Talk:Balad al-Shaykh massacre

message: another cycle of violence with ,,authorisation´´ Nobody is better than others.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.143.152.250 (talk) 12:28, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

message: Is there any evidence that the incident is predominantly known in scholarly literature as "Balad al-Shaykh massacre"? Pecher Talk 09:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Massacre is the act of murdering a large number of people, typically at the same time or over a relatively short period of time, and haganah reports "about 91 killed including women and children" in one day --Rohan 07:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Massacre?

message: This article was entitled Balad al-Shaykh massacre. No rationale has been provided for this move. Could this action please be explained? Thanks. Tiamut 19:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Unilateral moving on page

message: this article, which reads like am israeli propaganda piece, is another disgraceful example of extreme western bias of entrenched editors of wikipedia,and their censoring of all facts and witness accounts not serving the western agenda(in this case same as isreali agenda). no doubt this comment will be censored too and this ip blocked like many others just for pointing that out. shame! ~~  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.231.93.80 (talk) 12:19, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: bias

message: I placed an edit on this history using information that was uploaded through a blog site. My edit was removed. The site in question engages in detailed research and has led to various news stories being broken over the past few years. However I understand Wiki cannot consider every blog site as a 'reliable source'.
Yet there is an issue here. Originally, based on British reports and a newspaper article, the casualty count at Balad was supposed to be seventeen. Benny Morris, who was the original source of the Balad 'massacre' story, used conflicting Haganah reports to arrive at a figure of between 21 and 60. The British report however suggests the Palmach units were driven back, so how would the Jewish soldiers know?
Other writers, such as Ilan Pappe, used Morris as a source, but as is their style, ignored the lower estimates. Thus suddenly in some circles, sixty to ninety died.
And yet there is a newly examined contemporary CID British police report from the scene, that has so much detail it lists the names and ages of the dead. It seems the newspaper report of seventeen dead was inflated to claim more women and children died than actually did. The total casualty count according to official (and available) police reports was 5 dead on the night, a further 4 died from injuries. Nine total, including 7 men and two children. No women.
Morris was contacted and accepted the British report (given they were in control of the land at the time), was logically the most accurate. Given its more detailed account and the fact that Morris relied on different Jewish accounts that all conflicted, and the British relied on an on site casualty count, there is *no reason* to believe today that a 'massacre' actually happened. Nor that the casualty count exceeded nine, mainly men.
The best, most detailed and most official account, presents nine Arab dead with three Jews, with the Jewish forces experiencing higher than expected resistance. It is even so detailed it updated the casualty count as severely injured people passed away. There is no other source as well-informed or accurate as this. So, as Wiki is currently promoting a myth about a massacre that never happened, what is the best and quickest way to get the page edited to reflect what really happened?
Source documents are available here: 
http://david-collier.com/national-archive-documents-balad-al-shaykh-massacre-myth/ 
:In English and on Wikipedia any figure of 5 or over killed is taken as constituting a 'massacre' (Kingsmill massacre). There is no 'myth' about a massacre being promoted, because even 9 dead amounts to a massacre. We go by RS, not personal research. If what is referred to as Benny Morris's recent reconsideration of the evidence is correct, all that need be done is to have BM or any other recognized authority find an RS outlet, Haaretz or whatever, to state the issue, based on his personal perusal of the file, and the new figure, if thus confirmed, can be adopted. Nishidani (talk) 19:30, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interested in how to get across new information 

message: Please add this information from historical documents that was deleted from this page: 
"Contemporary reports accessed via the British Archives at Kew, including File CO 537/3855, and CIPD reports that listed the killed and wounded from the incident, state five Arabs died during the attack, with another four succumbing to injuries over the next two days. Seven of the nine appear to be adult males, two were children. The British Police documented that five Arabs and three Jews were directly killed in the fighting: "29 Jews opened fire on Balad al-Shaykh from the hillside. The fire was returned by the Arabs and the resulting exchange of fire lasted for some thirty minutes. At 02.25 hours the attackers withdrew. During the engagement the following casualties were incurred: 
Amadi Hussan Wasaf age 14 (died at scene)
  Ahmad Rashid Mahmoud age 20 (died at scene)
  Zihour Rahid Akkoni age 11 (died at scene)
  Rashid Ali Mahmoud age 80 (died at scene)
  Hussein Zahour Yuni Arwan age 24 (died at scene)
  Zemen Abdul Hamid age 25 (succumbed to injuries)
  Sherif Mohammed Eissa age 30 (succumbed to injuries)
  Ali Abdul Hamad age 20 (succumbed to injuries)
  Mohammed Yusef Hasal age ? (succumbed to injuries)
The British reports from the scene indicate the Palmach attack had been driven back (File WO 275/67). The original Haganah estimates were based on unconfirmed and conflicting reports. Morris had stated anywhere between twenty-one and sixty. The actual fatality count from the attack seems to be 12: nine Arabs, three Jews. "
(these documents are cited on /) 82.26.132.43 (talk) 12:50, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The edit cannot be made because it, unfortunately, violates WP:OR. Get it reliably published and there will be no problem.Nishidani (talk) 13:08, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

text: Not done: As User:Nishidani said, please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.  LakesideMinersMy Talk Page  13:10, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

text: This is interesting and quite possibly correct, but it can't be mentioned in the article until it is properly published. You want to question the casualty figures published by multiple authors based on Hagana reports, but you haven't done the research that you need to do before it is publishable. Most particularly, you haven't examined the Hagana reports and instead just dismiss them unseen. It is not good enough. You also pretend to have discovered CO 537/3855 but Morris cited it in different publications for other events in that same month. You also claim that Morris relied on Milstein, but Morris (in Birth Revisited) does not mention Milstein or any archive reference numbers matching Milstein's. Personally I suspect some confusion between deaths and casualties, but that's a guess. Zerotalk 13:26, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 October 2019 

message: Two Morris titles, not one, so year needs to be added. Once there's a "Bibliography" section, it must be used. Can't do it myself right now. Arminden (talk) 16:55, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  References & Bibliography need fixing