Talk:List of killings and massacres in Mandatory Palestine

2470:

politically or racially motivated actions. The previous format set the bar at 10 persons killed, which to me appeared both arbitrary and obfuscating. The British Mandate period in Palestine was characterized by daily small scale attacks on civilians which most often resulted in five fatalities or less. Including all attacks in which there were at least three fatalities presents a much more accurate picture of the level of violence in Palestine at the time, and still falls within the parameters of a reasonable definition of a “massacre” – an event in which a group of persons is killed. In this case, dozens of attacks are omitted from this list in which one or two fatalities were incurred, but semantically, two persons are referred to as a “pair”, not a “group”, and the murder of two persons is commonly referred as a “double murder”. 2. I’ve changed the column previously titled “Death Toll” to “Casualties” and included notes to provide context. 3. I’ve removed all incidents which lacked source citations, and added source citations for those which I was able to locate, and have modified the information contained therein accordingly. 4. I’ve removed the source citation to the Centre for Defense and International Security Studies. While the link is functioning, I’ve been unable to locate the document cited through the actual CDISS website despite an extensive search. Moreover, the format of the document is not consistent with other documents that are linked to from the CDISS website and, quite frankly, the logo on the document looks fabricated. As a result, this link appears highly suspect. For two of the incidents that cite this source, I’ve been able to find alternate sources. For the other two – the Haifa police station bombing and the bus bombings in Haifa and Ramle – I have not been able to find alternate sources and have thus removed the incidents from the list. If someone can provide information as to how the CDISS document can be accessed from the main website, or can provide alternate sources, I’d gladly endorse a reinstatement of the two incidents. 5. I’ve removed the source citations for both Benny Morris and Uri Milstein. This is not a reaction to controversy surrounding their political positions, but rather significant criticism of the authenticity and scholarly value of their works. Both authors have had charges of fabrication leveled against them by other historians, and thus I felt their works are too controversial to be cited in an encyclopedia article. The result of removing the authors’ citations has been nil – I was able to find alternate sources for all of the incidents citing their works. 6. I’ve avoided using sources from overtly polemical works, memoirs, and websites, and also removed such citations from the article. These include the cited “Encyclopedia of the Palestine Problem” and “All That Remains”. Websites that I’ve deliberately avoided citing include palestineremembered.com, alnakba.org, eretzyisroel.org, the Jewish Agency website and others that are obviously partisan. I have made one exception in citing jewishvirtuallibrary.org, but only in cases where there was no other record of Jewish attacks on Arabs, not vice versa. The removal of “All that Remains” posed a problem as it eliminated any remaining source for what was listed as the “Sa’sa’ village ambush”. Despite an extensive Google search, I was unable to find any nonpartisan website source for this event. The Knowledge page for Sa’sa’ however, cites a New York Times story from February 16, 1948. I am unable to access this story, but for the moment I will leave the incident on the page until I am able to access an NYT archive to verify the source. 7. I’ve attempted to make the list as comprehensive as possible. The previous note at the top of the article read: “Note: In many cases the actual number of killed is uncertain, and many of the facts are disputed. More information can be found in the appropriate articles.” It seems both absurd and colossally lazy to put such a disclaimer above a posted article. If you don’t have all (or at least the majority) of the facts about a particular subject, especially one that is so easily researched, then either do the homework or don’t post the article at all. Knowledge is a collaborative encyclopedia, not a bulletin board – there are limits to how much amateurism, and bias, is tolerated.

2580:

criticism of their work is concerned) in order to convince you that they should be omitted? The reason I'd rather not use palestineremembered.com, eretzyisroel.org and similar sources is, as I've stated before, that they are overtly polemical. Their purpose is to further a specific agenda. While this is perfectly understandable, it casts doubt onto their veracity as sources. In fact, with such a controversial topic, I'd much rather err on the side of caution and not cite ANY Jewish or Arab sources. As you saw by my first edit, the sources I cited were all third-party except for Tom Segev, and his citations were only supplementary. I'm not saying that all Jewish or Arab sources are inherently fraudulent, but the motive for bias is so great that it casts doubt on the entire article. The fact that palestineremembered.com uses primary sources from that era only exacerbates my concerns, because it is likely that those sources are even more slanted and given to propogandizing than modern ones. Are there no third party sources that could be used for the entries citing these sources? As for the Jewish Virtual Library, it seems a bit one-sided that you'd doubt their authenticity yet accept that of palestineremembered.com without question. It is exactly this type of back and forth that I wanted to avoid by not citing any Jewish or Arab sources - thus, if you can find any alternate source for the Stern Gang's bombing of the Arab National Committee's HQ I would support using that instead. Otherwise this article (like so many other articles on Knowledge, unfortunately) is just going to turn into a race to see who can cite more sources off the web regardless of their actual academic value. Also, why did you reintroduce two entries that have no citations (Ein al Zeitun and Abu Shusha)? And, why did you remove the note about the vandalism against Jewish settlements and the burning of agricultural fields and uprooting of trees. I included this specifically because I felt they provided important context to the event, just as the Irgun burning down 100 homes in Jaffa does (as you appear to agree with). Similarly, I included the note about the majority of Arabs being killed by Arab militias because it is something that would not be immediately evident to the layperson and provides a better understanding of why Arab casualties were so high during that time period. While I do have problems with the current format of the article, as it stands I don't feel these problems are significant enough to warrant an immediate change. As such, I think we can both agree that heretofore we will discuss any changes we'd like to make on the talk page before actually implementing them in the article. Awaiting your response, then - kachol

