Talk:Irgun/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Early comments

Things missing: the connection with Betar; role in 1948 war; split which created Lehi.

---

Uri Avneri is not a pacifist. He is radical leftist and heads Gush Shalom but he do supports violence as a legitimate mean to achieve goals. MathKnight 15:24, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Jayjg - your reverts

Why did you revert the additions? Are they incorrect? Josiah 23:58, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

They were completely unsourced (unlike the original article, which was fully sourced), and obviously written by someone whose first language was not English. I think there could be at least a reference or something before adding that much information to the article, don't you think? Jayjg 03:00, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable--Josiah 03:16, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Incomplete

I'm new to this encyclopaedia, so forgive me if there is a more appropriate way to add comments, but upon reading this article, it seems woefully incomplete. The articles on Hagana and Menachem Begin give good information about Etzel. There is no mention in this article about the Altalena! The Altalena affair is a pivitol piece of Etzel history. The wikipedia article on it is pretty good, and contradicts the statement in your article here that Etzel was simply "merged" with Tsahal. And what of Dier Yassin? It is a big debate if it was simply a pitched battle followed by unfortunate killings or if it was a massacre, but there is little question that Etzel and Lehi were the main Jewish participants. Again, the wikipedia article on the battle contains good information that should at least be mentioned in Etzel's history. --Avik 06:22, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Editors are welcome to add information to Wikipedia articles. Please try to ensure that they have valid sources, and that the information is presented in a NPOV way. If you are unsure whether this is the case, it is recommended you bring them to the Talk: page first. Jayjg 15:56, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

So, you can simply summarily revert them under one pretext or another? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.109.187.57 (talk) 08:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Where is the section about ATTACKS ON CIVILIAN TARGETS????

Comment

They claimed that all land "between the Nile and the Euphrat" rightfully belonged to the Jewish people.

Although this view was at times raised by some extremists (in particular, following the Six-Day War), to my best knowledge, the Irgun has not pursued these views. Yair Stern, the founder of the Stern Gang has (again, to my best knowledge), but from a discussion that I'd heard with the participation of a former Stern Gang man, the organization had not adopted this view, and Mandate of Palestine was seen, even by it, as a reasonable approximation of the Promised Land. --Uri

Elian, your attempt to paint me as an extremist on the mailing list won't wash. As I said before, the main point of my deltion was this line -- Its most well known activity was the bombing of King David Hotel in Jersualem in 1946, killing close to a hundred innocent people. Calling victims "innocent people" is hardly NPOV. -- Zoe

So why didn't you just remove the word "innocent" if that's not NPOV? Is this reason enough for a wholesale revert including deletion of substantial content? BTW, my intention of the post on the mailing list was not to attribute any extremist views to you, but to issue my seriuos doubts if you would handle edit conflicts in this field in a fair way. Please don't interprete this as a personal attack, I have just watched several edits of you in this field and I miss a readiness on your side to discuss stuff and trying to settle conflicts instead of just deleting and reverting. If you promise me that you will never use your sysop powers in anything which has to do with arab, israeli and islamic stuff, I have absolutely no objection against you becoming sysop. --Elian

I'm not going to promise you anything, because I don't believe you have any veto power on the subject. -- Zoe

There is no veto except for Jimbo AFAIK. so what do you want to do then? I would really appreciate if you addressed my questions. --Elian

RE Elian. Why doesn't he answer your questions? Becouse you are overlaying your smooth questions with deviations. "If you promise ..." - I call this a threat. "My intention was not .."; iIf you do not want to personally attack - then do not do so, instead of afterwards reinterpretating. "I miss a readiness ..." - he's your servant? -DePiep 18:22, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Uh, guys, take a look at the Irgun logo. It displays a map of the Palestine Mandate (East Palestine, e.g. "Transjordan" included). It doesn't show the Nile. It doesn't show the Euphrates. Underneath the map is the legend. "Rak kakh" -- Hebrew for "only thus" -- meaning that the Irgun wanted the whole Palestine Mandate. The "Nile to the Euphrates" stuff is an anti-Israel canard that the Arabs circulated a lot after the Six Day War. It was always hokum, even though a lot of pseudo-historians like Tom Segev repeat it ad naseum. What would Jews want with Egypt anyway? Repeal Passover? Give it up.Scott Adler 09:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Terrorists?

Jayjg, you have recently reverted an edit by one A. Khalil in which the 1937-1939 attacks were called "terrorist attacks". Do you mind explaining why they cannot be considered terroristic? --Doron 01:37, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

In general in Wikipedia I've seen a trend to avoid the word "terrorist" wherever possible, since it just gets people arguing about the meaning of "terrorist". Instead the actions are described, and people can decide for themselves whether or not they are terrorist. It's not a hard and fast rule, but it has been used quite a number of times to exclude the word "terrorist" from articles describing various Palestinian groups and their actions. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:15, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

By automatically deleting the word "terrorist" whenever it is applied just because there may be someone out there that may disagree, the word "terrorist" is rendered meaningless. What's the point of having a word that you can never apply? How about deleting the word "terrorist" from the September 11, 2001 attacks article? You must be aware that there are people who do not regard that attack as "terroristic". No - the word should be avoided whenever there is controversy. The controversy should be well founded, not just someone not liking his favorite terrorist group being labeled "terrorist" because it's not a nice word. If there is controversy, there should be given arguments for both sides (Hezbollah, for instance). While I agree there may be controversy regarding the designation of the Irgun as a terrorist group, I cannot see how the attacks of 1937-1939 be regarded as anything but terrorism. This was a series of attacks by shooting and explosions deliberately targeting Arab civilians and causing the lives of dozens, perhaps hundreds of civilians. I'm sorry, but when you're an underground group carrying out attacks which target civilians for the purpose of terrorising them, the least you can expect is being labeled "terrorist", I don't think this is a matter of point of view.

I think Doron has a valid point. One important distinction that needs to be made before we can settle this is the definition of Terrorism (oh no, not again!). In the sense that their goal was to terrorize to make a political and military statement, then yes, some of their actions were terroristic. In the sense that their goal was to indiscriminatly target civilians for the sake of killing civilians, they would not be considered terrorists. Their actions would generally probably fall in the same area as an Arab group who targetted combat soldiers, but not civilians (assuming such a group existed). I actually think the article as written is quite good -- it discusses the Irgun as a terrorist organization in the eyes of the British, but recongnizes their goals were not violence for violence's sake. Mikeage 11:45, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

But that's the point, Mikeage, their actions during this period (some of them, at least) were aimed at Arab civilians, not the British authorities. This included bombing places like marketplaces, cafe's, and cinema theatres, which were civilian targets by any standard, and (unsurprisingly) their casualties were mostly Arab civilians. The goal of terrorism is not the killing itself (as you can read in Terrorism), but it is some political goal that may often be legitimate in itself (in this particular case, reaction to Arab violence). Terrorism describes the means to achieve the goal, and in this case I think it is very clear that Irgun's tactics were terroristic, especially during this period.--Doron 12:24, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The article already describes them as terrorist, and characterizing attacks inevitably leads to definitional and edit wars. If the attacks in question were all on civilians, then the easiest way to solve the problem is to describe them as "attacks on Arab civilians"; then everyone knows exactly what is meant. If the attacks were on armed Arab groups as well, then the description "terrorist" is questionable. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:09, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Fine, then it should read "attacks on Arab civilians" then?

If there were indeed attacks on civilians only, then that's exactly what I think it should read. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:58, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

THIS ISSUE IS NOT REALLY RESOLVED. Most of the comments are reasoned but then again the ever present mortal foil remains. We have our biases to deal with. And people use the word terrorist for when it suits them or their cause or agenda. Because by not calling the actions of Irgun terrorism you exclude one point of perception. To a jew these groups represent freedom fighters to an arab their just cold blooded killers/terrorists. And vice versa when it comes to Arab groups. Why should the word "terrorist" not be applied to Irgun? The user Mikeage's comments just scream bloodly bias towards arabs so reasoning with him is out of the question.

I would luv to work on this issue with Jayjg. No one is going to agree on one definition about terrorism. I think the best thing to do is use freedom fighter/terrorist group or other combinations to describe the Irgun and any other group i.e. Tamil Tigers etc...

Rather than accuse one of "vandalism" Jayjg work with me in making sure this article is truly free from your or my bias, okay(extending an olive branch)?

AgreedMikeage 04:26, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

As far as I know, current Wikipedia policy dictates that the term "Terrorism" be used only in the article about terrorism. The term that should be used here is 'militant'- this is the term that is used in the article about Hamas (which is undeniably a terrorist organization according to the Wiki criteria). Especially in this case since Irgun was really 'terrorist' only during 1936-1939, when it was a rather minor group, as opposed to 1944 onwards when it became the dominant organization in the struggle against the British.

-Sangil 17:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: rv most of User:Guy Montag's changes

1. Irgun was a small group, calling it a "paramilitary organization" is a huge exaggeration.

2. Uri Avneri was a member of Irgun 1938-1941. He was never a member of the Stern Gang.

3. The "Lehi" is known in English as the Stern Gang, the link should point to that article, and not to a disambiguation page.

4. Several details were erased for no apparent reason. --Doron 00:18, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Guy, again, as anybody who knows anything about Avnery knows, he was a member of the Irgun (see, e.g., [1]). The source you have was written by the journalist Ari Shavit, and is undoubtedly a mistake. --Doron 10:45, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I'll stick with your edit on Avnery.

Guy Montag 22:21, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"Terrorist" categories

First, there's no contradiction between "National Liberation Movement" and "Terrorist Organization", both can describe the same group of people, as the former describes purpose and the latter describes means.

If Irgun is not in the "terrorist" category because some Irgun-sympathizer doesn't like the word "terrorist", then we may as well cancel the whole family of "terrorist organization" categories, as there will always be someone offended by a categorization. One cannot include Hammas, for instance, as a terrorist organization without including Irgun, so either they are both under that category, or they are both not under it. Wikipedia is not the place for expressing your personal political inclination, both these organizations are liberation movements, both target civilians for the purpose of terrorizing them into submission, the fact that you sympathize with one and oppose the other should not reflect on the contents.

