Talk:Deir Yassin massacre/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions about Deir Yassin massacre. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

misinterpretation of the ZOA pamphlet

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I made corrections to this page because there are facts missing or misinterpretation of sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yehudafievel (talk • contribs) 09:24, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Israeli Atrocities Category

Latest comment: 16 years ago18 comments5 people in discussion

First of all, the massacre was by Irgun, if I am reading this correctly, and that is not Israel. It was, IMO, a terrorist group, that existed BEFORE the State of Israel was formed. And, this happened before the state of Israel was formed. If you want a category for Pre-Israel Atrocities Committed by Terrorist Groups, that would be more correct.Sposer (talk) 02:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Everybody agrees it was perpetrated in the name of Israel. Creating a new category for "Pre-Israel Atrocities Committed by Terrorist Groups" in order to be more "correct" is IMO an exercise in sophistry. MeteorMaker (talk) 06:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Very much the opposite. In fact, if you insist it was by Irgun and Lehi, it is the exact opposite of the Israeli government and system that followed. Category doesn't fit. It's also useless regardless. Amoruso (talk) 10:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

You probably don't want to see Category:Terrorist attacks attributed to Palestinian militant groups renamed to "Terrorist attacks attributed to Pre-Palestinian militant groups" either. You can see where this leads. MeteorMaker (talk) 10:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The Palestinians see themselves as Palestinians. There was no Israeli before Israel was created. There are Palestinians before Palestine is/was created. Do some reading on the difference between a Jew and an Israeli. Amoruso (talk) 10:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

That difference is pretty obvious to me, and I don't understand why you see that as relevant, though it does tend to become overlooked sometimes. The Irgunites were more nationalist than any other Jews and certainly saw themselves as Israelis. Your technicality objection applies equally well to Palestinian militant groups, which is why this particular can of worms is best left unopened. MeteorMaker (talk) 11:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what your link has to do with the discussion. You demonstrate that you don't know the difference. Before Israel was created, it wasn't even clear that the country will be named Israel. So the Irgun members didn't see themselves as Israelis, for the simple reason this term didn't exist yet in modern times. So what you wrote is in fact nonsensical. Amoruso (talk) 11:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

If I have to spell it out, there are (IIRC) three instances of editors confusing the categories "Jews" and "Israelis" in that single section, which makes it a good study object. Again, your technicality objection is shot down by your very own reasoning. The Palestinian nation's future name is not yet known, so, by the same token, all categories and articles with "Palestinian" in the title would have to be considered incorrect. MeteorMaker (talk) 11:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

There are no instances of editors there confusing the categories Jews and Israelis. That is your misunderstanding. See article State of Palestine and the Palestine's convoy to the U.N. They chose the name of their proposed country already, and even if not, it's the name of their People, that they have chosen. Jews have chosen the name Jewish as the name of the people before May 15 1948. The fact that you don't know what's the name of the Peoples involved here shows that you can't comment on the section, you lack too much basic knowledge. Amoruso (talk) 12:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I would advise you to 1) refrain from making personal remarks and 2) not underestimate my knowledge. As about the Jews/Israelis-confusion in the link I gave you, I count four instances: Jaakobou (twice; he did apologize though), you, and one anonymous editor. That is beside the point however.

By your reasoning, every instance of the word "Palestine" in a category or article pertaining to the time before the name was officially decided should be prefixed with a "pre-". Besides looking silly, it would obstruct the information seeker unnecessarily. The exact name of the still unproclaimed Israeli state is also immaterial — what matters is that the atrocity was perpetrated by people who sought to establish that state. MeteorMaker (talk) 12:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

No, that's not by my reasoning, that's your misunderstanding. Like explained to you, Palestinians are defined as such by themselves whether there's a country called Palestine or not. Israelis don't. They were called Jews. Cheers, Amoruso (talk) 14:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The unexpected but convincing pleading for a Category:Jewish atrocities aside, I think we have already reached consensus here (see below). MeteorMaker (talk) 22:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Refrain from personal attacks. Amoruso (talk) 23:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, any category (insert your nationality, religion, group) atrocities is a POV violation, since, as others have reminded me more than once, the people responsible for the heinous act consider themselves at war. So, by having a category called Palestinian Atrocities, Israeli Atrocities, German Atrocities, George Bush Atrocities of the English Language, you are creating a POV. They should all be stricken from Wiki IMO. If we need to have a category, call it Terrorist Atrocities, or something like that (although any terrorist act is an atrocity). So, what is the process for doing such a thing? Somebody help. Anybody who disagree with this idea is clearly trying to make political statements with such categories.Sposer (talk) 13:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Categories for deletion. There is a current discussion about this one. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

On closer examination, I realize I was too narrowly focused on the word "Israeli" and overlooked the "atrocities" part — mainly due to the fact that Sposer did the same when he raised the question. I was under the assumption we were discussing the categorization of Irgun/Lehi as Israeli terrorist organizations. I agree that the category "Israeli atrocities" isn't vital, since it largely duplicates the Massacres in Palestine cat. MeteorMaker (talk) 14:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually it's also a sub category of that. Amoruso (talk) 14:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

You're wrong to claim it was 'pre-Israeli'. This event happened after the state of Israel was proclaimed by forces pertaining to Israel. In the article on 'The 1948 Arab-Israeli War', it clearly states that one of the belligerents was Israel, and that Irgun was a constituent force of the Israeli independence movement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.168.238.86 (talk) 23:59, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Moving the article

Latest comment: 16 years ago16 comments6 people in discussion

Shevashalosh, stop moving the article. You have to get consensus before moving. Imad marie (talk) 15:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Reading the article as is (without Shevashalosh's changes), it appears that there is considerable question as to whether it was a massacre or not. The article needs work either way. The battle took place prior to the war itself, if the dates here are correct. Also, it needs to be made clear in the lede that the Jewish groups involved were not the regular forces, but rather militant groups like Irgun. Given the enormous controversy as to whether or not this was a massacre (I am not talking about numbers killed, but how they died, whether they were combatants or not, conflicting reports on who was in what Mosque, etc), suggests the "Battle" name makes more sense. However, the current edits go way too far and belittle claims of massacre and move the article from a neutral to slightly Arab POV (if it is called a massacre and that the controversy is not made clear as part of the lede) to an Israeli POV. I do not know enough about this subject to intelligently edit the article (outside of fixing little things), so I will stand aside, but the name change makes sense, with the article largely as it was, maybe with a few tweaks. Sposer (talk) 01:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

One of several problems is that "Deir Yassin battle" is a neologism. It gets fewer than 20 Google hits. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 01:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

"Battle of Deir Yassin" gets another 42 Google hits. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 01:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I move-protected the article for 3 weeks. I have watchlisted this page, and if consensus is reached for a move before then, I will unprotect it. Thanks, J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 01:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Point taken, although it depends on whether you put quotes around deir yassin battle or not. Without quotes, there are more google hits for battle. With quotes, there are a bit more than 100 for battle, and 16K+ for massacre. However, articles that question it being a massacre will use the popular name. In reality, IMO, this should be part of an article on Deir Yassin, and Deir Yassin Battle and Deir Yassin Massacre ought to both redirect there.The term "Deir Yassin Battle" does not sound right. It is infamous due to the purported massacre (by the way, I am not saying there wasn't a massacre there, as I am not up on that, I am just reflecting on the controversy), but if I was writing an article on the event, arguing that it wasn't a massacre, I would certainly refer it to its more common name at first. Something like: Deir Yassin: The Massacre That Never Happened. And, I would not term it the Deir Yassin Battle, but would rather discuss the battle that took place there. A very long way of saying that the google argument is not a particularly strong one. Sposer (talk) 01:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I did not and do not have any opinion regarding either version of the article's content. When I moved the article earlier, I simply moved the article back, completely ignoring the content of the page. I moved it with an explanation that I hoped would prod Shevashalosh to talk about it before moving it again. After it became apparent that my comment was disregarded, I move-protected the page. Shevashalosh, I would appreciate it if you do not use edit summaries such as "moved to J.delanoy's version" in the future. I do not have a "version" of the content, I have no preference whatsoever in the matter. If you (either of you) continue to revert to your version of the content, I will either full-protect the page or temporarily block you (both of you) for edit-warring. The talk page is here for a reason. Use it. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 02:03, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