3035:

I completely agree with what you're saying about independently deciding which events fit the "massacre" definition. It's not exactly independent research, but it is biased. Now, in a case where there is an academic debate over FACTS between scholars, Knowledge's policy on 'teaching the controversy' (if you will) applies. However, in this case, the debate is not academic, it's normative. In other words, the term "massacre" is so subjective that it doesn't matter whether or not you're the world's greatest historian, you status would not afford you authority on the subject. It's like naming an article "Good things that happened before 1948". Does being a historian make you an authority on deciding what was good or what was bad, or afford your views any more credence than anyone else's? I can find dozens of sources that call this event or that event a massacre, but none of them would be relevant. Thus, as I've said numerous times before, I STRONGLY SUPPORT your proposition to change the name of this article, and I think that the name you proposed below is a good one. However, as a bit of advice, I think that adding another article that discusses massacres will, inevitably, lead to the problems I mentioned above. I estimate that the resulting article will simply end up becoming a propaganda-battleground between activist Jews and activist Arabs like so many other Knowledge articles on this subject. Third: A little etiquette? I'm gladly you're so knowledgeable about the nature of Knowledge ("not a room for negotiation"), but this is probably the silliest statement I've ever read. If there is anywhere that DEFINITELY IS a room for discussions regarding the verifiability, authenticity and authority or sources, it's the TALK page for an article - hence the name of the page. And your statement regarding my and Tiamut's (I'm assuming she's included in your allegation) historical ignorance is a little offensive. I'm certainly not infallible, and I'd be more than willing to discuss/correct any particular errors I've included, but the least you could do is point out to which "mistakes" you are referring instead of making such a blanket condemnation. I'd be very interested in finding out which events/contexts/scholarly papers you feel I "don't know" well enough, considering that I've studied this subject quite extensively, previously lived in the Middle East for many years and have visited many of these locations and spoken to persons who were involved in many of these incidents.

2929:

qualifies an incident as a massacre? Lastly, and I say this without any ill will, why should your opinion on context be considered? Again, the only sources we should be referring to when it comes to defining the term massacre are dictionaries and encyclopedias. I mentioned one of these sources above, but here's another: Webster's II "massacre" - the savage killing of a considerable number of people. Due to the fact that it's nearly impossible to come to a collective agreement on, or even an accurate assessment of, which specific killings were done "savagely" or "cruelly" or "indiscriminately", we've decided to base this list on the quantified element of the definition. If you have a problem with defining massacre in this way, then you have a problem with the name of the article, not specific entries on the list. If you include only those incidents which historians refers to as massacres, your list will still be biased, because historians consistently disagree on these matters. Moreover, "massacre" is an inherently subjective term. One historian's standards for a massacre are not necessarily any more right or wrong than another historian's or even a layperson's. What Tiamut and I have attempted to do here is "objectify" the word massacre by strictly focusing on the quantified element. Again, I'm open to a discussion on changing the name of the list, but I'd strongly disagree with cherry-picking certain entries because this or that historian felt that he had the right to make a polemic out of history by using the word "massacre" while another wanted to remain impartial and only used the word "killings".

3414:

there is nothing at all in the training of a historian that prepares him/her to make an "expert" assessment of what is a "large" quantity or a "cruel" quality, because no such training exists. The only persons who MIGHT have a claim to expertise on these matters are semantic experts or linguists, but even that is specious. Consider that the US Supreme Court has, for over 200 years, been unable to come up with a definable set of standards for the Constitutional clause "cruel and unusual punishment" for just this reason - there is no right or wrong set. This is also why most respected historians, history textbooks and ESPECIALLY encyclopedists refrain from using terms like "massacre", "atrocity", "glorious", and other inherently un-empirical terms. Changing the paradigm of this article to one that includes only those events labeled "massacre" will simply have the effect of creating a list of events used by various unqualified persons trying to make a political point with said events. Were the Nebi Musa riots a massacre? Maybe, maybe not. If I think they were not, explain to me what makes a historian's opinion more "expert" than mine. Does he/she have a better understanding of what cruelty is? If anything, that would be a question for philosophers. I don't see any other option but to change the name of this article.

3147:

are highly ambiguous and rely on general opinion (see WP:SOURCE). In the extreme case, especially with regards to relatively obscure events such as these, there is - theoretically - nothing stopping a person from simply creating his/her own website and asserting facts as he/she sees fit, then citing that website as a source. In the more common case, events are presented as "disputed" between sources despite the fact that one side of the dispute is obviously less authoritative than the other. Knowledge's administrators believe that this problem naturally solves itself through what they call "consensus" editing - in truth, most articles covering controversial topics simply come to represent the lowest common denominator of opinions. Thus, although I agree with you about both of these sources, and would support their removal, Tiamut could just as easily - and justifiably - disagree with you and reinstate them.

