This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.
|
The number of victims given is the one of Katz version, which is controversial.
Why ? You cannot ignore the controversy.
Ceedjee (
talk)
21:32, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Perfect. I read some of the first PDF file but 'm not sure how many were killed, 88 (combatant majority), 52 + 10 others or what. If you find the right number you think we should add it with the source. Trust me, I hate edit wars and haven't been in one for over a year. We should not get into details about the number killed in this article about the town. There should be a new article called Tantura massacre or Battle of Tantura, then we could get into details about the number killed, the dates, refugees in Fureidis, Yarmouk or Damascus. Cheers and Merry Christmas! -- Al Ameer son ( talk) 16:58, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
I added another source to back the claim that 70-200 people were killed and attributed to Katz. Until another published source (not blog) is added to the article saying otherwise, then there is no problem here. If you do find that source, simply put after the Katz claim, However, so and so, claimed these attacks never occurred or However, so and so claim only this many were killed. -- Al Ameer son ( talk) 21:17, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I see you have done this, I just added the denial by Alexandroni Brigades veterans. As for the POV tag, is it still needed? The PR website is being used for some minor historical information and nothing controversial at all. -- Al Ameer son ( talk) 15:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
!!substitute the word "currently" by "today"!!
quote from Wiki article:
Currently the Israeli kibbutz of Nahsholim and Dor are built upon the town's land.[2]
"Currently" means in future a situation can and will change.
You should use the term "today" which includes the possibility that it can change but leaves as well the possibility that there will be no change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.139.241.143 ( talk) 14:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
There is a discrepancy in population figures between this page and the Tantura controversy page. Which is it? In the interests of a better page and less redunancy, I believe the Tantura expulsion page should be incorporated here. There is no reason for doubled up information, and there are more details on the village itself in that article.-- Gilabrand ( talk) 07:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
It most certainly could and then a separate section for the Katz controversy. The two are quite separate. only some one is trying to make out that the expulsion never happened and that the Katz controversy is the only thing. All the Historians accept that the expulsion did happen even Morris gives that there is also evidence that there was execution of POWs. Brechor Shitrit did expel the women prisoners of Tantura from Fureidis. None of that is controversial and it is recorded in documents. The Katz part is however controversial but has never been the whole of the Tantura incident. If you want to work on the Katz controversy fine but let others work on the expulsion and please try not to get the 2 confused. And please no CAMERA links, that's KKK standard. Ashley kennedy3 ( talk) 11:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
If CAMERA was being used to put forward an argument on a neutral subject of population figures in Tantura you would have a valid case but for POV issues the use of CAMERA is suspect. Try using a good source to back the case. Ashley kennedy3 ( talk) 13:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
The Naming committee became part of the Israeli Government. Where in the bible is Dor mentioned? Ashley kennedy3 ( talk) 09:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
The Talmud was written in Aramaic. The Bible was written in Greek and Latin. However the Bible had some of the Talmud incorporated but also other writings added Ashley kennedy3 ( talk) 10:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Going by your biblical references Canaanite needs to be reinstated where you changed it to Phoenicians. and Dor could also be Naphath-Dor, is that the same place where Carmel was the Heights of Dor Ashley kennedy3 ( talk) 11:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC) Judges also puts Dor as a Canaanite city but where is Beth-shean and Taanach? Ashley kennedy3 ( talk) 11:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
And I don't take electronic data as primary sources. All web sites are suspect until corroborated by at least 3 independent sources. So to me your references are highly suspect. Call me a cynic but there is a lot of disinformation on the net. Ashley kennedy3 ( talk) 11:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
The Biblical account of the conquest of Canaan by the Israelites recounts that Dor was one of the 'five cities of the north' which joined Jabin, king of Hazor, in opposing Joshua. In the subsequent epic Israelite victory the king of Dor was killed and his army defeated (Jos. 11:1-2; 12:23), but the town itself was not destroyed and remained a Canaanite enclave throughout the period of the judges.
You see enslavement, (set to task work) is not what I'd call a Canaanite enclave. There is a certain amount of POV at the JU. Ashley kennedy3 ( talk) 11:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
The source on land purchase reads as follows: Sheid, the chief clerk of the Rothschild's Palestinian holdings, offered him land in Tantura, an Arab coastal village about 10 km northwest of Zikhron-Ya’akov. In his offer, he did not mention the prevalent fever there and the type of the land, but promised him a carriage and two horses as a bonus. Earlier (around 1880), the pioneers of Zikhron-Ya’akov bought 30 hectare in Tantura close to the malaria-bearing Anopheles mosquitoe in the marshs. -- Gilabrand ( talk) 10:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
As the land became the kibbutz of Nahsholim it looks like you source is slightly incorrect. The bottling plant is in Nahsholim . That by logic means the land was not in Tantura but near. Ashley kennedy3 ( talk) 11:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm supplying referenced work which you are replacing with POV Galibrand. Ashley kennedy3 ( talk) 11:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Referenced work should be left alone. Command decisions is referenced and applicable. I'll reference the labour battalions for you later Ashley kennedy3 ( talk) 15:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Command decisions fully referenced and have been all the time. Try to stop interfering with referenced work to put a POV position over Gilabrand Ashley kennedy3 ( talk) 15:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
So you think battles just accidentally occur and the Ben-Gurion wasn't in contol. Take your POV and put references Nahsholim is not in Tantura so all the Nahsholim stuff should be removed. Ashley kennedy3 ( talk) 16:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
The historic 'Glasshouse' museum building, located in Kibbutz Nahsholim, some 500 m. south of the site itself, now houses the Center for Nautical and Regional Archaeology at Dor (CONRAD), consisting of the expedition workrooms and a museum displaying the finds from Dor and its region. The house is an old glass-making factory from the 19th century (built by Baron Edmond James de Rothschild). [1]
Oh dear better tell the Dor page to remove their info. And it is part of the Judaism Project, well I never fancy them lying Gilabrand. Ashley kennedy3 ( talk) 19:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
And where did the photo come from?? Nahsholim it's like in Nahsholim. The only person that now suddenly claims it's out of Nahsholim is yourself. My comment was heavy on sarcasm as you are accusing the Judaism project of lying, for your own political POV. Wiki articles could be much better and more accurate if you kept you POV out of the articles. and don't forget the direction and distance from the ruins, it will help you to place the bottling plant more accurately than "in Tantura", it's outside of Tantura by a mile. Ashley kennedy3 ( talk) 20:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello,
Giladrand left a message on my talk page to invite me to come and comment the comment here. Just for information, Gilabrand and I have more or less already been implied in the same discussions before. I never met (or don't remember meeting) Ashley kenndy3.
