Talk:Tantura

message: There is a discrepancy in population figures between this page and the Tantura controversy page. Which is it? In the interests of a better page and less redunancy, I believe the Tantura expulsion page should be incorporated here. There is no reason for doubled up information, and there are more details on the village itself in that article.--Gilabrand (talk) 07:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: CAMERA links are on a perfect par with Palestine Remembered and Pappe. Remove those sources and then you can talk about CAMERA. Otherwise that is sheer hypocrisy.--Gilabrand (talk) 16:14, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

text: The one for this page is correct. In Sami Hadawi's 1945 land and population survey, Tantura had a population of 1,490. --Al Ameer son (talk) 15:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  population figures & merge 

message: The Naming committee became part of the Israeli Government. Where in the bible is Dor mentioned?Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 09:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "According to the biblical book of Kings Dor was incorporated into David and Solomon's Israelite kingdom by the tenth century B.C.E. Dor became the capital of the Sharon province, under Solomon's new administrative scheme, governed by the king's son-in-law, Abinadab, the spouse of his daughter Tafath." http://dor.huji.ac.il/periods_IR.html; also in the Book of Judges: "Dor Dwelling, the Dora of the Romans, an ancient royal city of the Canaanites (Jos 11:1, Jos 11:2; Jos 12:23). It was the most southern settlement of the Phoenicians on the coast of Syria. The original inhabitants seem never to have been expelled, although they were made tributary by David. It was one of Solomon's commissariat districts (Jdg 1:27; Kg1 4:11). It has been identified with Tantura (so named from the supposed resemblance of its tower to a tantur, i.e., "a horn"). This tower fell in 1895, and nothing remains but debris and foundation walls, the remains of an old Crusading fortress. It is about 8 miles north of Caesarea, "a sad and sickly hamlet of wretched huts on a naked sea-beach." http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/ebd/ebd106.htm--Gilabrand (talk) 09:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The Bible was written in Hebrew, not Greek. It was translated into Greek (and other languages) resulting in countless mistranslations and approximations/guesses, where the word or phrase was not known to the translator or there was no translation equivalent. Biblical, scientific and archaeological research have helped to clarify many verses, but people are creatures of habit. They continue to use King James and other archaic translations that are full of mistakes or translators' idiosyncracies.--Gilabrand (talk) 10:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Questions

message: The source on land purchase reads as follows: Sheid, the chief clerk of the Rothschild's Palestinian holdings, offered him land in Tantura, an Arab coastal village about 10 km northwest of Zikhron-Ya’akov. In his offer, he did not mention the prevalent fever there and the type of the land, but promised him a carriage and two horses as a bonus. Earlier (around 1880), the pioneers of Zikhron-Ya’akov bought 30 hectare in Tantura close to the malaria-bearing Anopheles mosquitoe in the marshs. --Gilabrand (talk) 10:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nachsholim did not exist in 1891, and the sources state that the land was IN Tantura. Every time you touch this article, you seem to introduce more English mistakes and incorrect conclusions. How dare you accuse me of POV - look at the tags on your user page. I am a long-time editor on Wikipedia, with many barnstars and several featured articles to my credit. I have turned this article into something 100 times better than what it was a few days ago, although your sloppy entries have wrecked it again and again. Instead of a miserable piece of propaganda that was started in the interests of badmouthing and sowing hatred, it is now an interesting article on a fascinating place. Why don't we work together to make it even better?  --Gilabrand (talk) 14:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Quoting the source

message: Referenced work should be left alone. Command decisions is referenced and applicable. I'll reference the labour battalions for you later Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 15:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You can bring all the references you want, but only if they refer to Tantura. That is the subject of this article. General information aimed at furthering some political agenda does not belong here. Please try to bring in information that will improve the article (and keep it encyclopedic).--Gilabrand (talk) 15:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Referenced work

message: The historic 'Glasshouse' museum building, located in Kibbutz Nahsholim, some 500 m. south of the site itself, now houses the Center for Nautical and Regional Archaeology at Dor (CONRAD), consisting of the expedition workrooms and a museum displaying the finds from Dor and its region. The house is an old glass-making factory from the 19th century (built by Baron Edmond James de Rothschild).http://www.bashanfoundation.org/finalhistory2.html
Oh dear better tell the Dor page to remove their info. And it is part of the Judaism Project, well I never fancy them lying Gilabrand.Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 19:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ms. Kennedy No. 3 -  The reference in that article is the same as the one in this article, and yes, it has been misquoted. Since when is a Wikipedia article a solid source for anything? Many articles on Wikipedia are a bunch of xxx, and that is because so many semi-literate people are involved in writing them. Please read the source yourself, Ms. K. This is the chronology: There was no kibbutz there when the glass factory was established in 1891. It was built on an empty tract of land in Tantura. The enterprise failed. The building lay deserted. A kibbutz was established after Israeli independence. At some point, someone had the idea of restoring the building and turning it into a museum.  What could possibly bother you about this? Why do you insist that Nahsholim existed in 1891? Your snide (and racist) remarks re the Judaism project have been duly noted.--Gilabrand (talk) 20:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Museum 

message: :: Ms. Kennedy No. 3 -  The reference in that article is the same as the one in this article, and yes, it has been misquoted. Since when is a Wikipedia article a solid source for anything? Many articles on Wikipedia are a bunch of xxx, and that is because so many semi-literate people are involved in writing them. Please read the source yourself, Ms. K. This is the chronology: There was no kibbutz there when the glass factory was established in 1891. It was built on an empty tract of land in Tantura. The enterprise failed. The building lay deserted. A kibbutz was established after Israeli independence. At some point, someone had the idea of restoring the building and turning it into a museum.  What could possibly bother you about this? Why do you insist that Nahsholim existed in 1891? Your snide (and racist) remarks re the Judaism project have been duly noted.--Gilabrand (talk) 20:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Watch it, Ms. K, your racism is showing

message: not references, there are notes included. That makes it foot notes.
Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 10:41, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Footnotes

message: :::Well, I'm busy, but I will slowly work my way through this. The first thing I noted is that we need some explanation on, or link to, Abd ar-Rahman Sa'd ad-Din. Who is he, the Sufi poet? (If so, the name could be linked, from memory). The problem is the transcription of such names makes google searches for the identity behind them rather arduous.Nishidani (talk) 09:46, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You're best bet is to query Tiamut and ask if she can help. She's apparently now very busy in real life, but has a superlative grasp of local Palestinian lore. Add that the shrine is a maqam, with the name, and see what that brings up.regards Nishidani (talk) 11:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Abd ar-Rahman Sa'd ad-Din

message: Sounds more like Mount Carmel than the plains of Sharon? I don't know where Gilabrand got the Sharon plains from for Ben-abinadab, I would like a fact check on that one.Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 10:37, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Can't see what edit you're pointing to. But whatever, Biblical Dor was a city on the Mediterranean seacost (Plain of Sharon) south of Mt Carmel, the Naphath-Dor of Joshua 12:13 and I Kings 4:11. The modern village is a harbourtown 15 miles south of Haifa. The two can be confused at times.Regards Nishidani (talk) 10:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Height's of Dor

message: For accuracy shouldn't this be al-Tantura?Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 10:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but if its the first word in a sentence or the title it should be capitalized. As for those two shrines, I'm not sure who they're dedicated to. It could be that Sufi, or maybe just a local sage, mukhtar or imam. Almost every Arab village in pre-1948 Palestine had some kind of "notable" shrine or tomb. Until we know for sure who they were dedicated to, we shouldn't add anything on them for fear of OR. I've been working on Bayt Jibrin lately, and the town contains a shrine for a companion of Muhammad whose name is Tamim Abu Ruqayya. I haven't found squat on him online and this guy is a sahaba. --Al Ameer son (talk) 17:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. al-Tantura. I removed the capital. Ceedjee (talk) 07:19, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Al-Tantura

message: I added pov-flags in the problematic sections until these issues are resolved. Ceedjee (talk) 07:19, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  pov-flag section 

message: All references to camera website to source facts should be removed and replace. Does someone disagree ? Ceedjee (talk) 07:22, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I strongly dislike Camera sources, and I agree with Ceedjee, Ashley. I am strongly disposed to believe indeed, however, that there was a massacre in Tantura. But this does not dispose me to favouring sources I otherwise find disreputable because they happen to lend substance to my view of the events or situation. 'By implication' is again an inference, and we cannot violate the rules. Your predicament is one I am familiar with, and sympathise with, as often I have had the same problem. Israeli sources predominate overwhelmingly, and, in the absence of a comparable documentation in accessible Arab sources or archives, it means we just have to work that much harder than our pro-Israeli collaborators. I would ask however Ceedjee a small editorial favour, rather like the large one I suggested on the Ma'alot massacre talk-page (there, by the first editor's admission, the whole article is poorly sourced, based on the editor's OR in loco, and written up as notes for a novel the author is writing. Strictly speaking, I or anyone else, could justr walk in and wipe off most of the page, since it is admittedly in violation of WP:OR. Yet that would be, I argued, using the rules to erase work that could well serve to fleshen out a reasonable good article, merely because it tells against a Palestinian (spinter) group. Unfortunately, however, this sentiment is not reciprocated: there is a far amount of literature saying that event was preceded by massive Israeli strafing and napalm bombing of the refugee camps from where these particular terrorists tailed, but it keeps being edited out). In short, let us admit that the CAMERA sourcing is plainly inadequate, to be supplanted by reliable sources, and extend to Ashley and other editors time to find those sources? Remove those CAMERA sources promptly, and editors forget what they are supposed to be looking for.Nishidani (talk) 12:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I think one could have the boldness to remove the camera sourcing in conformity with general opinion on it as not a RS, and replace it with ((fact|date=June 2008)), pending verification from the Ma'ariv source. That should make all happy?  Not every text has to have the reference required in lieu of which it is eraased.Nishidani (talk) 15:07, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  camera 

message: The edit I have made is not meant to prejudice the outcome of the discussion on the exact source for the Ben-Gurion quote, and anything else. The point is, the detail in the text following that quote should be in the footnote to that quote, as I have now relocated it. This makes for narrative smoothness, uninterrupted by technical matters.
(2) I have removed also the following:</BR>
Pryce-Jones claims that in interviews, Ilan Pappé backs up his claims with the argument that "we do [historiography] because of ideological reasons, not because we are truth seekers..there is no such thing as truth, only a collection of narratives" Pryce-Jones in a thinly disguised ad hominem where Pryce Jones attacks Ilan Pappé but is unable to refute Ilan Pappé's work see also the 1961 Correspondence in The Spectator on “Why the Refugees Left”Institute for Palestinian StudiesCorrespondence between Erskine Childers, Walid Khalidi, Jon Kimche, Hedley V Cooke, David Cairns and Edward Atiyah
Now this is absolutely irrelevant to the page's narrative. It is introduced, I presume to undercut the thrust of Pappé's citation from Ben-Gurion's diary. It refers to a general criticism as far as I know, of Pappé's historical method, not specifically to the fact that he adduced this passage from B-G's diary to elucidate what happened at al-Tanturea? If so, it is irrelevant. The same criticism is found, appropriately, if I recall on the Ilan Pappé page. My edits here have been purely in the order of proper narrative flow, and thus are not intended as edits on content.Nishidani (talk) 12:58, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't see any justification for it, narrative-wise, but let's wait for Ceedjee's input, just in case.Nishidani (talk) 15:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I haven't checked it for a while, but some time back it did have the remark about:'we do [historiography] because of ideological reasons, not because we are truth seekers..there is no such thing as truth, only a collection of narratives'. If it doesn't it should be put back in there.Nishidani (talk) 15:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Price-Jones, and details on Pappé and B-G's diary 

message: The text says the Alexandroni Brigade's 33rd Battalion. In military terms this is nonsense, since, at least in Western armies, Brigades have an upper limit of 5 battalions. I suspect what is meant is the Haganah's 33rd battalion. Needs checking out.Nishidani (talk) 13:19, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Technical Point 

message: I've adjusted to put Meyrav Wurmser, the source for the summary of the Katz trial, into the text. She belongs, it should be born in mind, to a rather extremist right-wing ideological bloc. She is not, as the linked page asserts, a 'scholar of the Arab world' so far as I have been able to check, but a person with a doctorate on Hebrew political parties, Likud and Herut.Nishidani (talk) 15:28, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meyrav Wurmser 

message: Kafr Saba is unlinked. I note that Kfar Saba is also on the Plain of Sharon. Same place? Unlikely if it was a purely Jewish settlement founded on barren land by E de Rothschild. There is an Arab Saba nearby, apparently. The wiki article on the latter mentions nothing of these events.Nishidani (talk) 21:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kafr Saba 

message: Sorry to inform you but Walid does mention the possibility of a massacre at Tantura in the 60s.....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 12:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok. Why not. What is the reference ? Ceedjee (talk) 15:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Walid Khalidi

message: Footnotes 30 and 31 refer to: Benny Morris (2006)...shouldn´t this be Benny Morris (2004)? Or is there a 2006 Morris publication not in my library..? Regards,  Huldra (talk) 21:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  a tiny point: 

message: DONT remove what i write in the tantura article. I worked on it yesterday to make sure everything is alright by transleting from hebrew into english,while the article itself is made by very unvalid sources such as Ilan Pepe,a radical leftist with opinions,not facts.I know the struggle to make the jewish population a hostile,but they havent been a hostile to anyone even since the name palestina was given to the land of israel.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.179.226.167 (talk) 14:24, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for sharing your opinion on Pappe. However, the University of Exeter seems to have a different view of his qualifications. Forgive me for giving their view greater weight than a random person on the internet. nableezy - 16:27, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ilan pepe is not a good source for historical evidences. 

message: The text: "Morris believes that ... there may have been some looting, based on an army report that uses the Hebrew word khabala (sabotage)."  One source (Morris 2004, p301): "Moreover, CGS to OC Alexandroni of 1 June 1948, complaining of acts of 'sabotage' [habala] after the conquest of the village, may have been a euphemistic reference to a massacre."  The other (Morris, Jerusalem Report) says: "Which leaves a last, disturbing possibility: That the Alexandroni troops indeed committed a massacre or a series of atrocities, that the Ministry heard about it - and that they thought the matter worthy of investigation. But given the high-level sensitivity to atrocities, all preferred to use a euphemism, habalah, instead of the explicit tevah (massacre)."  Anybody else see the problem?  Morris' opinion is actually serious misrepresented and some rewriting is required. Zerotalk 07:21, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accuracy in reporting of sources 

message: Substituted at 07:37, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: The Tantura massacre presently is just a redir to the article: it really should be its own article.
Trying to sum up 20+year controversy into this article (and Pappe's), just bloats this article, and make it rather difficult to read.
My 2-cents: We should just refer to the latest findings about the massacre here (and in the Pappe article), and then place all these last 20+ years controversy ("blood-libel"-charges, legal threats, etc) in a  Tantura massacre  article. 
Comments? Huldra (talk) 21:25, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Perfect timing, I literally just opened my laptop to make this change. Makeandtoss (talk) 21:34, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Tantura massacre]] 

message: Please revert your last edit, which has change the wording in a way that has only casted doubt on a massacre, that its victims' relatives, perpetrators and observers have all agreed on its occurrence. The controversy that surrounded the massacre in Israeli scholarship circles should not affect the factuality of the its occurrence. For a similar situation, see Jedwabne pogrom, a Polish massacre of Jews in 1941 that was only acknowledged in the 1990s and 2000s. That Wikipedia article treats it as historical fact, as it rightfully should be. This article is no exception. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:27, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The jury is not still out on this. Academics do not determine all the facts, and a report in 2022 won't have academic reflexes for some time. Since we have taped evidence and contemporary direct interviews with the soldiers who took part, and whose accounts confirm that each witnessed incidents of murder involving at least several prisoners, that qualifies as a massacre, whatever the final estimation proves to be (suffice it to dig up the parking lot and verify, but, according to the report, that will not be done, as it would be had the victims been Jewish). Had Katz not had a moment of weakness, according to the retired judge, his evidence would have led to a verdict in his favour. This is extensive primary evidence in a secondary source that is reliable, not only Haaretz but Akevot. Nishidani (talk) 16:44, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:   THe interviews are the same ones that Katz conducted previously before his revoked paper. THey are coming to light to again because of a recently released documentary. But there is no new interviews or information. When the bodies are exhumed we will know if they are Arabs from the period and if they were combatants or if it was a massacre of civilians.. I haven't seen an Akevot source. Haaretz and all the other media sources are calling for an investigation but none are saying anything conclusive because they don't have the academic authority to make that call. That means we don't either  User:RCrew92 18:56, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Lol; "When the bodies are exhumed" = never. Israel never  exhumes victims of their massacres, not in Deir Yassin, not in Al-Dawayima, not in Ein al-Zeitun...     just never. They haven't even released the pictures from Deir Yassin yet (taken just after the massace) Huldra (talk) 23:20, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:   It it simply false that only the old interviews were cited. The Haaretz article makes very clear that there are new interviews too. It is quite explicit: "According to Diamant, speaking now", "Another combat soldier, Haim Levin, now relates" etc. Zerotalk 05:47, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

text: Silly. The lowest estimate given by eyewitnesses was several, which qualifies as a massacre on Wikipedia. 'When?' Raz suggests that exumation is improbable. (a) so you want genetic tests done on any found bones to indicate if they were '48 era Arabs. (c) since when have we forensic means to established if bodies were 'civilian' or 'military'? The whole history of this dour episode is one of refusing to yield or recall, even in the face of taped evidence. An academic source will inevitably state on the basis of these numerous testimonies that IDF witnesses testified severally to the fact that many Palestinians were shot after the conflict ended,- exactly what our article states -something quite normal for that period with its estimated 62+ massacres and 13,000 Palestinians who disappeared from the record in 1947-1948.Nishidani (talk) 17:07, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Occurrence

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Tantura massacre which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 23:19, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress