Talk:The Sergeants affair

message: why is there no use of word terrorism? same evil as ISIS. Juror1 (talk) 00:57, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: The timetable does not allow it - UNSCOP was formed in May 1947 and visited Israel on June. Whether Irgun operations had a major influence on the British decision to let the UN decide on the ate of Palestine has been debated quite extensively. But the Sergeants Affair could not have been a factor given the timetable. At best it effected the decision on executions. Mashkin (talk) 08:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It happened while UNSCOP was visiting, and was concurrent with the Exodus Affair. Sources say it influenced the British public opinion to leave Palestine. Also, I would appreciate it if you stopped accusing me of "corrupting" the entry, since I'm the one who created it, and you are the one who keeps removing sources information. -- Nudve (talk) 11:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The timetable makes the influence you want to insert impossible: once the British agreed to the formation of UNSCOP they essentially agreed to leave abandon the Mandate. This decision was made well before the affair. Now suddenly you are claiming that the afair influenced UNSCOP. Well, UNSCOP has already left Israel by the time it happened (they have not submitted their report yet). In any case this is a different claim (which is at least not entirely impossible time-wise, just far fetched). There is a debate whether  the Irgun's and other organizations actions influenced the British decision or at least impacted its timing (see for instance מאיר פעיל ופנחס יורמן, מבחן התנועה הציונית 1931-1948: מרות ההנהגה המדינית מול הפורשים, הוצאת צ'ריקובר, 2003. But there can be no real debate that the he Sergeants affair could not have influenced it. The fact that you started this entry does not give you any privileges .     Mashkin (talk) 15:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sources say otherwise, but since it's just the lead, I'll just remove it. The info you inserted instead is not supported by the source. -- Nudve (talk) 16:43, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

text: This article justifies as a sort of fair reprisal the kidnapping and killing in cold murder of two British NCOs by Zionist terrorists in the waning Palestine of 1947-48. It's the same case as that of Guilad Shalit nowadays. Double standard.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.142.175.22 (talk) 12:25, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The affair could not have been a catalyst for British withdrawal

message: Couple of questions, First is does this really belong in the article
:Fifty abattoir slaughter men in Birkenhead "refused to handle kosher meat for a week as a protest against the murder of the two British sergeants in Palestine"
Then if it does, does an incident where meat packers refused to handle kosher meat for a week fall under a riot? TWilliams9 (talk) 07:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't mind removing this sentence, or renaming the section. What do you suggest? -- Nudve (talk) 07:54, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't view the information as particularly important, I would suggest removing it. If anyone objects to removing it, then maybe it can be moved.  TWilliams9 (talk) 15:12, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright. -- Nudve (talk) 15:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Riots 

message: You keep referring to "British police." Every reference I can find to the police seems to indicate that they were not British, but rather locals. Do you have a source showing that they were either members of a British police force or at least predominantly made up of British nationals? If not, it should be changed to read simply "police." FergusM1970 (talk) 16:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The poilice force had locals (Jews and Arabs) but (i) as an institution it belong to the British administration (ii) the top brass and those working on the sensitive issues were British. In general, in the said period there was martial law and the military was more significant. Mashkin (talk) 06:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. However I have added the word "colonial" and a link to the PPF article, as I feel that just calling them "British" police is likely to give a false impression. It was a British-run force, but not part of the actual organisation generally thought of as the British police. FergusM1970 (talk) 08:43, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: British Police

message: I do not believe that a M.Phil Thesis in Modern Middle Eastern Studies is a reliable source, and suggest that references to Paul Bagon's thesis be removed.93.96.148.42 (talk) 05:04, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The Bagon thesis is an RS. It is a thesis from a well known university on the topic. Are you arguing against reliance on theses? Mashkin (talk) 09:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, especially masters level theses - they are not fully reliable sources. Articles from peer reviewed journals should be prefered.93.96.148.42 (talk) 19:36, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Unreliable Source

message: It's not clear from the article whether the men were military or police. Does anyone know? Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 15:13, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Fergus. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 16:25, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: My mistake, they were Intelligence Corps soldiers. FergusM1970 (talk) 15:18, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sergeants 

message: I have added this template to the article to give further context.93.96.148.42 (talk) 19:17, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terrorism Template 

message: WP:AT: Shouldn't the article title be Sergeants affair without the initial The?      ←   ZScarpia   18:06, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Article title

message: Since I first saw this article a recurring feature has been that many editors insist in writing "jew" with an initial capital. In English only proper nouns are capitalised, and "jew" is a common noun. While it may be customary for followers of Judaism to capitalise the word "jew," it's not correct English and I suggest we cease doing it. Otherwise we might as well start capitalising "policeman" and "militant."
The same goes for "jewish," but "Judaism," of course, is a proper noun.
On a related note, is it really necessary to dehumanise the victims of the British reprisals by referring to them as "jews"? Can't we call them "civilians" or "people"? Their religious opinions weren't the most important fact about them, after all.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by FergusM1970 (talk • contribs) 17:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you looked in a dictionary? In the ones I have at home, as well as an online version, the word  Jew is capitalised when it is being used as a noun (as is the word  Arab).        ←   ZScarpia   18:10, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it does seem to have become a convention. However the fact remains that "jew," "arab" and so on are not proper nouns and should not be capitalised. It's not a big deal though, so I will immediately cease losing sleep over it. I do note that the wiki article on the word "jew" only capitalises it in English and German (and in German, of course, it's actually correct.) FergusM1970 (talk) 14:35, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: In an old King James Bible, Jews and Arabians get a capitalised first letter, along with Pharisees, Sadducees, Zealots etc. In my dictionary, words like Apache and Zulu also get capitalised. Are you sure that they aren't proper nouns?        ←   ZScarpia   17:04, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep. "Jerusalem" is a proper noun. "Bob" is a proper noun. "Jew," "arab" and "tree" are common nouns. However there does seem to be a convention that common nouns derived from proper nouns (Jew/Judaism, German/Germany etc) get capitalised, so I should probably get back in my box and go with accepted usage on this one. FergusM1970 (talk) 20:23, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it does seem that nationalities and adherents to the religions (or sects of the religions) get capitalised. Apparently there is a growing trend to drop the initial capital in Web (the capital initial letter in Internet already seems to be pretty much a lost cause). Interestingly, we seem to have French dressing, but french fries.        ←   ZScarpia   14:59, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspect it's just a sign of the English language's continuing progress away from its German roots. As for French fries, I would personally capitalise the first F (oh look, I did...) so it's probably a personal choice, although not being American I'd never actually use the term anyway; I call them Pommes in Germany and chips in the UK. It's all very strange. As for religion, I am an ex christian and it would never even occur to me to capitalise christian, christianity etc. However many people do. FergusM1970 (talk) 09:03, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capitalisation 

message: There exists a memorial grove near Netanya, called "חורשת הסרגנטים" or "יער הסרגנטים" -- "sergeants grove" It is mentioned as a major tourist attraction in Netanya http://www.govisitisrael.com/tour-israel/169/ though no mention about who were the sergeants.
As an interesting side fact: this grove is a home to the extremely rare "Iris atropurpurea" flower -- the earliest blooming Iris. --Voldemar (talk) 13:10, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  The memorial grove 

message: I have deleted the claim that:
:"However, Martin himself did not consider himself Jewish, as illustrated by the fact that his headstone is not marked with a star of David: the headstones of servicemen in Commonwealth War Cemeteries are marked with the symbol appropriate to their religion, if any, as declared by the serviceman. Therefore the fact that his headstone is marked with a cross indicates that he was in fact Christian."
The cross is the default marker on CWGC headstones, and alternatives are generally only used where there was active information to the contrary, either a previous self-declaration by the individual themselves, or subsequently by their family, but that didn't always happen. Martin may very well have identified himself as Christian, or his family may have, but it is equally possible that the cross was merely assumed to be appropriate, so in itself it cannot be given the weight that the above text implies. Nick Cooper (talk) 22:38, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Martin's religion 

message: I can confirm that Bethell, the source cited, did write that the rioting was antisemitic.       ←   ZScarpia   18:25, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Antisemitic rioting in British cities 

message: As discussed on my talk page,Red Stone Arsenal  you need to put the right link up to exact page(if you can, I cannot get it to work) otherwise you are causing confusion.The link you have there is this one which says nothing about what is claimed and the link you need is this one up .People should not have to wade thru two links to get to info plus put the page number in the link info it is a very long article.Owain the 1st (talk) 15:49, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: only those who are willfully obtuse are confused. Nonetheless, I've linked to the .pdf Red Stone Arsenal (talk) 17:07, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You cannot expect a person to click on your link and then have to click on another link and then have to go thru over 100 pages just to find the source of what is posted in the lead.It has nothing to do with being obtuse at all, it has to do with putting proper sources to statements in articles which you failed to do.You have also failed to put the page number as I asked in the link info.So now you have a link to the right article but anybody will still have to wade thru 129 pages to find it.I suggest again that you include it to avoid time wasting trying to find it.Owain the 1st (talk) 17:12, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not be bold and add the page number yourself? You are quick on the reverts, willfully violating the 1RR, constantly accusing other editors who disagree with you of "vandalism", yet not bold enough to add a page number yourself? Marokwitz (talk) 17:15, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

text: 2nd that. feel free to add page numbers (note that you will then have to split the reference up to 7 different ones, one for each time/different page it is used). That's a lot of work just to satisfy willful obtuseness, so I'm not going to invest my time doing it. Red Stone Arsenal (talk) 17:57, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry but I am not here to alter your mistake.You made a big deal about it being in the link and it was not.I had to explain to you that you had the wrong link and suggested that you put up the right link which you have now done and also to put up the page number which you failed to do.So you have put up a link now that anybody looking at will have to wade thru 129 pages to find what it is for.It is not very good editing frankly. You need to sort that out.Thanks Owain the 1st (talk) 18:01, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Is it really so difficult for you to admit you were wrong? Marokwitz (talk) 18:07, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  I was not wrong, there was no mention of what was stated in the article in the link provided.They had to change the link and that is what has happened. Anyway I think I have covered everything here.Owain the 1st (talk) 18:12, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: last link in lead 

message: In my opinion, the etzel.org.il website should not be being used as a reliable source.       ←   ZScarpia   17:17, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No, of course it cannot be.  Zerotalk 17:28, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  etzel.org.il website 

message: A number of editors keep re-adding a macro requesting that page numbers for citations to Bethell and Bowyer Bell be given. In the references, the Bethell citation gives a page range, pages 323 to 340, which should be adequate I think. Bowyer Bell has an extensive index. By looking it up, the appropriate pages for the content in question can be seen to be 237 and 238.      ←   ZScarpia   09:20, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bethell - page numbers. 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on The Sergeants affair. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080423215046/http://www.etzel.org.il:80/english/ac14.htm to http://www.etzel.org.il/english/ac14.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:14, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified