The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive)
You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic
The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are:
Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive.
Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.
With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:
Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring.
Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related articles
This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Wikipedia. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
If you are a sympathetic to the Arab view, please do not vandalize this article. These events did occur. Instead, please enter such information that you consider important to understanding the events. 68.5.64.17801:51, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Was Jerusalem in Israel at that time I think it is historically wrong to say that the site of the battle was in Jerusalem, Israel =="seige vs. "battle"==
The very name of this article represents a one-sided point of view. A siege is when one side is inside and the other side is outside. However there were lots of Arabs living in Jerusalem and Arab neighborhoods were under attack by Jewish forces as well as the reverse. The writing so far also reflects only the Zionist viewpoint. A better name would be something like "Battle for Jerusalem (1948)". --Zerotalk10:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't change anything. It only means that the Arab forces couldn't care less if it also effected Arab population. There's no dispute that there was a siege. Calling it what it is is not POV. Amoruso04:21, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I know next to nothing about this history, Is "Siege of Jerusalem" the term that is commonly or historically applied to these actions? A quick Google of - "Siege of Jerusalem" 1948 - yields 15,300 hits, - Siege of Jerusalem 70 - yeilds 44,700 hits, 9,330 hits for - "Siege of Jerusalem" 1099 OR 1186 -, - Nebuchadnezzar "Siege of Jerusalem" - gets 21,100 hits. I'm not saying you are wrong about the name being misleading however "Siege of Jerusalem" 1948 does appear to be common. I would like to read more about the naming of the article. Are you interested in contributing more from a non-Zionist viewpoint? SmithBlue15:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure there is a consensus English name for this. Zionist accounts tend to call it things like "Siege of Jerusalem", while Arab accounts will refer to it as the Zionist attempt to ethnically cleanse Jerusalem (and so forth). We should choose a name that reflects neither point of view as much as possible. I suggest "Battle for Jerusalem (1948)" because it does not carry an implication that one side was bad and the other was good. There is nothing pro-Arab about it at all, for example the Zionist Jewish Virtual Library uses it. --Zerotalk07:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is possible for a common name not to have consensus about its NPOV. And for the English language to change to reflect this. (or not) Eg; chairman to chairperson. And for that change to be partial ie Google; chairperson - 29 million, chairman - 149 million. At present Google gives - "Battle for Jerusalem" 1948 - 920 hits, compared to - "Siege of Jerusalem" 1948 - yields 15,300 hits. Which separates them by an order of magnitude.
It isn't "the" common name. 15,300 hits is a really tiny number for this topic. Compare it to Jerusalem 1948 - 1,390,000 hits. I repeat, there is NO common widely-accepted name for this. That means we choose a neutral name. Neutrality is just as important as popularity, or more important. --Zerotalk11:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In general I'd disagree strongly that "Neutrality is more important than popularity." Common useage is the basis of language. If you want to go further into generalities do you agree that "a consensus English name" and "a common name" can be very different things? SmithBlue04:57, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Zero is right.
There was 100,000 Jews and 70,000 Arabs living in the Jerusalem area. And if the siege of the jewish population during march and after Nachshon operation is one of the event of the battle for Jerusalem, there were many others, like Kilshon operation.
Then, the matter would be simple. If this is an event of a larger battle for Jerusalem, then simply make an article Battle for Jerusalem, and mention this as one of the events. Problem solved. Thaum1el (talk) 13:12, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The dispute over whether to call it a "siege" or a "battle" is amusing, but seems a red herring. The main flaw in the article is that it downplays, nearly omits, the significant fact: That the Arab Legion won, and forced the entire Jewish civilian population out of the eastern part of Jerusalem. This fact needs to be emphasized. Ethnic cleansing is a matter of interest. Other facts should be included: What the Jordanian government did to Jewish institutional buildings, such as synagogues; what proportion of the Legion's officers were British, formally "seconded" to the Legion, etc. DJStahl (talk) 18:03, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Battle of the Roads". The Arab League sponsored Arab Liberation Army, composed of Palestinian Arabs and Arabs from other Middle Eastern countries, attacked Jewish communities in Palestine, and Jewish traffic on major roads. The Arab forces mainly concentrated on major roadways in an attempt to cut off Jewish communities from each other. Arab forces at that time had engaged in sporadic and unorganized ambushes since the riots of December 1947, and began to make organized attempts to cut off the highway linking Tel Aviv with Jerusalem, the city's only supply route. The Arab Army cut off supplies and controlled several strategic vantage points overlooking the sole highway linking Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, enabling them to fire at convoys going to the city. By late March 1948, the vital road that connected Tel Aviv to western Jerusalem, where about 16% of all Jews in the Palestinian region lived, was cut off and under siege. (emphasis mine)Scott Adler08:42, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you want a contemporary account, read John Roy Carlson's "From Cairo to Damascus" (Knopf, 1951). An American of Armenian birth, Carlson joined Egyptian adventurers besieging the city. He often slipped away to report on the war from the other side -- one of these chapters, chapter 14, is called "Life in the Besieged City." In that chapter, on page 262, he described British shell fire directed at Jewish civilian areas long after British forces were supposed to have left. Another useful contemporary account is that of Dov Joseph, the Israeli military governor during the siege. In "The Faithful City'" Joseph describes the stringent rationing the siege imposed, including a limit of five liters of water per person per day -- for eight months.
Check the Wikipedia entry on Jordanian Field Marshall Habis Al-Majali for his view on the siege, although his recall appears to be fuzzy due to age. (He told the same Sharon story to AFP, which swallowed it.) This entry, clearly sympathetic to the Jordanians, uses the term "besieged" to describe the Jews of Jerusalem.Scott Adler09:04, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There has been a siege (starting in Feb, culminating end of March) but the whole story is not a siege. After Nachshon, the city was not under siege any more. After 15 May, Jerusalem were again under siege BUT IDF and Arab Legion fought and it became a battle for Jerusalem. Alithien18:21, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer to use neither. The term "Arabist" originally referred to a scholar specializing in Arab history and cultire AND to a school of diplomacy within the US State Department that is now in decline. The term "Zionist" originally referred to a person who supported Jewish national self-determination. It is now used more as a nasty, de-humanizing, insult, as in "you filthy dirty scum-sucking supporter of the unprovoked massacre of helpless Palestinian innocents".Scott Adler03:50, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It was a siege in a civil war contexte between jewish and arab Palestinians until end of March.
I'm suggesting that what is most notable about these events is the POV narratives pinned on them. Can we combine disparate narratives, show the historical events that underpin them and present the various narratives in their absolute world defining fullness or do the narratives become weak shadows showing so little of their power over people in the real world as to be unrecognisable? Please point me to a Wikipedia entry that successfully shows both the power of these narratives and the historical underpinnings. SmithBlue04:52, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would, if I could understand what you just said. ;) Are you referring to the sources? I will also use many others. I chose those because they dealt directly with the issues of the existance of the siege. I would love to include my interview with Anwar Nusseiba, the Palestinian commander who succeeded Abd-el Kadr al-Husseini, but alas, it is original material. The best source of third party quotes is "O Jerusalem" by Collins and LaPierre, mainly because of the extensive interviews the two writers did with participants on both sides, including the normally reclusive Grand Mufti -- those who were still alive in 1970.
The main controversy in this narrative is the fact that it happened at all. The fact that it happened makes one side very upset. Thus if Jews were forced to counter Iraqi soldiers attacking them from inside the St. Simeon Monastery, the fall of Katamon was a strictly military event rather than a drive to expell helpless civilians as the Arab side usually contends. It is not without reason that there is no Wikipedia article for the St. Simeon Monastery. I hope to correct this imbalance. It's all about balance and context. If you eliminate the siege, there is no context.Scott Adler23:56, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot to mention, the quote from palestinehistory.com is from a pro-Palestinian site, but one that acknowledges that the siege happened.Scott Adler23:58, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Emil Ghuri succeeded to al-Husseini.
Lapierre and Collins is ONE source but it focuses on Jerusalem, of course.
Mufti has nothing to do with this battle. He was far away during all these events around Jerusalem.
The siege of Jerusalem was a complex series of military and terrorist events beginning on December 1, 1947 and lasting through January, 1949. The siege was initiated by local Palestinian Arab militias immediately after the United Nations adopted a resolution ordering partition of Palestine into Jewish and Arab states. The siege was continued by the Transjordan Arab Legion, assisted by British officers and by the Egyptian Army until the signing of the 1949 Armistice Agreements.
The intention of besieging forces was to isolate and destroy or disposess the 100,000 Jewish residents of the city. The siege lasted until Israeli forces were able to build a bypass road through the Judean Hills called the Burma Road and by conquering the neighboring towns of Lod and Ramle.
The siege didn't start on Dec 1, 1947 but later in January
The siege didn't start untlin Jan, 1949. Battles between IDF and Arab Legion stopped after 10 days' campaign in July
The intention of Husseini was to prevent the partition plan and to fight his ennemies
The siege was "broken" with Nachshon Operation.
Lydda, not Lod.
===Please sign===
Writer of "facts": This is going to be a contentious article, but one which has to be written. If you believe your facts, please sign them (or even better, reference them), else they may be considered "inferior." --Seejyb02:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The siege began slowly, but the first attack on the road was on Dec. 1, 1947. Six Jews were dragged out of a BOAC bus, separated from Arab passengers and shot. Travel on the road was no longer safe for Jews without armed escort.
The siege started and was broken several times.
All Jews were Husseini's "enemies" -- including the Jewish children of Hungary. He was responsible for killing 2,000 of them. And Jerusalem was not "partitioned," it was a corpus separatum with a guaranteed, gerrymandered Arab majority.
If the siege ws ""broken"" (your quotes in my quotes) with Operaion Nachson in early April, what happed at Latrun in late May and early June?
Lydda is Arabic for the ancient name Lod. It was Lydda in 1947, but has been Lod for 58 years (how it came to be Lod is another story). I will use both terms.
I fully realized when I started this article that it would be subject to heavy POV comments and probably will be repeatedly vandalized. That goes with the territory. Scott Adler 23:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Its a good thing it hasnt made you more of a dick —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.170.186.177 (talk) 04:20, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, for most of the war the blockade was not total, and Jewish convoys managed to get through occasionally. The situation became critical by March 1948, and in order to lift the blockade and resupply the city the Haggana initiated "Nachshon Operation" on the first half of April. But after the operation the blockade resumed. Evidence to that is that 12 members of Minhelet Haam were stuck in Jerusalem and were unable to attend the declaration of independence on May 14th. Later in May, the Jewish quarter of the Old city, which was in a siege of its own and cut off from the rest of the Jewish neighborhoods, has surrendered to the Arab Legion (I think that was on May 28th). Also on the same month, the Jewish outposts in Jerusalem region, Gush Etzion in the south and Atarot-Neve Yaakov in the north, were conquerred by the Arab Legion.
In my understanding, the blockade was lifted after the completion of "Burma Road", which enabled the Israeli forces to get to Jerusalem by alternative route that bypassed Latrun, that controlled the main road to Jerusalem and remained in Jordanian territory until 1967. This must have been sometime during the summer of 1948, a lot earlier that January 1949. Actually, there was de facto sieze fire in the Jerusalem theatre from the 2nd "Hafuga" till the end of the war, with the exception of another failed attack on Latrun in October.--Nitsansh (talk) 19:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could you develop your reasonning ? I don't understand the link between what is written in WP:MILMOS and our case.
I base mine on the fact latests scholars use those words :
Ytzhak Levi, Nine Measures (1986) talk about "the battles for Jerusalem"
Arie Itzchaki, Latroun (1982) talks about "the battle for the road of Jerusalem".
Meir Avizohar, (2002) titles The Battle for Jerusalem, 1948,
Benny Morris, 1948, (2008) uses the word Battle for Jerusalem.
On the other side, I found :
Dov Joseph who titles The faithful city: The Siege of Jerusalem, 1948 but he is not a scholar, he is a protagonist...
And there is what could sound as a "compromis" but again from a protagonist :
Shamir, S. (2001). The Battle for Jerusalem: How the siege was lifted. Jerusalem: Posner & Sons.
I also think that the use of the word "siege" lacks neutrality of point of view. For the Palestinian Arabs, it was not a "siege" and for the Arab Legion who fought at Latroun and in the west city, it was not either. I think also the issue (division of the city) shows both Israelis and Jordanians fought for the city and the events show it was a fierced "battle"...
Intuitively, I also tend toward "siege". Sometimes, titles are chosen for drama, which is not appropriate from an encyclopedic perspective. For example, scholars talk about the Rape of Ethiopia or the Rape of Nanking, but an encyclopedia should not use such titles. This case is different, of course, but it does ring as though "battle for Jerusalem" is meant to indicate the heroism of the army that lifted the siege. -- Nudve (talk) 05:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
I think the facts talk by themselves to show how important it was to relieve the siege of the Jewish Community. Both times, it was done at the last moment, a few days before the catastrophe.
But the other point of view cannot be forgotten. Eg, here is the official way Jordaninans talk about the events : Defense of Jerusalem.
And, it not either false. The Palestinians Arabs sent numerous call for help to Abdallah in the last days of the Mandate because the Haganah and the IZL had started the "conquest" of East Jerusalem. More, the siege was technically relieved at that moment. It is the cleverness of Glubb and the difficult situation that enabled the Arab Legion to take Latroun without fight and to keep it despite the 5 Israeli assaults.
From this other point of view, we can hardly talk about a "siege".
If you want to move it so badly, and believe you are in the right, then why on earth haven't you filed a WP:RM instead of starting a lame edit war? пﮟოьεԻ5716:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What edit war ?
I moved and S. started one. And I discussed at several places.
Please, what are your reasonning and your arguments ? Are they just procedurial ?~
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with*'''Support'''or*'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
Oppose - the current title accurately describes the Jordanian siege that took place in the 1948 war on the non-Jordanian city. It also had all the attributes of a siege, not a regular battle, similarly to Siege of Leningrad. It should be noted that a siege is a type of battle. -- Ynhockey(Talk)17:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment : It was a corpus separatum with 50/50 Jews and Araabs. But what about Operation Kilshon and Yevushi ? What about the fact Palestinian Arab called the Abdallah at their rescue in May ? And what about Deir Yassin and the attack of some other Arab localities ? (in more of the siege we are all aware of) ?
Oppose It is known in history books as "Ha-matzor al yerushalayim" which translates as Siege of Jerusalem. Wikipedia should not be reinventing history or historical terminology.--Gilabrand (talk) 05:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I will support a re-name, if reliable sources are highlighed that describe the military confrontation in the city as a battle, as opposed to a siege. 86.146.241.248 (talk) 22:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ytzhak Levi, Nine Measures (1986) talk about "the battles for Jerusalem"
Arie Itzchaki, Latroun (1982) talks about "the battle for the road of Jerusalem".
Meir Avizohar, (2002) titles The Battle for Jerusalem, 1948,
Benny Morris, 1948, (2008) uses the word Battle for Jerusalem.
On the other side, I found :
Dov Joseph who titles The faithful city: The Siege of Jerusalem, 1948 but he is not a scholar, he is a protagonist...
And there is what could sound as a "compromis" but again from a protagonist :
Shamir, S. (2001). The Battle for Jerusalem: How the siege was lifted. Jerusalem: Posner & Sons.
I also think that the use of the word "siege" lacks neutrality of point of view. For the Palestinian Arabs, it was not a "siege" and for the Arab Legion who fought at Latroun and in the west city, it was not either. I think also the issue (division of the city) shows both Israelis and Jordanians fought for the city and the events show it was a fierced "battle"...
Here is a map of the zone under Israeli control at 15-20 mai 1948.
With whether the road from the coast to Jerusalem or Latrun occupied. It is difficult not to see the Jewish Jerusalem population completed isolated. More all supply were blocked.
On the other hand, people should be aware that from 4 April to 15 May, Haganah, Palmach, IZL and LHI took the offensive and conquered numerous Palestinian villages in the Jerusalem corridor and also Arab quarters at Jerusalem itself. Was the plan to conquer as much of Jerusalem as possible, or not ? The Palestinians were completely crushed... That can hardly be described as a siege.
More, siege would mean that the attacker wants to conquer the city. That is not clear at all. It is far from being agreed that this was the Arab intentions.
Many historians systematically point out that Arab Legion never entered in the area under Jewish Control according to the '47 plan. Glubb always "proved" keeping Latrun was important to prevent Israeli to take Cisjordan/Judea/samaria. On the other hand, on 12 may, 3 days before the official war, there was the massacre of Kfar Etzion...
It is a complex event that requires a 100% neutral title.
The one chosen by most historians, even Israelis, is Battle for Jerusalem
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Ceedjee - 4 months ago, you requested a move of the article name from "siege" to "battle". There was a discussion about this, and the consensus was not to move. That's the end of that story. A "POV" tag is not something you then slap on the article to show your disapproval. The issue was discussed, and resolved. You are not happy with the resolution, but you can't deface articles because of that. NoCal100 (talk)
There was no discussion and the article should be moved.
So, it is pov-ed. There were no answer to my point.
Anyway, don't you think my knowledge on the issue is higher than all the other people who gave their mind on this talk page. You should know and respect this. So, if I say it is pov-ed, wp:AGF is enough to leave the tag until a real discussion (based on wp:rs sources) has taken place.
Look at the paragraph above - there was a requested move by you, preceded by and followed by a discussion, in which absolutely no one supported your position. Demands to respect your authority based on alleged "higher knowledge" is not the way Wikipedia works. NoCal100 (talk) 15:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The IP supported my position and nobody answered my comments.
The survey had 3 "opposes", no "support". Peple addressed your issues by pointing out that it meets the definition of "siege" and has been described as such in reliable sources. This case is closed, and you can't slap a tag on it just because your opinion was not accepted. NoCal100 (talk) 14:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NPOV means reporting the wp:rs pov on an issue in giving each of them their due weight.
As provided here above, scholars refers to these events as the battle for Jerusalem. That is the main and majoritary pov to describe these events.
The word siege had at least 3 connotations that the events had not :
there was not one side inside Jerusalem (the initial owner), there forever, and another one outside. There were more Palestinians at Jerusalem on Nov47 than Jews.
historians consider the Arabs didn't try to take control of the city, the just prevented the Israeli to take control of the Arab side
usually the assumed besieged is the defender and the other side, the attacker. Here, Yishuv and later Israeli forces were the attackers most of the time...
Some sources do refer to it as a siege, such as Yoav Gelber (p. 145, 200), for example. It is true that there were Palestinian Arabs in the city as well, and that there were battles to lift the siege, but that doesn't mean it wasn't a siege. You have not explained why this is a POV issue. Ideally, this article could include information about life under the siege, as well as the military action. The fact that it currently does neither is not a reason to move it. -- Nudve (talk) 18:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I check for Yoav Gelber more accurately... Did you take time to check what I had gathered ?
Ytzhak Levi, Nine Measures (1986) talk about "the battles for Jerusalem"
Arie Itzchaki, Latroun (1982) talks about "the battle for the road of Jerusalem". (he is the top level scholar on the issue)
Meir Avizohar, (2002) titles The Battle for Jerusalem, 1948,
Benny Morris, 1948, (2008) uses the word Battle for Jerusalem.
On the other side, I found :
Dov Joseph who titles The faithful city: The Siege of Jerusalem, 1948 but he is not a scholar, he is a protagonist..
And there is what could sound as a "compromis" but again from a protagonist :
Shamir, S. (2001). The Battle for Jerusalem: How the siege was lifted. Jerusalem: Posner & Sons.
I have explained why this is a pov-ed solution. You don't comment all of my points. I add this is also because it only gives the Israeli point of view and because the mainstream point of view, from historians is differents.
Anyway :
1) isn't "battle for Jerusalem" more accurante ?
2) isn't "battl" more factual ? See the scholar !
3) if we write to Yoav Gelber, will you agree to follow his mind ?
4) siege is not the pov of view of the Israelis ? In the view of the Arabs,we should talk about "defence of Jerusalem" for exactly the same events.
nb: p.200, I see "siege", "fightings", "blockade", ... and Gelber never clearly talk about the "siege of Jerusalem" to globalize the situation.
5) don't you think that cherry picking words in one book has far less value, as an argument, than the title of several of books.
There are 2 separate issues here - the tagging, and the factual issue. To address the tagging issue first - this is a behavioral issue, and if it doesn't stop, I will follow up at an administrator's forum. To re-iterate what I've written before: This issues was discussed, when you didn't get your way through discussion, you moved up another step in the dispute resolution and requested a formal name-change, and that request was rejected. The {{POV}} is not a way for you to childishly voice your disapproval of the outcome. That issue has been resolved.
As to the factual issue, even though this has been resolved, you seem to think it was done without sufficient sources, so let's have a more complete listing:
Mission in Palestine, 1948-1952, Pablo de Azcárate, Middle East Institute, 1966 - has a complete chapter (II) titled "The Siege of Jerusalem"
Son of the Cypresses: Memories, Reflections, and Regrets from a Political Life - Meron Benvenisti, U. California Press - he is a notable scholar,publishing in an academic press - has an entire section title "Siege" dedicated to the Seige of Jerusalem . (p.60-62)
The above also quotes Amos Oz, a notable author in his own right, who also describes it as a Siege.
Genesis 1948; the First Arab-Israeli War, Dan Kurzman, World Pub. Co., 1970 - entire chapter on the 'Siege of Jerusalem' (p.343-402)
Political Assassinations by Jews: A Rhetorical Device for Justice, Nachman Ben-Yehuda , SUNY Press, p. 263 - another academic press, calls ita Siege.
Siegecraft - No Fortress Impregnable, Harold Skaarup, iUniverse, 2003 - entire chapter dedicated to Sieges of jerusalem, including a section on the 1948 siege.
You would do well to read your sources, give their dates (old usage, or partisan usage, since 'siege of Jerusalem' is the standard Hebrew designation, is not relevant) rather than google for word hits. Benvenisti, to cite but one example you indicate, actually refers to a 'siege of Jewish Jerusalem' (p.60), and makes it quite clear that in discussing the siege he is referring to a part of Jerusalem, not to the whole city. I'm sure Ceedjee, who has a deep knowledge of the historiography, will check the dates for these publications.
Ceedjee, as you asked me to comment, I will simply add that you will be always outvoted on this. You are right, as Zero was right in 2006, but being more knowledgeable or rational has little weight in these matters. The siege is Hebrew usage, and so far that has stuck because there is a general preference to push Hebrew usage in I/P articles. I can't vote for you, because you asked me to comment, which is perfectly legitimate, but which means my opinion is invalidated as one that might be taken as a canvassed, partisan vote. Best wishes.Nishidani (talk) 10:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Talk about delicious irony - you ask me to "read my sources" - when it is very clear you have not done so. I have not cited Segev, and every single one of the example I have given is an English one, with publication date given. I know you were canvassed by Ceedjee to come and comment since your POV is known and response predictable, but I'd expect you'd put in a little more effort than the half-assed job above. NoCal100 (talk) 14:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I correct Segev = Benvenisti, whose text you refer to, and yet you have not read, I repeat, since the text reads as I quoted it. Ceedjee rightly asked for an opinion, since he is the only competent editor in this area, and is held hostage by people with no record of the kind of detailed study he has undertaken. He did it publicly, and I replied publicly and properly.
As to bias, yours is documented from your first edit on I/P articles and predictable, as is your ignorance. Better to be a half-ass than a complete donkey. Cheers Nishidani (talk) 16:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NoCal,
The sources you give are a little bit old. Would not you have any news ?
My sources are still numerous and still more wp:rs than the one you brings.
As Nishidani points out, Siege is the Jewish perspective.
This title is pov and should be moved. The pov tag is the minimum. It is not normal that the tag is the only thing to do.
My sources are not old. At least one of them is newer than any of the sources you have put together. They were published by academic presses which are every bit as reliable as your sources. You've made a case for a move, that was not accepted - end of story. Please don't continue to disrupt the article by claiming "POV" based on an issue that was discussed and resloved, just because the resolution was not to your liking. NoCal100 (talk) 18:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any reliable sources verifying the claim that "British officers with the Israeli force" were among the belligerents? If not, I will delete it from the infobox within the next few days. --GHcool (talk) 22:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it was supposed to read "British officers with the Jordanian force"! But either way the inclusion is dubious. On the other hand, the British sometimes got involved in the fighting before May 1948. Should they be added in that role? Zerotalk00:51, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Palmach must be added : Harel Palmach brigade was in charge of the of the TelAviv-Jerusalem corridor. More, except 1st and 2nd, all attacks on Latrun were done by Palmach forces of the IDF.
"British officers" in the Israeli forces is exagerated. But if British officers are counted on the Arab side, Mahal could be added on the Israeli side (Mickey Marcus and all others). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.244.172.208 (talk) 18:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to note that at that time the state of Israel was not yet established, so, there is no point refering to it as Israel or to those forces as Israeli forces. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.227.40.61 (talk) 04:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Look at this: According to GHcool: "Before the British Mandate for Palestine expired, Palestinian Arab militias attacked Jews in and around Jerusalem with help from the British in the form of turning a blind eye or occasionally confiscating Haganah weapons.<ref name="Morris217" />" But Morris in that very paragraph says that British troops were defending the Jewish Quarter from Arab attack! This type of distortion can't be allowed. Zerotalk06:26, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, actually no, Morris does not explicitly say that British troops were defending the Jewish Quarter - it says that after an Arab attack, "British troops took up positions around the quarter". He does, however, explicitly say exactly what GHCool wrote: "the British tried to confiscate Haganah weapons.". LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 15:29, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently you stopped reading halfway through the sentence. Let me help you. The whole sentence is "Following an unsuccessful attack by Arab militiamen on 11 November 1947, British troops took up positions around the quarter, forming an outer cordon sanitaire around the Haganah-defended perimeter." A cordon sanitaire is a defensive barrier. Just like I said. Zerotalk00:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A cordon sanitaire is a buffer zone, nothing more. The chronology outlined in Morris is: Arabs attack the Jewish Quarter, the Haganah sets up a defensive perimeter, the British intersperse themselves between the parties, creating a buffer zone. It does not say this was done to defend the Jewish Quarter - that it you personal interpretation, it could just as well have been to prevent reprisal attacks by the Haganah. The point is, the source explicitly says what GHCool wrote about confiscating Haganah weapons, and does not explicitly say what you claim - that the British were defending the Jewish Quarter. If there's anything that's "outrageously POV and won't stand" it is your spin which is not supported by the source. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 01:45, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The British defence of the Jewish Quarter, during which they sustained deaths and injuries, is described in Haim Levenberg's book. Zerotalk22:48, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
wonderful. Please add the relevant material, and we can move on. 01:53, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
This must be about the most one-sided of all the articles on the 1948 war. Almost every sentence conveys the Jewish point of view without the least pretence of balance. The sources are distorted (see one example above, there are many) and inconvenient key events are not even mentioned. And the use of a Likud heavy as a source is surely a joke. Zerotalk07:36, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please reduce the level of invective in your edits. Dore Gold is a living person, and every Wikipedia page is subject to WP:BLP. I've addressed the example you mentioned above, in which it seems that you are just as guilty of source distortion as GHCool, if not worse. If you have additional specific examples, please list them - but you can't tag an article for "when you have the time". LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 15:33, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete the tag until there is consensus for deleting it. The problems with this page cover nearly every section of it. You removed the page without changing it at all. Here is another example: "This occurred because the British had provided no escort..." Morris does say that no British escort was provided, but he doesn't say the attack was caused by it. Actually he says very explicitly that the attack was in response to the Deir Yassin massacre, which is not mentioned on this page at all despite being one of the defining events of the period. And another: "with help from the British in the form of confiscating Haganah weapons" - a grotesque distortion since the British also confiscated Arab weapons (and there's no mention of the fact that British were being regularly killed by the Irgun and Lehi acting in cooperation from the Haganah). Zerotalk23:53, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't tag and then disappear "until you have time". I'll make an effort to address your concerns as you lay them out, but you do not get to tag articles until such time as you will grace us with your presence, and certainly don't make false claim such as 'You removed the page[sic] without changing it at all." - I changed removed the sentence for which there was no direct support in the cited source. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 01:47, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've modified the convoy statement to reflect that the lack of British escort was not the cause of the massacre. Your comment to the effect that "with help from the British in the form of confiscating Haganah weapons" is a grotesque distortion is without merit - the cited source explicitly says the British engaged in the confiscation of Haganah weapons, in the context of the siege of the Jewish Quarter, and makes no mention of confiscated Arab weapons. The fact that British were being killed by the Irgun and Lehi has no relevance to the issue of the siege. The only remaining issue you have highlighted is Deir Yassin. It may be possible to incorporate Morris's claims that the massacre was "revenge" for Deir Yassin, alongside his speculation that the British stood idly by and let 70+ academics, doctors students and nurses burn to death since they saw it as "fitting" revenge for Deir Yassin. What do you suggest? LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 02:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The fitting revenge bit is just Morris's speculation; a speculation I find unlikely. My own opinion is that the British just didn't give a shit who got killed just as long as it wasn't British soldiers or personnel. --GHcool (talk) 06:50, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Between Oct 1, 1947 and May 14, 1948, casualties for the Britsh forces in Palestine were 129 dead and 271 wounded. Apparently they were shooting at each other. Zerotalk22:51, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, it's been a week and no one has suggested any better wording regarding either the convoy or its relationship to Deir Yassin. I'll give this another day and then remove the tag. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 14:33, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The tag refers to the whole article, not just to that point. As I wrote above "Almost every sentence conveys the Jewish point of view without the least pretence of balance." Zerotalk23:43, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Um, the tag says that there is currently a discussion on the talk page about the NPOV (or alleged lack thereof) of this article. Since there is no current discussion, I think it might be time to remove the tag as it is inaccurate. --GHcool (talk) 00:19, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very funny. Please scroll up and start reading. The tag is going to stay on this disgraceful article until the issues with it are resolved. Btw, the word "current" does not appear in the tag. It does however say "Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved", which it obviously has not been. Zerotalk00:43, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another problem: "The intention of besieging forces was ... in the case of the Jordanian forces, to conquer Jerusalem." It is well established that the Arab Legion was ordered to stay out of Jerusalem until it became obvious that Jewish forces were about to conquer it. Zerotalk00:50, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No it isn't. Morris denies the statement. On p214 he describes it as an Israeli assumption that was not true. Morris (and almost all serious historians these days) says that Abdullah never intended to conquer more than the East part and only entered that to prevent a complete Jewish takeover. So the text is not just biased, it misrepresents its source. And Dore Gold is too close to the Israeli government to meet the requirements for a reliable source. (I can't help reporting that Amazon lists Gold's book for less than $1 (even 19c new) from 16 different bookshops. That must be a record pulping for a book only published 5 years ago.) Zerotalk03:49, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing funny about GHCool's comment, as you seem to be using this template in violation of just about every single one of the usage guidelines for it. The relevant guidlines say "Do not use this template unless there is an ongoing dispute in an article.", they further say "In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant, then this tag may be removed by any editor." And finally, they clearly say "This template should not be used as a badge of shame. Do not use this template to "warn" readers about the article." - you are violating ALL of the above. You have so far raised 4 minor quibbles, two of which (the lack of a British escort as a cause of the massacre of the convoy, lack of citation for British "looking the other way") I've fixed, one of which (claims that the British defended the quarter) you were given the green light to add from a source you have, and a 4th (Dier Yassin as justifying the convoy massacre) for which I've offered a proposed statement, and which you've declined to address. You seem to be a fairly active editor - you've found the time to make about 100 edits since you first put up the POV tag, on more than 2 dozen articles - so that's no excuse. The tag is not some placeholder to warn other about the article or deface it as a badge of shame, until you deign to express your issues with it. We'll go through the article line by line, if need be, but you will have to spell out your concerns in detail - a general disclaimer that the "article is one sided", w/o any specifics will not fly. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 02:44, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The best way to fix it would be to delete the current text and start over, since what is there is next to useless. And stop preaching. You can look at it yourself and see lots of examples where only the Israeli viewpoint is presented. It's easy: "Jerusalem held special importance to the Yishuv for "religious and nationalist" reasons" (and no importance to Muslims?). "The Arabs also fired off shells indiscriminately into West Jerusalem." (What about the Jewish attacks on the Arab quarter, Qatamon, etc etc?) "The fighting led to the evacuation of the kibbutz Neve Yaakov and the Jewish towns of Atarot, Kalya, and Beit HaArava, and the expulsion of the Jewish inhabitants of the Old City of Jerusalem." (lets not mention the much larger number of Arabs driven from West Jerusalem and surrounding villages), "brink of starvation" (emotive prose not supported by the source, which refers to shortages and food rationing). And so on. Why don't you try it, just pick a few sentences at random. Zerotalk04:12, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Its becoming increasingly clear that Zero is against the idea of limiting the Siege of Jerusalem (1948) article to the Siege of Jerusalem in 1948. Judging by the above, Zero appears to want a blow by blow account of the entire 1948 Arab-Israeli War. Perhaps he/she is unaware that an article already exists on that topic. --GHcool (talk) 05:11, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Zero's attack on Dore Gold is quite funny. Look at the sources that pro-Arab editors are using as their Bible (Ilan Pappe, PalestineRemembered, and other assorted drivel) before you throw stones. --Gilabrand (talk) 07:59, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am on record as stating that I will not use Pappe as a source. To the best of my recollection, I never did. I don't use PalestineRemembered either. You are invited to discover any exceptions. I believe my record in choice of sources is one of the best around. So what is your point, exactly? I can't criticise one substandard source because someone else uses a different substandard source? Let's get serious: I propose we trade off dubious sources on both sides and publically swear off them. I'll trade Ilan Pappe against Efraim Karsh, and Palestine Remembered against the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Will you join me? Zerotalk11:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And quite a lot of the articles tagged for WP Israel. But dumping won't be necessary in most cases, just a lot of trimming. To answer your wonder: no, I won't get anywhere at all with it, alas. Zerotalk13:39, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Accusation: "Let's get serious: I propose we trade off dubious sources on both sides and publically swear off them. I'll trade Ilan Pappe against Efraim Karsh, and Palestine Remembered against the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs." - Zero. 11:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Reality: If Wikipedia did not quote the Israeli government on the issue of terrorism and Israeli history, the integrity of the encyclopedia would be severely compromised. Israeli government organizations, army, and elected officials are as reliable as any other country's government organizations, army, or elected officials. Because Israel is a democracy and has a greater degree of freedom of the press than any other nation facing similar circumstances regarding its security, much of what the IDF and the government claim can be easily verified by independent research. Critics of Israel could easily do their own research into official Israeli claims rather than flat-out condemning them all as "unreliable." --GHcool (talk) 17:21, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of course the Israeli government can be cited for the opinion of the Israeli government on any issue. Probably I've done that myself. "According to the Israeli Department of Foreign affairs, ...." is fine in the right circumstances. But it shouldn't be cited as a source of fact regarding contentious historical events involving Israel. It's actually right there in the rules: "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party, published sources..." (my emphasis). (I'm not including uncontroversial matters like who is in the Knesset or what the population of Ashod is, just matters which are disputed.) And you contradict yourself: if Israeli government claims can be easily verified from independent sources, then we don't need the Israeli government as a source. And finally, these principles apply to every government. Of course. Zerotalk02:38, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Including the Haifa convoy was intended to illustrate the dangers involved in the convoy strategy. And also that no such disaster ever occurred on the road to Jerusalem. The Kafr Etzion convoy should stay because like the Mt Scopus convoy it was taking supplies from West Jerusalem to an outpost. Otherwise they should both go. Again there was no setback on the same scale amongst the Jerusalem/Tel Aviv convoys. I hope to be able to give a better account soon. Padres Hana (talk) 21:20, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is a constant problem with Israel-Palestine articles that they gradually expand in scope until they cover the entire conflict. That is not good. It is important to confine the text to matters directly related to the article subject. Zerotalk07:44, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am thinking of removing the sentence about celebrations in Amman - the reference just leads to the Ha'aretz website. I think I have a reference about Haganah radio broadcasting herb recipes.Padres Hana (talk) 22:02, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The "blown up by accident" quote is cited to "The Scotsman," a source from 1948. Unless the secondary source that quotes "The Scotsman" is provided, I will delete the entire sentence. Thanks. --GHcool (talk) 16:52, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused - can I not use contemporary newspaper reports? But I see that Collins/Lapierre has the "Arabs had cut the city's waterline." Page 324. So the situation is unclear. Padres Hana (talk) 17:15, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And Levin has 12 May: Water rationing started today. We have had none for six days. Yesterday, just as the damage to the pipeline was repaired, the British guards suddenly left the spring-head at Ras-el-Ain and Iraqi soldiers walked in." Pages 143,144. Also 10 May "No water in the taps yet." Page 139. But I can find no comment about how the pipeline was damaged. Also 10 May he writes "Fighting growing fiercer along the Jerusalem road, but Haganah still blacking out all information." He may not have known but I feel if he had heard it was Arabs he would have said so. I'm sure I've seen another account. Will keep looking. Padres Hana (talk) 20:21, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
John Roy Carson: "The desperate shortage in Jerusalem resulted, of course, from the Arab smashing of the water-pumping station at Latrun..." Page 270. This source gives a lot of eye-witness accounts which I am fairly confident about. In this case he is repeating, "of course", the official line and is wrong about the pumping station being smashed so I not so sure. I'm certain I have seen other accounts. Perhaps the scorned Scotsman, or the UN Consular Commission ... I'm on it. Something else has come up. When did the trains stop running? Joseph, Page 90: "On March 3 the economic adviser of the Jewish Agency, D. Alfred Bonne, informed me that the city had supplies of gasoline for two or three days only and that the large users like the Egged Bus Company had no storage facilities. That meant that if the railway stopped running for five consecutive days we would be completely out of gasoline." Are the correct conclusions: 1. gasoline was being brought to the city by train; 2. there was a 5 day reserve; 3. the trains were running 3 March. Padres Hana (talk) 11:49, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia citation guidelines state that you must write where you got it, not where the author of the book you're holding in your hand got it. So, if, for example, Joe Shmoe wrote a book that cites The Scotsman, you would write in the footnote something like this: The Scotsman, page 20. Cited by Joe Shmoe in What Scotsmen Think About Jerusalem, page 300. --GHcool (talk) 20:28, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I live close to a public library which has micro films of "The Scotsman" newspaper which can be viewed and photocopied. So my source in this case is a photocopy of a micro film of the original newspaper. The Scotsman 7 April 1948. I could go back and find the page number? There is quite wide coverage in this source, local interest being in casualties amongst the Scottish soldiers. One of the correspondents was shared with the Daily Telegraph newspaper. Padres Hana (talk) 22:08, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As discussed a few sections here above, this article is certainly one of the worst of wikipedia about the 1948 war. The fact it is one sided is not even the main issue. There lack many facts and events.
Title should be moved to Battle for Jerusralem (1948) because if there were sieges there were battles too
The battles for Kataman and the other Arab quarters should be described
Hadassa Medical convoy and Kfat Eztion should be explained in the context
The breaking of the siege during April (Operation Nachshon) should be described in details with the consequence of the death of Abd al-Kader al-Husayni
The military operations of 15 May should be described in details with the call for help to Abdallah by the Palestinian Arabs.
The heavy fights between Arab Legion and Etzioni brigade should be described
The battles for Ramat Rachel with Egyptian army should be described
The fall of the old Jewish city should be described (more properly)
The 1st and 2nd battles of Latrun should be explained a minimum as well as the discovery and the build-up of the Burma road before the Fisrt truce
I lack time for this unless we take the party to delete everything and use an academic source and follow it in order to make a short but reliable article on the topic. To go fast and be efficient, I would suggest last Morris's book that is uncontroversial on this topic. What do you think about this ? 62.203.33.128 (talk) 17:38, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. Dore Gold is a reliable source. Feel free to back him up with other reliable sources if anyone so desires. --GHcool (talk) 21:15, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Having now had the (dis)pleasure of reading this book by "Former Ambassador to the United Nations" Dore Gold, I repeat my claim that it isn't a reliable source. Besides that, a book openly advertised (right on the cover) as being by an author with official Israeli status violates the requirement for sources to be third party and can only be used as the source of an opinion. Zerotalk10:10, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Adding extra requirement:
Items sourced to involved persons (eg. Dov Joseph) have to be clearly identified as claims by involved persons. Zerotalk10:15, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Zero0000 (talk·contribs), I don't see a requirement for sources to be third-party in the link you provided (though I would agree that ideally they should be). Can you be more specific, or did you mean to link to a different guideline?—Biosketch (talk) 11:00, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RS#Overview begins "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources...", and later in that section it is stated again. The policy WP:V says "Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources...", so it isn't just a guideline either. Zerotalk12:20, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you're arguing that Gold was involved in the siege of Jerusalem (which happened before he was born), he is indeed a 3rd party. He also has a PhD in Middle East studies, so I think he fits the definition of a RS. Not to mention that I don't see anything controversial sourced to him.
If you want to argue that people with an obvious agenda shouldn't be used as sources, I'd would definitely agree, but then we'd have to get rid of 90% of what are currently used as reliable sources in this topic area. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:37, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My comment about involved persons refers to Dov Joseph. Gore is not a 3rd party since he is essentially an official Israeli spokesperson. It is also obvious from his book that it is an unreliable polemic. Really, he claims the UN should have militarily enforced the partition resolution but of course he knows that was impossible and any UN troops would have ended up fighting Jews. It is just an attack on the UN for whatever reason and has hardly anything to add to this article. Zerotalk15:56, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are enough sources on the topic more than 60 years after the events to avoid using a book written by an actor of the events (Dov Joseph). In fact he can be considered as a primary source and cannot be used.
I don't know Gore but indeed information about an alleged UN military intervention (that never took place) to implement the partition plan has nothing to deal with this article.
In fact, Gold is a 3rd party source and currently has no official position in the Israeli government, but that's neither here nor there. Diplomats write books independently all the time all over the world. Dov Joseph's account published 12 years after the siege is a tremendously valuable 3rd party source; as valuable as Douglas MacArthur's account of the Battle of Inchon published 14 years after the battle and cited in that Wikipedia article. --GHcool (talk) 17:45, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Of course he's a 3rd party. He wasn't involved in any way in the topic this article is discussing. He's not a disinterested party, but again, that could be said about a whole lot of people we regularly use, many of which could also easily be accused of writing polemics. Like, say, Ilan pappe. But wikipedia criteria are what they are and we work within those criteria. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:48, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We wouldn't cite a former Palestinian politician who is a leading light in Fatah (as Gold is in Likud) without openly identifying him as such. Let's be consistent. And GHcool, please use a dictionary or something to find out what "3rd party" means. Zerotalk20:21, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If what is cited to him is uncontroversial then citing it to someone more acceptable should be easy. We are not allowed to cite unreliable sources for "1+1=2" either. Zerotalk13:34, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A person with a PhD in Middle East Studies who's published by a serious publishing house is a reliable source even if you don't like his political opinions. That's wikipedia policy. I believe you know this. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:50, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't know that. We are enjoined to keep the standard of sources as high as possible. For that reason I don't even cite Ilan Pappe, whose academic credentials are far higher than Gold's (eg. countless publications in the peer-reviewed literature). I'm not going to apologize for having high standards. Zerotalk20:28, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Having contributed quite a bit to this it is a shock to think of it as one of the worst of the '48 entries. Still I do agree that it doesn't even begin to give the full picture of what happened in Jerusalem '48. e.g. the shelling of the Old City. I think the problem might be helped if the opening sentence was changed from "The siege of Jerusalem was an Arab siege on East and West Jerusalem in the days leading up to Israeli independence." to "This article is about the Arab blockade of the Jewish neighbourhoods of Jerusalem during the Spring and Summer of 1948." Since the fate of the Jewish Quarter inside the city walls was quite different I think it deserves a separate article. In the meantime I am adding a "Also see" section to link to the relevant operations. Padres Hana (talk) 19:21, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but it is far from enough and do not solve much. There is no reason to write an article about the Arab blockage only, which would be a pov-fork to the article giving the full picture of the Battle for Jerusalem. This would be better :
The Battle for Jerusalem occured from 30 November 1947 to 11 June 1948 when Jewish and Arab population of Mandatory Palestine and later Israeli and Jordanian armies fought for the control of the city.
With eventually something such as this :
Following the Partipation Plan of Palestine, the city was to be placed under international rule in a corpus separatum. Fights nevertheless immediately broke in the city between Jewish and Arab militias with bombings and attacks coming from both sides. Starting February, Abd al-Qader al-Husayni blockaded the road West of the city to prevent the supply of the Jewish population. This was broken first mid of April following Operation Nachshon and Operation Maccabee. On 14 May and the following days, Etzioni and Harel brigades supported by Irgun troops launched several operations aiming to take over the Arab side of the city. In the meantime, Arab Legion had deployed in the area dedicated to the Arab state refraining to enter the corpus separatum but massively garrisonning Latrun to blockade the Jewish city once again. Israeli victories against the Arab militias in the city pushed Abdallah of Jordan to order the Arab Legion to intervene. It deployed in East Jerusalem, fought the Israeli and took the Jewish quarter of the Old city. The population was expelled and the fighters taken prisonners to Jordan. The Israeli forces launched 3 assaults on Latrun to free the road to the city but without success. Hopefully for the Jewish side, they could build an alternative road leading to this city before the truce imposed by UN on June 11 leaving the blockade. During the period called the First truce the Jewish city was supplied with food, ammunation, weapons and troops. Fights didn't resume during the remaining months of the 1948 War and the city was shared between Israel and Jordan after the war, Israelis ruling West Jerusalem and Jordanians ruling East Jerusalem with the Old City.
Not all (or even most) historians would describe it like that. I also think "Jewish city" and "Arab city" is problematic, and not the terms usually used by scholars. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:54, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In your first sentence, what do "it" and "that" refer to ?
About "Jewish city" and "Arab city", I think you are wrong but whatever, what is the alternative ?
Reading the caption with this photo in Herzog I would guess that it is of the first of the convoys that came through during Operation Nachshon. Can anyone confirm? Padres Hana (talk) 15:51, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am pasting the discussion from the commons talk page attached to the picture of the night bombardment of Jerusalem. Should it be the lead picture when there are serious questions about the caption? Padres Hana (talk) 12:01, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If the white section in the centre of this picture is the walls of the old city it would appear that the shells/rockets are falling into the city. Which would suggest it was not the Jordanians since they would be unlikely to be shelling there own positions. If the picture is taken from the north or west the source of the firing would be Israeli positions. It cannot be from the south or east because there were no buildings as seen in the foreground. Am I wrong? Padres Hana (talk) 18:30, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Looking again: if it was from the north the rockets (?) on the left would be from Jordanian held territory (Sheikh Jarrah) and the fire from the right from Israeli positions. Which seems unlikely. I think its a view of the city wall beside the Jaffa Gate, with the silhouette of the King David Hotel visible on the right with the top of the Tower of David beyond. i.e it is a picture of one of the Israeli bombardments of the Old City of which there were several. I would guess it is one which occured as the United Nations were seeking to impose the second truce.Padres Hana (talk) 18:38, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not even artillery, the scale and trajectory don't match any artillery weapon. I think it's a series of illumination rounds fired into the air from a mortar, shot with a long (minutes) exposure. 174.138.207.21 (talk) 09:16, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The trajectories in the left half of the image are not made by heavy objects, as they curve upwards. They can only be light objects that are being blown to the left by the wind as they fall. Some sort of flares. But is it clear that the trajectories on the right are the same objects? Compare to this image: [1] which is described as shelling on this gov.il page, but I don't know if the word used (הפגזת) can refer to mortars. Are shells/mortars visible at night like this? If those at [2] are shells/mortars, why is there no explosion visible at the points of contact? My questions are genuine and not rhetorical, since my personal experience with such things is exactly zero. Zerotalk13:22, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is definitely a long exposure. But we can't identify what it shows or where it comes from, so we can't use it. It can come back if we find a reliable source for it. Zerotalk13:05, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It now looks to me as if this is not a picture of two different barrages. Is it a long exposure (how long? several minutes?) photo of rocket-flares being fired from the right. The rocket phase being the crisp arc shape. The flare phase being the bright fussy section as they drift down from right to left. This would explain how there is enough light for the city wall to be visible. I am even more convinced that the fire is from the Israeli lines west of the city. Padres Hana (talk) 13:14, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is mortar or rocket parachute flares (illumination) fired from the right to the left. The curved trajectory is the round being fired, then the flare ignites and drifts from right to left, which explains the relatively straight line from point of illumination towards the left of the photo. It is a long exposure shot. GregJackPBoomer!13:36, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Another good find. I would suggest this could be Jordanian artillary firing from Sheikh Jarrah. Note the low trajectories compared to the other pictures. The article with the picture lets itself down with the map overstating the role of the Saudi army. Padres Hana (talk) 17:10, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Saudi army mistaken with the Iraqi army and a wrong description of the role of the Lebanese army mistaken with the ALA... It is not impossible that the pictures dates back 1967...
We have to analyse the picture to understand what it really could be. For a picture taken in the middle of the night there is much light... And there is no much explosion... Is this artillery ?
Thank you very much for this new picture Zero! I think you are wrong to say there is no sign of explosions. All the glare on the right-hand-side must be from the impact of whatever is being fired. I would suggest the picture was taken from the south of the old city. The Dormition is clearly visible. I would go further and suggest that it is three Davidkas being fired from Mount Zion into the Armenian Quarter. If this is an example of what a mortar (or simillar) round looks like I would suggest the other picture we are discussing is of flares fired from mortars. I could suggest a couple of dates for this attack. Padres Hana (talk) 13:37, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A definitive source for this photo from a reliable source containing authoritative and verifiable information regarding the date (if only roughly) it was taken, where it was taken, what it was taken of, who took it, etc., etc., would be not only appropriate, but necessary for its addition to an already contentious article. We have the supposition of one person who makes good points regarding their theories as to what the photo shows, but that is at best "original research", and this photo otherwise could be of almost anything, taken almost anywhere at any time, or even merely a Photoshop effort: I'm not really suggesting the latter is the case, but until we have a reliable source, we have no way of knowing otherwise and both parties in the conflict in question have shown their willingness to fabricate "evidence" whenever it suits their version of the story. The site the photo is originally credited to is no longer on-line, and the whole article subject/context is sensitive enough that un-/poorly sourced or contentious material - including photographs whose relevance is dubious - should probably be avoided until a mutually satisfactory consensus is reached. Not having a contested photo in the article does not diminish it, especially as the photo in question doesn't really add any information. besiegedtalk23:02, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is almost certainly three mortars being fired, from the left side of the photo towards the right. I see no sign of explosions in the photo, but cannot explain the glare. As to the mortars, without seeing the actual tubes, which are likely dug in and not visible, it is impossible to say what type of mortar it is. I don't know enough about the war to identify any landmarks, who is in what position, etc. GregJackPBoomer!23:21, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
![[1]](http://commentisfreewatch.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/two2.jpg){kind=link}