3745:

For the same reasons, most arab losses should be removed from the events of 1920, 1921 and 1929. The 5000 Arabs of 1936-39 were not massacred. This was not a genocide. This was a civil war (or a rebellition) organised by Arabs. Distinction should be made between the losses of "battles" (that don't fit the definition) and the massacres (that sometimes followed).Finally, it is written only the responsable party is the one who had the direct responsibility. I assume that means the one that attacked." When other "massacres are listed," it lists the victims who feel to the perpetrators of the whole thing. Therefore, this whole article needs redoing, as it blatantly has no respect for NPOV. Otherwise, this article should be "violence in Mandatory Palestine." Was the 5000 Arabs supposedly killed in the Revolt a "massacre," or was it a direct result of the revolt?

3957:(Ben-Ami, Shlomo (2006) Scars of War, Wounds of Peace: The Israeli-Arab Tragedy. Oxford University Press. pp 13). So can I put Zionism and Colonialism as the causes and cite Ben Gurion? Or look at the Haifa oil refinery massacre, Irgun lob a grenade into a crowd of Arab workers at the gates of the refinery killing 6 outright and wounding scores. The attack triggers a riot at the refinery where the Jewish workers are attacked and killed. The following day Haganagh slip into a nearby village at night and massacre the sleeping residents in revenge for the killings at the refinery. And so it goes on. In many cases it is very difficult to point an accusing finger at a single party IMHO. Having said that I don't have a strong opinion about your proposal and I'm not going to stand in the way if you want to go ahead with it. 4436:

The case mentioned (chosen at random) illustrates another problem with the source. Our page says it lists "incidents in which at least three people were deliberately killed", but this was two incidents that the "Atlas" has combined into one (probably to save space since there is no text except maps). Looking at the Palestine Post for the details (Jan 4, p1), two Jewish boys were shot as they appeared to be looting an abandoned Arab house, and a Jewish woman was found dead elsewhere. Another man "thought to be Jewish" was found dead somewhere else. No culprits are mentioned. So there was no incident at all matching the criterion. I'll delete this one but actually everything cited to this "Atlas" needs similar checking.

2746:

dictionary: "The act or instance of killing a large number of humans indiscriminately and cruelly." Obviously this is still a somewhat vague definition, so I figured the best way avoid the silly discussions about whether 10 is a "large enough" number or 20 is "too large" would be to just put it at 3, as in: "Two's company, three's a crowd." Now that I think about it, the name of this article is kind of inflammatory and not really appropriate to an encyclopedia. Does anyone have any suggestions with regard to changing the name? I thought "mass killings" - that has fewer connotations, but then it's still a relative term as far as numbers are concerned.

2479:. There, editors had resisted the inclusion of any incidents with less than 10 casualties quite vociferously. This article was created in fact, because they kept deleting all incidents immediately prior to the official outbreak of the war, which as you can see, is quite an extensive list. They had also insisted on the disclaimer. Not wanting to rock the boat, I reproduced that format as is here. But I appreciate your boldness in doing away with it. I also appreciate your expansion of the events to those long before the 1948 war, something I had been planning to do but had not yet gotten around to. 2695:

talk page, so I'm glad you changed it back. As I've already stated, I try to keep my sources exclusively third-party in order to minimize bias. In this case, both Gilbert and Bard (cited) support the conclusions that the Arabs were the instigators/aggressors in 1920, 1921, 1929, and 1936-39. As for primary sources, two official, third-party inquiries were established by the British to investigate the riots in 1921 and 1929. Both the Haycraft Commission (1921) and the Shaw Commission placed responsibility on local Arabs for instigating the violence (both cited).

3290:- I think what we need to do instead is list only those events that are termed "massacres" by reliable sources. While I initially welcomed Kachol's edits to this page and the idea of defining any and all attacks against 3 or more unarmed people as "massacres", that seems to be too unwieldy. We need a source for every entry that calls it a "massacre" explicitly. All entires that do not have a source as such, should be deleted from the article. If you want to work on the article name you suggested, there is a related discussion at 1501: 1480: 2078: 2057: 3930:"Responsible party" column - I think it's problematic. If everyone's listed, as is the case in several places, then what's the point? How do we determine who to list? I think it should probably be expanded or merged with the casualties section to specify who's responsible for what killing. For example, in the 1936-1939 riots, the vast majority of Arabs were killed by police. Many of them were armed. A reader can't tell the difference between that and civilians at a market being killed by a bomb planted by "militants". 755: 1295: 2183: 1274: 257: 2162: 236: 2193: 1875: 447: 426: 1400: 1379: 1957: 1936: 1511: 1410: 917: 1907: 622: 604: 1967: 21: 804: 267: 783: 1614: 1891: 1593: 536: 2088: 515: 1760: 814: 205: 1305: 161: 1821: 1810: 1788: 2601:. That is also why I removed the notes from the column when there were articles on the subject. The details can be covered in that article, not here, since this is a list that is designed to provide an overall summary that links to specific articles where the event is discussed in detail. I appreciate very much that you are holding off from making changes on the items we disagree on, which are the use of 362: 341: 1718: 2271: 1686: 695: 668: 4667:"Armed Arabs were searching for French soldiers, and the Jews attacked them for it. " False. Arab mobs without any uniform falsely believe that Jews were some kind of traitors, one armed Arab entered the house of a woman with a weapon without prior warning, that woman feared for her life and pointed a weapon at him, he shot her and and then the Arabs massacred the Jews there. 1832: 1799: 2511:

