Talk:Deir Yassin massacre/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Edit-warring

This page has already been fully-protected twice. Unless consensus can be reached, you can expect further and longer protections to be put in place. Suitably-referenced material should not be arbitrarily removed, and everyone involved in the edit war here should be aware that it will not be tolerated. Enigma^msg 18:53, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Please don't make inappropriate threats. Just because something is "suitably-referenced" doesn't mean it belongs in an encyclopedia article (see WP:NPOV, for example). Also, please read the preceding section for explanations why the "suitably-referenced material" is not being "arbitrarily removed", but being removed for good cause. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:23, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

It's pretty appropriate when we've seen full protections of a week and two weeks in quick succession. Enigma^msg 19:43, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

But it becomes inappropriate when you make the suggestion that those removing questionable material are at fault and that they "should be aware that it will not be tolerated". nableezy - 19:45, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Not what I was referring to with the last line. But I struck it if that assuages your concern. Enigma^msg 19:49, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, it does. nableezy - 19:54, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:55, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that in the current state, nobody should change anything on this page unless they have achieved consensus at the talke page first. And at the moment, there does not seem to be any consensus for any of the proposed changes. I can see a consensus emerging at the cross-dressing man issue, but no one has yet made a concerte proposal how to word it after there was kind of an agreement of the proper sources. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 01:56, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Protection was instituted because some editors stubbornly cling to a certain narrative. Any other narrative that is potentially embarrassing or provides a basis of greater understanding and context for the underlying facts is immediately set upon as "fringe," "biased," "marginal" and "undue." The fact is that subject edit is backed by seven sources and I have since found three more for a total of ten sources and they are;

• Sundquist, Eric J., Strangers in the land: Blacks, Jews, post-Holocaust America, Harvard University Press p374
• Leibovitz, Leil, Aliya: Three Generations of American-Jewish Immigration to Israel, St. Martins Press, 2006, p88
• Dershowitz, Alan M, The Case for Israel, Wiley & Sons, 2004, p81
• J Randall Price, Fast Facts on the Middle East Conflict - (Harvest House Publishers) (June 2003) ISBN 0-7369-1142-1, p 92
• Bard, Mitchell Myths and Facts: A Guide to the Arab Israeli Conflict, p134
• Lynne Reid Banks, A Torn Country: An Oral History of the Israeli War of Independence (New York: Franklin Watts, 1982) p.62
• Gelber Appendix II Propaganda as History: What Happened at Deir Yassin?, p 314
• Ervin Birnbaum, In the shadow of the struggle, Gefen Publishing House Ltd (1990) p220
• Michael Grossman, The reluctant Jew, Author House (2007) p344
• Milstein p. 276

The above noted sources confirm that some Arab combatants dressed or disguised themselves as women during the battle and may have also feigned surrender. The inclusion of the edit is important for three reasons. First and foremost, it provides proper context and possible explanations for civilian deaths. Second, it highlights the possibility that Arabs themselves violated the Laws of War during the battle and third, IT HAPPENED! It is a fact that can not be denied. It is corroborated by the testimony and witness accounts of both Arabs and Jews, civilians and combatants.

Some editors have wanted to preclude Bard because they view him as “propagandist.” But McGowan, Khalidi and Pappe are also noted as sources. Are they not “propagandists?” Do they not have a point of view? I see a double standard. Nonetheless, there are sufficient sources to support the edit even with Bard’s exclusion. Respectfully--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 15:31, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

As most commentators agree on, the text as it stands is not acceptable. The text needs to be reworked (and shortened) if it is to have a chance of being included in the article. Please post the new version here so we all can have a look at it. --Frederico1234 (talk) 19:15, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Looks like we have to burch again through the references. A bit more than just names would be appreciated. Whjat do they sayu about it? Do they just reference it, or do they actually examine it based on historical sources? -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 20:52, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll get the quotes but it's time consuming. Please don't make me do the work for nothing if you have no intention of cooperating/compromising with me. If you're going to reject everything I edit outright, there's no point in even having this discussion.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 21:38, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I think you can do yourself a favour by taking a different approach to what you want to achieve. Edit warring doesn't work, you have experienced that already, it will only get you blocked. Trying to throw a lot of 'sources' to the discussion and claim because of that that you are right isn't going to work either. Because other editors can check the same sources and they will. And the more it looks like you just pull out every reference that just mentions Arabs dressed as women to make your point, you loose a lot of credibility in the process. So, do yourself and us a favour, and judge the sources yourself critically. What new information do they provide over the recognized standard works that we all know about? Just a quote of one of the participants that is already used in 10 other sources? That does not add anything. In the end, it is not about numbers (You seem to claim victory because you have more references than the opposition.), it is about reliability and quality. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 14:11, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

The claim that some Arab defenders were dressed as women seems to have been made originally by the Lehi militant Ezra Yachin and has been included in the article (in the "Invasion") section for over a year - with a reference to the Reid Banks volume. Gelber refers only to the claim that Arabs had dressed as women to escape the fighting. A reference to this alternative claim would be relevant. Sundquist conflates both claims in a passing reference to the conflicting goals of the participants and makes no independent judgement. Obviously none of the unreliable sources (Dershowitz, Bard or Randall Price) should be used as they bring nothing new and undermine the credibility of the article. Ian Pitchford (talk) 08:11, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Since Lynn Reid Banks is a novelist rather than a historian, and her book is described as an "Oral History", it is reasonable to assume that she does not make the claim herself, but simply quotes Yachin. It would be helpful to have the whole quote from her book; but it seems that the claim should be attributed to Yachin himself, not Reid Banks. RolandR (talk) 08:22, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I have Reid Banks' book; it is a collection of interviews with very little commentary from Reid Bank. I think it is a valid reference for what her interviewees claimed but that is all. She does not claim to have investigated anything independently. She also has an interview with Meir Pa'il. As far as I have seen, after looking at everything I could find once before, is that there is no evidence apart from Irgun/Lehi testimony that combatant men dressed as women. Zero^talk 08:50, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Cross dressing combatants source assessment

Ok, lets do this systematically. Post here sources in favour or opposed to the claim, and lets assess them (I summarize what I have read above about them):

• Sundquist, Eric J., Strangers in the land: Blacks, Jews, post-Holocaust America, Harvard University Press p374

  conflates both claims in a passing reference to the conflicting goals of the participants and makes no independent judgement.

  Section in question: "Although recent investigations have revised that number downward closer to one hundred, discredited the charges of rape, and revealed that some women may have been killed because Arab men were themselves dressed as women, the number killed and the degree of atrocity are less important than the use to which the bloodshed was put by Jews and Arabs alike. "

• Leibovitz, Leil, Aliya: Three Generations of American-Jewish Immigration to Israel, St. Martins Press, 2006, p88

  I would say unreliable, because they have key facts wrong, like the number of killed Arabs (~200). Doesn't provide sources for the claims, looks more like a summary than an analysis. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 13:38, 11 June 2010 (UTC) gatoclass added, not a historian to start with. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 19:01, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

  Section in question: "The remaining Arab forces in the village feigned their surrender, only to resume their attack once the unsuspecting Jewish forces entered the village. Another battle ensued, short and bitter, with some Jewish warriors, fearing further ruses, firing indiscriminately into the crowd. As the bodies fell to the ground, confusion reigned; some Arab warriors were dress as women, making it nearly impossible to distinquish combatants from civilians."

• Dershowitz, Alan M, The Case for Israel, Wiley & Sons, 2004, p81

  Unreliable. (His reference is to Milstein (1999) p. 262 (Vol IV) which is also used by Bard.) Gatoclass added that he is a lawyer and not a historian. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 19:01, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

• J Randall Price, Fast Facts on the Middle East Conflict - (Harvest House Publishers) (June 2003) ISBN 0-7369-1142-1, p 92

  Unreliable (and just gives Bard as his reference anyway).

• Bard, Mitchell Myths and Facts: A Guide to the Arab Israeli Conflict, p134

  Unreliable. (His references are to Milstein (1999) (Vol. IV) pp. 262 and 276)

• Lynne Reid Banks, A Torn Country: An Oral History of the Israeli War of Independence (New York: Franklin Watts, 1982) p.62

  Collection of interviews, no original interpretation. [V]alid reference for what her interviewees claimed but that is all. She does not claim to have investigated anything independently.

• Gelber Appendix II Propaganda as History: What Happened at Deir Yassin?, p 314

  refers only to the claim that Arabs had dressed as women to escape the fighting

• Ervin Birnbaum, In the shadow of the struggle, Gefen Publishing House Ltd (1990) p220

  A one paragraph summary without any analysis, and basically stating the major claim of both sides without coming to any conclusions about crossdressing arabs. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 13:41, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

• Michael Grossman, The reluctant Jew, Author House (2007) p344

  Just quotes Ezra Yachin.

• Milstein p. 276

  Which book? (This is Bard's reference and points to Milstein, Uri (1999) History of Israel's War of Independence, Vol. IV. Lanham: University Press of America). p.276 covers the story of a Shai operative called Yisrael Natach who claims that he saw refugees from Deir Yassin in Ein Kerem and that they told him that the Jewish militants had found Arab warriors dressed as women. Natach says in order to scare the Arabs he told the press and the Arab Department that 1,500 people had been killed.

-- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 13:33, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Funny how you preclude Leil Leibovitz as a source because he cites an erroneous figure but when that very same figure was inserted by user Blindjustice here in the lede, you offered no objection. You object to Bard and Dershowitz as advocates for the Israeli side but issue no such objection to utilizing the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East as a source. They describe themselves as advocates for Palestinians “In occupied Palestinian territory,” but this seems to escape you. You argue that the subject edit is WP:UNDUE but there is an entire section dedicated to the “orphans left in the Old City.” And that is not WP:UNDUE? Your dismissive attitude and flawed analysis is a clear indication to me that you have no interest in any form of collaborative editing. It appears your only interest is to advance a certain narrative to the exclusion of all others.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 17:58, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

JJ, please stop commenting on the contributors and try to confine your comments to content. Your numerous attempts to personalize this debate can themselves do nothing but damage to the possibility of collaboration.

I consider Leibovitz to be a substandard source because he's not an historian, he appears to be nothing more than a minor league journalist. His piece on Deir Yassin reads like apologetics and he fails to disclose his sources. We can do a lot better than that when it comes to a high-profile event like this. Dershowitz is a lawyer with no expertise in the field, and a well known Israeli advocate, he's far from a reliable source. Bard is another well-known Israeli advocate whose works in the field have been dismissed by other scholars. None of these sources are reliable. Gatoclass (talk) 18:32, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry JJG, I do have a life and I do not see all changes made to this article. But to the point, whatever someone else did sometime and the lack of response of others really does not change the content of the source. Let me know when you are willing to discuss content and not editors. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 18:59, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

It's pretty obvious this has been widely reported by various RS. The fact many published sources cite Milstein only makes it more reliable, see WP:RS. Your personal opinion on why published sources are not reliable is interesting, but I'd like to see some policy or at least guideline based objections. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:26, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

But apparently what Milstein writes is that a Haganah agent states that he met unnamed refugees from Deir Yassin, who told him that unnamed "Jewish militants" found Arab warriors dressed as women. In the absence of a direct quote from Milstein (not from one of the propagandists who cite him, possibly inaccurately or out of context) this is pretty thin stuff. And, apart from unreliable propagandists, who has quoted this from Milstein? RolandR (talk) 20:01, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, there are some WP:RS sources, and we are trying to get them on the table. Until now, I have not seen many reliable sources reporting this. But maybe you can provide the quotes that are WP:RS instead of just proclaimimg things?-- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 21:15, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Here is the text from Milstein's "Blood Libel" book about Deir Yassin, English edition (which lacks the citations): "Yisrael Natach has related: "Refugees came from Deir Yassin and related that Jews have discovered that Arab soldiers were disguised as women. The Jews conducted searches also on women. One of those checked understood that he was caught, pulled out a pistol and fired at the Jewish commander. His comrades, who were wild with anger, fired in every direction and killed the Arabs in the area. I depicted a Jewish soldier stabbing an Arab woman with a rifle bayonet. I did not explain that he did not stab and the woman was a man. I gave this drawing for publication in the newspapers, through the Arab command center in Jerusalem, with additional information, that in Deir Yassin six hundred women were slaughtered, five hundred men and four hundred children. I exaggerated intentionally, to arouse fear in the Arabs. My drawing was published in one of the Arab newspapers." Note the quite pathetic sentence "I did not explain..."; it seems Natach is making an excuse for contradicting his own previous evidence. Then he admits lying on purpose, so portraying himself as a participant in the propaganda war. Not exactly courtroom stuff here. Zero^talk 12:04, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

None of the Deir Yassin testimonies, Arab or Jewish, would hold up in court and that is precisely why all testimonies should be presented. Nothing about Deir Yassin is cut and dry.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 02:50, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Unbelievable that Bard and Dershowitz are rejected as "advocates for the Israeli side" but we can use WNRWA and Ilan Pappe? What kind of double standard is that? Pappe may be an historian but his writings on IP conflict are designated as historiography, not history. Pappe is an acknowledged advocate for the Arab Palestinians. UNWRA is an advocacy org for Arab Palestinians, and the most of its employees are themselves Arab Palestinians. At least most of these references/sources have some international reputation, unlike the ref for the "fact" that the Gaza war is called "the Gaza Massacre" in the Arab world. The ref there was a woman who writes articles about stylish pocketbooks and local events somewhere in the outback of 's Australia. Still we use her as a ref and the only ref in the lede of the Gaza War article. [1] This over JJ's and mine and many others' objections, it was edited into the lede and is studiously defended against any removal. This sort of "collaboration" goes on all the time, esp in this area, so *please* will people stop pretending to a righteousness, objectivity, and dedication to historical veracity that simply isn't there? Collaboration is compromise, and allowing both sides an opportunity to have their voices heard, even if you don't agree with those other voices. Stellarkid (talk) 03:31, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Will you crybabies please stop whining about Pappe? He is used in the article exactly once, as a source concerning the location of Deir Yassin. Clearly a double standard at work, right? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:45, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

And what of the UNRWAPR. It describes itself as "advocates" for the Palestinian cause. What kind of RS is that. Where's the vetting process?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 04:15, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

The only UNRWA reference I can see in the article is one citing the establishment of an orphanage for Deir Yassin refugees. Gatoclass (talk) 11:37, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok, there are TWO seperate issues here. The use of some potentially inappropriate references ELSEWHERE in the article. And the sources for the cl;aim of crossdressing fighters. Can we please keep those separated? If you have a problem with the use of a source at a specific place in the text, start a new section on that so it can be discussed on its merits. really, dragging issues elsewhere in the article to this discussion is not going to make the sources suddenly reliable. It does only one thing, it shows that you effectively do not have reliable sources. Because if they were reliable, there wouldn't be an argument. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 13:40, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense, the references given are perfectly reliable and appropriate. Just looking at the first two, Eric Sundquist has written some 9 books classified as history, although his specialty seems to be black history. [2]. Leibovitz has 4 history books under his belt [3]. Most historians get some fact wrong at some point in their lives. It is not up to WP editors to be vetting historians on the basis of what we believe to be facts or bias. We led the wider community of scholars do that. Stellarkid (talk) 14:18, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Our job is to identify a few of the very large number of available sources to feature in this article. Cherry picking of tertiary sources on the basis of content is not a permissible algorithm. I proposed above that we should limit ourselves to (1) direct quotes of eyewitnesses brought by reliable secondary sources, (2) opinions of historians who themselves conducted investigations (and didn't just copy the words of others). I propose that again, please explain why you want otherwise. Zero^talk 15:04, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

In any case, nobody here AFAIK has objected to the inclusion of the claim that some Arab men may have dressed up as women. The objection is that a WP:FRINGE claim that Arab combatants dressed up as women was featured in its own dedicated section in a blatant example of WP:UNDUE. Many of the sources cited in support of this section do not even make this specific claim, and those that do are not reliable. Gatoclass (talk) 15:41, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Humm, the fact that Sundquist wrote 9 books changes that he just mentions the claims of both sides and does not make independent judgement? -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 16:59, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify: Sundquist does not say that combatants were dressed as women, only that "some men" were. Zero^talk 21:25, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Sundquist specifically says, in the Deir Yassin discussion: "Although recent investigations have revised that number downward closer to one hundred, discredited the charges of rape, and revealed that some women may have been killed because Arab men were themselves dressed as women, the number killed and the degree of atrocity are less important than the use to which the bloodshed was put by Jews and Arabs alike. "

Leibovitz says, "The remaining Arab forces in the village feigned their surrender, only to resume their attack once the unsuspecting Jewish forces entered the village. Another battle ensued, short and bitter, with some Jewish warriors, fearing further ruses, firing indiscriminately into the crowd. As the bodies fell to the ground, confusion reigned; some Arab warriors were dress as women, making it nearly impossible to distinquish combatants from civilians."

With respect to eyewitness testimony, it is famously the most unreliable testimony there is. As to the opinions of historians, that's fine, but the opinions of historians on both sides of the issue is imperative. Stellarkid (talk) 21:51, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I've taken a second look at Gelber [4] who has written an exhaustive analysis of the incident. He argues that rather than being a "massacre," as its been described in the wiki article, an equally persuasive argument can be made that it was hard-fought urban combat with collateral damage. He cites a number of factors (Arabs dressing as women being among them) in favor of this argument and maintains that all sides had interests in embellishments to futher their own particular agenda.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 22:26, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

That perspective really should be in this article. For example, while Israelis do not see the Gaza war as a "massacre," we nevertheless have "massacre" emboldened in the lede as the Arab view. Similarly, many Israelis and others question whether this was really a massacre or as you say, "a hard-fought urban combat." While I am not suggesting a name change, I think this perspective deserves a place in the lede of this article.

Further, looking at the revision history of May 30th with the disputed (sub)section in it [5] it is clear that it is an important subsection of the attack section. One of the main aspects that defines a "massacre," after all, is the killing of civilians and innocents, in particular women and children. If there is a valid exculpatory reason for the death of the women, acknowledged by several independent historians and scholars, it deserves its own section. The section was (is) well-written, informative and a mere two paragraphs (with quotes). Stellarkid (talk) 23:49, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I already said there are some alternative perspectives, such as that by Gelber, which may have a place in the article - provided they are accurately portrayed, and not exaggerated or overblown per WP:UNDUE. So I think we could probably look at that as a possibility. What I've said is that I'm opposed to the section on Arab combatants dressing as women which was previously added - I'm not opposed to the addition of alternative viewpoints per se, provided that any such material conforms to the appropriate policies. Gatoclass (talk) 01:47, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Simply because an author does not take a definitive "side" on this issue, it is sufficient that he acknowledges that it is a notable controversy and not a fringe view, as in Birnbaum [6]. In Grossman, he quotes Yachin ("If you were foolish enough to open doors, you got shot down -- sometimes by men dressed up as women, shooting out at you in a second of suprise.") but he also quotes villagers on pg 344 saying "some villagers reported: that 'upon discovering an armed man disquised as a woman, one guerrilla began shooting everyone.....'" Stellarkid (talk) 00:23, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Again this looks like a poor source. I don't know what credentials Birnbaum has but his analysis is questionable and the Bibliography he provides for his book is pitiful. Gatoclass (talk) 01:49, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

How to make progress

I am getting frustrated. Can we focus in specific sections in a single topic, and not drag all kind of unrelated arguments to the discussions and basically have multiple discussions run together, becausee that way, we never get anywhere. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 02:22, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Lead

I've reverted to an earlier version of the lead, because unnecessary confusion and poor sources have been introduced regarding the numbers killed. The figure of 107 comes from modern Palestinian scholars, and is accepted by all the academics working in the area.

This material ...

A day after the massacre, Irgun leaders held a press conference and announced that 254 Palestinians had been killed. Jacques de Reynier, head of the International Red Cross delegation in Palestine, and his assistant Dr. Alfred Engel, visited Deir Yassin on April 11. In his personal memoirs, published in 1950, Reynier wrote that he had counted a total of more than 200 dead, men, women, and children.[4] The New York Times, on December 2, 1948, published a letter by Albert Einstein and two dozen other Jewish intellectuals, including Hannah Arendt and Sidney Hook, which states that 240 men, women and children had been killed at Deir Yassin by terrorist bands which had attacked a peaceful village.[5]

...is obviously not relevant except to show how the fear spread. But what people thought the day after is not what they think now, and what Einstein believed about the figure has no bearing on anything—how could he possibly have known how many died? That kind of speculative stuff doesn't belong in the lead. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:33, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I've also removed the POV tag, as it seems to have been added because this edit ("Allegations of Arabs Dressing As Women") was being resisted. But that edit could not stand as written, regardless of POV. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 03:16, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

This improves the lead a lot. Good work. --Frederico1234 (talk) 06:11, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Abusive POV reverts

Can someone tell me what's wrong with this sourced edit [7] and why it was reverted. Gelber states specifically that some describe the incident with alternative phrasing. Also, both Morris and Gelber acknowledge that Arab combatants were among those killed so why does the lede stress "women and children" to the exclusion of Arab combatants? Why were the words "Arab combatants" removed? Blatant POV reverts. Let's hear how you're gonna spin this?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 03:43, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

1. I suggest that you become less aggressive. If you think this works, you are wrong.

2. The change in question is from:

The massacre became

to

The incident, which has been described as a massacre by some and a "bloodstained battle" by others became

No, it is called a massacre by most and a battle by a few. So, the sentence is incorrect. I suggest that you read The Historiography of Deir Yassin by Benny Morris to learn that one of the major problems why some claim there was no massacre is a definitional issue, but when the normal general used definition is used, it was a massacre.

3. The third point about combatants is mentioned later in the article, and I have added it to the lede. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 04:21, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

In connection with #2, that's not what the source says. I have it right in front of me. It says the following: "However, what happened that day in the village - a bloodstained battle or a cold-blooded massacre - has remained highly disputed." (emphasis added)--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 04:30, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

In connection with #3, your edit is insufficient. According to Gelber, at least 30% of the Deir Yassin deaths were Arab combatants. Morris is not specific and doesn't apportion numbers. He just states that the 120 or so deaths included Arab combatants. The adjective "few" was added by you in an attempt to minimize and downgrade this fact--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 04:35, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

(ec) I'm not keen on calling it a massacre, though that's what reliable sources widely call it. I've thought of taking this to FA, but the title is one of the things that has made me hesitate, because I wonder whether it would get through FA with that title.

But throwing grenades into people's homes when they're inside them, including women and children, is not a "battle." And "incident" would sound odd and spooky, as though we had clothes pegs on our noses. So until we can think of a non-spooky neutral alternative, "massacre" is the most appropriate.

And it's not really highly disputed. Some details are disputed, but the broad thrust of it is not. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 04:40, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

JJG, you've presented one source that calls it a "bloodstained battle". What makes you think you can edit the article to say that "some" call it a "bloodstained battle"?

You make it impossible to AGF when you plagiarize sources and write untrue edit summaries, and here when you misrepresent what the sources say. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:48, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Malik. This is the third second time you've hurled a personal insult at me. Stop it!

Slim, I'm not saying you should change the title. I gave up on that idea for now. What am asking is that this edit be re-inserted to show that there is some dispute in connection with this massacre phrasing. It's one single sourced sentence for christ's sake. I would also ask that the adjective of "few" that precedes combatants be removed in accordance with my reasoning and sources noted above.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 04:53, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

(ec) This paper by Gelber is very good, where he analyses the numbers of dead and explains why various people were exaggerating the figures for their own political reasons. Gelber himself calls it a "massacre" throughout, though at the end he qualifies that by calling it "[t]he massacre at Deir Yassin, if what happened in the village deserves this definition," but several times before that, and once after it, he does himself use that term (e.g. "it was not the bloodiest massacre of the war"). SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 04:55, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

JJG, I'm sorry the truth hurts. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:02, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Regarding "combatants," that figure is also not clear, because it depends on the definition. If you own a gun, and you point that gun at someone who is trying to kill your children, does that make you a "combatant"? It's true that a percentage of the villagers were armed, but it's a leap to regard them as not civilians for that reason alone. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 04:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

So are you rejecting both of my proposed edits outright?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 05:06, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not keen on them, no. We had this problem at Exodus from Lydda, where some editors insisted on calling it a battle. The position seems to be that if someone attacks a bunch of Palestinians, they have to stand dead still and take it, and make sure they don't arm themselves, because if they respond in any way, they're combatants and it's a "battle." So if you break into my home and I grab a bread knife to defend myself, I become a "combatant," and everything that happens from that point on is partly my own fault. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:11, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes and I suppose that using that logic, the Gaza flotilla "activists" were just peaceful bystanders attacked by menacing Israeli soldiers armed with very dangerous paintball guns and they just "defended" themselves.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 05:18, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what happened there, but one thing we know is that they weren't in their own homes. When people's homes are invaded, and hand grenades are thrown into their houses, it's just odd to call them combatants because they were armed. There's a tendency on these articles to try to whittle away what happened until it seems not to have happened at all—the villagers were really soldiers, the women were really men wearing dresses, the children were probably borrowed for the occasion. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:35, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

@SlimV, appears there is a clear campaign by some Israel advocates to edit that way in the I-P topic area -- if Palestinians offer any resistance while being killed, it's a "battle" -- no? ok then since it's disputed, let's compromise on "incident" -- which is selective, advocacy editing. Consider for example Hadassah_medical_convoy_massacre, where the M-word remains unchallenged despite the fact the convoy was heavily armed and made a battle out of it. RomaC (talk) 05:47, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah Roma, I knew you'd join us. Wouldn't be the same without you. Slim, As Gelber explains, the non-belligerancy pact between Givat Shaul and Deir Yassin disintegrated as Arab-Jewish strife intesified. There were exchages of fire between West Jerusalem residents and Deir Yassin. Deir Yassin residents partook in the battle of Kastel and some were killed there. Every villager had a rifle and Bren Guns and a quantity of munitions were recovered after the battle. Every house became a fortified bunker. There's a difference between shooting somebody in cold blood and throwing a grenade into a home to silence accurate fire, no?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 05:51, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there is arguably a difference (though less than you're suggesting in my view, given they were defending their own homes in their own village), so I wouldn't be opposed to finding a replacement for "massacre"—just not battle or incident. We can easily write around it; for example we can say in the lead that the deaths had demographic consequences, instead of the massacre. The title's another matter, however. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:59, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

That's a start. Please make the change--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 06:11, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I've changed massacre to deaths in the lead. Not counting the title and consequently the first sentence, that was the only place we used the word "massacre" in WP's voice. All the others uses are e.g. X said it wasn't a massacre, or Y said it was, and that kind of thing. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 06:17, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I very much appreciate that. Can I ask one more favor. Currently, the lede reads women and children and "a few" combatants. Can you remove the words "a few" and just say combatants. Morris says 120, "civilians and combatants" or phrasing to that effect without apportioning numbers. Gelber says that 70% were civilians. In that case it would be more than just "a few" combatants. Even Kan'ana acknowledges that at least 11 of the dead were armed--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 06:24, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd have to re-read the sources before I could agree to that. It's been about a year since I looked at them carefully. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 06:37, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm surrounded by so many "friends." I feel like I'm on that Turkish boat.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 05:54, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Haha. Actually I've contributed so had this page on my watchlist since Guy Montag made his push to purge the M-word years ago. I didn't feel the need to chime in this time as your POV-push -- while based on many of the same questionable sources and tired premises, and equally aggressive -- was not nearly as well-constructed as Guy's. "Every house a fortified bunker"? Sorry, that's not even historical revisionism, it's just a bit ridiculous. RomaC (talk) 06:07, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

That's genius Roma. Dissing my beliefs while at the same time belittling my intellect--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 06:13, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Found your play on this article characteristically spirited but substantively wanting -- it can't be easy when the preponderance of sources stand in one's way. But I've never doubted your intelligence! And since you brought up beliefs, I'd guess that from where you sit, you believe your perspective is entirely correct. RomaC (talk) 10:36, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Roma, There are many differences between the incident at Deir Yassin and the Hadassah Massacre and comparison of the two is erroneous. First, the identities of those killed at Mt. Scopus were known and the number was never in doubt, never fluctuated. 77 doctors, nurses and medical students (who treated Arabs & Jews alike) were slaughtered and their bodies mutilated beyond recognition.

This stands in marked contrast to Deir Yassin where the body count fluctuated with the day of the week, the weather and whether there was a full moon. Arab propagandists alleged incidents of rape and the purposeful killing of pregnant women. Villagers, who were present, adamantly provided contrary accounts and were silenced when they protested the embellished narrative.

At Deir Yassin, all sources acknowledge that an attempt (albeit unsuccessful) was made to warn the villagers to flee. Those who ambushed the Mt. Scopus medical convoy never warned the group of impending attack. Moreover, in light of Hadassah’s history of treating both Arabs and Jews, without regard to race, they would have no reason to suspect that they would have been targeted for ambush.

