Talk:1946 British Embassy bombing

Saurez

What qualifications he have to be used as source in this historical article?--Shrike (talk) 15:23, 8 May 2018 (UTC) Also master thesis by Beegon is not reliable source also.We looking in those kind of historical article to use high quality scholarly works.--Shrike (talk) 15:51, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Shrike I don't follow. What is wrong with the book and/or author? I don't have an in-depth biography on Suarez on-hand, but the University of Massachusetts most consider him "qualified" enough to lecture their students. There are also quite a few reviews of the book if you question its existence. The rest of your comment I apologize but I cannot understand it.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:24, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Inviting to speak in the university doesn't proof any academic credentials especially if invited by such extremist groups like JFP. I found that he is violinist [1] certainly not reliable source for historical analysis.--Shrike (talk) 19:17, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Also according to what criteria you removed the template Help:Maintenance_template_removal--Shrike (talk) 19:21, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Shrike your removal of a perfectly fine secondary source is disruptive. Your POV is not a rationale for removal and there is no penalty against an author for learning a skill other than writing. I will report this behavior if it continues and suggest you self-revert immediately.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:26, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

No it your removal of maintance tag and usage of polymic source is disruptive.WP:ONUS is on you to prove that this source is reliable.--Shrike (talk) 19:31, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

No Shrike you know the source is appropriate. You just don't like the subject matter. Your editing can be summarized as POV drive-by reverts and "I agree with [so-and-so] because they said so" comments. It's inexcusable.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:44, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

No the source by violinist is not acceptable and never will be and the source by University student too.You have written one-sided POV piece using unreliable sources and disruptively removed maintenance tag that really inexcusable--Shrike (talk) 19:48, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

I suggest that you will find WP:RS written by academics professionals in the field.--Shrike (talk) 19:50, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with Suarez. Apologists for military Zionism don't like it, of course, because his meticulous and extensive documentation of military Zionist terrorism makes the IRA look like pacifists. And I say that as someone who has experienced IRA terrorism (in the Thatcher era: a small bomb in London going off about 100 metres away from me, numerous occasions when travel was delayed for hours while railway stations were searched after telephoned bomb warnings, etc.). Suarez is a good, diligent historian, and an essential source for any article dealing with terrorist violence in the Mandate leading up to 1948. --NSH001 (talk) 05:59, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

I have checked on googlescholars and his book is cited just 3 times. That's not enough for peers' recognition.

I don't say that he is not reliable but his writings fail WP:RS...

Pluto2012 (talk) 08:24, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

You won't find Suarez mentioned much on google scholar for the simple reason that it was published too recently. Suarez did something anyone of us reading widely in that period must have often wondered about - why the disattention, in such a deeply studied field, to the chronological succession of Zionist terrorist events throughout that decade preceding Partition? If I look at my own chronological tables, there is a long list of events which are mentioned en passant in the literature or registered in net lists, without detail. It's much like the lack of a detail archival study of the British army's suppression, with Jewish paramilitary assistance, of the Arab insurgency 36-9. As far as I know, there's little RS on this savage war.

That's why Suarez's book is worth considering. That he did extensive archival work among British records is noted by all. What it minutely is carefully sourced in over 680 endnotes. It might dissuade you than Ilan Pappé gave it strong praise, but in these three (David Gerald Fincham ‘State of Terror,’ Mondoweiss October 13, 2016; Elaine C. Hagopian Arab Studies Quarterly Vol. 39, No. 2 (Spring 2017), pp. 861-864; Sanford R. Silverburg, Ph.D State of Terror: How Terrorism Created Modern Israel Middle East Book Review online Volume: 5 Issue: 7 July 2017) it is taken to be well documented, and I do not see anything out there challenging his transcriptions of contemporary newspapers and archives as distortions.Nishidani (talk) 10:50, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

This is a very enjoyable read. So you guys are arguing that a book by a violinist with no relevant expertise, published by "an independent publisher with a simple remit: ​to seek out and publish interesting books that defy genre, challenge convention, or have been overlooked by larger publishers" is a reliable source for facts for this encyclopedia? Good stuff. Perhaps one of you could take it to RSN where other editors could also enjoy this argument? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 02:29, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

It was taken to RSN the uninvovled editor there dismissed this source Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#State_of_Terror--Shrike (talk) 06:18, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Too bad nobody posted a link here. Anyhow, this is laughably not RS and I think everyone involved understands that. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:54, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, I knew nothing of it. Your opinion it is laughable not RS is just that. I will await independent input before deciding on way or the other.Nishidani (talk) 15:00, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

POV

"mass genocide of Jews in Europe by the Nazi regime reinvigorated the Zionist movement" Such statements are unacceptable it implies that Zionist movement somehow profited from genocide of 6 million Jews.--Shrike (talk) 20:36, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Shrike you are joking, right? It means the genocide motivated Zionist efforts for an independent State of Israel. How can you possibly misconstrue the text that badly?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:50, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

That actually is quite POVish and offensive - the Yishuv was intent on independence before ww2 - but most organizations (Lehi not, Irgun yes) put the fight against the uk on hold during ww2. There are other issues as well, as this reads like a report by his majesty's colonial office - terrorism/terrorist (see WP:TERRORIST), "illegal human trafficking of refugees to Palestine" , and total lack of context for the conflict between the Yishuv and the UK. The article also downplays British antisemitic incidents, and seems to mostly rely on a single British source for most of the description of events - Walton - and not on a balanced selection of sources.Icewhiz (talk) 20:59, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Icewhiz multiple sources call it an act of terror. The source I used described illegal human trafficking. I am not going to use sources to describe British anti-semitism or whatever else you want to synthed into the article, unless the bombing is a major subject of discussion (not a name drop or one sentence). Note, however, I did describe heightened antisemitic sentiment as a result of the terror attack.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:05, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with Walton because he is British.I have problem with him because the source is a thesis though we do allow PHD thesis per WP:SCHOLARSHIP this is not PHD so it can't be used as a source--Shrike (talk) 21:08, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, some sources use that terminology, while others use a different terminology. You did not go into details (which are present in the source) of the antisemitic sentiment - ramifications, nor did you cover pre existing British act of hostility towards Jews in Palestine, Europe, and the UK - which are relevant as background to the Irgun's decision to _target the British government.Icewhiz (talk) 21:12, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Shrike Walton was published in Intelligence and National Security, a peer-reviewed, academic journal. If every single source is somehow inappropriate for this subject (that was originally on terror, but will somehow be a courageous act by revolutionaries) please someone AFD it. And Icewhiz all the greater majority of sources used that terminology. But please misconstrue otherwise because of the subject. I knew I shouldn't have dared to create an article that has the shoe on the other foot for once. A simple article on Palestinian terrorists would have sufficed.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:17, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Bagon is a master's thesis. And in this case - with most English sources being British - you have to cross the language divide.Icewhiz (talk) 21:22, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Before I leave this to the professionals on this terror attack (demonstration), how would you describe an act of violence that is politically motivated? How would you describe it when several reliable sources call it terrorism (a demonstration) and specific the exact political motivations behind it?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:30, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

TheGracefulSlick thank you for taking the work and time to create this page. I sincerely commend you. However, there's one issue I really think you should take into account. Many people of different backgrounds, with different experiences, read this. And this one sentence, and the mass genocide of Jews in Europe by the Nazi regime reinvigorated the Zionist movement... well, let's say, although it does explicitlly acknowledge that the first part occurred, if I saw it in isolation, I might think it came from one of those, erm... "alternate narrative" websites, let's say. I think you know what I mean. Now, as for the point, is it true, that the Holocaust was a net boon for the Zionist movement or future Israel? Well, this is a rather shaky claim given that millions upon millions of potential citizens were gassed, slaughtered, et cetera -- it's rather surprising to see a claim that this is somehow beneficial to a Jewish state. We all come from different backgrounds, but let's think about the readers -- many readers will really, really not enjoy reading that. For example, Holocaust survivors living in Israel may read this page. Thanks for your consideration, --Calthinus (talk) 21:47, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

By the way I'm not saying it's categorically unacceptable to ever have any discussion about the Holocaust may have in very specific ways benefited the future kindred state of people affected, but I think it would be helpful if, if this has to be mentioned at all, you should point to very specific things -- for example [war reparations from West Germany], if it is contextually necessary to discuss this at all that is. Once again thanks for your consideration, --Calthinus (talk) 21:49, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Calthinus I think people are grossly misconstruing what I meant by the statement. I never intended it to mean genocide was beneficial to the Jewish State. Rather, it was another--among several others--reason why they argued it should be established. European Jews/survivors needed refuge in a land that could be called "theirs"--at least that is how the source described it. I am not nearly as POVish as this discussion makes me out to be. I simply created this article because: 1) it's notable 2) the subject area overall is under-documented on Wikipedia and has room for expansion with plenty of sources avaliable.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:12, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

TheGracefulSlick as I said before, I commend you for taking the time and work to create this article -- it's good you did it. It's easy to fall into pitfalls on this topic without knowing it, so I'm trying to help you. Reinvigorate means "to put vitality and vigour back into (someone or something)" (as per Webster [[2]]) -- now aside from "back into" implying there was not vigour in that thing before (this is false, Zionism was quite "vigorous" before the Holocaust), this is (I'm sorry) a really bad way of wording what you were trying to say. For example, how could the Holocaust have put "more vigour" into Zionism, when countless Zionists were slaughtered in it. That the Holocaust made people work harder and more urgently for the establishment of a proper homeland, this may be true-- but it should not be worded in a way that does not make this exactly clear, given the weight of this topic. Thanks again for your consideration, --Calthinus (talk) 00:22, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Acting that Shoah had a positive impact on Zionism movement is a fact. It is not an antisemite statement nor an anti-zionist one. That is in no way a statement that Zionist would have promoted Shoah ! That does not give any discredit to Zionism. And that is is no way an apology of Shoah by Zionists or any others.

More, that's more than easy to source.

If it is clear (but not often known) that Israel would have been founded whether there would have been WW2 or not ; it is also clear that the vote of Partition was "helped" by the tragedy.

It is also clear that the Shoah was seen (and is still seen by some) as a "proof" of the "legacy" of the Zionist project based on the fact that Jews could not be protected and live safely anywhere but in their own state.