I think I can bring some constructive support here. Just for information, I contributed to several articles dealing with the topic.
Give me a few time to read the article carefully (I think it has evolved much and positively) and I come back. Reading fast, my only concern is the pov of Pappe concerning the Plan Dalet. I think it is not welcome here and additionnaly, it is given as a fact whereas the way Pappe sees Plan D is not shared by all historians (I would even say, his view is in minority)...
Ceedjee (
talk)
07:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
It is not Ilan Pappes POV, Ilan Pappe gives it as a direct quote from Ben-Gurion's Diary entry of the 11th May, footnote 2 to chapter 6. "The cleansing of palestine remained the prime objective of Plan dalet" Ben-Gurion uses the noun bi'ur which means either cleansing the leaven in Passover or 'root' out, eliminate. Ashley kennedy3 ( talk) 09:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
May 9th comes before May 22-23 in all calenders. Your POV is showing Gilabrand. I will be taking your vandalism out Ashley kennedy3 ( talk) 10:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Ben-Gurions diary entry will be put back.10:41, 11 June 2008 (UTC) Ashley kennedy3 ( talk)
not references, there are notes included. That makes it foot notes. Ashley kennedy3 ( talk) 10:41, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
A decision was made on May 9, 1948 to "expel or subdue" the villages of Kafr Saba, al-Tira, Qaqun, Qalansuwa and Tantura.[17] On the 11 May 1948 Ben-Gurion convened in what Pappé describes as the “Consultancy.” [18] The outcome of the meeting was confirmed in a letter to commanders of the Haganah Brigades telling them that the Arab legion's offensive should not distract their troops from the principle tasks:
"‘the cleansing of Palestine remained the prime objective of Plan Dalet” [19]
Ilan Pappé gives it as a direct quote from Ben-Gurion's Diary entry of the 11th May, footnote 2 to chapter 6. Ben-Gurion uses the noun bi'ur which means either cleansing the leaven in Passover or 'root' out, eliminate.
Pryce-Jones claims that in interviews, Ilan Pappé backs up his claims with the argument that "we do [historiography] because of ideological reasons, not because we are truth seekers..there is no such thing as truth, only a collection of narratives" [18] see also the 1961 Correspondence in The Spectator on “Why the Refugees Left”[20]
According to 'Tiroshi' (Eitan),[21] the residents of Tantura were ready to surrender in early May but not relinquish their arms . The Haganah was not interested in a surrender of Tantura.[22]
I think this should also be removed from here. What do you think ? Can we consider to shorten this section ? Please, comment. I would suggest some summary here... Ceedjee ( talk) 19:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
The surrender issue I felt was confirmed by the night attack with no offer of surrender. The rhetorical question got an answer by the actions. The to and fro I had with Gilabrand was based on the point that the expulsion was a recorded fact well document etc. And Gilabrand was determined to make the Katz controversy a point to say that if the "Massacre" never happened then the expulsion never happened. That to me is a bit of a denial.
1. I'm all for adding, it's subtracting I don't like. I like both POV to be included. This is why I made sure the Katz controversy was included
2. Don't know. I can only read a few words of Hebrew so would never get through BG's diary on my own. And the Yehuda Sluzky is footnote 4 chapter 6 about the brotherhood being released from prison in May to join the fight.
3. Because as with the Mossad & Shabak semi informal meetings in Kibbutz there is the in crowd who decide or are informed of policy. An inner cabinet meeting with extras of news paper editors/owners, the movers and shakers of society. Government by clique.
4. it's the diary. The commanders letter only talks of expulsion.
5. Pryce-Jones' ad hom was based on the argument refuted by the correspondence. If Pryce-Jones stays then so should the refutation.
6. The collusion across the Jordan. The Jordanian Army was the best fighting force the Arabs had to offer and Abdullah did not go back on his word. The provisional Government had good reason to suspect (you can never know until it all goes wrong/right) that the Arab forces had been heavily neutralised. The Arms embargo was being enforce on the Arab protagonists while Czechoslovakia was supplying the Jewish Agency/provisional Government.
I look forward to constructive criticism. Thanks for your time. Hopefully we'll end up with a good article. Personally I think the article rates start class not B. And in all fairness the katz controversy needs going over. again thanks for your time Ashley kennedy3 ( talk) 23:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello Ceedjee:
Thanks for your time, I look forward to your answers Ashley kennedy3 ( talk) 11:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Write to the publisher, ask for your money back. Demand they re-issue with a good edit. How can they get something as fundamental as the footnotes incorrect? Ashley kennedy3 ( talk) 11:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi Ashley,
I suggest we focus on 1 topic at a time.
No historian but Pappe talks about this consultancy. And no historian but Pappé refers to such meeting. If it was so obvious that this is not poved, you would not have added "called as such by Pappé". Pappé pov cannot be given that weight.
The fact it is put in "quote" doesn't change the matter. More, his thesis about this consultancy group and this decision is here given an undue:weight. This is the article about Tantura. The first line given by Morris is more than enough. The only purpose of this line here is to give weight to one of Pappe's argument that an expulsion would have been ordered.
Ceedjee (
talk)
08:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
You also have Avi Shlaim referring to the "Clan"... Ashley kennedy3 ( talk) 09:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I've been searching my library for him and the net and have absolutely nothing. And nothing on Sheikh al-Majrami. And what about de Merle? Ashley kennedy3 ( talk) 10:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Sounds more like Mount Carmel than the plains of Sharon? I don't know where Gilabrand got the Sharon plains from for Ben-abinadab, I would like a fact check on that one. Ashley kennedy3 ( talk) 10:37, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
In the 10th century BCE, it became the capital of the Heights of Dor under Solomon, and was governed by his son-in-law, Ben-abinadab.[8]
At the moment I have it linked to plains of Sharon as Gilabrand had it down as Sharon in the original. I Put the Height's of Dor in over it as that's the wording in the Bible. Ashley kennedy3 ( talk) 11:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Height's of Dor? That is odd. In such cases it is always 'Heights'. Haven't checked the original Bible though. Nishidani ( talk) 11:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I found where she got it from now the Hebrew University site....check references where given. Ashley kennedy3 ( talk) 11:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
For accuracy shouldn't this be al-Tantura? Ashley kennedy3 ( talk) 10:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I added pov-flags in the problematic sections until these issues are resolved. Ceedjee ( talk) 07:19, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Is the POV flag needed on the Massacre controversy section? Ashley kennedy3 ( talk) 11:49, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
All references to camera website to source facts should be removed and replace. Does someone disagree ? Ceedjee ( talk) 07:22, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
In this instance no. The CAMERA article supports the expulsion descriptions. Obviously it does not support the massacre theory. But it is also a source for the "did not murder the villagers after they surrendered". this in itself is quite telling, didn't murder villages after?? by implication in the opinion of the speaker they did before. As said before I like all sources to remain. Ashley kennedy3 ( talk) 10:52, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
The Camera facts are in fact from an article in Ma'ariv. Nishidani ( talk) 13:21, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Now reference to the Ma'ariv article is far superior to Camera. I agree that Camera articles are written with extreme POV but they can be useful pointers. Ashley kennedy3 ( talk) 13:47, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
The edit I have made is not meant to prejudice the outcome of the discussion on the exact source for the Ben-Gurion quote, and anything else. The point is, the detail in the text following that quote should be in the footnote to that quote, as I have now relocated it. This makes for narrative smoothness, uninterrupted by technical matters.
(2) I have removed also the following:
Pryce-Jones claims that in interviews, Ilan Pappé backs up his claims with the argument that "we do [historiography] because of ideological reasons, not because we are truth seekers..there is no such thing as truth, only a collection of narratives" [1] see also the 1961 Correspondence in The Spectator on “Why the Refugees Left” [2]
Now this is absolutely irrelevant to the page's narrative. It is introduced, I presume to undercut the thrust of Pappé's citation from Ben-Gurion's diary. It refers to a general criticism as far as I know, of Pappé's historical method, not specifically to the fact that he adduced this passage from B-G's diary to elucidate what happened at al-Tanturea? If so, it is irrelevant. The same criticism is found, appropriately, if I recall on the Ilan Pappé page. My edits here have been purely in the order of proper narrative flow, and thus are not intended as edits on content. Nishidani ( talk) 12:58, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
My personal feeling is that it should come under foot notes and not in the main text. I was semi-forced to put the rebuttal into the main text. Or as you've done remove the lot. Ashley kennedy3 ( talk) 13:37, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
The Ilan Pappé Article is missing the Pryce-Jones ad hom. Ashley kennedy3 ( talk) 14:02, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
References
The text says the Alexandroni Brigade's 33rd Battalion. In military terms this is nonsense, since, at least in Western armies, Brigades have an upper limit of 5 battalions. I suspect what is meant is the Haganah's 33rd battalion. Needs checking out. Nishidani ( talk) 13:19, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
It always seemed a bit of a leap with a newly formed Army. However the numbering is consistent with bluff. As in calling it the 33rd even though Brigade numbers 2-32 are missing. It was used in the run up to the "D" Day landings, making up armies that weren't in existence. Ashley kennedy3 ( talk) 13:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
I've adjusted to put Meyrav Wurmser, the source for the summary of the Katz trial, into the text. She belongs, it should be born in mind, to a rather extremist right-wing ideological bloc. She is not, as the linked page asserts, a 'scholar of the Arab world' so far as I have been able to check, but a person with a doctorate on Hebrew political parties, Likud and Herut. Nishidani ( talk) 15:28, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
No Palestinian recanted only some Alexandroni.
Kafr Saba is unlinked. I note that Kfar Saba is also on the Plain of Sharon. Same place? Unlikely if it was a purely Jewish settlement founded on barren land by E de Rothschild. There is an Arab Saba nearby, apparently. The wiki article on the latter mentions nothing of these events. Nishidani ( talk) 21:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
I think you need to read the Benny article Gilabrand if you are under the impression that your POV editing is going to pass muster..... Ashley kennedy3 ( talk) 22:50, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Morris' bone of contention with the Katz thesis was about the link to Plan Dalet as a master plan for expulsion. Morris puts the massacre down as "over exuberance"....Gelber however contends that no massacre took place.... You really are getting things confused Gilabrand... Ashley kennedy3 ( talk) 23:09, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Then you'll notice the peanuts quote then.... I'm fully aware what Morris says. Katz and Plan D and that running around shooting the place place up with "over enthusiastic" killing is not what he thinks of as a massacre....Benny's conclusions are not what others may conclude from the evidence presented.....I'm using Benny's evidence not his conclusions... Ashley kennedy3 ( talk) 12:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
When the precepts don't fit the conclusions? Benny doesn't use all sources, so Benny should not be used in Isolation to the exclusion of other more neutral sources, such as the UN.... Ashley kennedy3 ( talk) 08:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Sorry to inform you but Walid does mention the possibility of a massacre at Tantura in the 60s..... Ashley kennedy3 ( talk) 12:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
"Peanuts" direct quote.... Ashley kennedy3 ( talk) 14:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
This is not material to Tantura, and to keep it in is to use various quotations from Morris out of context to undercut his assessment of Tantura. I personally believe there was, as in many other poorly documented cases, a massacre there, but this is a matter of personal belief based on a large variety of factors, and until one gets proof from RS's, any endeavour to play with the public record of scholars who write reliable sources in order to undermine their interpretations of a specific case cannot but amount to 'editorializing' and the assumption of a role as opinionists which the rules of wiki formally forbid us. Nishidani ( talk) 14:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)'In his view, the 800 Palestinian Arabs killed in war crimes are "peanuts".'
Don't blame me blame Benny Morris he's the one that said it as per the reference.... Ashley kennedy3 ( talk) 17:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
It would appear that the use of POV against Ilan Pappe is usable yet a Direct Benny Morris quote is not? Gilabrand is using anti Pappe POV why can't anti Morris also be used?.... Ashley kennedy3 ( talk) 17:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Footnotes 30 and 31 refer to: Benny Morris (2006)...shouldn´t this be Benny Morris (2004)? Or is there a 2006 Morris publication not in my library..? Regards, Huldra ( talk) 21:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
I used the 2006 reprint which appears to have some of Benny's earlier errors corrected. Unfortunately it does not have the date of the tantura expulsion being corrected to match the text within the book... Ashley kennedy3 ( talk) 16:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Pwer JWeekly.com (bgu.ac.il/ben-gurion/center.htm) 1997 - his diary is available online.
159.105.80.220 (
talk)
13:34, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
DONT remove what i write in the tantura article. I worked on it yesterday to make sure everything is alright by transleting from hebrew into english,while the article itself is made by very unvalid sources such as Ilan Pepe,a radical leftist with opinions,not facts.I know the struggle to make the jewish population a hostile,but they havent been a hostile to anyone even since the name palestina was given to the land of israel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.179.226.167 ( talk) 14:24, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
The text: "Morris believes that ... there may have been some looting, based on an army report that uses the Hebrew word khabala (sabotage)." One source (Morris 2004, p301): "Moreover, CGS to OC Alexandroni of 1 June 1948, complaining of acts of 'sabotage' [habala] after the conquest of the village, may have been a euphemistic reference to a massacre." The other (Morris, Jerusalem Report) says: "Which leaves a last, disturbing possibility: That the Alexandroni troops indeed committed a massacre or a series of atrocities, that the Ministry heard about it - and that they thought the matter worthy of investigation. But given the high-level sensitivity to atrocities, all preferred to use a euphemism, habalah, instead of the explicit tevah (massacre)." Anybody else see the problem? Morris' opinion is actually serious misrepresented and some rewriting is required. Zero talk 07:21, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
The text: "When the court examined Katz's tapes of his interviews, it did not find such a statement." But the source (Morris, Jerusalem Report) does not mention that the court examined any evidence at all. (Actually I'm pretty sure it stopped before that point due to Katz' retraction.) Zero talk 07:31, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Tantura/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
The expulsion and Katz controversy should form one article unfortunately Gilabrad is vandalising the article to be only the Katz controversy so I've been forced to split the article to allow work to proceed on both sections hopefully the two will be merged at a latter date Ashley kennedy3 ( talk) 10:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC) |
Last edited at 01:55, 1 January 2012 (UTC). Substituted at 07:37, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
The Tantura massacre presently is just a redir to the article: it really should be its own article. Trying to sum up 20+year controversy into this article (and Pappe's), just bloats this article, and make it rather difficult to read.
My 2-cents: We should just refer to the latest findings about the massacre here (and in the Pappe article), and then place all these last 20+ years controversy ("blood-libel"-charges, legal threats, etc) in a Tantura massacre article.
Comments? Huldra ( talk) 21:25, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
@ RCrew92: Please revert your last edit, which has change the wording in a way that has only casted doubt on a massacre, that its victims' relatives, perpetrators and observers have all agreed on its occurrence. The controversy that surrounded the massacre in Israeli scholarship circles should not affect the factuality of the its occurrence. For a similar situation, see Jedwabne pogrom, a Polish massacre of Jews in 1941 that was only acknowledged in the 1990s and 2000s. That Wikipedia article treats it as historical fact, as it rightfully should be. This article is no exception. Makeandtoss ( talk) 11:27, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
@ Makeandtoss: There is no academic consensus as to massacre occurence yet. The academic paper decades ago asserting to it was revoked and Haaretz is not an academic source that is able to assert the existence of a massacre. We should make it clear that the jury is still out on this. Jedwabne pogrom is historically documened in dozens of academic papers and the controversy there is not whether it happened but who was respnsible Currently interested parties are calling for a full reinvestigation. Opening the case from decades ago again. for the sake of academic honesty we should wait for the results of the investigation. User:RCrew92
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Tantura massacre which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 23:19, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.
|
The number of victims given is the one of Katz version, which is controversial.