Virtual Library is the most reliable source (even when used for an attack on Arabs by Jews) and would prefer if we can find something better for that. Thanks again. (Note also I've made a proposal at the other page to follow your lead per the the definition of a massacre as being 3 or more victims and the wording you used in the lead. Nice work!

3807:

because massacre implies that one side is responsible and talks about the death of the other. When people talk about Deir Yassain, no one mentions what happened to a few Jews that same day. Likewise, during the attacks and pogroms on the Jews, I think there needs to be emphasis on the Jews killed. Or

2510:

One more thing for now, I totally disagree about Milstein, Morris, Khalidi's "All That Remains" and palestineremembered.com (which uses Morris and Khalidi's work as well as primary sources from the Mandate period on Village Statistics). I may reintroduce them as sources. I also don't think the Jewish

4435:

I'm disturbed by excessive use of the very poor tertiary source . Most of the events cited to it appear in this "Atlas" as tiny boxes on maps with content like "3 Jan Arabs kill 4 Jews", with no context and no reference. No serious publication would ever cite this "Atlas" for anything, so why do we?

4093:

and redirects to "Lehi" . Why not change it to Lehi like all the other entries, as stern gang only appears once on this page but Lehi appears multiple times. The Lehi group was called stern gang by the British. They are the same group. I wanted to change these words but Knowledge threatened me since

3846:

At the risk of repeating what is said above, the selection of entries in this list makes little sense. The article starts by saying that it is restricted to deaths of "civilians or non-combat military personnel" but many of the entries clearly don't match that. Moreover, many of the entries do not

3744:

I think you should listen to a poster above who said "The matter is the context and the reality of a massacre. Even when there are 5000, it doesn't mean this was a massacre. More, the full losses don't refer to the victims. Eg, at Deir Yassin, the 5 Jews who were killed cannot be considered victims.

3146:

Ceedjee, with regards to this website and the "encyclopedia" you also mention: Welcome to the mess that is Knowledge. In other words, one of Knowledge's main flaws - and the reason it will probably never be trusted as a singular source - is that its standards of differentiation between cited sources

3034:

Ceedjee, let me clarify. First: You gave an opinion on the definition of "massacre" above. I pointed out that your personal definition is irrelevant - not because your opinions don't have value, but simply because in an encyclopedia we should only be citing verifiable, authoritative sources. Second:

2699:

Thank you for clearing that up. I agree with you. It does seem controversial to blame someone entirely on one party. For example reading Israel times and Al Jazeera on the Jaffa riots, there were in fact instances where Jews attacked Arabs and vice versa. The starting of the riots may have been Arab

3875:

It would certainly help to define this article if November 29, 1947 was used as the cut-off date. I also suggest changing the "3 victims" criterion back to "10 victims" since otherwise it will never be more than a fraction complete. Actually there were hundreds of incidents in the 3-9 range, most

3865:

I still don't really understand the scope of this article. It is not clearly defined. I believe that once we define that we can continue with improving its content. Personally, I would put the information about the massacres in the 1947–48 Palestine War into the same article as the massacres of the

3413:

Again, see my post above. Explain what qualifies a historian as an authority on what constitutes a massacre. This is an inherently subjective term. There are three primary elements in its definition: 1) fatality 2) quantity 3) cruelty. Fatality is objective - either someone died or did not die. But

2694:

Whoever posted this, I'm inclined to agree with you. My original edit of this article cited Arabs as the culprits for all of the riots in the 1920s and 30s, for the exact reason you mention here. This was changed to "Arabs, Jews, British authorities" without my consent and without discussion on the

4652:

That may be true, but in that case, these events are not all "massacres". For example, the first line in the table is about in incident where the first shot was fired by a Jew, yet it is listed as having Arabs as the sole perpetrators. Armed Arabs were searching for French soldiers, and the Jews

3215:

It's interesting that you would focus on Tantura, when there are a number of entries here that no historian has characterized as a massacre. We have for the purposes of this article, agreed that the definition of a massacre is the killing of 3 or more unarmed civilians or POWs. Why the fixation on

2928:

Ceedjee, In response to this post and your post in NPoV above: Respectfully, I disagree. The number of people killed very much is the matter, because it is the only concrete, available definition for massacre. What does the "reality" of the massacre even mean? And exactly what context do you feel

2322:

has the first Irgun attacks in 1937. The first one is only 2 dead, so no massacre, understandable. The second one "Black Sunday" has enough dead (10) but the first Irgun attack on this list isn't until February 27, 1939. Can someone explain why or fix it? Seems the point of having such a table as