The title of the article (whether it should be a "battle") was the subject of a heated discussion during July 2006, when there was an attempt at a vote. (Most of Archive 3 is about the name of the article.) It was discussed again in April 2007 and May 2007. The issue has been talked to death. Why does every new editor with an agenda get a fresh bite at the apple? — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 02:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not necessarily arguing for changing name. Massacre is what is more current and popular, and that will attract the most hits. I think the lede needs to highlight that it was a battle too (which it does, but must make clear those deaths are not the issue), that there is at least some question as to whether it was a massacre or not. However, weight of evidence and opinion is still on massacre side it appears. So, let's just fix it up a bit. Like I said, I am not going to make changes, because I am not qualified to get into it, but please see lede suggestions below and maybe something along those lines, with Milstein in lede as noted in last comment) will work. Sposer (talk) 03:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Sposer, As of - Google: massacre - 24,800, Battle - 20,900. Not much difference, though as I have said this isn't my argument. The word "battle" all of a sudden was eliminated, offcuarse, caus the title of the article was changed (from "battle" also), so the opening statement changed as well from, "A battle in which..were killed" - to " mamassacre of killing ..." - in order to fit the title accordinglly.

In this way, if you don't title it "battle" - then offcaurse - you need to eliminate the Jewish story line (Jews dead and wounded, as my new ref was deleted during the revisions) - caus the whole article wouldn't fit.

Then you basiclly end up for ever with the tag of: The neutrality of this article is disputed.

On the other hand, if you title it as "Battle", then, not only this is not NPOV title - but you can put both sides arguments within article itself- as I have recentlly edited: "though the battle took roots in the Palestinian culture as a masscare" (including both sides).

--Shevashalosh (talk) 04:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

In addition, The argument is not on "supposedlly" a masscre, but rather re-definig a "battle of war" , in which people got killed in to the disputive POV and a violation of that policy. --Shevashalosh (talk) 05:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Tiltle dispute of "masscare"

In addition to the new lead I have brough from "Jewish virtual library" (and meanwhile have been deleted in revisions), the artircle, as of a year ago, defined this as "battle in wihich (so and so number) ... of villagres where killed".

It was also tagged as: "The neutrality of this article is disputed"

The word "Battle" has disapeared, and instead it has a conclusion in the opening statment that a "massacre has occured" (or how ever it is put there).

First this was a battle of war. This is how it is defined (first as of title).

second, in my editing I have included the fact that "though the battle took roots in the Palestinian culture as a massacre" (NPOV - including both sides).

So far, up to my recent edit, the Jewish side not only has been absent (jewish forces wounded, killed etc), but rather eliminated by eliminating the definition of "battle".

In my edit, I havn'nt basically changed the Story line, but rather balaned it and have added additional info (hence more lines written on Jewish side, along side the Arab story line).

This comes after a violation of NPOV policy, not only in what I have written in this message on the elimination of the "battle" defenition word, but rather violation of NPOV, just by the Title of "Massacre", in which, offcaurse people changed the content (such as eliminating the "battle" defenition)- to fit this accordingly !? - and as a resulit of all this you have a a tag of The neutrality of this article is disputed.

This means, the title can not be "massacre", if you wanna foliow neutral POV policy, - caus then you will have to determine the in the opening statment that a "masscare" has occured (didn't apear at list untill a year ago), and the folowing content of the article as well - while ignoring the Jewish side (Hence, deleting the wounded and killed Jews etc) - and you will forever will end with the tag of The neutrality of this article is disputed.

This whole article is a violation of NPOV policy, espesially in Tiltle and in opening statements (as it was tagged accordinglly) and must change.

--Shevashalosh (talk) 02:37, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

There are already sections of this page where other editors have begun to discuss of the title of article and its lede. It would be very helpful if you made your comments in the appropriate sections instead of starting a third section. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 02:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I read the above, I just didn't understand or need to read this again. --Shevashalosh (talk) 02:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Shevashalosh, check also the archives the article title has been discussed in depth. RomaC (talk) 03:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

RomaC, in the condition of this currrent article, in which the basic defenition of "battle" was eliminated - I don't know how people based their judgements during (at list) - the last year - where the opening statment of "battle in which ...were killed" changed to "a masscare of killing of"...

Besides, there is a tag of NPOV - it is obvious there is still something wrong in it - and so I have tryed to balance it (not change the story line) and add additional info - line along the arab story (not deleting it), but was revised (including my ref of jews wounded and killed).

--Shevashalosh (talk) 05:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

New lede, less POV

Latest comment: 16 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

How's this:

The Deir Yassin massacre refers to the killing of between 107 and 120 villagers,[1], the estimate generally accepted by scholars,[2][3] during and possibly after the battle[4][5] at the village of Deir Yassin (also written as Dayr Yasin or Dir Yassin) near Jerusalem in the British Mandate of Palestine by militant Jewish forces between April 9 and April 11, 1948. Jewish forces suffered three casualties and 37 wounded. It occurred while Yishuv forces fought to break the siege of Jerusalem during the period of civil war that preceded the end of the Mandate.

Contemporary reports, originating apparently from a commanding officer in Jerusalem of one of the irregular forces involved (the Irgun), Mordechai Ra'anan[6], gave an initial estimate of 254 killed.[7] The size of the figure had a considerable impact on the conflict in creating panic and became a major cause of the 1948 Palestinian exodus.[7][8]

The incident was universally condemned at the time, including repudiations from the Haganah command and the Jewish Agency. However, controversy caused by later studies suggest that villagers killed may have been combatants and that no massacre occurred. The event was also relevant as it took place weeks before the official declaration of war in May 1948.[9] Sposer (talk) 01:42, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Is there a source for this sentence?

However, controversy caused by later studies suggest that villagers killed may have been combatants and that no massacre occurred.

According to the article, "only the core IZL narrative differs from the Arab and the remaining Israeli narratives". — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 01:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Milstein, noted in the article, and I was looking earlier today where Morris also seemed to change his tune later, but I do not have these sources. I was just reflecting what was in the article already and in the Morris article on Wiki. However, I see that I misread the Morris piece. He did not recant on the Deir Yassin. The lede could replace Milstein for later studies.Sposer (talk) 02:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Morris didn't change his mind. As I stated a few month on this talk page, in his last book (published in April 2008), he is quite clear about that massacre. And all(*) historians, from all sides, talk about a massacre for Deir Yassin. There is (only) one historian Uri Milstein who questions this but only for the events during the fights, not the massacre after them that occured in the quarry.

Concerning the distinction between the battle and the massacre : this is true for all massacres of that war. Kfar Etzion massacre also occured after a battle and Hadassah medical convoy massacre even occured during a battle (4 days after Deir Yassin, so in the same context). There were about 30 massacres during the 1948 war. The only one I have in mind that didn't occur during or after a battle is the Haifa Oil Refinery massacre. Ceedjee (talk) 06:37, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Ceedjee, Please read what I wrote above. I said that I misread Morris and that he never changed his mind. And, as I've said, I am not going to make changes, because I am not well-read enough on this. Just making suggestions for people to properly research. As for definition of massacre, it isn't a massacre if the deaths were part of the battle, but it is if after or before the battle, non-combatants are rounded up and killed. Deir Yassin, according to most historians, seems to fall into that category.Sposer (talk) 12:55, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Sposer,

I replied just after your message but I was not answering specifically to you. Sorry for that misunderstanding.

About massacre's definition, that is not as simple. At Deir Yassin, it is claimed civilians were taken as targets while the other version is that some arab men tried to escape while dressed in women, reason why everybody was targeted or simply that it is complete fallacy... Ceedjee (talk) 13:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Then you are basing conclusion (of title and opening statements) on speculations and of one side's POV, not the basic defenition of it. --Shevashalosh (talk) 15:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

About the use of the word massacre

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

See this discussion : Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/About the use of the word massacre. Ceedjee (talk) 10:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Changes need in article and title

Latest comment: 15 years ago33 comments10 people in discussion

The title is prejudice, and along with it's opening statment. there is a clear violation of NPOV by the prejudice Tiltle and the opening statment

I added addtional line on to article - not deleting anything, just adding along the "arab lines" - the "jewish lines" as well, but some how someone trys to shut my mouth not include the Jewish side of the story.

I want to add my "addtional lines" first (not deleting others, and then discuss the title. --Shevashalosh (talk) 05:32, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Please discuss your "additional lines" before adding or deleting anything. What exactly would you change?:Thank you. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 06:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to "delete" any content in body of the article, but rather "add on" the "Israeli lines", to be living "side by side" with the "Arabs line".

As for changes: The prejudice title should be change, to "Battle of deir yassin", as it is defined and widley known (other then arabs - see google) and rephrase the prejudice opening statement but do note in openong statement, that the arabs see this battle as a massacre, which is exaccly the reality of it, and thus, including both sides. Thank you --Shevashalosh (talk) 16:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Yoav Gelber, Propaganda as History - What really happened at Deir Yassin ? talks about that sujbect and refers several times to "Deir Yassin Battle". His conclusion is :

The massacre at Deir Yassin, if what happened in the village deserves this definition, was an almost inevitable outcome of circumstances – the nature of the combatants on both sides, their organization and location, level of training, deployment and mastery of command and control, the absence of proper military targets, the presence of a large number of civilians, and overarching exigencies and special stresses inherent in this kind of intra-communal warfare. Certainly, it was not the bloodiest massacre of the war. The killing of 240 Jews in Gush Etzion after their surrender, and 250 Arabs during the occupation of Lydda and its aftermath were more extensive by far.

Ceedjee (talk) 16:44, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Alan Dershowitz talk about "Deir Yassin massacre" in his book The case for Israel
So does Israeli historian David Tal in his book "War of Palestine, 1948"

Ceedjee (talk) 17:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Battle is hardly the correct term...Attacking a civilian village is not a Battle...Maybe a title of "IZL and LHI run amok killing indiscriminately in Deir Yassin".....however "massacre" is also an overstatement... Deir Yassin Incident would be more appropriate....using Battle to describe 2 groups of undisciplined militia attacking a civilian village would get you laughed out of any Military Academy...Google gives 278 hits for Battle of Deir Yassin and 15,700 for Deir Yassin Massacre...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 17:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

This is how it is widely known - "battle" (see google). The title "massacre" is a prejudice arab pahrse, not else. You can't determine a title based on arab alligations and and arab phrases alone, against what this battle is known for other then arabs.

Ashley has just given you the numbers that prove the contrary. And this is the same in google book.

Surley, if terrorists attacks, or any other attacks come out of a villagers, then you must attack that villagers and their village serounding the road to Jerusalem -shooting at you, when you wanna get Jewish convoys heading towards Jerusalem to supply food and water to Jewsih population.

Funny. Deir Yassin unhabitants had signed agreement with the neighbouring kibbutz. And they had expelled ALA soldiers in respect of this. They didn't participate to the blocus of Jesuralem.

This was included in Operation Nachshon, to conduct a battle that to clear the road to Jerusalm, (and allocate the Jewish state territory, on half of the land, which arabs refused to recoginzes it's right to exist - already in 1948)

No it was not included in operation Nahshon. :-) IZL and LHI decided they wanted their victory.

It is known to Jews and people other then arabs as "battle", and this is exaclly the reality, and by anycase, a prejudice title (and opening statemnet). "Masscare" known to arabs should be included within the body of the artice, not else.

As already told you here above Yoav Gelber among many talks about "massacre". So what ? Will you stop claiming and try to develop the article and not fight for nothing ?

By any case, while disscussing the prejudice title, I wanna add addtional line, living "side by side" (not deleting) the "arab lines". I can't find a problem in doing so - do you ?

LOL. LOL. LOL. That could sound logical and fair. But given what you want to add, it is not a "side by side" living. This is an encyclopaedy. Not a wikipedia:ballteground for Mudjahideen of the keyboard... Find several wp:rs sources, cross check and develop articles.

--Shevashalosh (talk) 20:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The title of this article has been debated ad nauseum. Please see my comments above concerning the archived discussions. There is no reason to discuss this again.

Please, can we discuss the proposed changes to the article.

Shevashalosh, I asked you what exactly you would like to change, and you didn't respond. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 20:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Reasoning for changing title now:

1) NPOV tag is placed,

2) The absence of the Jewish story - the absence of people complete knowlege of the facts, made them conclude this title (example, the word "battle" disapeared" during the course of time).

3) A prejudice title by any case (and opening ststement), that violates NPOV policy

Immidiate edit, for now:

A) addtional exsiting line in paragraph 2 of opening statement: The size of the figure had a considerable impact on the conflict in creating panic and became a major cause of the 1948 Palestinian exodus

that staes: + whereas the Jews perceived this exodus to be the flee of local arabs under the promise of neighboring arab states to invade and eliminate the exsiting Jewish community (The Yishuv) and the newlly emerging Jewish state.

B) adding additional line, to exsiting line in paragraph 3 of opening ststement:...it took place weeks before the official declaration of war in May 1948

that says: + The day Israel declared it's Independence.

and finally:

If I find anything else needed, I will post here, but this is for now,

After this immidiate edit, I want to continue the disscussions on NPOV violation of prejudice title and opening statement, but this is the immidiate edit I would like to add for now.

Shabazz ? --Shevashalosh (talk) 21:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

A) I agree that the traditional Israeli narrative is that the Palestinians fled because the other Arab states said that they would be able to return home after the victory against the Jews. But what does that have to do with Deir Yassin?

B) Yes, the official declaration of war in May followed Israel's declaration of its independence. But again, what does that have to do with Deir Yassin?

Keep in mind, Shevashalosh, that this is an encyclopedia article about the April events in Deir Yassin. It's not a history lesson about the Arab-Israeli conflict of 1948. The article needs to stay focused on its subject. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 21:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, but the article does mention other events in context, later then April 1948, that fact the importance of it is that the battle took place before may 15, the day of the declration of war - so you need to add that the same day , was the day Israel declaired it's Independence.

Second, The article did find it in contecxt to mention that the battle and the allegdlly high number that were killed, caused panic to become 1948 Palestinian exodus (after), and so in the same context, you must add the fact the the Jewish community (the Yishuv), perceived this exodus as local arabs fleeing under the promise of neighbouring arab states to eliminate the Jewish community, the Yishuv, and the newlly emerging state.

--Shevashalosh (talk) 22:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Shabazz ? --Shevashalosh (talk) 22:29, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

First of all, I'm not the only editor whose opinion is important here. I just happen to be the only one here today.

Second, I still don't understand why "you need" to add that information. You're talking about introducing information that has nothing to do with Deir Yassin. The idea that the events at Deir Yassin contributed to the Palestinian exodus is cause and effect. The idea that Israelis believe the Palestinian exodus had other causes is unrelated to the subject of this article. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 23:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you have the cause and affect, then you must include full info about it, the jews saw this as caus and affect on eliminating them.

As for declration of war may 15, that is mentinded , the fact, that it was the day that Israel declaired it's independence is basiclly absent.

Shabazz ? --Shevashalosh (talk) 00:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Benny Morris and other scholars refer several times to Deir Yassin to explain the PAlestinian exodus. Taht is the reason why we talk about this.

Are there scholars who refer to Deir Yassin to talk about the Jewish perception of the future or to the 1948 Israel declaration of independence ?

Background is not just a matter of satisfying people because they like it or don't like it. It needs good historical reasons.

Maybe somebody tried to explain the Deir Yassin atrocities by the fact that Irgun and LHI soldiers wanted to do to Palestinians what they fear will be done to them later (so as an excuse). I can check this. That is not impossible. Ceedjee (talk) 07:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

If one is to refer to suspected attacks from the village as "Terrorist" attacks maybe one should remember that Lehi and Irgun were designated as terrorist organizations....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 09:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC) how can one say that the article hasn't got the Israeli line as most of the article is based around Milstein and Morris?...To make the article neutral one needs to add far more from the Palestinian perspective. At present the article is far to Israeli centric...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 09:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

It is true it is not neutral.

I just want to point out that the expression "Israeli centric" is nonsense. Among Israelis, there are different perception of the past, as well as "Arab centric" when there is "Palestinian perspective" and the "Arab perspective"... NPoV is a real challenge for all these events. Ceedjee (talk) 15:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The article is based around Morris (9), Milstein (20), Meir Pa'il (2), Kananah & Zaytuni (6), Gorodentchik (4), Silver (2) and the rest 1 ref each. That is overwhelmingly from an Israeli perspective.....7:1 ratio...The article is slightly more weighted to Israeli right than to Israeli left....I do realize the limitations imposed by the lack of Arab sources...However, given the lack of Arab sources it is not to bad a job of presentation of the various arguments....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 14:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The entire world knows there was a Massacre In 1998 the Zionists of America published an extensive denialist piece entitled "Deir Yassin: History of a Lie" which is reproduced in full here. Although it was a denialist piece, it conceded that academia overwhelmingly supported the view that a massacre took place: "A total of 170 English-language history books which refer to the battle of Deir Yassin were analyzed for this study. Only 8 of the 170 raised serious doubts as to whether or not there had been a massacre." In other words, 95.3% of academic sources reviewed for the article accepted that a massacre took place. That, by any measure, is an overwhelming consensus, and demonstrates just how marginal the anti-massacre position is. PR^talk 08:44, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The "entire world" also believes that "Baywatch" makes for better TV than Shakespeare. This does not prove anything. Nor does the fact that "academia overwhelmingly supported the view that a massacre took place." You'd have to take at least one good course in historiography to see exactly what sort of incorrect information gets into history books. "Deir Yassin: History of a Lie" tried to fix that problem - that is, in fact, what their "concession" meant! No amount of dismissing it as "denialist" is going to change that. Why don't you try to refute some of the facts it produced, instead of just saying that "lots of people agree with me"? A fact being "amrginally believed" does not change its truthfulness one iota.FlaviaR (talk) 05:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

The entire world may in fact be correct in believing that "Baywatch" makes for better TV than Shakespeare (there aren't enough Shakespeare plays to fill more than just over one season for instance), and that academia's overwhelming support of something is a good indication that the opposing view is a fringe belief. "Deir Yassin: History of a Lie" reads just like a conspiracy theory ("Only 8 of the 170 raised serious doubts as to whether or not there had been a massacre"... "this extraordinary pamphlet, with its complete reversal of earlier Labor Zionist charges of a massacre, was almost universally ignored by historians"). It should be noted that even "Deir Yassin: History of a Lie" acknowledges that 100+ civilians, among them old men, women and children, were killed by Israeli irregular forces, well before the '48 war.MeteorMaker (talk) 19:26, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Again, just because "more people think so" doesn't make things so. Facts are what makes things so. Like, for instance, the fact that a season on television is barely 26 episodes, and none of them over an hour. There's more than enough Shakespeare for that. IOW, opinions are not facts (especially the remark that "History of a Lie" reads just like a conspiracy theory").FlaviaR (talk) 06:16, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

It's hardly anything else than a personal opinion that Shakespeare would make for better TV than "Baywatch", so it was a bad example to begin with. What about the fact in the last sentence in the post you replied to, doesn't that kind of invalidate the claim that a massacre did not take place in Deir Yassin? MeteorMaker (talk) 15:07, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". If "academia overwhelmingly supported the view that a massacre took place", then Wikipedia says a massacre took place. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 02:31, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

You contradict yourself, however unwittingly: verifiability does NOT equal "everyone believes". DO you know how many people used to think radio programs were real life (for just one egregious example)? FlaviaR (talk) 06:16, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Verifiablility, in the WP sense, means roughly "can be linked to", preferably to solid, reliable, academic, non-fringe sources. I doubt there was ever an academic consensus that "War of the Worlds" was real, so I don't know what you expected your example to prove. You may also find this reading enlightening. MeteorMaker (talk) 15:07, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

If that's all verifiability is, then everything I have said should stand. Your strawman doesn;t change that, FlaviaR (talk) 07:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead then and verify everything you've said: That Shakespeare makes for better TV than "Baywatch", that academic consensus = "everyone believes", that there wasn't a massacre at Deir Yassin despite the fact that even your best source acknowledges that 100+ civilians, among them old men, women and children, were killed by Israeli irregular forces. MeteorMaker (talk) 07:44, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for admitting that your opinions don't make fact, & that nothing you post proves that there was a massacre. FlaviaR (talk) 22:42, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I am from the village of Deir Yassin. I am from the Jaber family, currently one of the biggest families from Deir Yassin. This article is very biased. Ask anyone who was present in Deir Yassin and they will tell you there was NO massacre. Most of the men in Deir Yassin either served in the British army or were part of militias carrying out attacks on the Jews. Two Jewish gangs decided to attack Deir Yassin while many of the men of Deir Yassin were away on a mission. The remaining people, both men and women, defended the village. This battle lasted about two days. At this point, the villagers were out of ammunition and supplies and the battle was over. There were casualties on both sides. Seventy-two villagers died in the battle. I am not sure how many died on the Jewish side. That is basically the short version of what happened. Arabs from neighboring towns and villages over exaggerated the events. They claimed women were raped and hundreds of people were killed. None of that is true. To call this even a massacre is an insult to all of the villagers of Deir Yassin who fought bravely and paid the ultimate price. There are many survivors of that battle who are still alive today. Several of them live with their descendants in Chicago and San Diego. I urge all of you who are interested in this topic to seek out people from Deir Yassin instead of getting your information from these liberals who call themselves supporters of Arabs. They are not helping by keeping the lies about a massacre going. They are just attempting to gain sympathy for their own causes. Also, beware of the websites collecting money for a supposed Deir Yassin Memorial. If anyone has any questions or comments on Deir Yassin, feel free to email me at "alix007x@yahoo.com" Patriot007 (talk) 09:06, 6 November 2008 (UTC)Patriot007

Hi! The person from Jaber family, are you a jewish settler or a Palestinian? I think academic sources are infact based on witness accounts. And did you question yourself that those descendents who are displaced, why they are not being let come back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.85.194.75 (talk) 19:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for coming forward with your story - I just wish there was a way to verify it for inclusion in the article. FlaviaR (talk) 22:42, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

This article's title is fine as it is. Take a look at Kfar Etzion massacre. --Sherif9282 (talk) 15:27, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Well-poisoning juxtaposition

Latest comment: 16 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Further to what I'm adding at the end of the previous section, the statement in the lead that: "The battle of Deir Yassin took place weeks before the Kfar Etzion massacre and the official declaration of war in May 1948" reads like well-poisoning - if not outright denialism. Amongst other things, it encourages editors such as Shevashalosh above (now indef-blocked for making legal threats) to try and shovel in all kinds of unpleasant revisionist nonsense.

I propose to remove that statement from the article. Kfar Etzion was an armed camp, deep inside what was to become the new (though completely unprepared) Palestinian(?) state. The settlers in Kfar Etzion had a choice of cooperatively living under the new sovereignty or evacuating a place they'd lived in no longer than 5 years. Instead of which, they chose, quite freely, to take up arms and defy the armed services of an entire state (which happened to be Jordan).

Sad though it was that a considerable number were massacred after surrender, they'd chosen to fight and had been doing so for months. (Not so long ago, under Christianity, a city that resisted a siege was considered lawful target for massacre). The defenders of the three adjacent settlements (who'd been there a maximum of 3 years) were taken as POWs and released some 6 or 9 months later. This is hugely different from the defenders of Deir Yassin, innocent (indeed friendly) villagers surprised in the middle of the night by a gang of militants (to give them their most favorable title) who planned, but failed to arrange, a panic with psychological warfare (loud-speaker warnings such as those used on 27th March to warn of a typhoid catastrophe such as the one that struck Acre before that city's fall). PR^talk 08:44, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Kfar Etzion was a civilian settlement, not an "armed camp". Its residents were armed, yes, just like the residents of Dier Yassin. Please don't remove well sourced information in order to push a POV. NoCal100 (talk) 14:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Though PR is wrong in virtually all he has written above (it isn't well-poisoning, nor denialism, no serious person disputes Kfar Etzion was a massacre, etc), he is right that the clause in question it doesn't belong in the lead. It might be possible to discuss the chants of "Deir Yassin" that those Arabs who perpetrated Kfar Etzion chanted, but that would go later in the article, not the lead. IronDuke 15:17, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with that.NoCal100 (talk) 15:26, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree with NoCal100 IronDuke and PR here. There is no reference to Deir Yassin in the lead of the Kfar Etzion massacre, and so the reference here is out of place. Removing "The battle of Deir Yassin took place weeks before the Kfar Etzion massacre and the official declaration of war in May 1948" RomaC (talk) 17:07, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

If you cannot cite the claim it should be deleted

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This article is full of [citation needed] markings. If the claim cannot be verified it should not be in the article at all. Sections about historical background and the loudspeaker truck are nothing but hearsay unless someone can provide documentation. Shame on you nerds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.244.63.215 (talk) 03:27, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Main consequence

Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I think the main consequence of Deir Yassin was it~s impact on the April-May Palestinian exodus. You can find information about this in Morris... The Birth and I think most if not all books about this. I don't have time to give more help but that is really a major issue. Rgds, Ceedjee (talk) 06:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

(Ok. It is in the lead but not the core of the article) Ceedjee (talk) 06:17, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

You're right, that needs to be added. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 09:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Concering lead adjustments at Deir Yassin

Latest comment: 15 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

(copied from User talk:SlimVirgin)

I'm posting this here since you did not include any rationale in talk.

Here is the lead before my first edit on June 10:

June 10. Here is the current lead June 11. The latest completely violates neutrality policy. Many points in the lead, which are dubiously portrayed as unquestioned truth, are analyzed and debated in later parts of the article. The lead is to provide a neutral and safe introduction that won't confuse the reader. Can you please slow down your editing at the article and collaborate in talk??? I'd like to revert the current lead to the previous one but I'll wait on that. Thanks. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Here are the links: the previous lead; the current lead.

WP:NPOV says we must represent majority and significant minority views, but not tiny minority ones; in a subject such as this, that will tend to mean the majority and significant minority views of historians. WP:LEAD says the lead must be a stand-alone summary of the article, including the topic's significant controversies.

Which part of the current lead do you feel violates either of the above? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 09:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikifan,

What happens here reminds me of what already happened in the past between us on another article. You criticized too the neutrality but refused systematically to state with accuracy what you disagree with, admitting you didn't know the topic.

SV already asked you several times (as I did at the time; and as did third:party at the time too) to state very precisely the sentence that does not respect wp:npov and why...

If you don't give this precisely, it is not possible to address any of your comment.

So, once again, and I hope I will not have to, as last time, copy/paste without end this request on the talk page : what sentence(s) do you disagree with and why ? What pov do you think should be added, precisely ? If we don't have this, do you have the wp:rs source (author, book, page number) where it is detailled.

...

Ceedjee (talk) 09:24, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Provide a rationale for your lead rewrite. There was no talk discussion, no explanation, just 10 anonymous edits and then expecting me to dispute. Here, picture this: I go and rewrite the entire lead and then expect you to explain why it's POV. Wikipedia=collaborate. A major adjustment like that requires a thorough rationale. I was pretty explicit in my post. The lead shouldn't confuse the reader, the previous version was fine and no one seemed to have a problem with it. Then Slim had the audacity to gut the lead unilaterally and now dubiously demands users explain why she is wrong. I really don't like how she came in and accused me of POV-pushing when I didn't even edit the article except for a restoring a tag which she removed without rationale. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:22, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm waiting. Wikifan12345 (talk) 11:02, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

copied/pasted : "[in the lead] what sentence(s) do you disagree with and why ? What pov do you think should be added, precisely ? If we don't have this, do you have the wp:rs source (author, book, page number) where it is detailled."

Ceedjee (talk) 12:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Uh? Wikifan12345 (talk) 09:15, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

A note on a source

Latest comment: 15 years ago25 comments7 people in discussion

Just noting here, in case anyone notices and wonders about it, that I've listed an article by Ronnie Kasrils in The Electronic Intifada as a source. [3] I'm citing his article only because I took Red Cross and British police quotes from it. He cites his sources, and as soon as I've seen those directly (or another scholarly equivalent that also uses these quotes), I'll refer to them instead. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Your footnotes state "cited in Hirst, cited in Kasrils". I take this to mean that you have not read them in Hirst, but only in the Kasrils article. I do not have the updated version of Hirst's book, but can confirm that these same quotes are in the 1977 Faber & Faber paperback edition, on pages 127-8 and 126 respectively, and that Kasrils has repeated them accurately. RolandR 20:21, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Roland, that's very helpful. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Kasrils is far from a wp:rs source.

Anyway, I have most of the text in French (de Reynier was a Belgian) and the translation, if selective, is fidel to the text, except that the word "gang" is used to translate the word "troupe" which should simply be translated by "troop" or "platoon".

I didn't find the references about the facts that they were well disciplined and only obeyed to orders but I lack a part of the text.

Ceedjee (talk) 21:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Small note: I'd hate to see Electronic Intifada or any Jewish equivalent (like opinion pieces on "http://www.sos-israel.com/") used for citing external quotes (or almost anything else) on here. Please remove the source and cite the text with a ^{[citation needed]} tag until such time as you find a proper source for it. These type of sources would be brilliant if we wanted rumors and falsehoods spread like fire in a dry corn-field.
Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:23, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

EI should never be in any Jew/Pal article unless we are quoting the media/advocacy org for its own article. All info from the site should be removed without question. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:26, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Courtesy links to websites like Palestine Remembered are, in fact, allowed. The ultimate source was Hirst, and that's now been clarified, thanks to Roland. [4]

Another source question: I'd like to quote from this Irgun statement, which has been translated into English by a Wikipedian. However, there's no source on the image page, and I can't find one elsewhere. I've written to the uploader on the Commons, but he doesn't edit much and may not see it. Does anyone here know about the provenance of the statement? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 08:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

SlimVirgin,

Are you honestly saying that "websites like Palestine Remembered" are to be promoted for adding content to the project?

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:18, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what you guys are smoking. Those activist sites violate the most basic rules of wikipedia:reliable sources. We might as well throw in some CAMERA or IMEMC. Wikifan12345 (talk) 10:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Smoking is bad for health, thank for the reminder. Wikipedia is not a cencorship either. You use the most reliable source you can find on the matter, to include even minority views. If you feel the reference is not reliable enough, you can tag it, and make a search for a better source. Removing a source is not an option. In the same manner, CAMERA, ADL or any other pro ... site or any other organised site used (as long as they are talking about verifiable facts), Palestine Remembered can be used, with PR claims ... style. Kasaalan (talk) 13:23, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Can anyone make out what this image says? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 13:15, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

In the photograph, it writes Nachson Unit, maybe related to Nachshon Wachsman, but not really much sure. Kasaalan (talk) 13:29, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

No, the Wachshon Unit is a unit of the Israeli Prison Service that specialises in transporting prisoners. I can't read any more of the text. Zero^talk 13:47, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

It seems to be a plaque in Hebrew and Dutch, recognising the work of the Nachshon Unit. This is nothing to do with Nachshon Watchman; according to Hebrew Wikipedia, it is "the operational arm of the Prison Service". But this makes little sense in this context -- what I can read of the text refers to volunmteers from Holland, donations and "Friends of the hospital". I suspect this is a plaque in a hospital somewhere in Israel, named after an unidentified "Nachshon" and noting the donors. Where is the picture from? RolandR

(ec)I see now where you found the picture. The Kfar Shaul Hospital for Mental Health was established in the ruins of Deir Yassin in 1968; it now forms part of the Sarah Herzog Hospital. This plaque presumably commemorated donors from the Netherlands who established a wing at the hospital, though I can find no more information. RolandR 14:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I've written to that website for more information. They have some images that appear to be of the actual Deir Yassin buildings inside the hospital. [5] If that's what they are, I'll ask if they're willing to release any for our use. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 15:10, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it's a plaque inside the psychiatric hospital built on the Deir Yassin site. I just wondered if it said anything relevant to the article. It's from the Deir Yassin Remembered site. Could it be named after Operation_Nachshon (the operation during which Deir Yassin was attacked)?

Also on that site is roughly the same Catling quote I asked about above, this time without so many ellipses. Roland, is this in the Hirst book i.e. is the version below there?

"The recording of statements is hampered also by the hysterical state of the women who often break down many times whilst the statement is being recorded. There is, however, no doubt that many sexual atrocities were committed by the attacking Jews. Many young schoolgirls were raped and later slaughtered. Old women were also molested. One story is current concerning a case in which a young girl was literally torn in two. Many infants were also butchered and killed. I also saw one old woman . . . who had been severely beaten about the head with rifle butts. Women had bracelets torn from their arms and rings from their fingers and parts of some of the women's ears were severed in order to remove earrings." [6]

SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 14:50, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that is in Hirst. The complete quote is "On 14th April at 10 a.m. I visited Silwan village accompanied by a doctor and a nurse from the Government Hospital in Jerusalem and a member of the Arab Women's Union. We visited many houses in this village in which approximately some two to three hundred people from Deir Yassin are housed. I interviewed many of the womenfolk in order to glean some information on any atrocities committed in Deir Yassin but the majority of these women are very shy and reluctant to relate their experiences especially in matters concerning sexual assault and they need great coaxing before they will divulge any information. The recording of statements is hampered also by the hysterical state of the women who often break down many times whilst the statement is being recorded. There is, however, no doubt that many sexual atrocities were committed by the attacking Jews. Many young schoolgirls were raped and later slaughtered. Old women were also molested. One story is current concerning a case in which a young girl was literally torn in two. Many infants were also butchered and killed. I also saw one old woman who gave her age as one hundred and four who had been severely beaten about the head with rifle butts. Women had bracelets torn from their arms and rings from their fingers and parts of some of the women's ears were severed in order to remove earrings." Hirst's own footnote to this, giving the CID report as the source, itself cites Dominique Lapierre and Larry Collins' O Jerusalem!, suggesting that Hirst too had not seen the original, but relied on a secondary source. It would be worth checking whether Lapierre and Collins had themselves quoted the original, or even better to see the document itself, in order to verify the accuracy of the quote. RolandR 15:17, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Lapierre & Collins give the following references :

doc. 179/110/17/65 from Sir R.C. Catling, Criminal Investigation Department. It was transmitted to General Cunningham on April 15, 1948.

It sounds as if they have had access to this but it not written.

The version I have of L&C doens't fit at 100% what is written here above. Maybe a translation problem ? Ceedjee (talk) 15:33, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Hirst cites the 1972 Simon and Schuster edition, p 276. Maybe you have a different edition? RolandR 15:40, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I have the French version, easier for me. I think it is a "problem" of translation. There is nothing relevant in the facts that would have been modified but the structure of the sentences is different.

From what I check, I think what is written in DR-R website is fidel, in particular for the testimonies given and reported in the book of L&C. Ceedjee (talk) 15:47, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for all this. There's something odd about this report. Gelber writes that he couldn't get access to the original. Lapierre and Collins said they had it, and that they had passed it on to the Brown University library, according to Gelber. Gelber reports that Brown was unable to find it. It all sounds very mysterious. I'll write to Lapierre and Collins to see what I can find out. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

The DYR site is not relevant now, since we have verified the quote in Hirst from 1977. The same version appears in other English books on my shelf; I think we can assume that this is the version that appears in L & C English. Since this was a British police report, the original would have been in English, so any difference with the French text you have is likely to result from the translation to French, not to English. RolandR 15:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

99% agree. (if somebody can check in L&C English, just for the principle, 100%) Ceedjee (talk) 16:06, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I've added the full quote now. [7] Thanks for typing it up, Roland. I'll try to pin down how many reports there were, and where the originals are. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

About 'Brown University library' and YG, you are right. I had forgotten this. I think Dominique Lapierre, Larry Collins and Yoav Gelber are all reliable of course. I ask on my side. Maybe the best, anyway, would be to ask the Brown University... Ceedjee (talk) 16:26, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Map

Latest comment: 15 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion

I'd like to use this map, but I can't find it anywhere else, so I'm not sure if it's genuine. Does anyone have knowledge of it? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:12, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Same map with explanations "Following is a map of the attack, apparently from Irgun archives. It is not clear if this is the plan of attack, or the attack as carried out. The map shows the house of the Mukhtar in the West, and the main direction of attack of the Lehi and Irgun. It also shows quarries between Deir Yassin and Givat Shaul. In one of these quarries, according to Meir Pail, about 25 prisoners were shot by the attackers." http://middle-east.yu-hu.com/peacewatch/dy/deirmap.htm Kasaalan (talk) 18:36, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Also http://www.zionism-israel.com/ezine/Jerusalem_ben_yehuda_bombing.htm may help for other reference. Kasaalan (talk) 18:37, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

That's very helpful, thank you. I wonder if the first link you gave for the map would count as a reliable source. I'm concerned that I can't find this map on the Irgun site, and it's not clear who added the English. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:45, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Main site http://middle-east.yu-hu.com/peacewatch/ Deir Yassin section http://middle-east.yu-hu.com/peacewatch/dy/ maybe helpful to you ariga.com also belogs to peacewatch as a clearance

I cannot tell for sure how reliable they are right now, but they are somehow related to http://www.mideastweb.org/ and possibly an multicultural jew-arab effort. Mideastweb is used as a source in 128 other wikipedia articles in middle eastern issues. You may try asking via mail. Try checking this site to find mail address http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/5455/ of the site owner. Kasaalan (talk) 18:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

You should add the map, however with a claimed attack map note since we didn't verify source yet. Kasaalan (talk) 19:03, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Some other sources http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=LQcOAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA44&lpg=PA44&dq=irgun+deir+yassin&source=bl&ots=NVTH7jD_pS&sig=aBcN6zQEtUE4CTapDcVbg9gUgSs&hl=en&ei=JJg2SsD8PJuG_Abu1sjiCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=21#PPA44,M1 book pages 43-46, http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/deir_yassin.html, jewish source sided but maybe helpful for crossreference, http://www.thejerusalemfund.org/www.thejerusalemfund.org/carryover/pubs/20010926ftr.html holocaust and deir yassin museums. Kasaalan (talk) 19:03, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Einstein - wp:undue ?

Latest comment: 15 years ago12 comments4 people in discussion

I think Einstein's letter is wp:undue. I have never read reference to this in any historian account of the events. This is quite logical given this has had no impact on the following events.
This is not an article about general relativity. The fact BG had wanted him as future First President of Israel is not enough - I think.
I would move this to the talk page until there are is far more big. Ceedjee (talk) 16:06, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

You could be right. I'm moving it here until we decide:

"Daniel McGowan writes that, on April 10, the day after the killings, Albert Einstein wrote to the American Friends of the Fighters for the Freedom of Israel, an organization that collected donations in the U.S. for the Irgun, and which had approached Einstein for help. Referring to the "terrorist organizations build [sic] up from our own ranks," he wrote that he was not willing to see "anyone associated with those misled and criminal people."^[1]

"Einstein protested again on December 2 that year, signing a letter with 27 other prominent Jewish intellectuals, including Hannah Arendt and Sidney Hook, which was published in The New York Times two days later. The letter criticized a fundraising visit to the United States by Menachem Begin, leader of the Irgun, and specifically condemned the attack on Deir Yassin:

Albert Einstein signed a letter of protest at Begin's visit to the U.S.

A shocking example was their behavior in the Arab village of Deir Yassin. This village, off the main roads and surrounded by Jewish lands, had taken no part in the war, and had even fought off Arab bands who wanted to use the village as their base. On April 9 (The New York Times), terrorist bands attacked this peaceful village, which was not a military objective in the fighting, killed most of its inhabitants— 240 men, women and children—and kept a few of them alive to parade as captives through the streets of Jerusalem. Most of the Jewish community was horrified at the deed, and the Jewish Agency sent a telegram of apology to King Abdullah of Trans-Jordan. But the terrorists, far from being ashamed of their act, were proud of this massacre, publicized it widely, and invited all the foreign correspondents present in the country to view the heaped corpses and the general havoc at Deir Yassin ...
"During the last years of sporadic anti-British violence, the IZL and Stern groups inaugurated a reign of terror in the Palestine Jewish community. Teachers were beaten up for speaking against them, adults were shot for not letting their children join them. By gangster methods, beatings, window-smashing, and wide-spread robberies, the terrorists intimidated the population and exacted a heavy tribute.^[2]"

SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:19, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

The second "Einstein" letter, at least, is well-known and widely quoted. Google Books lists eight uses, and there are many more non-book Google hits. I think this should be restored to the article. RolandR 16:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

8 hits but none in books about Deir Yassin, the 48 war, the exodus and none from historian.

The most notorious (to me) is from a political book, not an historical book.

I would personnaly expect one from a notorious scholar of the '48 war to be quoted. To get a full section, I would expect quotes from several of them.

Fortunately, the story of the loudspeaker was reduced to one line (Morris and Millstein talk about this). We should at best do the same for the letters.

Ceedjee (talk) 17:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

^ Einstein, Albert. Letter to American Friends of the Fighters for the Freedom of Israel, April 10, 1948, cited in McGowan 1998, and McGowan website, Deir Yassin Remembered. [1]
^ New Palestine Party, The New York Times, December 4, 1948. See [2]

Your search is somehow wrong approach, expecting full quote is not required.

1948 herut einstein "new york times" 16
1948 menachem einstein "new york times" 40
1948 deir yassin einstein "new york times" 38
"deir yassin" einstein 152

Also some of these matches are different sources and google search only search within indexed online results, not through all academic sources. But somehow the letter is more widely known after rescan in 2002, of the original opinion letter to New York Times. Kasaalan (talk) 04:19, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Kind of my area so I will declare some opinions. Wikicommons or some other wiki site like wikiquotes has the quote and scanned letter, I know because I contributed to that page before. Not only Einstein, but near 40 leading Jewish American wrote a letter, and published in The New York Times as far as I recall, condemning the event, and their concern over Zionist political violance in Israel.

Also you can of course discuss undue, but no need to check the integrity. Because original copy of the newspaper, is scanned and published (by a reliable academic party as far as I recall), I have read from original scan of the newspaper, if anyone doubts my word. Kasaalan (talk) 20:35, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

It is a bit interesting google search not helped for wiki page I mentioned, however I found required sources. Relevant wiki article http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Albert_Einstein#Zionism Source http://phys4.harvard.edu/~wilson/NYTimes1948.html Scan http://www.globalwebpost.com/farooqm/study_res/einstein/nyt_orig.html Kasaalan (talk) 04:19, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Also not reliable and a biased source but http://www.zionism-israel.com/Albert_Einstein/Albert_Einstein_zionism.htm has interesting quotes over Einstein's Zionism supportive thoughts (if they are verifiable). Kasaalan (talk) 04:19, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Kasaalan,

I didn't say the letters don't exist. They have a notoriaty and are known.

But I just think it is not important for the article. Albert Einstein was a famous man, in physics, but for what concerns Deir Yassin, his mind comes low in the list of the relevance.

Ceedjee (talk) 06:10, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

You may have a point but you miss two things. First "When President Chaim Weizmann died in 1952, Einstein was asked to be Israel's second president, but he declined, stating that he had "neither the natural ability nor the experience to deal with human beings."", so he is not just some physician. Second the letter was signed by 40 leading members of Jewish community, not only by Einstein. Kasaalan (talk) 18:28, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi,

What means 40 leadings members of the Jewish community ? And Einstein declined. All this doesn't bring anything in the article and at best deserve a line and but never a section.

Simpy because it had no consequence and no effect on the events, reasons why it is not talked about by historians.

Ceedjee (talk) 06:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Einstein offered Israel's presidency but declined in 1950s as I quoted. I meant http://phys4.harvard.edu/~wilson/NYTimes1948.html letter to New York Times in 1948. 28 or more leading jewish american people signed the letter including Einstein, not personal letter. They are 2 separate cases. Kasaalan (talk) 18:25, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

topographic map

Latest comment: 15 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

What is the reason for removing the topographic map? It is admittedly rather ugly but it does provide information otherwise missing (such as the relationship of the village to the Tel-Aviv Road that is sometimes disputed). Zero^talk 00:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I didn't remove this... But honestly, it is only by respect for you I never did so because it is really ugly and unreadable.

We could make a nice one having the same information but SV brought another one but discarded this due to lack of good source, I think.

Ceedjee (talk) 06:13, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I removed it because I couldn't see what it showed. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 15:18, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Can you put a link to the map. Kasaalan (talk) 18:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

It was this one. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Heading change

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Wouldn't it be better if we renamed the section "Allegations that Arab militia were stationed there" to "Allegations of Arab militia presence" or something along those lines. It's a minor issue, but I just think the current title is too long and basic. Any thoughts/objections? --Al Ameer son (talk) 05:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it's too long. I'm currently just playing around with headers and section position to find a narrative structure that works. It's like wrestling with an octopus, so don't be alarmed if you see something odd, unless it's been there for a few days, in which case do be alarmed. :-) SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 12:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Concerns about sourcing

Latest comment: 15 years ago11 comments4 people in discussion

I've just bought the Collins and Lapierre book O Jerusalem, and it's clearly not a reliable source. It's a populist account, written as though the authors were there (Ahmed gently woke his sleeping wife, etc). We don't use it directly (I don't think), but we do rely on it (as do reliable sources) for the Palestine Police Force report, written by Richard Catling. Collins and Lapierre say in a footnote that they had copies of the original reports when they wrote the book, and the long quotation from Catling comes from them, though Yoav Gelber was, it seems, unable to obtain a copy from them. Hirst cites Collins and Lapierre when he refers to the Catling reports too.

I'm therefore concerned that we're also relying on it for the Reynier Red Cross report, because a Google search for Reynier's words is only returning sources who cite Wikipedia or Collins and Lapierre. Roland, can you please look in your copy of Hirst again, and see what he cites for the Reynier quote? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 04:40, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

O Jerusalem is written in a popular style and not like a serious history book. I expect it is quite reliable on bare facts and doesn't invent significant things (just filler like you quoted), but I share your concerns. One notable thing about the book is that the authors' access to the people involved in the events was spectacular (as recorded in the endnotes). Regarding Reynier, if I remember correctly they refer to his diary, not to his official report or book. One thing they report from his diary (that he saw someone actually being stabbed) is not in his book; otherwise the agreement is good. I have his book and will email you a scan of the Deir Yassin pages soon. I hope your French is better than mine. Zero^talk 05:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Hirst has a page-long quote from Reynier. The extracts we have in the article are verbally identical, but , unlike with the Catling report, Hirst does not arttribute the quote to O Jerusalem!; instead, he cites Reynier's A Jerusalem un Drapeau Flottait sur la Ligne de Feu,(included in our bibliography), p71-6. I think Ceedjee mentioned that he has this book. It is significant that the translations are identical, suggesting that Hirst made an unacknowledged use of L&P; I suspect that he then checked the original, which unlike Catling is available to others, so saw no need to note where he had seen it first. But Ceedjee has questioned some of the terms, though not the fundamental accuracy, of the translation, so it may be worth asking him to scan the whole passage. Reynier is also quoted in Christopher Sykes, Cross Roads to Israel, New English Library, London 1967; he cites an article by the same name by Reynier in Histoire et Societé d'Aujourd'hu, Geneva 1950. This is available online [8], but does not appear to have an article by Reynier. Maybe there is another journal of the same name? RolandR 07:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

"Histoire et Societé d'Aujourd'hui" is the series in which de Reynier's book was published. I think Sykes citation means his book. Zero^talk 11:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Reynier is also cited by Salim Tamari, director of the Institute of Jerusalem Studies, in Jerusalem 1948: The Arab Neighbourhoods and their Fate in the War (IJS Jerusalem and Badil Resource Center Berhlehem, 1999). He sourced the citations from Henry Cattan, The Palestine Question, London 1988. Elsewhere, Cattan notes that the section on Deir Yassin from Reynier's book was translated by the Institute of Palestine Studies and reprinted in Walid Khalidi's From Haven to Conquest. RolandR 08:57, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Roland, that's great. So it's safe to assume the Reynier material is solid, is that right, in terms of sourcing? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 15:31, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi. In a few words. I don't have the book of Reinier BUT I have a book written by French historian fr:Dominique Vidal, How Israel expelled the Palestinians. He quotes Reinier (in French) and the English translation given here above is good, except troupe was translated by gang where troop or squad would be better.
L&C are considered a reliable source because they are in the bibliography of Morris, Gelber at least and many others. The are also quoted by Shapira in her book about the historiography of Latrun. (But I concurr with SV and Zero about the "style".)
If you send me Reinier page by email or if you write this here, I can translate this in English (maybe with some support) and we can so directly source from Reinier. I would have more concern with Reinier (primary source, involved actor) than with L&C (secondary source, journalists of high standing) about reliability but that is another stuff.

Ceedjee (talk) 09:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The article on French Wikipedia has a link [9] to an article in "Alliance: The premier magazine of the Francophone Jewish community" with the text of Reynier's comments. RolandR 09:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

It is shorter than what is in his book. Zero^talk 11:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

As I wrote above I have the book and will scan all the Deir Yassin pages tomorrow. Anyone who wants a copy, send me email by the link on my home page. Zero^talk 11:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd like a copy, please, though my French is awful. Next step is to find the Catling report. Collins and Lapierre do seem to be the only source for that. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 15:31, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

"Invasion"

Latest comment: 15 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

Interesting article, but I think the term "invade" / "invasion" to refer to a village is inappropriate. You can invade a country, but you can't invade a village. --Dweller (talk) 09:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it looks odd. Changed to "attack". Gatoclass (talk) 09:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I think attack is fine, but invade fits as well. See first definition. It is not required that a territory be a sovereign state for it to be invaded, it just needs to be territory controlled by another party, and at the time Deir Yassin was. Nableezy (talk) 14:41, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Invasion was fine. If you can invade a home, you can invade a village. That's what the militia did: they invaded it, killed or expelled the residents, and made it their own. That is a little more than an "attack." SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 14:48, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Interesting responses. This might be a regional English issue. If I were reading a fictional account of a handful of German soldiers parachuting into an English village in WWII, I'd find the use of the term "invade" extremely odd, but I'd happily accept the term for tens of thousands of them coming over the sea or dropping from the sky. As another example, I wouldn't call the Allies' attack on Dieppe an "invasion", but a "raid" or "attack" or whatnot. (Indeed, our account uses the term only in reference to planning for the future, ultimate invasion of Europe)

I've never heard the term "home invasion" before, but I'd readily accuse someone of "invading my privacy". Perhaps this is just the usual WP:ENGVAR issue.

Given the political sensitivities around this article, perhaps it's worth avoiding a term that for some (many) English speakers implies crossing of national borders, because I can imagine this argument blowing up into something I never intended. Oh gosh, have I unwittingly played Pandora...? --Dweller (talk) 15:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Dweller, if the handful of Germans had parachuted in, killed or expelled everyone, and had then stayed, taking over the village's administration (turning it into a psychiatric hospital), you might feel more inclined to call it "invasion." And this did cross a border, in the sense that it wasn't Israel (and wasn't named as part of the proposed Jewish state by the UN), but was entered nevertheless. Also, what matters here is what the sources say, and they do use the word "invasion" interchangeably with other words (raid, attack etc), as we did here, which is why we did it here. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Feel free to revert. --Dweller (talk) 18:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

This Diff

Latest comment: 15 years ago9 comments5 people in discussion

Curious why the blanket revert? Clearly an editor saw some problems, for example re describing Irgun as "fighters" not militants; and describing Human shields are "screens", I have never seen that euphemism used on Wiki before. There are more, can we start with these? Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 02:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Some of Jim Fitzgerald's edits were improvements, including the elimination of that euphemism. The problem is that there were just a few good changes among a slew of POV edits and many others that changed the historical facts. Examples include replacing "killed" with "murdered" and "Palestinian militiamen" with "Palestinian troops". Somebody who has the patience can separate the wheat from the chaff. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 04:06, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The edit was problematic, and changed things for no reason e.g. Arab militiamen (they were militiamen, according to the source) to Arab troops who tried to take up residence. Troops is quite wrong in this context. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:22, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, it can be a problem when an editor makes a bunch of changes at one time, especially to an article such as this one. Hopefully there can be specific discussions addressing some of the points and we can improve the article. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 10:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Could Jim Fitzgerald say what he's trying to achieve with his edit and revert, please? The material doesn't conform to what the sources say, and using "murdered" only serves to provoke. None of the historians that I've seen call Irgun "militants," which is a late 20th-century journalistic term used to avoid "terrorist." And to call someone a "militiaman," you'd have to know that he was a part-time fighter, which may or may not be the case here, so it introduces an unnecessary complication to use it of the Irgun. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:20, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The thing I do not quite understand after reading a number of articles related to Arab-Israeli conflict, is that why members of Irgun or Lehi are not explicitly called militiamen, and in contrast Arab forces are often called militiamen. The word militiamen has a negative meaning, the usage of which makes article unbalanced. I propose that we do not use words 'militiamen' or 'militia' to describe either sides of the conflict, but use neutral words like 'fighters' and 'forces. E.g. Arab forces, Arab fighters, Irgun forces, Lehi fighters. The exception to the proposed rule might be when using direct quotes. -- Jim Fitzgerald ^post 19:26, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

My memory is that I used the terms the sources were using. A militiaman is a civilian; it doesn't have a negative meaning, just a definition. By changing it to troops or forces, you're changing the meaning. If the sources I've used use different terms, by all means change them, but otherwise please don't. The Jews had formed a proper fighting force; the Palestinian-Arabs had not. Whether the Irgun was part of that fighting force is a matter for historians to decide, and we should use whatever terms they've decided are appropriate. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, SlimVirgin, if the militia is a civilian military self-orginized armed group, then why we do not, for the sake of NPOV/impartiality, call them 'the civilian self-defensive forces', would that satisfy the requirements of an English synonimum to 'militiamen'? Are you OK with this terminology? If you ask me, I do!-- Jim Fitzgerald ^post 19:57, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

No, 'the civilian self-defensive forces' is a phrase that describes them in a way that might not be true. The part "self-defensive" claims to know their purpose, but we aren't supposed to make such a judgement ourselves. Maybe someone else thinks they existed for offensive purposes (such as to raid traffic on the roads). Basically there are three types of fighting group. One is an official army (usually associated with a government, with ranks, uniforms, etc). The words "soldiers" and "troops" usually signify an army unless they are otherwise qualified. Then there are organized militia, also called irregular forces, that have names and leaders. Then there are ad hoc fighting groups, called "armed gangs" by their opponents, who are usually local civilians fighting for some local objective. The first step in wording is to follow what the sources say. The next step (if there is one) is to use neutral words that conform to the facts given in the sources. There is hardly any case where it is correct to change a word just based on the word used, without consulting the sources. Zero^talk 00:40, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

[1] Einstein, Albert. Letter to American Friends of the Fighters for the Freedom of Israel, April 10, 1948, cited in McGowan 1998, and McGowan website, Deir Yassin Remembered. [1]

[2] New Palestine Party, The New York Times, December 4, 1948. See [2]

[1]

[2]