Why ? You cannot ignore the controversy.
Ceedjee (
talk)
21:32, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Perfect. I read some of the first PDF file but 'm not sure how many were killed, 88 (combatant majority), 52 + 10 others or what. If you find the right number you think we should add it with the source. Trust me, I hate edit wars and haven't been in one for over a year. We should not get into details about the number killed in this article about the town. There should be a new article called Tantura massacre or Battle of Tantura, then we could get into details about the number killed, the dates, refugees in Fureidis, Yarmouk or Damascus. Cheers and Merry Christmas! -- Al Ameer son ( talk) 16:58, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
I added another source to back the claim that 70-200 people were killed and attributed to Katz. Until another published source (not blog) is added to the article saying otherwise, then there is no problem here. If you do find that source, simply put after the Katz claim, However, so and so, claimed these attacks never occurred or However, so and so claim only this many were killed. -- Al Ameer son ( talk) 21:17, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I see you have done this, I just added the denial by Alexandroni Brigades veterans. As for the POV tag, is it still needed? The PR website is being used for some minor historical information and nothing controversial at all. -- Al Ameer son ( talk) 15:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
!!substitute the word "currently" by "today"!!
quote from Wiki article:
Currently the Israeli kibbutz of Nahsholim and Dor are built upon the town's land.[2]
"Currently" means in future a situation can and will change.
You should use the term "today" which includes the possibility that it can change but leaves as well the possibility that there will be no change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.139.241.143 ( talk) 14:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
There is a discrepancy in population figures between this page and the Tantura controversy page. Which is it? In the interests of a better page and less redunancy, I believe the Tantura expulsion page should be incorporated here. There is no reason for doubled up information, and there are more details on the village itself in that article.-- Gilabrand ( talk) 07:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
It most certainly could and then a separate section for the Katz controversy. The two are quite separate. only some one is trying to make out that the expulsion never happened and that the Katz controversy is the only thing. All the Historians accept that the expulsion did happen even Morris gives that there is also evidence that there was execution of POWs. Brechor Shitrit did expel the women prisoners of Tantura from Fureidis. None of that is controversial and it is recorded in documents. The Katz part is however controversial but has never been the whole of the Tantura incident. If you want to work on the Katz controversy fine but let others work on the expulsion and please try not to get the 2 confused. And please no CAMERA links, that's KKK standard. Ashley kennedy3 ( talk) 11:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
If CAMERA was being used to put forward an argument on a neutral subject of population figures in Tantura you would have a valid case but for POV issues the use of CAMERA is suspect. Try using a good source to back the case. Ashley kennedy3 ( talk) 13:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
The Naming committee became part of the Israeli Government. Where in the bible is Dor mentioned? Ashley kennedy3 ( talk) 09:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
The Talmud was written in Aramaic. The Bible was written in Greek and Latin. However the Bible had some of the Talmud incorporated but also other writings added Ashley kennedy3 ( talk) 10:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Going by your biblical references Canaanite needs to be reinstated where you changed it to Phoenicians. and Dor could also be Naphath-Dor, is that the same place where Carmel was the Heights of Dor Ashley kennedy3 ( talk) 11:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC) Judges also puts Dor as a Canaanite city but where is Beth-shean and Taanach? Ashley kennedy3 ( talk) 11:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
And I don't take electronic data as primary sources. All web sites are suspect until corroborated by at least 3 independent sources. So to me your references are highly suspect. Call me a cynic but there is a lot of disinformation on the net. Ashley kennedy3 ( talk) 11:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
The Biblical account of the conquest of Canaan by the Israelites recounts that Dor was one of the 'five cities of the north' which joined Jabin, king of Hazor, in opposing Joshua. In the subsequent epic Israelite victory the king of Dor was killed and his army defeated (Jos. 11:1-2; 12:23), but the town itself was not destroyed and remained a Canaanite enclave throughout the period of the judges.
You see enslavement, (set to task work) is not what I'd call a Canaanite enclave. There is a certain amount of POV at the JU. Ashley kennedy3 ( talk) 11:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
The source on land purchase reads as follows: Sheid, the chief clerk of the Rothschild's Palestinian holdings, offered him land in Tantura, an Arab coastal village about 10 km northwest of Zikhron-Ya’akov. In his offer, he did not mention the prevalent fever there and the type of the land, but promised him a carriage and two horses as a bonus. Earlier (around 1880), the pioneers of Zikhron-Ya’akov bought 30 hectare in Tantura close to the malaria-bearing Anopheles mosquitoe in the marshs. -- Gilabrand ( talk) 10:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
As the land became the kibbutz of Nahsholim it looks like you source is slightly incorrect. The bottling plant is in Nahsholim . That by logic means the land was not in Tantura but near. Ashley kennedy3 ( talk) 11:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm supplying referenced work which you are replacing with POV Galibrand. Ashley kennedy3 ( talk) 11:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Referenced work should be left alone. Command decisions is referenced and applicable. I'll reference the labour battalions for you later Ashley kennedy3 ( talk) 15:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Command decisions fully referenced and have been all the time. Try to stop interfering with referenced work to put a POV position over Gilabrand Ashley kennedy3 ( talk) 15:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
So you think battles just accidentally occur and the Ben-Gurion wasn't in contol. Take your POV and put references Nahsholim is not in Tantura so all the Nahsholim stuff should be removed. Ashley kennedy3 ( talk) 16:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
The historic 'Glasshouse' museum building, located in Kibbutz Nahsholim, some 500 m. south of the site itself, now houses the Center for Nautical and Regional Archaeology at Dor (CONRAD), consisting of the expedition workrooms and a museum displaying the finds from Dor and its region. The house is an old glass-making factory from the 19th century (built by Baron Edmond James de Rothschild). [1]
Oh dear better tell the Dor page to remove their info. And it is part of the Judaism Project, well I never fancy them lying Gilabrand. Ashley kennedy3 ( talk) 19:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
And where did the photo come from?? Nahsholim it's like in Nahsholim. The only person that now suddenly claims it's out of Nahsholim is yourself. My comment was heavy on sarcasm as you are accusing the Judaism project of lying, for your own political POV. Wiki articles could be much better and more accurate if you kept you POV out of the articles. and don't forget the direction and distance from the ruins, it will help you to place the bottling plant more accurately than "in Tantura", it's outside of Tantura by a mile. Ashley kennedy3 ( talk) 20:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello,
Giladrand left a message on my talk page to invite me to come and comment the comment here. Just for information, Gilabrand and I have more or less already been implied in the same discussions before. I never met (or don't remember meeting) Ashley kenndy3.
I think I can bring some constructive support here. Just for information, I contributed to several articles dealing with the topic.
Give me a few time to read the article carefully (I think it has evolved much and positively) and I come back. Reading fast, my only concern is the pov of Pappe concerning the Plan Dalet. I think it is not welcome here and additionnaly, it is given as a fact whereas the way Pappe sees Plan D is not shared by all historians (I would even say, his view is in minority)...
Ceedjee (
talk)
07:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
It is not Ilan Pappes POV, Ilan Pappe gives it as a direct quote from Ben-Gurion's Diary entry of the 11th May, footnote 2 to chapter 6. "The cleansing of palestine remained the prime objective of Plan dalet" Ben-Gurion uses the noun bi'ur which means either cleansing the leaven in Passover or 'root' out, eliminate. Ashley kennedy3 ( talk) 09:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
May 9th comes before May 22-23 in all calenders. Your POV is showing Gilabrand. I will be taking your vandalism out Ashley kennedy3 ( talk) 10:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Ben-Gurions diary entry will be put back.10:41, 11 June 2008 (UTC) Ashley kennedy3 ( talk)
not references, there are notes included. That makes it foot notes. Ashley kennedy3 ( talk) 10:41, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
A decision was made on May 9, 1948 to "expel or subdue" the villages of Kafr Saba, al-Tira, Qaqun, Qalansuwa and Tantura.[17] On the 11 May 1948 Ben-Gurion convened in what Pappé describes as the “Consultancy.” [18] The outcome of the meeting was confirmed in a letter to commanders of the Haganah Brigades telling them that the Arab legion's offensive should not distract their troops from the principle tasks:
"‘the cleansing of Palestine remained the prime objective of Plan Dalet” [19]
Ilan Pappé gives it as a direct quote from Ben-Gurion's Diary entry of the 11th May, footnote 2 to chapter 6. Ben-Gurion uses the noun bi'ur which means either cleansing the leaven in Passover or 'root' out, eliminate.
Pryce-Jones claims that in interviews, Ilan Pappé backs up his claims with the argument that "we do [historiography] because of ideological reasons, not because we are truth seekers..there is no such thing as truth, only a collection of narratives" [18] see also the 1961 Correspondence in The Spectator on “Why the Refugees Left”[20]
According to 'Tiroshi' (Eitan),[21] the residents of Tantura were ready to surrender in early May but not relinquish their arms . The Haganah was not interested in a surrender of Tantura.[22]
I think this should also be removed from here. What do you think ? Can we consider to shorten this section ? Please, comment. I would suggest some summary here... Ceedjee ( talk) 19:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
The surrender issue I felt was confirmed by the night attack with no offer of surrender. The rhetorical question got an answer by the actions. The to and fro I had with Gilabrand was based on the point that the expulsion was a recorded fact well document etc. And Gilabrand was determined to make the Katz controversy a point to say that if the "Massacre" never happened then the expulsion never happened. That to me is a bit of a denial.
1. I'm all for adding, it's subtracting I don't like. I like both POV to be included. This is why I made sure the Katz controversy was included
2. Don't know. I can only read a few words of Hebrew so would never get through BG's diary on my own. And the Yehuda Sluzky is footnote 4 chapter 6 about the brotherhood being released from prison in May to join the fight.
3. Because as with the Mossad & Shabak semi informal meetings in Kibbutz there is the in crowd who decide or are informed of policy. An inner cabinet meeting with extras of news paper editors/owners, the movers and shakers of society. Government by clique.
4. it's the diary. The commanders letter only talks of expulsion.
5. Pryce-Jones' ad hom was based on the argument refuted by the correspondence. If Pryce-Jones stays then so should the refutation.
6. The collusion across the Jordan. The Jordanian Army was the best fighting force the Arabs had to offer and Abdullah did not go back on his word. The provisional Government had good reason to suspect (you can never know until it all goes wrong/right) that the Arab forces had been heavily neutralised. The Arms embargo was being enforce on the Arab protagonists while Czechoslovakia was supplying the Jewish Agency/provisional Government.
I look forward to constructive criticism. Thanks for your time. Hopefully we'll end up with a good article. Personally I think the article rates start class not B. And in all fairness the katz controversy needs going over. again thanks for your time Ashley kennedy3 ( talk) 23:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello Ceedjee:
Thanks for your time, I look forward to your answers Ashley kennedy3 ( talk) 11:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Write to the publisher, ask for your money back. Demand they re-issue with a good edit. How can they get something as fundamental as the footnotes incorrect? Ashley kennedy3 ( talk) 11:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi Ashley,
I suggest we focus on 1 topic at a time.
No historian but Pappe talks about this consultancy. And no historian but Pappé refers to such meeting. If it was so obvious that this is not poved, you would not have added "called as such by Pappé". Pappé pov cannot be given that weight.
The fact it is put in "quote" doesn't change the matter. More, his thesis about this consultancy group and this decision is here given an undue:weight. This is the article about Tantura. The first line given by Morris is more than enough. The only purpose of this line here is to give weight to one of Pappe's argument that an expulsion would have been ordered.
Ceedjee (
talk)
08:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
You also have Avi Shlaim referring to the "Clan"... Ashley kennedy3 ( talk) 09:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I've been searching my library for him and the net and have absolutely nothing. And nothing on Sheikh al-Majrami. And what about de Merle? Ashley kennedy3 ( talk) 10:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Sounds more like Mount Carmel than the plains of Sharon? I don't know where Gilabrand got the Sharon plains from for Ben-abinadab, I would like a fact check on that one. Ashley kennedy3 ( talk) 10:37, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
In the 10th century BCE, it became the capital of the Heights of Dor under Solomon, and was governed by his son-in-law, Ben-abinadab.[8]
At the moment I have it linked to plains of Sharon as Gilabrand had it down as Sharon in the original. I Put the Height's of Dor in over it as that's the wording in the Bible. Ashley kennedy3 ( talk) 11:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Height's of Dor? That is odd. In such cases it is always 'Heights'. Haven't checked the original Bible though. Nishidani ( talk) 11:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I found where she got it from now the Hebrew University site....check references where given. Ashley kennedy3 ( talk) 11:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
For accuracy shouldn't this be al-Tantura? Ashley kennedy3 ( talk) 10:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I added pov-flags in the problematic sections until these issues are resolved. Ceedjee ( talk) 07:19, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Is the POV flag needed on the Massacre controversy section? Ashley kennedy3 ( talk) 11:49, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
All references to camera website to source facts should be removed and replace. Does someone disagree ? Ceedjee ( talk) 07:22, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
In this instance no. The CAMERA article supports the expulsion descriptions. Obviously it does not support the massacre theory. But it is also a source for the "did not murder the villagers after they surrendered". this in itself is quite telling, didn't murder villages after?? by implication in the opinion of the speaker they did before. As said before I like all sources to remain. Ashley kennedy3 ( talk) 10:52, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
The Camera facts are in fact from an article in Ma'ariv. Nishidani ( talk) 13:21, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Now reference to the Ma'ariv article is far superior to Camera. I agree that Camera articles are written with extreme POV but they can be useful pointers. Ashley kennedy3 ( talk) 13:47, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
The edit I have made is not meant to prejudice the outcome of the discussion on the exact source for the Ben-Gurion quote, and anything else. The point is, the detail in the text following that quote should be in the footnote to that quote, as I have now relocated it. This makes for narrative smoothness, uninterrupted by technical matters.
(2) I have removed also the following:
Pryce-Jones claims that in interviews, Ilan Pappé backs up his claims with the argument that "we do [historiography] because of ideological reasons, not because we are truth seekers..there is no such thing as truth, only a collection of narratives" [1] see also the 1961 Correspondence in The Spectator on “Why the Refugees Left” [2]
Now this is absolutely irrelevant to the page's narrative. It is introduced, I presume to undercut the thrust of Pappé's citation from Ben-Gurion's diary. It refers to a general criticism as far as I know, of Pappé's historical method, not specifically to the fact that he adduced this passage from B-G's diary to elucidate what happened at al-Tanturea? If so, it is irrelevant. The same criticism is found, appropriately, if I recall on the Ilan Pappé page. My edits here have been purely in the order of proper narrative flow, and thus are not intended as edits on content. Nishidani ( talk) 12:58, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
My personal feeling is that it should come under foot notes and not in the main text. I was semi-forced to put the rebuttal into the main text. Or as you've done remove the lot. Ashley kennedy3 ( talk) 13:37, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
The Ilan Pappé Article is missing the Pryce-Jones ad hom. Ashley kennedy3 ( talk) 14:02, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
References
The text says the Alexandroni Brigade's 33rd Battalion. In military terms this is nonsense, since, at least in Western armies, Brigades have an upper limit of 5 battalions. I suspect what is meant is the Haganah's 33rd battalion. Needs checking out. Nishidani ( talk) 13:19, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
It always seemed a bit of a leap with a newly formed Army. However the numbering is consistent with bluff. As in calling it the 33rd even though Brigade numbers 2-32 are missing. It was used in the run up to the "D" Day landings, making up armies that weren't in existence. Ashley kennedy3 ( talk) 13:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
I've adjusted to put Meyrav Wurmser, the source for the summary of the Katz trial, into the text. She belongs, it should be born in mind, to a rather extremist right-wing ideological bloc. She is not, as the linked page asserts, a 'scholar of the Arab world' so far as I have been able to check, but a person with a doctorate on Hebrew political parties, Likud and Herut. Nishidani ( talk) 15:28, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
No Palestinian recanted only some Alexandroni.
Kafr Saba is unlinked. I note that Kfar Saba is also on the Plain of Sharon. Same place? Unlikely if it was a purely Jewish settlement founded on barren land by E de Rothschild. There is an Arab Saba nearby, apparently. The wiki article on the latter mentions nothing of these events. Nishidani ( talk) 21:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
I think you need to read the Benny article Gilabrand if you are under the impression that your POV editing is going to pass muster..... Ashley kennedy3 ( talk) 22:50, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Morris' bone of contention with the Katz thesis was about the link to Plan Dalet as a master plan for expulsion. Morris puts the massacre down as "over exuberance"....Gelber however contends that no massacre took place.... You really are getting things confused Gilabrand... Ashley kennedy3 ( talk) 23:09, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Then you'll notice the peanuts quote then.... I'm fully aware what Morris says. Katz and Plan D and that running around shooting the place place up with "over enthusiastic" killing is not what he thinks of as a massacre....Benny's conclusions are not what others may conclude from the evidence presented.....I'm using Benny's evidence not his conclusions... Ashley kennedy3 ( talk) 12:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
When the precepts don't fit the conclusions? Benny doesn't use all sources, so Benny should not be used in Isolation to the exclusion of other more neutral sources, such as the UN.... Ashley kennedy3 ( talk) 08:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Sorry to inform you but Walid does mention the possibility of a massacre at Tantura in the 60s..... Ashley kennedy3 ( talk) 12:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
"Peanuts" direct quote.... Ashley kennedy3 ( talk) 14:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
This is not material to Tantura, and to keep it in is to use various quotations from Morris out of context to undercut his assessment of Tantura. I personally believe there was, as in many other poorly documented cases, a massacre there, but this is a matter of personal belief based on a large variety of factors, and until one gets proof from RS's, any endeavour to play with the public record of scholars who write reliable sources in order to undermine their interpretations of a specific case cannot but amount to 'editorializing' and the assumption of a role as opinionists which the rules of wiki formally forbid us. Nishidani ( talk) 14:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)'In his view, the 800 Palestinian Arabs killed in war crimes are "peanuts".'
Don't blame me blame Benny Morris he's the one that said it as per the reference.... Ashley kennedy3 ( talk) 17:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
It would appear that the use of POV against Ilan Pappe is usable yet a Direct Benny Morris quote is not? Gilabrand is using anti Pappe POV why can't anti Morris also be used?.... Ashley kennedy3 ( talk) 17:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Footnotes 30 and 31 refer to: Benny Morris (2006)...shouldn´t this be Benny Morris (2004)? Or is there a 2006 Morris publication not in my library..? Regards, Huldra ( talk) 21:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
I used the 2006 reprint which appears to have some of Benny's earlier errors corrected. Unfortunately it does not have the date of the tantura expulsion being corrected to match the text within the book... Ashley kennedy3 ( talk) 16:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Pwer JWeekly.com (bgu.ac.il/ben-gurion/center.htm) 1997 - his diary is available online.
159.105.80.220 (
talk)
13:34, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
DONT remove what i write in the tantura article. I worked on it yesterday to make sure everything is alright by transleting from hebrew into english,while the article itself is made by very unvalid sources such as Ilan Pepe,a radical leftist with opinions,not facts.I know the struggle to make the jewish population a hostile,but they havent been a hostile to anyone even since the name palestina was given to the land of israel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.179.226.167 ( talk) 14:24, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
The text: "Morris believes that ... there may have been some looting, based on an army report that uses the Hebrew word khabala (sabotage)." One source (Morris 2004, p301): "Moreover, CGS to OC Alexandroni of 1 June 1948, complaining of acts of 'sabotage' [habala] after the conquest of the village, may have been a euphemistic reference to a massacre." The other (Morris, Jerusalem Report) says: "Which leaves a last, disturbing possibility: That the Alexandroni troops indeed committed a massacre or a series of atrocities, that the Ministry heard about it - and that they thought the matter worthy of investigation. But given the high-level sensitivity to atrocities, all preferred to use a euphemism, habalah, instead of the explicit tevah (massacre)." Anybody else see the problem? Morris' opinion is actually serious misrepresented and some rewriting is required. Zero talk 07:21, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
The text: "When the court examined Katz's tapes of his interviews, it did not find such a statement." But the source (Morris, Jerusalem Report) does not mention that the court examined any evidence at all. (Actually I'm pretty sure it stopped before that point due to Katz' retraction.) Zero talk 07:31, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Tantura/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
The expulsion and Katz controversy should form one article unfortunately Gilabrad is vandalising the article to be only the Katz controversy so I've been forced to split the article to allow work to proceed on both sections hopefully the two will be merged at a latter date Ashley kennedy3 ( talk) 10:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC) |
Last edited at 01:55, 1 January 2012 (UTC). Substituted at 07:37, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
The Tantura massacre presently is just a redir to the article: it really should be its own article. Trying to sum up 20+year controversy into this article (and Pappe's), just bloats this article, and make it rather difficult to read.
My 2-cents: We should just refer to the latest findings about the massacre here (and in the Pappe article), and then place all these last 20+ years controversy ("blood-libel"-charges, legal threats, etc) in a Tantura massacre article.
Comments? Huldra ( talk) 21:25, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
@ RCrew92: Please revert your last edit, which has change the wording in a way that has only casted doubt on a massacre, that its victims' relatives, perpetrators and observers have all agreed on its occurrence. The controversy that surrounded the massacre in Israeli scholarship circles should not affect the factuality of the its occurrence. For a similar situation, see Jedwabne pogrom, a Polish massacre of Jews in 1941 that was only acknowledged in the 1990s and 2000s. That Wikipedia article treats it as historical fact, as it rightfully should be. This article is no exception. Makeandtoss ( talk) 11:27, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
@ Makeandtoss: There is no academic consensus as to massacre occurence yet. The academic paper decades ago asserting to it was revoked and Haaretz is not an academic source that is able to assert the existence of a massacre. We should make it clear that the jury is still out on this. Jedwabne pogrom is historically documened in dozens of academic papers and the controversy there is not whether it happened but who was respnsible Currently interested parties are calling for a full reinvestigation. Opening the case from decades ago again. for the sake of academic honesty we should wait for the results of the investigation. User:RCrew92
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Tantura massacre which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 23:19, 4 June 2022 (UTC)