Talk:Patria disaster

message: Zero0000 - thanks for a great article. Re: "The majority of persons on board were rescued by British and Arab boats that rushed to the scene, but approximately 267 others, including about 50 crew and British soldiers, lost their lives." - do the sources give a precise number for British only fatalities? --mervyn 06:52, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think the sources listed here give that information, but I'll scan them again.  Actually this "50" and who it consisted of is the one thing in the article that I'm least sure about.  --Zero 10:04, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  British fatalities 

message: The disaster section lists 209 bodies being found, while the aftermath section lists 167.  Is there any way to reconcile these numbers?  Would the British casualties  not being included in the lesser number account for the difference?   Darkonc (talk) 21:03, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Total fatalities 

message: The book "Ya'ir" by Moshe Shamir is a novel.  That means it can't be used as a source of historical data.  Amoruso claims it is not a novel at all, but since Amoruso appears to have the book we can wonder who is trying to kid who here.  The reason I am reasonably confident that this book is a novel is that it says so right on the cover of the book!  Take a look at the cover here.  The two words in small red letters say "biographical novel".  --Zerotalk 04:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "biographical novel". I addressed your concern here . btw, are you and ian pitchford the same person ? You even took the same break from wikipedia at the same time. Amoruso 10:25, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am not Ian.  You are not a good editor.  Now that we have clarified our roles here, stop trying to use a novel as a source.  --Zerotalk 23:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Is that supposed to be funny ? Amoruso 08:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

text: You lost this argument.  Get over it. --Zerotalk 11:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Convincing argument there. Amoruso 01:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

text: That would not be enough either.  He has to cite material from them directly, not just copy Shamir's claims about those sources. --Zerotalk 10:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Book of Moshe Shamir 

message: Guy changed "illegal" to "underground" in "The Zionist illegal immigration organization Mossad Le'Aliya Bet".  First, the source for this sentence (Ofer, see bib.) uses "illegal" and we aren't supposed to second-guess our sources.  Second, the offered reason "It was not an illegal organization as the League of Nations Mandatates Commission never agreed to the 1939 British White Paper. Perhaps it was illegal in Britain but that is irrelevent in terms of law" is incorrect.  Britain was empowered to regulate immigration into Palestine.  There is no dispute about that at all, nor does anyone claim that prior approval from the Mandates Commission was required to establish regulations. Actually it was the other way around: the Mandates Commission did not overturn the regulations so they remained the law.  The situation was similar to a law that appears to violate the constitution: it remains the law until a sufficiently high court strikes it down. Of course people have argued that the White Paper violated the Mandate charter and so was unconstitutional in that sense, but we are supposed to report what our sources say and not make our own arguments. Btw, the sentence is saying that the immigration was illegal not that the organization was illegal - that could be clarified if it isn't clear enough. --Zerotalk 09:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Saying it was illegal is of course WP:POV of the British. The British had the mandate and its rules obviously, but from the other point of view it was an illegal occupation of the homeland of the Jewish people, for example. We don't use the word "illegal" as a neutral term, but rather "illegal according to..." as in "terrorist actions illegal per Israeli law..." etc. The word "illegal" is of course used in the traditional sense by the Jews too - since it was illegal, then Jews too called it illegal. It was moral but it was illegal according to the British. Probably best to add "" to the word to show it's a quotation and not an WP:NPOV neutral fact. Amoruso 10:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Illegal" means "illegal according to the legal authority at the time".  Like it always means.  --Zerotalk 11:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  illegal or underground 

message: Was the sinking of this boat carried out by the Haganah? Also, I see disaster in the title and as one of the sections, is this correct wording. Was this an intentional act? The body of the article leads the reader to believe this but the lead sentence makes no mention of it? Anyways, I am sure I'll be educated shortly, cheers and thanks--Tom 17:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, the Haganah article makes no mention of this incident? --Tom 17:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep. Disaster is correct too. Yes, the Haganah sunk the ship. Its intention was to damage the ship so that the ship won't be able to sail away, but it blew up with horrific results. Amoruso 19:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

text: It should, yes. Amoruso 21:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So how do you explain the fact that the culprits in this case, the people who actually sank this ship, costing the lives of over 250 people, have been repeatedly reverted from this article? Are we in the business of accurately reporting history, or are we in the business of deception? PalestineRemembered 20:21, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead sentence

message: I've rewritten the article, while building on the previous version, to address some of the issues that have been raised here and to improve the sourcing and level of detail in the article. Hopefully it should now be a bit more rounded and comprehensive. I should mention one issue which I'm sure someone will bring up - I've removed the references to Moshe Shamir's biographical novel Yair. It's not usable as a source; it would be different if it was purely an autobiography, but as a partial work of fiction we simply can't reliably tell which elements are fiction and which aren't. -- ChrisO 20:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought it was clear that offend doesn't mean "to insult", but "to provoke anger". I see that you've chosen to use the same wording as in the book, although as you say, I used a 'slightly different form that's a bit less plagiaristic'. TewfikTalk 23:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually my wording is slightly different from the book's. I don't know if you're a native English speaker, but "offend" carries overtones of "insulting" rather than "provoking anger", which is why I felt that it wasn't the appropriate word to use in this context. -- ChrisO 00:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewrite

message: :Image:Patria.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. 
BetacommandBot (talk) 19:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Resolved, the image is actually in the public domain. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Patria.jpg

message: * Is it correct to use the word deported in the third line of the article? I believe the answer is NO. I think it is more accurate to use a sentence showing that those Jewish immigrants were prevented from landing in the British Mandate of Palestine simply because they were not living at first place.
* I remember that i read once that the  plans were to send those immigrants to Madagascar. is there any one who has an idea about that. 
* Adopting the Haganah reasoning and illustration of why and how that disaster happened in the first paragraph is not acceptable. I think we have to present the Haganah narrative in more neutral way, instead of taking it as a matter of fact. --Wisamzaqoot (talk) 00:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  3 points 

message: Article reassessed and graded as start class. No sure this article strictly qualifies as Military History but leaving tag. --dashiellx (talk) 18:38, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008 

message: Should this article be renamed to Patria bombing? "Disaster" makes it sound like the sinking was some sort of unfortunate semi-natural occurrence, like a ship hitting an iceberg, but of course the Patria's sinking resulted from a deliberate human action - an act of terrorism, essentially - rather than the natural causes or negligent actions that are the cause of most disasters. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The deliberate action was to stop the ship from being sent back to the Nazi claws, hardly an act of terrorism by any standards. The disaster was that the rescue operation didn't work and had the opposite result. 46 books calling it Patria Disaster , 1  book calling it Patria bombing  so I think the wording was correct here. Amoruso (talk) 19:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

text: I hope it's no issue commenting on an old post, but this is still relevant. Considering that terrorism is typically defined along the lines of "the use of violence, especially murder and bombing, in order to achieve political aims or to force a government to do something." (Collins), I think it's clear this is a terrorist attack (a bombing, of an incredibly violent nature (even if you follow the line that the intention wasn't to sink, which some on this page argue) that was done solely as an act of intimidation to achieve political aims), and this should not be considered a controversial point by any means. Likearaisin (talk) 00:46, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename to Patria bombing? 

message: Still says the British considered them illegal immigrants, but the article use the word "refugees" a lot and expands on the whole Nazi history. This has a place in the lead. Amoruso (talk) 19:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Amoruso, do you have a reason apart from insanity for deleting my comment about the Eva Feld article?  -- ZScarpia (talk) 18:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Zscarpia, as far as I can tell this is your first comment on this talk: page. Can you explain which comment you are referring to, and why you removed Amoruso's comment? Jayjg (talk) 16:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Something has become very screwed-up somewhere. The history sequence displayed to me until now was that Amoruso deleted my original comment. Hence, my comment to him asking why he deleted it. Today is the first time that I've seen Nudve appearing.  -- ZScarpia (talk) 18:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: When I look at the Talk page history, I see your first comment on Feb 11, 2009, removing Amoruso's last comment of Jul 7, 2008. Perhaps you had some browser difficulties; in any event, it might be prudent to strike through your comment to Amoruso, who hasn't edited since Oct 6 2008. Jayjg (talk) 19:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Would it be better just to delete everything below Amoruso's comment?  -- ZScarpia (talk) 03:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I would just strike-through your comment of 18:14, 11 February 2009. You can use the  and  tags to do it. That way history is preserved, and it becomes clear it was just some sort of mix-up. Jayjg (talk) 03:58, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment struck-out.  -- ZScarpia (talk) 12:19, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: some wording change in the lead

message: Why is this event called a disaster instead of a bombing? 2607:FEA8:93A0:2970:63:1079:9E97:4BE6 (talk) 14:25, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bombing vs. Disaster  

message: "Before the government of Nazi Germany decided in 1941 to exterminate all Jews in Europe"
Could you please show us the document for that decision? Because official historiography will tell you that they do not have evidence for that. They only imply this. 105.4.7.163 (talk) 11:29, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a source provided, have you read it? Zerotalk 13:13, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Nazi Germany has nothing to do with this disaster. The Jewish terrorist group Haganah did this. 2600:100F:B1A2:730A:0:3:34A:1201 (talk) 20:04, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Decision 

message: I appreciate why this article is locked for editing, however, there are segments that really need re-drafting. The final sentence before the contents block reads "Who was responsible and the true reason why Patria sank remained controversial mysteries...", should have mysteries removed.
The first sentence of "background" carries an odd tone that doesn't seem to fit. In fact, nearly every paragraph in this section lacks any citation, and is full of things that don't necessarily seem relevant to the bombing of the ship, i.e., "...who saw the opportunity to make trouble for Britain...". Perhaps the implication is that sending them to Palestinian waters was to provoke Britain, but if so, this should surely be made clear AND be sourced, not simply be implied in unclear tone.
Generally, this article could do with being cleaned by someone with access, making it more readable, and easier for the average peruser to learn from. Likearaisin (talk) 15:02, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I fixed the first issue. The lack of citations is because the bulk of this article was written in 2006–2008 when sourcing requirements were much less stringent than now. That needs to be fixed. Zerotalk 02:44, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fixing poor writing