 | Warning: active arbitration remedies 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:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.
|
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
disputed edit
again, just quoting benny morris, who himself retracted many of his claims in recent years, is not enough and it's clear POV. It could all be fantasy as far as we know. Amoruso
- Reverted. Please don't slap tags on multiple pages the way you just did. Instead, you should bring arguments specific to the article and the cites to back it up. See WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV. Your changes turns up on the NPOV backlog and other backlogs -- Steve Hart 01:02, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- if the only source of the article is the notorious discredited benny morris, then it should atleast say : "benny morris claims....." and not list it as fact. If there are no objections, this will be changed. Amoruso 10:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- The Arbitration Committee has ruled on previous attempts to delete references to Morris' work. --Ian Pitchford 10:35, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- if the only source of the article is the notorious discredited benny morris, then it should atleast say : "benny morris claims....." and not list it as fact. If there are no objections, this will be changed. Amoruso 10:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- what's the relation between what you brought and between what I said. I'm not asking to delete Morris' discredited work. But it should be noted that he is the only one saying it. There's a big difference. Amoruso 10:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- No, you're asking for your opinion to be put above that of a published academic who cites his sources. --Ian Pitchford 10:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- what's the relation between what you brought and between what I said. I'm not asking to delete Morris' discredited work. But it should be noted that he is the only one saying it. There's a big difference. Amoruso 10:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- No. I'm asking for it to be clear that the article is based only on Morris' opinion and not on more sources. Amoruso 11:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- Wrong, it is not based on Morris's opinion. It is based on Morris's interpretation of primary sources, mostly official Israeli archives that he meticulously gives references to and often cites verbatim. His interpretation may be wrong, but then other historians will come along and dispute his interpretation. At that time it will be fine to quote them. --Zerotalk 13:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- No. I'm asking for it to be clear that the article is based only on Morris' opinion and not on more sources. Amoruso 11:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- regardless, this source doesn't claim that more than 10 people died, therefore not a massacre and should be removed from the list of massacres. Amoruso 13:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- Give it up, Zero. You can no longer use Wikipedia as a means of spreading your antisemitic hate propaganda. - Abdul. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.94.247.31 (talk) 21:26, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
NPOV edit
Maybe with a context this article may sound more neutral ? On May 20, during Ben Ami Operation I think the Israelis had some priorities of hurry given they excepted the entry of Libanese troups along the coast, which of course Libanese never did. Alithien 01:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
information not linked to the article edit
- In the first six seized village refugees were killed that had tried to escape, in the other several youngsters were machine-gunned.
not source. no link ??? Alithien 00:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
A massacre? edit
This is not how it is described by Khalidi. He says: "Later, during the final attack on the village, an undisclosed number of villagers were taken captive and some were killed, according to villagers' testimony. Others were killed during their dispersal in Galillee when Zionist forces found out that they were from al-Kabri." Sorry but this is not a description of a massacre, especially since Khalidi refers to a battle in which seventy-four Haganah soldiers were killed by the villagers and the ALA! Morris does not refer to this as a massacre either. Nor does Benveniśtî. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.129.4.30 (talk) 03:55, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
- I tend to agree. Unless we can find some reliable sources that specifically refer to this incident as a "massacre", we should change the name of the article. Uncle Dick (talk) 18:31, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. 172.190.64.170 (talk) 20:43, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
incident/massacre edit
User Uncle Dick unilaterally moved this article from Al-Kabri massacre to Al-Kabri incident here. I want us to discuss this. I believe Pappe calls it a massacre, Huldra (talk) 23:23, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Deletion edit
To editor Skitash: You deleted this with the claim that it is not related:
- "Two months later the commander of Operation Ben-Ami gave operational orders given that day were to "attack with the aim of capturing, the villages of Kabri, Umm al Faraj and Al-Nahr, to kill the men [and] to destroy and set fire to the villages."[1][2] Benvenisti states that "the orders were carried out to the letter", while Morris writes that a number of villagers were apparently executed.[1][3]
Quite obviously it is about the topic of this article, and moreover the operational order for the attack on Kabri has prime importance. Please put this back. Zerotalk 01:15, 17 March 2024 (UTC)