This article was nominated for deletion on 31 March 2011. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
17th century Palestine/Israel is far outside my area of special knowledge, but the sources here are highly partisan and do not represent particular expertise on the subject matter at hand. They may not constitute reliable sources on the issue. One specialist history of the period (Scholem, Gershom Gerhard (1976-01-01). Sabbatai Sevi: The Mystical Messiah, 1626-1676. Princeton University Press. ISBN 9780691018096.), disagrees in large measure with the information presented here. Specifically from page 368 (see Google books):
This should be an example of why reliance on tertiary sources who touch lightly on a subject, often in a sentence or two, tends to amplify misunderstandings into facts. Expert guidance might help to clarify the situation.-- Carwil ( talk) 00:31, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Of course anti-semitic people want to cover up the crimes Arabs/Muslims committed against the indigenous Jewish population of Israel. It seems that wikipedia is full of anti-semites and genocide sympathizers. For example, my own family had to immigrate to South America in 1834 due to the Safed Plunder yet Arabs/Muslims will claim these events didn't happen and that Arabs/Muslims treated the indigenous Jews well. It's so sad there are so many hateful people out there that want to hide these crimes against humanity. ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:31, 30 March 2011 (UTC).
It should be noted that Gershom Gerhard Scholem makes this statement introducing several pages of detailed discussion of Kabbalah scholars and Jewish faithful in Safed in the Sabbatai movement in the years 1665 and onwards.-- Carwil ( talk) 18:48, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
We have multiple sources citing a massacre or pogrom, and the one you added saying it was exaggerated. Conflicting sources doesn't mean you flip a coin and choose one over the other, you show all sources so the reader can decide the strength or weakness. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 06:52, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
The only tertiary source is the encyclopedia. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 15:44, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't want to get into an edit war, but most of the sources you keep adding to the article are not reliable. Dolan is not a reliable source for disputed historical fact--his publisher B&H specializes in Bibles and Christian tracts and has no reputation for independent historical works. From a press release on the B&H web site: “B&H exists to impact the world with the truth of the gospel,” Hunt said. “Publishing is moving faster and faster toward the digital realm and this trend will help us take the message of God’s Word to the world.” Also, the Thoedor Herzl Foundation is a Zionist organization and not reliable for the assertion that a massacre by Arabs occurred in 1660. Finally, using snippet views on Google book searches is disfavored in citing sources here, as vital and contradictory information may be missed. Jonathanwallace ( talk) 06:57, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Also the Jewish Encyclopedia article on Safed says nothing about the massacre and should therefore be removed as a source from the main article--your snippet view was apparently incorrect. Jonathanwallace ( talk) 13:58, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I was mistaken about that one. Please watch your tone. We are all in good faith here. I am not trying to keep properly sourced information out of Wikipedia, just doing my part to clean up after an editor who created a half dozen articles in two days with a severe POV problem all of which were sourced to blogs and self published polemics. Jonathanwallace ( talk) 17:55, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
According to Joan Peters in From Time Immemorial, a historical work the accuracy of which was disputed by Norman Finkelstein and many other critics, the Jewish community of Safed, under Ottoman rule, was massacred by Arabs in 1660.
OK, massacre it stays. Good call. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 07:44, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
From Barnay, Y. (1992). The Jews in Palestine in the eighteenth century: under the patronage of the Istanbul Committee of Officials for Palestine. University of Alabama Press. ISBN 9780817305727. on p. 14:
Hope this helps.-- Carwil ( talk) 22:21, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
It turns out that there is an underlying event with at least some mildly specific historical writing on it. To begin with, however, the relevant event occurred in 1662 (as GGS mentioned) and appears to have been a general raid on the town as a whole. From Keneset Yiśraʼel be-Erets-Yiśraʼel. Ṿaʻad ha-leʼumi (1947). Historical memoranda. General Council (Vaad leumi) of the Jewish Community of Palestine.:
This is the best I can do with Google book's snippet viewer. It seems pretty clear that the inhabitants returned from adjacent villages. This is far from the only trauma in Safed documented in this text, including a 1584 famine, epidemics, and other turmoil. Suggest we merge this material back to Safed and try to do it well there unless there is a more in-depth treatment to justify notability.
Pure speculation: the destruction of the physical town turned in some text to the destruction of the community, and was picked up by further sources as the destruction of the Jewish community in Safed, which also at some point became a massacre of Jews. Also 1662 morphed to 1660 (perhaps to 1660s along the way). -- Carwil ( talk) 18:14, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
I made an edit identifying the two remaining sources asserting the "near total destruction" as Zionist authors. Jacob de Haas was an early Zionist leader who (per our own article on him) served on the Zionist Organization propaganda committee. He was not a credentialed historian and I think his "History of Palestine" should clearly be understood as a work of advocacy. The Theodore Herzl foundation also describes itself as a Zionist organization and as promoting the Zionist idea on its web site and mentions the Safed events in a single sentence, in passing, without any references. I am not sure that either of these sources should stand as a reliable historical source pertaining to the murder of one population by another. However, identifying them as Zionist at least puts their assertions in context for the reader.
I was also unable to verify that de Haas actually asserts the destruction of Safed. His work is cited (without a page reference) for this proposition on numerous polemical blogs, but did anyone actually verify this in the work itself? I note there is currently nothing in ref tags and no page number given for the de Haas citation. I was unable to turn up a citation in Google Books (which only gives limited snippets of the work) and a pdf of the entire book available on the Kobo site failed to download properly. I will probably delete the de Haas reference at some point in the next few weeks unless someone can verify it. Jonathanwallace ( talk) 12:04, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
No, this is not appropriate. Let me repeat what I wrote in response to your previous question about this issue, over at WP:RSN: De Haas's "History of Palestine" was published by MacMillan, a mainstream publishing house, and not a 'Zionist organization'. It was reviewed by an academic, peer-reviewed journal (The Jewish Quarterly Review) which is a publication of the University of Pennsylvania Press, that according to its publisher "is the oldest English-language journal in the fields of Jewish studies. Edited at the Center for Advanced Judaic Studies at the University of Pennsylvania, the journal aims to publish the finest work in all areas of Jewish studies." The review of the book found it to be "encyclopedic in content and style" and "valuable as a ready reference book on the history of Palestine." The only fault found in it was that it "attempts to be too complete" and thus "not conducive to making it a popular book". This is clearly a reliable source by our standards. Your personal opinion that it "should clearly be understood as a work of advocacy." does not trump policy. Tzu Zha Men ( talk) 23:38, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
De Haas served on the Zionist Org Propaganda Committee and was not a professional historian. Scholem may also be a Zionist but is a professional. Neutrality and the reader are served by the identification. A number of other editors, including Kmkh and Grayshark on this Talk page, and Roscelesce and TFD here question de Haas as a source. Keeping him but neutrally identifying his affiliation is a compromise solution. Jonathanwallace ( talk) 20:56, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Actually, in the reverted edit, I identified him as "journalist and early Zionist leader", which is an accurate and respectful description I doubt de Haas would have had any issue with. The neutrality violation here is presenting an advocacy source as if it were an objective historical one. I don't think de Haas really should be cited in the article at all, unless he is described as an advocate. Five other editors have agreed de Haas is problematic. Describing him as a "journalist and Zionist leader" was a proposed compromise solution. Jonathanwallace ( talk) 04:58, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
The article claims that a community, Safed, which contained a majority of Jews and a minority of Muslims, was destroyed by Druses and that the inhabitants fled. Like some of the other articles originally created by a SPA with a professed agenda of showing Ottoman cruelty to Jews, this article does not clearly describe an attack mounted specifically against a Jewish population because of their identity, but may actually describe a routine raid for plunder or other military advantage of the type which has occurred everywhere in history. Speaking as a Jewish guy who knows anti-Semitism exists but is also interested in hewing to Wikipedia standards of verifiability and neutrality, it seems inappropriate to me, and in fact an act of synthesis to identify this as part of an anti-Semitism category. Jonathanwallace ( talk) 12:45, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
I strongly suspect there is sufficient source material out there to clarify this article. I'm leaving this as a place to list suggestions.-- Carwil ( talk) 14:23, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Greyshark, please explain why you have moved the page back to "1660 Safed massacre" when none of the sources support the "massacre" claim. Thanks, Gatoclass ( talk) 15:00, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
References
Safed, hotbed of mystics, is not mentioned in the Zebi adventure. Its community had been massacred in 1660, when the town was destroyed by Arabs, and only one Jew escaped.
{{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help)
In 1660, the Jewish community of Safed was destroyed by Arab mobs, and many fled to Hebron. But Hebron was not spared. ...
{{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help)
When the Jewish community of its holy city of Safed was "massacred in 1660," and the town "destroyed by Arabs," only one Jew managed to evade death. ...
— Biosketch ( talk) 18:25, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Safed, which had been restored by a liberal Turkish ruler after the 1660 massacre, was again sacked in 1799. ...
{{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help).Gershom Gerhard Scholem writes
Well, he says the event is exaggerated, but never the less he doesn't say "didn't happen". If nearby Tiberias was entirely destroyed and stayed abandoned for decades, Safed was unlikely spared. In addition, how does "1660 lively account" of French trader suggest that the massacre didn't happen later that year or in 1662? On the contrary, we know that Safed population plummetted in 17th century, so something happened between his visit and 1700.
Considering the siege of Safed in 1628 by Druze Emir and consequent looting and massacre, and another looting by Ottoman army in 1633 - it seems that many of the events were caused by the Druze, rather by Muslims. Vaad Leumi places 1660 attack blame on the Druze too, so i'm not sure if category "Anti-Jewish pogroms by Muslims" applies here (unless we take Druze for Muslims, which is disputed). Greyshark09 ( talk) 16:57, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
References
I changed the lede to indicate that most sources agree there was some sort of destruction of houses, etc. but don't support "massacre" which is very much a minority viewpoint. It should not remain in the article title. I prefer "sack" but would settle for "Destruction of Safed". Jonathanwallace ( talk) 16:56, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Likewise, one of the more rewarding experiences I have had here working with other editors. Jonathanwallace ( talk) 14:45, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
I believe Theodor Herzl Foundation should come out as not a reliable source. Actually, the article cited is not a thinktank piece as I originally thought, but an article in a magazine, Midstream, that the Foundation has published for some fifty years. A look at the magazine site reveals a modest and somewhat amateurish publication, publishing a wide range of nonfiction, memoirs, fiction and poetry, with no evidence of fact-checking of articles ("Midstream receives many manuscripts each week for consideration by the editor, but its editorial staff is very small"). The magazine has a relatively small Internet footprint and does not seem to get a lot of citation in other publications, as it would if it were a highly respectable academic and historical source. This site which reviews sources for academic use, states that Midstream has an "Unknown review procedure...EDITORIAL BOARD: None listed". There has also been some consensus on the reliable sources noticeboard in discussion of other historical disputes that we should cite peer-reviewed historical works in preference to magazine articles (for example, here). I would add this is particularly true where extraordinary claims are concerned, such as the murder of one ethnic group by another. Jonathanwallace ( talk) 10:13, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
On the subject of sources, I dispute the reliability of "General Council (Vaad leumi) of the Jewish Community of Palestine". This was the main political organization of the Zionist movement in Palestine, and their "historical survey" was published just as things were converging in the UN towards a vote on the future of Palestine. It is too much to expect a lack of bias in such circumstances. Incidentally, what sources says that Tiberias had a majority Jewish population in 1660? Zero talk 22:25, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Jacob de Haas seems to be a rather unsuitable source even independent of his Zionist leanings. At his on his WP biography there seems to no hint that he is a reputable historian, moreover his publication are almost 100 years old and hence hardly reflect current historic knowledge. He might be a notable (primary) source on zionist positions or as a scholar of zionist faith, but not as a historian.-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 00:53, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Another source claiming massacre is certainly Rosanes, which is discussed by Gershom Scholem. Anyone has access to the book (i think it is Rosanes' 1938 edition on Jewish history)? Greyshark09 ( talk) 15:49, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
I am starting a new section to continue the discussion of Jacob de Haas as a source for the proposition that a massacre of all the Jews in Safed occurred in 1660. De Haas, according to our bio of him, was an early leader within the Zionist Organization and served on its Propaganda Committee. He was a journalist and wrote a well-received "History of Palestine" published by Macmillan.
In the discussion so far, there have been three points of view espoused by various editors. 1. Keep the citation to de Haas as an objective historical source for the assertion there was a massacre. 2. Remove de Haas entirely on various grounds--polemical or advocacy source, primary source, and an old or otherwise inadequate source are various arguments that have been made. 3. Compromise solution I boldly implemented which has been continually reverted: keep de Haas but identify him as an advocacy source.
I am now going to argue for his removal from the article. The gold standard in historical article-writing on Wikipedia is the Military History project, which has the following to say about sources: "[A]rticles on military history should aim to be based primarily on published secondary works by reputable historians. The use of high-quality primary sources is also appropriate, but care should be taken to use them correctly, without straying into original research. Editors are encouraged to extensively survey the available literature—and, in particular, any available historiographic commentary—regarding an article's topic in order to identify every source considered to be authoritative or significant; these sources should, if possible, be directly consulted when writing the article." There has been a trend at reliable sources noticeboard to reference the military history standards in discussion of other, non-military, historical fields.
Not one of the assertions of a complete massacre of Jews in this article can be (or has ever been, in any previous version) sourced to "published secondary works by reputable historians". In order to allege a massacre, we have to turn to primary sources (the Zionist Council cited in the article), tertiary sources (the Jewish Encyclopedia) and works by non-historians (de Haas). There is also a WP:REDFLAG issue: the total extermination of a Jewish population is an extraordinary claim, and should be made based only on the highest quality sources. Jonathanwallace ( talk) 14:07, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Not sure i understand why this is a separate article from the 1660 destruction of Tiberias - the towns are right next to each other and the sources are the same. Oncenawhile ( talk) 20:37, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
I removed the proposal due to lack of consensus, following a long period of inactivity of this discussion. Greyshark09 ( talk) 20:41, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
I am reopening this merger discussion since 1660 destruction of Tiberias has not improved since the non-discussion above. As Oncenawhile correctly pointed out, almost none of 1660 destruction of Tiberias is about events of 1660, but refers to periods decades before or after 1660. Moreover, what is in that article ostensibly on the subject (a) is already present in this Safed article, (b) appears to violate WP:NOR. In more detail:
In summary, the article 1660 destruction of Tiberias does not have material enough to justify its existence. Proposing a "merger" is actually rather generous, since listing at WP:AFD is what it most calls for. Zero talk 06:18, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
user:Uishaki removed the category category:Jews and Judaism in Ottoman Syria for no reason. This may be considered vandalism. GreyShark ( dibra) 14:23, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
This section had originally been located at
User talk:Greyshark09
Palestine was never a part of Syria during the Ottoman rule.--
Uishaki (
talk)
14:37, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
These articles has nothing to do with our subject. You are just trying to offer people an idea that the name of Palestine are newborn.-- Uishaki ( talk) 14:44, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
This article was nominated for deletion on 31 March 2011. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
17th century Palestine/Israel is far outside my area of special knowledge, but the sources here are highly partisan and do not represent particular expertise on the subject matter at hand. They may not constitute reliable sources on the issue. One specialist history of the period (Scholem, Gershom Gerhard (1976-01-01). Sabbatai Sevi: The Mystical Messiah, 1626-1676. Princeton University Press. ISBN 9780691018096.), disagrees in large measure with the information presented here. Specifically from page 368 (see Google books):
This should be an example of why reliance on tertiary sources who touch lightly on a subject, often in a sentence or two, tends to amplify misunderstandings into facts. Expert guidance might help to clarify the situation.-- Carwil ( talk) 00:31, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Of course anti-semitic people want to cover up the crimes Arabs/Muslims committed against the indigenous Jewish population of Israel. It seems that wikipedia is full of anti-semites and genocide sympathizers. For example, my own family had to immigrate to South America in 1834 due to the Safed Plunder yet Arabs/Muslims will claim these events didn't happen and that Arabs/Muslims treated the indigenous Jews well. It's so sad there are so many hateful people out there that want to hide these crimes against humanity. ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:31, 30 March 2011 (UTC).
It should be noted that Gershom Gerhard Scholem makes this statement introducing several pages of detailed discussion of Kabbalah scholars and Jewish faithful in Safed in the Sabbatai movement in the years 1665 and onwards.-- Carwil ( talk) 18:48, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
We have multiple sources citing a massacre or pogrom, and the one you added saying it was exaggerated. Conflicting sources doesn't mean you flip a coin and choose one over the other, you show all sources so the reader can decide the strength or weakness. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 06:52, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
The only tertiary source is the encyclopedia. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 15:44, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't want to get into an edit war, but most of the sources you keep adding to the article are not reliable. Dolan is not a reliable source for disputed historical fact--his publisher B&H specializes in Bibles and Christian tracts and has no reputation for independent historical works. From a press release on the B&H web site: “B&H exists to impact the world with the truth of the gospel,” Hunt said. “Publishing is moving faster and faster toward the digital realm and this trend will help us take the message of God’s Word to the world.” Also, the Thoedor Herzl Foundation is a Zionist organization and not reliable for the assertion that a massacre by Arabs occurred in 1660. Finally, using snippet views on Google book searches is disfavored in citing sources here, as vital and contradictory information may be missed. Jonathanwallace ( talk) 06:57, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Also the Jewish Encyclopedia article on Safed says nothing about the massacre and should therefore be removed as a source from the main article--your snippet view was apparently incorrect. Jonathanwallace ( talk) 13:58, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I was mistaken about that one. Please watch your tone. We are all in good faith here. I am not trying to keep properly sourced information out of Wikipedia, just doing my part to clean up after an editor who created a half dozen articles in two days with a severe POV problem all of which were sourced to blogs and self published polemics. Jonathanwallace ( talk) 17:55, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
According to Joan Peters in From Time Immemorial, a historical work the accuracy of which was disputed by Norman Finkelstein and many other critics, the Jewish community of Safed, under Ottoman rule, was massacred by Arabs in 1660.
OK, massacre it stays. Good call. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 07:44, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
From Barnay, Y. (1992). The Jews in Palestine in the eighteenth century: under the patronage of the Istanbul Committee of Officials for Palestine. University of Alabama Press. ISBN 9780817305727. on p. 14:
Hope this helps.-- Carwil ( talk) 22:21, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
It turns out that there is an underlying event with at least some mildly specific historical writing on it. To begin with, however, the relevant event occurred in 1662 (as GGS mentioned) and appears to have been a general raid on the town as a whole. From Keneset Yiśraʼel be-Erets-Yiśraʼel. Ṿaʻad ha-leʼumi (1947). Historical memoranda. General Council (Vaad leumi) of the Jewish Community of Palestine.:
This is the best I can do with Google book's snippet viewer. It seems pretty clear that the inhabitants returned from adjacent villages. This is far from the only trauma in Safed documented in this text, including a 1584 famine, epidemics, and other turmoil. Suggest we merge this material back to Safed and try to do it well there unless there is a more in-depth treatment to justify notability.
Pure speculation: the destruction of the physical town turned in some text to the destruction of the community, and was picked up by further sources as the destruction of the Jewish community in Safed, which also at some point became a massacre of Jews. Also 1662 morphed to 1660 (perhaps to 1660s along the way). -- Carwil ( talk) 18:14, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
I made an edit identifying the two remaining sources asserting the "near total destruction" as Zionist authors. Jacob de Haas was an early Zionist leader who (per our own article on him) served on the Zionist Organization propaganda committee. He was not a credentialed historian and I think his "History of Palestine" should clearly be understood as a work of advocacy. The Theodore Herzl foundation also describes itself as a Zionist organization and as promoting the Zionist idea on its web site and mentions the Safed events in a single sentence, in passing, without any references. I am not sure that either of these sources should stand as a reliable historical source pertaining to the murder of one population by another. However, identifying them as Zionist at least puts their assertions in context for the reader.
I was also unable to verify that de Haas actually asserts the destruction of Safed. His work is cited (without a page reference) for this proposition on numerous polemical blogs, but did anyone actually verify this in the work itself? I note there is currently nothing in ref tags and no page number given for the de Haas citation. I was unable to turn up a citation in Google Books (which only gives limited snippets of the work) and a pdf of the entire book available on the Kobo site failed to download properly. I will probably delete the de Haas reference at some point in the next few weeks unless someone can verify it. Jonathanwallace ( talk) 12:04, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
No, this is not appropriate. Let me repeat what I wrote in response to your previous question about this issue, over at WP:RSN: De Haas's "History of Palestine" was published by MacMillan, a mainstream publishing house, and not a 'Zionist organization'. It was reviewed by an academic, peer-reviewed journal (The Jewish Quarterly Review) which is a publication of the University of Pennsylvania Press, that according to its publisher "is the oldest English-language journal in the fields of Jewish studies. Edited at the Center for Advanced Judaic Studies at the University of Pennsylvania, the journal aims to publish the finest work in all areas of Jewish studies." The review of the book found it to be "encyclopedic in content and style" and "valuable as a ready reference book on the history of Palestine." The only fault found in it was that it "attempts to be too complete" and thus "not conducive to making it a popular book". This is clearly a reliable source by our standards. Your personal opinion that it "should clearly be understood as a work of advocacy." does not trump policy. Tzu Zha Men ( talk) 23:38, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
De Haas served on the Zionist Org Propaganda Committee and was not a professional historian. Scholem may also be a Zionist but is a professional. Neutrality and the reader are served by the identification. A number of other editors, including Kmkh and Grayshark on this Talk page, and Roscelesce and TFD here question de Haas as a source. Keeping him but neutrally identifying his affiliation is a compromise solution. Jonathanwallace ( talk) 20:56, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Actually, in the reverted edit, I identified him as "journalist and early Zionist leader", which is an accurate and respectful description I doubt de Haas would have had any issue with. The neutrality violation here is presenting an advocacy source as if it were an objective historical one. I don't think de Haas really should be cited in the article at all, unless he is described as an advocate. Five other editors have agreed de Haas is problematic. Describing him as a "journalist and Zionist leader" was a proposed compromise solution. Jonathanwallace ( talk) 04:58, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
The article claims that a community, Safed, which contained a majority of Jews and a minority of Muslims, was destroyed by Druses and that the inhabitants fled. Like some of the other articles originally created by a SPA with a professed agenda of showing Ottoman cruelty to Jews, this article does not clearly describe an attack mounted specifically against a Jewish population because of their identity, but may actually describe a routine raid for plunder or other military advantage of the type which has occurred everywhere in history. Speaking as a Jewish guy who knows anti-Semitism exists but is also interested in hewing to Wikipedia standards of verifiability and neutrality, it seems inappropriate to me, and in fact an act of synthesis to identify this as part of an anti-Semitism category. Jonathanwallace ( talk) 12:45, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
I strongly suspect there is sufficient source material out there to clarify this article. I'm leaving this as a place to list suggestions.-- Carwil ( talk) 14:23, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Greyshark, please explain why you have moved the page back to "1660 Safed massacre" when none of the sources support the "massacre" claim. Thanks, Gatoclass ( talk) 15:00, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
References
Safed, hotbed of mystics, is not mentioned in the Zebi adventure. Its community had been massacred in 1660, when the town was destroyed by Arabs, and only one Jew escaped.
{{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help)
In 1660, the Jewish community of Safed was destroyed by Arab mobs, and many fled to Hebron. But Hebron was not spared. ...
{{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help)
When the Jewish community of its holy city of Safed was "massacred in 1660," and the town "destroyed by Arabs," only one Jew managed to evade death. ...
— Biosketch ( talk) 18:25, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Safed, which had been restored by a liberal Turkish ruler after the 1660 massacre, was again sacked in 1799. ...
{{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help).Gershom Gerhard Scholem writes
Well, he says the event is exaggerated, but never the less he doesn't say "didn't happen". If nearby Tiberias was entirely destroyed and stayed abandoned for decades, Safed was unlikely spared. In addition, how does "1660 lively account" of French trader suggest that the massacre didn't happen later that year or in 1662? On the contrary, we know that Safed population plummetted in 17th century, so something happened between his visit and 1700.
Considering the siege of Safed in 1628 by Druze Emir and consequent looting and massacre, and another looting by Ottoman army in 1633 - it seems that many of the events were caused by the Druze, rather by Muslims. Vaad Leumi places 1660 attack blame on the Druze too, so i'm not sure if category "Anti-Jewish pogroms by Muslims" applies here (unless we take Druze for Muslims, which is disputed). Greyshark09 ( talk) 16:57, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
References
I changed the lede to indicate that most sources agree there was some sort of destruction of houses, etc. but don't support "massacre" which is very much a minority viewpoint. It should not remain in the article title. I prefer "sack" but would settle for "Destruction of Safed". Jonathanwallace ( talk) 16:56, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Likewise, one of the more rewarding experiences I have had here working with other editors. Jonathanwallace ( talk) 14:45, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
I believe Theodor Herzl Foundation should come out as not a reliable source. Actually, the article cited is not a thinktank piece as I originally thought, but an article in a magazine, Midstream, that the Foundation has published for some fifty years. A look at the magazine site reveals a modest and somewhat amateurish publication, publishing a wide range of nonfiction, memoirs, fiction and poetry, with no evidence of fact-checking of articles ("Midstream receives many manuscripts each week for consideration by the editor, but its editorial staff is very small"). The magazine has a relatively small Internet footprint and does not seem to get a lot of citation in other publications, as it would if it were a highly respectable academic and historical source. This site which reviews sources for academic use, states that Midstream has an "Unknown review procedure...EDITORIAL BOARD: None listed". There has also been some consensus on the reliable sources noticeboard in discussion of other historical disputes that we should cite peer-reviewed historical works in preference to magazine articles (for example, here). I would add this is particularly true where extraordinary claims are concerned, such as the murder of one ethnic group by another. Jonathanwallace ( talk) 10:13, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
On the subject of sources, I dispute the reliability of "General Council (Vaad leumi) of the Jewish Community of Palestine". This was the main political organization of the Zionist movement in Palestine, and their "historical survey" was published just as things were converging in the UN towards a vote on the future of Palestine. It is too much to expect a lack of bias in such circumstances. Incidentally, what sources says that Tiberias had a majority Jewish population in 1660? Zero talk 22:25, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Jacob de Haas seems to be a rather unsuitable source even independent of his Zionist leanings. At his on his WP biography there seems to no hint that he is a reputable historian, moreover his publication are almost 100 years old and hence hardly reflect current historic knowledge. He might be a notable (primary) source on zionist positions or as a scholar of zionist faith, but not as a historian.-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 00:53, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Another source claiming massacre is certainly Rosanes, which is discussed by Gershom Scholem. Anyone has access to the book (i think it is Rosanes' 1938 edition on Jewish history)? Greyshark09 ( talk) 15:49, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
I am starting a new section to continue the discussion of Jacob de Haas as a source for the proposition that a massacre of all the Jews in Safed occurred in 1660. De Haas, according to our bio of him, was an early leader within the Zionist Organization and served on its Propaganda Committee. He was a journalist and wrote a well-received "History of Palestine" published by Macmillan.
In the discussion so far, there have been three points of view espoused by various editors. 1. Keep the citation to de Haas as an objective historical source for the assertion there was a massacre. 2. Remove de Haas entirely on various grounds--polemical or advocacy source, primary source, and an old or otherwise inadequate source are various arguments that have been made. 3. Compromise solution I boldly implemented which has been continually reverted: keep de Haas but identify him as an advocacy source.
I am now going to argue for his removal from the article. The gold standard in historical article-writing on Wikipedia is the Military History project, which has the following to say about sources: "[A]rticles on military history should aim to be based primarily on published secondary works by reputable historians. The use of high-quality primary sources is also appropriate, but care should be taken to use them correctly, without straying into original research. Editors are encouraged to extensively survey the available literature—and, in particular, any available historiographic commentary—regarding an article's topic in order to identify every source considered to be authoritative or significant; these sources should, if possible, be directly consulted when writing the article." There has been a trend at reliable sources noticeboard to reference the military history standards in discussion of other, non-military, historical fields.
Not one of the assertions of a complete massacre of Jews in this article can be (or has ever been, in any previous version) sourced to "published secondary works by reputable historians". In order to allege a massacre, we have to turn to primary sources (the Zionist Council cited in the article), tertiary sources (the Jewish Encyclopedia) and works by non-historians (de Haas). There is also a WP:REDFLAG issue: the total extermination of a Jewish population is an extraordinary claim, and should be made based only on the highest quality sources. Jonathanwallace ( talk) 14:07, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Not sure i understand why this is a separate article from the 1660 destruction of Tiberias - the towns are right next to each other and the sources are the same. Oncenawhile ( talk) 20:37, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
I removed the proposal due to lack of consensus, following a long period of inactivity of this discussion. Greyshark09 ( talk) 20:41, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
I am reopening this merger discussion since 1660 destruction of Tiberias has not improved since the non-discussion above. As Oncenawhile correctly pointed out, almost none of 1660 destruction of Tiberias is about events of 1660, but refers to periods decades before or after 1660. Moreover, what is in that article ostensibly on the subject (a) is already present in this Safed article, (b) appears to violate WP:NOR. In more detail:
In summary, the article 1660 destruction of Tiberias does not have material enough to justify its existence. Proposing a "merger" is actually rather generous, since listing at WP:AFD is what it most calls for. Zero talk 06:18, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
user:Uishaki removed the category category:Jews and Judaism in Ottoman Syria for no reason. This may be considered vandalism. GreyShark ( dibra) 14:23, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
This section had originally been located at
User talk:Greyshark09
Palestine was never a part of Syria during the Ottoman rule.--
Uishaki (
talk)
14:37, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
These articles has nothing to do with our subject. You are just trying to offer people an idea that the name of Palestine are newborn.-- Uishaki ( talk) 14:44, 18 April 2014 (UTC)