I think that the purpose of categorization is to provide a quick link for people who generally know what they're looking for. It is not to pass judgement. The body of the article should elaborate on any dispute regarding the categorization if such exists.--Doron 07:46, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The categorization in general tends to follow convenient lines; I'm sure there are people who would like to categorize the Salvation Army as a terrorist organization if it suited their purpose. But neither the King David bombing nor the battle at Deir Yassin qualifies as terrorist actions by any reasonable standard. You'll note that I did not reclassify the Stern Gang article. --Leifern 11:57, 2005 Mar 18 (UTC)

I won't argue about King David Hotel, and "war crime" would probably be more appropriate for Deir Yassin, but what about the dozens of innocent Arab civilians killed in the 30's? Hardly the work of the Salvation Army. I reckon Irgun deserves the "terrorist" classification far more than Lehi. --Doron 08:47, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

We've gone over this before. I think that the bombings of markets, etc., qualify as terrorist acts, although more research needs to be done to verify the list. Deir Yassin and King David are not, imho, terrorist acts. Part of the issue is that those bombings were characteristic of one era in the organization's relatively short life. The British classification doesn't impress me at all - any "government" that sends ships with refugees back to be slaughtered has no moral standing to classify a group as "terrorist." --Leifern 21:36, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

Would you agree (assuming the information I provided is true) that the Irgun committed terrorist attacks during the 30's?--Doron 07:15, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

I am on record as being in favor of banning the label "terrorist" in most cases, but if we have to use it in category names then the Irgun obviously belongs. To answer Leifern's "objections": (1) No it wasn't just one era, the Irgun returned to indiscriminate killing of Arab civilians in 1947. A few examples I could find easily: Dec 10, 13 killed by bombs in a Haifa cinema and at Damascus gate; Dec 12, 4 killed by bomb thrown at bus; Dec 29, 15 killed by bomb at Damascus gate. (Deaths of Jewish and Arab civilians in that month were about equal.) (2) No, it wasn't the "British classification", it was the classification of practically everyone including the mainstream Jewish organizations and the Jewish press. The Palestine Post story of the King David bombing had "terrorist attack" in the headline, and this was normal. Here is a little something from the Palestine Post of Dec 19, 1947:

WARNING TO TERRORISTS
At an urgent meeting in Jerusalem yesterday, the Vaad Leumi Executive issued a strongly-worded warning to the terrorists that "the Yishuv will not permit them to destroy the new world we are about to build." The Executive stressed that, against its will, the Yishuv had been plunged by the terrorists into a whirlpool of blood which threatened political suicide at a time when the community was deeply concerned with its safety and security and the transition to independence. The statement continued: "In the face of abominable spilling of innocent blood in our streets, which cannot be condoned because of the repressions of an outgoing Government, the Yishuv will rouse itself to a renewed and intensified struggle against its destroyers, to save its honour, existence and future."

(3) About "sending ships with refugees back to be slaughtered", it would be educational to learn the name of one such ship. --Zero 13:31, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

If there must be a category for Zionist terrorist groups, it seems to me that the Irgun belongs in it. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:18, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

In reading more carefully through this article, it is quite apparent to me it's nothing but anti-Zionist propaganda piece. Some of the allegations are at best controversial, and the fact that the Altalena isn't even mentioned speaks volumes. With time I'll do research and clean up, but in the meantime this is a shameful joke of an article. --Leifern 12:04, 2005 Mar 18 (UTC)

I agree that the article is in neglect, but what are those anti-Zionist propoganda allegations that are controversial at best?--Doron 07:56, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Cleanup started March 20, 2005

I'm researching the history of the Etzel and cleaning up the article as I go. As is consistently the case when it comes to these things, the truth is always a bit more complicated than most people realize, so I've focused on a few things:

• Etzel actually went through several distinct phases in its short history, and it's anyone's judgment which should be used to characterize the nature of the organization. I think it is better to describe their actions and the rationale for them and let the reader decide on his/her own.
• It is very difficult to sort out what activities - and especially those perpetrated against Arab targets - were the result of renegade, unauthorized initiatives, and which were directed by Etzel leadership. Former leaders of Etzel are not inclined to discuss these in anything but general terms, and other sources (e.g., the Jewish Agency, pro-Palestinian organizations) have an agenda. I'm not giving up on this, but it will take time to work out. I have written to the webmaster on the Etzel website to get further pointers. I have Begin's autobiography somewhere in my bookshelves.

It's not difficult to sort it out as many admissions of culpability (together with excuses) have been made by former Irgun members. For example see Y. Ben-Ami, Years of Wrath, Days of Glory; Memoirs of the Irgun, or heaps of testimony in Bell, Terror out of Zion. Today you can ask almost anyone who belonged to Etzel in the late 1930s and they won't try to deny it. --Zero 15:50, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• The history of Etzel is in many ways a microcosm of the war against the British mandate seen from the Jewish perspective. The leaders were affected by the desparation of the situation in Europe both during and immediately after World War II; the relationship with the British fluctuated tremendously; and the leaders were torn between militant "means justifying the ends" and what was later to become "purity of arms."

--Leifern 12:52, 2005 Mar 20 (UTC)

Brief list of Irgun bombings in the 1938-9 time period. This is "diminished force", Leifern?

1. July 6, 1938 - 28 Arabs killed, more than 60 injured, Haifa Arab market bomb
2. July 25, 1938 - 39 Arabs killed, more than 50 injured, Haifa Arab market bomb
3. Feb 26, 1939 - 33 Arabs killed, 45 Arabs and 2 Jews injured, several incidents
4. Jun 2, 1939 - 5 Arabs killed, 19 wounded, 4 bombs in Jerusalem
5. Jun 19, 1939 - 18 Arabs killed, 24 wounded, Haifa market

There were a few similar things in 1947-1948 too. --Zero 15:50, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I continue to research these incidents and will add as I find more information about them. --Leifern 11:59, 2005 Mar 21 (UTC)

I replaced "argue" with "assert," for this reason. "Argue" implies that the speaker is making a logical argument, i.e., if A is true, and B is true, then it must follow that C is true. The statement that follow the verb are intended to be assertions of fact. They are certainly not indisputable, so I agree that the original "state" is inappropriate. --Leifern 12:03, 2005 Mar 21 (UTC)

Article name

I see the article name was changed from Irgun to Etzel. Was this discussed anywhere? I am no native English speaker, but to my best knowledge, "Irgun" is the common English name for the group. I admit that "Irgun" by itself is a strange name (meaning "organization" in Hebrew, the first word of "Irgun Tzva'i Le'umi", meaning "National Military Organization"), but Etzel is also strange, being the Hebrew pronounciation of the group's acronym ITzL, not a name on its own.

• Which is the common English name?
• Is this an attempt to propagate a new English name?
• There are different spellings of the full name, one should be chosen.
• Why is there a hyphen? I haven't seen this spelling anywhere in Hebrew.
• If Etzel is chosen, then the other names ought to be changed in the article.

Former members of the organization now consistently refer to it as Etzel, both in Hebrew and English writing. Irgun is a redirect page, so anyone who writes Irgun in another article will not run into link problems. --Leifern 12:01, 2005 Mar 21 (UTC)

I'm not worried about redirection, I'm concerned with the name. So again, is "Etzel" the common English name? Not "Irgun"?--Doron 14:15, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Irgun is the common English name, as the over 70,000 Google hits shows. The 3,500 or so Etzel hits (in the context of Irgun) indicated that it is much less common. Wikipedia policy regarding common names indicates this should be moved back to Irgun. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:44, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Etzel is popular amongst Israelis. In English, the most common is Irgun. Ergo, we should use Irgun. We should also remove the non-existent comma in the full name. --Zero 08:50, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Question data

What is the source of this claim: "During the Great Uprising (1936-1939), in which more than 500 Jews were killed by Arab attacks"? I don't believe it. --Zero 08:50, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As you'll see, editors of the Great Uprising article are struggling to find accurate date themselves. 400 is OK as a low-ball number; but I took out estimates for Arab casualties, simply because much more research needs to be done about what actions were done by Etzel, which by others, and which were caused by Arabs themselves. (As a corollary to the fact that Israelis these days get blamed even for suicide bombers who only succeed in blowing themselves up). --Leifern 17:48, 2005 Mar 23 (UTC)

Facing genocide

Read any history book, and you'll see that it was apparent already then that persecution of Jews in Nazi-controlled areas had reached the level that met the common definition of genocide. There is no question that the actions of Irgun were motivated by the need for hundreds of thousands, if not millions of Jews, to save their lives. Thanks to the British, they failed. --Leifern 11:41, 2005 Mar 22 (UTC)

I've read tons of history books and you are wrong. In 1937 Jews were fleeing from persecution but not (as far as any of them knew, and as far as anyone suggested at the time) from genocide. You can prove me wrong by quoting something different directly from 1937. --Zero 13:10, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Zero, have you read Wikipedia's genocide article? Jayjg ^(talk) 18:23, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but it's a question of conveying information to the reader. If we write that a Jew fled Europe in 1937 to escape genocide, everyone will read it as that the Jew was fleeing from the coming Holocaust. They will not interpret the word according to broader definitions adopted later on. In 1937 not even most leading Nazis knew the Holocaust was coming. We should state motivations in 1937 in terms that would have made sense to those people at that time. --Zero 22:49, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, the word didn't have any definition in 1937, it wasn't even coined then, but I see your point. Leifern has changed the phrase from "genocide" to "discrimination, murder and pogroms". Is that better? Jayjg ^(talk) 23:00, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It's better, but he wants this page to read like an Irgun propaganda pamphlet. The Irgun was tying up thousands of British soldiers during 1944 and 1945 while the war against the Nazis was raging. Think about it. --Zero 23:01, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Etzel would have been delighted if those tied-up soldiers had left to fight the Nazis while allowing unrestricted Jewish immigration. And it's worth noting that Etzel fighters fought bravely on the British side for several years during World War II. On a more personal note, I don't have an axe to grind for either Etzel or the Haganah; but I do think that even this organization deserves a full description what they wanted to accomplish, what they did, and what they ended up accomplishing. --Leifern 23:33, 2005 Mar 22 (UTC)

Well, let's work through the various issues so it stays NPOV. Are there any remaining issues with that particular segment? Jayjg ^(talk) 23:27, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Attacks on British targets

The mandate was under British military authority, so it's a bit silly to talk about "civilian" British targets. --Leifern 11:43, 2005 Mar 22 (UTC)

No it wasn't. The British High-Commissioner was a civilian. There was a period of martial law in 1938 and a very brief one covering a few cities in 1947, otherwise the administration was civilian. It wouldn't make any difference anyway, since martial law does not turn civilian bodies like the tax department in to military bodies. For a summary of Irgun activities in 1944, see [2]; you will see my summary is accurate. When Begin announced his 1944 revolt, he said (rather ingenuously, imo) that he was going to attack only civil targets so as to not harm the British war effort. And that's what he did. --Zero 12:34, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"The King David Hotel was the site of the British military command and the British Criminal Investigation Division" - is that not correct? Jayjg ^(talk) 18:27, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The rooms that were destroyed were used by the Secretariat of the Palestine Government and the Defence Security Office of British Military Headquarters. The former was part of the civil administration and the latter was part of the military administration. There was also a CID (police) branch in the hotel but I don't think it was destroyed. At this stage (1946), the Irgun was attacking any and all British targets. The idea that they restricted themselves to military targets is a myth. --Zero 22:32, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, I was just trying to find out which kind of target the King David Hotel was. It was a mixed British administrative/military/police headquarters? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:45, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it was mixed. According to normal standards, it was a military target due to the military offices there. However, one should not describe the Irgun's action as an attack on the military headquarters. They were perfectly happy to blow up the civilian government offices too. Their target was the Mandate government, not just the Mandate military. --Zero 23:00, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I didn't understand that argument. Are you saying it was a military headquarters, and a military target, but it should not be described that way, since they would have attacked it even if it wasn't a military headquarters? Jayjg ^(talk) 23:24, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

On the assumption that I must have a point in there somewhere.., I'll rephrase. We can agree that the hotel was a military target. However, it was not attacked because it was a military target. It was attacked because it was a major administrative center of the Mandate government (both its civil and military wings). If there were no military personnel in the building, it still would have been attacked. Evidence for that is that the Irgun attacked plenty of government buildings which housed no military personnel at all. --Zero 15:24, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

O.K., but aren't you still making an assumption here ("it still would have been attacked"). And, regardless of what they might haven't done if it weren't a military target, doesn't the fact remain that it was? Jayjg ^(talk) 17:35, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The purpose of Etzel's attack against British targets was to create publicity around the fact that the British mandatory government was ineffective and under siege. The attack against the King David Hotel was limited to the wing of the hotel that housed the military headquarters. I'll look through it and see how I can reflect this better, but Zero's edits are tendentious. --Leifern 18:31, 2005 Mar 22 (UTC)

Leifern's edits might as well have been written by Menachem Begin. --Zero 22:42, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

King David Hotel: The British forces knew about the bombs. The Irgun told them about the bombs and the hour of the explosion. At the time of the explosion there was a staff meeting there. The consul (or the guy that was responsible) told his works that if they leave the building they lose the jobe so none left. The guy himself left the building. The British forces knew but tried to achive something through the death of thier workers.--Tharbad 11:18, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Lehi

There's much more to what "Yair" Stern said than that the British are worse than the Germans; in any event, it belongs in the article on Lehi, not the one on Etzel. --Leifern 17:45, 2005 Mar 23 (UTC)

Numbers

The article about Irgun currently (following Leifern's edit) does not state a number of Arabs killed by Irgun in the 1930's, although it did state a number of Jews killed . Since the article is about Irgun, one would think that the number of people killed by Irgun would be more relevant than the number of people killed by the Arabs, since the former describes Irgun's actions while the latter describes Irgun's pretext for its actions, thus being of secondary importance to the article. Yet Leifern feels perfectly fine with quoting the number of Jewish victims, and uneasy with the mentioning of Arab victims. Quoting just a number of Jewish victims in an article about a Zionist military organization is unbalanced, and obviously reflects Leifern's personal POV.

Therefore I have removed the number of Jewish victims for now, so that this matter is discussed. The least an article about Irgun should have is the consequences of their actions, i.e., its victims. During the 1930's, Irgun attacked Arab civilian targets, including restaurants and markets, killing more than 250 Arabs. I have provided a list of attacks against Arabs which was compiled and published by Irgun's intelligence officer, based on Irgun's archives, shortly after the War of Independence (see reference in that article; second edition published in 1981 by the Israel Ministry of Defence). I see no reason to doubt it, and I think it can be considered as reliable almost as if it were an official Irgun document. That is to say, it is almost as if Irgun claimed responsibility for killing those 250 or so.

Your count seem factual enough, I've taken the text from your article and inserted it here. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:41, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Caption on Irgun poster

The term on the cartoon is "Eretz Israel," which refers to the "Land of Israel." This is not the same as "Medinat Israel" (State of Israel") or for that matter "Malchut Israel" (Kingdom of Israel). It can certainly be argued that Irgun thought that a future Jewish state should cover all of what they considered Eretz Israel, but this does not translate to "territorial aspirations." The caption under the caricature of the Six Day War merely describes the contents of the caricature. The equivalent caption under this caricature would be: "Irgun poster showing a fist and rifle over 'Eretz Israel' encompassing the entire British Mandate of Palestine." By all means, you can make that the caption and I won't object the least. --Leifern 21:18, 2005 Apr 2 (UTC)

Agreed with Leifern. Whether secular or religious, many recongnize that the historic kingdom of Israel / Judah extended to the "East Bank" of the Jordan and beyond. Religeous Jewish tradition teaches that the future messianic borders of Israel will extend (roughly) to the area in the poster, but no one currently advocates wars of conquest against, say, Jordan. Although the Irgun's ultimate goals may have included the full area shown in the picture, it would be misleading to caption it as "territorial ambitions," which implies a plan for conquest. An accurate description of this poster would probably note that the area shown represented an ideal, although not necessary a realistic goal. I think Leifern's caption represents a more accurate portayal of the reality at the time. Mikeage 08:42, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You are both wrong on factual grounds. The Irgun aspired to create a Jewish state on the whole of the area labelled "Eretz Yisrael" on the poster. Their writings were full of this territorial claim. That is the plain meaning of "territorial ambition". Leifern's phrase "thought ..should cover all" and Mikeage's phrase "goals .. included the full area" are also both within the plain meaning of "territorial ambition". I wonder if either of you have English as a first language. --Zero 10:01, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

First, that would be "if either of you has English as a first language." The issue relates to the intended message of the poster, and whether one can infer from it that the map refers to "territorial aspirations" in the sense that it advocated territorial conquest, or whether it was merely intended to point out that all of the mandatory area was Eretz Israel, as determined by the San Remo Conference. I read the poster to mean that a) the Jewish homeland is not limited to what the British government feels is appropriate; b) armed resistance is the only way to further our cause. The proposed caption leaves the reader with the impression that Etzel was all about capturing land; which it clearly wasn't. --Leifern 15:17, 2005 Apr 3 (UTC)

Nevertheless, now I want to wonder about the source of this particular poster. The poster says "Irgun Zvai Leumi be-Yisrael". If the poster dates from 1940-1943, this poster is from Stern's group almost certainly, since "Irgun Zvai Leumi be-Yisrael" is exactly what it was called then. If so, it belongs in the Lehi article. If the poster is from before 1940, and plausibly after 1943, the writing is still reasonable for an Irgun poster since "be-Yisrael" can be just "in Israel" appended to the organization name instead of part of it. I will look in a few places... --Zero 11:06, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Liberation Movement?

Someone asked me for contemporary references for the Irgun being regarded as a liberation movement at the time. Perhaps I am misunderstanding the question, because it seems that this is completely obvious. What else do you imagine the Irgun's supporters regarded it as? Or maybe you think it had no supporters? There were support groups formed in many countries. In the US there were all sorts of campaigns of letter writing, public demonstrations (usually organized by Irgun branches but attended by many other people as well), etc etc. You can read all about the public-relations side of the Irgun in Moshe Katz's history of the Irgun. --Zero 09:31, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

If you cant find a citeable source it then it's Original Research as as such contra to official policy. Sure you your inference follows reasonably logically - but we're not in the business of making inferences only doing secondary research. See the policy on no original research. 62.252.0.6 15:02, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I see, there is no actual logic in your objection. And don't preach about the policy, you clearly don't understand it. Go and read the book I cited, it is for sale at Amazon. --Zero 16:00, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

"And don't preach about the policy, you clearly don't understand it." Dont I? Seems pretty clear to me. See eg Israeli terrorism for an example of how some far more experienced editors than I have applied the policy. 62.252.0.6 22:50, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

WP:POINT. And your claim that these situations are similar is incorrect. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:59, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

No - If I were making a point I would have been reverting rather than using the talk page. And the situation is directly the same. If you dont want people to follow the example of more experienced editors then how are we to function as a community? 62.252.0.7 10:19, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

If you want to be part of this community, get yourself a userid and stick to it. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:28, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

terrorism

Well, IP 62 you finally have a valid point. My respect for you has increased negligibly.Guy Montag 23:30, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Good to hear. Now perhaps we can start to co-operate on making this a better encyclopedia. 62.252.0.7 23:32, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Two Points

I'm sort of late to this party, but i went over the discussion here and i have a couple of points to raise-

• Was is Irgun called "the Jewish terrorist group" in the part referring to the Bevin assassination plot? This is not only POV, but is in contradiction to the more neutral approach in the introduction.

I reworded that addition to avoid such language and remove repetitious information. --Zero 01:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• Regarding the King David bombing- i was dunbfounded to notice that the whole discussion failed to point out that Irgun warned the british authorities, as well as the French Consulate and the Palestine Post, of the impending attack. The British in their hubris ignored the warnings (General Sir Evelyn Barker, the military commander of the British forces in Palestine, was quoted as saying "We don’t take orders from the Jews."). Also- the Haganah gave its acceptence to (some say even requested) the operation. Afterwards they condemmed it, so as not to face punishment from by the British. [3], [4]], [5], [6](Hebrew), [7](Hebrew)
  -Sangil 00:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

The discussion of that incident is brief here because we have a whole article on it. The warning and the Hagana connection are discussed in that article. The "don't take orders from Jews" story is apocryphal, see p266 of "The Palestinian Triangle" by Bethel. Shmuel Katz, commonly referred to as the Irgun's "chief propagandist", admitted in his book Days of Fire (p94) that the story "may be dismissed". --Zero 01:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Shmuel Katz's book- I cannot find the quote you mention, but maybe it's because I have the Hebrew edition so the page is different. Can you tell me in what chapter it is?

-Sangil 21:40, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

In the 1966 English edition it is on page 94 (Chapter 10). Here is the whole paragraph: "Why did the warning to the British go unheeded? The Haganah radio later broadcast a report that on receiving the warning Sir John Shaw, the Chief Secretary of the British administration, had said: "I give orders here. I don't take orders from Jews," and that he had insisted that nobody leave the building. This version may be dismissed. It probably developed from the fact that while some of Shaw's close colleagues and subordinates were killed, he himself went unscathed, and gained credence when Shaw was transferred from Palestine a month later." Incidentally, Shaw won a libel suit against a London newspaper which repeated this allegation in 1948 but (the newspaper) could not produce any evidence. --Zero^talk 10:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Plot to assassinate Bevin

It was the Lehi who in fact planned to kill Bevin, and not Irgun. Last week an interview was published with the person who was actually supposed to do the killing- his name is Yaakov Heruty, and he was a Lehi member. Any attribution of this plan to Irgun is false. I will remove this reference from the Irgun article unless someone brings evidence to the contrary (and the British reports cited are not an acceptible source- they contain all sorts of theories and fantasies thought up by British Intelligence. Some of them are completely ridiculous- such as Begin being a communist, or fighting in the Spanish civil war). -Sangil 21:33, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Dissolution of Irgun

The dissolution of irgun had nothing to do with any 'major confrontation'. Irgun publicly declared that it would dissolve itself the moment an independent jewish state is declared, and so it did. During the Altalena episode (which I guess is what the 'major confrontation' referred to) there remained only one Irgun unit operating independantly, in Jerusalem (which was not at the time under the sovereignity or control of Israel).
-Sangil 21:25, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Hanging two British sergeants

See Talk:Menachem Begin#Use of terrorist/criminal

From the article:

The Irgun leadership ultimately responded to these executions by hanging two British sergeants, which effectively brought the executions to an end.

Was the hanging of the two British sergents a criminal act or a war crime under Geneva Convention (1929) (Art. 2)? [... They shall at all times be humanely treated and protected, particularly against acts of violence, from insults and from public curiosity. Measures of reprisal against them are forbidden.] --Philip Baird Shearer 20:56, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Terrorism category

see Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Terrorist, terrorism.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 23:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't apply. See Talk:Lehi (group). CJCurrie 23:38, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

That clearly isn't the case. The category seems to be a not so subtle attempt at circumventing that policy. It clearly is not appropriate.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Moshe, thanks for the link above:

The words terrorism and terrorist may be cited where there is a verifiable and cited indication of who is calling a person or group terrorist. This is the standard Wikipedia format "X says Y". If this is followed, the article should make it clear who is calling them a terrorist, and that the word does not appear to be used, unqualified, by the "narrative voice" of the article. In other cases, terms such as "militant(s)" may be a suitable alternative, implying a group or individual who uses force to attain their objectives. (Note: - The term is not as likely to be disputed if the person or organization verifiably and officially calls themselves "terrorist". But then this should be cited.)

That would be why the category is called what it is. As the British government, and for that matter Ben Gurion, said the Irgun were terrorist the cat placement is within wikipedia policy. Homey 15:24, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Seriously. This belongs in the 'designated terrorist organizations' cat, as they have CLEARLY BEEN SO DESIGNATED by the Brit gov't. Ford MF 04:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Terrorism applies to the Irgun for one overwheliming reason -- Who they were. They were Jews, they were not Arabs. Arabs can't be terrorists because the word hurts their feelings. Arabs are militants or activists.Scott Adler 09:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

For Wikipedia, you have this rather the wrong way around. —Ashley Y 09:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Irgun actions 'vindicated'

"The premises for their founding and strategy were vindicated by subsequent events. Arab violence against Jews in the mandate of Palestine could only be deterred through retaliation;" Oh really? Gregmitch 23:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Man you must be the biggest supporter of the Intifada (Palestinian uprising) --Yas121 20:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Surely those involved in it were, not those who mention it in passing. Lol. User:Green01 2:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying I'm a supporter of it? I'm really not sure what your response is. I just think that stating something like that is biased. To say that violence can only be halted with retaliatory violence is a stretch, IMHO. 09:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Legacy of Irgun

The assertion is commonly made that Irgun was the first modern terrorist group in the Middle East, which was later imitated by Islamic Jihadist groups. Shouldn't this point be mentioned here under "legacy"?

Category?

Would Category:Irgun and Lehi be worthwhile? —Ashley Y 05:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Have now done so, since no-one objected... —Ashley Y 23:22, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

You really waited for a long time. Such a category can't exist. Category:Irgun possibly... yes. Amoruso 23:27, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Three days is more than enough for anyone interested in Irgun to comment here. —Ashley Y 23:32, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Consensus on Category:Designated terrorist organizations

Let's at least try to systematize this.

Support. Irgun was contemporarily labeled by the Brits (and other organizations) terrorist. By definition of the category, Irgun certainly belongs there. Oh wait, I just realized there's a subcat Former designated terrorist organizations, which I think would be more appropriate. I am switching my vote to support this. Ford MF 07:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Removed Irrelevant Text

Removed this text:

Thomas Arthur Russell of the HMS Saumarez, says of Irgun, "It seemed so strange to us older hands that these people who we had fought to liberate, now had become our enemies, I recall two incidents where they called us Nazis and shouted insults across to us. Boarding parties were sent aboard armed with pistols and Lancaster sub machine guns." [8]

I visited the link, and it is clear that the author wasn't talking about the Irgun, but Aliyah Bet, a Haganah effort to smuggle refugees. He appears not to know the difference. Scott Adler 09:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Requesting permission to rewrite?

I usually edit minor details in Wikipedia, vandalism and such, and so I don't know the policy, but I have noticed the English version of this article is drastically inferior to the Hebrew one, which appeared as a featured article in the Hebrew Wikipedia. I'd like to translate the entire Hebrew page and put it here, but because of my ignorance I'd like to know what is the policy for this before I do. I assume I can't insert the Hebrew sites used for reference, but do I have to find new ones? Do I just put the entire translation or must I combine between the two? And if I find a contradiction? I'd be happy if someone can answer me, I think the Hebrew article is excellent and it will benefit this version greatly. Krynnish Conspiracy 19:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

My Hebrew is unfortunately not good enough to read the Hebrew version of this article. But if the Hebrew article is much better than the English one, then I would say go ahead and rewrite it. Just be wary that there are a fair number of american zionists lurking on this page who are likely to delete anything which portrays the Likud in an unfavourable light. And just as you don't need anyones permission to improve the article, they do not need permission to trash your hard work. Good luck... Abu ali 19:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I recommend translating it to a temp page first, such as Irgun/temp. —Ashley Y 23:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

'British anger' - undue weight

Several anon IP editors have restored this section which I have removed, because it violates WP:NPOV#Undue weight. This is an article about Irgun. The section in question is not about Irgun, but about the response of some people to a commemoration plaque placed at the site of one of the attacks the Irgun carried out. Featuring this minor, non-notable reaction as a prominent paragraph gives it undue weight. The reaction is described in the WP article dedicated to this attack. In addition the sources used for this are poor - two opinion pieces and one blog post which does not even mention it. Isarig 15:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Einstein letter

I have removed this passage. The letter in question is not criticism of Irgun, but of begin and his Herut party. It mentions Irgun in passing, and calls it terrorist, but the article already says , elsewhere, that Irgun was called terrorist by several organizations, so this adds nothing new. Adding this criticism here conflates Herut, Begin and Irgun, and passes off criticism of the former as criticism of the latter. As WP:NPOV#Undue weieght says: "Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements." Isarig 15:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I've dealt with your objection by having a sentence explaining the letter and its context and using that intstead of a lengty quotation from the letter itself. This balances out the relevance of the information (Einstein, Arendt, Hook et al calling Irgun terrorist in 1942) without giving it a "depth of detail, quantity of text" etc that would lend itself to "undue weight". Note the passage you quote from Undue weight doesn't discuss removing the material but just deals with how it's presented and I have now dealt with that concern. General Idea 20:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Translations from Hebrew

Could someone please add a translation for these: "people referred to the Irgun as 'הגנה ב or ההגנה הלאומית." This is the English Wikipedia after all... Thanks! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.158.50.133 (talk) 16:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC).

Bizarre Placement...

When an article is about a terrorist organization, as is the case here, usually the mention of its status is up-front, and in context throughout the article.

Note that the articles on the PLO, Contras, Al Qaeda, et cetera, all do this.

But the reference, here, has been sloppily thrown in at the end, surely just out of sheer laziness. I will fix that, editing the information to be contextual and in keeping with the precedents of other terrorist group articles. --Kaz 00:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Tell you what, when you are successful in getting Black September (group) described as a terrorist group in its intro, and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and the Palestine Liberation Front, and the Fatah al-Intifada, and Hamas, and Hezbollah, you can give it a shot here. Until then, read WP:WTA and kindly keep you rPOV out of the article. Isarig 01:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

First, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine is described as being considered a terrorist group (by the US) in its intro, and the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (why does this suddenly feel like a Monty Python sketch) is actually NOT considered a terrorist group (by the US), as is mentioned at the very end of the article...which probably should be moved to the intro, as well. The Palestine Liberation Front ALSO has it in the intro paragraph, also some vandal inserted the word "unfairly", which I just removed. Hezbollah has its terrorist status mentioned in the intro. So does Hamas.

That means ALL BUT TWO of your examples actually do have mention of their official terrorist status in the intro. Which means you should be pretty willing to include it here, since it's the same objective standard: if governments officially list them as terrorists, you mention the listing in the intro, because it's a noteworthy part of the quick definition.

I can't find any mention of Fatah al-Intifada or Black September ever being officially listed as terrorist organizations, or I would add mention in their opening paragraphs myself, and/or help you keep the mention there. I'd put it there anyway (because their acts were the dictionary definition of "terrorist", just like Irgun's), but people like you have established a corrupt enough set of requirements, in order to censor articles like this one, that I may not have precedent on my side there. See, my goal is to list the truth, objectively, not be a bigot and censor articles for my own agenda.

But you just demonstrated your own PoV, while trying to project it on me: If you think those groups should have their terrorist status mentioned in the intro, then you should this group as well. Instead of claiming it should be kept out here until it's included there, you should be working to include it in both places. But, of course, instead you pimp your own PoV by censoring the information you don't want...on just the one side.

Or are you going to go back and remove it from the opening paragraphs of the four Palestinian groups, too? Are you an honest editor, or a bigot?--Kaz 05:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Please review WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Phrases like "pimp your own POV", or calling other editors "bigot" have no place in an encyclopedia. Of course I have a POV, like everyone else. But I try to keep it out of articles. WP has a clear policy on avoiding the use of words like terrorist to describes groups. All the groups I listed were and are considered terrorist by Israel. It is not an exhaustive list, of course - I suggest you walk down the List of terrorist organisations and you will find that a very small fraction of them are described as "terrorist" in their intro. Isarig 15:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

You hardly convince me that you're trying to keep your PoV out of articles, when you give criteria for your choosing to present the truth in this article...and when I point out that they have effectively been met, you turn around and ignore it. This reeks of you simply wanting to keep the word out of this article's intro for your own purposes. Or have you remained consistent by removing the word "terrorist" from the intro of the four Palestinian groups?

Any group that kills random civilians in hopes of affecting political change should be described accordingly as being terrorist, or committing terrorism, in its description, because this is the most concise and accurate description...but since people with censorship agendas have come up with excuses to keep it out, what is more undeniable is that they are described by some official source as terrorist. "(insert major national government here) describes this group as terrorist" is completely objective in the context of describing a group in its introduction.

"Inflammatory" information may still be accurate. I'm sure Robert Byrd would love to have his status as a Klan leader removed from his article because it is, most certainly, inflammatory to talk about the Klan. But it's still true, and so it remains. And it's a cold, hard fact, completely relavent to the article, if a group is officially declared a terrorist organization by some major political power, either a global power or some political entity significant in its sphere of influence.

You even had the gall to remove the fact that Menachem Begin, an Irgun leader whose renewed terror attacks are sometimes credited with making the Brits cave, was elected Prime Minister in 1977, just as many other Irgun members were later elected to public office in Israel. Are you denying this occurred? No, of course not...you just don't want it mentioned.

You really should have the decency to admit that, like a Democrat embarassed for Byrd's membership in his party, you simply don't WANT the truth in this article, when you don't like it.--Kaz 21:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Konrad Adenauer's assassination attempt

Rather than engaging in typical, petty revert wars, perhaps those parties who wish to remove mention of the involvement of Begin and former Irgun members can give an honest rationale? Just because the Irgun disbanded in 1948, history does not freeze at that date as well. The actions of former members and leaders are relevant. Tarc 14:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The rationale was already given too you, several times. This was not an action of the Irgun, an organization that did not exist at the time. Actions of former members may be relevant to those memeber's bios, and in this case they do appear on Begin's page. But they are not relevant to the Irgun article. Isarig 14:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I reject your rationale, as the actions of former members who still carry out actions similar to what they at the Irgun's prime are quite relevant. If al Qaeda declares itself dissolved today, the actions of former members still carrying out acts of terrorism would be more than appropriate on that page. Tarc 14:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense. If al Qaeda declares itself dissolved today, and in 2011 some former al Qarde member were to carry out some attack, we would note that attack on his page, mentioning he was a former aAQ memeber. We would most certainly not list it on th AQ page, just like we don't list the assassination of Kennedy on the Marines page, even though it was carried out by a former marine marksman. Isarig 15:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

What makes it relevant is the members continuing to carry out the same acts of terrorism beyond the group's dissolution, when they were supposed to be integrated into the IDF and into Israeli society. That in itself makes it noteworthy. And since I'm pretty sure it isn't the official position of the USMC to assassinate presidents, your weak analogy falls flat. Tarc 16:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Contending that this is Irgun members continuing the group's policy post dissoulution, and that the Irgun's policy was to oppose compensation from Germany (an event that only came into existance yeras after the Irgun had been dissolved) is a nice bit of original research. If you get it published in a reliable source, we might use it, until then, it's out. Isarig 16:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Sources that show them conducting terrorist activity pre and post-dissolution is not original research. Nice try. Tarc 21:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Sources that show a certain former member of a now non-existent organization's action may warrant inclusion on that former member's page, as is the case with Begin. Original research that claims such individual's actions are in reality a continuation of the now-non-existent organization is not allowed. Isarig 00:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Someone's membership in a defunct organization merits a link to that organization. It does not count as part of the history of the organization. It no longer existed at the time. You are just trying to overload the internet with negative portrayals of Jews and Israelis. Stop. --Israelish 21:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Making accusations of anti-Israeli bias is hardly a civil or productive response. Tarc 21:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

You are not responding to the topic at hand. And post-dissolution activities they were not. That implies the Irgun acted as an organization. Why are you so insistent on adding information that is clearly not relevant to the organization as an organization? Israelish 22:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

When you troll and insult, you really aren't worthy of an on-topic response. The topic is relevant to Adenauer's page, to Begin's, and certainly to the Irgun as well, as former members and leaders orchestrated it. As I said, we don't magically stop talking about them in 1948. Tarc 11:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The topic is relevant to Adenauer's page and marginally to Begin's, but not to Irgun. it was not an Irgun operation, and was not carrying out any Irgun policy, since the Irgun was long gone by that time. Claiming such relevancy along the grounds you have attempted (i.e: alleging it is in reality official Urgun policy being carried out by members who have not actually dissolved the organization and integrated it into the IDF) is original research. Isarig 13:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Isarig and continuing along the same line - unless you can find a verifiable source that proves the Irgun never did dissolve, and continued operating until after 1952, AND that the assassination attempt was part of Irgun policy - an operation carried out under the auspices of the Irgun - it should be out. --Israelish 15:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't have to find either; if ti was carried out by former members and leaders, then it is relevant. Tarc 18:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

You have to establish how it is relevant. Is it also relevant to the article about their high school? Clearly, past affilations are not relevent just because of former membership. Isarig 18:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

break

Very well made thought out arguments have been made against your argument to include this piece of info. You refuse to address them directly and instead resort to childish comments that boil down to "you're wrong and i'm right". You have no respect for actual dialog. Furthermore you accuse me of insulting you (claiming this is an excuse for avoiding an actual discussion). To the matter in question, yes, we do "magically stop talking about them" as an active organization once they no longer exist as one. You refuse to show any sort of proof of them acting as THE IRGUN. Everything you do leads me to believe that my initial assumption was correct - you are doing nothing but spreading your biased POV in order to get a point across, in an encyclopedia. --Israelish 18:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I have not avoided a single point of discussion, and I am terribly sorry that you two POV-pushers are unable to see that. It is a fairly straight-forward fact that group members carrying out assassinations are relevant to the article of said group. Whether it occurs before or after an point of so-called group dissolution is irrelevant. Tarc 21:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Why is it relevant? don't just state it is - explain yourself. when something happens in modern day italy - i don't automatically add it to the roman empire page under "post dissolution events"... --Israelish 22:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Isarig is correct. The Irgun article should be about the Irgun, not about other topics such as specific Irgun members after the Irgun dissolved. Consider that the Sons of Liberty article does not mention the post-Revolutionary War activities of any of its most prominent members, such as Samuel Adams who went on to become one of American's Founding Fathers or John Adams who went on to become the second president of the United States. --GHcool 00:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

An alleged terrorist organisation is said, by WP:RS, to have disbanded. However, another WP:RS tells us that 5 members (and the leader) did not devote their retirement years to honest toil, but embarked on at least one further "wet operation". We cannot speculate whether this was the tip of an iceberg or not, but we can (and should) inform people that some Irgun members did not mend their ways. Al-Qaeda may announce it's dissolving itself tomorrow, but if ex-members (particularily if it's cahoots with OBL himself) carry out further attacks, it will most certainly belong in an Al-Qaeda article. PalestineRemembered 21:03, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

We can note that on their respective pages. To do so on this page is WP:OR . Isarig 21:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Endless repetition does not make it true, and it is not original research if it is cited by a verifiable source. stop making spurious accusations via incorrectly-cited wikipedia policy, please. Tarc 22:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you directing your comments to your own post? You have been asked, repeatedly, to explain how this is relevant to Irgun, and your response seems to be an WP:OR claim that it is relevant because the former members of the now-defunct organization were in reality carrying out the policy of this now-non-existent organization. If you have a reliable source that makes that claim, let's see it. Isarig 22:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I have told you several times over what the reasons are, and I am terribly sorry that you cannot comprehend them. I agree that it would be speculative to say, for example, that "ex members carried out their former group policy in the assassination attempt". Now Isarig, has anyone here at any time attempted to place that speculation into the Irgun article? No, no one has. PalestineRemembered simply placed a mention of the assassination attempt into the article, you reverted (without discussion I may add), and I restored it. All it is is a factual citation of an event relevant to the Irgun, to begin, and to Adenauer. No WP:OR and no WP:SYNT to be found, as you keep falsely claiming. Tarc 23:10, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy to see you agree that it would be speculative and therefor inappropriate to say that these ex-memebers were carrying out the groups former policy. But if they were not, how is this relevant to the Irgun article? As noted, simple former membership is obviously not enough, or are you going to suggest that this is relevant to the article about their high school, too? Isarig

Being a terrorist is not a simple matter, it is quite enough for article inclusion. If you have nothing left to offer than snide (e.g. "high school") comments, then I think we're done here. Tarc 00:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Allegedly being a terrorist is indeed a serious matter- and so an article about Eliezer Sudit should probably mention this incident, just like the Begin article mentions it. I fail to see the relevance to Irgun, which had been disbanded for several years when this happened, and for some reason you repeatedly avoid answering this straightforward question. Once again: what is the relevance to the then-non-existent organization? It seems to me the only relevance you admit to is that the alleged perpetrators were former members of the defunct organization, so I ask you if you would similarly see fit to include this incident in an article about their high-school, which has similar relevanceIsarig

I am dissapointed that neither PalestineRemembered nor Tarc seem able or willing to accept the challenge of my counterargument concerning the Sons of Liberty and its leaders. I maintain that unless the Sons of Liberty article includes examples of militancy of its individual leaders that occured after the Sons of Liberty was dissolved (an action that would be considered WP:Original Research), then nobody has any business including post-Irgun militancy in the Irgun article. --GHcool 05:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've said what I have to say, and remained unconvinced by weak analogies and such offered so far. And that's where this is. Tarc 05:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

While I'm not totally convinced that it shouldn't go here, I find GHcool's analogy to be quite relevant. I'm further concerned about the omission of part of the reference, specifically "The intent was not to hit Adenauer but to rouse the international media. It was clear to all of us there was no chance the package would reach Adenauer." The entire claim is only as accurate as that quote since the entire story is based on that one man's memoirs. Tewfik^Talk 06:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

It's rather absurd to imagine that an organization can have "activities" years after it was dissolved. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Tarc, you are acting like a child - refusing to reasonably address argument by claiming they are "weak analogies" is like a child saying "IS NOT!" when faced with something they do not agree with. I would ask you to respond to the argument logically, but it has been proven that you are wrong. So please stop this charade of claiming to add NPOV material. --Israelish 19:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

My god, its like arguing with a bunch of Zeq clones. I have stated my position several times over, and the repetition is getting rather tiresome. Former members committed these acts. There is nothing more that is necessary to justify the relevance; the activities of former Irgun members is relevant to the Irgun group, as the act in question was an act of terrorism. Extrapolating reasons as to why they committed the act would be original research. Simply noting that the act was committed is not. Tarc 20:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Former membership is not enough to establish relevance. This was explained to you many times over, using examples from the Sons of Liberty to the former high school. When so many editors tell you you are wrong, perhaps it's time to consider whether you are the one who is tiresomely being repetitive but unconvincing. Isarig 20:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you should consider whether to check your agenda-pushing at the door. Tarc 21:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

This applies to you as well, and is non-responsive to what I, or half a dozen other editors, have already argued to you. Do you have an answer as to why their memebership in Irgun is relevant, but their membership in a sick-fund is not? Isarig 21:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

To Isarig and others: Please do not take Tarc's straw man tactic of calling his arguments "wrong" and citing the majority that disagrees with him. Tarc is either right or wrong based on the merits of his arguments. So far, Tarc has not presented a good argument for including post-Irgun activities in the Irgun article. I challenged Tarc provide us with an argument for why his standards for the Irgun should also be applied to the Sons of Liberty article and implied that if his/her argument is valid, I may consider taking the same stance on the Irgun article. Sadly, Tarc has ignored the challenge. Unless Tarc responds to my challenge, I cannot see the point of continuing this dispute. --GHcool 22:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree. Isarig 22:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Outdent - The significance of this Irgun members/Adenauer assassination attempt link is notable (or indeed "highly notable"). A group of people came together for one violent purpose, to disrupt one "government" (that of Mandate Palestine) and replace it with one to their satisfaction. Having succeeded in their immediate target, they announced they'd disbanded. However, their word must be under severe doubt, since they appear to have proceeded to behave in a similar fashion, within a portion of the same group, for the same ideology. As I said, OBL could pop up today and announce that he'd dissolved Al-Qaeda. (Perhaps his aim, get US forces out of Saudi/ME, had been achieved and/or perhaps the US had stopped chasing him in a friendly country). If, 4 years later, 5 of the original Al-Qaeda terrorists were caught in another bomb outrage attempt, and OBL was said to have organised and financed it, and it was reported in an RS, then the story would belong in the encyclopaedia under the Al-Qaeda entry. It would *not* be necessary for OBL or the terrorists to announce they were part of the old group, or tell us what they were trying to achieve with fresh atrocities. I'd not accept the word of violent militants that they'd mended their ways ("stopped perpetrating bombings together"), when we have such clear evidence to the contrary. PalestineRemembered 06:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Saying that the Irgun's sole purpose was to "disrupt one government" is not only blatantly biased, but also ridiculously oversimplifying and incredibly complex situation (the mandate was not, nor was it ever intended to be, a permanent government). Therefore, adding anything to the article is just as biased. And if, five years later, a number of former al qaeda members, acting on their own behalf, acted in some way - it would NOT BE PART OF THE AL QAEDA ARTICLE! unless you have proof that the aforementioned acted as part of the Irgun (which they were not) - it should not be here. period. --Israelish 10:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Suggest compromise: Add a "See also" to Konrad Adenauer#Assassination attempt but no other text here. I think this is justified because the story involves the Irgun in an indirect fashion. --Zero^talk 14:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I would (reluctantly) accept such a compromise. --GHcool 21:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

That seems like a reasonable arrangement. Tewfik^Talk 22:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC) If we all agree, I'm going to request that this article be unblocked. --GHcool 16:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC) EDIT: It seems to already have been unblocked. Well done, everyone. --GHcool 16:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Hashomer

Quick, non-political question: I had thought Irgun was largely an outgrowth of or successor to Hashomer -- but I don't find the latter mentioned either in the article or on this talk page, which seems odd if the connection is true. Anybody? --Michael K. Smith 19:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Much work is needed to bring this article up to scratch

Large parts of this article are written from an Irgun point of view, with almost no attempt at balance. Most of it is sourced to adulatory sources. Look at this: "The Irgun planted land mines in a number of Arab markets, primarily in places identified by the Irgun as activity centers of armed Arab gangs." Outrageous! These were attacks intended to kill as many civilians as possible. And this: "In reality, the armed operations against Arabs were the actions of small groups, or even individual Irgun members." Rubbish, the orders came from the top (and had Jabotinsky's approval). And this: "According to Shmuel Katz, in his book Days of Fire, 'The Haganah radio later broadcast a report that on receiving the warning Sir John Shaw, the Chief Secretary of the British administration, had said: "I give orders here. I don't take orders from Jews"'" - literally true but where can we read that Katz himself admitted this story is a myth? I could go on. --Zero^talk 02:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Intro edit

The intro was very difficult to read, as it consisted of one long paragraph with lengthy, entangled sentences. I tried to improve on this. In addition, I addded some core information on the group's activities as well as support and criticism. Tawola 14:18, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

The Encyclopædia Britannica categorizes them as a right-wing organization - maybe we should add that to the Intro? --Mandavi 16:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

why isn't this groups listed as a terror group ?

Leaders within the mainstream Jewish Agency, Haganah, Histadrut, as well as British authorities, routinely condemned Irgun operations as terrorist and branded it an illegal organization and the groups contribution to the Deir Yassin massacre?--Ezzex 12:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I see that the category terrorisn was removed from the article and militant from the lead sentence as well. As far as being listed as a terrorist group, I am not an expert so i will defer to others. Anyways, --Tom 15:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Polish training

It may be noted that Polish military offered Irgun military training up to 1944; A lot of Irgun members were of course former Polish soldiers which arrived to Palestine with Anders' army. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Szopen (talk • contribs) 07:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Menachem Begin has NOT deserted

I will copy-paste here what I already wrote at his page:

Online book by Korbonski clarifies it enough.

http://www.antyk.org.pl/teksty/ozydach-08.htm "Armia, której mundur noszę i której składałem przysięgę wojskową, walczy ze śmiertelnym wrogiem narodu żydowskiego, faszystowskimi Niemcami. Nie można opuścić takiej armii, nawet po to, aby walczyć o wolność we własnym kraju." "The army, whose uniform I wear, and to which I plead military pledge, fights with mortal enemy of Jewish nation, nazi Germany. One cannot leave such army, even for fighting for freedom in your own country.". The autor then goes on explaining how Irgun contacted with Drymmer, which then contacted Tokarzewski (who was Begin's friend) who then convinced Anders to give Begin release. Oficially (because British were already enraged by the fact that Polish army refused to follow the Jewish deserters, not to mention fact of military training given to Irgun) he went on military leave without limitation. Harvey Sarney in his book on Anders gave another version, that Begin was simply released, and the "military leave without limitation" document was prepared by one of Irgun leaders closely cooperating with Polish Military Intelligence.

So definetely not "promptly" and not "deserted". You really should consult Polish informed sources before claiming he deserted. Szopen 09:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Why not terrorist?

It is curious that for all other organisations of similar kind Wikipedia uses the term 'terrorist' but for Irgun it is avoided. Can anyone tell me why? Is this not a clear sign of an Israel bias? Irgun committed terrorist activities therefore should be classfied as such. Tango

Irgun revisionist history

The following is based on interviews with members of the Irgun and Beitar. The Hagana and the Socilists esentialy had a civil war with the Irgun during the 1948 war with the Arabs. This was determined who controlled Israel after the war. Once the Socialists won, they attempted to eradicate and defame the activities of the Irgun. The peak of this civil war was the Hagana's destruction of the Altalena. This ex-US war ship was loaded with more arms than was contained in Plaestine. Ben Gurian ordered it sunk, because he knew that if the weapons were landed the Hagana an the Socilists would loose the Civil war. Following the formation of Israel by the socialists, there was an attempt to revise history to paint the Irgun as terorists and not give them credit for their contribution to the formation of the state. Until the rise of Likude, glorification of Irgun activity was suppressed to the point that the Acco Prision site had misleading and false information about the prison break there. Saltysailor (talk) 18:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that you'll find that the attitude towards the Irgun is determined by the fact that they carried out acts of lethal violence against civilians in a deliberate attempt to force the civilians to leave their homes. This is established as fact, and it is nothing to do with an attempt to paint them as terrorists. Similar behaviour by Hamas today is treated as terrorism quite rightly. Try not to hero-worship people in the past. What was done was done, and there is no reason to try to pretend that it was different to what really happened. You won't convince anyone who reads about the situation.Iain1917 (talk) 14:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

My recolection was that the Irgun's policy was to attack the Brittish, which differed from the Hagana. The Hagana and its decedent the Army, did engage in activities that resulted in Arabs loosing their homes. The Hagana and the Spcialists did not believe that the Brittish should be attacked. My comment about Ben Gurian was anti-Heroic. My whole point is that there was a conflict which was the equivilant of a civil war. The Hagana won. The Socilists there after attempted to paint the Irgun in a negative light or to eliminate there history as much as possible. I know people who fought for Irgun, Hagana, Palmach as well as Palistinian Arabs who fought them. My POV is that the whole situation was, and continues to be, tragic for the average person in the area. There were very few real heros on any side as most became excessive in their pursuit of their objectives. The case of the Altalena was tragic as Jews were killing other Jews. I want to make clear that I don't belive that anyone involved had a higher moral level than any other. The Middle EAst seams to be full of one tragic stupidity after another which benifits the leaders. Before he came to power, Gamal Abdel Nasser seemed to agree with this last sentiment. Saltysailor (talk) 00:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I thoroughly agree with your assessment that the situation was one with excess on both sides. That is the tragedy of the situation; both Jews and Arabs had sections amongst them that had no interest in a settlement between the communities, and just wanted to use violence to achieve their ends. IMHO, one of the reasons that IDF actions are what many non-Israelis would see as excessive is that the IDF draws on the history and philosophy of Irgun and Lehi as much as Hagana. The sad result is that every action, whether Israeli or Palestinian, creates activitists in its wake who will not settle for anything less than revenge. As far as I can see, the only way that these sort of situations are resolved is where there is a general recognition that the only possible solutions are peaceful and that violence will only bring further violence.Iain1917 (talk) 07:21, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

my mom said that 100 years has to elapse after the last insult to end a blood feud. Saltysailor (talk) 15:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:AvStern.jpg

The image Image:AvStern.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --10:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

terrorism

This article shouldn't be in the terror organizations.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.178.161.238 (talk)

The largest terrorist attack in the Histroy of the Middle East was the blowing up of the King David hotel. But according to Wikipedia policy the work "terrorism" should not be used. Of course this does not prevent the lable being used routinely on Palestinian organizations. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 07:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

The King David Hotel was British military headquarters, and there have been many larger bombings in the Middle East since. However, that doesn't prevent various Wikipedia editors from misrepresenting the facts and whining about it. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:11, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

If the Irgun did not want people whining, perhaps they should have blown fewer people up....ابو علي (Abu Ali) 07:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you should rant about "Zionists" and "Zionism" again, that's always amusing. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. I'll try ابو علي (Abu Ali) 07:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

if irgun was a palestinian group jayig would have no problems calling them terrorists since they are israeli the word terrorist is anti semetic best way to avoid critisism of israeli terrorist groups is to call them anti semetic its why israel can get away with anything —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.70.91.110 (talk) 05:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

the assault on the hotel killed also a lot of civilians. and, there were a lot of other bombings...--Severino (talk) 16:14, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

"I give orders here. I don't take orders from Jews"

This statement is still in the article, and Shmuel Katz' "Days of Fire" is given as a source. However, Katz himself dismisses the quote as apocryphal, in another part of the same paragraph that is not quoted in the article.

Also, the Hebrew version of the book is referenced, when according to Wikipedia policy English versions should be used whenever available.

If no one objects, I'll quote the whole paragraph with the British officer's false statement and Katz' dismissal of it, and I'll reference the English translation of the book.--Abenyosef (talk) 17:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand exactly what you're suggesting. The quote from Katz says the Hagana radio broadcast it, not that it's "true". Also, do you have a page number from the English translation? -- Nudve (talk) 17:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

The accurate quote is as follows: "Why did the warning to the British go unheeded? The Haganah radio later broadcast a report that on receiving the warning Sir John Shaw, the Chief Secretary of the British administration, had said: "I give orders here. I don't take orders from Jews," and that he had insisted that nobody leave the building. This version may be dismissed. It probably developed from the fact that while some of Shaw's close colleagues and subordinates were killed, he himself went unscathed, and gained credence when Shaw was transferred from Palestine a month later." Days of Fire, By Samuel Katz. Garden City: Doubleday, 1968, Chapter 10, page 94. As you will notice, the critical sentence in bold is omitted from the quote in the article, with no ellipsis shown. Are you fine with quoting the paragraph in full? Please note that another article, King David Hotel bombing, makes reference to Katz' dismissal.--Abenyosef (talk) 18:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, since it's quoted in King David Hotel bombing, why not simply delete the entire quote per WP:UNDUE? After all, it's about the bombing, not Irgun. -- Nudve (talk) 18:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

2 wiki contradictory policies need to be resolved first (NPOV and "refered as terror")

I heard what's going on, and opening a disscusion for this purpose.

NPOV–Hebrew wiki not defined or categorized them "terror", nor did 18 (out of 22)wiki websites in various languages,including in Arabic

--Shevashalosh (talk) 19:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand your message. Can you try to be clearer?

Which Wikipedia policies are contradictory, and why would the contradiction be resolved on this page as opposed to, say, Wikipedia:Village pump?

Finally, what's done on other language Wikis isn't necessarily relevant to English-language Wikipedia.

Thank you. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 02:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Exaclly what I said. The policy of NPOV + "words to be avoided" are contradictory to "refer as terror" disputed POV - where they are not designed as such.

Please explain, why is the "referred as terror" policy is preferred over NPOV and "words to avoid" policies in this case of disputed "terror" POV, where they are not even designed as such (and this why the policy of "refered as terror" is only arguementive weather it is pointing at them) and have not been categorized in most of wiki's various languages websites (18 out 22) - which makes it a "minority opinion".

I'm not saying it is not possible. I'm asking for an explanation, as to why is "refer to terror" - (which is also argumentive to pointing at cases - where the group is not designed as such), is preferred over the policy of NPOV + "words to avoid" policy in case of such disputed POV of "terror" of organization like Irgun that where never designed as such and vast majority of wiki's various language website have decided against it!? (Including in Arabic)!?

why is this disputed minority POV of "terror" that is "words to be avoided" sould be included against what people understand of "Irgun" ? - explain your reasoning.

Thank You.

--Shevashalosh (talk) 10:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this policy of NPOV does need to be resolved. Do you think we should remove "Terrorism" categories from ALL articles until it's resolved, or leave it on all possible articles until it's resolved? Because selectively removing it from Jewish articles, while leaving it on other articles, doesn't seem very NPOV to me. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 12:34, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

This is a different case then other cases on wiki, since "Irgun" was never designed as a terror organization - therfore, it is argumentive (and not a NPOV) and contradictory to the NPOV + "words to be avoided" - and why this specific case needs to wait untill its resolved. --Shevashalosh (talk) 13:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

They are also defined as "attacking an armed forces" --Shevashalosh (talk) 13:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

This is not a "designated terrorist organization" category. A sub-category of Category:Terrorism whose definition is: "This category deals with topics relating to events, organizations, or people that have at some point in time been referred to as terrorism, terrorists, etc., including state terrorism." No mention of official designation. For more on this issue, see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_July_19#Category:Nationalist_terrorism - TheMightyQuill (talk) 16:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Shevashalosh, you seem to be confused about WP:WTA. It says that:

the words extremist, terrorist and freedom fighter should be avoided unless there is a verifiable citation indicating who is calling a person or group by one of those names in the standard Wikipedia format of "X says Y". In an article the words should be avoided in the unqualified "narrative voice" of the article. (emphasis added)

I removed the one instance in which the article referred in the narrative voice to Etzel actions as terrorist. All other instances of the word terrorist are of the form "X described them as terrorists", which is perfectly okay under the WTA guideline.

Keep in mind that WP:WTA is a guideline, not a policy. WP:NPOV, on the other hand, is a policy. In the event of a conflict, a policy trumps a guideline. See WP:POLICY. ("Policies are considered a standard that all users should follow, whereas guidelines are more advisory in nature.") — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 20:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Shabaz, I was talking about NPOV policy contredictory, Sinse Irgun was never designed as a terror organization, this is a disputed (and argumentive) POV (not NPOV). Therefore, we have 2 contredictory polcies that need to be resovled (since no such category was concluded up till this day).

The only "way out" of this, and I think this will be acceptble on all sides, is to put them under "Militant Organization" - which is by far too harsh (and not true) in my mind, since it is a "NPOV" - used in wiki - on many occassions to describe a "terror organization" (which they are not), yet avoids the wording of it at the same time.

--Shevashalosh (talk) 07:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The base category makes no reference to "official designation." If you feel that's a POV problem, I'd suggest that you bring up Category:Terrorism at WP:Categories for Deletion, rather than simply removing it from a couple articles here or there. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 18:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The problem is not the "refernce" of the category i've added (I have no problem deleting it completly), the problem is NPOV policy contredictory, Sinse "Irgun" was never designed as a terror organization, this why it is a disputed (and argumentive) POV (not NPOV).

--Shevashalosh (talk) 18:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi,

I already pointed out that I think these terrorist categories are not manageable and neutral.

Here, I just want to add the Irgun was also designated as terro--Shevashalosh (talk) 19:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)rist by Mandate authorities (and is still today by most historians). But Haganah too was designated as such by Mandate authorities ! (but is not any more today except by a few historians anyway)...

I think this illustrates why such categories and simply words are not manageable.

Ceedjee (talk) 19:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Offcaurse the British mandate considered them "terror", they killed their own (armed) soldiars. They are not a NPOV (In this case, contrdictory policy), they are a side in the conflict. The palestinians call the Israeli army a "terror" (to justify blowing up babys in busses) - this is how real terrorist think - those who attack women and children, and the reason why someone who attacked the British mandate armed forces' are generlly not categoriezed as such in 18 (out 22 wikipedia's various languages websites).

--Shevashalosh (talk) 19:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Please read the article. It isn't only the British who labelled IZL terrorists. It's also The New York Times, the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry, the Jewish Agency, Haganah, and Histadrut. Repeating the same line about 18 out of 22 Wikis doesn't mean anything when you've been told several times that what they do isn't relevant. Please try to stick to the point at hand. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 06:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Are you able to see the "clash" of these two policies? can you see how problemitic it is for wiki to basically adopted the(real) terrorists POV who attack civiliants - on a group that is defined (in general and in Article) as having attacked an armed forces? and none of the less, never even been designed as such?

I was repeating it, cause I had a feeling you are ignoring NPOV policy - and the "clash" of these 2 policies, and to this "Clash" I havn't recieved an answear from you.

--Shevashalosh (talk) 08:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

They killed numerous Arab civilians.

Ceedjee (talk) 13:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

According to some OR reasrchs, "The Jews" are responsible to 9/11 - you want wiki to adopt this POV ? get serious on war battles terms.

Irrelevant to the point. --Shevashalosh (talk) 16:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Themightyquill, it won't help igonring NPOV policy as an answer. --Shevashalosh (talk) 09:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

There's a difference between POV and "NOT MY POV." It fits the definition for the category. Thus, if you have a problem, it's with the category itself, not with adding it to this article. Applying a controversial category selectively is POV. Applying it universally is NPOV. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 13:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

There is deffinitlly a difference. Those who attack civiliants are the POV of "Terror", those who didn't and none of the less never even been designed as such is someones personal argumentive POV, of defined as "attacking an armed forces".

--Shevashalosh (talk) 13:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Not only is that your POV (the New York Times feels differently) but also, the Deir Yassin massacre makes your line of argument irrelevant to this particular organization anyway. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 17:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I realy don't have any times for your games, as I have already ansewered the Irrlevant issue of Dir yassin battle of war term. other then that, You keep igonring the "clash" of NPOV for a group, who is defined as attacking an "armed forces", and not civiliants.

The fact that you wanna put your POV to this term "obove what the article" says (as you mentioned on summary), makes this even more problematic for wiki to addopt a (real) terror POV' on wiki

How about the U.S army ? they are so called "occupying" Iraq, despite the fact they were never designed as a terror organization - the real Terrorists Justfy their actions on this basiss, and addopting such a POV, is addopting the (real) Terrorists POV on wiki.

can you be not blind for a minute and see that ? --Shevashalosh (talk) 19:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Terrorism and NPOV policy

Shabaz,

The definition of a terrorist/terrorism on wiki (Category:Terrorists):

• Use of unlawful violence or the threat of unlawful violence.
• Targeting civilians.
• Non-state actor, thus excluding state terrorism.
• Absence of a state of war (specifically conventional warfare), thus excluding war crimes.

Can you see it has to include "Targeting civilians"? I suggest you turn to wiki's policy makers to include "Targeting armed forces", until then; this clearly contradicts a violation of NPOV policy.

--Shevashalosh (talk) 21:32, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The category added is not a subcategory of Category:Terrorists, so that's really irrelevant. It's a subcategory of Category:Terrorism which has an entirely different definition. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 21:43, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

get serious. I was talking about the defenition of terrorists/terrorism (on wiki) put in there, not only the category itself. --Shevashalosh (talk) 21:57, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

A "word to the wise": 3 to 5 reversions each in a 2-day period (and numerous others prior to that) may not technically violate the three-revert rule, but certainly looks like edit warring. As an observer of this sorry business (back and forth, back and forth), I hope the dispute can be settled quickly and decisively, before anyone gets cited or blocked. Hertz1888 (talk) 23:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

NPOV - Terrorists

Using the term Terrorists IS NOT against NPOV.

Simply put, use whichever term the sources being cited use. Make sure the sources are reliable and meet WP:RS requirements. That's it! Terrorist itself is not against any Wiki policy. That "words to be avoided" does NOT trump WP:RS and WP:NPOV. Beam 16:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Exaclly what I'm claiming. Terrorists who attack civiliants are not against wiki NPOV, But in this case, Irgun was never designed as such, which makes this a disputive and argumentive POV, not NPOV policy. A policy as you have said that can not be trumped by other policies.

--Shevashalosh (talk) 16:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

But, as I told you, Irgun attacked civilians numerous times...

Eg : Haifa Oil Refinery massacre

Ceedjee (talk) 20:05, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

This is Israel war of independance - war battle term. again non-NPOV -needs to be changed al well (war of israel independence began immidiatlly after the partition plan, november 1947, this happened on december 1947). --Shevashalosh (talk) 21:39, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Terrorism can occurr any time, during war, after war, outside of war, alongside a war. Terrorism has also been used as a tactic in war. Beam 22:02, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Uh, I don't know about that but my point was simply that the word "terrorist" in it of itself is not against NPOV. I reccomend using whatever term the (reliable) sources use. Beam 21:47, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

You are right.

Shevashalosh : List of Irgun attacks during the 1930s.

I expect you will not tell me that Yishuv and Israel have been in state of war since 1917. Ceedjee (talk) 10:01, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I expect them not to attack "armed force". Thus, in those day - this reders to the british "armed forces" (Historclly they did not exist on 1917, but in 1931 - read History before you make su a foolish commant). other, they need to attack civiliants (not during war battles times). --Shevashalosh (talk) 10:10, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

As you've been told, the word "terrorist" is not, of itself, NPOV. Nor is it "vandalism" to insert this category. PR^talk 13:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Shevashalosh, do you claim yishuv didn't exist before 1931 ? :-)

From your point of view, Irgun was not a terrorist organisation because attacks performed whether "versus soldiers" (ie British) or "versus civilians during a war" (ie Palestinian Arabs after 30 November 1947 such as at Haifa refinery or at Deir Yassin) is not terrorism.

That is noted. Ceedjee (talk) 14:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Almost correct. Yishuv (Jewish community) did exist before 1931, but not Irgun -see the article itself of Irgun : "...was a militant Zionist group that operated in Palestine between 1931 and 1948". --Shevashalosh (talk) 15:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I never wrote the contrary.

I permit myself to point out that with your definition of terrorism, the Jews who killed arab civilians during the 1920 Palestine riots (not a war...) were terrorists. That is -of course !- not the case : they defended their life... Whereas... according to Palestinian records, it is the Palestinians who defended themselves againt "Jabotinsky army" that had provocated them the day of Nabi Mussa festival...  ;-) Ceedjee (talk) 15:57, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry this doesn't fit your schedule... Irgun didn't exist untill 1931.

As to the other articles, some things need to change in other articles of wikipedia as well. for example - So called "Dir Yassin Massacre". This was (first and foremost) a battle of war in which people got killed. It occured during Israel war of Independance (on wiki called: 1948 Arab-Israeli War). I know the palestinian story line, where they refer to it as "massacre", but the palestinian story line is not a NPOV policy.

As 1920 Palestine riots (see article itself, and just like the name of the article on itself "Plaestinian riots") it was attacks of arabs on the Jewish community, not the other way around, in which Jewish civiliants were killed, a Synagogue was robbed etc- do you think we should change the name of the article to "The masscre of Jews by arabs in the 20th?" (or something of that nature in the "absence of war")?

Have a nice day. --Shevashalosh (talk) 16:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

You do insist but you could not quote me statint that the Irgun was formed before 1931.

FYI : according to the article 1948 Arab-Israeli War started on 15 May. Deir Yassin "battle" occured on 9 April. I deduce that Deir Yassin didn't occur during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War...

Ceedjee (talk) 19:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Listen Ceedjee, as to Irgun established in 1931 (see article, I didn't put it there), there is no problem of that, I don't need to find at the moment a ref - caus this is a sure thing - but if you insist I will.

Second, The only argument (if any) of "Dir yassin" was weather it occured by definition on 1947–1948 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine, as arabs see it as a "seperate war" or has it occured in Israel war of Independence (callefd in wiki 1948 Arab-Israeli War) - which included the timing of the "1947–1948 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine" - thus making it one war, not 2 - but the button line, is it don't matter if it was 1 or 2 wars, but rather the fact that "Dir yassin" was a battle of war - no matter which one or 2 ... --Shevashalosh (talk) 20:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Dear Shevashalosh,

FYI : The Arabs do not want to make the 1947-1948 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine a separate war. Why would they want such a thing ? On wiki, the war of independence is the 1948 Palestine War. Ceedjee (talk) 06:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

You are behaving bizzar latley. Is there a problem here!? --Shevashalosh (talk) 11:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Mention of Rahm Emanuel?

I'm a bit confused as to why a profile of Rahm Emanuel is used as a reference in this article. Yes, his father was a member of Irgun, but this is mentioned in the article about him. The only place where the profile reference is used is to support this statement:

Views about the Irgun have been as disparate as any other political topic in Israeli society. Leaders within the mainstream Jewish Agency, Haganah, Histadrut, as well as British authorities, routinely condemned Irgun operations as terrorist and branded it an illegal organization as a result of the group's attacks on civilian targets.

The BBC profile of Emanuel does say "Rahm Emanuel's father, Benjamin, is an Israeli-born doctor who was once a member of the Irgun, a hard-line group which fought for Israeli independence until 1948 as was branded as a terrorist organisation by the British colonial authorities." The issue here is not whether this is true, or a reputable source, but rather that I'm sure we can find this statement in an article or scholarly work that isn't about Rahm Emanuel. There is no explicit reference to him anywhere in the article, so using his profile as a reference smells like a political attack to me. --Nightrose (talk) 12:57, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

The BBC article is not an op-ed article. It is not sourced to any specific writer, which means that it has been reviewed by many BBC journalists, and it is an important article. Thus, it carries more weight than an op-ed article.

If you can find a few articles that are of similar quality, labeling Irgun as a terrorist organization, I am sure everyone would take into consideration the switching of the sources. It is not anyone's job to make sure that Rahm Emanuel is not mentioned. The article is reputable, and it is not a deliberate attempt on anyone's part to go out of their way to bring it up, even though there is really nothing wrong with it.

If Bill Clinton's father was in the IRA, it would almost assuredly be mentioned in the IRA article. It would be very odd if it weren't, since Clinton, like Emanuel, is/was in a position of significant power and influence.

In fact, the example most similar to Rahm/Irgun that I can think of is that of Schwarzenegger. His father's involvement with the Nazis is in Arnold's article, as well as the article for his father, which describes his involvement with the Nazis to quite a bit of detail. It's also possibly in some of the Nazi articles as well. When it comes to Rahm, it is barely mentioned in his article, his father does not have an article at all, and it is not mentioned here in the Irgun article, except for the fact that an article cited also talks about Rahm. Rahm is getting off pretty easy compared to Arnold. TPaineTX (talk) 23:27, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I heartily agree with TPaineTX. Very well put. Wingspeed (talk) 03:05, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

The place it is relevant is that there is much controversy and hurt In Arab world/among Palestinians over the son of an Irgun member (who at the very least is known to have passed secret codes to Menachin Begin (ref: NYTimes Bumiller) being COS to Obama. To quote what is in article now and what was deleted from it:

IN R.E. NOW:Some Palestinians and Arabs expressed dismay at Obama’s appointment of Emanuel.NY Daily News Democracy Now

TAKEN OUT OF R.E. ARTICLE: A number of news, editorial and mainstream media bloggers stated this notion was reinforced because the Irgun, for which Rahm's father Benjamin had passed "secret codes" before the creation of Israel, was, or has been described as, a terrorist group, having carried out deadly attacks against Arabs and the British.Agente FranceTime Magazine, Foreign Policy Magazine, Counterpunch CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:15, 20 December 2008 (UTC)