Aside from the fact that the two incidents involved Arabs and Jews and occurred in 1948, there are no similarities between the two. The Hadassah Massacre was pre-meditated butchery of medical staff by a blood-thirsty mob. Deir Yassin was hard-fought urban combat with collateral damage.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 15:26, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, now that you mention it, some of the dead were certainly Haganah soldiers. Besides that, there is a report of weapons being carried in the ambulances. I can't be bothered, but I'm sure if I looked around I could find books that repeat these stories without quoting their dubious sources. Then I could claim them as independent sources and insist on including them. This is exactly what you are trying to do with sources like Leibovitz. Leibovitz repeats the Irgun version straight down the line without acknowledging it as the Irgun version. You want to take advance of Leibovitz' lack of citing sources, clearly a point against him, as a reason to quote his version without identifying it as the Irgun version. This is not acceptable in a controversial case like this. We should not be quoting from third party narratives when we have respected historians who actually studied the event. Zero^talk 20:00, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Jiujitsuguy, this isn't the place to swap our prejudices, but the claim that Deir Yassin was "hard-fought urban combat with collateral damage" is nonsense. What sources are you reading? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:11, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I'm fine with "massacre" on Hadassah. What I'm not fine with is aggressive advocacy editing comprising biased source-sampling and double standards on terminology. RomaC (talk) 00:56, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Just a reminder, that maybe one of the editors is willing to use a different title does not mean that the remainider of the users is willing to do so either. This is generally known as the Deir Yassin Massacre, and therefore the only proper title to bring it to FA with. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 12:33, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Source request

I've removed from the infobox that Iraqi irregulars were involved, because it was sourced to an odd-looking article in the Jerusalem Post, which repeats the "Iraqis dressed as women" material. [8] We've tried to base this article mostly on academic historians. I have no objection to others being used, so long as the material is informed and well-presented, but we'd want to know who their sources were; and in the case of the rumours about Iraqis, there's no reason not to use an academic source. We have a section about it in the article at Deir Yassin massacre#Arab militia. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 13:45, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

There would seem to be lots of POV problems in this article, including almost everything in the introductory section. The attack on this peaceful village was not only totally unprovoked and uncalled for, it gave the lie to any suggestion that Zionists "accepted" the partition. Calling the attackers "fighters" instead of terrorists is only the first of a series of egregious white-washes. If Israelis had been sorry they'd have found and compensated the victims, not prevented them from returning. There is no reason to word the passages as if the terror felt by Palestinians was uncalled for, when Deir Yassin only suffered a more public massacre than many other towns and villages. There is further nonsense about "strengthened the resolve of Arab governments to intervene", when they barely did anything and it's irrelevant to the event anyway. Templar98 (talk) 20:50, 20 June 2010 (UTC) _{- banned user}

Morris has shown that the claim of iraquis is based on rumors only and that there is no actuall evidence for it. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 03:08, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Contragulations

Congratulations to all editors who have been involved in the current development of this article ! 217.136.197.19 (talk) 10:16, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Suggested name change

I suggest that this be renamed the "Battle of Deir Yassin". Many of the Arab "villagers" killed were armed combatants, civilians do not seem to have been the prime targets due to Israeli warnings and calls to surrender, and 4 Jewish militiamen were also killed and dozens wounded. I don't think that qualifies as a "massacre".--RM (Be my friend) 04:48, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Support:

Oppose:

• This has been discussed before, see the archives. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 04:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

There are several pages. Mind being more specific?Cptnono (talk) 05:32, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Archive 3, 4, 5, 5 again, 6, 6 again, 7 (where RolandR helpfully gathered a list of links to previous debates on the issue), and 7 again. That's 8 separate discussions, the last two of which were less than three months ago, and there may be other ones that I've missed. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 06:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

• Not again. The same old refuted argument that the killed people were no villagers. Has anybody seen the list of names? I have the list of names. Most killed are members of 9 clans = extended families. 17, 22, 6, 7, 10, 4, 8, 10 and 10 members killed respectively. The baker, his son and the school teacher. 26 were below 15 years old, 2 were toddlers. 20 were 55 and older. This repeated propaganda driven call to obscure this massacre does one thing, and that is spit on the graves of the people that were murdered during the massacre. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 12:22, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
• What a random person on the internet thinks qualifies as a massacre is irrelevant. What matters is what the sources say, and the source say that this was both a massacre and is known as the Deir Yassin Massacre, That is the end of the story as far as Wikipedia is concerned. nableezy - 13:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

One thing that strikes me as missing..

..from this article is a bit about the state archives and unsuccessful attempts to access the archives e.g.The Independent+Jpost Sean.hoyland - talk 10:27, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Good find. It deserves its own section, or perhaps a subsection of the last one, Deir Yassin massacre#Deir Yassin today. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 11:12, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Compromise or something

This is not a good compromise.] There has been plenty of bickering and reverting over what some see as POV issues. To address these and be more factually accurate, we should simply say in the lead that yes: some villagers were armed. And yes: some of the attackers died. I agree that ti should mention that there is a dispute over what happened but that does not sufficiently cover that there was some fighting as well as massacring. Cptnono (talk) 05:37, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Cptnono, this article has been carefully written and sourced, and does its best to reflect the entirety of the mainstream sources. There is widespread consensus that this was a massacre; even Gelber—who introduces the idea that it might have been a battle—calls it a massacre through his article, arguing that it wasn't the worst one of the war (writing here from memory). Any attempt to introduce the idea in the lead that this was really just a battle would only reflect a very narrow POV, and indeed would contradict the rest of the lead and the fact that people at the time felt the need to apologize for it. That POV can be included in the body of the article, but the lead can't reflect it without in-text attribution, which is why I added Gelber's view that the narrative is disputed. Even that is pushing it somewhat, because it really isn't much disputed, at least not in the terms you're suggesting.

Also, as I've argued before and as seems obvious, just because villagers own weapons, and just because they try to use those weapons to defend themselves when their village is invaded, doesn't mean a massacre didn't take place. Several editors on this and similar articles seem to take the view that the Palestinians weren't allowed to defend themselves, and the minute they did, they turned into a militia and fair game. That's a fairly odd view to take of human nature and human rights. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:59, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

It very well might have been done carefully but it was done incorrectly. Go ahead and say there was a massacre but some mention of some battling (defensive or not) needs to be mentioned more in the lead. And if I wanted to discuss human rights I would go to a more appropriate venue.Cptnono (talk) 06:13, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Can you produce your sources here on this page, apart from Gelber's paper, so we can read through them? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 06:20, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Now the problem is sourcing? I didn't know it was disputed. You even said there was some fighting. And there is a guy (Morris I think?) that is a preferred source of some editors and is already used to source it says it. I found them all last time in 5 minutes of searching so will be happy to do it again just to make a point. I am off to bed in a bit so will compile them all tomorrow sometime. I'll try to make sure they are better than decent.Cptnono (talk) 06:25, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, thanks for breathing common sense into the discussion. Oh course it is not a "fierce battle," as the latest edit would have us suggest, simply because some villagers might have resisted their murderers. Imagine the mess if we applied this absurd counterlogic to other articles in the project. Of course the users pushing for "battle" are only doing so in selected articles. RomaC ^TALK 06:41, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

The Gelber view should not be in the lead, it's a clear case of WP:UNDUE. Something should be said about the fact that a battle took place, but not in this way. Update: I removed it and added some alternative text. Gatoclass (talk) 11:11, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Look at RomaC throwing more stones. Mentioning that there was some fighting in the should be perfectly acceptable. The lines "Some well-armed villagers resisted the assault" (in hindsight I should have removed "well armed" myself), "The death toll included combatants.", and "Of the Jewish militiamen, four were killed and up to several dozen were wounded" do not contradict that there was a massacre. So at SlimVirgin's request I have pulled up some sources. I don't think there is any doubt that Begin said there was some fighting.[9][10][11] Of course he is biased but it appears to be inline with some accounts from Israel which a couple lines would be sufficient to explain without giving it undue weight. NPR did it.[12] It isn't just Israeli sources though. This eyewitness admitted to there being fighting but the article still makes it clear that in the end it was a massacre.[13] Here is another Israeli who says that there was a massacre but still some fighting.[14]

One thing that I would like to see is that there are plenty of reports of house to house fighting. On April 10, 1948, The New York Times reported it (no link available) and this has been stated in other random places. I personally think any chance to use the Complete Idiot's Guide to anything is fun.[15] This book says that yes, it typically was a peaceful village but some defense was mounted.[16] And the reports of Iragi soldiers being present is out there for sure even if the sources are not amazing.[17] Here is one that again says that there was a massacre but after the fighting ended.[18]

And there are more. I didn't want to go overboard with sources from Israel but Haaretz apparently had a lengthy piece. There are some that scream about exaggerations so I tried not to include those. PBS has a documentary on it that I am looking for a copy of that is supposed to be very in depth.

Unless we are all of a sudden saying that the Israeli casualties were friendly fire, then Morris and other sources currently used in the article confirm there was some fighting. So why not add that there was some resistance and fighting that Israel says was "house to house". That doesn't discount the atrocities that did occur but does give mention to some important aspects of the overall story.Cptnono (talk) 01:22, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that there should be some mention of the battle in the intro, otherwise a false impression is left. I did however already add a statement to that effect. If that isn't deemed sufficient, there may be room for compromise, however I object to the wording added by Slim as I don't believe it's appropriate to highlight the view of any one historian in the intro and Gelber's is a minority view in any case. Gatoclass (talk) 02:00, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

F me. I was so focused on last night's conversation that I missed the edit on "Around 107 villagers were killed during and after the battle for the village". That and the line about it being disputed helps. Cptnono (talk) 02:09, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with Gatoclass's edit too, though I wouldn't call Gelber's paper a minority point of view; he does call it a massacre himself, but he also makes clear that others don't. But regardless, Gatoclass's edit does the business. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 06:22, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

for interest

Here are some newspaper reports (+ an opinion piece) from the time for interest just in case anyone else enjoys reading old newspapers.

• The Day - Apr 6, 1948
• Lewiston Evening Journal - Apr 9, 1948
• The Glasgow Herald - Apr 10, 1948
• The Glasgow Herald - Apr 12, 1948
• The Canadian Jewish Chronicle - Apr 23, 1948

Sean.hoyland - talk 15:47, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Very interesting, thank you! SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 06:23, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring

Looks like some people should take their dispute first here and AFTER they reached consensus, add it to the lede. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 16:54, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Just noting here that I've asked Kim on her talk page to unprotect the article, both because she's involved in editing and discussing it and therefore shouldn't use the tools in relation to it, and also because I don't see the brief reverting and movement toward a compromise as requiring protection, certainly not for two weeks. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 06:28, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Also noting here that Kim removed the edit protection but retained the move protection, [19] even though the issue of the title is one that Kim has expressed strong views on several times, including just 10 days ago. [20] I have no problem leaving it move-protected, but this is a misuse of the tools that I hope won't happen again. We don't help our case that the article is neutral by using the tools to protect one perspective. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:07, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Vote

The term Deir Yassin massacre is inaccurate, and was among the many wartime propaganda tools used during the Arab-Israeli conflict. In fact, I tried to provide sourced edits complete with pictures showing how Deir Yassin villagers ambushed Jewish traffic. During the assault on the village, Jewish militiamen came under fire from sentries as they approached, had to battle their way through each house against heavily armed fighters sometimes dressed as women or blow them up, and faced heavy sniper fire from the Mukhtar's house. The progress was slow and painful, and it was only when the Haganah brought up a mortar which took out the snipers that saved the day. Jewish paramilitaries lost 4 dead and 35 injured. It was, in technical terms, a battle. I suggest we rename it Battle of Deir Yssin.--RM (Be my friend) 00:54, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support Per RM. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 02:08, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
• Comment This has been extensively discussed already. See the archive Talk:Deir Yassin massacre/massacre-battle discussions for why "Deir Yassin massacre" is the right title. --Frederico1234 (talk) 08:03, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
• Against As Frederico1234 notes above, this has been discussed extensively, several times. See [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28]. Each time, the clear consensus has been to keep the existing title. To continually raise this begins to seem vexatious. This is clearly the common name for the incident: 13,000+ Google hits, compared to just 69 for "battle of Deir Yassin". I have not checked under all possible alternative spellings of the place name, but this is overwhelming. No reason has been adduced for a change against common usage, except "I don't like it". RolandR (talk) 16:20, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
  • You must have misspelled something [29]. ―cobaltcigs 00:45, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
    • an honest mistake, of course!!! 174.112.83.21 (talk) 21:24, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
      • No. No mistake, and no misspelling. That is the result (actually up to 70 today). I have no idea how cobaltcigs ound 8000 hits, and your insinuations are very close to a breach o Wikin etiquette. RolandR (talk) 00:22, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
        • Maybe results vary by country of origin? I have no idea either. I realize “massacre” is the more common epithet and don’t plan to argue or vote otherwise. I just thought 69 was too few to believe. Goodnight. ―cobaltcigs 10:48, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
          • I get a much larger number as well, but with topics like this, googlecountitis is not a reliable way of dealingt wioth it, because topics like this have a disproportional large number of hits by revisionist websites. Previous discussions about this have time and over again estrablished that the majority of relevant reliable sources call it a massacre, and repeatedly bringing it back to here is really just a sign of revisionism, mostly by editors with a strong POV who do not care about reliable sources but just want to rewrite history. The proposer of this vote has not given one new argument why the name should be changed beyond his personal opinion. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 15:14, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
• Against -- Please stop being disruptive. This has been discussed numerous times, and there has been an overwhelming consensus to keep the title as it is. The current title is clearly the most common name in reliable sources, by any measure. Can we just go ahead and close this conversation and not waste everyone's time making them respond to the same empty arguments that have been brought up in the last 9 move discussions? -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 17:36, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
• Against The policy says that article titles are based on what reliable English-language sources call the subject of the article. They say it was a massacre. That is understandable since even the most favorable reports say that the Jewish militias gunned-down entire families. That makes it a massacre, whether or not anyone believed that some members of the village may have taken part in the hostilities. harlan (talk) 17:59, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
• Against Again, same discussion, same POV, same propaganda arguments. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 23:53, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
• Comment Please cite Wikipedia policies that support your argument for renaming the article. WP:COMMONNAME supports the current name. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:00, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support A massacre may have happened, but it was in the context of the battle, and that is the sticking point here. Most articles titled massacre are perpetrated against non-armed combatants, e.g. 1929 Hebron massacre. 1/3 of this article deals with the battle, 1/3 with the massacre and 1/3 with the aftermath. This article does not deal with the massacre only. The first large chunk is about the battle. It was the battle that led to the massacre - not the other way around. It may be known more commonly as the massacre, but those sources are focusing on the actual massacre itself, while our article contains other info about the whole incident, which was in essence a military conflict between two warring sides. Chesdovi (talk) 00:17, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

  The fact that you say that a massacre may have happened, while it is a well-documented event, makes me wonder what POV you have and whether you are actually interested in neutral editing. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 23:33, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

It was not meant as may have/may not have, but rather as "may have" meaning "did happen". Chesdovi (talk) 23:45, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 03:03, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• Against per Roland. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:57, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
• Another case of if you dont succeed try try again. Reenem, you attempted this here in the not so distant past. Reliable sources call this event the Deir Yassin massacre. That you or set of users do not like that it is called the Deir Yassin massacre or do not think it was a massacre is irrelevant to what the title of the article should be. Edits such as this show the racist propaganda sites you have attempted to use in this article. Masada2000 may not think this was a massacre, but actual reliable sources say that what occurred here was a massacre and the name for this massacre is the Deir Yassin massacre. WP:NAME is clear on this point, the most common English name for an event is the name that the Wikipedia article will be. Arguments such as "it wasnt really a massacre" have absolutely no basis in policy and as such have no validity in determining the title of the article. In case I wasnt clear, obvious oppose. nableezy - 16:28, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. Res ipsa loquitur. Sol Goldstone (talk) 16:50, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

* Support Per RM and Chesdovi. Also, I fail to see how Jews defending themselves against their enemies can or should be defamed as carrying out a "massacre." I'm not sure Wikipedia is the place for such biased propaganda against Jews in the form of politically loaded rhetoric. --DavidAppletree (talk) 19:30, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

• Since when is killing of 100+ innocent villagers not an atrocity? -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 23:33, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

It was an atrocity. A terrible event. I think an issue here is that "massacre" usually denotes killing of non-combatants as in the Hebron Massacre. Here non-combatants were killed, but it would seem that there was resistance from the start which clouds the description of this as an outright massacre. However, as most sources refer to this as a massacre (as that's what ended up happening) we have no alternative of calling it as such per NAMING CONVENTIONS. But We have a lot of material here, and at least 1/3 deals with the "battle of deir yassin", so this article is not only about the massacre. Could Battle of Deir Yassin include both? Chesdovi (talk) 23:43, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

• First question, is the battle without the massacre of importance by itself? As for the massacre, well, you just gave yourself an answer, the killing of many non-combatants outside of a normal context of fighting. Really, since when do scores of young children and elderly get accidentally killed in fights when the grenades are thrown into the houses of people deliberately to get them out of the town? Anyway, instead of trying to bury the most important aspect of this event under a non-relevant name, answer me this question. What aspect of this article is the most relevant for the encyclopedia? Second question, what aspects of the other parts are not relevant for the article to provide a background and context of the massacre? -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 00:38, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

If you read the article, you will see how the massacre was not a premeditated act. They did not intend from the start to conduct a massacre, as is usually the case in other massacres. It evolved into one. Your 1st question "What aspect of this article is the most relevant for the encyclopedia?" is really you asking "what aspect is most harrowing and deserving of publicity", because any military confrontation with wide ranging after effects is notable, whether massacres were committed or not. Chesdovi (talk) 00:57, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Pre-meditation or intent is not a requirement for a massacre. In fact, it is the line pushed by the revisionists. And thank you for not answering my question. This list of battles you linked to is rather short, and Deir Yassin was part of a larger battle, Operation Nahshon, which has been covered already substantially. So, that does not help us really, but just shows that there is indeed no reason to rewrite the article by removing substantial background and context sections as you propose. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 03:03, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

That isnt a reason as Reenem did not provide a single policy backed reason for why the name should not be Deir Yassin massacre. But thanks for playing. nableezy - 19:46, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment If this rename is opposed, I will propose removing the folloing material: —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chesdovi (talk • contribs) 17:41, 29 August 2010 (UTC) Thanks Nab. Chesdovi (talk) 17:52, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Extended content

==Background== ===Political and military situation=== Further information: 1947–1948 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine The UN's Corpus Separatum proposal for Jerusalem included Deir Yassin. The invasion of Deir Yassin took place after the United Nations proposed on November 29, 1947 (UN Resolution 181) that Palestine should be divided into an Arab state and a Jewish one. Jerusalem was to belong to neither state, but was to be administered separately; Deir Yassin lay within the boundaries of the proposed plan for Jerusalem. The Arabs rejected the proposal, and civil war broke out. British rule in Palestine ended on May 14, 1948, and Israel declared its independence that day. Several Arab armies invaded at midnight on May 15, triggering the 1948 Arab-Israeli war. In the months leading up to the end of British rule, in a phase of the civil war known as "The Battle of [the] Roads," the Arab League-sponsored Arab Liberation Army (ALA)—composed of Palestinians and other Arabs—attacked Jewish traffic on major roads in an effort to isolate the Jewish communities from each other. The ALA managed to seize several strategic vantage points along the highway between Jerusalem and Tel Aviv—Jerusalem's sole supply route and link to the western side of the city where 16% of all Jews in Palestine lived—and began firing on convoys traveling to the city. By March 1948, the road was cut off and Jerusalem was under siege. In response, the Haganah launched Operation Nachshon to break the siege. On April 6, in an effort to secure strategic positions, the Haganah and its strike force, the Palmach, attacked al-Qastal, a village two kilometers north of Deir Yassin overlooking the Jerusalem-Tel Aviv highway. On April 9, Irgun and Lehi forces attacked nearby Deir Yassin. ===Deir Yassin=== Map showing the village neighborhood in the 1940s. Deir Yassin was a Palestinian-Arab village of several hundred residents, all Muslim, living in 144 houses. The International Red Cross reported that there were 400 residents; Yoav Gelber writes 610, citing the British mandatory authority figures; and Menachem Begin's biographer, Eric Silver, 800 to 1,000. It was situated on a hill west of Jerusalem 800 meters above sea level, overlooking the main highway entering Jerusalem. The village was relatively prosperous, thanks to the excavation of limestone from the village quarries, which allowed the residents to make a good living from stone-cutting. By most accounts, they lived in peace with their Jewish neighbors in nearby villages, particularly those in Givat Shaul, an Orthodox community just across the valley, some of whom reportedly tried to help the Deir Yassin villagers during the Irgun-Lehi invasion. On January 20, 1948, the villagers met with leaders of the Givat Shaul community to form a peace pact. The Deir Yassin villagers agreed to inform Givat Shaul should Palestinian militiamen appear in the village, by hanging out certain types of laundry during the day—two white pieces with a black piece in the middle—and at night signaling three dots with a flashlight and placing three lanterns in a certain place. In return, patrols from Givat Shaul guaranteed safe passage to Deir Yassin residents, in vehicles or on foot, passing through their neighborhood on the way to Jerusalem. Yoma Ben-Sasson, Haganah commander in Givat Shaul, said after the village had been captured that, "there was not even one incident between Deir Yassin and the Jews." ====Arab militia==== Arab militiamen had tried to set up camp in the village, leading to a firefight that saw one villager killed. Just before January 28, Abd al Qadir had arrived with 400 men and tried to recruit some villagers, but the elders voiced their opposition and the men moved on. The leader of the village, the mukhtar, was summoned to Jerusalem to explain to the Arab Higher Committee (AHC), the Palestinian-Arab leadership, what the village's relationship was with the Jews: he told them the villagers and the Jews lived in peace. No steps were taken against him, and he was not asked to cancel the peace pact. On February 13, an armed gang of Arabs arrived to attack Givat Shaul, but the Deir Yassin villagers saw them off, the result of which was that the gang killed all the village's sheep. On March 16, the AHC sent a delegation to the village to request that it host a group of Iraqi and Syrian irregulars to guard it. The villagers said no then, and again on April 4, though Irgun fighters said they did encounter at least two foreign militiamen during the April 9 invasion. The view that the relationship between Deir Yassin and its neighbors was invariably peaceful is disputed by Yehuda Lapidot (underground name, "Nimrod"), the Irgun's second-in-command of the operation to take the village. He writes that there had been occasional skirmishes between Deir Yassin and Givat Shaul residents, and that on April 3, shots had been fired from Deir Yassin toward the Jewish villages of Bet Hakerem and Yefe Nof. He writes that the village was defended by 100 armed men, that ditches had been dug around it, that Iraqi and Palestinian guerrillas were stationed there, and that there was a guard force stationed by the village entrance. Morris writes that it is possible some militiamen were stationed in the village, but the evidence is far from definitive, in his view. In Gelber's view, it is unlikely that the peace pact between Deir Yassin and Givat Shaul continued to hold in April, given the intensity of hostilities between the Arab and Jewish communities elsewhere. He writes that shots had been exchanged on April 2 between Deir Yassin and several Jewish communities. Over the next few days, the Jewish community at Motza and Jewish traffic on the road to Tel Aviv came under fire from the village. On April 8, Deir Yassin youth took part in the defence of the Arab village of al-Qastal, which the Jews had invaded days earlier: the names of several Deir Yassin residents appeared on a list of wounded compiled by the British Palestine police. ===Irgun and Lehi militia=== [[:File:Mbegin2.jpg|right|thumb|120px|Israel's sixth prime minister, Menachem Begin, was Irgun leader at the time of the attack, though not present.]] Further information: List of Irgun attacks The Jewish forces that entered Deir Yassin belonged in the main to two extremist, underground, paramilitary groups, the Irgun (Etzel) (National Military Organization) and the Lehi (Fighters for the Freedom of Israel), also known as the Stern Gang. The Irgun was aligned with the right-wing revisionist Zionist movement and Lehi, although not politically aligned, viewed itself as an anti-imperialist movement. Formed in 1931, Irgun was a militant group that broke away from the mainstream Jewish militia, the Haganah. During the 1936–1939 Arab revolt in Palestine, in which Palestinian Arabs rose up against the British mandate authorities in protest at mass Jewish immigration into the country, Irgun's tactics had included bus and marketplace bombings, condemned by both the British and the Jewish Agency. Lehi, originally an Irgun splinter group, was formed in 1940 following Irgun's decision to declare a truce with the British during World War Two. Lehi subsequently carried out a series of assassinations designed to force the British out of Palestine. In April 1948, it was estimated that the Irgun had 300 fighters in Jerusalem, and Lehi around 100. A third group that took part, though to a lesser extent, was the Palmach, the armed wing of the Haganah, whose leadership was aligned with the political Left (see Mapai). Morris writes that two Palmach squads evacuated the wounded, and helped to invade and secure some of the villagers' houses. When the Irgun and Lehi fighters ran low on ammunition, they obtained thousands of rounds from the Haganah. Haganah squads also provided covering fire, and fired on villagers fleeing south towards Ayn Karim. ==Battle plans== ===Decision to attack=== David Shaltiel, Haganah commander in Jerusalem, approved the attack. Lapidot writes that the attack on the village was important for two reasons. Firstly, in the view of Irgun and Lehi, Deir Yassin posed a threat to Jewish neigborhoods and the main road to the coastal plain. Secondly, he writes that it was the first time Jewish forces had gone on the offensive, as opposed to responding to attacks. It would show the Arabs that the Jews had become proactive and that they intended to fight for Jerusalem. Eric Silver writes that Irgun and Lehi commanders approached David Shaltiel, the Haganah commander in Jerusalem, for approval to attack the village. He was initially reluctant, because the villagers had signed a non-aggression pact, and suggesting attacking Ein Karem instead. The Lehi and Irgun commanders complained that the proposed mission would be too hard for them, and Shaltiel ultimately yielded on condition that the attackers remained in the village rather than leaving it empty, in case it became an Arab military base. His approval was met with resistance. Meir Pa'il, an intelligence officer with the Palmach, the Haganah's strike force, objected to violating the peace pact with the village, but Shaltiel maintained that he had no power to stop the guerrillas. Yitzchak Levi proposed that the inhabitants be notified, but Shaltiel refused to endanger the operation by warning them. According to Morris, it was agreed during planning meetings that the residents be expelled. Lehi further proposed that any villagers who failed to flee be killed in order to terrify the rest of the country's Arabs. Most of the fighters at the meetings, from both the Irgun and Lehi, favored killing the male villagers, but the Irgun command, including Menachem Begin, rejected those proposals. According to Yehuda Lapidot of the Irgun, the troops were specifically ordered not to kill women, children, or prisoners. ===Pre-attack briefing=== According to the Haganah, the attack force consisted of about 120 men—80 from the Irgun and 40 from Lehi. They met on April 8, a few hours before the attack began, for briefings. Lehi met at the Etz Hayim base, and the Irgun at Givat Shaul. Lapidot writes that the mood at the Irgun meeting was festive. It was the first time such a large number of underground fighters had met openly, and the collaboration between the groups increased their sense of solidarity. They chose a password to reflect the mood, "Ahdut Lohemet," "Fighters' Solidarity": this was the phrase that would signal the start of the attack. According to Lapidot, Mordechai Raanan, the Irgun commander in Jerusalem, stressed that women, children, and the elderly must not be harmed, and that the villagers were to be warned by loudspeaker to give them a chance to escape. The road to Ayn Karim would be left open so they could head there. ==The attack== ===Invasion=== Irgun statement in Hebrew about the attack English translation After the briefing, the fighters were driven to their assigned positions. A Lehi unit approached Deir Yassin from the direction of Givat Shaul, while one Irgun unit moved in from the east, and a second from the south. Despite their confidence, the fighters were by all accounts ill-prepared, untrained, and inexperienced. The loudspeaker that was meant to encourage the villagers to leave wasn't working properly, and the truck carrying it got stuck in a ditch outside the village, though Abu Mahmoud, a villager, told the BBC in 1998 that he did hear the warning. At 04:45, a village sentry spotted them moving in. He called out in Arabic, "Mahmoud," and one of the Irgun fighters thought he had said "Ahdut." He responded with the second half of the password, "lohemet," and the Arabs opened fire. Irgun and Lehi commanders had believed the residents would flee, but the fighters encountered resistance. The residents did not realize that the point of the attack was conquest, thinking it just a raid, and failed to run while they had the chance. The villagers' sniper fire from higher positions in the west, especially from the mukhtar's house, effectively contained the attack. Some Lehi units went for help from the Haganah's Camp Schneller in Jerusalem. The men had no experience of attacking an Arab village in daylight, and lacked support weapons. They resorted to house-to-house attacks, throwing hand grenades through the doors and windows before entering, a couple of grenades per house, following an order from Ben Zion Cohen, the Irgun's commander. Ezra Yachin recalled, "To take a house, you had either to throw a grenade or shoot your way into it. If you were foolish enough to open doors, you got shot down—sometimes by men dressed up as women, shooting out at you in a second of surprise." The Lehi forces slowly advanced house by house. Weapons failed to work, a few tossed hand grenades without pulling the pin, and a Lehi unit commander, Amos Keynan, was wounded by his own men. Meanwhile, the Irgun guerrillas on the other side of the village were also having a difficult time. By 7:00 a.m., discouraged by the Arab resistance and their own increasing casualties, Irgun commanders relayed a message to the Lehi camp that they were considering retreating. Lehi commanders relayed back that they had already entered the village and expected victory soon. The large number of wounded was a problem. A Magen David Adom station was called for an ambulance. The fighters took beds out of the houses, and doors off their hinges, laid the wounded on them, and ordered villagers to carry the injured to the ambulance, forcing them to act as screens. They believed the villagers would not shoot at their own people, but they did, according to Milstein. The Irgun arranged to receive a supply of explosives from their base in Givat Shaul, and started blasting their way into house after house. In certain instances, the force of the explosions destroyed entire parts of houses, burying Arab fighters and civilians. At least two Haganah members on the scene reported the Lehi repeatedly using a loudspeaker to suggest the residents surrender; over 100 were taken prisoner by the end of the day. At about 10:00 am, a Palmach unit from the Haganah arrived with an armored vehicle and a two-inch mortar. The mortar was fired three times at the mukhtar's house, which stopped the sniper fire. Lehi officer David Gottlieb said the Palmach had accomplished "in one hour what we could not accomplish in several hours."

Ok, instead of proposing to cut this wholesome, can you be more specific what parts of this are not relevant as background or context of the massacre? -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 00:38, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support said massacre occurred against armed combatants.articles titled massacre were against non-armed. this should be differentiated. 149.4.218.150 (talk) 15:03, 31 August 2010 (UTC)— 149.4.218.150 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  Totally false. --Frederico1234 (talk) 16:50, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

  • yeah, what you said is totally false. 149.4.218.149 (talk) 15:04, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Policy trumps voting

Ok, lets be clear. This is not an issue that can be voted on just like that. This issue has been discussed to pieces several times. So, if you want to rename this, show that Battle of Dier Yassin is more frequent used than Massacre of Dier Yassin. Getting a vote count of a bunch of like minded people is not enough. And to add, most killed were innocent villagers, including the baker, the teacher, etc. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 03:20, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Our article is not just about the massacre. That needs to be made clear. It was in the context of the battle. Chesdovi (talk) 12:21, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

The article is about the massacre. It also gives the background to the massacre as well as its aftermath. This makes the article broad in coverage. That's a good thing, not a bad thing; See WP:GACR point 3. --Frederico1234 (talk) 18:23, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Check out point 3b. Chesdovi (talk) 20:48, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

So, you are proposing a WP:POVFORK? -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 23:28, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support per Chesdovi. if this article is called massacre, then all the info about the battle should be moved to a new article called battle. there can be a small paragraph kept here for background, but the bulk will be in the new article. the current title of this article does not properly represent the contents. 174.112.83.21 (talk) 21:27, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Generally known as a massacre. PatGallacher (talk) 22:06, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. I'm not keen on having the word "massacre" in the title because I don't like dramatic titles, no matter how accurate and widely used. But I can't think of a reasonable alternative. "Deir Yassin battle" would represent a small-minority view, and would not be accurate. "Deir Yassin incident" would sound insulting; we call the death of Muhammad al-Durrah the "Muhammad al-Durrah incident," and I wince whenever I see it. Another option is just "Deir Yassin"—tighten the village background and merge that material into this article, but I think other editors would object to equating the village with the massacre. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:54, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. Despite the arguments, the overwhelming description of this event is as the Deir Yassin massacre (often with capital "M"). I have only ever seen authors with clear political motivation calling it something else. Zero^talk 02:09, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose-This is what it is commonly known as, its not our fault, we just use the reliable sources. Heiro 04:52, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
• Comment: Perhaps it may be seen as pertinent that the Palestine article in the Encyclopædia Britannica [Encyclopaedia Britannica Ultimate Reference Suite, Chicago, 2010] refers to the massacre, by Irgunists and members of the Stern Gang, of civilian inhabitants of the Arab village of Dayr Yāsīn.     ←   ZScarpia   18:45, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Also:

"Deir Yassin Massacre" - Encyclopedia Of The Arab-Israeli Conflict: A Political, Social, And Military History, Spencer C Tucker (editor)

"In the weeks after the massacre ..."; "Abdullah was to point to the massacre at Deir Yassin"; "Menachem Begin, the leader of the IZL, who denied that a massacre had taken place ..." - 1948, A History of the First Arab-Israeli War, Benny Morris

"Deir Yassin massacre"; "Deir Yassin Massacre" - Historical Dictionary of the Arab-Israeli Conflict, P K Kumaraswamy

    ←   ZScarpia   23:21, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. The term massacre is also used in many other languages and wikis.-- Jim Fitzgerald ^post 21:04, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
• Comment Maybe we should remanem the Wounded Knee Massacre, because a few Lakota returned fire? PatGallacher (talk) 22:17, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
  • For what it’s worth, the “Battle of Wounded Knee” does enjoy significant currency [30] (individual results may vary, see above). ―cobaltcigs 05:07, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Most of the Wounded Knee victims were civilians. Here though, the article openly proclaims that Jewish forces encountered heavy resistance on the ground, and every house in the village was an armed fortress sometimes defended by armed men dressed as women, sniper fire from upper positions and the Mukhtar's house, and the village sentries actually opened fire first. A total of 4 Jewish fighters were killed, about 35 wounded, and 1 armored car was disabled. The casualties were so significant that at one point Lehi contemplated withdrawing. It was only when Palmach showed up and joined in on the fight, and silenced the snipers with a mortar that the battle was saved. And let's be clear: it states that this attack was a response to the ambush of Jewish traffic by the village's inhabitants. This was clearly not a massacre; how can it be a massacre if Deir Yassin provoked the response, fired first, and put up resistance? "Massacre" implies a slaughter of defenseless people, and that's clearly not what happened here.--RM (Be my friend) 01:30, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, most dead were civilians, indeed, many of them as young as several months or almost a century old. Have you ever seen the name list and ages of the victims? 29 victims are under 17 years old. 28 are 50 years or older. All but three victims are of 9 clans. The other three are the baker, his son and the school teacher. People were round up and shot. So, tell me, not a massacre? -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 14:12, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Its a massacre because that what all of the reliable sources call it, we dont get to insert our own POV and rename it, and that is one of the 5 pillars of wikipedia. Heiro 01:49, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

This is what happens when you read crap like Masada2000. "Every house in the village was an armed fortress sometimes defended by armed men dressed as women" is so far away from what scholarly sources say about what happened here and can only be found in these racist websites. The overwhelming majority of the deaths here were civilians, and the few civilians that fought back against an invading force dont make this less of a massacre. But you still fail to understand the only pertinent piece of information here, that reliable sources overwhelmingly call this event the Deir Yassin Massacre. That is the end of the story for determining the name of the article. nableezy - 01:54, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, a biased and error-prone a partisan, exagerrated and error-filled version of events. Do you think the disabled armoured car referred to is the loudspeaker van that was accidentally driven into a ditch somewhere outside the village?     ←   ZScarpia   02:08, 1 September 2010 (UTC) [edited: 08:03, 1 September 2010 (UTC)]

Until doublespeak is enshrined as the sixth pillar of Wikipedia let's not revise massacres into battles and villagers into combatants when RS are using those terms.Sol Goldstone (talk) 02:54, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

This strikes me as the wrong way to approach a name change. Per WP:NAME we should go with the common English name used in reliable sources. Therefore, if some users want to change the name they'd need to demonstrate that the proposed name is used more frequently in WP:RS. Google searches may be useful tools but they can't in my opinion be used instead of examining actual RS. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:40, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Masada2000 does not at all claim that Jewish forces encountered resistance. In fact, it praises the event, calling it revenge for the numerous Arab atrocities against Jews. It is also debatable whether Masada2000 is truly "racist", as it does advocate for the rights of Druze and Bedouin Arabs. Secondly, "massacre" implies the killing of defenseless people. The article and sources clearly state that the village sentries fired first as the Jews approached, that there was intense house-to-house fighting and sniper fire, and that the resistance was so intense that the battle could have been lost if not for the arrival of Palmach. Also, please explain the deaths of four Jewish soldiers and the woundings of 30-25 more. It is also stated in the article that the inhabitants began attacking Jewish traffic, so the inhabitants were not so innocent in the first place.--RM (Be my friend) 21:01, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

The fact that you brought Masada2000 as a source in this article should disqualify you from ever making a single edit to this article or even writing a single word on the talk page. nableezy - 21:17, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I can't even begin to describe Masada2000. They are a reliable source if you need information on what anti-democratic racist Kahanists think or what the internet looked like in 1999. That's the limit. Sol Goldstone (talk) 23:27, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

First off, I didn't use Masada2000 as my primary source, I used the article itself. Just read it, and you will see how these "innocent civilians" were "massacred". And yes, Sol Goldstone, I am in fact an "anti-democratic racist Kahanist", but I edit neutrally here. I would not have brought this up had I not read the article myself. As I said, Masada2000 does not even mention resistance, and praises it as a massacre, but I have looked through and seen that this was in fact heavy urban combat. And Nableezy, before you say anything about my admitted views, keep in mind that you glorify Palestinian violence on your page.--RM (Be my friend) 23:57, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't really matter, because, as discussed above, policy trumps voting or consensus or POV pushing wishlists. The event is commonly known by the current name of the article, change the minds of everyone who commonly calls it that in the real world, and we could change it here, otherwise subject is moot.Heiro 00:10, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

There is clearly no consensus for this move, in fact the above discussion shows a pretty clear consensus against the move. The arguments for are based in fallacious assumptions and not founded in the sources and ignores the vital fact that scholarly sources call this event the Deir Yassin massacre. No amount of gamesmanship can change that fact and arguments about whether or not what happened qualifies as a massacre have no place here. This move is routinely proposed and routinely rejected. This discussion has gone on long enough and the time has come to close it. If a user wishes to produce a policy based reason for why the title of this article should not be the Deir Yassin massacre they can do that. But this isnt that. nableezy - 00:59, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Could you please explain, then, the level of resistance met, and Jewish casualties? Its just as ridiculous as calling the Gaza flotilla raid a massacre when evidence clearly suggests otherwise.--RM (Be my friend) 01:14, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Support Just because most sources say one thing does not make it fact. We need to look objectively at things. The contemporary NY Times report gives no suggestion of a massacre and there simply is no evidence of it. There is evidence of errors, but no massacre. Even Arabs have admitted that there was no massacre and they exaggerated it to rally the nations. People who were actually in the village said there was no rape, assault, or executions. They even went as far to say actively deny and try to suppress attempts to exaggerate it. This was admitted in a BBC report here. There was no massacre. It was a horrible event, but there was no at-large intent to kill civilians. I would suggest renaming it as a battle and creating some prominence for the civilian deaths that occurred. This was intended as a battle from the beginning and conducted like one, although became quite disorganized as it raged on.

In short, there was no deliberate intent to kill loads of civilians. Thus, not a massacre. The Pro-arab side seems to like calling everything a massacre. Metallurgist (talk) 10:43, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

We aren't here to debate what happened, we follow the sources and the majority of sources call it a massacre. Heiro 18:48, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

'm not sure how many dead villagers constitute a massacre, that's the sources call. We aren't here to establish the mens rea of the soldiers. Most sources seem to call it a massacre. Sol (talk) 20:32, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Close discussion

Ok, it looks like the same arguments are rehashed by now and no new sources endorsing a name change have been presented. Therefore, I propose that we close the discussion. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 01:43, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Close

1. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 01:43, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
2. --Frederico1234 (talk) 05:01, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
3. --Heiro 05:31, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
4. --RolandR (talk) 07:24, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
5. --Sol Goldstone (talk) 11:54, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Continue

1. --Metallurgist (talk) 08:24, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Blood Libel at Deir Yassin

There seems to be some tomfoolery over this book. It is present and wikilinked in both the "See also" section and the "Further reading" section. It only needs to be linked once. If it is to be included in both sections I guess the further reading entry should be properly formated with the author, isbn etc. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:34, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree, and the entry in the Further Reading section should be properly formatted.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

We do not have any other books in the "See also" section. What makes this book so special? --Frederico1234 (talk) 17:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Tempted as I am to say that it's because it's a pop up book the more mature thing to do would be to refer you to WP:ALSO. The inclusion criteria is that the internal link is to a related Wikipedia article. So, if there are other wiki articles about books that are related to the Deir Yassin massacre they can be included. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:41, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec) are you aware of any books written on the Battle of Deir Yassin that have Wikipedia articles, but are not included in the See also section. If you do become aware of any, please add them, by all means.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:44, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Another way could be to simply make a wiki-link in the subsection dealing with the claims in the book. The "See also" and "Further reading" entries could then be removed. The actual book is already listed in the "References" section. --Frederico1234 (talk) 18:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

That would fit in more with the style manual, yes. See also isn't supposed to include things referenced in the article. Sol (talk) 19:20, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Blood Libel at Deir Yassin (copied from Archive)

There seems to be some tomfoolery over this book. It is present and wikilinked in both the "See also" section and the "Further reading" section. It only needs to be linked once. If it is to be included in both sections I guess the further reading entry should be properly formated with the author, isbn etc. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:34, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree, and the entry in the Further Reading section should be properly formatted.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

We do not have any other books in the "See also" section. What makes this book so special? --Frederico1234 (talk) 17:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Tempted as I am to say that it's because it's a pop up book the more mature thing to do would be to refer you to WP:ALSO. The inclusion criteria is that the internal link is to a related Wikipedia article. So, if there are other wiki articles about books that are related to the Deir Yassin massacre they can be included. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:41, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec) are you aware of any books written on the Battle of Deir Yassin that have Wikipedia articles, but are not included in the See also section. If you do become aware of any, please add them, by all means.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:44, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Another way could be to simply make a wiki-link in the subsection dealing with the claims in the book. The "See also" and "Further reading" entries could then be removed. The actual book is already listed in the "References" section. --Frederico1234 (talk) 18:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

That would fit in more with the style manual, yes. See also isn't supposed to include things referenced in the article. Sol (talk) 19:20, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

We use this book as a source, but there is no page number; no English version, so most Wikipedians and readers can't check it; we don't know whether it was published by an independent publisher; whether the year of publication is confirmed; and I can't find an ISBN. It's not listed on any of the Amazon sites I tried, Google books, or Google scholar.

Can someone who has read the book give us a page number, please, for this:

He argues that the killings were typical of war and that the Haganah did similar things on many occasions, even if not on such a scale. He writes that the idea of a massacre was a myth created by the Israeli Left to prevent unification of the Haganah and the Irgun, and in particular to prevent the Irgun's commander, Menahem Begin, from taking office in Israel's first national unity government under David Ben Gurion.

And also a translation of what Milstein himself says, the name of the publisher, and an ISBN. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 12:35, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

"Purity of Arms"

The article has for a long time stated that the Israeli left accused Irgun and Lehi of " violating the Jewish principle of purity of arms". This was sourced to Yoav Gelber's book Palestine 1948, which spoke of "the principle of Purity of Jewish Arms". This reference has been changed twice in the past few hours (in breach of 1RR) by Lisa, who has replaced "Jewish" with "Israeli", arguing that "'Purity of arms' is an invention of secular Israelis". Lisa's reversion is accompanied by an edit summary which states "Just because the other source had the word "Jewish" inserted by its author (with no source given by him) doesn't make it legitimate". However, her own source is an article titled "The Ethics of Jewish War", from a collection titled "War and Peace in the Jewish Tradition". So her own sources contradict her justification for this edit. As I have already reverted once today, I am unable to correct this; perhaps another editor could do so. RolandR (talk) 08:25, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Great article

All of you should be proud of what you have accomplished with this article, I'm sure it wasn't easy. One thing, I change "invasion" to "assault" in 2nd sentence of lede; "invasion" to me seems more apt to large strategic actions. LoveUxoxo (talk) 14:15, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Totally agree. The high quality is truly remarkable, especially considering the controversial nature of the topic. I'm not aware of any article in the I-P arena with a quality on par with this article. --Frederico1234 (talk) 14:32, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Tidying

I'm currently going through the article to check the text-source relationships, and make sure the sources are good and available, in case anyone wonders what I'm doing. I'll tidy up any writing that needs it while I'm there. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 06:57, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Style issues

I strongly prefer the opening sentence of any article to start "[subject] is/was..."; so I changed the lede to read:

The Deir Yassin massacre was an attack by around 120 fighters from the Irgun and Lehi Zionist paramilitary groups on Deir Yassin, a Palestinian-Arab village near Jerusalem of roughly 600 people, on April 9, 1948

Slim changed it back to:

The Deir Yassin massacre took place on April 9, 1948, when around 120 fighters from the Irgun and Lehi Zionist paramilitary groups attacked Deir Yassin near Jerusalem, a Palestinian-Arab village of roughly 600 people.

Anybody else have a preference between the two?

Also, this article makes a lot of use of em dashes, WP:MOS describes them as "...a sharp break in the flow of a sentence—sharper than is provided by a colon or a semicolon." That is why I don't like their use in the article, as I find them more abrupt than necessary and interrupting to the narrative flow when reading. So for the sentence:

Around 107 villagers were killed during and after the battle for the village, including women and children—some were shot, while others died when hand grenades were thrown into their homes.

The reader gets to "women and children" and there is a STOP/START. This is what I much prefer:

Around 107 villagers were killed during and after the battle for the village, including women and children, some of whom were shot, while others died when hand grenades were thrown into their homes.

I'd prefer most of those instances of em dashes in the article to be changed as above. Thoughts?

Regardless, I still like the prose and organization of the article very much. Cheers! LoveUxoxo (talk) 19:56, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I felt the new first sentence didn't flow so well, Love, in part because "when?" is a vital issue, but it came at the end of the sentence. I'm a fan of "time, manner, place." I also like the break in the second, because it seems a bit breathless without it.

Someone suggested trying to get this to FA status, so I'm going to work on it a bit to try to do that. That doesn't necessarily mean submitting it, but at least get it in shape so it could be submitted. So I'm currently reading all the sources to make sure they're reliable, and also to make sure that we say what they say. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 20:15, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I would say the first suggestion, The Deir Yassin massacre was an attack by ... etc., is not altogether accurate since the attack was distinct from the killings that took place afterwards. I would stick to Slim's version there. I think I also prefer Slim's version of the other sentence. Gatoclass (talk) 07:23, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Heh, as time goes on I'm finding that my opinions of what constitutes preferable style isn't shared by most people :P LoveUxoxo (talk) 08:32, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Well if it's any consolation, I prefer the feel of the first sentence you proposed :) It's just the accuracy that's an issue. Gatoclass (talk) 08:48, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

changes

I changed the infobox to Template:Infobox military conflict, which enables us to put more info. A battle certainly occurred. No one can deny this, so I feel it is appropriate to show this. It still shows the result as a massacre, regardless of the veracity of that claim. I also added a section about the debate over what to term it and added some sources. This could use more scholarly coverage of the debate.--Metallurgist (talk) 12:33, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

• The added section does not contain any WP:RS to justify its inclusion. Instead, it talks about the controversy regarding whether there were rapes or not. The title should either be changed or the section should be removed.
• The massacre is not called "The battle of Deir Yassin". Please remove it.
• The new infobox is not the most appropriate. We don't use it for the Hadassah medical convoy massacre article, so no need to use it here. --Frederico1234 (talk) 14:36, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, and the content of the new box was also unacceptable. "100 Arab fighters" is contrary to most sources (people defending their homes are not fighters), and the claim of 93 casualties from a single person (which we don't currently have a reliable source for) is not acceptable in such a prominent place. Zero^talk 00:10, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Sources

• The book by Comay is just a junky collection of quotations cherry-picked uncritically from other places, not even remotely a reliable source.
• The web page "radiobergen" is a blog/activist site, it says so right on the front page, also not a reliable source.

Zero^talk 00:05, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Sources/changes

Comay is a perfectly valid source. Every one of those quotes is available on video from a BBC documentary. I posted the videos a few months ago and here they are again. [31] As for Radio Bergen, its quoting a Reuters article, which is the actual source. The title should be changed, but even then there is still a debate over what it is. It is called both. It was a battle. You cannot deny that it started as a legitimate military operation that resulted in unfortunately high "civilian" deaths. 100 Arab fighters is not contrary to any source. There were Arab forces there, including Iraqis. The Jewish forces say this and the village residents say this. The only people that deny this are the Arab elites and Arabs in general today. If youre going to say that "people defending their homes" are not fighters, then we may as well rewrite the 1948 war article to show that Israel had no army or fighters since they were defending their home. Are you serious? A guy with a weapon, regardless of intent, is a fighter. And there were 100 Arab fighters, that is from an Arab source:

An Arab research study conducted at Bir Zeit University (near Ramallah) relates that the men of Deir Yassin took an active part in violent acts against Jewish targets and that many of the men of the village fought in the battle for Kastel, together with Abd-el-Kadr el-Husseini. The report also stated that trenches had been dug at the entry to the village, and that more than 100 men had been trained and equipped with rifles and Bren guns. A local guard force had been set up and 40 inhabitants guarded the village every night. (Knaana Sherif, The Palestinian villages destroyed in 1948 - Deir Yassin. Bir Zeit University, Documentation and Research Department 1987).

--Metallurgist (talk) 12:36, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Have you actually read this document yourself, or are you simply recycling the propaganda from the Irgun site? I suspect the latter, since if you had read the alleged research paper, you would know that the respected Palestinian anthropologist at Birzeit University is called Sharif Kanaana, not "Knaana Sherif", as the Irgun and those who recycle their claims mistakenly call him. In fact, I would be interested to know if anyone has actually read this document, and to read it myself, as the only references to it that I can find are on Zionist or nakba denialist sites. Forgive me if I do not trust the accuracy of their summary. For instance, did Kanaana himnself write of "violent acts against Jewish targets", or is this interpretation? If we are to include a citation from this research in the article, we must link to where it is to be found; and if the citation is actually taken from a third-party publication, then that must be cited. The most we can say at the moment is that the Irgun claims that Sharif Kanaana (whose name they misspell) makes this statement. And that is not good enough for inclusion in the article. RolandR (talk) 13:53, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Roland. A google search for "Knaana Sherif" shows pretty clearly where this was cribbed from. nableezy - 15:34, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

There are different ways of rendering Arabic into English, so spelling is irrelevant. Even this is spelled Dir/Deir Yassin/Yessin. As for the name order, it appears to be a citation corruption because citations are put last name, first. Two good Arab mythbusting sites have him listed as Sharif Kanaana, so it seems only the Irgun site messed it up probably because the translator didnt understand. It certainly is a valid question, so the research has to be located. But that still doesnt change the other facts and that of the witnesses who were actually in the village. The only people who insist there was a massacre were the contemporary Arab propagandists and the Arab nationalists of today. I found one article by him, but its not the right one and largely irrelevant. The one I think is quoted above may not be available online, as it appears to be in a journal based on other citations I have found.--Metallurgist (talk) 11:30, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

The only people who insist there was a massacre were the contemporary Arab propagandists and the Arab nationalists of today. Incorrect.     ←   ZScarpia   11:41, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh yeah, there are also the anti-Zionists, but thats part and parcel with the Arab nationalists in the end.--Metallurgist (talk) 20:24, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Zionist critics of the Irgun also alleged a massacre. Anti-Zionists are part and parcel of the Arab nationalists? A pretty idiotic statement to make.     ←   ZScarpia   20:56, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh yes I remembered that today actually. Haganah approved the battleplan and provided support and then ceased the opportunity to discredit their rivals, Irgun and Lehi. All of this is irrelevant when the people who were actually in the village state that there was no massacre AND the radio broadcasters admit that they were ordered to fabricate and exaggerate it.

What are we even arguing over now. I made a few points about sources and we seem to have gone way off track.--Metallurgist (talk) 20:04, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Invasion of...?

Perhaps I am confused. PatGallacher, RolandR, are you suggesting that Arab armies did not invade Israel proper? Thanks. IronDuke 20:21, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

What was Israel proper at that point? nableezy - 21:51, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, you could argue that the UN partitioned parts of Israel were, at that time, the only part of Israel proper, though this is debatable. Assume that as given, was no part of that territory invaded? Was it the plan of the invading Arab armies to stop at those borders, respecting the sovereignty of the nascent Jewish state? And did they enact that plan? I would be interested to hear about it, if that's the case. IronDuke 04:46, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Scholar don't mention an "invasion of Israel" but an "invasion of Palestine". That can neutralize this in writing that "they intervened in Palestine" or "sent expeditionnary forces to Palestine".

The reasons are that their intentions were different for each of them.

When we looked at the events, it can be understood :

• Arab Legion, the stronger, didn't enter at any stage of the war in territories allocated to Israel (but were attacked by Israeli on terriroties allocated to the Arab states) ; his will was to take control of these territories but not attacking Israelis.
• Iraki tried to enter Israel but failed and after 3 days went back and never again tried to attack Israel
• Syria took an area of 2 x 3 km but never went further (technically, they invaded [a small part of] Israel
• Lebanon didn't intervene at all whereas it declared war through the Arab League
• Egypt first attacked kibboutzim that were in the territories that were allocated to the Arab states and never really succeeded in "invading Israel" whereas they technically did so at some places and that they blockaded Negev settlements.

But in any cases, scholars refer to the "invasion of Palestine". 87.66.164.103 (talk) 07:33, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

The event which this article is about was a month or so earlier than the intervention of the Arab states, so there is no need to have this debate here. There are lots of other articles where it is more significant. I changed the wording to be noncommittal on it and I propose that it stay like that. Zero^talk

dubious

I have found that almost everything here sourced to the Hebrew edition of Milstein's book, and some other things, were not taken from the source given. Actually they were copied, "source" and all, from the ZOA's polemic article "History of a Lie" in 2006 or earlier. This includes a large part of the section "invasion" and some bits of other sections. Just now I will tag a few things that I can see are wrong, but quite soon I'm going to delete everything that was apparently introduced in this way. Unless it is given proper sources. Zero^talk 13:46, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

The fact that it is included in ZOA's article does not preclude it from being based on Milstein's book as well. Have you actually read the book to see that it's not there? I haven't got the book, but I read many of the same things on Milstein's own website.--46.116.170.89 (talk) 01:43, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I own the book and have read it. But that is anyway irrelevant to the need of all editors to obey WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT and WP:RS. Zero^talk 08:06, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Quote about the rape

I didn't found the original source but I found that Benny Morris use the same source in this one [32](see note 72) to source the same claim that the rapes were "lie".As Morris is known historian and WP:AGF to Brewcrewer that he checked the sources I am removing the tags.--Shrike (talk) 09:53, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I have the original Reuters report and adjusted the quotations to conform to it. One thing that strikes me at the moment about the article is that survivors are only quoted as denying things. This gives a false impression, since the great bulk of survivor testimony is very much in the other direction and lots is available in reliable sources. Zero^talk 10:51, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

The following quotes were removed and I have restored them:

• "I know when I speak that God is up there and God knows the truth and God will not forgive the liars," said Radwan, who puts the number of villagers killed at 93
• "They ended up expelling people from all of Palestine on the rumor of Deir Yassin."

Additionally, I have removed information that does not relate to the propaganda claims that this paragraph details, and are more appropriately placed elsewhere.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 11:46, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, only the first quote was removed. --Frederico1234 (talk) 12:03, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Right, and the first one adds nothing so I removed it; why is Radwan's religious belief relevant? The background of Radwan's involvement is obvious relevant and echoes how the source introduces him; removing it was disruptive editing. Zero^talk 12:34, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

The source does not focus on the propaganda claims, this paragraph does. I repeat that you are welcome to add details concerning Radwan's involvment in a more appropriate setting. His religious beliefs are not that important, it is his regard of what is the "truth" and his identification of "liars" that is relevant.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 12:46, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

It is not up to you to decide what the paragraph is about. You don't own the article. You deleted relevant text from the source on a poor excuse, it is going back. Zero^talk 13:00, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the quote about Radwan's religious faith regarding the truth belongs in the article. Show me a Wikipedia article that includes the expression "... so help me God" and I might change my mind. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 14:47, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Reuters found it notable enough to include in an article about the subject so I don't know why we find it necessary to second guess.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 14:56, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

It's not "second guessing", it's editing. We are always selective in our use of sources, leaving out details such as ages and facial appearance that the news media include in their articles. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 15:03, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't expect total inclusion as I stated above: "His religious beliefs are not that important, it is his regard of what is the "truth" and his identification of "liars" that is relevant." Would you be more accepting of a contraction of Radwan's statement to, "God knows the truth and God will not forgive the liars", which does not include any gratuitous "so help me God"'s
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 15:48, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

It is enough to report what he said, which already includes the word "lies". The rest has no content; of course he was claiming to be telling the truth. Zero^talk 16:02, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Why so reverty?

No idea why Noon reverted term "terrorists"- to "fighters" again? "Fighters" do not explain the substance of actions of the two terrorist groups. What "fighters"? Firefighters? You can't fight against unarmed woman and children. It is called "massacre" then. That explains the name of the event. 176.4.149.1 (talk) 14:52, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Please see WP:TERRORIST, part of Wikipedia's Manual of Style. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 15:31, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and it doesn't say "never." It says avoid unless absolutely clear. This is about as much a terrorist action as you can get. 147.138.95.194 (talk) 23:40, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Terrorism

There is a large body of evidence suggesting that the actions of the Irgun are not only the acts of terrorists, but also of ethnic cleansing. Is this really a matter of debate? 147.138.95.194 (talk) 23:11, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

"hotly disputed"

Yes Gelber says that it is a subject of dispute. He also repeatedly calls what happened a massacre. So do the multitude of other sources used throughout the article. A small, but extremely vocal, group the killings that occurred here as a vicious battle between heavily armed Palestinians backed by other Arab fighters and the freedom fighters of the Irgun. This is not new. I dont have to go back more than one archive to pull up the last time that this occurred. The fact remains that this is nearly uniformly called a massacre by the top sources, it is not a debate that occurs in academia. nableezy - 19:21, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

The citatation reads: "However, what happened that day in the village — a bloodstained battle or a cold-blooded massacre — has remained highly disputed." (Sentence 4 of the cite.) The title of the article is 'Deir Yassin Massacre." If you wish to cite other parts of the reference, please feel free to do so. But do not ignore the original citation, which only serves to unbalance a WP article. After all, WP is an encyclopedia which should be fair and balanced. This is what the cite says, therefore it is only fair and balanced to leave it in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.43.87.117 (talk) 19:30, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that is supposed to be neutral, with neutral meaning representing all POVs with the weight they are given in reliable sources. With nearly no exceptions, reliable sources say what happened was a massacre. The use one line from one paper, a paper that itself repeatedly calls it a massacre, as the basis for questioning the countless other sources is not neutral. nableezy - 19:33, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

NPOV means that citations are correctly cited. As stated above, if you wish to cite other portions of the Gelber article, or any other reliable source, please feel free to do so. But do not distort the actual citation by selectively choosing portions that you want and ignoring what you don't like. I did not write Gelber's article, nor did you. If you wish to engage in an edit war, the best thing is to submit the matter for arbitration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.43.87.117 (talk) 19:47, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Im just going to wait for you to be blocked, then Ill remove this nonsense. nableezy - 19:51, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

The only fair thing to do is submit the matter to arbitration. Your claim that Gelber repeatedly calls the event a 'massacre' is simply untrue. Here is the last paragraph of Gelber's article:

"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." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.43.87.117 (talk) 20:04, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Have you even read the rest of Gelber's paper? And do you have any response to The use one line from one paper, a paper that itself repeatedly calls it a massacre, as the basis for questioning the countless other sources is not neutral.? Or that other sources routinely and nearly without exception call it a massacre? nableezy - 21:00, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I have read the full article. Gelber's words, quoted above, speak for themselves.

Gelber doesn't rejet the fact it was a massacre in the full article, whatever this sentences taking out of its context says. The massacre occured at the end of the battle (which was not a massacre) and after it in a query. But there was a massacres and that is not disputed by reliable sources. Pluto2012 (talk) 22:17, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

You do not seem to understand that WP is an encyclopedia. That means that source material must be summarized accurately. Gelber clearly states in sentence 4 that the event is a matter of dispute. If you don´t believe that, just read the Talk pages for this article. In the final paragraph of the cited article, he questions whether or not it was a massacre. Both are quoted in full above and, thus, are not taken out of context. My edit summarizes Gelber´s assertion that the event is a matter of dispute. If you have other reliable sources that you wish to add to the article to make it more informative, please feel free to do so. But do not delete an accurate summation of the citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.88.27.57 (talk) 16:57, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

We dont understand that? Really? We are the ones that dont understand that one line in one paper, a paper that repeatedly calls what happened a massacre, doesnt trump the countless other sources that say it was a massacre? Funny, I thought I did understand that. A number of users disagree with your edit for several reasons, among them being that the overwhelming majority of sources say it was a massacre and it is UNDUE weight to give this single line from a single paper the same weight given to those countless sources. Oh, and you're already blocked. nableezy - 17:22, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Apparently, we are at an impasse in this dispute. The only fair thing to do is to submit it to WP Mediation. Do you agree? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.180.140.187 (talk) 00:55, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

No. Have you thought about any of the other WP:Dispute resolution procedures? Mediationn is a last resort, not a first step. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:27, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Taking a single sentence out of context violates WP:NPOVand is not encyclopedic. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 07:30, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Malik and Kim. There is no dispute but just pov pushing. There is nothing substantial to discuss. Pluto2012 (talk) 09:40, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Suggest the following sentence prior to fn. 4 (Gelber) to accurately summarize the citations's fourth sentence and final paragraph: "Whether the event was a massacre or a bloody battle remains a matter of dispute, according to at least one source." This clearly states that it is the view of this one reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by American In Brazil (talk • contribs) 17:46, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Theres a pretty clear consensus that such an inclusion would violate NPOV (specifically WEIGHT). nableezy - 19:40, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, history is not made by ´consensus.´ For example, what if a majority of Wikipedians decided that World War Two was a myth created by some under-employed historians looking for work and never really happened. Would that make it true? Rather, history is made by gathering verifiable facts and then applying to those facts the interpretations of professional historians. This principal is recognized by the WP policy of NPOV, which reads:

"Neutral point of view" is one of Wikipedia's three core content policies. The other two are "Verifiability" and "No original research". These three core policies jointly determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles. Because these policies work in harmony, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should try to familiarize themselves with all three. The principles upon which this policy is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus. (emphasis added)

Naturally, there are often different viewpoints in a fluid field like history, unlike a scientific field like physics, and these viewpoints often change. Indeed, the interpretation of Morris (that Deir Yassin was in fact a massacre) was once a minority viewpoint among Israeli historians, and the reports of the number of persons killed in Deir Yassin was significantly downgraded by historians at Beirzeit University, a Palestinian institution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.67.28.120 (talk) 14:44, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Who said "history" is "made by consensus"? Nobody did. Wikipedia articles however are. nableezy - 16:14, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Deir Yassin has been considered as a massacre since... April 9, 1948. It is not just a thesis by Benny Morris even if Benny Morris is The Expert on the 1948 War. Pluto2012 (talk) 20:16, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Pluto2012 (talk) 20:16, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

alleged references to Milstein

There are several references to the Hebrew edition of Milstein's 1998 book. As I noted a couple of years ago, these "citations" were actually lifted from Morton Klein's uncitable "History of a Lie" in violation of WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. I will now adjust or delete them according to the English edition of Milstein's book, using an independent translation as an additional check. Zero^talk 09:36, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Definition of "massacre"

It would be helpful if this talk page featured a definition of "massacre", why the events in Deir Yassin qualify for that characterization, and examples of other massacres - ideally perpetrated by Arabs against Israelis - that were titled according to the same criteria. --Leifern (talk) 08:33, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

No. There is no reason for to give the definition of a massacre here because no historians remind the definition of a massacre when they talk about these events. Pluto2012 (talk) 09:02, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

"Terrorism"

I invite proponents of the "terror" categories here to the talk page to provide reliable sources supporting this claim.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:26, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

According to Uri Milstein this "massacre" is actually a hoax. As such I suggest we delete the article or at least write that it's an antisemetic conspiracy theory in the first sentence. How could anyone ever label slaughtering civilians as terrorism? Sepsis II (talk) 04:41, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I think you're under the impression that anything bad can be labeled as "terrorism." This is not accurate. "Slaughtering civilians" may just be "slaughtering civilians", but not necessary "terrorism". Anyway, our definitions do not really matter, what matters are sources. Do you have any reliable sources that describe the incident as such? --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:07, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Deir Yassin massacre generated huge terror in the whole Arab population of Palestine and is reported by historians as an important cause of the exodus of the population. Anyway, I don't think it was an act of terrorism in the sense that there was no political intention in the acts. That's was "just" (sorry for this word) barbary.

In any case, we should refer to WP:RS for this, as always. Pluto2012 (talk) 06:35, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Wait, you reverted without providing a source? --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 12:17, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I came back to a version I disagree with.

Sepsis, do you have a WP:RS for the idea that Deir Yassin is considered to be an act of terrorism of IZL and LHI ?

There may be but I doubt very much it is the mainstream (at the contrary of Kind David Hotel bombing for exemple).

Pluto2012 (talk) 15:01, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Reliable sources don;t refer to this as "terrorism". Agree with Pluto. Sko Sko 2014 (talk) 20:59, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I have now provided a link, with an extended quote, to the eminently reliable source Maxime Rodinson, who describes the massacre unequivocally as "an act of terror". I hope this now resolves this issue.RolandR (talk) 10:35, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I could also add Nathan Weinstock, who wrote "Mass terror as a weapon against the civilian population, as applied at Deir Yassin, was of course a typical Irgun tactic" (Zionism, False Messiah, 1979, p 243). Martin Gilbert refers to the perpetrators of the massacre as "terrorists" (Jerusalem in the Twentieth Century, 1996, p199), while Karl Sabbagh describes the massacre at Deir Yassin as "the most notorious example of this terrorism" (Palestine: A Personal History, 2006, p284). RolandR (talk) 10:42, 8 June 20:14 (UTC)

Thank you. I noticed you also reinserted Category:Zionist terrorism but didn't notice a source provided for said term. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 14:45, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Roland, please not that an "act of terror" is not necessaraly "terrorism". IZL and LHI, that are indeed terrorist organisations, didn't intend to practice terror there. It is also clear that Deir Yassin generated terror in the Palestinian Arab population but again, that was not the intent and this was not terrorism as eg all the different bombings were.

• Rodinson is wp:rs but don't talk about "terrorism"
• Weinstock is not really a wp:rs for this event and don't talk about "terrorism"
• Gilbert is wp:rs and talk about "terrorists". The exact sentence is welcome.
• Karl Sabbagh is not realy a wp:rs for this event.

If we look eg the account of Benny Morris in 1948 pp.125-127, he talks about the "conque[st] of the village" even if he reports all the massacres and give credits to the fact they happened.

We need more WP:RS to refer to this as "terrorism". Pluto2012 (talk) 15:14, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Rodinson refers to "the fear of Jewish terrorism", and in the very next sentence describes Deir Yasdsin as "an act of terror". It is hardly synthesis to state that he describes the massacre as "terrorism". The full passage from Gilbert reads: The killings in Deir Yassin gave the Arabs a powerful rallying call against the Jews. The killings also brought fierce Jewish criticism down upon the Irgun and the Stern Gang. Bernard Joseph later recalled how the terrorists "earned the contempt of most Jews in Jerusalem, and an unequivocal public repudiation by the Jewish Agency"." RolandR (talk) 16:19, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

And I have now located a further reference: Kati Marton writes in A Death in Jerusalem (Arcade 1996) that "Ben-Gurion's determination to root out the underground forces had been strengthened by one of the most infamous terrorist operations in Palestine's history: the destruction of Deir Yassin" (p29). RolandR (talk) 16:36, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Before we go on: do you understand what I mean ? And why I think Deir Yassin, whereas it was a massacre and and act of terror, was not an act of terrorism, ie a form of political violence. Even if you disagree with me, could you please show that you undersand me ?

• "Rodinson refers to "the fear of Jewish terrorism", and in the very next sentence describes Deir Yasdsin as "an act of terror". It is hardly synthesis to state that he describes the massacre as "terrorism".". It is a synthesis because Rodinson refers to the fact that afteer Deir Yassin, the Arab population was terrified by Jewish violence and potential massacres. That was a important if not the main cause of the exodus.
• Gilbert indeed refers to the perpetrators of Deir Yassin as "terrorists".
• Kati Marton is not wp:rs.
• ...

Instead of gathering quotes that refers to Deir Yassin as a form of terrorism, we should check all the notorious sources that do not refer to this as terrorism.

Pluto2012 (talk) 05:47, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, if I understand you then I don't agree with you. We have have here at least two reliable sources, and several others whose reliability you question, who refer to Deir Yassin as terrorism. I have other sources which discuss Deir Yassin in the context of, or in chapters about, terrorism, though these do not explicitly state "Deir Yassin was a terrorist act". And that is just books on my shelves; if I were to go to a library, or search Google Books, I have no doubt I could find many more. The fact that you can produce others which do not make this assertion is of no relevance,, unless they explicitly state the opposite: omission of a statement is not evidence of rejection of the assertion. And I certainly do not agree with, or accept, your argument that "an act of terror" is not the same as terrorism. How is terrorism manifested, if not in "acts of terror"? In short, I maintain that I have provided sufficient reliable evidence to establish that Deir Yassin can be considered an example of terrorism. I suggest that, if you disagree, we take this matter to the reliable sources noticeboard for further disinterested input.RolandR (talk) 10:16, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Terrorism is an act of terror but all acts of terrors are not terrorism.

There was no political motivation of the perpetrators of Deir Yassin.

Note that you only provided one wp:rs. Pluto2012 (talk) 18:04, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 November 2014

I would like to add a picture of the casualties of the massacre. The article, oddly enough, has massacre in its title but does not contain a single one of the plethora of photos available with no copyright restrictions. Hashemamireh (talk) 05:25, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Not done: Please make your request for a new image to be uploaded to Files For Upload. Once the file has been properly uploaded, feel free to reactivate this request to have the new image used. - Arjayay (talk) 08:31, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Huh? "Plethora of photos available with no copyright restrictions"? Of the casualties of the massacre? It is a well-known fact that the pictures taken after the massacre are still censored, if I recall correctly the latest official Israeli account was that releasing them would "damage Jewish-Arab relations". Huldra (talk) 18:55, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Parking some material

Parking this here until I work out where to put it:

"Some of the fighters alleged that they had shot women only because some male villagers had dressed as women. Yehoshua Gorodentchik of the Irgun said the fighters had, "found men dressed as women and therefore they began to shoot at women who did not hasten to go down to the place designated for gathering the prisoners." Yair Tsaban was one of several youths who joined the burial team on April 12:

"What we saw were [dead] women, young children, and old men. What shocked us was at least two or three cases of old men dressed in women's clothes. I remember entering the living room of a certain house. In the far corner was a small woman with her back towards the door, sitting dead. When we reached the body we saw an old man with a beard. My conclusion was that what happened in the village so terrorized these old men that they knew being old men would not save them. They hoped that if they were seen as old women that would save them.""

— Preceding unsigned comment added by SlimVirgin (talk • contribs) 15:52, 14 June 2009(UTC)

Yeshurun Shiff, an adjutant to David Shaltiel, district commander of the Haganah in Jerusalem, was in Deir Yassin on April 9 and April 12. He wrote: "[The attackers chose] to kill anybody they found alive as though every living thing in the village was the enemy and they could only think 'kill them all.'... It was a lovely spring day, the almond trees were in bloom, the flowers were out and everywhere there was the stench of the dead, the thick smell of blood, and the terrible odor of the corpses burning in the quarry." — Preceding unsigned comment added by SlimVirgin (talk • contribs) 16:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Villagers, Arab Higher Committee, and Palestine Broadcasting Service rep's admit it was a hoax.

The following is a clip from a BBC special on the 50th anniversary of the war (long ago, showing how outdated & biased this article is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72Ata-hY9WQ

When mny villagers themselves, and the Arab rep's who were on-the-ground, admit to it, you've got problems in this article, not problems of the Israeli side who were firsthand witnesses claiming one thing, and the Palestinian side's firsthand witnesses claiming the opposite. ¬¬¬¬ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.183.52.92 (talk • contribs) 15:26, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

This film, and the interview itself, are discussed at length in the article. It would help if you presented the entire interview, not just a cherry-picked extract. This details the massacre, but claims that the stories of rape were untrue, not that the incident itself was a false story. RolandR (talk) 15:36, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Numbers killed

Why not add the numbers from the Red cross and Irgun commander's accounts in the description template? It's biased in its current form. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.241.156.237 (talk) 02:38, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Haganah's involvement not mentioned in the lead

While a pretty large part of the lead mentions the mainstream Jewish organizations' condemnation, nothing of Haganah's (including Palmach's) involvement is mentioned. Their involvement is mentioned in the rest of the article in several sections and I think it is notable to be mentioned in the lead too. --IRISZOOM (talk) 21:04, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

In fact they were involved in the battle that preceeded the massacre.

But if the Haganah had cautionned the attack, it didn't participate, expect or caution the massacre.

Pluto2012 (talk) 04:38, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

As Haganah was helping in some way the militias, it is misleading to just mention in the lead that they and other mainstream Jewish organization condemned it, when the rest of the article tells about Haganah's involvement (including Palmach's). --IRISZOOM (talk) 00:00, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Use another infobox and changes the descriptions

Template:Infobox civilian attack have more fitting parameters so I think it should be used instead. It is used in articles like Haifa Oil Refinery massacre. The parameters that could be added is target and victims. Right now it says "Irgun, Lehi, and Arab villagers" after "Participants", which is misleading. Date, location, outcome and deaths is the only other parameters.

The massacre did not trigger the 1948 Palestinian exodus but did increase it. It had already been going on for months. Benny Morris writes in The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited at page 262 "However, the most important immediate effect of the massacre and of the media atrocity campaign that followed was to trigger and promote fear and further panic flight from Palestine's villages and towns". In 1948: A History of the First Arab-Israeli War on page 127, he writes "The most important immediate effect of the media atrocity campaign, however, was to spark fear and further panic flight from Palestine’s villages and towns". He also writes about the effect it had on the Arab countries' decision to intervene, which I think should be added too. --IRISZOOM (talk) 20:55, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I have no objection with this proposal. Pluto2012 (talk) 04:38, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I have added the new template. However, I noticed there is no "Outcome" parameter but I still think this new template is better. --IRISZOOM (talk) 00:39, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 October 2015

This request for edit is regarding the caption for the newspaper clipping of the letter by Einstein, et al. The caption refers to the attack as a "terrorist attack". Other than one paraphrased opinion, the words "terrorist" or "terrorism" are not used anywhere else in the article outside of the newspaper clipping and its caption. The caption implies that this was a objectively a "terrorist" attack, and that this is not even a matter for debate. If it wanted to say that the authors of the letter called the attackers "terrorists", then it should say so.

In other words, instead of saying, "...about the terrorist attack", the caption should say, "about the attack by what they call "terrorist bands"". That is a distinction with indeed a difference.

Furthermore, there is no reason that this image of an opinionated letter to the editor should be at the very top of the introduction to the article. Obviously, it is not a comprehensive or objective document or image regarding the event. 45.33.139.217 (talk) 17:18, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 05:48, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. Got it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.243.85.99 (talk) 00:02, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Deir Yassin: a terrorist attack ?

I have not seen stated in the sources given that "Deir Yassin massacre was a terrorist attack" even if all the sources refer to this event in a context of terror and of terrorism.

• it was a badly prepared military operation
• organised by terrorist groups with the support of the paramilitary Haganah in the context of Operation Nachshon
• a battle occured between attackers and defenders
• defenders were massacred during the battle (no prisoners among them) as well as some civliants; more another massacre occured after the battle
• this massacre generated terror among the Palestinian Arab population in Palestine and hasted the 1948 Palestinian exodus.
• it was not intended to be a "terrorist attack"

Pluto2012 (talk) 15:00, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

No idea what the Orwellian claim of a badly prepared military operation organised by terrorist groups which was not intended to a terrorist attack is actually meant to be. But I prefer to go discuss what independent, reliable sources state, here is some of them:

• Terrorism in an Unstable World – "Ethnic clensing... continued in Palestine by two Jewish terrorist movements in 1948... worst example was in the village of Deir Yassin on 9 April 1948."

• State Terrorism and the United States – "Irgun and the Stern Gang collaborated in the killing of 250 Arabs in the Palestine village Deir Yassin on April 9, 1948. The Purpose of the massacre was to strike terror in the surrounding Palestinian population so that they would leave to make room for returning Jewish immigrants. The form of terrorism was names "ethnic cleansing"..."

• Terrorist's Creed: Fanatical Violence and the Human Need for Meaning – "In his article 'The Logic of Ethnic Terrorism', Daniel Byman makes a sharp distinction between ethnic terrorism and 'violence committed for religious purposes', and has no hestitation to classity Irgun and the Stern Gang as primes examples of the ethnic variety."

• International Terrorism: Political and Legal Documents – "There has been continuous terrorism and murder from the Deir Yassin massacre in 1948..."

• Transnational Feminist Perspectives on Terror in Literature and Culture – "Deir Yassin massacre in which Jewish terrorist groups disemboweled pregnant Palestinian women..."

• Terrorism: A Philosophical Investigation – "Deir Yassin massacre... its message of unprovoked attack, slaughter of civilians, rape, and plunder..."

Tanbircdq (talk) 17:44, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

These are poor sources (the first two, for example, repeat the long debunked claim of "250 people massacred", and most of them don't even call the event a terrorist attack - they describe the Irgun as a terrorist group. Remember - "sourced does not mean it belongs". When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 19:03, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Tanbircdq,

• The 1st source states that Deir Yassin was an exemple of Ethnic cleansing. That's not exactly an act of terrorism and in any way, referring to this event as an exemple of ethnic cleansing is controversial. It is not the mainstream point of view.
• The 2nd source is wrong. There is no evidence that the massacre was premedited. On the contrary, there are evidences it was not. And as WOLAF states, that's a poor source as proven by the 250 victims.
• IZL and LHI are classified by this author as an "ethnic cleasing" group. Well, that's a point of view that can be defended but that is not linked with what is said here ("terrorist group") and historians would not support this idea for the event of Deir Yassin. What happened in Galilea during Operation Hiram, where most if not all unhabitants where chased with numerous massacres in which former LHI and IZL soliders were involved is the exemple that historians (real ones) most often take.
• ...

All in all, you should not cherry pick quotes containing the "word" you are looking for ("terrorism") and instead try to read different articles on the events -fully- and try to understand the context. By reverting what you wrote as I did I didn't mean that I reject the idea that IZL and LHI were not terrorist groups. (Even if I think it is a complex question). What it means is that anybody has to use WP:RS sources (historians!) and take into account the complete writings and analysis on any topic.

Deir Yassin generated terror among Palestinian Arabs but was not intended to be a terrorist action. It was a military action. Pluto2012 (talk) 17:22, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Suggested minor edits to lead section

• attacked Deir Yassin near Jerusalem, a Palestinian Arab village of roughly 600 people → attacked Deir Yassin, a Palestinian Arab village of roughly 600 people near Jerusalem
• 107 Palestinians were murdered → One hundred and seven Palestinians were murdered (A sentence shouldn't begin with a digit or digits.)

71.183.137.40 (talk) 00:47, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Done. I tweaked your second suggestion a bit to read "During and after the battle, 107 Palestinians were murdered ..." --Al Ameer (talk) 03:31, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. However, a person who is killed while participating in a battle isn't said to be murdered. Does the number 107 include Palestinian fighters?

While I'm on the subject of phrasing, I'll say that the statement Jewish militia sought to retaliate against the blockade of Jerusalem looks odd to me. If I'm not mistaken, one does not retaliate against an act but retaliates against the agent who committed the act or retaliates for that act. 71.183.137.40 (talk) 16:43, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

"lack of sources"?

There are more than 80 footnotes in this article, WillNess. What "lack of sources"? — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 12:11, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

There are many disputations of factuality of this supposed massacre, but they are not represented in this sham of an "article". The accused have always denied anything but a battle with armed insurgents (not "villagers") took place there, yet this too is not represented anywhere in this sham of a pretend-"article". Many sources talk of Hagana forces taking part in the battle, but this isn't represented in this pretense of a sham of an "article" (at a glance). etc., etc., etc.

This is a one-sided propaganda piece. Of course it cites a lot of one-sided propaganda "sources", SFW. So yes, lack of neutral sources, lack of sources to the contesting side of this issue, lack of sources to the final authority's non-existent final verdict on the factuality of this blood libel. This lack of sources. WillNess (talk) 12:36, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

As you've been editing for 7 years, you should by now have familiarized yourself with elementary policy, like WP:NPOV, which doesn't speak of neutral sources, but of writing up neutrally what multiple sources say. Secondly, before you comment on a page, it is advisable to actually read it, which evidently you haven't troubled to do.Nishidani (talk) 13:12, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

First, all: WP:1RR!

Second, something took place at Deir Yassin on April 9, 1948. The WP:COMMONNAME is per the current article title. Inserting "alleged" before the date implies the date is in question, which it is not. Please stop this pointless edit war. --A D Monroe III (talk) 17:03, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

No one has violated 1RR yet. For clarity, WillNess could argue, perhaps unconvincingly, that their first edit was not a revert, but their second was. Whether an admin buys that depends on the admin. IPs can be reverted on sight, they are not allowed to edit here - see WP:ARBPIA3#500/30. Also, for completeness, this wasn't any old IP. This is one of a number of Telstra, Australia and Optus, Australia IPs operated by a person who issues rape threats and death threats against editors who do not share their racist, ultra-nationalist views with respect to Israel. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:03, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

And now, thanks to the fine work on an admin, the page has been given extended confirmed protection which implements the ARBCOM authorized ARBPIA3#500/30 restriction at the database server level. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:06, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

First edit being a revert is an insult to anyone's intelligence, methinks. And yeah, I'm entitled to one revert per 24 hours. - WillNess (talk) 14:57, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

"Murdered"

The opening says 107 Palestinians were "murdered". This cannot be accurate, as many were killed in combat during the takeover of the village. Killing an enemy in warfare is not "murder".--RM (Be my friend) 23:18, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

You are right. The sources do not specify the differences. But that's a complex issue because it seems a majority of civilians were killed during the "battle". Pluto2012 (talk) 05:31, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 July 2016

This article has many errors and seems to be be writen from a very sided objetivity. The use of many words and photografs could be improved.

181.165.14.147 (talk) 14:23, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Could you propose a specific wording change for a specific part of the article? Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 14:42, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 0 external links on Deir Yassin massacre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1173879267661&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:22, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

It wasn't a civil war.

It wasn't a civil war. Please update. It was between the local people of Palestine and the zionists militiant from Europe. BGQubbaj (talk) 05:10, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Your complaint, it appears, isn't with this article but with the title of 1947–48 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine, which you say was not a civil war. Please read WP:COMMONNAME and WP:Identifying reliable sources, and discuss the article title at Talk:1947–48 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:21, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

POV pushing

This edit, which was made in the name of NPOV, represents POV pushing. Deleting the mainstream view and including only the Irgun view is hardly NPOV. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 14:50, 10 June 2017 (UTC)ly

No one deleted mainstream view only added view of the irgun --Shrike (talk) 15:43, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

If no one deleted anything, what happened to the words "and after"? — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:05, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

You right I didn't noticed that.I think its better to bring Milstein view from the main article.Shrike (talk) 09:30, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

“Born in Deir Yassin” by director Neta Shoshani

Documentry film at the Jerusalem Film Festival July 2017:

Ha-Aretz JFF --Abutoum (talk) 13:48, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Source

This book review (original in Hebrew [33], English from Mosaic [34]) is probably relevant here. I won't hang around for the whitewash. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 02:01, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

It looks like an interesting book and its author, Eliezer Tauber, seems to be highly regarded in his field. I hope it's more widely reviewed (and translated into English, because I'd like to read it), because Mida looks like a partisan website and a single book review in an opinion source won't pass muster as a reliable source for anything but its author's opinion. On the other hand, the reviewer appears to be a person whose opinion may be relevant. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:47, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Number of Arabs wounded

Hi. I've just read Tauber's new book. I don't think I read any of the other sources.

He gives there a very rough estimate of the number of Arab wounded as "about 100" rather than the number 12 that appears in the article:

1. The footnote in the article that supports the number of 12 wounded (currently footnote 44) is from Kan'ana & Zaytuni 1988.
   1. That footnote also mentions an article by Gelber that quotes them and is available for reading. The article does not mention the number of wounded (but does support other data in the article).
   2. I have not read Kan'ana & Zaytuni's booklet. According to Tauber, the number of 12 wounded is just those who were seriously injured and were hospitalized in the governmental hospital at the Russian Compound and there were many other wouneded (see below).
2. According to Tauber, a nurse that worked in
3. According to Tauber: in a report from the International Red Cross office in Jerusalem, they wrote that over 50 of the captives from the village were wounded (Reference: ACICR B G 59/I/GC file 17: letter JdR/JM 29, de Reyner to Comité international de la Croix-Rouge, 13 April 1948; LC 2/1:)
4. According to Tauber, de Reyner reported a somewhat more specific figure (60-70) in his diary (de Reyner's diary, p. 85)
5. According to Tauber, most of the people (and the fighters) from Deir Yassin escaped during or at the end of the fight southwards to Ein Karim. He supports this by a bunch of sources but all are lumped together in a single footnote (23 in chapter 6) which made it difficult for me to follow.

All in all it seems to make sense that there were more than 12 wounded. But I welcome the opinions of others who know the sources better. Tzafrir (talk) 10:49, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Genocide

Block evasion by banned User:HarveyCarter
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The article should mention that this massacre of civilians was an example of genocide, like the Holocaust. (81.132.49.235 (talk) 20:42, 21 April 2018 (UTC)) No, it shouldn't, because reliable sources generally don't cite it as an example of genocide. See WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:VALID. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 22:07, 21 April 2018 (UTC) It was an early episode of the genocide against the Palestinians. (81.132.49.235 (talk) 22:18, 21 April 2018 (UTC)) On Wikipedia, what you think it was or what I think it was doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is what reliable sources (i.e., historians) have to say about it. See WP:NOR. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 22:35, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

No massacre?

https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/deir-yassin-the-end-of-a-myth/ According to the profound investigations of Eliezer Tauber it was no massacre at all... Urgert (talk) 19:55, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Not strange at all...whitewashing like this have been done multiple times over the last 60 years. AFAIK, the only thing that is still disputed, is whether rapes were committed...or not. As we know, in the case of rapes: that is notoriously difficult to find out the truth; as both the perpetrator and victim are likely to lie. Huldra (talk) 23:12, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

There is actually a fairly wide consensus that events were amplified as anti-Etzel propaganda by the Haganah, subsequently used to scare the Arab populace, and later for use in anti-Israel activism. To a large extant the myth of what happened is more important than what did.Icewhiz (talk) 06:07, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Accusations of rape

The source for them is a cryptic "Morris 1987, p. 113". can someone please corroborate this or remove if unfounded?

I could not find any source by searching "Morris Deir Yassin" - so I think the sentence "Israeli historian Benny Morris wrote that there were also cases of mutilation and rape." should be removed.

Additionaly, the (https://www.goodreads.com/author/list/12267.Benny_Morris?utf8=%E2%9C%93&sort=original_publication_year%7CGoodreads page for the author) does not mention any book written in 1987 (but does mention a book written in 1988)

The book written in 1988 ("The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited") does not mention anything relevant on page 113. Leav (talk) 18:15, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

It is not cryptic, it is referencing Morris, Benny (1987). The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, 1947–1949. Cambridge University Press. page 113. That book was first published in 1987. Revisited is another book. nableezy - 18:25, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Yeah I see now that in the hebrew version of the page they mention Morris's book and more properly credit (and even quote the relevant passage). Would you be willing include contrary historian's point of view? Yoav Gelber is quoted from his book: "It was not a glorious action in any way, but there is a large gap between what actually happened in the village and the horror stories that have been told since then, during the battle and after it there were no acts of rape or body mutilation..." Leav (talk) 10:22, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Number of deaths

It is not acceptable to quote 254 victims as a maximum estimate, since this number has since been revealed by modern scholarship to have been wildly exaggerated, with the actual number most likely less than half that amount. Jacob D (talk) 18:29, 11 December 2019 (UTC)Jacob D

Yehuda Lapidot

How come he is cited in the article? He took part in the attack, hence his claims are completely untrustworthy. ImTheIP (talk) 15:22, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Citing him gives the Irgun point of view, but citing him 7 times as now is ridiculous. Zero^talk 04:26, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

@Zero0000: What an amazing document!! Is the timestamp of the communique correct? If so, wouldn't it prove that Palmach showed up in the morning and not at noon? ImTheIP (talk) 09:19, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

@ImTheIP: Thanks, I found that in a microfilm collection of documents from the archive of the Jabotinsky Institute (whose seal you can see at the top). You are right, if the dates and times are correct the Palmach arrived in the morning. But are they right? I don't know. There are a lot more Deir Yassin materials in the same source, mostly in Hebrew. I think that the famous testimonies of participants are there, but I'm not sure because they are hand-written and my hand-written Hebrew is even worse than my printed Hebrew. Zero^talk 10:09, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

I could help with deciphering the Hebrew. Feel free to send me any screenshots, texts or photocopies. RolandR (talk) 16:47, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

@RolandR: It's all on microfilm in a library that is hard to visit due to covid-19. But I do plan to visit it again and I'll remember your offer. Zero^talk 02:46, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Nusseibeh quote

As evidenced by the edit history, I've been obsessed about this page for the last week. There's some loose threads hanging still, such as this interview with Hogan:

Contrary to descriptions, Nusseibeh never says he falsely reported anything when he reported in 1948 that at Deir Yassin children were killed and “all sorts of atrocities” took place. The narrator actually puts words in his mouth implying he backed away from that. So if you see online polemics that say Nusseibeh admitted to lying about the event, of even Wikipedia entries saying that, that is false.

Fun. :) What he appears to be referring to is this video at around the 6:00 mark. Would be cool if anyone could verify whether Nusseibeh actually is misquoted. ImTheIP (talk) 17:11, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Morris

There are 40 mentions of "Morris" (Benny Morris) in the article. Benny Morris is one of the most authoritative historians on the Middle East conflict. The first mention is in the "Arab Militia" section (footnote 28). And it just says "Morris", not "Benny Morris", indicating that there was probably a previous mention of Morris when his full name was used. I know this article has been rewritten, but wonder if an important previous mention citing Morris was removed, and why. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brianjgolfer (talk • contribs) 05:30, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Pictures?

AFAIK; all pictures from the aftermath of the massacre are still impounded by the IDF. Yes; I have seen some pictures "floating around" on the internet, (including this, which is *clearly* not from the Deir Yassin massacre: people were simply not using that sort of clothes in Deir Yassin, 1948! -I suspect the picture is from the Sabra and Shatila massacre) (In addition to the clothes: look at the houses: the houses of Deir Yassin were very well built (there were a lot of stone-masons there); but the houses in the picture looks as if it is from a refugee camp.)

We need to clean up on commons, too, Huldra (talk) 20:17, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

The documentary Born in Deir Yassin (Israel, France 2017)

I'd like to add a link to this article, talking about evidence and new findings relating to the mentioned documentary. The article is in English. [From the Censored Deir Yassin Massacre: 'They Piled Bodies and Burned Them' ] Ommnia (talk) 09:30, 27 October 2021 (UTC)