2745:

Hey Ceedjee, I did the majority of the editing on this page and yeah, you're right, it's somewhat difficult to get a bead on exactly what constitutes a "massacre". I briefly address this issue in my original talk page post. My definition of "massacre" is the same as that of the American Heritage

2469:

I’ve made a number of changes to this article in an effort to clean it up, expand it, and remove the obvious pro-Arab POV that characterized it beforehand. The primary changes are as follows: 1. I’ve modified the list to include all acts of violence in which three or more persons were killed in

4579:

There should be explicit criteria for who should be listed as a responsibly party. In most cases, there are multiple parties, because life is complex. Below, I suggested that it could be based on the fraction of casualties (or death, perhaps). It could also be influenced by who "started it",

4001:

Expanding the Casualties/notes column would probably open the door for disputes as both sides will attempt to justify the killings by appending notes. My personal opinion is that numbers and facts only should be stated at this table and the events' backgrounds and details should be described in

3500:

and reliable sourcing. While I initially agreed to allowing the inclusion of events lacking in such sources, that was a mistake that has led to an unwieldly article scope and POV editing. I will be removing every entry that does not have a reliable source indicating that it is a massacre in the

3421:

K. : "Explain what qualifies a historian as an authority on what constitutes a massacre. (...) there is nothing at all in the training of a historian that prepares him/her to make an "expert" assessment of what is a "large" quantity or a "cruel" quality (...) used by various unqualified persons

3336:

is supposed to be just that. A list that wikilinks to articles that discuss the events in fuller detail. This means that I don't think there is a place for extended discussions on controversies over the events or the scholars who write about them. That context can be provided in each individual

4617:

Why are Jewish attacks by Irgun detailed to like an attack with 3 Muslims dead; when Arab attacks can be grouped even though they have 50-60 deaths each. For example the Hebron massacre does not have an entry even though it is 20 times the size of some Irgun attack. It is quite biased; a good

2579:

With regards to Milstein and Morris, I think it would be best to leave them off the page considering that a) their work is disputed, and b) their citations are unnecessary given that alternate sources are available. Just to gage your view on this matter, what would you need to see (as far as

2409:

Why is it that "Responsible" column blames "Arabs" for killings committed by Arabs and blame "names of Jewish organisations" for killings committed by Jewish militants ? To the eyeballers this makes Arab sounds like monsters and Jews as defenders? The entire list looks like a massive Israeli

3438:

your arguments that historians are not "relevant" sources to state an event was a massacre but I cannot agree when you claim they are not better prepared than us. Historians studied these historical events and consulted reports of that time to state their analysis. We didn't. We just report

2805:

committed prior to the 1948 Arab–Israeli war in Mandate Palestine. It is more neutral, and the reader can judge by himself. Evidently, all attacks were made onto civilian populations, but the ones with death tolls of less than 10 people, could not semantically be considered as massacres.

2675:

For exactly the same reasons, the Arabs who were killed in 1920, 1921 and 1929 were not massacred. They were killed because Jews protected themselves. I suggest they are removed from the list of victims or we add all victims (Jews - Arabs - British) for all events reported in this

3971:

I don't think No More Mr Nice Guy is proposing to describe the ultimate cause and where the responsibility lies of the killings, which as you say will be nigh impossible. Simply noting the identity of the perpetrator and the immediate circumstances should not be too difficult.

3759:

I didn't post Hebron massacre as a reply to your question, I posted because other editors may know better about the accuracy of Hebron massacre entry. I read the hebron massacre wikipedia article, it conflicts with these numbers so I posted a correction in entries might be

3457:

But I think too that "massacres committed during the 1948 Palestine War" is an article that is notable because the "massacres" that were committed is an argument put forward by some historians and politicians to contextualize their analysis of the events of that

4087: 104:

Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not

4176:

two incidents—the April 23, 1948, Cairo-Haifa Train bombing and the April 25 Sorona Police Station bombing—with the edit summary "those 2 events aren't real; there was no sorona bombing, and there were many train bombings but none on april 23 1948".

2980:

4. "but I'd strongly disagree with cherry-picking certain entries because this or that historian felt that he had the right to make a polemic out of history by using the word "massacre" while another wanted to remain impartial and only used the word

4711:

Many of the incidents currently listed do not fit with the general understanding of massacre. I propose splitting the list into two: A list of massacres with a narrower definition, and a list of other incidents that meet the current definition.

2609:

and Palestine Remembered. I agree that these sources have biases as we all do, but they are used extensively throughout Knowledge. Palestine Remembered only uses Village Statistics for its sources on population and land area. It relies mostly on

4746:

It doesn't pretend to be a list of massacres. It is called "killings and massacres" to avoid disputes over the boundary between the two. I don't agree with reintroducing the boundary and I don't see how your proposal would be an improvement.

2589:, and you can press on the link and go to another page where there are sources listed, we do not need to cite the sources again in this article. You deleted or changed the text in a bunch of these links in your edit, causing them to appear as 3952:

In general, it is very difficult to do justice to these events in the form of a list. Especially when you consider the competing narratives and often contradictory accounts of the events. Take the riots for instance, Ben Gurion said that the

3909:

The scope of this article was vaguely defined, I am trying to improve this. IMHO it should cover killings and massacres during the existence of the British Mandate for Palestine, which is an undisputed, objectively quantifiable time period.

4486:

article reads like the incident was a big misunderstanding, with some understandably nervous Zionist settlers accidentally triggering a firefight. Yet it is stated here as Arab responsibility. It strikes me that both sides made mistakes

3682:

where does Gilbert say "5000 Arabs killed?" I looked on the page about the revolt, and the only source to say that was Al Jazeera, hardly impartial. Also, if its true, as I have heard British were mostly responsible, then it should be

4103: 2618:

for information on attacking forces and the fate of various villages. If you feel strongly about Palestine Remembered, we can fact check the claim against the sources they cite by asking someone with a copy of their books (I believe

4807:

says that Stern Gang is just an exonym for the Lehi, should all three show Lehi? So it's clear that all the are the same group. Is there a reason to call them Stern Gang instead? Is there any good reason to keep them separate?

3655: 3633: 3270: 4596:

Even for bombs, it isn't clear. One of the massacres was payback for a bombing that wasn't listed here. Are the bombers or the payers-back responsible? Life is complex. We should make more use of the "Notes" column.

4035:

This article currently lists the 1937-1939 riots with their total casualties as one incident and then various killings that were part of these riots as if they were two separate things. It creates a false impression.

2432:

I was thinking it makes Arabs sound like random individual criminals and the Jewish groups sounds like a network of terrorist organisations? But that's only because some of them ring a bell and it's not a good bell:

1882: 1696: 1071: 2474:

I would have to say that your edits are in general a great improvement. The disclaimer at the top of this article and the bar being set at 10 deaths+ come from the main article that this one was spun off from

4474:

was followed by a similar reprisal attack which is not included. I'd need to read more on the history of the first few months of 1936, but I'd be amazed if there had been no prior incidents. If so, then the

3302:

You are right. It is far better to keep the name BUT in sourcing each event by a scholar who use the definition of the word AND to report the controversy when all scholars don't agree with this formulation.

4627: 2584:

Hi Kachol. You seem to be news here so let me explain something to you, you may not be aware of. When information in article is wikilinked, (placed between double square brackets so that it appears like

4466:

row claimed Arab responsibility, but the article says it was a massacre of peacefully protesting Arabs by British police (i have changes this one). I suspect the article title "riots" may be misleading

3811:

Seeing as there is an article on Irgun attacks, I think there should be an article on Arab attacks on Jews. You cannot have one without the other or it is not NPOV on this site and blatantly biased.

3451: 4731:

There should also be guidelines about who is the "responsible party" (as in the thread above). Perhaps any side responsible for over a quarter of the deaths could be listed as a responsible party.

2977:. You have added and qualified events without sources qualifiing them as massacres and often performed mistakes that show you don't know the events, their context and what scholars state about them. 4383: 4612: 4646: 1575: 4394:

The table should include a 'total fatalities' part, which lists the total number of fatalities in all -- as well as the specific number of Jews killed, and the specific number of Arabs killed.

2720:

This article doesn't respect NPoV. These events were not all "massacres" but most events occured in the context of a civil war. Where is the "official" and "relevant" definition of massacre ?

408: 373:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join 4367: 4288: 2700:

but there still was a level of responsibility to be put on both sides. For some of these it certainly was only one party that should be responsible but for others it is a shared burden.

3002:

and to take care about the responsible party but the massacres are still a different thing and could be discussed in an article if work is performed properly in respecting wp:principles.

2367:

Jaffa Riots started as fighting between two Jewish groups. One can hardly free them from the "responsibility". I "uncommented" Jews which was commented out and hidden from that column.

1215: 3994: 4632: 2780:. Why not but not explaining the context is not an encyclopaedit way of dealing such matters. Eg, stating Arabs were responsible of massacres of 1920, 1921 etc withoug explaining the 4154:

It means very seriously wounded, at risk of death, but didn't actually die. Since we only use such classification in a few places, maybe it would be more consistent to not use it?

4222:

can be placed in the table, and there were definitely more train bombings than just in that article. The March 31, 1948 train bombing may have been the last one, but I'm not sure.

4022: 3720:, which refers "In total, 67 Jews were murdered in Hebron; 59 died during the riots and 8 more succumbed to their wounds later." Something may be wrong about that number refers to 2937:

1. "The number of people killed very much is the matter, because it is the only concrete, available definition for massacre (...) why should your opinion on context be considered?"

745: 3966: 4500: 4306: 4302: 4079: 4061: 3820: 113:

Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring.

4226: 1898: 1700: 4568: 4525: 4513: 4454: 4440: 4722:

it was highly asymmetric, with a clear majority of casualties (say over two thirds) on a side that was less heavily armed. This would exclude general riots and the like; or

3835: 3792: 3754: 3739: 586: 5022: 5017: 4740: 4653:

attacked them for it. After a ceasefire, a Jew opened fire again. The world is much more complex than "massacres have perpetrators". Let's look for a more neutral term.

