Talk:King David Hotel bombing/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Copy-editing

I've recently made a change to the lead which was reverted without addressing my concerns. I've readmitted the changes[1] and make note that I don't see the logic behind repetitive use of the same structures (e.g. operating <-> operatives) and generic descriptions when there are more accurate ones (e.g. Attack <-> deadly bomb strike). I'm keeping an open mind for an explanation though if there is a desire to make one. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

As you'll probably have noticed, there has been quite a lot of editing of the Lead since your last edit. Personally, I prefer the word 'members' over 'operatives' too. Since the attack is called the King David Hotel Bombing, I think that mentioning that it was a 'bomb' strike is a bit redundant. In the first sentence, if it had been non-deadly, I think that would have been worth mentioning, but as it is, it wasn't. As the next sentence mentions that it was the most deadly attack during the Mandate, I don't think it is worth mentioning in the first sentence that it was a deadly attack. The word 'attack' is used right through the rest of the article, including elsewhere in the Lead, so I think, unless you want to change the word used throughout the article, there's not much point getting too worried about its use in the first sentence. In my part of the world, when used in a military sense as it is here, the word 'attack' doesn't carry any negative connotations. The word 'strike', though, could be read as being non-neutral. Also, to my ear, the use of the word 'strike' sounds a bit clunky. Could you explain your preference for the word, please? I think that the date of the attack should be in the initial sentence rather than the following one, which should only be about the fact that the attack was the most deadly on the Mandate administration. You sound a bit upset about your wording being changed without discussion. But, presumably you're expecting that the people whose wording you have changed without discussion should just accept it as how life is on Wikipedia? -- ZScarpia (talk) 16:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

And I'm a bit non-plussed about your title, "Copy-editing." It sounds like a naughty thing to do, but as far as I can see, without doing a thorough and rigorous investigation, the only one who has been copy-editing in the Lead is you-hoo. (Strikeout done by ZScarpia (talk) - I've found out what copy-editing means in the Wikipedia sense) -- ZScarpia (talk) 17:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, hopefully I've answered your "concerns." Your turn to answer mine? -- ZScarpia (talk) 17:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I see that user 66.122.184.26 has just "readmitted" his changes, too. Perhaps he's someone else who feels that his concerns haven't been addressed. -- ZScarpia (talk) 18:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm a bit exhausted today but I appreciate the civil discourse and will try to address your notes, which seem very reasonable upon first examination, tomorrow. Do me a favour and leave the anon. IP a note that a discussion was opened on the talk page. Would be a shame to treat him badly or "ignore" him just because he's new. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be a bit of an IP address edit war going on. It might be better to just let them get on with it. I've already reverted 66.122.184.26's changes a couple of times, so he or she might not be be up for a bit of civil discourse with me. Bye. -- ZScarpia (talk) 21:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Substituting the word 'assault' for 'attack', how does the following grab you:

The King David Hotel bombing was an assault on the headquarters of the British Mandatory authorities of Palestine, which were located in the King David Hotel in Jerusalem. It was carried out on the 22nd of July, 1946, by the Irgun, an armed Jewish group which was attempting to force the British to leave Palestine. The assault was the deadliest against the British in Palestine during the Mandate period (1920-1948).

-- ZScarpia (talk) 23:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

It's an improvement and as far as I'm concerned you can add it now. However, something there is incorrect and I would not want the Irgun description to last long-term. Best I'm aware the reasons for the attack (btw, a background section is glaringly missing from the article) were the arrest of some 3000 Jewish people along with some highly sensitive documents that the Israelis wanted destroyed before the information gets into the wrong hands. At least, that's the version of the story I'm aware of. I just thought that we should probably look for a word with a "stealth"/"saboteur" subtext. I was going to add "commando" to the mix of subtext, but it probably doesn't apply since the operation is considered a terrorist style attack. You can add the text in the meantime, but we should probably iron out an even better one.

Oh, the Irgun -- best I'm aware -- were mostly concentrating on "doing whatever it takes" so that the Jews win/not-lose. That includes "retribution"/copying the Arab random attacks on civilians as well as operations against the British who were very disruptive to the Jews trying to defend themselves (for fairly understandable political reasons).

Hmm, if you have other suggestions I'll give them a look. I need more time to iron-out my thoughts on this paragraph to make a cohesive response :D

Cheers, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 04:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

The description of the Irgun was intended to be just that, not an explanation of the reasons for the attack. Perhaps changing it to read that the Irgun was 'one' of the groups trying to force the British to leave Palestine would make taht clear. In a recent major edit of the Lead section, I left out any description of the Irgun, thinking it better to just let any readers who didn't know who the Irgun was to follow the link. But somebody else preferred to have the 'militant Zionist group' description in there and added it back in. I don't want to impose my views by removing the description again, but on the other hand, I'm not very keen on the way 'militant Zionist group' sounds, which is why I was trying to suggest an alternative.

In my opinion, the Irgun just wanted to hit major British targets. Besides a lot of other buildings, Paglin had already tried to hit the hotel once before. Members of the Haganah said later that the reason they wanted the attack was to strike a blow in return for the blow struck by the British when they 'raided' the Jewish Agency. The Irgun says that the real reason the Haganah wanted the strike was to destroy the documents taken from the Jewish agency. It said that the Haganah wanted to minimise the warning period and to raise the amount of explosives used in order to try to ensure the thorough destruction of the documents, presumably in order to: destroy evidence that might have been used in court; to prevent the British from learning more than they already knew; and to destroy anything embarrassing (among the papers were stolen secret American documents). The British had broken the Haganah or Jewish Agency codes and also had informers working for them, which is why they had lists of people they were looking for and why they already knew that the Jewish Agency was involved in the spate of bombings and killings that had taken place prior to Operation Agatha and the 'raid' on the Agency. The documents were kept in multiple locations, so the bombing of the hotel didn't destroy them all (or even the majority of them).

I like the word 'commando'; it's sexier than the word 'members' or the best that I could think of, 'squad' (and perfectly neutral). I still prefer the word 'attack' over alternatives such as 'strike' or 'assault', though.

I'm happy to wait until you feel happy too before making any changes to the Lead section. Until recently, I was concentrating my efforts on the Controversy and, in particular, the Lead sections. The middle of the article seemed a bit of a mess, so I preferred to avoid it and try to make the Lead, at least, reasonably sane. Since some of my content was shifted into the middle of the article, though, I've decided to take the plunge and concentrate my efforts there, with the end result that I don't feel very concerned about the wording of the Lead section at the moment.

Regards. -- ZScarpia (talk) 08:33, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

How about this....

The King David Hotel bombing was a covert strike on the headquarters of the British Mandatory authorities of Palestine, located in the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, by the Irgun, a militant Zionist organization promoting active retaliation towards the Arabs and the British. The operation was carried out on the 22nd of July, 1946, in response to XXX and was the deadliest attack against the British in Palestine during the Mandate period (1920-1948).

Thoughts/Suggestions? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

p.s. I didn't refer to it, but I believe -- and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong -- that 'Attack' is more of a direct context to open combat than covert operations. That is the reason I was looking for alternatives to it. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

That XXX will be a bit difficult to define both accurately and briefly and would probably be best left for the body of the article. To my mind, the word 'attack' doesn't imply anything about openness: you can have a covert attack just as you can have a covert strike. I think that the word 'covert' might be a bit of a problem. Covert actions are, by their nature, designed not to draw attention to themselves, the complete opposite of blowing up a corner of a large building. If you're happy with the phrase "a militant Zionist organization", I suggest leaving it at that. My next attempt:

The King David Hotel bombing was a {strike} on the headquarters of the British Mandatory authorities of Palestine, which were located in the King David Hotel in Jerusalem. It was carried out on the 22nd of July, 1946, by the militant Zionist organization, the Irgun. The {strike} was the deadliest against the British in Palestine during the Mandate period (1920-1948).

Operating in disguise, a small Irgun commando group planted a bomb in the basement of the hotel ...

I would have liked to have omitted the word group in the final line, but it might have given the false impression that the attack was carried out by a single, diminutive, individual. -- ZScarpia (talk) 12:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with you adding the words 'stealth', 'stealthy' or 'stealthily', by the way. -- ZScarpia (talk) 12:48, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

As far as the XXX bit goes, I wouldn't have a problem if you wanted to say something to the effect that the attack was mounted as part of a response to the British-mounted Operation Agatha, or as part of a response to the British-mounted Operation Agatha, in which the Jewish Agency was raided, mass arrests made and weapons seized. In you include the latter detail, though, I suspect others would probably want it mentioned that Operation Agatha was mounted in response to a series of bombings and shootings in which the British had evidence that the Haganah was involved. -- ZScarpia (talk) 11:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Has anyone else got any opinions on how the Lead section should be worded? -- ZScarpia (talk) 16:40, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Notes on Rockybiggs's recent changes

From the 2006 article, "British anger at terror celebration", in The Times newspaper:

Simon McDonald, the British Ambassador in Tel Aviv, and John Jenkins, the Consul-General in Jerusalem, have written to the municipality, stating: “We do not think that it is right for an act of terrorism, which led to the loss of many lives, to be commemorated.”

In particular they demanded the removal of the plaque that pays tribute to the Irgun, the Jewish resistance branch headed by Menachem Begin, the future Prime Minister, which carried out the attack on July 22, 1946.

The plaque presents as fact the Irgun’s claim that people died because the British ignored warning calls. “For reasons known only to the British, the hotel was not evacuated,” it states.

Mr McDonald and Dr Jenkins denied that the British had been warned, adding that even if they had “this does not absolve those who planted the bomb from responsibility for the deaths”.

Based on this, the Lead section has been changed. Originally it read:

Telephoned warnings were sent to the main switchboard of the hotel, the Palestine Post newspaper and the French consulate, but no evacuation was carried out, giving rise to much controversy over the reasons why people were not cleared from the building.

The Lead now reads:

Telephoned warnings were sent to the main switchboard of the hotel, the Palestine Post newspaper and the French consulate[1][2], however this has been denied by the British Government [3]. This has led to much controversy as to why no evacuation was carried out.

The new form misrepresents what the article said. The article doesn't say that the Ambassador and Consul-General denied that the warnings had been sent, only that the British had been warned. The original form of the Lead very carefully indicated that it was the switchboard for the hotel, which was still operating as a hotel despite the presence in part of it of the Secretariat and Military headquarters, that a warning was sent to. It didn't say that a warning had been sent to the British. The Secretariat and military had their own switchboards, which the public could call directly.

Another problem with using the article as a source about what the British Government said, is that it doesn't quote the words that the Ambassador and Consul-General actually spoke. That is, we have no proof that the report is accurate. The Hindu, writing about the same incident says:

In their protest letter to the Israeli administration, Mr. McDonald and Mr. Jenkins said there was no "credible" evidence that any warning was given and pointed out that even it was, "this does not absolve those who planted the bomb from responsibility for the deaths."

Obviously, saying that there is no credible evidence that something happened and that something definitely didn't happen are very different. The contradiction between the articles implies that, in order to determine what the British diplomats said, you would need to try to find other sources.

According to Arthur Koestler, what the British Government said about warnings, once the inquest into the bombing had been completed, was that no warning had been received by anyone at the Secretariat "in an official position with any power to take action." Perhaps the Secretariat was mentioned specifically because the Irgun and Haganah were claiming that John Shaw, the Chief Secretary, had given an order not to evacuate. Thurston Clarke writes (if memory serves me correctly) that the staff in the reception area of the hotel decided to ignore the warning sent by the Irgun. Many hoax calls (some by the Irgun itself) were being sent at the time, including ones by people who just hoped to see the inconvenience caused and even ones sent by civil servants seeking to extend their lunch hours. Perhaps the staff may have been influenced by the fact that a warning about a bomb having been planted in the basement of the hotel had been sent early that morning and a search had been carried out without, of course, because the bomb hadn't been planted yet, finding anything. When the warning was sent to the Palestine Post, the recipient passed it on, as a matter of routine, to the police. Having received dozens of hoax calls in the preceding months, she then wouldn't have done anything more. However, knowing someone who worked in the reception area of the hotel, she rang there. Alarm began to grow at the hotel and the manager was called. As described by the first time in writing by Clarke, he rang some unknown military person (note, not anybody at the Secretartiat) and was advised, an ambush being feared, not to evacuate. The manager then went to speak to a policeman outside (who had just been informed about the men in arab costume with milk churns who had held-up the kitchen staff) and told him about the warning. The policeman went to investigate. As he was walking along the corridor towards the bomb it exploded (its timing mechanism having worked more quickly than it was designed to). When the bomb exploded, because of flying debris, conditions in the street outside the hotel were lethal, so it is possible that, if the hotel had been evacuated, the death toll might actually have been higher.

The controversy over why the hotel was not evacuated started immediately after the bombing. Rockybiggs seems to have become confused between that controversy and the further controversy that ensued sixty years after the bombing when a celebration was held and a plaque set up outside the hotel. He writes that the Irgun erected the plaque, which, of course isn't true. He also, in the Warnings section, has quoted the wording on the plaque as though it was the statement the Irgun released after the bombing.

In the Layout section, the text "the six-storey hotel, which was opened in 1932 as the first, modern, luxury one in Jerusalem" has been changed to "the six-storey hotel, which was opened in 1932 as the first, modern, luxury hotel in Jerusalem" citing incorrect grammer [sic]. Perhaps I'm being stupid, but I can't see anything wrong with the original wording. Neither can I see a reason why the link to the wikipage listing events which happened in 1932 was removed.

A superfluous second citation for the Times article about the 60th anniversary celebration has been added.

-- ZScarpia (talk) 10:57, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the history of this page, a cause for concern is WP:OWN issues on this article, and i will be going through this entire article and taking up any POV (which seems to have been raised earlier Talk:King David Hotel bombing#Pathetic) additions i see. I wish to make no comments to anything raised on this talk page at this moment and wish no additional comments made to myself until i have time to look into this matter.--Rockybiggs (talk) 23:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Description of the Irgun in the Lead section

It's probably worth pointing out that the description of the Irgun in the Lead section as a right-wing Zionist underground movement is derived from that given in the Encyclopaedia Britannica:

Irgun Zvai Leumi - Jewish right-wing underground movement, byname Etzel (Hebrew: National Military Organization) - Jewish right-wing underground movement in Palestine, founded in 1931. At first supported by many non-Socialist Zionist parties, in opposition to the Haganah, it became in 1936 an instrument of the Revisionist Party, an extreme nationalist group that had seceded from the World Zionist Organization and whose policies called for the use of force, if necessary, to establish a Jewish state on both sides of the Jordan.

-- ZScarpia (talk) 15:20, 7 February 2009 (UTC)