chesdovi's had two years to fix the mess, and he just kept adding secondary secondary sources rephrasing what the only real secondary source reports, which uses the word 'pogrom'. The only visible result is that these articles appear to have emerged in order to introduce into article titles regarding Jews in Palestine the word 'pogrom'. If pogrom is not there, then the article's function ideologically diappears. These articles are not encyclopedic, they have been drafted to create an image of unilateral suffering. In that period many ethnic/religious communities were devastated, and of this not a word. Take the 1834 Hebron massacre. 90% of the text documents the suffering of the Jewish community, 5 girls raped and murdered,7 men, 12 of a population of 500 Hebronites murdered. The editor there noted the bare statistic re the huge Hebronite Arab losses, but spinned the text to suggest that the 'pogrom' or 'massacre' concerned the Jews. 120 young Arabs were kidnapped for sodomy among the Egyptian troops. No elaboration. Not as important as the burning of Torah scrolls. The word 'pogrom' was introduced there to refer to the Jewish suffering, though the whole Arab community was devastated. All Chesdovi's work, if I remember correctly, and the point he was trying to make was to introduce 'pogrom' everywhere possible to create the image of Jewish suffering at Arab hands in Palestine, and the pointyness of all this was obvious. This so disturbed me, . . .that I yawned, and left the articles stew in the mess he created. What you see is a corrective to past manipulation of the encyclopedia, and correcting this is not a ganging up by the 'opposite side'. It is simply the application of standards. Nishidani (talk) 19:58, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oncenawhile, for some reason you're insisting that I explain my edits while they are crystal clear, and trying to shift the attention on me. Even if I was misunderstood, which I can confidently say I was not, you're ignoring the comments of all other participants, of which none supported the "end result" of moving both pages from "pogrom" to "attack", and you made other violations described above even if you did misunderstand that single comment of mine because it was somewhat "ambiguous". It is so pathetic that you're focusing on this, while you have not admitted, addressed, or given an explanation for all the unjust actions I've exposed (well at least you're not denying them...). Since you asked, evidently, many books refer to this incident with its pogrom name, or Pogrom of 1517 Against the Jews of Safed, while at the same time you'll literally find no source that refer to this event as "1517 Safed attacks" as this proves.
Nishidani, purposely or not, you're bringing up a different issue and shifting the discussion to whether or not these events/the sources we have on them are enough for them to have an article or not, and on other similar events. Since when did this become the subject of the discussion? See above, it says "Incorrect titles" - that's what it's about, the titles and the fraud involving them. You're welcome to start a new thread titled "notability" or however you want to name it, and then provide your arguments there... Your said "In that period many ethnic/religious communities were devastated, and of this not a word. Take the 1834 Hebron massacre." Sure, then go ahead and create those other articles, considering you have the required coverage on them. I would not oppose this, since I hate double standards and won't apply it, and I also know it usually backfires. It's not Chesdovi's fault that the 'people of the book' happened to write and document more key events (both good and bad) in their history and much more extensively than others, and so we may now have more information about their massacres than the other 'ethnic/religious communities'. And even if Chesdovi tried to POV-push in there, what I just said may be the reason why there's nearly "no elaboration" on the Arab losses - I'm pretty sure someone would have written about that had they had the information needed. [you wrote] "...corrective to past manipulation of the encyclopedia, and correcting this is not a ganging up by the 'opposite side'. It is simply the application of standards" - no, that is not the the case here though. Violating rules is not "application of standards", and if you noticed that article Chesdovi created was problematic but then gave up on in instead of attempting to fix anything, then neither one of you is perfect. Considering all the gossip going on about Chesdovi, it'd be more than fair to allow him to give his account on the subject, if he's willing to. Though I'm afraid it'll now turn into a completely different topic, which is unfortunately happening. Shalom11111 (talk) 07:10, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Walls of text, pick and bloat, ignore stated facts and request details, etc. One example

Your said "In that period many ethnic/religious communities were devastated, and of this not a word".'

If we edit a page like this, we are required to read around the topic. Reading around this topic would have shown both you and Chesdovi the whole picture, i.e. re the Circassian community in Cairo, and the massive slaughter of Arabs in Gaza. Aside from the slaughter of battle the Mamluk Circassians were hunted down, their property confiscated en masse etc. In that period, if you want an ethnic breakdown, forces consisted of Turks, Circassians, Bedouin, Berbers, Maghrebis, Arabs, even Italians (who manned the Ottoman artillery). It's all in the standard histories of the overthrow of the Mamluks by the Ottomans. William Muir,The Mameluke Or Slave Dynasty of Egypt 1260-1517 A.D, Smith Elder & Co., 1896 pp.203ff. Kadir I. Natho Circassian History, 2009 pp.238ff.‎ What you and Chesdovi are doing is looking at one ethnic group, stating the fact they suffered, and then rewriting it as if the relevant period history was little more than a succession of pogroms against Jews (the backdrop again is the contemporary I/P conflict, so the game is to blacken the record of some party in that chronic dispute). You now reply that other editors can look after the rest of humanity,

It's not Chesdovi's fault that the 'people of the book' happened to write and document more key events (both good and bad) in their history and much more extensively than others, and so we may now have more information about their massacres than the other 'ethnic/religious communities'.

Wrong again. The literature on the impact on Safed and Hebron's Jews in 1517 is extremely thin. We know more about the other massacres. Reading the literature for Safed and Hebron and you come up with extensive materials on the overall period. Of this neither you nor Chesdovi think there is any need to cover that: you suggest that when this selective page focusing on one community is created, if anyone objects to its partisan focus, its exclusion of the historical context, the onus is on them to do the work. That is a confession of contempt for NPOV, as well as a confession of indifference to history, if it lies outside the scope of one's own ethno-religious group. It is also deeply unfair, because once a partisan article is mugged up, it imposes on outside editors a notable burden of extra work. There are no extra articles to be created on this pattern, but only merges.
Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia written on ethno-religious lines: it is, by definition, neutral with regard to all parties, and this overlaps with what historians do, survey comprehensively, incident by incident, period by period, the flow of economic, political , cultural and military forces in human conflict, without privileging any one slant or perspective. I've watched this game for several years, and it is depressing to see how widespread the temptation is to look at anything and everything from one's own ethnic or religious angle, at the cost of undermining our NPOV commitment to look at all sides.Nishidani (talk) 10:22, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Walls of text, pick and bloat" - what a surprise, that sounds very familiar to me. What was not clear when I wrote that (purposely or not) you're bringing up different issues and shifting the discussion into another topic? This thread is about technical violations that were committed, and that's very simple to understand and notice. You're systematically ignoring this instead of starting a new thread to address these issues, which could/should certainly be discussed.
"There may be times when we are powerless to prevent injustice, but there must never be a time when we fail to protest". Shalom11111 (talk) 20:27, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in the current circumstances "protesting" looks like wp:point
If you want to move the title of this article, just open a new section where you can provide the sources that support the move and let's evaluate them.
Pluto2012 (talk) 22:08, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Shalom11111, I suspect it was an accident, but by using that quote (from Elie Wiesel's Nobel Laureate lecture, made in reference to his experience in the holocaust) in this context, you are implicitly equating this argument with the worst crime in human history, and therefore disrespecting the many millions of holocaust victims. Again, i'm sure you didn't mean to do it, but please pick your quotes more carefully next time. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:19, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Throwing holocaust denialism at other editors after opening this discussion with a collective WP:AGF caricature of everyone else as 'willing to twist reality, my words, and your words/intention in order to now argue in favor of a change that HAD NO CONSENSUS,' that 'degrades' us, Shalom11111, suggests to me you are not editing with serenity. Your single protest is not sufficient to block a consensual opinion by myself, Pluto, and Oncenawhile, and, as has been noted, (once more) flinging allusions to the holocaust to suggest that these editors are 'twisting reality' is a violent distortion of the reality of this page, and, by its implicit parallel, between 6 million in a programmed ethnic genocide, to the obscure violence undergone by a small community during a devastating war between two major regional powers, where tens of thousands were swept up in massacres, is, frankly, obscene. If you can't review matters with serenity and a sense of proportion, you're on the wrong page, and in the wrong area of internet, which has ample blogs for bashing people with hypertrophic hyperbole.Nishidani (talk) 09:24, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Pluto2012, I think your baseless "wp:point" accusation does not even worth a response on my behalf. Do you understand the fact that the current title of this page was not supposed to be moved in the first place, or do you not? Its move from "pogrom" to "attacks" was a violation of Wikipedia:Requested moves - meaning it broke Wikipedia's rules regarding the subject. So after the article returns back to its original title, the burden should be on those who want to change the article's title.
Oncenawhile, if respect is so important to you, you must first learn that there's a huge difference between the word "Holocaust", which should be capitalized as it refers to a specific event internationally known as the Holocaust -- and "holocaust" with lower case, which is any destruction or slaughter on a mass scale, esp. caused by fire or nuclear war (definion by Google). Calling the Holocaust "holocaust" is extremely offensive so don't write it again this way here. Also, you again over/misinterpret my words and take them out of context. It was a great quote made by a person I highly respect and you may not tell me I'm "implicitly equating this argument with the worst crime in human history" because that was not the intention and people use all kinds of quotes for all kinds of different meanings and implications.
Nishidani, your ability to deceive is amazing but at the same time disgusts me because you're lying about me now in one of the worst manners I could imagine. To everyone who read Nishidani's above comment and has some doubts, I encourage you to read the entire discussion and judge for yourselves if his comment has even the slighest justification. Also, just because you guys have numbers doesn't mean you're right. Yes I'm evidently the only one in this discussion fighting for the truth on this page with regards to how the move discussion was ended, yet Oncenawhile states on her talk page that "at the moment there is still an extraordinary amount of hasbara propaganda and whitewashing pervading the key articles". Where is that Hasbara and what are these key articles? What in the world are you talking about, may I ask? And when will you all stop using that CAMERA incident to make a point, I mean will it last forever? God knows. Anyway, I've proved all of you wrong with regards to the fact that this article's title's change was a violation of Wikipedia's rules (and the admin EdJohnston seemed to acknowledge this at his last commnet). Allow me to finish with another quote - "Sadly, injustice can last for hundreds and thousands of years, but no injustice can live forever". Shalom11111 (talk) 18:31, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This conversation is at rock bottom. Shalom11111, disputes are not resolved by assuming the worst and attacking everyone around you. You achieved nothing here because you alienated every other editor on the page. Oncenawhile (talk) 19:32, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You have proven all of us that you have no argument to discuss the move and even more, don't want to discuss this more. You just want to discuss and discuss again for nothing.
Given you don't understand WP:Wikilawyering, see Judgment of Solomon. Maybe there is a chance taht you understand but I doubt this. Judaism's wisdom is no more practiced by most of Jews.
I am personnaly fed up, and what follows is a clear and direct personnal attacks, by those among Jews and Israelis who suffer psychological disease in their need of victimisation to find a good reason to live. There is no antisemitism and wikipedia.
Now, Go Away. Pluto2012 (talk) 07:25, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nish, can you explain why you created Zion Square assault? 2012 saw many similar attacks unfortunately happen all over the region, yet you focus on this one? Why have you not written about all the others? Should we merge Zion Square assault because numerous pages about attacks by Arabs against Jews in Jerusalem do not exist? Or does the no fatalities Zion Square attack deserve a page simply because it was "notable", Arab attacks being so common they elicit little media interest? I find it wrong that an assault which occurred 200 years ago should be whitewashed from history simply because it does not boast 46 online news reports. Just like the Zion lynch, Wikipedia should allow the immortalisation of such attacks so long as they are documented to some extent. In fact, every time and Arab crowds beat Jews or visa-versa, let's create a credible page. It so easy nowadays what with searchable internet online papers. You may have many specialist interests you like to edit about here, other people may just have one or two. Don’t demand they broaden their interest pool just so they can edit here. Not everyone is as knowledgeable as you. Chesdovi (talk) 11:37, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oncenawhile, disputes are resolved by following what the policies say, which you guys evidently haven't done. I have nevertheless achieved something: I exposed the violations that took place here and your unwillingness to correct or acknowledge them. And more.
Pluto2012, I actually have discussed the move, so you're wrong. And I could discuss it more once these two articles move back to their previous titles as they should (unless rules are just a suggestion on this Wikipedia). So you think that "Judaism's wisdom is no more practiced by most of Jews" and then make an insult against me by doubting the chance that I'll be able understand it? Where are these words of yours coming from, jealousy, hatred, or provocation? That's pathetic and laughable. I'm not going to thoroughly respond to this because it would come close to a blog discussion, so I'll say this: Please learn the facts and statistics and find out for yourself that Jews have been and still are the most disproportionately successful ethnic group in world history in all aspects relating to "wisdom". Same thing with Israel, "the Jew among nations". I personally find it incredible. You then said "I am personnaly fed up" - considering what you wrote following these words, I have to agree: You probably are fed up, but not with the truth and good things, I think. I wonder how to reply to your "No, Go Away" finish. I wish I had the 'Judgment of Solomon', because then maybe I would've had an idea. Oh well.
Chesdovi, you made a good point. Shalom11111 (talk) 19:56, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies all, I jumped the gun with my "rock bottom" comment last week. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:06, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Chesdovi.'Nish, can you explain why you created Zion Square assault?' I originally created it as a rhetorical exercise to try and find out if editors were deleting or creating pages according to encyclopedic principles or not. Because before that article, several editors, the Gnome, Activist and others, were singling out incidents from a murderous region to make pages articles about 'pogroms' or 'murders' of Jews but (from memory) seemed quite interested in requesting the deletion of similar articles concerning Palestinian casualties. The incoherence was extraordinary, as was the POV pushing. I don't believe most of those articles can be justified.
I fully expected that someone would press for its deletion, and then I would have asked each deleting editor why they supported the retention of parallel articles when Israelis were the victims. What happened? The Zion square incident took on a life of its own. It was so widely reported, and agonized over in Israel esp. that the literature on it became extensive overnight, and I was hoist by my own petard.
The wider point is this. Palestinian deaths or casualties are drastically underreported. Unless we check B'tselem et al, most of the people shot dead by the IDF or border police in dubious circumstances go nameless, and the details are sparse. Any Israeli casualty gets maximum source coverage. It's systemic bias. It is easy to write Death of Yehuda Shoham,Murder of Helena Rapp, Murder of Ofir Rahum, Death of Asher and Yonatan Palmer, Murder of the Aroyo children , Murder of Hatuel family, Murder of Koby Mandell and Yosef Ishran etc.etc., but you have no Samouni family massacre unless as a sketch in Zeitoun incident, the death of Jamal Dalu's family, or the killing of Mahmoud Abu Khusa(here), The shooting of Fathi Askira (here). Because of this source bias, which gives intensive coverage to the 10% of victims of terrorism because they are Israeli, and ignores the 90% who fail the ethnicity test, such article showcasing is tendentious. The Zion Square Attack was my only venture in these troubled waters, its tactical use to point up the problem failed, but the article survived because for once Israelis and Jews everywhere were shocked by this single example of what is, from a Palestinian perspective, absolutely normal or regular behaviour. It occurred in Jerusalem, before civil witnesses, not in 'the territories' where eye-witnesses who are reliable (not 'Arabs' or 'activists :)) are invariably absent. It appears this wave of article creation to serve the victimization of the victors push has died off recently. But I regard the attempt to rewrite this and other articles in terms of one population as serving similar ends. The interest is not encyclopedic history, but documenting one group's suffering. Nishidani (talk) 09:33, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:1517_Safed_attacks&oldid=1195688533"