3894: 3333: 2476: 4422: 4354: 4158: 3880: 3870: 3667: 3645: 4173: 3859: 3623: 3183: 2953:

2. If you include only those incidents which historians refers to as massacres, your list will still be biased, because historians consistently disagree on these matters

2673:

Jews that were killed during Deir Yassin events (battle and then massacre) are not victims of a massacre. They were killed by the Arab villagers who defended themselves.

1081: 4148: 4872: 4692: 3938: 3576: 3544: 3481: 3392: 3360: 3256: 3239: 3174:

Try this way, if you feel some source is not acceptable for wikipedia, instead removing it try using hidden text to help other researchers find more reliable sources.

3166: 3127: 3113: 3054: 3013: 2909: 2895: 2795: 2709: 2328: 1914: 1704: 3946: 2534: 2358: 4606: 4912: 4662: 2450: 1773: 1541: 1537: 997: 735: 4403: 3200:

events that historian doen't always refer to as such. I think of course about al-Tantura. I must check for some others. How could such a list respect NPoV here ?

2967:

If there are disagreements among scholars they must be explained. It is not acceptable by wikipedia to give only one pov. These are basic principles of wikipedia.

2249: 1361: 323: 4957: 3987: 1351: 374: 4589: 4413:

I find this column jarring for many of the incidents. For bombs or one-sided massacres, it's clear, but for many others the responsible party remains disputed.

3692: 4922: 4696: 4128: 2940:

My opinion ? You decide by yourself that each death above 10 (or 3) is a massacre and you write I would have an opinion ? What do you know about these events ?

3377:

And I also point out that only scholars are reference. So Pappé and Karsh, eg, are good. But not a website, even if it (alledgedly) quote Morris or any other.

3374:

That is why I suggest, if this is controversed, just to add the statement "controversed" or "constested" or what is appropriate with a reference from scholar.

633:, a collaborative effort to improve Knowledge's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please 4932: 4258: 4212: 2633:) may have some) to double check it. I hope I've addressed some of your concerns and would like to say Welcome to Knowledge, I hope you enjoy editing here. 4907: 4892: 4203: 4052: 4045: 3651: 982: 576: 181:. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. 2558: 2425: 2403: 2382: 5052: 4952: 4679: 3604: 3540: 3477: 3388: 3316: 3278: 3252: 3205: 3162: 3123: 3080: 3050: 3009: 2905: 2862: 2791: 2725: 2029: 1098: 943: 2691: 2362: 2347: 2144: 2039: 3977: 3524: 1533: 1183: 711: 369: 346: 4751: 4237: 2866: 4618:

solution would be to have sub totals per year with total Jews killed by Arabs, total Arabs killed by Jews, and total Arabs killed by British forces.

3919: 3031: 2943:

Refering to a definition of massacre and making events fit to this to decide it is a massacre is personal research. See how the matters are dealt on

2925: 1730: 2950:

If you don't have a (or even better) several secondary sources that state this or that event was a massacre, you cannot refer to this as a massacre.

4987: 4887: 3209: 2857:

and where historians don't state it was. If this source would state all these where massacres, then we will discuss its relevance and reliability.

1565: 4827: 4782: 4773: 4113:

Why was my edit of the Tiberias Massacre reverted? It's not placed chronologically in the chart, and I gave a credible source for my description.

870: 5077: 4942: 4927: 4852: 4706: 2656: 2576: 2505: 2464: 2239: 860: 313: 4244: 2826: 1668: 497: 5047: 4917: 4902: 4867: 4095: 3955:"is only one aspect of the conflict which is in its essence a political one. And politically we are the aggressors and they defend themselves." 3600: 3536: 3473: 3431:

I think your arguments to lead to the conclusion that "massacre" is some sort of mix of a subjective human or political judgements are correct.

3384: 3312: 3274: 3248: 3201: 3158: 3119: 3084: 3076: 3046: 3005: 2901: 2858: 2787: 2721: 2332: 1090: 634: 552: 398: 4684:

That’s really not what happened, he didn’t randomly just “shoot” her. They were searching for French soldiers and she pointed a pistol on him.

3320: 3282: 3143: 5012: 4992: 4857: 4817: 3866:

1948 Arab–Israeli War, while anything before 1947 can go into a separate article which can include anything from 1881 to November 29, 1947. —

3608: 3410: 3402: 3135: 3023: 2917: 2734: 2683: 2568: 2540: 2456: 1759: 1012: 702: 673: 2729: 1462: 5082: 4982: 4962: 3802: 2742: 1168: 4373: 2671:

NPoV doesn't mean to introduce facts as if everybody were responsible, particularly when one's wants to make an article about a massacre ?

5072: 4937: 4897: 4847: 4637:

Massacres have perpetrators. Including the victims of a massacre as a 'responsible party' is dubious and open to massive interpretation.

