Talk:Kfar Etzion massacre

message: :Image:EtzionPrisoners.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 Wikipedia articles 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 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:EtzionPrisoners.jpg

message: :I am having trouble understanding why does the article say at the end that Israel has "recaptured" the settlement after 1967 war. Has it ever captured the settlement before? Does "recapture" indicate that by the quality of being a settlement it was Israel, then it was lost, and then Israel recaptured it? I might have gotten it all wrong, my history is a bit weaker than it should be.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.16.225.98 (talk) 14:19, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article content 

message: What are the estimates of the number killed in the massacre and what was the breakdown between civilians and non-civilians? Shouldn't this be in the opening paragraph? 
--86.155.231.129 (talk) 12:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not clear. Martin Gilbert, in Jerusalem - Illustrated History Atlas has "15 Jews were machine gunned to death after they had surrendered, and were being photographed by their captors". Page 93, part of a caption that states "12 May 100 Jews killed. Only four survived". But on page 97 in the same book there is a caption : "14 May - Arabs destroy Etzion Bloc, 232 Jews killed, 268 taken prisoner".  Yigal Allon, in Shield of David - The Story of Israel's Armed Force writes "There were only fifteen Jews alive in Kfar Etzion and they were shot on surrendering; late that afternoon, the Red Cross arranged for the settlers of Masuot, Revadim and Ein Tsurim to be driven into Arab captivity". Page 196. Considering the background of these two sources I would suggest this article overstates the number slaughtered.Padres Hana (talk) 16:51, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Question

message: Jim, it is hard to take seriously your claim that you are applying the "pillars" of WP's neutral words policy, when your edits includes things like changing "massacre" to "allegations of massacre" or "killed" to 'attacked" - those are POV changes. </br>
There are two problems with your change of "irregulars" to "fighters" and "soldiers" to fighters. One is that it creates ambiguity: when you change "Arab irregular forces continued small-scale attacks against the bloc" to "Arab forces continued small-scale attacks against the bloc"- we lose the context of who was attacking - the Arab legion, or the irregulars. The second problem is that the Haganah troops are referred to as soldiers by almost all reliable sources, as was pointed out to you by several editors. Momma's Little Helper (talk) 02:16, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This looks like a blatant mass-edit. The article clearly contains pictures with the text "Arab Legion Major Abdullah el Tell (far right) with Captain Hikmat Mihyar (far left) pose with two of the four Jewish survivors of the Fall of Gush Etzion. Around May 13, 1948". This should be enough (photographic!) evidence that the Arab Legion participated in this battle. 79.179.193.36 (talk) 18:02, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutral words and irregulars 

message: An unsourced sentence in the section, The Massacre, reads:
"In another account, after the 133 defenders had assembled, they were photographed by a man in a kaffiyeh, and then an armored car apparently belonging to the Arab Legion opened fire with its machine gun, and then Arab irregulars joined in."
I think that's a misinterpretation of the account. In the version I've seen, which was quoted, I think, in one of Benny Morris's books, it said that firing started after an armoured car arrived. But, it did not say that any of the shooting emanated from the armoured car. The sentence bears investigation. Also, a citation should be provided.
    ←   ZScarpia   23:17, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: "the IDF historian of the affair:...The Legion's armoured cars opened up with machinegun fire, either taking part in the massacre or in order to stop it (as they told the [jewish] prisoners afterwards)" (Benny Morris,The Road to Jerusalem: Glubb Pasha, Palestine and the Jews, p. 139) Ykantor (talk) 05:45, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Section ''The Massacre'': firing from an armoured car

message: The only dispute about the perpetrators is if it was done  entirely by Arab irregulars, or by Arab irregulars with participation of the Arab Legion. How is it less vague to say "disputed" than to say "Arab forces"? What is the policy -based objection to putting "Arab forces" in the box?  Epson Salts (talk) 18:19, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Forces and irregulars dont work together. Forces imply part of an organized armed forces. Irregulars arent that. nableezy - 18:29, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree that "forces" implies organized  armed forces , but, accepting your position for now,  can we put "Arab irregulars" or "Arab Irregular forces" in there? Epson Salts (talk) 20:03, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: "Arab" is also vague lol. Arabs=Palestinians? Jordanians? Both? --Makeandtoss (talk) 20:38, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: How is it vague? Are Palestinians  not Arab? Jordanians not Arab? The term covers both, and is certainly more informative than "disputed". But here's anpther option: we put in "Arab irregulars or Arab Legion" Epson Salts (talk) 21:16, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Arab irregulars or Arab Legion", as if the probability of one of them being the perpetuator is equal. As I said, the involvement of the legion is disputed, you still want to include both?--Makeandtoss (talk) 22:01, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, how about we put in ""Arab irregulars" then, as I suggested a couple of edits up? Or is this game going to continue for a while, using any pretext to avoid saying Arabs did it? Epson Salts (talk) 22:05, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Go ahead --Makeandtoss (talk) 22:19, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox (2) 

message: Killing soldiers in a battle isn't a massacre Farbne (talk) 18:25, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct, but killing soldiers who have laid down their weapons and surrendered is a massacre. If you read all the argument above, you'll see that it is by no means simple to disentangle all the contradictory accounts. Zerotalk 01:02, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  How is killing soldiers a massacre? 

message: In the background, the sentence "On two occasions, April 12 and May 3, Arab Legion units were ambushed, and several legionnaires killed or wounded[14] by the bloc militias, - Kfar Etzion soldiers being directly involved in the incident on April 12[15]" is sourced to "Chronology of International Events and Documents, Volume 4 Royal Institute of International Affairs, 1947 p.270". 
Is this an indication that this event occurred in 1947? It's entirely unclear in the description  that it is discussing something which happened a year before this event. Is it possible the dates in the  backround  could be clarified?2601:249:8180:28D0:3583:8758:4230:714D (talk) 23:14, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I have fixed this and added a url. The events were in 1948. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:54, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date clarification? 

message: Change: Of the 127 Haganah fighters and Jewish kibbutzniks who died during the defence of the settlement, Martin Gilbert states that fifteen were killed on surrendering. 
to: Approximately 127 Jewish kibbutzniks and some Haganah fighters died during the defence of the settlement, several historians believe the number to be 220.
Source:  A total of 157 defenders died in the battle of Gush Etzion (Levi, 1986), including those killed in the massacre at Kfar Etzion. About 2/3 of them were residents and the remainder were Hagana or Palmach soldiers. Israeli historical geographer Yossi Katz put the death toll at 220. Most of the kibbutz's male residents were killed. Citation: 28 2603:8000:AE43:B033:BCAC:F120:5924:CC99 (talk) 16:54, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification of death toll