What the problem with that ? Pluto2012 (talk) 05:58, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Okay, our personal views don't matter but I can let it be known that I do agree with you on the "ideological" efffect of it. It should be made clear that the ideological effect is what it is talking about. As I said, I understand what Slick was trying to say. There are much better ways to say it. Like, talk about it being specifically an ideological rallying point, rather than saying it generally "reinvigorated" (once again this is a bad word because it implies a lack of vigor before hand-- "reinforced" would be better). That way it doesn't come off as trivializing the deaths of scores of Zionist activists in gas chambers. Discussing its effect ideologically is welcome and it should be made clear that that is what is meant -- hence "ideologically reinforced", not "reinvigorated", or something like that. Cheers, --Calthinus (talk) 06:25, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

If we were to add the Holocaust, it is probably more relevant in terms of Zionist anger towards British indifference to the Holocaust and the British actions that blocked Aliyah to Israel (as well as to the UK or UK dominions) prior, during, and after the war - which some Zionists saw as a significant contributing factor to the Jewish death toll.[3] This would certainly be viable background material as to why striking British government posts, particularly those connected to Aliyah restrictions, was a goal for the Irgun.Icewhiz (talk) 07:59, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Comic book history, always focusing on Britain because it had the unenviable task of reconciling Zionist desires to create a nation in Palestine with indigenous Arab desires that the country remain Arab to reflect their natural demographic majority of Palestine, and the fact that they worked or owned 96% of the land. Those who beat up on Great Britain keep silent on all of the other nations and Zionist figures and bodies, from Ben-Gurion down, who rejected proposed plans and measures to find countries willing to take in Jewish refugees from the 1930s down to the late 1940s. Jews are one thing, the Zionist movement another. The Zionist logic was to get all refugees into Palestine and this made them hostile to any moves to shift Jews threatened by, or surviving, the Shoah elsewhere: they reject Roosevelt's plans to have them immigrate throughout the diasporic countries. Zionists in the Jewish Agency even rejected the British Morrison-Grady Plan in mid-1946 which would have allowed 100,000 Jews into Palestine legally just because it lacked a provision for statehood. Zionist was not about saving Holocaust victims: it was about cornering sufficient numbers to create a viable Jewish state which would get all Jews there, and not to the US, Australia, Canada, Great Britain or Latin America, destinations that threatened their project. We don't write articles by tweaking out special pleading. We use sources that deal with details and complexities.Nishidani (talk) 12:20, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Icewhiz is correct and your SOAP is irrelevant. Anger towards the British is relevant to this article and belongs in the background section. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 03:26, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

It's not soapboxing to provide details, all sourceable, to clarify what seems unknown to other editors. I gave proof that Irgun's anger with the British predates Hitler and the Shoah. If you doubt that, don't opinionize or sling cheap dismissals my way: give me proof from the relevant scholarship my factual contention is incorrect.Nishidani (talk) 11:20, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Note

Okay. I've revised this building on the solid work done by others, and think the POV tag is no longer warranted. There are just a few sources that should be reformatted according to the standard citation template used. If that is done, we'll have an aesthetically neat page. It could also be put up for possible DYK attention. Cheers.Nishidani (talk) 16:34, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

The British and Italian governments commenced an extensive investigation and concluded that Irgun operatives from Mandatory Palestine organized the attack with assistance from Jews in displacement camps While this source says In a memorandum sent to the Foreign Office in London from the embassy in Rome, the writer admits that no direct evidence connected any of the camps to the explosion.[4] we need to reconcile the sources meantime such statement should be removed from the lead.--Shrike (talk) 17:02, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Also I didn't found this and source to such statement in the article.--Shrike (talk) 17:04, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Shrike. Don't edit articles if you can't read the sources. What you should have done is note here what the Jopa writer (erroneously) stated and ask if the new sources contradict that assertion (which they do). Secondly, what on earth does this idiotic tag (request translation for inline for English source) mean? This is the English Wikipedia, the link is to an RS in English, which, if you click it, provides the page where you can read in English what Heller writes. And you ask me for an English translation? Crazy.Nishidani (talk) 19:17, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Aah! I see. You asked for a translation of Heller, and not for the Italian source, Biagini. If you want Biagini's words they run:-

Yaakov Eliav, capo delle operazioni del Lehi in Europa, rivelerà nelle sue memorie che, all’epoca, l’organizzazzione aveva progettato addirittura da disseminare dei bacilli di colera nelle condotte dell’acquedotto di Londra. I germi dovevano essere prelevati dalle colture dei laboratori dell’Instituto Pasteur, grazie alla complicità dei medici e degli impiegati che simpatizzavano per la causa ebraica. Secondo Eliav i preparativi per mettere in esecuzione questo spaventoso piano furono arrestati unicamente dalla decisione britannica di lasciare la Palestina.

Yaakov Eliav, head of Lehi operations in Europe, was later to reveal in his memoirs that, at this time, the organization had worked on nothing less than a plan to disseminate cholera bacteria in London's waterworks. The germs were to be obtained from cultures in the laboratories of the Pasteur Institute, thanks to the connivance of doctors and employees who were sympathetic to the Jewish cause. According to Eliav preparations to execute this frightful plan were stopped only because of the British decision to withdraw from Palestine.

Satisfied?Nishidani (talk) 19:45, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Rome attack the topic of article is not mentioned.How this is relevant.?--Shrike (talk) 20:29, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Grasping at straws for removal pretexts? The article is the most comprehensive to date precisely on our topic, 1946 British Embassy bombing. It deals exclusively with that, and the author mentions Lehi's behavior specifically in the context of what the irgun were doing in that period. He thinks it's relevant, therefore we must also. They were competing not to be outdone by spectacular acts of terrorism in Europe. The only imaginable ground for removal would be WP:IDONTLIKETHAT. So drop it.Nishidani (talk) 20:49, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Crap

In the mid-1930s, faced with rapidly growing rates of Jewish emigration to Palestine due to increased persecution of Jews in Central Europe at the same time as growing opposition to Jewish emigration among the Arab population of Palestine, the British government began placing harsh restrictions on Jewish immigration while no similar restrictions were placed on Arab population movements, leading to only a third of the Jewish requested quota being approved in 1936; this policy was tightened further with the White Paper of 1939.[5]

This spin is total nonsense. Zionists were enedeavouring to move European Jews on mass into Palestine, and quotas were placed for numerous reasons, economic, political and geostrategic etc. No restrictions were placed on movements by the Palestinians, because they were not immigrants crashing into Palestine. They were there, indigenous. The attempt to invent history by drawing some slapdash parallel between quotas for Jewish immigrants from outside and no quotas for Palestinian who, say, might move from Haifa to Jerusalem or Nablus is farcical, and no reputable historical source would state that. If it's in the Jewish Library text then that is, ipso facto, unreliable. The whole point was that Palestine was 6% Jewish in the early 1900s, and the rest were mostly Muslim and Christian Arabs. Zionism wished to change the demography by mass immigration to swamp the Palestinian majority. Everyone, even blind Freddy and his dog, knows that. Nishidani (talk) 20:00, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Nish, it's what the source said. We all have our personal points of view. Yes, Zionists had an agenda. Yes, they were also sincerely furious at the restrictions placed on the Jewish population during the Shoah, the double standard didn't help and this was explicitly pointed out in the source. Yes, the Shoah added urgency to said agenda. (You pointed out earlier it "wasn't about saving Jews from the Holocaust"-- you're correct. It predated the Holocaust and the fundamental view of Zionism is and was that Jews can only be truly secure in a state of their own, hence why proposals that did not include this were rejected. You're free to disagree but that is indeed where they were coming from). For the sake of discussion, I could add that the double standard wasn't just with Arab population-- the Brits also evacuated starving Greeks to Palestine for humanitarian reasons at the exact same time they were refusing entrance for Jewish refugees and this has been noted with bitterness by Jewish authors-- but for the mainspace, this is probably too much of a tangent in the "background" section.

One can explain where Irgun was coming from without justifying it I think. Such explanation is actually helpful to readers, it's not spin.--Calthinus (talk) 21:09, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

See below for statistical proof it is pure spin.Nishidani (talk) 14:27, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

The source used, Jewish Virtual Library, is borderline, but, on a topic ridden by an immense amount of controversy much of it driven by ideological distortions of the primary data (Joan Peters etc.,() the practice is to look at what the most uptodate scholarly consensus is, and that consensus is that the Palestinian population doubled during the Mandate as a result of 'natural increase'. Then one exception to this you get in contemporary spin is a remark in the Hope Simpson primary report see this contextualized in our still incomplete article here which, nota bene is what the Jewish Virtual Library seizes on to establish a model of parallel-equivalent immigration into Palestine during the Mandate. Even the word 'immigration' is problematical in that period, because it emerged as a concept under late colonial modernizing project, where borders were established and, in an area historically since the year dote, characterized by transhumane nomadic cultures, one no more 'immigrated' than say, the Mormons or any other group in the US immigrated within the US. One shifted 20-50 kilometres in accordance with drought, marriage, economic opportunities or war through a territory that had a linguistic and cultural continuity. The JVL in short cherrypicked an exceptional view in the overall primary sources and made it the ground for a generalization that the best scholarship rebuts.Nishidani (talk) 08:08, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, they were also sincerely furious at the restrictions placed on the Jewish population during the Shoah, the double standard didn't help and this was explicitly pointed out in the source.

There was no 'double stsndard' because the specifics of Jewish immigration and Palestinian demographic increase aren't comparable. The Zionists were furious long before the Shoah, ever since the 1920s. In the 1936-1939 period quotas were in place for a very good reason. The British army was waging a territorial war, terror for terror against the Arab Uprising, itself caused in part by massive Arab rejection of Zionist immigration and the pressures land purchases had on historical tenancy patterns etc, and the authorities could hardly break the back of the Palestinian national movement on the one hand, while continuing to promote full scale one of the known causes for the insurgency, uncontrolled foreign immigration. In the Zionist spin, all this is, somewhat understandable, spun as 'Germany was preparing to massacre us and the British denied us refuge in Palestine', which is silly. The British had an obligation under the Mandate which did not say its remit was to displace Palestinians in order to resolve the problem of European anti-Semitism. All the political arrangements made were supposed to balance the interests of incoming Jews and local Palestinians, i.e. balance 80-66% of the population's interests with those of 20-30% of a population's interests .

Nishidani hmm okay well I think (hope?) we agree on facts but hte matter is presentation. Yes JVL is not hte best but it was added by me and let's be honest here, it's not in your interest to remove it at this point (because it will be replaced by firmer RS from much more determined and probably more right-wing individuals than myself).

The point is not to convince the reader of this viewpoint. The point is to explain why Irgun was angry. And that is very much how Irgun saw it: The Brits won't let Jews in as they are literally being gassed in the millions, while Arabs can come and go as they please, that is unforgivable hypocrisy -- Irgun's viewpoint. If we accept that this is a terrorist act, surely for any terrorist action the source of causal radicalization should be explained, no? Cheers, --Calthinus (talk) 17:19, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry if I sounded harsh. I didn’t mean that personally since I had no idea who wrote that. The JVL is not reliable for such a complex issue, and the passasge explains one Zionist public view, then is used to explain the motivation for Irgun’s descent into terrorism. The Irgun adopted its ultramontane position against the British over a decade before the onset of the gassing of Jews, and even years before Hitler’s rise to power and the establishment of the T(h)urd Reich, as my French acquaintances pronounce that. They were loyal to the presciently realistic understanding that Jabotinsky’s brilliant and seminal 1923 essay The Iron Wall set forth as early as 1923, according to which, Herzl’s dream could only be realized by enacting a Palestinian-Arab nightmare. None of that pussyfooting and hypocritical dunam-by-dunam whining and pleading with American and British interlocutors for a ‘fair deal’ that wouldn’t upset the Arab applecart. Both wings of the Zionist movement were thoroughly aware that the establishment of a Jewish homeland would require ethnic cleansing (1938), eradication and dispossession of the indigenous population and a denial to them of their national rights (David Ben-Gurion stated that the same year that Begin broke with Jabotinsky, 1938, one the former played the long-term diplomatic cardsharper's game, the latter the urgent 'checkmate the fuckers' gambit, remembering chess comes from the word to 'put the King into a hopeless fix' (Great Britain)). As to the sociology of the Irgun – they were predominantly Eastern European Jews, and as such came from a secular world that had missed the Renaisssance, the Reformation, and the Enlightenment inflections on western institutional history until hit by modernity, a world deeply permeated by antisemitic violence and hysteria, embuing those who grew up amid things like blood libels (1913) and attempts at genocide (Ukraine 1917). The Irgun’s policy won, as opposed to mainstream Zionism, and is now doctrinal, and a good many editors here seem to endorse it. Terrorism is the necessary means to our end, and, now victors, we will tolerate no terrorism among our victims who imitate the pattern (Al Qaeda used Begin’s memoirs as an important guerilla manual in its Afghan camps), since it showed how the adoption of an otherwise repugnant terrorism can be a successful option in a noble cause, which, once achieved, can then be rejected as the state you create amorally normalizes itself with the ethics of its former critics, as one of the most lucid analyst we have, Nathan Thrall, recently reminds us.

There are far superior sources on all this, I am thinking of vol.2 of Henry Laurens's La Question de Palestine vol.2, which has a whole chapter on the white paper of 1939 and everything else. Cheers Nishidani (talk) 19:45, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

About the JVL: on some purely "Jewish issues", I have found JVL quite good (though I am no expert on Judaism!). However, on some of the more contentious issues it is garbage. Look at what it says about the Deir Yassin massacre, here: "References to Deir Yassin have remained a staple of anti-Israel propaganda for decades because the incident was unique," ..which is absolute rubbish (there were other, larger massacres than Deir Yassin.). So I would stay miles away it when it comes to contentious issues (such as this Embassy bombing), Huldra (talk) 21:54, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

The conservative Israeli estimate puts the 1948 massacre statistics at 24-25 to 1/2. The Palestinian estimate is that there were upwards of 60 deliberate massacres of Palestinian villagers. A JVL contention that Deir Yassin was 'unique' only underlines, as you say, its unreliability for any sensitive issues. So far as I have skimmed through the relevant sections of vol.2, Laurens outlines the statistic analyses from the earlier Simpson Report onwards that stress how the mandate's brief for a Jewish homeland, and the mass immigration of Jews, cannot but mean Arab unemployment, loss of lands, and their transfer outside of Palestine. The emphasis is on the huge financial costs to the British treasury of recompensing Palestinian Arabs if population parity were to be the goal -a British subvention for displacing Arabs from their homeland, plus, towards the late 30s, a reluctance to allow mass Jewish immigration into Western democracies because it would only give rise, and they were Depression years, to further increases of antisemitism among the western electorates. So acceding to Zionist insistance on cointinuing mass emigration only into an Arab country, which had nothing to do with the European neuroses and calculations, would, geostrategically play into the hands of Germany by strengthening Arab disenchantments and making that huge area responsive to Nazi overtures in the war everyone new was about to break out by 1938. It wasn't therefore an issue of balancing Jewish versus Arab immigration into Palestine, but of calibrating to what degree the economy could continue to sustain huge increases in Jewish immigration that, given the Jewish ban on using Arab labour, was disrupting the local Palestinian rural communities which already existed there. Nishidani (talk) 03:12, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

JVL is correct in that whatever the nature of the Deir Yassin battle (against civilians, irregular militia, or more organized forces) - the incident was used initially as anti-etzel/lehi propaganada and later even more widely for anti-Israeli propaganda - where it indeed became a staple (aided by the previous inner Yishuv propaganda bby Jewish figures).Icewhiz (talk) 09:14, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Huh? The JVL quote that I cited said that Deir Yassin was unique, ie as if it was the only massacre committed by the Yishuv. And that is rubbish, and I think you know it. But then I didn't find anything about, say, the Al-Dawayima massacre in JVL. Surprise, surprise, Huldra (talk) 21:36, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Rubbish. Nishidani (talk) 11:16, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

The JVL tends to spin the idea that there was disparity in the control of Jewish and Arab immigration into Palestine by the British Mandatory authorities all to the advantage of the latter. There was disparity of treatment, indeed, but it wasa the obverse nof what the JVL article states. These are the statistics for Palestinian immigration for the years 1936-1939, and for the expulsion of these illegals in the last two of those years:

Palestinian immigration 1936-1939

Jews	Arabs
69,716	2,267

Expulsions of illegals, 1937-1938

Jews	Arabs (et al).
125	1704

Henry Laurens, La Question de Palestine: Vol.2, 1922-1947, Fayard 2002 p.384

From this it is blatantly obvious that the JVL spin is agitprop that bears no relation to the demographic realities. There was major Jewish, and negligible Arab immigration, and in terms of expulsion, the British proved disproportionally severe on the few Arabs who entered, and lenient with the Jewish illegals. Arab immigration was 3% of Jewish immigration, and 70% of Arab immigrants were expelled,0.5% of Jewish immigrants expelled. Calthinos? Nishidani (talk) 14:12, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

You know what I like best about the above comment? That you directly copied your numbers (with the table) from here, attributed them to Laurens rather than point other editors to the large number of opinions presented in that section, neglected to mention all the sources that contradict your conclusions, and then declared the matter settled. Funny, if typical, stuff. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 03:41, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

I introduced facts into the discussion: your reaction is to sneer and try to point out some personal failure or perceived dissonance in my efforts to add information to relevant pages. Doing so, you inverted reality. What is 'funny' (not in the comical sense) here is that, once more, you can't or won't read the evidence. Had you tried to do so, you would not have claimed counterfactually that I copied my table from the Demographic history of Palestine (region) onto this page. In fact, I wrote up Laurens' data from the official government archives and placed it here here on the 14:13, 11 May 2018 and, then precisely one day later, realizing it was important for that other article, duly copied it from this talk page to an actual article, to the DHP page on the 14:13, 12 May 2018. That is the second time you have fudged things: first you quoted a French article you hadn't read to attack one of the foremost scholars in the field simply because his scholarly contributions were appreciated by a Palestinian/French committee, and then you invert the dates of my respective edits to insinuate I myself don't work sufficiently! It' s true that, eventually I should get round to improving the DHP page ()see Laurens:2 pp.111ff. for the detailed statistics on demographic increase, but dealing with so much chatter and noise on the talk pages, I often find my time for serious content contributions curtailed. That is not my fault. The fault lies, arguably, in the attrition of editors who comment thoughtless on talk pages, rather than informing themselves accurately on the scholarship. Sigh Nishidani (talk) 07:22, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Whatever the order of events, there's a disagreement between scholars of which you were aware but suppressed in your post here, presenting the one scholar that fits your POV as if his numbers represent some kind of undisputed fact. The rest is just spin. As is the point of Laurens being shortlisted for a highly partisan prize rather than winning it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:45, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

This petty sniping is infantile. You're again wrong. Laurens did win that prize but not in 2007, but 2013. Do your homework. I https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2018_Gaza_border_protests&diff=840973444&oldid=840956109demonstrated a day ago hours ago that Icewhiz had suppressed information in his sources to make out an attack on Israel happened when his sources specify it didn't, but was an interpretative error. You now try to say I do the same here. Again, you are wrong. There is no dispute among scholars about the data given from Laurens because he is citing official mandatory government reports for that period. It is an undisputed fact that those statistics exist, and that they represent the demographic facts ascertained by the military and civil authorities who monitored the borders. Secondly, no source I know of discusses the 1946 British Embassy bombing together with the immigration data. According to your construal of WP:SYNTH elsewhere when you excise my edits, they are invalid because there is no link in the sources (there was). But here you are effectively saying I am suppressing something by not indulging in a synthesis that would link this specific topic to the statistics of Palestinian immigration, a link that does not appear to exist. I.e., as many POV warriors in the I/P area do, the policy is interpreted differently according to the ideological undertow perceived to be at stake. Drop this farce.It is petty and aimlessly vindictive. Nishidani (talk) 17:50, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

More low quality spin. It doesn't matter where you copied that table from (and it's obvious you copied it), you knew about the disagreement among scholars about the amount of illegal Arab immigration. Some scholars specifically address the inadequacy of the official numbers. That you chose to highlight Laurens' use of those numbers when you know there is disagreement and then pretended this is case closed is much worse than what you regularly accuse other editors of doing. It goes directly against NPOV.

'Copy'? I did what every capable editor does: transferred the data from an RS onto Wikipedia. That's what we do here, take note. As to the rest, you haven't replied to my point: but just keep grinding the grievance stone. I think I am entitled to ignore disruptive bitching. Cheers. Nishidani (talk) 07:21, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Good one with the Palestine Prize thing. You knew he won the prize yet made it seem like he didn't. That one's on me - I forgot everything you say must be double checked, apropos farce. Won't happen again. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:16, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

I.e. you made successive errors showing unfamiliarity with the topic. I corrected them, and you say I am unreliable and need to be double-checked. If you believe that, then begin to doublecheck your own adventitious and uninformed assertions here before committing them to print. In the meantime, as you clog the talk page with personal insinuations about me, scholarship, Laurens, I wrote the article. This is not a social forum for grievances. It's a workplace where editors are supposed to be constructive. Have a nice day.Nishidani (talk) 07:21, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Nishidani I am busy right now and should not be on wiki. I probably won't sign in again today. My apologies. I'm Calthinus, last time I had os in my name I got some really lovely and colorful messages about how I was a "Greek motherfucker", so I realized that was not a great idea, don't we love the Balkans :). I agree JVL is not optimal as I said before (Deir Yassin was a tangent)-- it is an RS but not a great one. What matters is not hte reality of British policy toward immigration to Mandate Palestine (I predict there will be disputes about the narrative about the reality too -- but this is not what's most important to the page in ascertaining the "radicalization" factors here). I use JVL because I'm pretty lazy and I/P disputes like this are not my favorite area to gather sources about and edit articles, really it's not a good time, not as fun as the Balkans where at least the trolls are funny :). I confess I also find the scholarly literature on the matter to be sorely lacking in objectivity on both sides and that there are publicly visible catfights between reputable published historians really doesn't help any of them, but maybe I'm rather cynical.

You're correct about why Britain was against allowing further Jewish immigration afaik -- that can also be included. But this policy nevertheless enraged Jews -- as did the failure of Western allies to help Jews when they had the opportunity, such as how the US motivated mostly by antisemitism refused Hitler's offer to receive tens of thousands of Jewish children who ended up killed instead, all because they would grow up to be "ugly (Jewish) adults" (Roosevelt's cousin's words) [I do not think this deserves mention in the background section]. Or stuff like this [[5]]. Or the Jewish refugee ships that got [torpedoed by the Soviets]. Or how if you [read Keith Jeffery] you might learn of the 1946-1948 [a British intelligence plot to try to prevent Jews getting into Palestine in 1946-'48 using disinformation and propaganda but also explosive devices placed on ships]-- obviously for chronological reasons this has no place on this page, but still, I mean man, really. It wasn't just Jews, despite the episodic evacuation of starving Greeks to Palestine (and also Syria proper) by the Brits, the attitude of the allies towards the famine in Greece included, the sincere question at those military councils of "how many millions of Greeks are we okay with starving to death". Well, we have all of this and more, which I can tell you I by WP:OR is still a considerable source of ire directed at the Allied countries, but we do also have a source that connects at least part of it (that part being the White Paper) to Irgun's "radicalization" -- I believe that deserves to stay. This isn't necessarily anti-Arab indeed if it's anything it's anti-British (actually some of the Irgun/Lehi types even once talked about alliances with Arab peoples against the West and sympathized with the Algerians, though this can seem pretty fantastical) The citation can be replaced with a better source and if you want balance can be added to clarify that maybe (I haven't done all the reading) the perception of British restriction of Jewish immigration could have differed from the reality (I leave the debate on this point to others) but as I said earlier it is the perception that mattered.

Wow I got carried away. No time to trim that. My apologies. As they say in some parts of the world, "yalla bye". Cheers, --Calthinus (talk) 21:01, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm in no hurry. Laurens is, as anyone can attest, scrupulously neutral. He doesn't 'take sides'. I prefer such sources. As to Greeks and the Brits, my first degree was in classical Greek, and I learned about foreign intervention during my period of study there at the time of the Greek military junta of 1967–1974. As a person of Irish descent, with a long memory of dispossession and genocide by the English there, I have no brief for the British Empire. I don't think this should inflect how we deal with this immediate issue: as I showed, the fact is Irgun, which is the topic of the article, was anti-British (and IRA inspired! My father always refused to pay his dues to that cause when his club was approached) long before the beginning of British restrictive policy, and secondly, there is no equivalence between restr4ictions on Jews and some fanciful open door policy for foreign Arabs. To the contrary, therefore a text you admit is not ideal, which conveys this ahistorical tripe, is unacceptable by any wiki standard. I'll bide my time.Nishidani (talk) 21:39, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, why would anyone think that the winner of the France-Palestine Solidarity Association's 2007 Palestine Prize [6] was anything but the most neutral of the neutrals? These guys are known for seeking neutrality when awarding their prize. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:23, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Oh great. Now, can we remove anyone who has won any Israeli price from the scene, too? Or do you think they all "are known for seeking neutrality when awarding their prize[s]"? Huldra (talk) 23:38, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Oh great. Let me know when someone claims the winner of ZOA's Israel Prize is "as anyone can attest, scrupulously neutral". No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:18, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

I particularly liked when I was admonished in an edit summary to "wait for further neutral input at RSN" by someone with this user-page. "Neutrality."- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 01:02, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Simon Dodd, I admonished you because you hadn't done your work, not because of "neutrality", or lack of it: "neutrality" at RSN means uninvolved in the dispute. Sadly, so far, we haven't yet had any such input, except ostensibly from yourself - just the usual predictable line-up of partisan editors. --NSH001 (talk) 08:43, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

BTW, I've just dug out my copy of Suárez's book. The pagination in the short cite is incorrect, it should be pages 159–161, and there are possibly a few more details that could be added from that source. --NSH001 (talk) 08:51, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

I assume that unlike Pluto and myself, neither of you has read a page of the 2000+ that constitute Laurens' 4 volume work on the Palestinian Question. Perhaps it is this ignorance that accounts for the silliness of cheap quips about his neutrality. As to NMMGG, don't cite French sources you either cannot read, or refuse to read while pontificating about their ostensible contents. Laurens did not win the Mahmoud Hamchari 2007 prize, he was passed over for that, as the source you enlist specifies unambiguously:

'Comme les années précédentes, le Jury a été confronté à un choix difficile : le troisième tome (un quatrième est attendu en 2008) de La Question Palestinienne d’Henry Laurens : l’accomplissement des prophéties (Fayard- Mai 2007) qui évoque « avec un éclairage toujours aussi exceptionnel » la période cruciale de 1947 à 1967 étant salué par tous comme « une oeuvre majeure ».La consécration devrait venir l’année prochaine pour la 32° attribution du Prix.'

So kindly stop wasting my editing time by faking stuff. And, Dodd, Wikipedia is written by people who do their homework, not by imitating the Press-the-I-like-button if someone's frivolously uninformed opinions meet one's approval.Nishidani (talk) 12:18, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

• While I'm sure that it must be frustrating that seeking third-party input resulted in third-party input that didn't take your side, them's the breaks," as they say.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 13:31, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

No, it's not frustrating. Bad editing in the IP area is generally done by teamwork, with ethnonationalists playing a numbers game. Those they consistently revert by contrast have read intensely on the topic for over a decade, and edit to ensure both sides of the history are duly represented as per WP:NPOV and our editing obligations. Therefore one seeks informed third party input. What might be frustrating is reading closely hundreds of books and articles by scholars to get all perspectives and the basic facts clear, only to find that people whose only apparent knowledge of the topic comes from googling rapidly to find counter-info to contradict or revert an editor for whom they have a long-standing antipathy. For them, there is only one narrative, Israel's official government line, even though it is constantly undercut by Israeli scholarship which is generally first-class, scrupulous and fair. What they edit in is not the ascertained historical complexities, but the ideological spinning of them, in so far as complexities are recognized. Zionism, which has nothing intrinsically to do with the Jewish people - they are far too multifarious culturally and intellectually- is no different from any other ethnic ideology, though its core principle that identity is via blood descent makes it decidedly harsher on those Jews in what they define as a community who won't subscribe to it. I don't find it frustrating because I come away from this absurd game invariably knowing I have learnt something - not about the infirmities of human judgement, but about each new topic. But one learns here that reasoning has no weight and is just parsed for the assumed POV of editors - are they for us or agin us, us meaning what in Soviet usage was known as the 'party line'.Nishidani (talk) 13:48, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN: ,@GoldenRing: I have only one question to the admins. Does such comments about other editors are acceptable?--Shrike (talk) 18:05, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

I think they have made it crystal clear that for a certain group of privileged editors this is indeed acceptable. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 03:41, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

[My comment moved back to its original place --NSH001 (talk) 19:26, 13 May 2018 (UTC)]

This thread is not about Suarez! Or Zionism. Anyhow, Nishidani, looking back at your original post, it seems your biggest issue is the assertion of a "double standard". I can roll with this. What do you say we remove all comparison to British policy on Arab movement? In the mean time a better source can be found. --Calthinus (talk) 18:04, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

"This thread is not about Suarez! Or Zionism." - Calthinus, I think you were understandably confused by the fact that my comment was inadvertently moved out of place. I've moved it back. --NSH001 (talk) 19:26, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

I've already rewritten the troublesome section. The problem was that the JVL page on immigration, aside from being a total distortion of the facts with its spurious equation of Arab immigration with Jewish immigration, said nothing about the Irgun. So it was what some call WP:SYNTH.Nishidani (talk) 18:25, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

It can't be SYNTH if it's a source, not wiki, making the connection. That being said looking at the page right now I don't mind it as it still mentions the White Paper, which is what was most important for me.--Calthinus (talk) 18:20, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

It is synth in terms of the definition used by one editor here to wipe out a good part of my work at another page: the JVL article is about immigration, and has 'no direct connection' with the topic of the 1946 British Embassy bombing. I am getting somewhat tired of having to dutifully explain fundamental wiki policies, to be applied coherently over numerous pages, while numerous editors revert me. Nothing to do with you, and because you are new to me I have I think worked extensively to explain both the historical intricacies of the topic, and the difficulty any editor like myself experiences in trying to build articles by reading and citing many academic works, only to be reverted irrationally. If that def of synth is correct for one page, it is applicable to this.Nishidani (talk) 18:32, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

I disagree with that interpretation of synth, applied both by yourself and by NMMNG. It's really hard to maintain good faith on controversial issues like this. I like to think that although I don't pretend I'm an impartial person, my goal is to help make a good encyclopedia, not some sort of quasi-encyclopedic blog to share views favorable to me, and there should not be policy double standards (hence why I reverted myself on WP:TERRORIST). Until the next time, --Calthinus (talk) 18:44, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Okay, till next time. Please however note that no one has shown any evidence to undermine my reasoned and optimally sourced remark that the JVL argument about immigration into Palestine was simply false. This is an encyclopedia: readers who come to it must be assured that the facts given are accepted by the scholarly world that writes on each topic. The JVL article doesn't state facts, it invents some arguments while stating them as facts, and this is unacceptable. It is not a problem, ultimately, of WP:SYNTH but of whether or not one can allow a politicized spin of an extremely intricate historical period to replace the easily verifiable statistical data known to historians. I took out the Zionist ideological tale, in a popular encyclopedia, and replaced it with what three scholarly sources state re the same content. I could add a dozen more.Nishidani (talk) 20:14, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

"terroristic action"?

Ok, so I am not a native English speaker, but "terroristic action" sound terrible in my ears. What is wrong with "terrorist action"? Huldra (talk) 23:24, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

They're really about the same, except that the former means more "like a terrorist action" than an actual "terrorist action". But in terms of how they are understood, they're basically the same. If we adhere to WP:TERRORIST neither would really fly, though I've noticed in the IP area it isn't really adhered to by either side on a wide array of articles anyways.--Calthinus (talk) 23:32, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

I see countless (and I mean countless) articles on terror attacks by Palestinians/Arabs called just that--a terrorist attack. Why the same editors (not in reference to you Calthinus) contest calling an attack by perpetrators in the Irgun a terror attack embodies the double standard I/P is plagued with. The term is widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject as WP:TERRORIST requires.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:02, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

I adhere to that distinction, Calthinus, in practice. But when you have quality RS unanimity backing what (a) the British authorities and (b) the later Israeli government of the time defined as 'terrorists', the verdict of history is that Lehi and Irgun consciously (its in their declarations also) adopted a model aimed to terrorize civilian populations. In dealing with the past, the political spin we have in contemporary labeling fades.Nishidani (talk) 07:47, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Huldra is correct re usage. One of the finest contemporary historians of modern Italian Jewish history calls the spade a spade. Mario Toscano,La porta di Sion: l'Italia e l'immigrazione clandestina ebraica in Palestina (1945-1948) Collana di storia contemporanea Il Mulino, 1990 p.133 calls it a 'blatant (clamoroso) terrorist act.'Nishidani (talk) 17:19, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Tracking down the names of the group

This is difficult but important because of source conflict with Tiburzio Deitel in 1946 police records being given as Moishe Deitel is the court verdict 1952 etc. Nicknames were common. There is one source that deals with nicknames, but it proves to be unreliable:

Hinter Dov Gurwitz verbarg sich Jakov Gurwitz, Tiburzio Deitel war Benyamin Zeroni, siehe www.etzel.org. 19 »Die Untersuchung war schwierig. Diese Juden sind meistenteils fanatische Britengegner ... Sie bewegen sich leicht von einer Stadt zur andern, benutzen Decknamen-'Henning Sietz, Attentat auf Adenauer: die geheime Geschichte eines politischen Anschlags, Siedler, 2003 p.301

That is obvious nonsense,Benyamin Zeroni was in a British prison camp in Africa at the time.Nishidani (talk) 17:24, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Bagon Source

The source is Mphil thesis per WP:SCHOLARSHIP it shouldn't be used.I intend to remove it, as we have many other good sources.--Shrike (talk) 05:11, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Nope. That doesn't state this as an ultimatum.

• Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses.Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a PhD, and which are publicly available (most via interlibrary loan or from Proquest), can be used but care should be exercised, as they are often, in part, primary sources. Some of them will have gone through a process of academic peer reviewing, of varying levels of rigor, but some will not. If possible, use theses that have been cited in the literature; supervised by recognized specialists in the field; or reviewed by third parties. Dissertations in progress have not been vetted and are not regarded as published and are thus not reliable sources as a rule. Some theses are later published in the form of scholarly monographs or peer reviewed articles, and, if available, these are usually preferable to the original thesis as sources. Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence.

The work in question is an Oxford University M.Phil Thesis. These are unusually rigorous at Oxford, and the work was written under the supervision of Eugene Rogan, professor of Middle Eastern History there. It has since been cited in the academic literature.

• Eugene Rogan,The Arabs: A History Basic Books p.894.
• Steve Cohen, Standing on the Shoulders of Fascism: From Immigration Control to the Strong State, Trentham Books, 2006 p.70
• Bruce Hoffman, 'Anonymous Soldiers: The Struggle for Israel, 1917-1947,' Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group, 2015 pp.525,572
• Kevin McDonald, 'Our Violent World: Terrorism in Society,' Macmillan International Higher Education, 2013 p.190
• David Dee, 'The ‘Estranged’ Generation? Social and Generational Change in Interwar British Jewry,' Springer, 2017 p.262 pages

This extends even to his earlier work ’AngloJewry and the International Brigades: A Question of Motivation,’ anchester Papers in International Economic and Social History (2001)), an MA which was then published in an academically respectable historical journal. This too was accorded notice in the specialist literature as a contribution to the field I.e.

• Gerben Zaagsma, 'Jewish Volunteers, the International Brigades and the Spanish Civil War Bloomsbury Publishing, 2017 p.174
• Richard Baxell, 'British Volunteers in the Spanish Civil War: The British Battalion in the International Brigades, 1936-1939,' Routledge, 2004 p.220
• David Dee, 'British Jewry, Communism and Sport, 1920-1950,' Labour History Review, Liverpool University Press 2015

Therefore Bagon's work was and still is considered to be a useful addition to the scholarship on this otherwise arcane field.Nishidani (talk) 11:25, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

We thus have peer review, scholarly citation and expert supervision. There is no outright rule against such a Masters dissertation, since this has received, in an obscure field, adequate scholarly notice. Nothing we use from it is controversial, which is the only issue that might raise qualms. If you want to press the case, go to the RSN board and argue it before neutral third parties.Nishidani (talk) 11:25, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Nishidani - Being a Master's at Oxford does indeed count for something, as do the cites - however, in this case, most of the cites you are bringing up (which seem to be an all-encompassing list of any mention of this work - at 5 citation) - more than half of them aren't citing Bagon, but rather citing Bagon's citations (e.g. using Bagon to cite the Manchester Guardina in 1947) - so this isn't quite a cite of Bagon, but rather quote farming and using his fairly good Master's thesis to find sources (which is perhaps what we should do). Per WP:SCHOLARSHIP - Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence. - 5 citations (more than half of which are citations of citations in Bagon) - are not close to "significant scholarly influence". Policy is quite clear on excluding this - I suggest that if you think otherwise that you take it to RSN - WP:ONUS is on you to include.Icewhiz (talk) 12:09, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

As I said. Take it to the RSN board. Comments here tend to be predictable. No one questioned this for quite a while, so if Shrike wants to remove it, he should express his 'concerns' at the RSN board.Nishidani (talk) 12:14, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

The WP:ONUS is on you to prove that the source is reliable.--Shrike (talk) 15:21, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

+1. If you want to use a source - you should defend it, not the other way around, particularly when policy seems to preclude use of this source quite clearly.Icewhiz (talk) 15:37, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

I think tagging is the appropriate compromise position here, and have therefore reverted the removal of User:Icewhiz's tags.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 16:30, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

A "better source" tag is quite a mild compromise here - removing the information outright or removing the citation and placing a "citation needed" tag would've been aggressive (though possibly warranted given policy). FWIW - Bagon is probably reliable (and farming his cites is possibly a good solution) - but the source is not policy complaint.Icewhiz (talk) 16:35, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Considering the timing, the tagging of a minor issue comes across as a deliberate impedement of a DYK that the 'tagger' doesn't like. We have a peer reviewed source that has been, in turn, used as a source in several books by major publishers, but the tagger now argues that this is not significant enough. It seems like significant scholarly influence to me. Sionk (talk) 19:50, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Lets take for example one of the links that Nishidani provided [7].Yes the dissertation is mentioned but as far as I see it is not used as source to any statement in the book.Does this what our policy consider "significant scholarly influence"?--Shrike (talk) 11:20, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

This is an inappropriate source per WP:SCHOLARSHIP - this is rather clear - and this issue was first raised on 8 May - a day after article creation. The correct thing to do is to rectify the issue - perhaps by citing Bagon's sources instead of Bagon himself.Icewhiz (talk) 11:36, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

If he cite other scholarly works then there is no problem if he cite contemporary newspapers then it maybe wp:primary--Shrike (talk) 11:41, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Dislike is not a policy option. I have given detailed material showing that secondary sources of high quality treat Bagon's MA and post-Ma work as a reliable source, and since it was subject to stringent oversight by supervisors of international expertise in the field, it qualifies as such also for Wikipedia. It is pointless just repeating the refrain. The source is a work of scholarship, mined by scholars, supervised by scholars, and, since the topic he deals with - the little studied topic of our article -suffers from a dearth of alternative sources - it is fair to use it. Unless you have a strong argument, just registering dislike holds no weight.Nishidani (talk) 17:55, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Please direct our attention to the policy in which a "dearth of alternatives" exception is carved out of sourcing policy.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 18:09, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

ILIKEIT is not a sourcing rationale. This work does meet the standard in SCHOLARSHIP of Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence.. Neither the work nor Bagon (yet) have had a significant impact.Icewhiz (talk) 18:11, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

You have called far too many things you excise 'poor/non-RS' sources to be reliable on this. Bagon's thesis has, in its small field, significant scholarly influence as I showed: 5 cites in strong secondary sources is ample for such an obscure historical incident. If you doubt this, take it up at the RSN board. Wikipedia is not written by people who keep excising material they dislike for patent national purposes. It is written by people who don't abuse policy, waving vague flags, but exercise intelligent assessments of the quality of the material available. The fact is that scholarship does not devote huge amount of articles to this obscure incident, but uses Bagon's supervised account: he did the work, and it is duly quoted. Nishidani (talk) 18:23, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

The thesis seems to use impecable sources, such as the Jewish Chronicle, the Manchester Guardian and The Times. Is Icewhiz casting these as unreliable, or are they simply saying the cited facts need to be qualified/reworded? If they believe the Jewish Chronicle, the Manchester Guardian and The Times are inaccurate, they would surely need to find an alternative source that disputes these facts. Sionk (talk) 22:30, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Could you point us to where WP:SCHOLARSHIP makes "impecable (sic.) sources" a relevant criteron? Also, I don't think that we usually approach sourcing questions by saying that a point added in reliance on a problematic source gets to stay unless or until someone finds a different source that contradicts the problematic source, do we? - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 23:40, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

The facts are cited in the thesis to undoubtedly reliable sources. Look up 'impecable' in a dictionary if you're unaware of its meaning. Evidently Icewhiz has a problem with the points/facts that are cited by the Oxford thesis. In which case it would be more constructive to correct/reword the fact. Throughout this entire section Icewhiz has not explained what they think is wrong with the points/facts cited by the thesis. Sionk (talk) 23:55, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

WP:NPA and no WP:ASPERSIONS please. If the sourcing is impeccable - then cite Bagon's source - there really is a simple solution here. Note that some of these sources may be WP:PRIMARY - but they could perhaps be carefully used here if attributed (e.g. X reported at the time, or some such) for limited amount of content. Jewish Chronicle, The Times, and the Guardian are obviously reliable - there might be a PRIMARY issue - but primary content may be used, with care, while avoid interpretations - per policy.Icewhiz (talk) 06:08, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

As for explaining what "is wrong with the points/facts cited by the thesis" - I don't have to. Nor do I actually think Bagon is wrong (I actually think Bagon is right on most or all of the points sourced to him). However, Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth (essay) is relevant, and the WP:SCHOLARSHIP guideline clearly bars the vast majority of m.sc theses (and Bagon doesn't fall into the very narrow exception).Icewhiz (talk) 06:12, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

You are repeating yourself, and you haven't correctly construed the clear meaning of WP:SCHOLARSHIP, which qualifies as reliable works like his that have influenced their (very small) field, as documented.Nishidani (talk) 08:32, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

And if Icewhiz doesn't disagree with the contents of the article, or the facts being cited, they are simply being WP:POINTY to disrupt the DYK process. We should end this discussion forthwith and remove the tendentious "better source needed" templates. Sionk (talk) 03:51, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Again - WP:V policy, and the WP:SCHOLARSHIP guideline - are very specific here - and the use of the was per Template:Better source. That this article is up for DYK - is not grounds for violating actual policy on main-space articles.Icewhiz (talk) 05:34, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Stop repeating yourself. Or rather, since you do so, so will I:you haven't correctly construed the clear meaning of WP:SCHOLARSHIP, which qualifies as reliable works like his that have influenced their (very small) field, as documented.Nishidani (talk) 07:44, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

There is clearly no consensus whatever the source meets WP:SCHOLARSHIP--Shrike (talk) 07:54, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

You are not making a policy based argument and therefore comments like the above have all the appearance of just lockstep POV votes, which are never considered in WP:CONSENSUS formation. Agreeing with Icewhiz over multiple pages, automatically, without a reasoned judgement, is worth nothing. I provided arguments why Bagon fits WP:SCHOLARSHIP. I also know for professional reasons know how stringently at Oxford even MAs and post-MA's are vetted. If some of you still bridle at Bagon, then take it to the RSN board, but above all snswer the argument and evidence I provided above or kindly desist.Nishidani (talk) 08:12, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Please stop making personal comments about other editors.--Shrike (talk) 09:24, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

The above is a description of much of your editing where I edit. Look at the remark at the top of this section. An editor's credibility is established by (a) the quality of judgement and (b) its independence. A large number of edits made by Icewhiz are technically in valid because they use edit summaries that are farcically inaccurate in citing, if they do, policy.etc. To state this is not to make a personal attack: it is to ask people to edit rationally and collegially. Nishidani (talk) 12:49, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

If the facts of the article aren't disputed, then it is immaterial whether the thesis needs to be extra 'reliable' or not. If the source was citing a controversial or disputed fact, that would be a different matter. It is quite acceptable for Wikipedia to use primary sources with care, for that matter, so using a secondary source such as the OU thesis shouldn't be an issue worthy of all this excessive and endless discussion. Sionk (talk) 21:27, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Sionk this is quite important to those that are making this an issue because it is there last defense against the DYK from passing. An article about a Zionist terrorist attack on the main page? Cannot have that, can we?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:12, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

WP:AGF.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 22:35, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Oh, but Simon Dodd AGF is not a suicide pact. And eventually it runs out.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:57, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree, but from the standpoint of a neutral, uninvolved third-party—I don't edit articles on this subject, and the only reason I'm monitoring this article is because you, Grace, brought the article to RSN where I saw it—we're a long way from that.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 23:17, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

User:TheGracefulSlickThen why just not remove the Bagoon and Suarez and go to DYK?There are plenty of other sources.--Shrike (talk) 16:16, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

The Bagon source is perfectly valid, usable, and should not be at all questioned. The fact is, it has been cited by a number of other scholars. Whatever they cited from it is utterly irrelevant from a WP:Policy standpoint. The important thing is that the scholars considered the work sufficiently credible to stake their own work on it. Removal of scare "better sources needed" templates is fully warranted. XavierItzm (talk) 06:56, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Since removal of the source would be justified, I remain of the view that leaving it in with tags seems an appropriate compromise between one group of editors that wants it gone and another that wants it in. For that reason, I'd support it if Shrike or Icewhiz want to undo the removal of tagging.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 16:08, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

If the facts are not disputed and the source has some reliability, there is no purpose to keeping the tags, other than as a permanent 'badge of shame' ...and to prevent a DYK progressing. That is simply dispruptive editing. If the source is that unreliable, then it and the facts it cites should be removed, but I don't believe anyone here has the appetite for that. This isn't a "Good Article" nomination, and the percent of "reliable-ness" of a minor source shouldn't be used as a stick to beat the editors who've put all this good work into the article. Sionk (talk) 10:46, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Reinsetion of Suarez

I would encourage User:Nishidani to revert this reinsertion of material that consensus both here and at RSN has pretty straightforwardly rejected as a useable source. I initially removed it then realized that I'm time-barred under 1rr so have reverted for now, but for Pete's sake, WP:SNOW.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 12:36, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

You were the only outside editor at the RSN board and an opinion of one (basically a no vote, without significant analysis) means that discussion was inconclusive. Suarez has not been inserted into the article. Further reading sections direct the reader, precisely, to relevant texts that are not mentioned in the article, and therefore unless you can find a technical reason why the reader cannot be notified that other material than what we actually use exists, there can be no grounds for removing the notification.Nishidani (talk) 12:51, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

There is no basis to link to this particular book - and this is against consensus.Icewhiz (talk) 13:47, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

I still don't understand why this book is needed.--Shrike (talk) 13:57, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

WP:TE offers pertinent advice: "Some editors may find that any independent input ... is always biased against their sources.... The purpose of independent input is to resolve disputes between editors by a neutral third party. That doesn't mean the neutral third party will make everyone happy, will choose a side, or in particular, will side with whoever claims there is a dispute.... If, no matter how many times a neutral third party intervenes, you never seem to get your way, that suggests that your goals may be at odds with Wikipedia's policies, guidelines, community and purpose." Consensus is against the book, even after independent review; putting it back in for a few hours here and there is pointless and pointy, and forcing everyone to play xRR games to remove it is no way to WP:DGF.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 14:16, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

You are obliged to revert yourself again, since you have violated the 1R rule, see the banner on the top of this page. This behaviour is vciewed very dourly at AE, and almost automatically sanctioned.

• First revert 12:28: I6 May 2018

Second revert 20:04 16 May.

ThanksNishidani (talk) 21:54, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

What you conveniently omit is that I immediately self-reverted that first revert upon realizing the 1RR violation, which is precisely what WP:3RR says to do: "If an editor violates 3RR by mistake, they should reverse their own most recent reversion." If you believe that a mistake that is immediately self-reverted restarts the one-day clock, please feel free to raise the issue at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. While you await a reply, I would again urge you to review WP:POINT.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 23:43, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Looking at the discussion on "State of Terror", I could find no consensus that it is a reliable source. Also, there was no consensus that it is a disreputable source. The fact it has two independent editorial publishing houses, one in the UK and one in the US, should tell you this is a reputable enough book. Reputable books should be cited on Wikipedia when relevant. Readers have agency and discernment. The book should not be memory-holed only because WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT Perhaps citations of the book should be labeled a "questionable source", which is a type of source that Wikipedia perfectly allows.XavierItzm (talk) 07:20, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Questionable sources are not allowed on Wikipedia, and ONUS is on those those who wish to include - if you are claiming no consensus at RSN (not my read) - it is still out.Icewhiz (talk) 11:45, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

You are correct that WP:QS are not allowed except under some cases. I stand corrected. At the same time, the list of Sources that are usually not reliable does not include actual books published by third-party editorial houses, in this case, two houses in two different countries. So it looks pretty good to keep!. XavierItzm (talk) 12:04, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Lede

Shrike, in reference to your "anti Jewish intrigue" quote in the lede, you do realize everything in the lede is a summary of the body, correct? In other words, there shouldn't be any information specific to the lede. Why you felt the skewed perspective of a terror organization was warranted in the lede is beyond me, but it at least needs to be somewhere in the body.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:53, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I will move it to the body but I think its important for readers to understand why it was chosen--Shrike (talk) 17:58, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

RfC about Bagon Source

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Non-admin closure The result of this RfC, in terms of the question posed, is Reject: The source cannot be used. The decision is based on the strict interpretation of WP:SCHOLARSHIP. The work in question is not a doctoral thesis but a dissertation for a Master's. The guideline is quite clear: Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a doctorate, and which are publicly available, can be used while Master's dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence. We can confidently assert that the paper in question has definitely had scholarly impact, on account of the citations extant, including its use as a source in many WP articles (e.g. "The Sergeants affair", "Jewish insurgency in Mandatory Palestine", "1946 British Embassy bombing"). We can equally confidently gauge that it has not had significant scholarly impact, on the same account.
A few remarks are in order: 1. Some will take the decision to also mean a rejection of the paper's findings, i.e. the rise of anti-Jewish sentiment and violence in Britain in the mid-1940s. Such is not the case. This is a decision on sourcing only. 2. An editor suggested that the Manchester Guardian cannot be considered as a reliable source from that era for Irgun's motives. This could be up for debate elsewhere, but it must be stressed that the paper is accepted as a reliable source in Wikipedia; it's today's Guardian. 3. An editor suggested that acceptable sources in lieu of the Bagon paper can be found, and indeed such do exist. (Bruce Hoffman's 1985 doctoral thesis "Jewish terrorist activities and the British government in Palestine, 1939-1947" is one.) This means that some text in the article that is based until now on Bagon can possibly still be supported. 4. The use of the Bagon paper as a source in the aforementioned WP articles remains a matter for interested editors to take up.
As it happens, I find the Bagon paper quite interesting and well constructed: I could cite it if I were to write an article on a related subject. But this is Wikipedia: Information must come from what Wikipedia determines to be reliable sources. -The Gnome (talk) 08:22, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

---

Can Bagon M.phil[8] thesis be used as source per WP:SCHOLARSHIP? --Shrike (talk) 18:43, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Survey

• No per WP:SCHOLARSHIP Dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence..Yes it mentioned in bibliography of several WP:RS but it nowhere rise to level of significant scholarly influence.Moreover we have other scholarly sources in this article if the facts are not mentioned in other sources then there are clearly WP:UNDUE--Shrike (talk) 18:43, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Additional Comment As there some claims that the facts sourced to bagoon are "unchallenged".Well this simply not true for example "As a consequence, antisemitic sentiments increased in the United Kingdom" this POV factoid is given without any source even in Bagoon source.--Shrike (talk) 12:16, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, do your homework. It is in Bagon and is on p.101, and is quite uncontroversial. The Irgun, indeed, were believed to have welcomed the rise of anti-Semitism in England which news of their terrorist exploits tended to enhance, because it 'justifies their thesis that the Jews will be safe and free only in their own country,' as the Manchester Guardian put it.

These terrorists welcome anti-Semitism in England and elsewhere because it justifies their thesis that the Jews will be safe and free only in their own country. To them every pogrom in Poland is another argument for Zionism, while even a schoolboy’s jest or a loutish sneer may remind some Jew in England that the eternal problem of his race has not been solved. If they can provoke us into brutality they are well satisfied. “Look,” they say, “the British are no better than the rest of us.” Manchester Guardian, 21 November 1946, p.4, Bagon p.100.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nishidani (talk • contribs) 12:31, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

The Manchester Guardian would be a biased primary source in relation to the Irgun's motivations. It is however true that British antisemitism, icluding violent attacks on Jews, did rise - but a better source would be preferred.Icewhiz (talk) 18:20, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

• Yes - but delete if you want. Each and every Bagon citation is now supported by one or more additional citations, except the one where it Bagon says anti-semitism "increased" in the UK. Since this cannot be possibly true, the impact of deleting Bagon will simply result in the deletion of that one untrue sentence. I say go for it! Otherwise, keep per WP:SCHOLARSHIPIf possible, use theses that have been cited in the literature. Q.E.D. The Bagon source is perfectly valid, usable, and should not be at all questioned. The fact is, it has been cited by a number of other scholars in a number of books. Whatever they cited from it is utterly irrelevant from a WP:Policy standpoint. The important thing is that the scholars considered the work sufficiently credible to stake their own work on it. WP:WL-based attempts to remove the source are among the clearest cases of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT to be found on Wikipedia. XavierItzm (talk) 19:02, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
• No. Use of a mater's thesis is clearly prohibited per SCHOLARSHIP, with a narrow exception of significant impact. This thesis is cited, per my check, in a handful of not too high quality books - and it seems likely those citations were mined from a couple of Wikipedia articles that seem to be misusing this source. Some of those cites, I will add, do not cite Bagon per se but rather cite Bagon's citations via Bagon (e.g. this one citing the Manchester Guardian via a quotation that appeared in Bagon - which is probably something we could do (use Bagon for his sources - trusting his quotation is accurate, but not his analysis nor summary of sources)). This is clearly not a significant impact, and thus, per policy should not be used.Icewhiz (talk) 19:30, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

(a) it us not a 'mother's (mater) thesis (b) even if you are not personally impressed by Eugene Rogan or Bruce Hoffman and play the academic umpire, giving them a thumbs' down, given no one knows whether you have a doctorate in Middle Eastern studies and widely published, this means what you wrote is puertile noise. Nishidani (talk) 18:49, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

• No, for the reasons given by Shrike and Icewhiz. The policy is WP:Scholarship, the standard is "significant scholarly influence," the WP:ONUS is on those who want to include it, and absolutely no evidence has been tendered that this would meet a "scholarly influence" standard, let alone the "significant" modifier.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 20:16, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
• Yes Onus has been thoroughly provided by Nishidani and the question of whether the source is reliable for the facts provided has never been disputed. All this going in circles has been started by editors who have contributed little to nothing to the article. The source is not the issue; the fact it is the only thing blocking the DYK is.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:51, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
• Yes

theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence

This is a thesis. It is directly mentioned in 5 scholarly sources (significant scholarly influence, for such a minor and obscure topic). A further 3 scholarly sources cite Bagon's other MA. No one here has questioned the accuracy or challenged his paper by saying the data we use is an exceptional claim and therefore requires WP:EXCEPTIONAL, exceptionally good sourcing. It is false also to assert that it only figures in bibliographies. Scholars use Terry Crowley preliminary master's thesis on Nganyaywana , and I have cited that with no problems, and it would be absurd to nitpick on policy to exclude it. Our policies are in place to ensure silly mediocre stuff from poor sub-academic sources get in. They are not meant to exclude be fiat material that has attracted due scholarly regard, as this has. The point is to build reliable articles, not to pettifog to exclude material that has been academically vetted at the highest level and that is cited by scholars in the field. Even WP:IAR has traction here, esp because the dispute has all the appearance of a dislike objection. Nishidani (talk) 11:03, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

• Yes, clearly, particularly when the facts it cites are not under dispute. This particular Masters thesis has had some scholarly influence, which some editors would accept as 'significant'. WP:SCHOLARSHIP is clear that university theses "can be used but care should be exercised". The thesis also clearly cites its facts to unarguably reliable sources (as you would expect from a Masters thesis). Of course, we would want cast iron sourcing for questionable or POV content. But in this case there is no questionable content so far identified. The level of 'significance' of influence of this thesis (a minor issue) shouldn't be used as a POINTY stick to beat all the good work that has gone into this article. Sionk (talk) 11:14, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
• No SCHOLARSHIP is about doctoral dissertations or theses, which are far more scrutinized before they are accepted and published that master's theses. I am surprised to see any "yes" !votes from experienced editors above. Jytdog (talk)

Comment.

Jytdog An MPhil is not a master's thesis. It is halfway between a master's an a doctorate, differing from the latter only in that it lasts 2 years, not 3, though the methodological and research requirements and standards are identical. Your call, correct me if I err, does not seem to square with the stipulations in the policy you cite:-

Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses. Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses . . . Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence

Admittedly this looks borderline, but the prima facie comparison of our policy with the MPHil paper by Bagon does fit those conditions being (a) a masters di9ssertation (b) that has had notable (this is a very small field) influence (5 book references) and (d) was supervised by an authority in the field.Nishidani (talk) 08:16, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

And if one wants documentation as to how POV-driven this challenge to Bagon is, Shrike, who proposes the deletion of an uncontentious Oxford MPhil thesis that has scholarly influence, at the RSN board is advocating we use Fox News articles for Iran. There is absolutely no coherence in what editors are saying over multiple pages as to what constitutes a reliable source, unless (a) quality has nothing to do with RS (b) what is being attacked determines whether it qualifies or not. If you side with the attack polemic, it goes in. If you dislike the topic, it goes out.Nishidani (talk) 10:01, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Please listen.

This is a very loaded topic, bringing in issues of terrorism, antisemitism, Zionism, Israel, Judaism, British colonialism each of which are complicated and draws intense passion. There is no way in hell that you should be using a marginal source like this, on content that is so loaded.  ::::The productive response to valid questioning of a source is to find better sources.

What you should not do, is waste everybody's time trying to hang onto a marginal source like this. (It makes no sense to me that you are wasting your own time and everybody else's this way.) Just find better sources.

Please be aware neither I, nor any experienced Wikipedian, cares how you describe an Oxford MPhil. here is the page at oxford about the program within which the masters was earned. it looks like a masters (the normal kind, not the kind Oxford will sell you). ~Two year program focused on taking classes and write a thesis, reviewed by your supervisor. Jytdog (talk) 21:36, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

What is so 'loaded' about one of a million instances of bombing making for an article. We have a proportion of about 20 to 1 articles highlighting Palestinian terrorism, and as soon as one instances an event where Jewish terrorists occur, editors shiver? As to Bagon, I get the impression no one has troubled themselves to actually read his paper, and no one objecting is familiar with Oxford research criteria. They don't 'sell' MPhils et al.Nishidani (talk) 17:23, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

• No per Icewhiz and Shrike. "That this article is up for DYK - is not grounds for violating actual policy on main-space articles." (Summoned by bot) Chris Troutman (talk) 17:09, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

What policy has been violated? Nishidani (talk) 17:23, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

WP:SCHOLARSHIP, as has been pointed out to you. Your words on the subject have not been persuasive. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:18, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Something I read. And it reads:-

Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses. Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses . . . Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence.

It was shown that, in this obscure field of a single minor historical incident, the relevant scholarship cites it as reliable, and that its Oxford supervisor is one of the ranking scholars in its field. Take the trouble to read it. The quality is obvious at a glance. The rules we have are to exclude dubious, fringe, or speculative rubbish, not to ban are priori anything that is sub post-doctoral. The irony is, that, in practice here, we can cite anonymous news feeds by unknown reporters of the period - the usual boilerplate media tripe, but get nervous if a promising young scholar vets this, and reconstructs the period, on the basis of contemporary news reports, with the wisdom of hindsight and the focus of historical context. A pity. Nishidani (talk) 16:59, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

WP:SCHOLARSHIP is guidance, not policy. And even if the Bagon source doesn't meet the description of a 'reliable source' per WP:SCHOLARSHIP, that simply means it should be used with extreme care. We are back to the question (that some people here try and avoid) of what is controversial and needs removing. If it is the "anti semitism increased", then let's simply remove that, and get on with life. Sionk (talk) 17:44, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

• User:XavierItzm The policy you cite is about Doctoral thesis.The masters thesis should have "significant scholarly influence"--Shrike (talk) 19:25, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

• Which this does not.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 20:16, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

• Sionk I already said that if the claims are sourced to Bagoon then it is WP:UNDUE and should be removed.For example "As a consequence, antisemitic sentiments increased in the United Kingdom" this factoid is given without any source even in Bagoon source.So its questionable POV content and should be removed.--Shrike (talk) 11:41, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

That gives your hand away, Shrike, because it underlines that you are striking at Bagon as a source without even having taken the trouble (just 1 hour) to read it. I.e., you dismissed as an unsourced 'factoid', without being supported even by a ref from Bagon, as as having questionable POV content, our text reading:-

"As a consequence, antisemitic sentiments increased in the United Kingdom"

Had you familiarized yourself with the source you object to, you would have easily sourced that statement to Bagon:-

'The Irgun attack on the British Embassy in Rome confirmed this trend. In both a literal geographical sense and figuratively, the Rome bombing brought the impact of Jewish underground violence much closer to ‘home.’ The resultant call for Anglo- Jewry to be interned as ‘enemy nationals’ irrefutably demonstrates that the activities of the Jewish underground had a tangible impact on Anglo-Jewry, which was manifested as an increase in anti-Semitism in Britain.'p.101, see also pp.11,97-98

This is a repeated problem in I/P articles, endlessly niggling re policy to exclude material which the editor who objects disdains even to read. Nishidani (talk) 12:22, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

That's exactly my point he does some analysis based on press and connect it to the Attack.We can't trust such analysis by author of master thesis.--Shrike (talk) 12:42, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

That is exactly your point, duly rebutted. Look, I was supervised and published in Oxford: I know what standards are required, they are exceptionally high, even for a master's. You don't appear to understand what masters and doctoral students, and historians do. They go to contemporary press sources among other things, transcribe the contents and analyse them. Everyone in the academic world does this. You are objecting to the fact that Bagon did what we are all trained to do. Anyone can check any citation he makes from the press by going to pro-Quest and looking them up. Scholars evaluate his work positively. Wiki editors unfamiliar with how academia works should not get mixed up in this. It's embarrassing.Nishidani (talk) 12:50, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Nothing was rebutted, WP:SCHOLARSHIP doesn't make any exception for Oxford--Shrike (talk) 13:04, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, take a refresher course in English, then read, apparently for the first time, the comments made above regarding your uninformed assertions. And stop repeating yourself. It is boring. You've had your say, as have I. Let others pitch in without being intimidated by a tendentious repetitive harangue, per WP:BLUDGEON.Nishidani (talk) 13:09, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

• What is "Bagoon M.phil thesis?" Is Bagoon a university or the author? It should be explained in the RfC question with a link to the thesis. TFD (talk) 16:02, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Paul Bagon's M.phil. thesis, i.e. Bagon, Paul (2003), The Impact of the Jewish Underground on Anglo Jewry (PDF), University of Oxford Nishidani (talk) 16:48, 26 May 2018 (UTC). This was supervised by Eugene Rogan, a ranking Middle Eastern history authority, who teaches the subject in Oxford.Nishidani (talk) 16:51, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

What makes him authority in I/P conflict that he edited one book of revisionist essays about the conflict?--Shrike (talk) 17:25, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

A Professor of Modern Middle Eastern History at the University of Oxford. Please tell me this question was rhetorical, Shrike? If not, you offer nothing to this discussion when something even this obvious goes over your head, and I suggest you closely access each comment you make in the future to avoid wasting more time.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:15, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

• Nishidani Can you share the five scholarly sources that mention it as you wrote above and the context? Merely mentioning doesn't mean it is taken as a scholarly source. It can be mentioned to say that it is nonsense. Thinker78 (talk) 05:20, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

@Thinker78: - they are quoted above in the "Bagon Source" section above. One isn't available online easily (AFAICT). The other 4 are - Rogan (which doesn't cite Bagon, it cites 2 newspaper quotations via Bagon), Hoffman (listed in dissertations, seems to be used to cite a DSO intelligence summary), McDonald (seems to be mined off of Wikipedia by the archive date present in the citation - and is used to cite the Manchester Guardian quotation in Bagon), Dee (again - used to cite a quotation that appears in Bagon). So - a small number of authors are trusting Bagon's quotations of other sources, but are (AFAICT) not using Bagon's own research or interpretation.Icewhiz (talk) 05:34, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Um, that's not how it works. It is immaterial that Rogan doesn't cite his supervised student's views, but rather the sources his student cited. That means that an authority in his field trusts Bagon's reportage: citation is an endorsement of reliability. It is pointless to second-guess what's behind quality academic citations of a source. The fact that, in this relatively neglected field, several reliably printed and authoritative sources consider Bagon trustworthy is all that counts. It's not a 'small number' of authors: we've all struggled to find sources for this obscure incident, and of the few available, Bagon is regularly cited, meaning academics and specialists who do look into it, use Bagon. Nishidani (talk) 08:54, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

No, they do not use Bagon's analysis. They do use him as a newspaper (and 1 intel report) archive service - the citation format is different for such use ("X quoted in Y....").Icewhiz (talk) 09:00, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Please desist from misreading - it is becoming obtrusively noisome, and only consists of creating a strawman argument no one has made, to contradict a completely different point your immediate interlocutor made. It is bad faith to persist in such tactic. I did not state just above that the scholarly sources cite Bagon's analysis. I said they used Bagon's paper's reportage as being trustworthy, an utterly different matter. Nishidani (talk) 12:59, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Nishidani, you are looking like you don't want debate on the issue, which is kind of shady to be honest. I on the other hand call on Icewhiz and you to further the debate and keep pointing out and explaining things as necessary for other editors to have a more clear idea of the issue and the discussion. I guess it is going to be consensus that determines in this case what is the meaning of "significant scholarly influence". And for consensus to happen, there has to be discussion. Thinker78 (talk) 01:10, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Canberra Times. verification

I'm verifying these new sources also to reformat them. One is giving me trouble:

/RESPONSIBILITY FOR BOMB OUTRAGE ROME". The Canberra Times. 5 November 1946. Retrieved 26 May 2018.

When I click on the link, I get a dead page. That issue has 2 items re Jewish people. British Foreign Office to Probe Organised Jewish Exodus The Canberra Times 5 November p.1 ORGANISED TREK OF JEWS SOUTH FROM RUSSIA idem p.1 I can't see anything else there or the following pages. Could you check this Xavier? Thanks. Nishidani (talk) 13:02, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

There was an error in the web address. Thanks for pointing it out. It has been fixed. XavierItzm (talk) 16:38, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I mean to say I fixed «RESPONSIBILITY FOR BOMB OUTRAGE ROME». I have no idea what you mean about «ORGANISED TREK OF JEWS SOUTH FROM RUSSIA.» I added nothing from Russia. You Nishidani may need to clarify to which ref # you are referring to. XavierItzm (talk) 16:55, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I checked the Canberra Times for that date, and only came up with the two articles I linked to above, and nothing entitled or dealing with 'Responsibility for Bomb Outrage Rome.' That's all. I'll check your link again. Perhaps I missed it in reading the 4 pages of that date. I have little online time at the moment, and my concentration has not focused on much out there in the 'real world' much either. Yes, it was on page 2, so you were correct date-wise. Thanks Nishidani (talk) 17:04, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

• this source has to be removed. One cannot cite recent books, articles or period newspapers here that do not directly link their points to the specific topic of thjis article. The Princess article does not mention to British Embassy Bombing, and therefore it is WP:OR to include it.Nishidani (talk) 16:02, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Alright, I know exactly what you are talking about. I had the same qualms about including it. My problem is this: Bagon says, quite absurdly, that the news media reports that Jewish terrorists planned to take their actions "to the heart" of the Empire are "unsubstantiated." But less than six months after Bagon's "unsubstantiated" news reports... Irgun is threatening Princess (now Queen) Elizabeth, is bombing the Colonial Office in the heart of London, is threatening Buckingham Palace, and is mailing letter bombs to Churchill and other British leaders. So much for Bagon's "unsubstantiated". Bagon is entirely disproven! But I hear you. If you need to remove the Princess article, Nishidani, go ahead and remove it. My only hope in that event is that if/when the anti-Bagon partisans deep-six him, then we will be able to eliminate Bagon's "unsubstantiated". XavierItzm (talk) 16:47, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Most books articles but esp. newspapers I read on this topic, even by first rate academic authorities, leave me, as often as not, sighing and shaking my head. And then I duly register what they do say in the relevant article, even if I doubt its reliability. That is one of the painful, but necessary rules imposed on anonymous editors by Wikipedia. Give Bagon credit. Like Suarez, whom one group of the 'usual suspects' (as we are referred to occasionally on administrative boards) have kept off the page, he at least has broached a topic and theme that, to its disgrace, I/P historians have neglected. In short, Bagon was wrong, but we are obliged to transcribe his view. The only thing one can do is to add 'according to Paul Bagon'. What one can't do is harvest primary sources to give the lie to his somewhat odd conclusion, as per WP:OR. Thanks in any case for the many contemporary sources you are bringing to bear on this all but ignored episode. One thing that really needs pinning down is the 1952 court verdict, which books don't appear to mention, but perhaps contemporary British or Italian papers may have noted. Cheers Nishidani (talk) 16:59, 26 May 2018 (UTC)