3294:

on compiling casualty figures for the entire conflict. I'm sure they would be very interested in your help there. (unsigned statement by

1523: 1153: 937: 3826:

Feel free to create one, however this article mentions massacres by both parties as you can clearly understand if you read the entries.

5067: 4862: 2769:

Distinction should be made between the losses of "battles" (that don't fit the definition) and the massacres (that sometimes followed).

2590: 2134: 1132: 1115: 4274: 5032: 5027: 2215: 1327: 543: 520: 289: 4364:

with only 2 fatalities. I think it violates "It is restricted to incidents in which at least three people were deliberately killed"

4284:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

4139:... means what? If they died in hospital etc., they were part of the "Fatalities" - or we change heading to "IMMEDIATE fatalities". 3496:

that described the incident in question as a "massacre" explicitly, in order to be included. This is in line with our guidelines on

4238:

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=List_of_killings_and_massacres_in_Mandatory_Palestine&diff=789494866&oldid=787379801

3841: 3629: 2438: 4580:

although these things are typically the results of escalations (who threw the first insult, the first stone, the first grenade?).

3329:

Sorry about Ceedjee, I thought you were opening a poll and I've gotten used to bolding my position, per the format used by others.

2766:

The 5000 Arabs of 1936-39 were not massacred. This was not a genocide. This was a civil war (or a rebellition) organised by Arabs.

5057: 4882: 4842: 4823:

Same group. We should use the same name in all cases and a simple rule to follow is to use the name of our article on the group.

4134: 2001: 1984:, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic 764: 678: 487: 4533: 2970:

3. "What Tiamut and I have attempted to do here is "objectify" the word massacre by strictly focusing on the quantified element"

5062: 4476: 4067: 3852: 1725: 1691: 1004: 629: 609: 168: 2760:

More, the full losses don't refer to the victims. Eg, at Deir Yassin, the 5 Jews who were killed cannot be considered victims.

5042: 5037: 5002: 4549: 4408: 2417: 2395: 2374: 1734: 1658: 1528: 1485: 45: 4521:

doesn't mention that the leader of the Arab party later became an agent of the JNF and helped them buy land. I must add it.

3461:

Concerning the massacres committed prior to this, I still wonder if the list of massacres is a notable information. I think

3090:

Palestine Remembered bases its work on Morris, Khalidi among others. It would be nice to find the reference in their works.

4972: 4947: 4688: 3763:

Even 10 deaths might be massacre, or 5000 may not be massacre considered as civil war or such by international politicians.

2324: 2206: 2167: 2110: 2005: 1452: 1318: 1279: 280: 241: 5007: 4219: 4208: 4120: 4057: 2354: 1107: 2991:

is not respected and if the massacres are not refered to as such, very precisely, there will be a problem of neutrality.

4877: 3450:

I think all the material you wanted to gather could be gathered in an article name with something that looks like to :

4687:

A shot was fired, it is disputed if it’s from her pistol or from another weapon. But it was a fight not a “massacre”.

4997: 4977: 4071: 4037: 3365:

Oups. Apologize me. That is true that is the way it works here. I am not used to these processes. I made the mistake.

3291: 2822: 2586: 2323:

this would be to make reviewing the timeline easier, and if attacks are missing then it becomes misleading, right? --

1021: 836: 4372:"more than 5,000 Arabs, over 300 Jews, and 262 Britons had been killed and at least 15,000 Arabs were wounded" from 4266: 895: 145:

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!

4967: 1634: 463: 905: 900: 4249: 2101: 2062: 1997: 1980: 1941: 1162: 1148: 890: 184: 172: 97: 49: 4305:

to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the

4018: 3942: 116:

Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.

4445:

Wholly agree. Gilbert is not neutral on this topic; frankly his Middle Eastern work diluted his reputation.

2482:

There are some changes on my own I'd like to make as well, after a thorough review of course. Thanks again.

1729:. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a 1427:, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the 4349: 3851:, which rarely gives sufficient detail to identify the nature of the victims. Also a lot of examples from 3677: 3118:

Yes. And only there and not on this website which is not a acceptable reference in the sense of wikipedia.

2630: 2434: 1175: 929: 827: 788: 216: 74: 31: 2838: 4530:

Fascinating – I didn’t know that. I just read about it – in case helpful, here are some sources I found:

1630: 1626: 1621: 1598: 1067: 991: 454: 431: 73:

may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the

4778:

Because some of the events, particularly those in a military context, are not usually called massacres.

4324:

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with

3774:

intentional killing of a considerable number of human beings, under circumstances of atrocity or cruelty

3371:

But I don't think that it is a good idea to list as a massacre an "event" if it is controversed as such.

4399: 4265:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit 3924: 1141: 1031: 133: 70: 4092:

Bombing of Arab National Committee HQ January 4, 1948 . Says responsible party is "stern gang" --: -->

4389: 4108: 3434:

I think you are wrong when you write : "Does have a better understanding of what cruelty is". I can

2661: 2421: 2399: 2378: 1423: 1384: 35: 4275:

https://web.archive.org/web/20100620145357/http://palestine-encyclopedia.com/EPP/Chapter07_3of7.htm

3487: 974: 2214: