Talk:Deir Yassin massacre/massacre-battle discussions

Total Rewrite

I've rewritten the entire article and have renamed it to Battle of Deir Yassin, as it holds all the characteristics of a battle, and the title is a small part of the events themselves. The "massacre" will be a subcategory in the article. I've made sure that everything is sourced and uses many of the quotes already available within the article, but also gives them context and is cohesive enough to show a strict timeline of events, instead of a collection of quotes. Of course, there are things that can be expanded upon, for example the last two sections, and the source numbers are out of order but correspond correctly. I any case, I don't think they should be ordered until the article settles down enough, and I am sure that somebody will add other information very shortly.

Guy Montag 23:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Just a few random comments about the article as is stands now ( Unrelated to the name question; that is a separate issue):

• as the article is now: it is difficult to know where to start... "everything is sourced" is used an excuse for including every self-serving statements there is from the perpetrators. The result is that if we are to believe this article, then the inhabitants of Deir Yassin must either have been complete idiots or totally suicidal. How else can one explain that they several times refused help from Arab militants, and then went on to attack Jews/Zionist, who were much better armed than they? Obviously, they wanted to die/be expelled...
• just take a word like "claim" versus "report": use the search and find on the article and find who "claims", and who "reports". Like the sentence: "They (=people from Deir Yassin) are shooting at passing cars" is reported, but it is "a villager who claims that" she saw her mother and brother being shot.

• Also: a "battle", but only 4 killed on the attackers side? More people have been killed from "friendly fire" than that.
• very basic information which is missing from the article is:
  • an estimate of number of inhabitants of the village, (according to Deir Yassin it had 610 inhabitants in 1945, how was it in -48?)
  • an estimate of the number of attackers of the village. (First attack force was 132 Lehi/Irgun men, but how many were the "sizeable Palmach unit"?)
  • Also missing: of the dead villagers: How many were male? How many were women? Children?
• ( Unrelated to the name issue: ) Why quote Abba Eban? Did he have any new or "inside information" on the issue?
• in the "Deir Yassin's Importance to Jewish Forces"-section: the following apologies for breaking the peace pact makes absolutely no sense to me: "The pact was not recognized by the Haganah Command and was temporary in nature. For example, Abu Gosh also concluded a local peace pact, but was subsequently quietly barracked by Haganah forces because it overlooked a strategic position over a site planned for a military airport." Firstly, from what I understand it was not the Haganah Command (I assume they refer to a central command?) that broke the pact. The article states that it was the regional leadership who both made the pact and then broke it. The second sentence does not exemplify what it is supposed to exemplify. It is not breaking a pact if both parts of the pact agrees that (parts of) the pact is no longer valid. The Abu Gosh example is therefore simply quite irrelevant. (The Nazareth example is far more relevant: the city surrendered on the written condition that all civilians were allowed to stay. A day later they were ordered expelled (by General Laskov, who had co-signed the very agreement the day before.))

• in the "Accounts of Battle and Aftermath" section: according to Uri Milstein, the reports on Deir Yassin that spurred the Palestinians into exile were "mostly fabricated or exaggerated by various elements on the Jewish side." (in: "No deportation, Evacuations", Hadashot, 1 January 1988.) Milsteins work is quoted extensively in the article, but this is for some reason missing..... Did I hear the word "cherry-picking"?

• in the "Allegations of Mutilations and Rape"-section: I do not have the main books with me just now, so I´m quoting from memory; but all the eye-witness accounts that I have heard/read from the Arab side strongly underlined that there were no rapes committed. So the "Allegations of Mutilations and Rape" gives a wrong impression. (I think most will get the impression that these allegations came from the Arab side.) Actually, in the article now it looks as if the only allegations of rape comes from Lehi men (against IZL). (This would fit well with Millsteins view).
• as to what the Arab broadcast said at the time: anybody with any knowledge of the socalled "broadcast controversy" (i.e about alleged broadcast on various Arab radio stations in 1948 urging the Palestinians to flee) knows that some supporters of Israel have a proven record of falsifying history. (I´m sorry, but there is simply no more diplomatic way of putting this. Please read e.g. Chapter 3, "Broadcasts", in "Blaming the victim" before you protest.) Allegations of what Arab broadcast said/did not say should be treated as such: allegations. (Printed newspaper reports is, ofcourse uncontroversial...well, mostly!: [1].)
• And quoting a Nusseibeh on a Husseini, is, well, it seems like, well, perhaps like quoting Lehi men on IZL? (Actually, I frankly do not know much about the internal relationship between Lehi/IZL/Palmack. But the hostility between the Nusseibeh and the Husseini clans is famous). And in spite of the headline: where are the allegations of mutilation? What were claimed is the killing at point-blank range: and a sentence like "many were shot at close range, consistent with door-to-door fighting" could just as well have been: "many were shot at close range, consistent with being slaughtered."

• that people "accepted" an order, or "accepted" the Geneva convention, does not mean that they followed it!

...and I haven´t even mentioned the sources of the massacre you have cut out/do not mention...That is a whole separate chapter. Regards, Huldra 16:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

well, I see that nobody has responded to this. If I do not get any answers (to e.g. to the apologies for breaking the peace pact in the "Deir Yassin's Importance to Jewish Forces"-section ..I will remove them as irrelevant. Regards, Huldra 04:35, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Battle???

Strongly suggest article title be reverted to "Deir Yassin Massacre" as that is the generally accepted term. Substituting "battle" frankly smacks of historical revisionism, in the perjoritive sense. Now this is a SAD ('sides are drawn') situation so it helps to remember Wiki is an encyclopedia and the event being addressed is already known by a certain name -- as tellingly posted elsewhere on this page, a Google search for

   "Battle of Deir Yassin" yields 103 results
   "Deir Yassin massacre" yields 27,200 results

People, be reasonable, our responsibility here is to respect and reflect the reality of the world we live in whether we agree with it or not.RomaC 07:18, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Now Zionists want to cover up their crimes. They r Deir Yasin-deniers. :) Robin Hood 1212 03:16, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you actually have something constructive to add or was that it? Guy Montag 04:22, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

This event is known almost universally as the "Deir Yassin massacre" and so the move is not legitimate, just as a move from "Kfar Etzion massacre" to "Battle of Kfar Etzion" would not be legitimate. I will leave you to move the article back. --Ian Pitchford 07:55, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

These events have nothing to do with each other. In Kfar Etzion, most of the people where killed after the battle, in Deir Yassin, they were killed during heavy house to house fighting.Guy Montag 18:56, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

If this goes to mediation or arbitration the article will be restored to its original location at "Deir Yassin massacre". It'll save everyone a lot of trouble and annoyance if you move it now. Then we can discuss the content. --Ian Pitchford 20:28, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you request a peer review if you are so sure. This is a neutral name for a battle that happened. A massacre is a premeditated mass murder of civilians. No evidence shows that there were killings of groups of people after the battle was over. The content is intrinsically tied to the name. Guy Montag 21:04, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

You're wrong about killings after the battle - but you've deleted the section and source confirming this from your version. I'm sure this was accidental. Basically, it doesn't matter what you or I or other Wikipedia editors think this event should be called. It is in fact known universally in the literature as the "Deir Yassin massacre" as a simple Google search or Google Book search will verify. Please move the article back or let me know if you would rather refer the issue for mediation or arbitration. --Ian Pitchford 07:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Obviously I didn't include every quote available in the previous article, and deleted information that was vague, didn't have any context or were general statements of the pov of some eye witnesses after the fact of the battle. I didn't order the references for the pure fact that other information will undoubtably be included into the article, and I didn't follow any pretenses that what I wrote will either end the discussion or is so comprehensive that other sources need not be introduced. What I did is organize a cohesive string of events and bundled them with modern historical breakthroughs.

Historical evidence and studies that delve into the time period have found out new information regarding the battle, that refute earlier descriptions of "massacres". I've done enough research through secondary sources and historical documents that confirm such a view. Finally, please don't make argumentum ad google arguments, instead introduce facts that contradict my sources. Guy Montag 19:49, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

So, in your view this material you've deleted from the article, taken from a 2006 publication by Yoav Gelber, a noted Israeli historian (who is generally considered to be on the right), is "vague", "didn't have any context" or was "general"?

Although the Irgun and Lehi claimed subsequently that foreign combatants were present in the village all contemporary and later Arab testimonies, including those of the refugees themselves, as well as SHAI's Arab sources, confirm that the villagers were the only combatants present. Menachem Begin claimed in his memoirs that Iraqi troops were present in Deir Yassin, but these were in fact stationed in Ain Karim (Gelber, 2006, p. 311).

Your renaming of this article and deletion of reliable scholarly sources is a violation of the terms of your probation. Please move this article back to "Deir Yassin massacre" and then we can set about restoring the sources. --Ian Pitchford 22:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Why only Arab "massacres" r called "massacres" but Zionist ones r covered-up? Robin Hood 1212 21:32, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

You can of course dismiss it as argumentum ad google, but googeling for

"Battle of Deir Yassin" gives about 92 hits today, while it gave about 82 yesterday.

"Deir Yassin massacre" gives about 31 500 hits (same yesterday)

Oh, and: Deir Yassin-deniers gives about 828 hits ;-D Regards, Huldra 04:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

You are arguing that although it is a fallacious argument the numbers supposedly speak for themselves. The thing is, they do not and are inflated. Many of those 31 thousand are simply a part of an ungoing discussion of "there was a massacre" and "there wasn't a massacre," with both sides using the same terminology. Hence the fallaciousness of the google argument as the 31000 number includes the arguments of both sides and has nothing to do with the name. Interestingly enough, over time the numbers in google will even out. 92 today, 2000 in a couple of months. Give it a year and you will be complaining about argumentum ad google. Guy Montag 05:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

And y don't u call me an anti-Semite too and say that the massacre was a myth like all Zionists do? Those ppl r trying to portray themselves as victims, they even deny that Palestinians ever existed. I wonder who they r fighting in the WB and GS. Robin Hood 1212 04:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

The vote on moving

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was corrupted vote due to votestaking. The move to Battle of Deir Yassin was unilateral, and can be challenged, as was done by this poll. It failed to recieve a consensus as the vote was effectively split 15-15 (12 back to original name, three to a different name). However, the voting was corrupted due to vote staking by Guy Montag in a late stage of the poll, see [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], all who opposed. The situation before the votestaking was that there was consensus for the move back. As such, I am going to move it back. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 03:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

Battle of Deir Yassin → Deir Yassin Massacre – Rationale: In scientific literature, Hebrew, etc know as the Deir Yassin Massacre … -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 15:01, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

If we are to have the title truly reflect the content, why not "Battle of Guy Montag," as he is the principle in an article marked chiefly by a fierce fight to whitewash history. I usually don't get involved in this sort of thing but am very disappointed to see how SAD (sides are drawn) articles degenerate into POV wars.

Further, editors below were voting on a proposal which meant to euphemise a general usage term, Montag saw the vote going against the initiative, so declared the deadline extended. Suddenly, a host of "Oppose" votes began appearing. Survey the Talk Pages of these voters, they indicate a definite pro-Israeli bent. Special interest blocks and cabals are not what Wiki should be about -- the event in question has an established name, it is not for Wiki to change it, no matter our personal feelings. RomaC 09:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

It would seem to me that there were two phases. A battle of close combat and house to house fighting, which almost certainly involved the deaths of some civlians, then in the aftermath, the execution of prisoners. Similar things happened in the battle of stalingrad, and it is not called 'the stalingrad massacre'. No one contests that arab and israeli forces were engaged in combat in the village. The execution of prisoners could be called a massacre though, and could possibly have a seperate page. I favor leaving the article titled how it is as a more accurate description of a conflict with two sides armed and fighting. --Irongaard 18:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Clarification

Even with Montag recruiting people to vote whom he knows agree with his POV (and, as far as I know, no one doing the same in the opposite direction) the best he can get is something near a tie. Which leads to the question: why are we voting on whether to move the article back? Since Montag started this by whitewashing the article (deleting sourced information he didn't like) then moving the article without consensus, unless he has an overwhelming majority that the article should have been moved, I think we should go back to the status quo ante bellum -- put the article where it goes, and see if Montag can get overwhelming support for moving it here. Otherwise we reward his childish behavior. -Rjyanco 12:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[NB: Firefox was clipping the bottom of this page when I edited it, and Opera is changing some characters to & codes; sorry. -Rjyanco 12:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)]

Survey

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

• Support-- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 15:01, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
• OpposeI think its should be called incident because we will never know what actually happened there. Massacre and Battle is a pov words.--Shrike 15:09, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

  I would be fine with incident if there is support for that. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 18:48, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose the facts simply do not support a clear cut massacre as defined to be many unarmed civilians grouped together to be killed after hostilities are over. Guy Montag 07:56, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support Clear cut case in literature.--Pan Gerwazy 14:47, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support -- Montag removed sourced materials about the massacre, then moved the article because the article didn't discuss a massacre. Disingenuous at best, but a POV move and POV edits need to be corrected. -Rjyanco 18:11, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support This is known as a massacre (this is the most used name) and there has been massacres (25 prisonners after the battle) See eg Gelber, Palestine 1948, pp.311-... I cannot understand there can be so much discussion around this topic. Alithien 18:50, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Support I´ll post a comment below. Regards, Huldra 19:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
• support oppose per nom After a 2nd thought maybe the word "incident" is more apporpriate. per Humus.Zeq 20:37, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support battle is misleading by suggesting that civilians are combatants. Homey 22:49, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support I also feel "battle of..." is misleading and POV. --Cab88 08:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
• Rename into "Incident" per Shrike. â†�Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support Stop covering your crimes zionists. Robin Hood 1212 16:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

  There is no need to say this (even when you are yourself convinced this is what is going on). -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 17:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. No evidence has been given that the word "massacre" is dominant in scholarly literature. For example, Efraim Karsh in The Arab-Israeli Conflict: The Palestine War 1948, p. 45, calls the event the "Deir Yasin tragedy". When we have differences in terminology, let's stick to the most NPOV option. Pecher ^Talk 19:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment on Google "Battle of Deir Yassin" renders 108 hits[7] (zero on Google Scholar[8]) vs "Deir Yassin masscare" with 29,200 hits[9] (51 in google scholar[10])Homey 20:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Google Scholar has a very limited and an unrepresentative collection of works available. The inappropriateness of using Google itself in this case probably goes without saying. The ability of one side to post lots of propaganda online should have no bearing on Wikipedia. Pecher ^Talk 20:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Do you have any evidence that "Battle of Deir Yassin" is used prominently in academic literature?Homey 20:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

CommentFor now that is irrelevent as you are using argumentum ad google. The only way to determine the name of an article is through its content, and when the content is not clear cut, it is best to use an npov title. Guy Montag 23:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

• Support reflect the reality of the world we live in whether we agree with it or not. RomaC 07:25, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - oversimplifies the nature of this incident. Would support a rename per Humus if that was consensus but I personally think "Battle" is more accurate. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 15:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per Briangotts Isarig 15:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Conclusion Well, it's been five days and the yeas outnumber the nays by 2:1.Homey 05:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC) Let's give this another 36 hours. Homey 05:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose - both sides agree that it was a battle that turned into something more/worse. But nobody is asserting that the purpose of the attack was to kill people. Contrast this with Kfar Etzion massacre, in which people were killed after they surrendered, or Sabra and Shatila massacre where the "militia" went in with the express purpose of killing people. --Leifern 18:08, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean, nobody is asserting the purpose of the attack was to kill (innocent) people? Haven't you read that Lehi and other groups which participated in the attack are on record as having spoken about the desirability of a mass killing that would spread fear through the Palestinian Arab community?

Apart from which, a massacre is still a massacre whether it's premeditated or not. Gatoclass 18:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment Actually, if you've read the article, Gator, you've would have seen that it was raised during the planning stages that fighters and any civilians who didn't leave should be executed, but the commanders of both sides completely rejected the idea. Ra'anan later received approval from Irgun command in Jerusalem to inflate deaths from the battle for propaganda purposes. Guy Montag 04:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

It might not hurt to actually read the article and the sources; historians agree now that Lehi's bravado was a propaganda stunt aimed at scaring the Arabs. A massacre is, of course, a massacre, but attempts to call this event as such rest on a rather shaky basis. Pecher ^Talk 19:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

• Support. The move should be referred to the Arbitration Committee for appropriate disciplinary action. --Ian Pitchford 20:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

disciplinary action? So everytime an editor disagrees with you he should be disciplined? What kind of talk is that? Isarig 21:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I oppose the move, but disciplinary action is kinda harsh. --Leifern 21:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

The person responsible for the move is on probation for exactly this type of POV rearrangement of articles. --Ian Pitchford 03:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. The article supports the conclusion that it was a battle during which civilians died, and the article also includes the arguments and evidence for and against the "massacre" theory, starting right in the first sentence. That is a fair approach. Whether there should be a compromise on "incident" can be determined if and when this POV proposal is rejected. 6SJ7 23:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose As per simple convention that articles perjorative terms should be restricted to the terms themselves. This article is not about the term, but about the battle/massacre, and as such, should not be titled in a deliberately inflammatory manner. Bibigon 02:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment. The article should conform to conventional usage. In addition to the extreme POV title change the deletion of scholarly sources is a very serious matter. --Ian Pitchford 02:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Was that directed at me? I don't believe I've ever edited this article. I certainly haven't deleted scholarly sources... Bibigon 04:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Please stop sabre rattling and assume good faith. If you feel that relevent information was left out you have every right to add it in, but please don't assume anything. I've added as much detail to the subject as I could and other editors have every right to add contextual information. Guy Montag 04:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose as per Leifern. --DLand^TALK 04:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose battle is less POV and just as plausible. Violently object to nom for introducing yet another political squabble into WP. Go edit articles on which you don't feel so strongly. - CrazyRussian talk/email 04:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose because the word "Battle" is in keeping with WP:NPOV whereas "Massacre" is a judgment of what happened when the Irgun, which was never shy about touting its doings such as the King David Hotel bombing or reprisal attacks (List of Irgun attacks during the 1930s in response to the Arabs' Great Uprising), has given an entirely different story, see below Talk:Battle of Deir Yassin#The Irgun's side of the story. Indeed, in the article below it's touted as an "Affair" but to call it a "massacre" while overlooking its context where many other real massacres of Jews were taking place is unfair and makes no sense. IZAK 05:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC):
• Oppose even though I am very sympathetic to the idea that Wikipedia should use commonly-used names; I think "Battle of Deir Yassin" is a better name for an article about the totality of the event, which, was much more than a massacre, if there was a massacre at all.Anomalocaris 05:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose While I am not so sure about using "Battle of Deir Yassin", it is surely more neutral than "Massacre", plus this article refers to a wider set of events than what even the exponents of the "Massacre" refer to.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 05:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per IZAK. --tickle me 13:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: yet again, ideology trumps history for Wikipedia editors. Palmiro | Talk 13:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Support: Calling this incident a battle is both sad and disgusting. It is possible to support the State of Israel and, at the same time, acknowledge the incidents where Israeli policy and action has been reprehensible. As one user stated above, a massacre is a massacre regardless of which parties are involved. Peace in the Middle East. --(Mingus ah um 20:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC))
• Oppose. Regardless of Google and apparently popular terminology, this Wikipedia must maintain NPOV. Given that the existence of a massacre at all is in rather serious question here, naming the article that violates said principle. Nysin 00:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - Almost all sources agree that arabs were shooting at israelis and israelis were shooting at arabs. That's a battle, not a massacre. A compromise would be renaming it the Deir Yassin Incident, which would be somewhat unconventional, but NPOV. We could put a bit in beginning explaining that some sources use massacre and others use battle.
• Support - Okay, since this poll may shortly close, I'm going to support the renaming of the article. Though I'd like to peruse the literature pertaining to it in more detail, my impression is that this is generally regarded as a massacre by reputable sources. And let's face it, who would know or care about "the battle of Deir Yassin" if not for its association with a notorious massacre?
• ```Support``` - Anything else would be a sad joke, yet utterly predictable. Deuterium 10:34, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

The Yishuv itself condemned the massacre at the time, as did the Haganah leadership I believe, so if the Israeli leadership itself accepted its status as a crime, why shouldn't Wiki? Gatoclass 06:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The thing is that it is absolutely not the case. 81% of the historical books don't have sources or cite secondary sources that don't have sources. Milstein is the most comprehensive composer of information, and he didn't call it a massacre.

The Israeli leadership did not accept its status as a crime as seen that the entire condemnation was used as a political motivated jab. It recanted and apologized years later. Guy Montag 18:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

Comment - it would seem rather pointless to rename this page "Deir Yassin massacre" when in fact almost none of the article deals with evidence of the massacre itself. The page would need to be extensively revised, with the massacre covered in much greater detail, for the title to be appropriate to the contents.

Whether the facts of the matter would support such a change, I'm not in a position to say as it's a long time since I read about this incident and I'd have to assure myself that its status as a massacre has been widely accepted by appropriate sources. My impression from past reading is that that is the case, but I'd want to confirm it to my satisfaction first. Gatoclass 05:39, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment It was considered a massacre by some polemecists before new evidence and interviews came out between the years of 1987-1997. The new information point to the fact that there was no clear cut defined massacre, but a complex set of deaths during a battle mixed with much hype and progaganda to inflate caulties for war and morale purposes. All the sources check out. Times have changed, new historical evidence has been found, interviews have been given and texts, contexts and backgrounds have been researched, and they are all listed in the article.

• Just because the hebrew version has not caught up to this version does not make the hebrew version superior or more factual.
• Everything written in this article is sourced. The flow of the sources simply do not support the evidence of a massacre. Other editors are free to add factual evidence supporting mass killing of unarmed civilians after the end of the battle. If no such evidence exists, or if this evidence is not compelling enough the article should stay right here.
• The name of the article is intrinsically tied to the content of the article, and the article simply doesn't support such a clear cut name.
• Allegations of a massacre are listed in the introduction.

Guy Montag 07:54, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment Either this article has to be renamed and expanded (as noted above, there is hardly anything about the massacre itself in the article) OR: a new article will be created, called the "Deir Yassin massacre". (I will later try to post a more detailed survey about what is lacking in this article, irregardless of name of article.) Also, according to Massacre: in Guatemala, the definition is: "A massacre shall be considered the execution of five or more people, in the same place, as part of the same operation and whose victims were in an indefensible state." And: "In Colombia, the term is applied to the murder of half a dozen or more at one time." Nowhere does it say that the killings have to take place after or outside a battle in order for it to be defined as a massacre. And does anybody seriously deny that at least 5 or 6 people in "an indefensible state" were killed at Deir Yassin? Or is there another "value scale" when it comes to Arabs? See also Munich Olympics massacre= 12 killed (+5 Black September members), Ma'alot massacre =21 killed, Passover massacre=30 killed. If this stay as it is (or is moved to the Deir Yassin incident, will the Munich Olympics massacre then become the Munich Olympics incident? Regards, Huldra 19:17, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment-According to that definition, any battle in a populated area is a massacre because civilians will undoubtably be killed. It must have strictual context or it simply becomes a polemical term used by one side against another. The definition of a massacre is when and why the victims were killed. Were they civilians killed accidently and without premedition during a battle or with premeditated orders during a cessation of hostilities or simply during an absense of hostilities? If there was no organization to their killing then it can't be catagorized as a massacre. Finally, all the examples you listed unequivecally fit the definition of a massacre because all targetted were non combatant civilians (some were sleeping children, others wedding goers) in peace time, hence I neither understand your reason nor see any compelling reason why you should support it out of some erreneously applied and unwarranted moral equivelence. Guy Montag 21:27, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Your "definition" of "massacre" is pure OR. Please quote some other than User:Guy Montag. (Btw, User:Huldra completely disagree with User:Guy Montag on his def. of "massacre", (e.g about the need to be "planned"), but that is really completely uninteresting.) Regards, Huldra 16:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and as such, it documents. It does not rewrite history, nor does it try to alter names of events. At least that is the ideal. As in this case, it is know under the Deir Yassin massacre, and as such, wikipedia should use that. If the insights in this have changed, well, it will start changing in the scholary literature, and we can start changing it when it has changed. Until that time, it should stay under Deir Yassin massacre. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 00:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment- I did not rewrite anything. Everything is from reputable sources. I simply updated the article with modern sources that were not appropriately used in the previous article. Who determines the scholarly literature? Google? I have written an article using historical sources, many of which were already present in the previous article and others that have only come out recently. If other editors believe that the article is missing information, by all means add some yourself, but the article in its current stage does not support the clear cut propogation of a massacre. If other editors actually have something to add to the article that brings up such information, then there would be a point to this discussion. As of now, I have chosen an npov title for a battle that happened between Arab irregulars and the IZL-Lehi paramilitary units within the village of Deir Yassin. hence, I urge everyone who believes that this article is incomplete to add their own sourced information, instead of sticking to obsolete titles and debunked sources. Guy Montag 02:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Your sources are not so "modern" Guy. They are mostly from a 1987 study by an Israeli university, and Uri Milstein's 1991 book. Benny Morris' book "Righteous Victims" is much more recent and his conclusions scarcely get a mention here.

What is more to the point though, is just how one-sided this article is. The story is told almost entirely from the Israeli POV, with numerous quotes from Israelis. Claims regarding the massacre itself are mostly confined to a single paragraph, which is then followed by several more sections of "counterclaims" and other material casting doubt on the massacre. Where Palestinians are quoted, they are mostly quoted when their comments support the Israeli case, such as the denials of rape.

I went back and looked at this page from a year ago and the article looked to be much more balanced then, with more quotes supporting the existence of the massacre, including from the Zionist leadership at the time, which itself condemned it. I think regardless of what this page ends up being called, it needs at the very least to have some balance restored. Gatoclass 04:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

No offense, but the previous article was a chaotic mishmash of out of context quotes, badly constructed sentences [some of which I wrote :)] and simply false information that after I did some research, made me question how they could even have gotten there. Take for example the Yiftach quote. In the previous article it had absolutely no context, and many other quotes that only discuss the pov of people who visited the area after the battle. Benny Morris doesn't actually use recent information, just rehashed claims by Catling and others, all debunked. But once again, you are free to add any information you believe will conform to npov. I never claimed that this article is complete, just that it is meticulously sourced and an improvement on the previous article. So far, I haven't seen any edits by others. Once again, instead of moving this article, I urge everyone to start editing it and when all the information is applied to come back here and discuss moving it, but not before. Guy Montag 08:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't intend to endorse the previous version, as I didn't in fact read it all, but just had a quick browse through it and noticed a lot of quotes about the massacre itself have gone missing in the current version.

My essential point is that the article as it stands is told almost entirely from the Israeli POV, or from the POV that there was no massacre. And I have my doubts that this is an accurate reflection of how this event is currently viewed by reputable sources. Because ultimately it's not about what you or I think, but what such sources have to say about the event that the article should reflect. Gatoclass 11:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment. Maybe this has already been fixed, but I disagree that the article is unbalanced. I think it would be beneficial if we add Morris' quote from RV that DY became such a legend because all sides benefitted from the hype. I'll try to dig it up if no one beats me to it. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment Zionists always try to cover-up their crimes. Robin Hood 1212 16:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

File:Brokenrecord.jpg

I, Guy Montag, hereby award Robinhood the broken record barnstar for his tiredless efforts to expose "zionists who always cover up their crimes." in the Battle of Deir Yassin discussion page. Keep up the good work.

Conclusion: Well, it's been five days and the yeas outnumber the nays 2:1. Homey 05:18, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, its been three days and the vote started after a period of quiet when no discussion took place. I would give it another week. Guy Montag 05:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Let's settle on four. The vote started on 8 July, it's now the 12th. We'll give it another 36 hours. Homey 05:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia works by consensus, not by voting. 2:1 is most certainly not a consensus. Pecher ^Talk 19:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

This page is listed at WP:RM, which gives normally 5 days, but is backlogged (and I am the main cleaner there at the moment).-- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 20:20, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Question. For the sake of process, should the "main cleaner" performing moves be proposing moves, and voting and commenting on them? Looks like a possible conflict of interest here. HGB 00:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. It is not to us to define massacre, and when something is a massacre. It is to the WP:RS to define that (please show them to me), and if those are unclear, we should use he commonly used name. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 21:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Voting closed

Well, I think a clear consensus has been reached. Time to end the voting and get on with improving the actual article. Guy Montag 00:09, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I will do that later this evening. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 01:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

LOL, do you mean you're sufficiently univolved and impartial to close the vote? That's the joke of the day! Pecher ^Talk 21:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Completely Unwarranted Closing of the Vote

Kim,

You have completely corrupted the result of the vote to your own baised agenda.

Guy Montag 04:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

No, votestaking does that. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 04:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

So, a person can propose a move, and then when result turns out negatively, she can use the administrative powers that she happens to possess to cancel the vote? The person who makes the motion gets to decide when "corruption" has occurred? I have read that "Wikipedia is not a democracy", but whoever came up with that saying, I don't they meant that Wikipedia is a Soviet-style dictatorship. And I don't think it is, at the top, but a few of the lower-level apparatchiks don't appear to have gotten the memo. 6SJ7 05:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Kim, your actions here are completely unacceptable. You started this vote, so any claim from you that the vote didn't have legitimacy in the first place has absolutely no validity. Furthermore, even before the alleged corruption, there was no consensus for the move. It got to about 2:1 for the move at it's peak, which is below the standard generally used for consensus. So we have a vote which you initiated, which implies that you aknowledge the validity of the vote. That vote fails to achieve consensus for a move initially, so it is kept open as a result. The lack of consensus for a move becomes even clearer, so you then close it claiming corruption of the process? Then you somehow declare victory for the side which you support? How exactly does that work?

As you surely know, process matters on Wikipedia. Your actions here are completely out of process, and that is why I reverted your move. The fact that you are currently involved in an ArbComm case about an out of process move makes your actions here even more curious to me. Could you please explain your reasoning?

In the future, please try and build consensus for controversial edits, rather than unilaterally making edits which you know are not going to be acceptable to other editors. Bibigon 05:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Rrrrrrrrrigh. Now, could you please point out to us where Guy Montag -or anybody else, for that matter- build consensus for the move to "Battle of Deir Yassin" in the first place? Thank you. Regards, Huldra 06:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Guy Montag's behaviour is not the issue here. He may have also acted improperly; I don't know. It's not relevant to this particular move. This issue has since come to a vote, initiated by KimvdLinde, and the result was "No consensus" for the move back. If Kim's contention was that Guy Montag acted out of process, then she should have dealt with as such. She did not, instead choosing to start a poll, presumably indicating that she would try and build consensus for the move back. What was the purpose of the poll otherwise? If there was consensus, then Kim was going to move back, and if there wasn't consensus, then Kim has shown us that she was going to move back anyways. Why did we go through a process which apparently had no hope of ending with anything but KimvdLinde moving the article back? Bibigon 06:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Firstly: I cannot see that your allegation of going "through a process which apparently had no hope of ending with anything but KimvdLinde moving the article back" is correct. As I have tried to point out: *IF* the vote had showed a consensus for *not* moving the article back; then I cannot imagine that Kim would have moved the article. So to say (directly/indirectly) that the poll did not matter is simply incorrect, IMO. Secondly: I think you are both wrong...and right.... on the question of whether Guy Montag's behaviour is at issue here...clearly, we would not have been in this mess if he had not started it...on the other hand: he is now banned, so its time to move on (and undo the mess...). Thirdly: The article as it appears now is extremely one-sided, partly because information, (with proper sources), have been taken out of the article. Eg here: [11], the edit-line falsly claim that the inf. is reinserted elsewhere, but parts of the inf. was NEVER reinserted. Now, nowhere in the article is there any information about the theft of jewelry and money from the prisoners by the IZL and LHI men. (btw; to my knowledge it is uncontested that such theft took place, but you certainly cannot learn that from WP.) Also: events in the article which appear uncontested (like the shooting from the village at the beginning of the day) are in fact quite contested. (there are witnesses who say it never took place). I just haven´t bothered to add it, when I see that properly sourced information is removed -with false explanations- from the article. Regards, Huldra 07:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Responding only to the name issue, not the NPOV issues, since they are seperate... Votes such as the one Kim started have one of two results. Either a consensus exists for a change, or it doesn't. The nature of the lack of consensus is relevant to the action undertaken. If consensus exists, then the action is taken. If a consensus does not exist, be it through a mixed situation, or through a consensus opposed, then the result is identical, a lack of a move. Kim started a poll. The result of the poll was that a lack of consensus existed for a move. She undertook a move anyways. If she started a poll where her intention was to make a move unless a consensus existed against her, then she similarly acted improperly, because Wikipedia requires consensus to make edits, not a lack of consensus opposed to those edits.

Regarding Guy Montag's banned status, that is irrelevant to the validity of his move, and to the validity of Kim's move back. His move was either proper, or it wasn't. The fact that he is currently banned does not affect the propriety of his actions. It certainly doesn't affect the propriety of Kim's actions. Bibigon 08:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

First: regarding Guy Montag's banned status; I agree with you that the propriety of Kim's actions is not affected by Guy Montag's status. But I just do not understand your statement about "The fact that he is currently banned does not affect the propriety of his actions."...He was banned from this article because of his actions here, and then you argue this ban say nothing about "the propriety" of those actions?? My argument is obvious: do people get banned for for edits which have nothing unpropriety about them? I would have thought that the answer is "no" (at least if you do not contest the ban.)

Secondly: not answering the NPOV issues: that is the problem: nobody does. Anywhere. Look at my questions/comments under Talk:Battle_of_Deir_Yassin#Total_Rewrite. The whole article is now manipulated to reflect the "Battle.." version of the story. Even such a simple (and, to my knowledge, uncontested) statement like "The IZL and Lehi officers agreed to expel the inhabitants of Deir Yassin" has been cencored out of the article!

Finally, to the "real" issue: to me it seems like you are turning the whole argument on it´s head. Or do you actually believe that somebody who is in favour of moving Battle of Deir Yassin to Deir Yassin Massacre would not also be against moving Deir Yassin Massacre to Battle of Deir Yassin in the first place?? To me it looks as if your whole argument hinges on that those two moves are different, i.e. people will have different preferance w.r.t the title depending on whether you start with the "Battle.." version, or whether you start with the "Massacre.." version. I am of the opinion that when people have a preferance on one of the titles, A or B, then they will have that preferance, irregardless of whether the poll is about moving A ->B, or if it is about moving B->A. Do you disagree? And if that preferance is static for any one editor, then the result shows that there was no concensus for the move to the "Battle" version in the first place. (The story would of course have been completely different if GM actually had gotten consensus for his move in the first place. But he didn´t! And that is the whole point!) Regards, Huldra 10:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Kim, you both started the poll requesting the move from Battle to Massacre and then without consensus implemented the move you requested. Beyond the process issues 6SJ7 and Bibigon have described, you seem to have acted in a contradictory manner: the only viable argument aired so far to revert without consensus is that the preceeding move from massacre to battle was out-of-process. If one doesn't claim that, no other basis for such a revert has been presented here, and what you did then was not justified, and should not have occurred. If one does claim that the preceeding move was out-of-process, then you began the poll either in confusion, ignorance, or farcically: either you were or were not aware you harbored intentions to move the article back regardless of the poll results (otherwise, you acted without consensus, as others have pointed out). If you were, then it was a farce throughout, and borders on violating WP:POINT. Nysin 06:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Since when does a no consensus vote to move something back, (regardless of your groundless claim at votestaking) is considered to be a reason to move it back to the other name? The whole point of the vote was to decide whether to move it or not. You have overstepped the line here. Guy Montag 05:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

(Guy, what "consensus" did you seek before moving the article to "Battle of Deir Yassin" in the first place?).

My two cents on this issue - I am opposed to the holding of these "consensus" polls on controversial pages in any case. They should only be held when absolutely necessary, as a last resort, and even then their results should not necessarily be regarded as definitive. It's too easy for one party or the other to engage in a quiet bit of meatpuppetry on polls to get the result they desire.

More importantly, I think these polls tend to violate the guideline that Wiki is not an experiment in democracy. I quote: Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy or any other political system. Its primary method of finding consensus is discussion, not voting. In difficult cases, straw polls may be conducted to help determine consensus, but are to be used with caution and not to be treated as binding votes.

The important thing to remember is that NPOV trumps consensus. It's NPOV we should be striving for, not some bogus consensus achieved by any particular cabal of POV editors.

To put it another way, I'd prefer to see issues resolved by discussion, commonsense and goodwill, rather than by resort to straw polls which can never be any guarantee of NPOV. Gatoclass 10:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't need consensus on moving the article. It hadn't been edited in months, a dead talk page, and needed incredible improvements and was stuck in a bad format. I worked to improve it and moved it with a rewrite per wikipedia encouraging editors to be bold. The name of the article reflected the content and was simply an npov way of describing a highly contentious topic instead of accepting the pov of one side. Instead of editing the topic, and inserting relevent data, an abusive administrator started a poll and when she didn't get her way she used her powers to push through her own agenda. As far as I see it, there is no cabal, but there is a flagrant violation of due process. Guy Montag 16:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say there was a cabal, the point I was making is that the poll process is open to abuse - especially on topics where people have a significant emotional involvement.

As to your comments about the flaws on the page, it appears your edits were not considered appropriate as you now find yourself banned from further editing of this article. Perhaps it would have been more productive to discuss your proposed title change on the talk page first? Gatoclass 17:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

My ban is related to Kim having an axe to grind with editors who hold pro Israeli views, and not the content of the page. The closest thing I heard for my ban was "disruption" by placing a humorous barnstar on this talk page. Finally, there was no one to discuss the topic with. The article wasn't edited for months and all discussion was dead. When Ian finally began a discussion with me it was over content, and I consistently told him to insert whatever content he believes was left out. In the middle of this conversation, kim initiated a vote, and all discussion about content ended or was lost in the ton of other edits.

Through out, I have stated a simple thing, if you disagree with the content, edit the page neutrally and cite your sources.

Guy Montag 20:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The initial renaming on July 29 ("massacre" to "battle") was committed without any attempt to solicit opinions, support or consensus, so isn't it backward that we should vote to move back an article that was moved improperly in the first place? RomaC 15:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Everyone can move an article and there are no rules against unileteral moves. This particular poll was about whether to move it back, and there was no consensus on moving it back so it stays as Battle of Deir Yassin. Guy Montag 16:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Everyone can move an article and there are no rules against unileteral moves.

Well then I guess there was nothing to stop Kim moving it back when her proposal failed to achieve a consensus, was there? Gatoclass 17:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes there is, its called the voting process. Anyone can move an article, but when it is submitted on requested moves it has to go through a consensus process. It did not reach consensus and by moving it, disregarding the vote breaks the rules. As it says,

"Discussion to find consensus is encouraged for page moves requested on this page. Requested moves may be implemented if there is a Wikipedia community consensus (generally 60% or more) supporting the moving of an article after five (5) days under discussion on the talk page of the article to be moved, or earlier at the discretion of an administrator."

So Kim is on very thin grounds here. She is already involved in an arbcom process relating to Israeli apartheid because she broke her role as a mediator and sided with users in the discussion who claim her views, and she has done the same here. Clear abuse of powers. Guy Montag 19:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Forgive me, but your argument sounds very much as if you believe that others need to establish consensus before making controversial edits, but you do not.RomaC 01:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

They could have moved it also, but instead they started a vote, and that has procedure with it. I didn't initiate any vote, I wanted a discussion and a peer review.

Guy Montag 18:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

On page moving.

The GNU Free Documentation License needs to preserve a history of modifications to a document, in this case this article. I just reverted a cut and paste page move. Sadly, the page move to Battle of Deir Yassin could've been cleanly reverted. Sadly, now the page really can't be moved to Deir Yassin massacre without an administrator to intervene. (Likely from Wikipedia:Requested moves) Again, please don't try to move pages by cutting and pasting text. We loose the valuable editing history. Kevin_b_er 07:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

it is sad wikipedia gives space to Arab propaganda proven false

The invention of this massacare is one of the highlights of Arab lies in order to attack Jews publicly and to maintain their fictional rights on the state of Israel. Wikipedia shouldn't give any even slight residue of entry to support their propaganda which is exploited as further excuse by terrorists. Very sad. Amoruso 18:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Well said! SoCalJustice 20:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia's policy on naming conflicts

I think this is the type of situation that Wikipedia:Naming conflict (originally developed by Ed Poor and myself) was written to resolve. The guideline states that "Wikipedians should not seek to determine who is "right" or "wrong", nor to attempt to impose a particular name for POV reasons. They should instead follow the procedure below to determine common usage on an objective basis." It sets out three key principles, the most important of which is "The most common use of a name takes precedence."

Note that the issue of POV naming is specifically excluded from consideration by the guideline - if a subject is particularly contentious, there will almost always be someone who disagrees with the article title. The guideline sets out the use of objective criteria, such as frequency of use, and discourages the use of subjective criteria, such as political acceptability.

The name "Battle of Deir Yassin" seems to be virtually unknown (only 81 Google hits) while "Deir Yassin massacre" seems to be much more widely used (21,100 Google hits - Wikipedia entries excluded in both cases). Using a novel term for a well-known historical incident seems to me to be a classic example of impermissible original research ("defining new terms"). We should use established and recognisable terms, not create new terms of our own. -- ChrisO 23:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The naming here both breaches the Naming Conventions and the Most Common Name rule in the Manual of Style. The only issue for me is Wikipedia rules. They are clear. Deir Yassin massacre is the name required. It is rather annoying when having set Wikipedia-wide policy we then allow individual pages to declare themselves independent republics and make up their own names that run against NC and MoS rules. The farce of off-the-wall makey-up Wikipedia namings strikes again, here. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 23:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree entirely. The problem is, how do we resolve this, since the proponents are blatantly ignoring policy to pursue their own POV agendas? I've posted a note at WP:AN#What to do if a move poll is determined by partisan reasons?. If you have any suggestions for where we go from here, please add them to the discussion! -- ChrisO 23:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

ChrisO, that was almost a valid point. Almost. The problem however is that this article is not about the Deir Yassin Massacre. It is about the Battle of Deir Yassin, and about the allegations of a massacre. Were this article about the Deir Yassin Masscre, and there was another faction asking that it be called say, the Deir Yassin Slaughter, or some other synonym, then you'd be absolutely correct. Unfortunately, that is not the case here. The dispute isn't centered around what to call this, but what the article is about in the first place. Good thinking however. Bibigon 04:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I have to call an end to the shenanagins here. The article I wrote is not specifically about the alleged massacre, but about the battle with the allegations of mass killings as a subarticle. For example, Tiananmen Square massacre is redirected to Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 precicely because there is more to the events than the Chinese killing students.Unless every mainstream historian agrees the Lehi marched in without fighting to Deir Yassin, rounded up all the civilians and shot them, then I consider this to be a valid name because people from both sides were in a state of "Armed fighting; combat" It isn't that difficult to understand that I am simply adding context.

Guy Montag 00:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. This article is an account of a battle, not a massacre. Battle naming conventions were established to deal with names of battles (eg Bull Run/Manassas), not whether they were battles or skirmishes or whatever else. --Jumbo 04:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The article is an account of an engagement at Deir Yassin. The problem that we face is that almost nobody calls that engagement a "battle", any more than they call the engagement at Srebrenica in July 1995 a "battle". Wikipedia policy compels us to use the most common name, not invent our own. -- ChrisO 07:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Chris, your comparison to Srebrenica Massacre is less than ideal because there doesn't appear to be any real debate in that case about whether a massacre took place or not. The ICTY ruled on it, and in general, it does not appear to be disputed. In this case, the dispute over whetehr it was a massacre is real, current, and lively. There has been no "official" finding of it being a massacre, nobody with the standing of the ICTY has ruled on the matter. If you want an article on "Deir Yassin Massacre", then that's fine, as long as that article describes the term "Deir Yassin Massacre", not the events of the battle and alleged of massacre. The google search is a good proxy to determine if a term is common enough to warrant an entry. I think "Deir Yassin Massacre" probably passes that threshold. However, this article is not about the term. It is about the event itself.

As an aside, arguments based around simply referencing other Wikipedia articles are generally quite weak and do not hold much water. The addage of "two wrongs don't make a right" is the simple reason why. Wikipedia is currently a work in progress, and as such, there is no reason to believe that the Srebrenica Massacre article is in particularly good shape(And in fact it's not. Almost none of the text is sourced, and there entire article is essentially one giant WP:NOR violation it seems. That article is in very bad shape...) The fact that another article may exibit the same flaw(which in this particular case is not what's going on) doesn't mean that we should ignore how Wikipedia should be structured, and instead focus on how it is structured. Many articles, especially the disputed ones which are most likely to be referenced as comps to this case, are in pretty bad shape regarding Wikipedia rules.

Finally, the other problem with this method of argumentation is that it is subject to other examples on Wikipedia suggesting a different "precedent." For example, the Battle of Jenin article; the term "Jenin Massacre" is four times more common than "Battle of Jenin." In that article, the determination was reached that because the evidence of a massacre was so weak, and in fact, the UN had issued a finding that there was no evidence of a massacre, that the article should be called "Battle of Jenin" instead of the more common, but far less NPOV term. Not that the Battle of Jenin article makes me right either, just that there are other examples supporting a name like "Battle of Deir Yassin." Bibigon 07:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

"Battle of Jenin" gets 5 results from Google Books, "Jenin Massacre" gets 10 results, but it is worth noting that at least four of those are denials of the term. Hardly as conclusive as the search below. - FrancisTyers · 12:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Well?

So, when is this page going to be moved back? -- Dissident (Talk) 03:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

When a consensus is reached that it should be moved back. Isarig 04:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

That's disingenuous as there never was a consensus to move it here in the first place. I'm seriously thinking about starting a RfAr over this. -- Dissident (Talk) 05:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Please do if you feel it is appropriate. However, your RfAr would probably be rejected on two counts. First, there have probably not been adequate steps taken towards other forms of dispute resolution yet, such as a mediation request, at least not that I'm aware of. Second, RfArs are used to determine if users have acted inappropriately. They are not to settle content disputes such as what the name of an article should be. While it seems likely that Kim would be reprimanded by a RfAr should it be accepted, I don't see what purpose that would serve at this point. However, if you feel it is appropriate, then please do so. Bibigon 06:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The issue of consensus is actually not entirely relevant to this situation. In particular, I quote WP:CON: "It is assumed that editors working toward consensus are pursuing a consensus that is consistent with Wikipedia's basic policies and principles - especially the neutral point of view (NPOV). At times, a group of editors may be able to, through persistence, numbers, and organization, overwhelm well-meaning editors and generate widespread support among the editors of a given article for a version of the article that is inaccurate, libelous, or not neutral, e.g. giving undue weight to a specific point of view. This is not a consensus." This is exactly what has happened in this case; the current article name violates multiple fundamental policies, including WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. No consensus can override basic policies - they're non-negotiable and not dependent on voting.

I certainly think mediation could be appropriate, though I note that it requires the participants to be acting in good faith. I propose instead to do a short exercise in identifying and inviting agreement on a set of principles applicable to this article, a little similar to the way that the Arbitration Committee's workshops operate. I'll put this at Talk:Battle of Deir Yassin/Workshop later on today. -- ChrisO 07:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I fail to see how the article title is a violation of WP:NPOV. Is there a WP:COMMON SENSE policy in existence? Regardless of what one side or another calls the encounter, clearly it was a battle between armed forces acting under military command and not a massacre in any realistic sense, of which history provides a lamentable plenitude of examples to draw upon for comparison. --Jumbo 08:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Please consult the materials referenced under the "Wikipedia's policy on naming conflicts" section above. Wikipedians are editors not historians, if you try thinking that way it may help. Editors do their best when disinterested, hardly the environment here and I would imagine that is why there is so much frustration evident on this page! RomaC 08:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I read the materials, but with respect, that does not refer to the naming of conflicts, but naming conflicts. The engagement was clearly a battle, being a conventional armed conflict between two military forces over a geographical feature. This article describes that battle. Similarities to undoubted massacres are few and disputed. Referring to a battle as a massacre, especially in the context of a half century of propaganda is POV in the extreme. I suggest that there be two articles, one describing the battle and the other the deaths of civilians which formed a part of the events as well as the various claims by both sides. --Jumbo 10:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Move closure

User:KimvdLinde submitted her move closure for review at the administrators' noticeboard. She was criticized for closing a move she was involved in rather than having an uninvolved admin do it. I am an uninvolved admin with some experience in move requests and no axe to grind in Middle East issues. I've spent some time reviewing this case and discussing it with other admins at WP:ANI#Battle of Deir Yassin/Deir Yassin massacre: move poll closure review requested. Here is my closure analysis.

The article was created at Deir Yassin massacre on 4 August 2002. It remained there until 29 June 2006 when User:Guy Montag moved it. There was clearly no consensus for the move at the time and a subsequent poll failed to gain consensus for the new title, despite selective soliciting of votes by Guy. Thus, I'm moving the article back to its original title. This is a procedural administrative action, I'm not very well informed on the issue itself and I don't feel confident in making a material judgment on the best title. You should feel free to continue discussion and try to reach a rough consensus on the best title. Haukur 09:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The vote was not a referendum on the new name, but to whether to move it back to Deir Yassin Massacre. It received no consensus on that vote, not what kim made up to get her way. Guy Montag 20:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

So if Kim had instead posed the question "Do you support Guy Montag's renaming of the article" there would you have then accepted that the lack of consensus means your move should be reversed? I doubt it. You are arguing a technicality - the article had the same name for four years, you unilaterally renamed it without any support and there is no conensus for your name change. Homey 20:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Keep you doubts and theoretics to yourself along with the twisted interpertation of the flagrant violation of Kim's admin powers. And in fact you are wrong, there is no consensus to move it back, not on me moving the article, something there are no rules against. Guy Montag 22:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The fact that the article persisted for four years with a blatantly inaccurate and POV name is a black mark against Wikipedia, not a mark in favor of maintaining that name. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 21:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

So the question I have now pertains to something that ChrisO quoted above from WP:CON: "It is assumed that editors working toward consensus are pursuing a consensus that is consistent with Wikipedia's basic policies and principles - especially the neutral point of view (NPOV). At times, a group of editors may be able to, through persistence, numbers, and organization, overwhelm well-meaning editors and generate widespread support among the editors of a given article for a version of the article that is inaccurate, libelous, or not neutral, e.g. giving undue weight to a specific point of view. This is not a consensus."

I believe the current name massacre is a clear case of this, hitting the trifecta of being inaccurate, libelous, and not neutral. Given that the article not about about the massacre, but about the battle and the massacre, the curren version is inaccurate. Given that that the title asserts the existence of a massacre which is heavily disputed, it is libelous. And given that only one POV believes it was a massacre, it is a neutrality violation. I feel fairly confident that this article violates these principles.

ChrisO, since you are the one who quoted this section, presumably implying that if an editor sees that occuring, they can ignore a lack of consensus, could you suggest to me a course of action consistent with that quotation and that belief? Bibigon 11:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be any dispute that the engagement was a battle in the conventional sense of military forces in conflict. The dispute is over what to call the article. --Jumbo 11:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Bibi, don't worry, I'll do that later today in an open workshop where we can work through the policies involved. It'll be at Talk:Deir Yassin massacre/Workshop - I'll post here when I've got the thing started. -- ChrisO 13:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

This isn't about "a number of editors", this is about the most common name in the English language. Google books says that is "Deir Yassin massacre" by quite a wide margin. Indeed I'd never heard of the "Battle of Deir Yassin" until this farcial move war. The name is not libellous, that is absurd. If you are saying the name is not neutral because it doesn't conform to your POV then that is also irrelevant. As for inaccurate, well I can't comment but I suspect that considering there are 152 books results, many from reputable publishers that you are wrong on this count as well. - FrancisTyers · 12:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

And 19 for the alternate spelling "Dir Yassin". The "Battle of D[e]ir Yassin" has one hit a piece for each spelling. - FrancisTyers · 12:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I hadn't heard of this incident until today, but browsing through the results on Google Books, it seems that calling it a massacre was a propaganda campaign, one with important results, as a great number of Palestinians fled their homes in panic, with results we see continuing to this day. --Jumbo 12:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a cite for that? Wikipedia can only exist to reflect and summarise sources. If you believe this is propoganda, then publish your theory, have it accepted by scholars, and then independent editors can summarise that change on Wikipedia. Until then your opinion must remain your opinion, and Wikipedia must reflect current scholarship. Hiding Talk 12:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, cites on Google Books are easily obtained:

• [12]
• [13]
• [14]

...and a great many more. --Jumbo 12:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Deir Yassin massacre#Accounts_of_battle_and_aftermath cites several sources stating such things as "I told the reporters that 254 were killed so that a big figure would be published, and so that Arabs would panic", as well as a subsection depecting counter-claims. Whilst the article doesn't necessarily have sources already cited which support without OR the term "propaganda", they support what might be plausibly meant by propaganda. Nysin 12:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The issue of whether or not it's a "propaganda name" isn't actually relevant to deciding where the article should go - I'll explain this further in an open workshop on the issues which I'll open later today. -- ChrisO 13:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the issue. My whole point is it's not about the most common name in the English language. Why? Because that's to decide what to call an article on a given subject. What I'm getting at is that this article isn't about the Deir Yassin Massacre, it's about the Battle Of Deir Yassin and the allegations of a massacre. There was a battle, right? And there was possibly a massacre. This article is about both the battle and the alleged massacre, not just about the massacre. That's why searching Google is a poorly thought out idea. They are two different subjects, and the fact that Deir Yassin Massacre is more common has no bearing on what this article should be called. Naming conventions are for deciding between Deir Yassin Massacre or Massacre of Deir Yassin or something, not for deducing what the article is about in the first place. That's why it is inaccurate. It simply does not describe the what the article is about. Google searching here is somewhat akin to making the claim that the article on the Pacific War should be renamed "Pearl Harbor" because "Pearl Harbor" has more Google hits. Well, yes, it does have more hits, and it's a more common term, and Pearl Harbor was part of the Pacific War, but at the same time, it's still not what the article is about. It just isn't. The alleged massacre was only a part of the battle. It wasn't the whole battle. I'm not opposed to having an article on the Deir Yassin Massacre, but if you read the text of the article, this isn't it.

It is not neutral because it does not conform to WP:NPOV. It's not my point of view -- my point of view is irrelevant, as you rightly pointed out. It's the point of view of those sources who dispute there was a massacre. The title currently gives only the POV of those alleging it was a massacre. That's the substance of the NPOV policy. Giving all relevant points of view. The current title only gives one point of view. Clear? Bibigon 12:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Both titles give only one POV, and the fact that there was a military engagement with fire exchanged on both sides doesn't preclude describing the incident as a massacre (compare Srebrenica massacre). The question is which title should be selected and on what grounds. This is an issue which has come up before in other articles (Republic of Macedonia and Sea of Japan are very good cases in point), and it's addressed explicitly in Wikipedia:Naming conflict. I'll discuss it further in the workshop on this article that I'll be starting tonight. -- ChrisO 12:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm wondering how you could implicitly describe Srebenica as a battle. There doesn't seem to be any significant view that it was anything other than a massacre. OTOH, this incident clearly was a battle, and the term massacre was used afterwards for propaganda purposes, describing the civilian deaths which occurred during (and possibly after) the battle itself. You are trying to lump the battle and the massacre into one event. --Jumbo 13:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

My point is simply that a battle doesn't ordinarily involve a massacre, but a massacre does often involve a battle (generally the victors taking revenge on the defeated). The mere fact that fighting occurs before or during a massacre doesn't automatically mean that the term "battle" should be preferred to "massacre". -- ChrisO 13:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm saying that the battle is one event, the massacre another. Certainly there is a relationship between them, but you can't say that they are the same thing. This article, for instance, concerns the battle, and the massacre is a section of the article, an important part, to be sure, but hardly the whole thing. You do see what I'm getting at, don't you? --Jumbo 13:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I never made the claim that "Battle of Deir Yassin" doesn't also suffer from a NPOV issue. I was pointing out that "Deir Yassin Massacre" certainly does. I also believe however that "Battle" is significantly less POV than "Massacre." It's quite possible however that neither one is acceptable.

Also, if you insist on comparing this to other articles(which as I mentioned above, is not a particularly solid form of evidence on Wiki), then could you please also mention why the Battle of Jenin 2002 page is called a battle, not a massacre, when the "massacre" title has more google hits. I believe that case is far more comperable to this than the Srebrenica massacre case, due to the fact that the Srebrenica massacre article does not describe a battle and a possible massacre. It just describes a massacre. The Battle of Jenin is much more similar to Deir Yassin, as both are about battles, and alleged massacres. Bibigon 13:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Google Books gives 31200 for "Pacific War" and 4960 for "Pearl Harbour". The Armenian Genocide is hotly disputed as a "propaganda term", we still have the article at that instead of "Ottoman Armenian relocations because it is the most common name in the English language. - FrancisTyers · 12:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

My apologies for using the English spelling there. 149000 for Pearl Harbor, 465000 for Pacific War. - FrancisTyers · 13:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I searched the words "Deir Yassin" on both the BBCNews.com website and the NY Times website. The phrase "massacre at Deir Yassin" is very common. "Battle of Deir Yassin" is so far non-existent. On any page where "Deir Yassin" is mentioned, the word "massacre" also frequently appears; far more often than the word 'battle' does. It is not POV to title the article using the phrase that is in common usage. It IS POV to attempt to protect a side in this conflict by cesoring the usage of a word associated with what happened at Deir Yassin. [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20]

massacre of Arabs by Jewish extremists in Deir Yassin [21] His Excellency... 15:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The Armenian Genocide may be disputed, but it is not only the common name for the event, but a genocide as a matter of historical fact. Anomalocaris 20:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Who says it wasn't a massacre?

Actually, I'm still waiting for someone to post a definitive statement from a reputable source claiming that there was no massacre. I've had the opportunity to do a little more reading about this matter lately and it appears to me the only argument is about the scale and enormity of the massacre, not about whether one took place.

For example, Meir Pail, Commander of the Haganah SOU, gave eyewitness testimony that "I saw twenty to twenty-five men stood up by the wall of the quarry and shot". How can you argue with eyewitness testimony from a Jewish commander?

Pail also testified that he saw women and children shot in their own homes. Gatoclass 16:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Gator,

You are grasping at straws here. First of all, Pail was a militant left wing anti Irgunist and later member of the fringe left wing Moked faction in the Communist Party. He had as much reason to libel the Irgun as the Arab forces. Secondly, no on remembers seeing him anywhere during the battle. In contrast to Pa'il's claim of a dramatic confrontation between himself the IZL and Lehi men, the veterans of the battle interviewed by Milstein, including Yehoshua Zettler, Mordechai Ra'anan, Moshe Barzili, Yehuda Lapidot, Patchia Zalvensky, and Moshe Idelstein, all said that Pa'il was not at Deir Yassin and that it was inconceivable he could have been there without their knowledge. Nor is there any evidence from Haganah sources indicating that Pa'il was present; the statements given by David Shaltiel, Zalman Meret, Zion Eldad, and Yeshurun Schiff do not mention Pa'il by name or by either of his code names, "Avraham" and "Ram." The Haganah's Moshe Eren and Mordechai Gihon, who were at Deir Yassin and who knew Pa'il personally at the time, said they did not see him there. Yehoshua Arieli, who supervised the burials, stated that he did not see Pa'il there. Shlomo Havilov, the Haganah's commander for western Jerusalem, who spent the night of April 9 in Givat Shaul, stated: "I did not see Meir Pa'il there. I knew him well. If he had been there I would remember him." Milstein, p.274 (interviews with Yehoshua Zettler, Mordechai Ra'anan, Moshe Barzili, Yehuda Lapidot, Patchia Zalivensky, Moshe Idelstein, Moshe Eren, Shlomo Havilov, Yehoshua Arieli); Testimonies of David Shaltiel, Zalman Meret, Zion Eldad, and Yeshurun Schiff, MZ.

I actually did research before I wrote the article, so your miraculous breakthroughs are long known and disredited or at least suspicious enough to warrant debate.

Guy Montag 21:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

You describe Pail as a "militant...anti-Irgunist" but given that Irgun was widely regarded as a terrorist group, even amongst its fellow Zionists, that seems to me to be more of a recommendation than a criticism. However, I notice that you seem to be quite prepared to give credence to statements by Irgun and Lehi operatives who were actually accused of the massacre, whilst at the same time denigrating Pail's testimony. A slight double standard there, don't you think? Gatoclass 23:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

It was regarded as a terrorist group by the British and it was ideologically opposed to militant socialist organizations, one of which was the Labour Zionists. But many other Zionists, such as the General Zionists, regarded them as freedom fighters, and although the Labour Zionists dominated the Yishuv, General Zionists were in the majority.

Anyways, there was cooperation between both groups during the 1948 War, despite their previous competition. Some ideological individuals were habitually set against the Irgun, Pail, who was one of those militant leftists, was in a unit aimed at combatting "dissidents" before the war, and anything he has to say has to be filtered through the fact that throughout his career he opposed the two groups, his account is widely contradictory to everyone present, and everyone, including his Haganah commanders deny seeing him during the battle. I am simply following the policy of not citing fringe unreliable sources. A militant "anti dissident" who has every motivation to libel and who can't verify his testimony qualifies as a fringe source.

Read the article.

Guy Montag 23:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Part of the reason he "can't verify his testimony", of course, is because the photographic record he took of the victims was impounded by the Yishuv and has not seen the light of day since, 60 years after the event.

Oh, and I notice you didn't respond to my comments about your reliance on testimony from the very men who were accused of committing the massacre. Gatoclass 03:29, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Gator,

1.) There were Haganah men present, there were Lehi and IZL men present. I used all the information available to construct a picture of the events: Palestinian villagers, Haganah sources, IZL and Lehi interviews conducted by milstein and others. Do you actually have corraborating evidence from people who were there to claim a massacre or just a collection of random officials who were present afterwards and constructed their own ideas of events based on their prejudices and preconceived notions?

2)."The enormity of the massacre"? You are using preconceived circular arguments. There was a battle where civilians died. It is up to you to actually prove that civilians or prisoners were executed. If you cannot provide irreputable evidence, than there is enough doubt for an alternative more probable explanation: that it was simply a battle between Arab irregulars and Zionist militias that had civilians caught it a crossfire. The article lists several such instances. For example, the homes acting as fortified bunkers, the 40 town guards stationed every night in the village, the Iraqi soldiers, the Arab reinforcements that came from Motza and Ein Kerem. The fighters who dressed as women to blend in as non combatants, and snipers who shot from civilian houses. These urban tactics are repeated in urban guerrilla tactics throughout history.

I don't know why you so frantically insist on bringing up an unqualified source, he can't corroborate any of his statemets, especially since they wildly contradict everyone who was present and his Haganah commanders.

Mordechai Ra'anan, the IZL commander in Deir Yassin, first used the figure 254 that stuck with the press. In an interview years later, Ra'anan was asked how he arrived at that number, which he gave to the media a few hours after the battle. He replied:

On that day I did not know, could not have known, how many Arabs had been killed. No one counted the bodies. People estimated that 100 or 150 people were killed. I told the reporters that 254 were killed so that a big figure would be published, and so that the Arabs would panic not only in Jerusalem but across the country, and this goal was accomplished. Reporters, journalists, researchers and historians treat it as if it were an established fact requiring no investigation, and nobody bothered to check what the true figure was. Milstein, pp.268-269 interview with Mordechai Ra'anan

Pa'il said that his report to Galili described "the massacre of 250 people." (Milstein, p.269 (Testimony of Meir Pa'il)). David Cohen, Pa'il's commander in Haganah intelligence, later recalled that Pa'il had used the number 254 in his report on the battle. "This number seemed to us exaggerated, and we asked him how he arrived at it," Cohen said. "Pa'il replied, 'I didn't count them all, but there is a report straight from the horse's mouth'," referring to Ra'anan. Writing in Yediot Ahronot in 1972, Pa'il repeated the claim that 254 were killed.^[22] The fact that Pa'il used the false Ra'anan figure, and that he apparently admitted to Cohen that he himself did not count the bodies, raises further questions as to how close Pa'il was to the scene, and the reliability of his claims about what occurred. His testimony says that he saw Lehi and IZL men slaughtering men and women while they slept. Needless to say, the notion that the Arab residents would have been sleeping in the midst of a huge battle hardly seems plausible. It is also difficult to understand how Pa'il could have seen the "slaughtering" without actually being present inside the houses.

As for the identity of the photographer, Pa'il has consistently refused to name him, saying he "is fearful."^[23] Pa'il claimed that the photographer took "36 pictures, some during the battle, some after."^[24] according to Pa'il, he submitted the photos, together with a report he compiled about the event, to his Haganah superior, Yisrael Galili, and they are presently stored as classified material in the Israel Defense Forces Archives. Galili later confirmed that he received a report and photographs from Pa'il, but could not recall precisely what was in the report or what the photos showed.^[25] Pa'il's claim that some of the photos revealed an actual massacre in progress has been disputed by the IDF Archives, which, while not releasing the report or the photographs, has said that the photographs show dead bodies, without any way of knowing how or when they were killed.^[26]

• ^ Milstein, p.273 (interview with David Cohen, 18 July 1987). Pa'il used the figure in Yediot Ahronot, 20 April 1972. But in 1989, he wrote that in his report to Galili, "the number of those murdered was not mentioned at all, since we did not then know the number." (Uri Milstein, "The Speech Which Was Not Given" [Hebrew], Ha'aretz, 10 March 1989, p. 15.)

• ^ Pa'il quoted in Yerach Tal, "There Was No Massacre There" [Hebrew], Ha'aretz, 8 September 1991, pp.2-3.
• ^ Ha'aretz, 8 September 1991; Miberg, op.cit.
• ^ Ha'aretz, 8 September 1991; Miberg, op.cit.
• ^ Milstein, p.275.

Poof! there goes the conspiracy theories.

Guy Montag 17:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, part of the answer can be found here at the pre-rewrite article under Modern debate:

---

In 1969, the Israeli Foreign Ministry published a pamphlet “Background Notes on Current Themes: Deir Yassin” in English denying that there had been a massacre at Deir Yassin, and calling the story "part of a package of fairy tales, for export and home consumption". The pamphlet led to a series of derivative articles giving the same message, especially in America. Menachem Begin's Herut party disseminated a Hebrew translation in Israel, causing a widespread but largely non-public debate within the Israeli establishment. Several former leaders of the Hagannah demanded that the pamphlet be withdrawn on account of its inaccuracy, but the Foreign Ministry explained that "While our intention and desire is to maintain accuracy in our information, we sometimes are forced to deviate from this principle when we have no choice or alternative means to rebuff a propaganda assault or Arab psychological warfare." Yitzhak Levi, the 1948 leader of Hagannah Intelligence, wrote to Begin: "On behalf of the truth and the purity of arms of the Jewish soldier in the War of Independence, I see it as my duty to warn you against continuing to spread this untrue version about what happened in Deir Yassin to the Israeli public. Otherwise there will be no avoiding raising the matter publicly and you will be responsible." Eventually, the Foreign Ministry agreed to stop distributing the pamphet, but it remains the source of many popular accounts.

(Information from Morris 2005, pp80-85)

The most detailed account of what happened at Deir Yassin was published by Israeli military historian Uri Milstein. Milstein describes many examples of atrocities committed by the Irgun and Lehi forces, and agrees that most of the dead were “old people, women and children. Only a modest number were young men classifiable as fighters.” However, Milstein concluded that most of these events occurred while the fighting was in progress, rather than afterwards. He doubts that Meir Pa'il was present early enough to see everything he claims to have seen (which Pa'il hotly denies). Finally he is reluctant to call it a "massacre", claiming that such occurrences are typical of war and that the Haganah did similar things on many occasions, even if not on such a scale.

---

This also provides a single link to one book of Milstein who is reluctant to call it a "massacre". This same book seems to be the main source of the rewrite. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 17:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

"Reluctant to call it a massacre" is a long way from an outright denial. In fact, it appears that Milstein himself acknowledges that atrocities took place.

I've suspected for some time that Montag has been selectively quoting Milstein, and this would seem to confirm that. Gatoclass 17:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

You haven't done any research on this article and you, who quoted a descredited communist who wasn't even at the battle and whose doubts as a credible source are clear, have the gall to accuse me of selective quoting? Outrageous! Most of the information was already in the previous article. Milstein is the most eminent source on the battle, and he doesn't call it a massacre but an engagment between opposing forces with civilian losses. Guy Montag 22:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes I have. And my research is ongoing. But I haven't caught up with Milstein yet.

However, you have yet to post a quote from Milstein where he denies a massacre took place. And according to the piece Kim reposted, Milstein describes many examples of atrocities committed by the Irgun and Lehi forces, and agrees that most of the dead were “old people, women and children. So it sounds to me like Milstein acknowledges that atrocities took place. The fact that he is apparently squeamish about labelling them collectively as a massacre is neither here nor there. Plenty of other reputable sources have done it for him. Gatoclass 22:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Milstien doesn't deny that civilians died, he disputes the term massacre. Finally, that quote about old people women and children is completely out of context and uncited. Civilians died, but there is no discreption of which of his colossal volumes this synopsis is quoted. We need to find the context for that sentence, so I am gonna make (another) trip to the local central library and dig them out. Until then, your analysis is pure speculation. Guy Montag 00:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The Irgun, who history says perpetrated the massacre, of course, say it wasn't. Neither does User:Guy Montag who his user page identifies as an Irgun sympathiser. In the same way, a Stalinist would probably try to rename Katyn massacre to Battle of Katyn Forest. Homey 17:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Now you are simply poisoning the well. Argue based on the article's merits not on your personal view of me.

As always, your argument is completely fallacious. The Katyn massacre is proven, while this battle is contentious. Secondly, Katyn Massacre is as historically accurate as Kafr Qasim massacre of which I was an editor. I don't deny clear cut cases, nor will I support a narrow non contextual view of Deir Yassin.

This debate is similiar to the one that happened long ago about changing Tiananmen Square massacre to Tiananmen Square protests of 1989, and I suggest you visit that discussion.

Guy Montag 22:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, neither the Irgun nor Guy Montag qualify as reputable sources under Wiki policy. So their opinion isn't relevant. Gatoclass 17:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Milstein's opinions are, and I am quoting him when he calls it an engagement between two opposing forces with civilian casualties. Even Morris calls his account as definitive.

Milistien's work will most likely turn out to be the definitive military history of the 1948 war...No one is likely to surpass the sheer breadth, depth, and scope of this work...Israeli military history has now been pulled up to a new, higher and refreshing plane." (Morris, "'Pre-History' vs. 'History', Jerusalem Post, 9 May 1989, p.40). Guy Montag 22:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

And neither do you, Kim, or Homey, or me for that matter. I don't think the facts are under much dispute; the issue is rather what would be the most precise term for this event. By calling it "massacre" we are making it equivalent to other events that were qualitatively worse, by any reasonable standard. To the extent that we aim for precision in titles, we need to take care to use terms that are meaningful and not prone to hyperbole. --Leifern 19:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the most precise term is not what policy calls for - the standard is the most used and best established term (i.e. the principle of least surprise operates). I'll post more on this shortly. -- ChrisO 19:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

NPOV reigns supreme, because it's a policy. It is not NPOV to refer to it as a "massacre." --Leifern 20:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

It is NPOV to describe it as a massacre if that's how the reputable sources describe it. That's what you don't seem to get. It's not for you to substitute your own preferred word or description because you don't happen to like how the reputable sources refer to it. Gatoclass 20:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

No, because words have meanings. A massacre is in fact, a particular type of event. The fact that people often refer to the event as a massacre doesn't mean that "reputable sources" have established once and for all that it was a massacre. This, by the way, is getting to be fairly typical in the edit wars related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. A certain phrase enters into common usage, as a euphemism or outright demonization. It gets thrown around by people who simple accept the premise for the use of the term without knowing the facts. Then others insist on keeping the term in spite of the facts, simply because it has been used before. We can use the term "massacre" if it is beyond dispute that it was in fact and primarily a massacre. Otherwise, it's POV, and that would be a kind word. Libel would be more apt. --Leifern 22:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Gatoclass is correct; it's stated explicitly in WP:NCON. Key quotes:

Wikipedia's technical and practical requirements mean that one particular name must be used as the definitive name of an article. If the particular name has negative connotations for a party, the decision can be controversial; some may perceive the choice as being one that promotes a POV with which they disagree.

Wikipedians should not seek to determine who is "right" or "wrong", nor to attempt to impose a particular name for POV reasons. They should instead follow the procedure below to determine common usage on an objective basis. By doing this, ideally, we can choose a name in a systematic manner without having to involve ourselves in a political dispute.

Do not invent names as a means of compromising between opposing POVs. Wikipedia describes current usage but cannot prescribe a particular usage or invent new names.

Bear in mind that Wikipedia is descriptive, not prescriptive. We cannot declare what a name should be, only what it is.

This has been a settled guideline for some time and it's worked well in dealing with other disputes over conflicting names; I don't think this article presents any issues that we've not seen and dealt before. WP:NPOV and WP:NOR require us to use established majority-use terms on the basis of the principle of least surprise, not to invent new terms which can't be traced to reliable sources. In fact, defining new terms is specifically prohibited in WP:NOR. I'll explain further in the forthcoming workshop page. -- ChrisO 22:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

As I've pointed out, you're referring to a guideline; NPOV is a policy. And it's not just a matter of perception that "massacre" is biased - whether it was a massacre or not is in fact disputed. Well, maybe we should find out what term is most often used in Israel. I'm going to speculate that it isn't "Deir Yassin massacre." --Leifern 22:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The guideline is about how to implement the policy. Where the choice is effectively between rival POVs, NPOV dictates that we decide the issue in a way that doesn't depend on our own POV. WP:NCON provides an objective method that takes personal POV out of the issue. Your POV that the issue is one of "libel" and someone else's POV that it's one of "revisionism" are personal POVs, and we simply can't decide article names on the basis of subjective personal preferences. Hence the objective methodology of WP:NCON. -- ChrisO 23:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

whether it was a massacre or not is in fact disputed - Leifern

Which brings me back to my original question. What reputable source has disputed that a massacre took place? I'm still waiting for an answer to that. Gatoclass 23:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Milstein's opinions are, and I am quoting him when he calls it an engagement between two opposing forces with civilian casualties. - Guy Montag

I don't care what Milstein calls it. What I asked you is if he specifically denies or disputes that a massacre took place. If not, on what basis are you disputing it? Gatoclass 23:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

He disputes calling the events a massacre, and I am quoting his works. That is perfectly clear. Guy Montag 23:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, you haven't quoted him yet. Please quote the part where he disputes a massacre took place. Gatoclass 23:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

This is just playing with words, asking to prove a negative. I refer you to the Santa Claus article. Few people believe that there actually is a deity along those lines, but nobody doubts the existence of the Santa Claus myth.

I think we should have an article describing the very real event that was a battle at a certain date and time between two military forces. That's a battle by definition and nobody disputes that it occurred. We should also have a different article on the massacre, which has a good deal of support, even if the figures are somewhat rubbery. Even if no civilians were actually massacred (the extreme case), there is still the very real belief that they were, a belief which helped spur thousands of Palestinians to leave their homes. That in itself deserves an article, just as Santa Claus does.

Personally, I'm not game to say whether there was or wasn't a massacre. The sources in support and opposition make various claims and we should remember that both sides were fighting a war of propaganda on the public stage. Undoubtedly civilians died during the battle, but whether they were men dressed up as women clutching grenades or they were pregnant women bayoneted in the belly, I really don't know. Probably somewhere in between.

I suggest that dividing the article into two - one for the military engagement and another for the probable massacre of civilians - would solve the naming dispute which has arisen here. --Jumbo 01:29, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

This is just playing with words, asking to prove a negative.

No, I'm not asking anyone to prove a negative.

The statement has been made that the massacre has been disputed by reputable sources. Now if you make that claim, you should be able to back it up with appropriate quotes. That is not asking to prove a negative. It's a perfectly reasonable request to make. If you make a claim, the onus is upon you to provide evidence to back it up. In this particular case, I'm still waiting to see some. Gatoclass 03:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

There is an entire section in the article about the atrocities being ordered to be made up by Arab propagandists. Resd the article. On the other side, Dr. Hussein Khalidi, the secretary of the Arab Higher Committee, ordered Hazen Nusseibeh, an editor of the Palestine Broadcasting Service, to claim that children were "murdered, [and that] pregnant women were raped; all sorts of atrocities."32

There are dozen such quotes in the article. Guy Montag 20:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Jumbo,

I think it was men in women's clothing pretending to be pregnant that got stabbed, but only halfway :).

The reality is that there are no independent eye witness accounts that can corraborate a massacre. Guy Montag 02:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

A bit distasteful don't you think? And I think you mean corroborate. - FrancisTyers · 12:29, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Right. Guy Montag 20:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Jumbo's proposal

I'm not making the clim that the deaths of civilians wasn't a massacre. I'm pointing out that if a historian fails to say that it isn't a massacre, that doesn't not mean that it is one, by some sort of default. But this is just playing with words.

I have proposed what seems to me to be a common sense solution to the dispute - divide the existing article into two:

1. Describe the military situation and engagement as a battle for control of territory, a part of the ongoing war, and
2. Describe the deaths of civilians and the consequent propaganda campaigns as a massacre.

I am not comfortable with the current situation, where what is clearly an article mostly about a conventional battle is labelled as a massacre. Surely we can separate the two events with appropriate linking so as to present an accurate picture?

Or is this some sort of ego thing, where many of the editors involved in this article are so wedded to their opinions that compromise is the same as personal defeat? --Jumbo 04:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

"The battle of Deir Yassin" as a separate article would fail to qualify for Wikipedia:Notability in my view. But more importantly, since the planning and lead-up, including the battle, is all relevant to the understanding of what followed, then there is no point in treating them separately, since the content of the "battle" article really needs to be included in the content of the "massacre" article anyway. Gatoclass 05:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Would you like to comment on my proposed solution to this dispute, please? --Jumbo 06:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I thought I just did! Gatoclass 06:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, let me be more direct and ask if you think it would work as a solution to the dispute. --Jumbo 06:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

No I don't. Gatoclass 06:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a reason for this? Seems to me that it would satisfy all sides, except for hardline ideologues. Do you think a compromise of some sort would work, or are you happy with the current situation? --Jumbo 07:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I already gave my reasons. It's superfluous to have two separate articles, since the content of any "battle of Deir Yassin" page would need to be included in the "Deir Yassin massacre" page in order to put the massacre in proper context.

And yes, I'm happy with the current situation, to just have the whole thing under "Deir Yassin massacre" which is the commonly employed name for this incident as ChrisO explained. Gatoclass 08:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

We currently have an article mostly about a battle. The article is labeled as a massacre when the actual civilian deaths form a secondary part of the article. This is, in fact, the exact reverse of your ideal situation as described above, where the massacre part of the article would occupy centre stage and a few sentences about the actual battle would put it into context. Do you see the difficulty I have in understanding your position? --Jumbo 08:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Not to speak for Gatoclass, but it appears he addresses that point below. Nysin 08:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) With the "unbalanced" tag? No, he's talking solely about the debate over the massacre, not about the relative proportions of the article given over to the two events. --Jumbo 08:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I'm talking about both. Gatoclass 10:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, quite :)

As I was about to say - yes, I do see the difficulty, and I saw it (and mentioned it on this page) quite some time ago.

My solution to this problem has already been outlined in the section below. There is not enough material in the article on the massacre itself. The article has become unbalanced. The focus of the article needs to be on the massacre, not on the preamble to it or what one particular side had to say about it.

If you go back a year or so to earlier versions of this article, I think you'll find they are more focused on the actual topic. Gatoclass 08:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The article was turned into an article about the actual battle and moved to a more descriptive title. Your solution is to add more POV material about the massacre so as to justify the article's restored title. Is that a reasonable summary? --Jumbo 08:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

To add more POV material? Hardly!

The point is that while this is supposed to be an article about a massacre, accounts of the massacre itself are brief and lacking in detail, while on the other hand plenty of space is given to accounts that refute the idea of a massacre - most of them, it seems, from members of Irgun and Lehi - the very people who were accused of perpetrating the massacre.

In other words, the account given is already biased and POV, which is something that needs to be rectified. Gatoclass 09:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

By adding material which is, by definition, POV. NPOV doesn't mean we are totally neutral in everything we say, it means that we take a balanced approach. Don't let me stop you from adding more material if it is truly encyclopaedic. However, I note that you are agreeing with me - your proposed solution is to keep the article as it is, title and everything, and add more pro-massacre views. I don't see that this is going to work with all editors who have contributed to the article. In fact I suggest that it is a recipe for continuing the dispute. --Jumbo 09:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

You are entitled to your opinion. But I'm afraid your "solution" would only start a whole new swag of disputes, to add to the existing ones. Gatoclass 10:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

You intrigue me. So you don't think that dividing the article into two, one for the battle and one for the massacre would solve the dispute over naming? How do you come to this extraordinary conclusion? --Jumbo 10:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I have been through much of this before. But for your benefit I'll try again:

(a) Because such an article would be pointless. Nobody cares about the "battle of Deir Yassin". The only reason the "battle of Deir Yassin" matters at all is because it's part of the context for the massacre of Deir Yassin. The battle was nothing more than a skirmish between an untrained Zionist rabble and a bunch of Arab villagers. There were literally hundreds of such engagements in the the Israeli war for independence. Who is going to want to read about this one?

(b) Because it would only be duplicating content in the "massacre" article itself;

(c) Because it sounds to me like you've been unable to reconcile yourself to the fact that this article has been renamed, and so you want to find a way to resurrect your preferred name;

(d) Because it sounds to me very much like what you want to do is create a POV fork.

(e) Because it is going to create a whole new swag of arguments that we really don't need at this time. Gatoclass 11:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

You've mentioned (e) a couple of times. It's a logical fallacy. Nysin 11:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

And what if the fear is justified? Gatoclass 11:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

What if? It's still a logical fallacy, and thus not a valid justification for an action. Nysin 11:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

It may be a "logical fallacy", but that doesn't mean it's wrong! Gatoclass 11:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

(c) and (d) rather strongly resemble an ad hominem and a strawman (other fallacies). Nysin 11:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Lots of statements can be interpreted as ad hominems, if you're determined to find them. For example, I could interpret your suggestion that I am engaging in ad hominems to be itself an ad hominem, but I'm in a generous mood.

As for the straw man, I don't see that at all. I'm simply stating my opinion. It sounds like a proposal for a POV fork. Now Jumbo may not intend it that way, but I suspect that's what it will quickly become. Gatoclass 11:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the POV fork, fair enough. And, no, my statement about ad hominems addressed only the statements you've made publicly here. One of your statements, however, was that "Because it sounds to me like you've been unable to reconcile yourself to the fact that this article has been renamed, and so ...". That addresses not Jumbo's argument, but Jumbo himself, which characterizes the ad hominem. Nysin 11:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Given the amount of material available on the "battle of Deir Yassin", (b) shouldn't be an issue: a massacre article could just link to the battle article for background and provide a brief (one or two-paragraph) summary. (I'm going to refrain from commenting on (a) at the moment, as it involves more subjective issues). Nysin 11:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Gatoclass, you didn't answer my question. Which makes me think you agree with me, because after all it is just common sense. Having one article for the battle and one for the massacre would solve the naming dispute.

I don't think that there would be any disputes over the battle itself - the facts seem straightforward enough. The question of whether it is notable is another matter, but that could be answered by those who know more about the various battles of the war. So your (a) is not a problem.

The massacre article doesn't need a lot of information about the battle. Just enough to put it into context. Link to the battle article for more details. That gets rid of your (b).

Your (c) is spot on. What I am unable to accept is that we have an article mainly about a battle which is called a massacre, when the massacre itself is only a secondary part of the article. We have the tail wagging the dog. I'd prefer to see the material on the battle correctly labelled.

Your (d) is just silly. I think that the massacre is by far the more interesting event and it deserves an article to itself.

Your (e) doesn't hold water. What new disputes would crop up? The massacre is the contentious part; we're always going to have lively debate over that. Dividing the article into two correctly titled articles would solve the naming dispute, so we'd be clear of that. It would be a step forward. --Jumbo 11:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Addition of Unbalanced notice

I've added an unbalanced notice to the page as I believe that evidence in support of a massacre is underrepresented and too much emphasis is laid on the opposing POV. Gatoclass 00:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Seconded. --(Mingus ah um 00:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC))

Thirded. - FrancisTyers · 01:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Absolute dissent - the sources from both sides agree, and as it turns out the initial casualty estimates from the Jewish side were considerably higher than those the Bir Zeit study turned out. --Leifern 20:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I am not saying that it is balanced or unbalanced, but the very fact that the article is titled “Massacre” gives, in and of itself, a distinct leaning towards the fact that it was a massacre, and may need more to counterbalance it in the article. Now, if it was titled “Battle”, it would lean the other way, and I'd be more likely to agree with you. If we try a nuetral title like “Allegations of…”, that would just be silly. So the way it is now, I think it may make sense to need more anti-massacre weight just to balance the big, bold title up top—but, of course, that is just my opinion. -- Avi 01:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

This debate isn't over

I cannot agree to keep the name massacre when it focuses on a narrow controversial and unverifiable pov claim by one side. We need to find an npov name, and if anyone thinks that they can first ignore the results of a no consensus vote and then fall back into lethargy because they got their way, they got another thing coming. The subject is controversial, the name is a narrow pov. Like the Tiananmen Square Massacre that was moved because there was more to the story than Chinese killing students, this name focuses on a narrow event and predetemined outcome. I believe that battle is the most neutral term because it doesn't presuppose any claims and lists allegations in various parts of the article. The claims and the events warrant enough controversy and the evidence is so contradictory that a name change is completely warranted. A battle simple lists a factual military engagement between two opposing forces and describes the allegations and stories of both sides.

Guy Montag 18:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to ask you a question, then. Can you find a reliable source that uses the term "Battle of Deir Yassin"? -- ChrisO 18:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

It is by default a battle. When two opposing forces meet at a specific geographic area, and one fights for the control of that area while the other defends, it is called a battle. The battle for Deir Yassin was a part of the Haganahcompaign during the Siege of Jerusalem. Abba Eban, the Israeli Foreign Ministry, Menachem Begin and Milstien have called it a battle, and the events in the article describe a battle. A battle with a small b. The allegations of prisoner and civilian executions are what have been labelled a massacre, but those claims are contradictory. It is our job to put the events in context. The only thing that we are sure about is that a battle happened, the alleged massacre offers enough contradictory evidence that it would be violating wikipedia policy to presuppose that the events happened precisely as one side describes it, and naming an entire battle after a dubiously described allegation is simply misleading the readers.

I know exactly where Lehi and IZL came from. I know their attack patterns, their strategy, and I have their and the Haganah's account of when it started who was where, how many militiamen were wounded or killed. I know where the Arab forces were positioned, I know the disposition of their forces (40 men = a group of Iraqi soldiers), I know their positions, (fortified houses) and I know where their reinforcements were coming from (Motza and Ein Kerem). All of this information is factually listed in the article. How do you suppose to factually claim that a massacre happened when all the evidence is contradictory and vague, with people coming in after the fact, with the only person who claims to have seen anything been unable to verify what he claims and everyone, including his superiors claiming he simply wasn't there? What about the villagers who deny atrocities? What about the Arab official from the Higher Arab comittee being ordered to make up propaganda stories, and using the same propaganda numbers as the IZL commanders? What about the wildly contradictory accounts of the dead, some as low as 80? Look, if you have such murkey evidence it simply isn't logical to name it after an alleged event, but on what the context of that event was, and the context was a battle. It doesn't mean that the battle article would not have these allegations listed there, and the name battle doesn't presuppose (unlike the word massacre), that there was no massacre.

How many people know the Tiananmen Square Massacre? Millions probably, because it is a popular media term ingrained in our minds. But there are various different names and none of them are used as the official title, but a simple factual detached title is used instead. Everyone agrees that there were protests in Tiananmen Square in 1989, so it is named as such, while the details are described inside the article of the shootings. Everyone agrees that a battle took place at Deir Yassin, so it is time to describe it with a factual and detached name.

At the least it should "Allegations of a massacre at Deir Yassin". I am partial to battle of Deir Yassin (with a small b).

Guy Montag 20:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Guy, I have seen this suggested before but do not know what happened to it, what about "Deir Yassin incident" with a lower-case "i" for incident? I am sure some people wouldn't like it, but it seems like a reasonable compromise to me. Has there been a poll on that previously? 6SJ7 18:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I now see above that "incident" had some significant support, although it was not actually one of the options. I even mentioned it myself. I wonder whether it would attract a consensus if given a fair change. 6SJ7 19:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Guy, you still haven't answered my question: Can you find a reliable source that uses the term "Battle of Deir Yassin"? If the affair was "by default" a battle then somebody must use that term, surely? -- ChrisO 19:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

It's better but also innacurate. It was part of an ongoing compaign for Jerusalem and the battle was connected others in the area, so its not a singular accurance.

Guy Montag 20:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

There is a difference between this case and that of Tiananmen Square Massacre. In the Tiananmen case, everyone agrees that the protests themselves were historically significant (even aside from the massacre). Whereas for Deir Yassin, the battle had no major significance. We most likely wouldn't have an article about the "battle" were it not for the allegations of a massacre. Still "incident" seems like a reasonable compromise which I would support if necessary. JoshuaZ 20:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The battle had major significance, as it relates to the Palestinian Exodus and the battle for Jerusalem. As long as it doesn't have the word massacre in the title, I will reluctantly support it. Guy Montag 20:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd vote for "Incident" as a neutral term for a single article on both events, with links from Battle and Massacre. The battle part is probably not that notable. The forces involved are very small. The massacre part is the interesting bit, and I make the point that, like Santa Claus we may have an article about the myth of the massacre, even if no massacre actually occurred. My feeling is that more shots have been fired over the propaganda than were ever directed at civilians during or after the battle. However, the massacre itself helped to get the Palestinians out of their homes and into the refugee camps where they remained, despite promises that Israel would be swept into the sea and they could return home. It's shaped Middle-Eastern politics for five decades now, so it's not something we can ignore. Even if there wasn't an actual massacre, it's the myth that's important. --Jumbo 23:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

First of all, Guy, I asked you to provide some quotations from Milstein (or any other reputable source) that either denies or disputes that a massacre took place. You still haven't done that. Until you do, I'm afraid there is NO support for your claim that even one reputable source disputes the existence of the massacre.

Secondly, I note that one of the sources on which you've based your rewrite is the 1987 study by Bir Zeit University. Presumably this study is part of what you were referring to when you said to me earlier on this page that "It was considered a massacre by some polemecists before new evidence and interviews came out between the years of 1987-1997. The new information points to the fact that there was no clear cut defined massacre..."

And yet according to an earlier version of this page, the Bir Zeit University study itself concluded that Deir Yassin was (I quote): "a massacre the likes of which history has rarely known".

This from one of your own primary sources, upon which you have based your claim that "there was no clearcut massacre"!

Mind explaining this discrepancy to me? Gatoclass 01:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Sure, the researchers inserted their own opinion into the study, even though their own claims don't support a massacre. Their personal opinionated outburst stands alone from their research.

Finally, I no longer know what it is you want from me. I have showed you that in the article itself, there is considerable evidence to the contradictory statements of everyone involved. You can't agree to use the terms of one side when there is som much overwhelming evidence that contradicts other evidence. In such a case wiki standards call for a name outside either pov to take its place, as was the case with Tiananmen Square Massacre. Hence I am proposing a simply detached factual name that is not attached to the pov of either side. For example, "Conquest of Deir Yassin" "battle at Deir Yassin" or even "Deir Yassin Incident". That way we can describe the events and the names used by both sides without having it slant to either side in a true npov fashion. Lets use something called overlapping consensus. We don't have to agree on the details, just the rote stuff. We agree that there was an military engagement at Deir Yassin, what happened during this engagement should be left to the article not the name.

Guy Montag 03:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

"The likes of which history has rarely known?" And these people consider themselves historians? --Leifern 01:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

It seems their bona fides were good enough for Guy to use them as a source for claims that the Arabs were well prepared for attack and well armed, and that the number killed on the Arab side was no more than 120. But their clearcut confirmation that a massacre took place was apparently not worth citing. And you don't find anything amiss with that? Gatoclass 02:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Do we have a source for this "a massacre the likes of which history has rarely known" quote? Even accepting the most inflated claims, this would seem to be quite low on the scale of atrocities. World War 2, only a few years previous, produced a large number of massacres with death counts ranging into the thousands. See the list of massacres here. I'd like to see this quote in context, as it may possibly be ironic. --Jumbo 02:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I told you what the source was. It's from an earlier version of the DY page. You can find an extended quote from the study here[[27]], under the section heading "Number of dead, wounded and prisoners". Gatoclass 05:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. As a matter of courtesy, asking someone to wade through an article that has been extensivley modified with no better guide than that it was from "an earlier version" is hardly helpful. Do you know if the study is available on-line? As I note above, such as statement invites ridicule, and it would be useful to determine the context in which it was made. --Jumbo 05:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't know whether it's available online. I should probably do a search because I'd quite like to read it myself (assuming it's not too long).

However, the quote on the Wiki page clearly refers to a "massacre" a couple of times in the body of the text, so whether or not the original statement was in context, it seems clear they accepted that a massacre took place. Gatoclass 05:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

My difficulty with the quote is that if it is taken at face value it puts any other statement by the same author(s) into doubt. How can we possibly rely on sources which are so obviously hyperbolic? In fact, it seems quite clear that the descriptions from both sides are full of hyperbole, propaganda and deceit. Finding facts that are not in dispute is difficult, with the exception that both sides sought to inflate the civilian casualties well beyond what might normally be expected in an assault on a defended village. --Jumbo 06:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

As I've posted below, I just realized Birzeit is a Palestinian uni, I had assumed it was Israeli.

Although technically my initial comments might be seen as justifiable, I think perhaps this is one instance where a little discretion might be in order. Let's face it, the likes of which history has rarely known is hyperbolic. Gatoclass 07:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

They had to temper their sober research with some hyperbolic propaganda. They needed to qualify their dissapointing findings that there was little evidence for a massacre with such statements so as not to lose credibility in the Arab world. I've seen this happen in many scientific fields. Sometimes scientists erase scientific findings if they contradict current research even if they calculated everything correctly so they aren't shunned by their community. But whatever. Guy Montag 03:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

It hardly lends credibility to their work. In fact this whole affair is full of people on both sides making wild claims. I reckon the only reason it's labelled a massacre is because stories of savage atrocities have longer legs than statements of sober denial. However, the story of the massacre had a profound effect on the Middle East, resonating down to the current day, so it is a story that needs telling in Wikipedia. --Jumbo 03:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I see, the conclusions they arrived at which you approve of are the result of "sober research" while those that you don't are examples of "hyperbolic propaganda".

Unfortunately, you don't get to decide for yourself which conclusions from a reliable source are valid and which are not, and to construct an argument accordingly. That is what is known on Wiki as original research.

For your benefit, I'll quote part of the policy (with appropriate emphasis) here:

Original research is a term used on Wikipedia to refer to material placed into articles by Wikipedia editors that has not been previously published by a reliable source. It includes unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, and ideas; or any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, or arguments that appears to advance a position or, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimbo Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation."

The longer you are unable to come up with quotes from a reliable source that clearly deny or dispute the existence of a massacre, the more your rewrite, based upon this very premise, looks like a blatant example of the above. Not that your rewrite appears to be in any way representative of prevailing professional opinion to begin with.

Apart from which, I think it's quite evident from this episode to what extent you are prepared to cherry pick from sources to construct a case. It clearly raises questions about the accuracy with which you have represented the conclusions of other sources you have made use of in your rewrite. Gatoclass 05:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Edit: I've just discovered that Birzeit is a Palestinian university. I had mistakenly assumed it was an Israeli uni. In that case I think I can accept that Birzeit's characterization of the DY episode as a massacre may not be entirely reliable, given that it is probably still a highly charged topic for Palestinians. Therefore I will withdraw the comment about cherry picking, at least in regards to this source.

However, I stand by my comment about original research until I see something to make me change my mind. Gatoclass 07:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Gatoclass, why would a Palestinian university be a less reliable source than a foreign university for material regarding Palestine? Would you discount a US university as a reliable source for information about Pearl Harbour, or a Russian university for information about the October Revolution? Please think this one through. Palmiro | Talk 13:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Let me put it this way. The Palestinians are a society under enormous stress, whose very existence as a people is under challenge. In such circumstances, historical narratives can acquire tremendous importance in reinforcing a sense of national and cultural identity. The massacre of Deir Yassin is, I think it fair to say, part of the Palestinian folk narrative - a cultural shibboleth, that must make it a highly sensitive issue in Palestinian society.

This is not to suggest that Birzeit does not qualify as a reputable source, or that its reference to DY as a massacre is not valid. I'm simply conceding that it's perhaps not indefensible for an editor to exercise a little discretion in regards to the amount of weight he chooses to put on statements from various reliable sources. For that reason, I decided to withdraw my comment to Montag that he appeared to be "cherry picking". Gatoclass 20:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

A better characterization would be to ask if he trusts North Korean universities on the history of the Korean War. Of course, I am embellishing and not trying to equate one with the other, but authoritarian societies tend to stifle their research with what is considered politically correct. For example, Turkey and the Armenian Genocide etc. They made a clearly hyperbolic opinion because a factual analysis of history will clearly show that calling Dier Yassin the greatest massacre in history is ludicrous bombast. That is why I look at their research and not their qualifying statements to be accepted in their society.

Guy Montag 17:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Let's assume for the sake of argument that the Irgun organization wants to whitewash the event and the Deir Yassin survivors' organization want to make it look as bad as possible. What is striking if you read the accounts is that they are very consistent. Setting aside the rather fantastic subjective conclusion the Bir Zeit authors made, the cold facts they present are pretty similar to those others have presented. --Leifern 17:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Guy, it's not a matter of "trust". Please go and read WP:V if you haven't already. The very first line of that policy says: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. It goes on: "Verifiability" in this context does not mean that editors are expected to verify whether, for example, the contents of a New York Times article are true. In fact, editors are strongly discouraged from conducting this kind of research, because original research may not be published in Wikipedia. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources, regardless of whether individual editors view that material as true or false.

That doesn't mean that we're under any obligation to give an equivalent status to conflicting viewpoints. WP:NPOV#Undue weight: NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Thus, if the "massacre happened" viewpoint is in the majority, that should be reflected in the article. Again, this is where the editors of this article need to do some research to discover which viewpoint predominates. Editors are specifically not allowed to make judgments on the basis of a personal belief that a particular claim is true. See WP:NPOV#A simple formulation: assert [undisputed] facts, including facts about opinions — but don't assert opinions [a piece of information about which there is some dispute]. -- ChrisO 19:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's the point Chris. This is the problem with Montag's rewrite. All the sources I have seen describe the event as a massacre, and yet Montag has constructed his edit in such a way as to lay all the emphasis upon the interpretation that it was not a massacre but something else. And at the same time, interpretations which put an alternative POV have been either sidelined or eliminated altogether from the picture. Gatoclass 21:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you guys are utterly confused about these issues. The word "massacre" is not an arbitrary term. It is has a rather precise meaning for a particular kind of atrocity. It encompasses such events as lining unarmed Armenians up by the hundreds and killing them one by one by putting an axe in their heads; riding into Native American villages and killing women and children with sabres; going into Muslim villages in Bosnia to bus away men to kill them in the woods; walling off cities in Iraq killing everyone inside them and leveling the whole city. To call the events in Deir Yassin a "massacre" is not an affront to Jews or Israelis - it's an affront to all the victims of such events as I've just described. Which isn't to excuse any murders that took place in Deir Yassin; but to suggest that these horrifying excesses rise to the level that the examples above show is morally reprehensible. Just because popular culture has caught on to "massacre" doesn't make it true, or accurate. Your argument that "massacre" is the right term rests solely on the notion that it's the most common term, as if the word didn't mean anything in specific on its own. --Leifern 03:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Just because popular culture has caught on to "massacre" doesn't make it true, or accurate.

Quite correct. But it's not "popular culture" that describes Deir Yassin as a massacre - it's a host of reputable sources. (And I'm STILL waiting for someone to supply a quote from just one reputable source disputing that a massacre took place).

Furthermore, as Chris has stated, it's not truth which is the criterion on which Wiki articles are based but verifiability. It's not what you or I think the truth might be, but how reputable sources have described the event in question. And it appears the majority of reputable sources have indeed referred to this event as a massacre. Gatoclass 03:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

How will we verify these sources? Francis did a search vs Battle of Jenin and Jenin Massacre and found the massacre used more often even in academic literature, yet a massacre didn't occur. What criteria will we use? Guy Montag 16:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Not a good metric. At a glance, many of the mentioned were either in inverted commas, or were specifically used in reference to "what X group of people called it". In other words, in many cases, "Jenin massacre" was not used as a descriptive term of reference to the event, but rather as an example of what people have called it. Deir Yassin massacre on the other hand is used as a descriptive term of reference to the event. - FrancisTyers · 17:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Reminder of fundamental policies

I'd like to remind people of four key points, based on our three most important and non-negotiable policies:

1) Wikipedia:No original research specifically prohibits editors from defining new terms in articles (see WP:NOR#What is excluded?). There are no exceptions to this rule. You are simply not permitted to invent a new term because you believe that an existing established term is POV.

2) Wikipedia:Verifiablity specifically requires editors to rely on reliable sources. Any name for this article must be based on the terms and facts used by our sources, not our own personal views on the accuracy of those sources. To quote: One of the keys to writing good encyclopedia articles is to understand that they must refer only to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by reputable publishers. Defining novel terms is a very clear breach of the principle of verifiability.

3) WP:V also specifically prohibits editors from deciding content issues on the basis of "truth": Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources, regardless of whether individual editors view that material as true or false. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is thus verifiability, not truth.. This sounds counter-intuitive, but the rationale is sound - see WP:V#Verifiability, not truth. Arguments such as "we can't have title X because it's untrue" are expressly ruled out of bounds by this policy.

4) WP:NPOV does not require absolute neutrality in an article, with all viewpoints treated equally. WP:NPOV#Undue weight states: NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each ... Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties. This applies not only to article text, but to images, external links, categories, and all other material as well.. This is perhaps the most important point of all, and I urge everyone involved in this debate to read and think about what WP:NPOV#Undue weight says.

In short, whatever title is selected for the article, it must (a) reflect majority usage; (b) be verifiable (based on existing published sources) and (c) be based on reliable sources (i.e. what term do the majority of reliable sources use?). The issue of whether the title is "true" or "false", "accurate" or "inaccurate", is specifically ruled out of bounds by our policies: We report what other reliable sources have published, whether or not we regard the material as accurate (WP:NOR#Primary and secondary sources).

The proponents of the various alternative titles need to establish whether their preferred terms are in fact widely used, or indeed used at all, and if they are used by reliable sources. Please go and do some research, find some sources and post them here so that we can have some concrete evidence on which to proceed. -- ChrisO 23:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

ChrisO, I believe you misunderstand what is being said here. To sum up quickly:

1. Were this article about the (alleged) Deir Yassin Massacre, that would be a more appropriate title than "Battle of Deir Yassin".

2. Given that this article not about the (alleged) Deir Yassin Massacre, but about the battle and other events which occured during the battle, including the alleged massacre, the current title is unacceptable, simply because it is inaccurate. You want to have an article titled "Deir Yassin Massacre", be my guest. This isn't that article. Bibigon 06:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the onus is on you to demonstrate that reliable sources make a distinction between the alleged battle and the alleged massacre. Do reliable sources consider them to be two discrete historical events, or do they treat them as one single event described by a single term? Do they even use the term "battle" to describe the events and does the term "Battle of Deir Yassin" have any reputable proponents? You need to base this on reliable and verifiable sources, not your own interpretation, so I urge you to go and do some research to find out how the sources treat the events in question. -- ChrisO 08:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Finding reliable sources could be a bit tricky. I think we'd chuck out all of the sources as having deep-seated POV issues if they were editors. About the only area they all agree on are that the Israelis kicked the Arabs out of the village. The facts of the battle seem straightforward and beyond any major dispute. The descriptions of the massacre are smoke in the wind. --Jumbo 09:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with your interpretation of where the burden of proof lies. The burden of proof in this regard is with you. If you can show me that reliable sources consistently treat the battle and the massacre as one and the same, then I'll happily cede this particular point to you. Thus far however, you have not presented such evidence. Bibigon 19:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, let me rephrase it: both sides need to cite evidence that the Deir Yassin affair is considered either as a single event or as two discrete events. I'm not going to get into researching content for either side in this discussion - it's not something I want to get involved in. I'm simply standing here in the middle pointing out to all parties what they need to do to make this article neutral, reliably sourced and verifiable. -- ChrisO 19:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's a joke. You're not some neutral party, nor some uninvolved party here. Saying you're just standing in the middle is a misrepresentation of the situation and of your behaviour on this issue to date.

Additionally, you are mistaken in your understanding of the standards of evidence needed. Both sides do not need to cite evidence, quite the contrary. The burden of proof lies with those making the affirmative statement. The claim has been made that the battle and the massacre are the same thing, and thus "Deir Yassin Massacre" is the more relevant title. That claim needs to be supported. Demanding proof that the two were discrete events is silly, as that is akin to demanding proof that the the U.S. civil war and the Gettysburg Address were not the same thing. If the two were, then there would be many sources saying "The U.S. Civil War is the same thing as the Gettysburg Address." If the two were not the same thing however, then you would not find sources saying that, as a list of things the Civil War is not the same thing as is quite long. Again, the burden of proof lies on the side of those making the affirmative statement. Unless it can be shown that what this article describes is what is meant by the "Deir Yassin Massacre," then there is no reason to believe they are the same thing.Bibigon 21:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course they are the same thing. Both sides agree that 120 Arabs were killed, one side says that they (or the overwhelming majority) were killed in battle, the other that they (or the overwhelming majority) were killed in a massacre. They are not two discreet historical events. They are one and the same event, with two different interpretations. Gatoclass 21:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

There was a battle. In the conventional sense of two military forces engaging in armed conflict. The facts of the matter are straightforward. Calling it a massacre is just wrong, because it wasn't. The Israelis didn't stroll into the village against little or no opposition, shooting unarmed civilians as they went.

Certain events during and possibly after the battle may be (and were) interpreted as a massacre, but realistically, they are two discrete events. Calling the battle a massacre doesn't make it so. The DY massacre is more of a view, a myth, a legend, and it is jarring to see the facts of the battle being named after the propaganda of the massacre. Fort Pillow seems to be a reasonable parallel. --Jumbo 22:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

There was a battle, that either did, or did not, degenerate into a massacre, depending on who's telling the story. There are not two discrete events. One event, with different interpretations.

The problem is, only one of those interpretations is adequately represented in the article - in spite of the fact that the preponderance of sources appear to endorse the other. Gatoclass 22:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

You completely free and in fact encouraged to add new information. This of course doesn't mean that we should leave the definition of events up to the name of the title. Since we now agree that there was a battle that did or did not degenerate into a massacre, why do you still insist on calling this article the Deir Yassin massacre and not the battle of Deir Yassin? Lets explain the opposing stories in the content, and not the title.

Guy Montag 23:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

ChrisO has already explained why - because Deir Yassin massacre is the most common name. Virtually nobody refers to this event as the "battle of Deir Yassin". Also because the majority of reputable sources appear to endorse the view that a massacre took place. Gatoclass 01:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Can you point me to the sources say that the common usage of Deir Yassin Massacre refers to all the events described in this article, and not merely to the alleged massacre? I'm quite serious. That issue is sort of a dealbreaker for me, as I'm simply not convinced at this point that calling this article Deir Yassin Massacre is any more appropriate that calling the Civil War the Gettysburg Address. Bibigon 03:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm certainly not aware of any sources which refer to the battle independently of the massacre, if that's what you mean. Gatoclass 03:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

That may be because the battle isn't particularly notable. But we now have an article about a battle that is called a massacre. Our readers will look at this and say, this isn't a massacre, it's a battle with allegations of massacre. --Jumbo 05:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Precedent questions for ChrisO

ChrisO, you have previously indicated a fondness for argument by precedent, in attempting to explain why you believe this article should be titled "Deir Yassin Massacre." While I think this reasoning is generally flawed in the first place, I'd like to indulge it, and expand upon it to better understand your claims. Could you please point to some high quality Wikipedia articles which follow a similar naming convention as this one? My specific conditions:

1. High quality articles which show signs of having most serious issues fully fleshed out already. Articles such as the Srebrenica massacre article do not qualify, because that article is currently a hodgepodge of OR and NPOV issues. That signals to me that perhaps the fact that that article is titled a "Massacre" isn't particularly strong evidence that good Wikipedia articles should follow similar naming conventions. Please take a look at the text of that article itself if you would like to dispute this disqualification.

2. Articles describing events for which the more common name includes the word "massacre."

3. Articles which describe a possible massacre, but the existence of the massacre is disputed.

4. Articles describing events which were not limited solely to mass killings.

You have indicated a belief that precedent is on your side here. I challenge that claim, and I would like you to support it with evidence. To kick things off, I'll throw out the Battle of Jenin 2002 article and the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 article. Both of which meet all four of the above requirements, and neither one of which uses the more common, but more controvertial "massacre" name. So what I'd like from you:

1. Please explain why the two articles above are poor examples of precedent to use in this case.

2. Please give some examples of your own which you believe meet all four of the conditions I set above, but which use the "massacre" name. Bibigon 06:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Khojaly massacre (existence disputed by Armenians) [during a war] + Armenian genocide (existence disputed by the vast majority of Turks) + Pontian Greek Genocide (existence disputed by the vast majority of Turks) [during a war] + Kfar Etzion massacre (disputed by some I believe) [during a war] + Massacre of the Innocents (disputed) + Chenogne massacre (disputed) [during a war] + Bleiburg massacre (disputed) + (during a war). Your Jenin example doesn't count as I've mentioned above, a substantial amount of reputable sources don't use any of the more commonly found google'd names.

"Battle of Jenin" gets 5 results from Google Books, "Jenin Massacre" gets 10 results, but it is worth noting that at least four of those are denials of the term. Hardly as conclusive as the search below. - FrancisTyers · 12:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

- FrancisTyers · 21:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

1. Khojaly massacre has no mention in the article of anyone disputing it. You claims as to who disputes it are not in the article. If the article is lacking those disputes, then the article fails on my first requirement, of being a high quality article.

Did you read past the first paragraph? "According to the Armenian side, tens of defenders of the town, and some civilians, less than 15, died in fighting for the town, and not massacred as Azerbaijanis and international observers [2] [3] claim. " - FrancisTyers · 22:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I did, I was scanning for a section called "Massacre disputed" or something along those lines, which would indicate that there was a serious dispute about whether it occured or not. I didn't see that, and I believed that if it were disputed, there would be a section on it. Fair enough, this qualifies. Bibigon 22:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

2. Armenian genocide does not use the word "massacre" in the title. I would like as direct comps as possible please.

3. Pontian Greek Genocide does not use the word "massacre" in the title.

4. Kfar Etzion massacre has no mention in the article of anyone disputing it.

"Glubb Pasha later denied that there had been a massacre at all." - FrancisTyers · 22:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

This however certainly does not qualify. In addition to the only mention of a dispute being from one of the soldiers involved, the article is of generally poor quality. Glubb Pasha's dispute claim is unsourced, as is most of the article itself. The article is written more like an essay("When the hopelessness of their position became undeniable") than an encyclopedia article. This is more certainly poor precedent. Bibigon 22:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

5. "Battle of Jenin" is less common in both a google search and a Google Books search. "Jenin Massacre" has 18 Google Books hits, while "Battle of Jenin" has 6. That some of the "Jenin Massacre" hits are disputing the existence of a massacre is irrelvant for determing the dominance of the term itself. They are using that term to refer to the events which took place there. Bibigon 22:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Having read your dispute about Srebrenica massacre, I don't agree. I think the article is fairly comprehensive and neutral. It has organisational problems, and problems with sourcing and prose. But no problems of neutrality from what I can see. - FrancisTyers · 21:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

First off, I never restricted it to being a neutrality issue. I suggested that we only use high quality articles in the first place. Second, the article does have severe neutrality issues. Lines such as "Also notable was Dutch UN soldiers' cowardice" do not inspire confidence in the neutrality of the article. Issues such as that suggest that the article has not been dealt with properly yet, and that the name itself may come under a POV dispute as the article begins being more seriously edited. It is a low quality article due to the unsourced nature of it, which means we probably shouldn't use it as a point of good precedent. Bibigon 22:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I rewrote that line about 15 minutes ago. - FrancisTyers · 22:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that. That the article currently has a NPOV warning, and blatantly POV statements like that were removed a mere 15 minutes ago however is a pretty good sign that it's not a high quality article yet, and should be used as precedent for what a good article without NPOV issues looks like. Bibigon 22:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Guy Montag just added that. - FrancisTyers · 22:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, what's your point? Blatantly POV terms are still actively being removed from the article. This is an example of a good article that the Deir Yassin article should model itself after? There is a NPOV dispute, and that dispute appears to be lively at this point. Bibigon 22:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, the Massacre of the Innocents is a good example. It describes a massacre, but seemingly without evidence and is probably disputed. It isn't at "Alleged massacre of the Innocents", although I'm not sure if it fits '4'. - FrancisTyers · 21:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

This has no mention of the massacre being disputed. Bibigon 22:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Haha. - FrancisTyers · 22:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

So anyway, thats at least four examples. - FrancisTyers · 22:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I grant one of those. The rest do not qualify, and you still haven't explained Tiananmen Square or Jenin to my satisfaction. Bibigon 22:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

How about Bleiburg massacre? See towards the bottom. - FrancisTyers · 22:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Not a high quality article. There are a great many unsourced statements, and it is generally bordering on OR. ("it is generally accepted that the vast portion of violent deaths were the result of executions that lasted at least two weeks after the cessation of hostilities." -- No source cited.) Bibigon 22:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Regarding "Jenin massacre", Google scholar gives 22 for "Battle of Jenin" and 23 for "Jenin massacre" (hardly conclusive), in comparison, it gives 0 hits for "Battle of Dier Yassin" and 51 hits for "Dier Yassin massacre". Google books gives 5 hits for "Battle of Jenin" and 18 hits for "Jenin massacre" (I underreported before), comparatively, 152 hits for "Dier Yassin massacre", compared with 1 hit for "Battle of Dier Yassin".

We can say that, in scholarly works, "Battle of Jenin" and "Jenin massacre" are equally favoured. In scholarly works, "Battle of Deir Yassin" is not used, while "Deir Yassin massacre" is used frequently. In literature, "Battle of Jenin" is used, but not as frequently as "Jenin massacre", while "Battle of Deir Yassin" is used only one time out of a total of 153. In terms of magnitude of naming conflict the cases are not comparable. - FrancisTyers · 22:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Of the total, 99.35% books published with "Deir Yassin massacre" and 0.65% with "Battle of Deir Yassin". Compare of the total, 21% of books published use "Battle of Jenin" and 78% use "Jenin massacre". In some circumstances, 78% isn't a consensus, in the overwhelming majority of circumstances, 99.35% is consensus. - FrancisTyers · 22:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

This is a good point, but ChrisO's standards seemed limited to which was the more common name. Why is 22% sufficient in the case of Jenin? What makes that fundamentally different other than numbers?

Additionally, you haven't dealt with the Tiananmen issue either. 9 hits for "Tiananmen Square protests of 1989" vs. 1620 for "Tiananmen Square Massacre." 99.44% for the massacre title there. Bibigon 22:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Try searching without "of 1989". - FrancisTyers · 22:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Google scholar "Tiananmen square protests" (101), "Tiananmen square massacre" (635) — Google books "Tiananmen square protests" (213), "Tiananmen square massacre" (1620) Still doesn't nearly reach the levels I have previously quoted. - FrancisTyers · 22:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Tianamen square does not fit your own criteria, it was not during a battle. Furthermore, I don't see where it is explicitly denied. The Chinese government figures are substantially lower, but is it denied that it was a massacre? - FrancisTyers · 22:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

What? I didn't say it had to be during a battle. I said the events had to be not limited to mass killings. The Chinese government refers to it as "Political Turmoil between Spring and Summer of 1989" instead of as a massacre and disputes the number killed. Bibigon 22:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

How about Chenogne massacre? Sourced, seemingly NPOV. - FrancisTyers · 22:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, Bibigon, you've misunderstood what I was saying. I'm not appealing to precedent at all - I'm citing the plain requirements of Wikipedia policies. If other articles don't fully apply those policies, that's no reason for this article to make the same mistake. Let's focus on getting this article right and worry about other articles later. -- ChrisO 22:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The other shoe drops. After several times appealing to precedent in the case of the Srebrenica massacre, you appear to have now (rightly) changed your mind about the validity of arguments of this style. I heartily agree, if other articles don't apply those policies, then there's no reason for this article to make the same mistake. I withdraw my request, as my whole point was that argument by precedent was a poor line of logical thought. A point you did not respond to earlier, and that's why I brought it up again. Please keep this in mind the next time you want to invoke Srebrenica to push your POV here. Bibigon 23:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

What a convienient point to withdraw your request ;) - FrancisTyers · 23:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

If you'd read what I wrote earlier about the entire idea of precedent based arguments, it should't surprise you at all. My whole point was that they were flawed forms of debate on Wikpedia. Bibigon 03:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense. I invoked Srebrenica on two occasions. Neither was to use the article as a precedent but to point out that some of the assumptions being made in this discussion weren't very sound. First, I said: "The fact that there was a military engagement with fire exchanged on both sides doesn't preclude describing the incident as a massacre (compare Srebrenica massacre)." Second, I said: "The problem that we face is that almost nobody calls that engagement a "battle", any more than they call the engagement at Srebrenica in July 1995 a "battle"." The point I'm making in both cases is that if there's general agreement to describe a military engagement as a massacre, that's what we should reflect. The mere fact that the massacre was intertwined with an armed engagement doesn't automatically compel us to describe the incident as a "battle", as I think Guy was trying to suggest. We use the terminology of the majority of our reliable sources, leaving it to the experts, whether or not we think their choice is right. -- ChrisO 23:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

That's the very definition of a precedent based argument. You were using the Srebrenica incident as evidence that Wikipedia calls other military engagements massacres. Either way however, as long as we're in agreement that Srebrenica being called a massacre on Wiki has no relevance to this article, I'm quite content to let this issue go. Bibigon 03:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't want my name choice to be interperted as a prejudiced toward one side. That I why I used a purely factual term of two opposing sides clashing over a geographical area (commonly referred to as a battle) and leave the controveries to the content. Leaving the name massacre clearly implies that that is what happened.

Guy Montag 00:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Name debate - Another angle

So I've done some perusal of the literate surrounding this incident, and I've noticed that even more common than the name of the incident being the Deir Yassin Massacre is the incident being called simply Deir Yassin. I'm not sure what to make of this, but as far as the most common name for this incident, this appears to outstrip even the the "massacre" title. Just throwing that out there, as I'm not really sure this means for the name of the article. Bibigon 03:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Not surprising really, I've noticed the same with regard to the massacres at Srebrenica and My Lai. Remember all the recent headlines calling the killings at Haditha "Iraq's My Lai"? It's just people being lazy, IMO... -- ChrisO 07:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

What is a massacre?

The burden should be on those who want to characterize an event in the worst possible way that this characterization is accurate. The term "massacre" as it is intended to be part of a title, can not be arbitrary - it tells the reader from the very outset that a massacre occurred.

These are the definitions of the term "massacre," as a noun:

• The act or an instance of killing a large number of humans indiscriminately and cruelly. (American Heritage Dictionary)
• the savage and excessive killing of many people (WordNet ® 2.0)
• the unnecessary, indiscriminate killing of a number of human beings, as in barbarous warfare or persecution, or for revenge or plunder (Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary)

For the term "massacre" to apply, at least two conditions must be met:

1. The manner of the killings - they have to be "savage," "unnecessary," "indiscriminate," "cruel," or "barbarous."
2. Many people must have been killed

There are, of course, other killings that are heinous without being massacres. Murder would be one of them.

The problem, of course, is that these two criteria rely on subjective judgment. Just what makes a killing cruel, or savage? And what is the threshold for many?

One thing is clear with Deir Yassin: there was a battle, with a number of battle casualties on both sides that clearly do not count toward a massacre. It is also clear that the Irgun and Stern forces deliberately allowed a number of villagers to leave, unharmed. It also seems clear that the total number of Arabs killed is less than 120, and that the majority of these were battle dead, including those non-combatants who were killed in the fog of battle.

I can see that we at Wikipedia should not determine whether the number of dead, and the manner in which they died, qualifies this as a "massacre." But there is no evidence that any of the cited sources goes through the exercise of deciding whether the events pass the threshold of qualifying as a "massacre." They have either accepted the term as common usage, or as a premise for their discussion.

One test would be to find a comparable event - a battle for a village, where the attackers gave advance warning, got engaged in heavy fighting and sustained heavy casualties, and something less than about 60 were killed under disputed circumstances - and see whether this is termed a "massacre."

If you look at other "massacres" in Wikipedia, either the circumstances of the deaths or the numbers is different from this one, and usually both. There have undoubtedly been many cases of battles that went out of control, with tragic consequences, in various wars, but these are not typically called "massacres," even if they involve murder. --Leifern 11:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

It is not up to us to define what a massacre is, but to look what verifiable reliable sources dealing with Deir Yassin have to say about it. What do authors such as Milstein and Morris say about this? -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 12:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

This only works if these authors have explicitly addressed the issue of whether "massacre" is the right term. If they use the term for the sake of convenience or common usage, we are no closer to an answer. What is clear, though, is that an accusation - which the word "massacre" clearly is - needs some level of substantiation before it can be considered NPOV. --Leifern 12:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

So, the questions becomes, what do the verifiable reliable sources dealing with Deir Yassin and whether or not there is a massacre have to say about it. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 13:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

For the term to apply, it should be the term that is most widely applied. Otherwise, "St. Valentines' Day Incident" -- RomaC 02:17, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether there was a massacre or not. The "event" or "incident" is known as the "Deir Yassin massacre" and so the article should have that title. Disputes over the claim that a massacre took place can be explained in an NPOV fashion in the body of the article. To my knowledge, however, there is no serious dispute over the fact that hand grenades were thrown into civilian dwellings, killing tha families within, nor over the fact that around 25 villagers were executed after the fighting ended. --Ian Pitchford 21:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Chapter 16, section 12. The Massacre (page 376 Milstein)

Milstein starts this section with: The story of the Dier-Yassin massacre is now part of the heritage of both Arabs and Jews. Indeed, it cannot be denied: most of those killed at Deir-Yassin were old people, woman and children. Only a modest number were young men classifiable as fighters. This, despite of the resolution adopted at the ETZEL-LEHI command session to vote down a proposal to kill civilians, and despite the calls over the loudspeakers for the Arabs to clear ouyt the village when thye attack began. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 08:33, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Could you convert the article to use a standard reference format, the current format makes the article look worse than it actually is. - FrancisTyers · 15:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I started already. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 15:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Change "References" to "Notes" and "Literature" to "References", put "Notes" above "References", then change the following text in the notes section.

"Sources quoted by author and year only can be find in full above under Literature." -> "Sources quoted by author and year only can be found in full below under References."

I'm not doing it as I don't want to edit the page for content. - FrancisTyers · 15:50, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Kim has completely misquoted Milstein

I am reading Righetous Victims by Benny Morris. On Page 208 of the 2001 version there is a bookmark (#208).

This is what he says about Milstein's analysis of Dier Yassin as Milstein writes in his book p. 273-76. Morris Verbatum.

Milstien quotes at length from most of the massacre and rape reports but casts doubt on their veracity. In general, he denies that there were any "massacres." Families were indeed slaughtered, he says, but mostly during Jewish attacks on Arab villages om the first half of 1948;similiar brutal conquests were carried out by Haganah and Palmach, but Dier Yassin was subsequently 'elevated' by the Yishuv's leadership to the status of a unique massacre and publisized because of the antipathy toward IZL in order to focus blame for various atrocities committed during the war on the IZL and LHI and to divert blame away from the Haganah; he argues. (277-280 milstein) Ben-Gurion andf the left-wing Mapai party deliberately exploited Deir Yassin to prevent the conclusion of a political power sharing agreement with the Revisionists, which was then being debated in Tel Aviv.

So I would like to once again review the name of this article, as two historians disagree on its interpertation and most importantly its content, because now it follows the same horrible pattern denying the IZL-Lehi story.

Guy Montag 22:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

You are wrong to say that Morris says Milstein denied a massacre took place. What Morris said is that Milstein in general denies massacres took place. It does not say that Milstein specifically denies a massacre took place at DY, or that he argues that no massacres took place during the war. Also, Morris states that Milstein argues the Yishuv elevated DY to the status of a unique massacre, the keyword being unique. So again this does not demonstrate a Milstein denial.

But even if you were right that Milstein denies the DY massacre, for which you have provided no definitive evidence, it would still make him very much in the minority of scholars, as the ZOA article itself concedes. Gatoclass 22:58, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I will get the book, so that I can see the analysis for myself. BTW, Morris is quite clear about it in Birth and the article that I have. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 01:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I have requested the book, it is currently lended out. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 01:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Milstein in his study does seem to lower the number of massacres, but also concludes that there were massacres (just a lower number). As for DY, he concludes that the DY massacre has been 'elevated', with purpose to incite the Arabs with fear, so that they would flee. Hence the inflated numbers of the 250 range figures etc. The usage of the massacre for other purposes and the increased numbers that came with that does not imply that there was not a massacre, just that it was smaller than previously thought, which is in line with other researchers. The main source for the reduction in estimates comes from the Bir Zeit University study, who list 107 names. Maybe we have to find that list, add it to Wikisource.

This is what Milstein says during an interview in 1992:

"I maintain that even before the establishment of the State, each battle ended with a massacre. . . [The] War of Independence was the dirtiest of them all . . . The idea behind a massacre is to inflict a shock on the enemy, to paralyze the enemy. In the War of Independence everybody massacred everybody, but most of the action happened between Jews and Palestinians. . . The education in the Yishuv at that time had it that the Arabs would do anything to kill us and therefore we had to massacre them. A substantial part of the Jewish public was convinced that the most cherished wish of say, a nine-year old Arab child, was to exterminate us. This belief bordered on paranoia."

Professor Uri Milstein, quoted in Ha'ir, "Not Only Deir Yassin" 6 May 1992 (article by Guy Erlich, translation Elias Davidsson)

I do not think that Milstein misquotes himself. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 04:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Truce

The version of this morning is ridiculous. The first few paragraphs are now about what the Arab population did to warrant the massacre! Imagine if someone wrote the story of the Holocaust that way! We would all be justly outraged.

It is time to stop this until you can get some help with POV issues. The former article was quite balanced, it seemed to me.

Sorry, I forgot earlier to sign, so am doing so now. Amity150 15:00, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

when will the title be changed ?

there's no basis in saying that this was a massacre. It's clear POV. It was a fight, and the commander of the Israeli unit was killed. Of course when fighters shoot from within civilian houses, people might die. But it's still not a massacre since it all took place during a fight (between armies that is). The title needs to be changed ASAP.

I've addred some other details to make the article a little less biased. Amoruso

At Deir Yassin, it was not exactly a fight between "armies". And it was not part of the Yishuv Nachson operation. But never mind. Most historians and people refer to this as the "Deir Yassin massacre". In a title we can only respect the Npov rule in using the "commonly used expression". Any other title would be push-pushing by comparison with the standard expression. Alithien 08:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

people relate to it as "Deir Yassin massacre" only in the context of the "false proven claim by the arabs.... of it being a massacre". It was a military fight and the facts are all there to see that the arabs made up this story for their own use. If one keeps this title , since it's a common name, then in the introduction one should mention that the name references to the claim and not for the actual event, which its facts are disputed.

as for google scholar, please ian pitchford, do not make false claims or lies. Amoruso 08:44, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Ian Pichford is CERTAINLY NOT a google scholar. At Deir Yassin, all historian agree there were a massacre. EG this one : [28] who is certainly not pro-palestinian biaised. Alithien 20:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

no massacre

It is sad to see that Wikipedia even allows the article to be named "massacre" because there is proof that there was no massacre there! For example

The Arab radio talked of women being killed and raped, but this is not true... I believe that most of those who were killed were among the fighters and the women and children who helped the fighters. The Arab leaders committed a big mistake. By exaggerating the atrocities they thought they would encourage people to fight back harder. Instead they created panic and people ran away.

these are the very words that a survivor said!

more proof:

the words of a top arab journalist to the Jerusalem Report:

'I asked Dr. Khalidi how we should cover the story,' recalled Nusseibeh. 'He said, "We must make the most of this." So we wrote a press release stating that at Deir Yassin children were murdered, pregnant women were raped. All sorts of atrocities.' "

I tried to edit the article for FACT but people kept changing it.

There you go- the proof is there! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaddict (talk • contribs)

Some quotes are not sufficient to refute the extensive research of historians, you have to come up with better evidence. Preferable ones that fullfill WP:V and WP:RS. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 01:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

these quotes brought above by user:Gaddict are cited by historians, and fullfill WP:V and WP:RS as a secondary source atleast. Amoruso 02:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

No, quotemining is a form of original reasoning. What we need is the conclusions of those historians. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 03:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

well actually these quotes brought are already in the article. Amoruso 03:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and the conclusions of the historians that there was indeed a massacre also. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 03:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

That's the conclusion of some historians, while many other believe there wasn't , and they bring some of these citations as evidence. There were attempts to censor these citations by certain editors, attempts that were partially succesful. Amoruso 03:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Than the question becomes, where are those MANY other historians you claim. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 03:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Dan Kurzman, Amos Perlmutter, Bowyer Bell, Uri Milstein, Sharif Kanaana, Nihad Zitawi, Yehoshua Gorodenchik, Shmuel Katz... Amoruso 03:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah right. Milstien, see quote above where is is very explicite about the massacre. Kanaana, see his report on the massacre. Katz, chief propagandist or the IZL, not WP:RS. You have to come with better series. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 03:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're wrong on all 3 accounts. Both milstein and kanaana writings confirm there was no massacre. Katz , a historian cited by google scholar, and highly regarded, is 100% WP:RS . And all the other sources I mentioned are only a fragment who confirm this basic fact of history. Amoruso 03:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

So, you can provide the exact quote and page number of Milstiens book where Milstein concludes that therte was no massacre? Please, provide it to me. And please, indicate whether the pagenumber is based on the Hebrew version or the English translation. Thanks. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 13:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Indeed basically every historian in the world explains that there was no massacre. Of course women etc were killed. But they were killed because they were used in the battle as human shields and so on. I guess there's a disagreement over what a massacre means. Everybody agree that there was a battle. In the course of the battle, since the Arab soldiers shot from within the houses, non combatants or innocent lives died. This is a consensus throughout serious historians. The quotes brought depicting this are in line. Milstein doesn't deny "some aspects", he refutes the whole story. The identity of the dead is not related to the question of a massacre or not. the allegation that a massacre took place concerns the events after battle where there is only the account of Me’ir Pa’il. Not one historian has collaborated this. Milstein writes, on the battle itself, the use of women as human shields, disguising themselves as women and the confusion it caused. Kanaana (and also Nihad Zitawi), "Reinterpreting Deir Yassin," Bir Zeit University, (April 1998) talks about a much smaller number of dead, essentially proving they were killed during the fight since their number only cite 107 Arab civilians dead and 12 wounded, in addition to 13 "fighters," --> calculate the number of "civilians" in each house... for sure, since we have admisson there was fabrication from Khalidy and other leaders, it falls into place (for example the rape claims). In fact, Katz probably has the biggest number of dead of them all so I don't know why he's being attacked :) Generally, the Israeli sources have the bigger numbers. Eventually, the most detailed account of what happened was the BBC research which concluded there was no massacre and most poignantly brought Hazam Nusseibi, who worked for the Palestine Broadcasting Service in 1948, who admitted being told by Hussein Khalidi, a Palestinian Arab leader, to fabricate the atrocity claims. Zero's allegations are blatant lies. Gorodenchik of course denies the fabrication story of a massacre, but says that least some of the women who were killed became targets because of men who tried to disguise themselves as women. That's of course not a massacre. Amoruso 06:00, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your extensive original research. Unless you come with quotes from those historians where they indeed conclude that there was no massacre ,which I have not found in Milstein's book, I think this discussion is pretty clear. There is no discussion about the around 100 civilians, and there is also no discussion about that it were mainly women, children and older people. If you like some others want to redifine massacre as something that happens only after a fight, that is original research as that is not the usuall usages, but the IZL usage of the term. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 14:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Milstein denies some aspects of the usual story, but writes: "in fact, nobody denies: most of the dead in Deir Yassin were old men, women and children, and only a few of them were young men who could be classified as warriors" (The War of Independence Vol. IV, p273; translation by Ami Isseroff [29]). Amoruso is also incorrect to say that Bowyer Bell denies there was a massacre. Not only does he say there was a massacre, but he writes that some of the Irgun/Lehi people "privately admitted that men, women and children had been shot on sight" while denying rape and mutilation (Terror out of Zion, p296). If I recall correctly (?), Torn Country by Reid Banks also records such private admissions. As for Amos Perlmutter, one long article I have claims the opposite: "...Amos Perlmutter's sympathetic biography of Menachem Begin ("The Life and Times of Menahem Begin"). The author, in the chapter on Deir Yassin, which the author concedes was a massacre, cites Gorodenchik's testimony in the Jabotinsky archives as confirming that a massacre-–a general slaughter of Arab civilians—did indeed take place ("Dir Yassin" chapter)." (I can't confirm or deny this.) Then we have Gorodenchik, an Irgun member who was there and so not an independent source. Anyway, his hand-written testimony that still sits in the Jabotinsky Archives in Tel-Aviv says: "We had prisoners, and before the retreat we decided to liquidate them. We also liquidated the wounded, as anyway we could not give them first aid. In one place, about eighty Arab prisoners were killed after some of them had opened fire and killed one of the people who came to give them first aid. Arabs who dressed up as Arab women were also found, and so they started to shoot the women also who did not hurry to the area where the prisoners were concentrated." (Silver, p93) If that's a denial I wonder what an admission would sound like. Finally, Sharif Kanaana and Nihad Zitawi were the authors of the Bir Zeit study on Deir Yassin. Claiming that they deny there was a massacre is a blatant lie. Who is left on Amoruso's list? Ok, Dan Kurzman. His "Genesis 1948" was one of the earliest detailed accounts in English and he sure as hell does describe it as a massacre. Even the ZOA article says that. In summary, Amoruso's list of eight historians who support him crumbles down to one: the Irgun's chief propagandist Shmuel Katz. Enough said. --Zero^talk 05:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Disputed title

If it isn't obvious already...

Some editors have suggested that the title "Deir Yassin massacre" reflects an anti-Israel POV, that the events described in the article do not merit the term "massacre", and propose "Battle of Deir Yassin" as an alternate. Others claim that "Deir Yassin massacre" is a long-accepted term in English for the events in question, that the events do constitute a "massacre", and that changing the term nearly sixty years after the incident is the POV title, not the term under which the article has existed for quite a while.

At least one arbcom case is pending concerning the dispute.

I know rather little about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, so I won't comment on the merits of either name. Consider this an administrative notice, to go along with the {{Disputed title}} tag placed on the article.

Now, if I might make one polite suggestion--it seems to me that the incidents described in this article are part of a larger Battle of Deir Yassin; perhaps the battle as a whole is worthy of an article in addition to this article (whatever title is given this article), rather than being created via a page move? A page move accompanied by a significent rewrite strikes me as similar as an out-of-process deletion coupled with a new article creation--in other words, a questionable maneuver. Of course, that may just leave folks with two articles to argue about.  :) Please note that this suggestion does not imply an endorsement of any particular article version whose subject is the Battle of Deir Yassin, just that the battle as a whole might be a useful separate topic.

--EngineerScotty 04:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Surely WP:NOR applies? This event is known as the "Deir Yassin massacre" and it was promoted as a masascre by its perpetrators at the time. It doesn't matter whether Wikipedia editors think it should be called something else. --Ian Pitchford 07:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

It can hardly be "anti-Israeli" to call it a massacre since the Zionist mainsteam called it a massacre right from the beginning and still do. It is only the Irgun and its ideological descendants that don't like it. --Zero^talk 10:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Again, I'm merely summarizing the dispute. I take no side in this instance (or rather, I'm abstaining from the debate); the above should not be taken as an attempt to legitimize or disparage either POV. --EngineerScotty 15:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

'Deir Yassin massacre' is fine with me. However, I also expect '1929 Palestine riots' to be called such and not to be called an 'incident'. If the community votes to turn the 1929 happenings into an 'incident', I will turn this page into 'Deir Yassin incident' also. --Daniel575 | (talk) 17:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

And the Glen Coe Incident.Gleng 14:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

In almost every single account of history the incident is called the Deir Yassin massacre, and the killing of 100-120 civilians definatley merits the title. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia which gives information on events that have occured, and since this is an event that definatley occured and the widely accepted name for it is the Deir Yassin massacre, the name should not be changed --Amjra 01:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Take care 100-120 is the total number of victims. Not the number of people massacred. Alithien 19:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

"Deir Yassin Massacre" article seeks to give respectability to an atrocity

This article (or the lead to it, anyway) comes across as thoroughly POV, a bitterly defended cover-up of an atrocity.

1. 1st sentence: "during and after a battle at the village of Deir Yassin". "Battle" suggests there was "Palestinian action" in Deir Yassin, perhaps by a "village militia". There was none of this, they'd organised to post (unarmed?) guards against other Arabs, nothing more. The menfolk who defended their homes were acting individually and defensively (when they didn't run away). (See Wikipedia definition: "Generally, a battle is an instance of combat in warfare between two or more parties wherein each group will seek to defeat the others").
2. 1st sentence: "alleged to have been mainly old people, women and children". Unless there'd been the massing of fighters, and there clearly wasn't, then old people, women and children were bound to be the majority. There simply isn't any dispute here to be justified, the article apparently seeks to invent it.
3. 2nd sentence: "This occurred during a period of increasing local Arab-Jewish fighting about one month prior to the regional outbreak". This implies that the area was tense, it was not. Deir Yassin was friendly and peaceful (don't recall any credible dispute about this remaining) and was attacked because of that fact (at least according to Meir Pail [30]).
4. 4th sentence: "The circumstances, nature, evaluation, and scope of the Deir Yassin incident remain a source of discussion and debate decades later". The encyclopedia wouldn't make statements like this about any other massacres (even when they're less well documented than this one). This statement looks like an attempt to muddy the water and give comfort to those who would "defend" this massacre.

And it goes on (the body of the article may be somewhat better).

I'd suggest that the lead should:

1. Replace "battle" with "attack".
2. Replace "alleged to have been mainly old ..." with "largely the old ....".
3. Replace the words "local Arab-Jewish fighting" with "Arab-Jewish polarisation and attacks".
4. Replace "remain a source of discussion and debate" with "some sources still seek to debate".
5. Take out alternative spelling clutter (though they'd be useful somewhere at the end).

PalestineRemembered 10:51, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Oppose attempt to make the article even more POV from the Arabic fable story. Amoruso 15:40, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I concur with Amoruso as regards content. "some sources still seek to debate": you'd have to prove that historical discussion is over and evaluation agreed upon. --tickle me 08:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure I can provide adequate justification from most significant Israeli historians (alone, leaving aside any others in the world) that Deir Yassin was indeed an atrocity. It's barely even necessary to say "some sources still seek to debate". (Leaving aside Amoruso's favourite, Shmuel Katz, a violent militant and professional propagandist).

And how about my other points - clearly, this was not a battle in the regular meaning of the word, equally clearly more than 50% of those killed were non-combatants, nothing alleged about it.

The first sentence of the first section speaks of an "incident". The article urgently needs stripping of these POV (and in some cases like this, deeply offensive) items.

Oh, look, here's what Meir Pail says [31] - you're not still going to deny it was mostly women, children and the old, are you?

"Most of the houses there are one-story, though there are a few two story houses like the Mukhtar's house and a few others. In the corners we saw dead bodies. Almost all the dead were old people, children or women, with a few men here and there. They stood them up in the corners and shot them. In another corner there were some more bodies, in the next house more bodies and so on. They also shot people running from houses, and prisoners. Mostly women and children. Most of the Arab males had run away. It is an odd thing, but when there is danger such as this, the agile ones run away first.

Here is Haganah operations officer Eliyahu Arbel inspected the town on the Saturday:

"I have seen a great deal of war," he related 24 years later, "but I never saw a sight like Deir Yassin," largely comprised of "the bodies of women and children, who were murdered in cold blood."

You're not still going to claim that "alleged to have been mainly old people, women and children" is anything other than disgusting denial, are you?

PalestineRemembered 18:53, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

PalestineRemembered - I mean this advice sincerely. You have to stop believing that your interpretation of history is the only correct one. If you compare both the Irgun and Bir Zeit versions, you'll see that they agree in all major respects, especially in that it started with a battle. --Leifern 01:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how it can be a battle if an armed group approach/attack a village, and are met with nothing more than individuals protecting their homes. To have a battle you need two "opposing forces".

Furthermore, in cases like this, decency demands that we accept the word of the victims. Unless there is strong evidence that the victims were being duplicitous in some way - and I'm not aware of there being even a mild suspicion against them. Despite being firmly in the area set aside for Arab control, this particular town was falling over backwards to collaborate with the Yishuv.

Meir Pail's account is entirely consistent with everything else we think we know. This village was not attacked because it was threatening, quite the opposite, it was attacked because it was peaceful, friendly, and thought to be easy to knock over. Irgun and Lehi took several fatalities - but the Palmach presently swept through and wiped out all resistance with no injuries to their own. We don't know who they'd practised on, but by the time of Deir Yassin, they were quite skilled.

PalestineRemembered 22:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Though Meir Pail's acount is arguably relevant, as far as I can tell, ariga.com is a private website, thus it doesn't qualify as source. At the moment, the article infers (WP:OR) from Pail's acount. --tickle me 11:04, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

You are quite right, one man's personal account on a web-page is not normally worthy of WP standards. In fact, I'm not sure why I introduced it. Here is the military historian Uri Milstein: "in fact, nobody denies: most of the dead in Deir Yassin were old men, women and children, and only a few of them were young men who could be classified as warriors" (The War of Independence Vol. IV, p273; translation by Ami Isseroff

However, this piece of (pretty blatant) denial was only what I could see in the first sentence of the first paragraph of this article. I'm sure it's all been much argued over already, but the article has been left in a state that looks to me completely unfit.

PalestineRemembered 22:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Replacing "Attack" with "Battle" looks like an edit against the content of the article

You've changed "The Irgun and Lehi discuss the planned attack on the village with the Haganah, but don't intend a massacre" to "Battle Plans"

And "The village discovers it is under attack when a guard gives a warning at 4.45am" to "The battle"

(Then labelled your changes "verbose title->shorter version", which hardly covers the case).

Would you care to justify the apparent contention of your edits that there were "two forces" at Deir Yassin?

PalestineRemembered 19:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Your edits which changed the exiting "battle plans" and "battle" to the verbose, unencyclopedic title seem like a POV attempt to avoid recognizing that there was indeed a battle there, which preceded the massacre. Read the article, as well as other well documented sources that point out there was a battle- the attacking Jewish forces suffered casualties, there were armed defenders in the village, which would seem to show that there were "two forces" at Deir yassin. The article states, for example, quoting Me'ir Pa'il that "Villager fire inflicted heavy casualties and drove off the Irgun". It further cites Reuven Greenberg saying 'Intense Arab firepower caused the fighters' advance into Deir Yassin to be very slow" . seems like a battle between two forces to me. Isarig 19:41, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Looks like classic WP:OR to me. There is no indication anywhere of there being any "Force" within Deir Yassin, and strong indication that the village refused to house any Arab soldiers. There were few amongst the dead who even might have been soldiers.

Perhaps you could explain to me why known terrorists such as Menachem Begin sought to lie about and minimise the evil and horror of this unprovoked attack on friendly people.

PalestineRemembered 21:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be under the impression that a "battle" can only take place between forces belonging to a formal armies. That is not the case. The fact that the villagers were armed and, according to witnesses, inflicted heavy casualties and drove off the Irgun fighters, is more enough evidence to support the claim that a battle did in fact take place. Virtually all of the battles in the civil war that raged in the Mandate area from November 1947 until the invasion by the regular forces of the neighboring Arab countries in MAy 1948 took place between irregualr forces. That is not to say that a massacre did not follow the battle, but denying that there was a battle first seems to fly in the face of evidence. Isarig 17:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm going by the regular meaning of the word (and the WP - see Battle). "Generally, a battle is an instance of combat in warfare between two or more parties wherein each group will seek to defeat the others ...... Wars and campaigns are guided by strategy whereas battles are the stage on which tactics are employed."

A sneak attack of this kind on a village we are pretty sure wasn't garrisoned (in fact, had refused a garrison) cannot be described as a "battle". This is not one force surprising another at 5.00am, it's an attack by "soldiers" on people's homes. People surprised in their homes and beds don't "employ a tactic", there is no such thing in self-defence.

Under such circumstances, use of the word "battle" does not belong. The first stages of this event were "an attack" (a completely unprovoked attack at that - the villagers of Deir Yassin had done nothing whatsoever to be treated in this fashion).

PalestineRemembered 19:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

' a battle is an instance of combat in warfare between two or more parties ' - this is preciesly what happened here. One party are the Etzel forces, the other party is the irregular, armed combatants in the village. It is not required that they belong to an organized army. They were armed, and inflicted heavy casualties on the attckers- clearly a battle took place. Isarig 20:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Many of the combatants were also Iraqi and Syrian soldiers making them not irregular. Amoruso 23:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

It seems the revisionism will go on. There must be a few occasions in the history of the world when a force attacked an ally, or "protected citizens", and people remember it as a battle. But I can't immediately think of any, and this plainly isn't one.

Nor is it seriously suggested by anyone other than the attackers that there were any Arab soldiers there. Milstein refers to a claim that one soldier was there, all witnesses agree only a few young men were killed.

PalestineRemembered 07:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Historical fact

There is no doubt that Deir Yassin served as a post for gunning down Jews in the Jerusalem Tel Aviv Road in a 3km line. The newspaper "Davar" from April 4th brought a detailed account of shooting from the village towards the neighborhoods of Beit Hakerem and Bait Vagan. As there is no doubt that the place was a grave danger since Iraqi soldiers were brought in as well as the fact that among the bodies were Iraqi and Syrian soldiers from actual units. Also there is no doubt that there was no massacre but a battle - there were a myriad of arms on the site. Also no doubt of the use of grenades and automatic weapons by the Arab forces. As there is no doubt of the hoax of the stories of abuse of the bodies after the thorough detail reports on the 12th april in the site. Honestly, it's very disturbing that wikipedia users allow the use of a proven hoax and try to censor the fact this was a sound military target. Amoruso 11:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Yawn. --Zero^talk 11:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

There seems no limit to the revisionism that some people wish to put into this article. Here's one account of the aftermath of this "proven hoax" [32] "...... Meanwhile a crowd of people from Givat Shaul, with peyot {earlocks}, most of them religious, came into the village and started yelling 'gazlanim' 'rozchim' - (thieves, murderers) "we had an agreement with this village. It was quiet. Why are you murdering them?" They were Chareidi (ultra-orthodox) Jews. This is one of the nicest things I can say about Hareidi Jews. These people from Givat Shaul gradually approached and entered the village, and the Lehi and Irgun people had no choice, they had to stop. It was about 2:00 or 3:00 PM. Then the Lehi and Irgun gathered about 250 people, most of them women, children and elderly people in a school house. Later the building became a "Beit Habad" - "Habad House.' They were debating what to do with them. There was a great deal of yelling. The dissidents were yelling 'Let's blow up the schoolhouse with everyone in it' and the Givat Shaul people were yelling "thieves and murderers - don't do it" and so on."

Needless to say, there are a number of other very well attested accounts of what the attackers did to villagers surprised in their beds.

PalestineRemembered 20:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

It should be called "Deir Yassin attack". 1) Investigative groups came in and did not find evidence of a massacre, 2) The incident was highly exaggerated and used as propaganda on both sides, 3) Iraqi and Arab soldiers were in the village, 4) Many of the women were combatants, 4) It had occured during the Arab attack on Israel and siege of Jerusalem, making it more of a battle. --Shamir1 18:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

We should call it how the consensus of scholarship calls it. A massacre. --Zero^talk 04:05, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

You mean the consensus of Palestinian propoganda sites like "Palestineremebered". All scholars agree that it was a battle. Meir Pail wasn't even there. Amoruso 12:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Scholars (we can exclude Katz from this category, for reasons that are pretty obvious) agree it was a massacre.

One scholar (Milstein) claims that there is no verifiable evidence that Meir Pa'il was there on the morning of the massacre and there is no independent verification of his meeting with Palmach commander Yaki Weg (killed later) and Moshe Wachmann (though the latter was still alive when Pail first published his account). This meeting occured (according to Pail) after the Palmach had pacified the more difficult, western part of the village in about 15 minutes. Pail outranked Yaki Weg, thanked him for what he'd done and asked him to leave. For the rest of his life he blamed himself for what happened after these regular (though unofficial) forces left. Earlier, he'd been along to spy on the irregulars and photograph what they did. He was hiding in a disused house on the eastern edge of the village while the irregular's unsuccessful assault on householders was going on.

Other statements made here ("no independent evidence of massacre" and "Deir Yassin served as a post for gunning down Jews in the Jerusalem Tel Aviv Road", "myriad of arms on the site") are completely unworthy.

PalestineRemembered 22:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

These are Palestinian lies. The testimonies of Arab residents themselve of Deir Yassin prove that there was no massacre. I don't know of any unbiased historian who claims that this battle was even remotely close to a massacre. Amoruso 23:01, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

The shooting incidents Appear not only in Davar but also in the Palestine Post. for example some I saw :

1947 Dec 29 : shooting on givat shaul from Deir Yassin 1948 Jan 13 : it says that the Arabs in the place refused to allow arab gangs to shoot from there that sunday night which proves it was potentially used. obviously these refs should be added. of course the palestine post account of the battle also tells of the warning given by etzel, of the vast amount of arms found and the tough battle. Amoruso 23:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm a bit surprised to see you claim that Meir Pa'ils words are "Palestinian lies".

I see nothing from you to justify the statements that have been made, that Deir Yassin overlooked the road. I see nothing from any serious historian disputing there was a massacre.

And independent witnesses looked over the village, seeing nothing of what you claim about arms and soldiers and quantities of weapons. I know of nothing to indicate anything like what you claim.

PalestineRemembered 09:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

You can read the article, the version before too, there are many Arab testimonies who agree that there was no massacre - there's unquestioned evidence that shows exactly that this was a hoax and why there was a hoax. There's also no question about the arms and the existence of the Iraqi soldiers. Amoruso 10:53, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

There are people who rubbish many proven examples of mass murder carried out by violent racists - regular folk have a word for this practise, and names for the people who do it.

PalestineRemembered 17:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

It's denial of something that didn't happen, it's true. Anyway, Arab propaganda has a long history with these fables, it's part of a whole ideology, it's not surprising. You're just a version of Baghdad Bob. Amoruso 18:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC) Amoruso 17:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

This exchange is veering toward PA territory. Let's be civil --Rrburke^(talk) 00:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Israelis claim

The involved Israelis claim that this was a harsh battle, a statment that is not refuted by many sources (if not most of them). I don't see how a "some israelis don't" is a good reasoning to expunge the well sourced notes from the intro. Jaakobou 01:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The involved Israelis (who, according to Pail) attacked the village because it was easy and nearly defenseless are hardly WP:RS. They have provably lied about the place, describing it as overlooking the road.

Meanwhile, Israeli historians (all of them, as far as I'm aware, plus others) call the event a massacre. The definition of a battle usually refer to "two forces". Other than unproven and unlikely claims of the presence of Iraqi soldiers, there is no indication of the defenders being anything other than householders (and poorly prepared ones at that).

This discussion about "battle vs massacre" has gone round and round in talk, always with the same result, it was most certainly a massacre. PalestineRemembered 06:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

User:PalestineRemembered,

1. I don't see why the testimony of the villagers of a location that has shot at nearby Jewish convoys (and denied it), creating a long term blockade on Jerusalem, is any more valid than the testimony of the Israeli forces.
2. For example, I think Talal Abu Rahmeh from the infamous Muhammad al-Durrah libel is lying through his teeth on more than one occassion - but, we do state his testimonies on the al-Durrah article.
3. Claiming: "They have probably lied about the place" and also claiming that "all the Israeli historians call it a massacre" is a mistake - I present as counter, the Israeli article about it which is named "Deir Yassin Affair" (other names such as battle and massacre are presented as depending on POV).^[[33]]
4. No offense, but just yesterday sombody told me about the "Holocaust" of israelis on palestinians. i.e. a comparisment between systematic killing 6,000,000 non combatant contributing members of society based on geneology and between maybe 30,000 Arab deaths during more than 8+ large scale wars, most of them declared by the Arabs on the Jews in which many Jews died also. A more than crude comparisment.

what i'm saying is that in this war/conflict the Arab/Palestinian side had (and still has) a penchant for exaggerations - which is sort of valid as a war tactic, but not for an encyclopedia. Jaakobou 08:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I was under the impression that no serious historian anywhere (even from Israel) still disputed this was a massacre. Thank you for apparently demonstrating that the best alternative evidence is another Wikipedia article (not acceptable as a reference) in a language other than English (not acceptable as a reference). PalestineRemembered

actually, (1) other languages are allowed when a better source cannot be found. (2) that source is the official etzel website. it is as POV as the the palestinian "nakbainhebrew" one that i've added.. if not less. (3) just as in the Battle of Jenin article, both views are allowed to be presented. (4) i'm not very appreciateive of the undertones in your reply that act as though i'm some type of history revisionist. I'm not. Jaakobou 19:19, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Reliability issues?

Is there a problem with the http://www.etzel.org.il that makes it not acceptable to wikipedia? -- Avi 22:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that whatever's in the Etzel website is what "the Israelis claim". The Etzel's POV is hardly representative of Israel. Perhaps you could rephrase, to clarify that it is the Etzel's POV you are quoting?--Doron 22:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is just my point. Thanks Doron.

I initially tried some alternatives to "the Israelis" but the more I looked at the paragraph, the more it looked redundant. What is the point of informing the reader that the perpetrators deny the massacre? Of course they do, perpetrators always do. But that hardly makes for a controversy. In any case, the controversy such as it is is canvassed later in the article. Gatoclass 08:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

samples and reasoning for "the israelis"

1) i'll give a counter sample of "perpetrators" getting more respect for their version - the noted Muhammad al-Durrah incident "perpetrated" by Talal Abu Rachmeh.

2) i used many refrences besides the etzel for "the israelis" statement - here are a few of them:

(2) the battle described on hebrew wiki

• some info about diwhere attacks started and locations and equipment used.
• "before the start of the battle the etzel and lehi gave up on the surprize element and notified the villagers about the intended attack so that women and children will have enough time to escape from the village, by that the forces tried to prevent an injury to residents of the village."
• "The battle started before the intended time because the Etzel forces' location was revealed by the village guards."
• "despite the purpouse of the operation was to capture the village and evict the population (e.g. since israel claim it was being used to attack convoys and it was a stratecig location to break the seige on jerusalem), matters turned into a battle, in which many of the villagers were killed, including women and children.
• Ezra Yakhin (elkanam) of the Lehi, who participated in the fighting, says: "at the beggining of the battle the women of the village joined the men who were also masking themselves as women, which gave a difficulty at seperating the fighting population with those who are not fighters"

more from that page:

• "current researches no longer raise the allegations of abuse, rape, or blowing up houses with the residents inside."

(3) historion writes serious book about it with documentation

this i only now found - ... the historian is israeli.

(4) Da'at encyclopedia

• "on 2.4.48 deir yassin people started sniping at the jewish neighbourhoods at Beit-Hakerem and Yafeh-Nof" (unlike the residents' testimony.. maybe they were "perpetrators" also?).
• "testimonials of the Haganda information tell of fortifications built at the village and of a lot of weapon's storaging."
• "several days before the attack, information was telling of presence of foreign fighters at the village, among them Iraqi soldiers and gang men."
• this article also mentions the beir zeit university and stated that the university's own research says that: "the bir zeit univ. report tells that the men at deir yassin took an active part in the violence against jewish targets and that many of the villagers particiapted at the battle of the kastel alongside abd-al-kader al-husseini." <- i think we should find the original bir zeit research to check this one.
• this article has so much information.. that it's too much to translate.. but there's definately validity, "even if it's the israeli pov", to it's report.

Sounds like pure revisionism. There are no serious historians who make these claims. In fact the village repelled attempts by gangs to station there and once even had a firefight that killed one of the gang members. On another occasion there was shooting from Deir Yassin towards Givat Shaul and the village elders went to Givat Shaul to apologise. On a third occasion, shots from the direction of Beth Hakerem injured a resident of Deir Yassin. These are a sample of things easily found in the contemporary Palestine Post (see the online archive). Sources that omit important facts should be classified as unreliable. That goes for sources on both sides of the argument. We should resist the temptation to fill up this article with claims from substandard sources; otherwise it will become impossible to know what it is that real historians believe. The article already avoids many detailed Arab sources on this topic for that reason. --Zero^talk 10:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

(5) another heavily detailed link

now i'm not going to revert back yet - but i think the reversion was somewhat out of order. Jaakobou 10:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

First, let me commend you for not starting (or continuing) an edit war, which is far too common in these articles. We can work out this issue better by discussing it without disrupting the article itself in the meantime. Now the problem with the reverted version, as I see it, is that the view of the Irgun was represented as the view of "the Israelis", which is far from correct. We should work out a phrasing that either makes it clear that the presented view is of the Irgun, or find a more representative description and reference of the "Israeli" view, if there is such a thing (since there's controversy even among Israelis on how the events should be viewed).--Doron 10:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Doron, my edit may have been a tad hidden - so i reedited the layout some so i hope it's more legible now. Jaakobou 11:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Your refs are all very interesting I'm sure Jaakobou, but they don't address the issue, which is that it's inaccurate to say "the Israelis" deny a massacre. The fact is, many Israelis and Israeli groups affirm that a massacre took place. Even at the time, The Zionist leadership denounced the massacre. So you can't truthfully claim that "the Israelis" deny a massacre, because they don't. You will at the very least need to be more specific about who denies a massacre took place. But even then I'm not sure the paragraph is serving any purpose, since the information in it is repeated several times in the article already. Gatoclass 12:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

(1) allow me to start with this one: "Even at the time, The Zionist leadership denounced the massacre." - Israel has a history of first saying sorry and later making a full investigation - to add to this, at the time, there was no real intention at letting the arabs think that jews are cute and nice people - to remind you, jerusalem was under seige and convoys were being shot at repeatedly. both sides were involved in spreading that 250+ died. this does not negate the current general belief to the event which is very controvercial.

(2) there's allways been israeli counter opinions - that's what's so great in democracy - however, they do not constitude "the israelis" the same way that people like "walid shoebat" does not constitude "the palestinians" - if it's a matter of semantics, than i suggest we say "the villager palestinians" and "the etzel and some isareli historions" or something close... personally, i preffer my previous phrasing.

(3) i'd be happy to hear who are these many israelis - prefferably with serious links their conducted research method and accounts of the battle - to validate that they are not groups with mainly arab-israeli supporters. Jaakobou 12:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Ongoing debate

this does not negate the current general belief to the event which is very controvercial...i'd be happy to hear who are these many israelis - prefferably with serious links their conducted research method and accounts of the battle

I'm afraid you're just plain wrong that the massacre "is very controversial" - it isn't. This is not a new conversation on this page. I think it was the ZOA, in a denialist article, conceded that academics overwhelmingly support the position that a massacre took place - to the tune of something like 95%. When you have 95% of reliable sources lining up on one side of the fence, you can hardly describe the issue as controversial - on the contrary, what you have is an overwhelming consensus. So according to Wiki guidelines, this article should really only devote a mere 5% or so of its content to the denialist position. Gatoclass 14:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Gatoclass, the term "massacre" is controvercial according to my observation into sources - it you have proper sourcing to back the 95% claim, i'd be happy to look into it. btw, the word "denialist" is inapropriate to our discussion - me personally, i'm not denying that 100+ arabs died.. but you'll forgive me if i don't automatically buy the 95% and the mutilation and the 250+ claims.. esp. considering the videos i've witnessed up to now (see the CNN trasncripts link above). i'm not trying to hassle you, but some linking would be good for the discussion. Jaakobou 16:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

but you'll forgive me if i don't automatically buy the 95%

Okay, I found the study in question. In 1998 the ZOA published an extensive denialist piece entitled "Deir Yassin: History of a Lie" which is reproduced in full here.[34]

Although it was a denialist piece, the author himself conceded that academia overwhelmingly supported the view that a massacre took place, I quote: "A total of 170 English-language history books which refer to the battle of Deir Yassin were analyzed for this study. Only 8 of the 170 raised serious doubts as to whether or not there had been a massacre."

You can do the math yourself, but 8/170 = 4.7%. That is, 95.3% of academic sources reviewed for the article accepted that a massacre took place. That, by any measure, is an overwhelming consensus, and demonstrates just how marginal the anti-massacre position is. Gatoclass 06:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

i'm sorry, i know you worked hard to find that blog, but i don't consider blogs who infringe copyright as valid sources - who knows what they added and what they neglected to promote their agenda, who knows if it's a true production of the original.. and who knows how valid the original is. i've managed to see some reasonably valid blogs, but one that is called "deir yassin remembered" would not make the cut. Jaakobou 11:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Denial is not a very attractive trait when everyone in the world knows that a massacre was carried out. It's not even as if there are (modern) Israeli historians disputing it. PalestineRemembered 18:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I've seen the original on the ZOA's website, which unfortunately has been removed now. But the one on the DY page is an exact copy. I know because there was an RfA over this page about a year ago and both documents were carefully examined at the time and used as evidence against an editor who had plagiarized from them and from other sites.

And it's nonsense to claim the website isn't kosher. It includes former US congressmen Paul Findley and Israeli historian Ilan Pappe as board members. Gatoclass 18:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

You must realise that those board-members would only strengthen the point in the view of those disagreeing with you :-) I do believe that we should reference the current state of academic consensus (and if you can provide the RfA links certifying this page, or make the case from elsewhere, that would be helpful). However we must do so in a wording sensitive to the problems with the standard position, along the lines of the Bir Zeit study disproving details like the standard body-count. Tewfik^Talk 03:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Israeli "Historian" "Tantura bluff massacre" Ilan Pappe will surely be one of the propagandists of this bluff, obviously Meir P'ail too. Both have been proven as liars. You need to understand that other than antisemites or Meir P'ail who hated the Irgun so much he would kill them himself, there's no evidence to support the myth. Amoruso 03:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The article already outlines "the problems with the standard position". If anything they are overrepresented given that the dissenters only represent about 5% of academia if that. But that's not the issue here. The issue is that the intro should not be presenting both sides of the debate as if they have equal validity. When 95% of academics support the standard position, that's an overwhelming consensus and to give equal weight in the intro to the tiny minority of dissenters is completely unacceptable and a total violation of WP:UNDUE in my view. Gatoclass 07:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

any "95% percent" intro, would be WP:UNDUE and seriously POV in my view. the issue is not under concensus, and considering every researcher presents his personal bias, the current intro - "the Deir Yassin incident remain a source of controversy and debate decades later as the incident has been described as either harsh fighting in a fortified village which resulted in the need for the use of grenades or that the village did not allow for a military force to take position and that a massacre of innocent civillians had occured." - is most fitting for an encyclopedia that does not push the narrative of one side over the other. Jaakobou 12:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

First of all, you don't appear to understand WP:UNDUE. It clearly says that views should be represented in proportion to their representation amongst experts in the field. In other words, if 95% of experts agree on something, then the article should reflect that by giving 95% of the content over to the majority view.

As it happens, I believe this article as a whole already has far more than 5% given over to the minority view. But that is not the immediate issue. The immediate issue is the sentence in question. Your edit plainly breaches UNDUE because it gives equal representation to each side of the argument, when one side of this supposed "controversy and debate" has a mere 5% support. Gatoclass 15:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

i think you give undue weight to one source and that the intro is well within explaining that there's serious studies (i'm not going into the ridiculous 5% claims again) with differnt views on the subject. sadly, we cannot give heavy weight into each study and explain why it's more valid or less valid - however, i've double checked the issue, and i see no reason in giving it more than the "massacre" title (unmatched by the israeli wiki) to present the main narrative... which is indeed, just as the intro states, heatly debateable. Jaakobou 18:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The edit war have been triggered because of the apologetic nature of the passage that downplays the "massacre" concensus and alleges that it was "fightings". I propose a change of tone on the "vast contreversy" line. It should satisfy everyone. Lixy 20:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no downplaying of "massacre". No historian today believes there was a massacre. Uri Milstein had the most extensive research and the this whole event is now known to have been a lie. The only contradicting source is this Deir Yassin site remembered. I don't see why Wikipedia should carbon copy that website and perpetuate this myth. It's quite unbelievable. Amoruso 22:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense. Even accounts by Israeli eye-witnesses talk about a massacre. The Wiki shouldn't copy anything blindly. Rather, a thorough fact-checking process is needed before relaying whatever new info pops up. Anyway, the passage we're discussing here claims that there's extensive contreversy. By any standard, it should be apparent that the contreversy is merely revisionism that represents the POV of a tiny minority among scholars. Lixy 23:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

No, what you just said is nonsense. The lies concerning a massacre were exposed later on. Meir Pail wasn't even there, and some tried to exploit this in the scope of internal israeli politics (the Haganah and later Mapai wanted to defame Etzel and Lehi). As it turned out, Milstein exposed that there was nothing that resembled a massacre, and the case really was closed by then academically speaking. What the intro really should say: "There were widely-spread claims that the battle included a massacre of innocent civilians. These claims were later all refuted by historians and is known today to have been a lie (See: Blood libel). However, many in the political spectrum persist in spreading this lie." Amoruso 00:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no downplaying of "massacre". No historian today believes there was a massacre. Uri Milstein had the most extensive research and the this whole event is now known to have been a lie - Amuroso

That is complete and utter nonsense. I have three books sitting here in front of me from Israeli historians who affirm that a massacre took place. As I've pointed out in the article, even ZOA President Morton Klein in his denialist piece had to concede that he could find only 8 out of 170 history books which "raised serious doubts" about the massacre.

You are even wrong in Milstein's case. He has never denied a massacre took place. At most, he has raised some doubts about it. But in fact in an interview he gave in 1992, he had this to say, I quote:

"I maintain that even before the establishment of the State, each battle ended with a massacre. . . [The] War of Independence was the dirtiest of them all . . . The idea behind a massacre is to inflict a shock on the enemy, to paralyze the enemy. In the War of Independence everybody massacred everybody, but most of the action happened between Jews and Palestinians. . .Professor Uri Milstein, quoted in Ha'ir, "Not Only Deir Yassin" 6 May 1992 (article by Guy Erlich, translation Elias Davidsson)

In other words, your claims about this matter are demonstrably untrue and totally indefensible. Gatoclass 02:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Why do you insist to spread this ignorance I wonder ? You have no idea who Uri Milstein is right ? I see you never really read what he wrote, but just googled this interview - that's actually pathetic. Milstein says in that interview that the Palmach/Haganah who helped invent this myth for political reasons actually were involved in some massacres - but Deir Yassin wasn't one of them ! - that's what you just took out of context.... In fact, Milstein wrote about Deir Yassin first in 1991 and then he thought there was actually a massacre because that was the 'official story'. He then found out it was lie, interviewed more than 50 witnesses and debunked the whole issue. He says there were 100 dead as a result of a battle period - nothing more nothing less. Here's an interview with him explaining this, in Hebrew [35]. Now he debunks all the prior studies which are lies, and are prior to Milstein - all of them. He had the final word on this and no one disputes it anymore. What you have is based either on old lies or on Meir P'ail. Nothing of it is academic. Article should be based on Milstein exposing the truth and not distorting what he said. He explicity says, quote: "They were killed in battle. As in Homat Magen in Jenin. Then they also tried to invent myths that there was a massacre. When fighting in a constructed area, it includes grenades and house blowing, and people were killed, including women and children fortifying in the houses. Also all the testimonies of the Arabs relate to shootings from the houses. War is not nice, killed people is terrible, and many go into shock. It doesn't mean there was a massacre". This obviously goes into the introduction once article is unlocked to clarify Milstein's position and to prevent lies or ignorance like above. Amoruso 02:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't read Hebrew and you'll pardon me if I exercise a degree of scepticism over the accuracy of your translation, given your patently false statement above that "no historian today believes there was a massacre".

But in any case, it's immaterial. Even if Milstein does deny a massacre took place, that is one source out of the 170 reviewed by the ZOA. It is still a massive breach of WP:UNDUE to behave as though Milstein's alleged denial deserves equal billing with the majority viewpoint which overwhelmingly endorses the massacre claim. Gatoclass 03:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Btw, this 8 out of 170 or whatever sentence is just a stupid lie by this stupid site deiryassinremembered. I can't believe you actually thought of using that moronic site in the article as a source. Amoruso 02:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't like that source? Fine, here's the exact same article on the ZOA's own website from web archives[36] Gatoclass 03:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

You don't have to trust as you already proved you don't know even know who Uri Milstein is and quoted him off context. His extensive research from 1991 and continuing to talk about implications of it till this day is the most accurate and through historical academic account. I repeat since you didn't understand - there is no historian who disputes it. None. You didn't provide any historians to counter this claim. Now this is hilarious, you're actually referring to this (?) LOL :) :

"A total of 170 English-language history books which refer to the battle of Deir Yassin were analyzed for this study. Only 8 of the 170 raised serious doubts as to whether or not there had been a massacre. Of the 162 books which stated definitively that a massacre had occurred, 94 of them --58%-- gave no source whatsoever for their accusation, and an additional 38 -- 23.4%-- cited only secondary sources for the massacre claim. In other words, a total of 81.4% of the authors claiming a massacre did so without undertaking any original research to substantiate their claim" ...

• (1) What the author means is text books for history study... not "Historical studies" - meaning it's like blogs or websites. LOL.
• (2) If he claims it to be true, it means anything ?
• (3) Did you actually read the whole passage ? :)

Seriously, there is no academic study to refute what Milstein proved. This is the main point. Therefore, article should state the fact there was no massacre, it's that simple. Amoruso 03:16, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I repeat since you didn't understand - there is no historian who disputes it. None

I have four books dealing with the massacre here, published respectively in 1996, 2001, 2001 and 2003, by Sachar, Morris, Shlaim and Finkelstein. All of them endorsing the massacre claim. The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate they have changed their minds since then.

"In other words, a total of 81.4% of the authors claiming a massacre did so without undertaking any original research to substantiate their claim"

Yes, I read the entire ZOA article, and I am quite aware of the ZOA's position. The ZOA's claim that 81% "did no original research" is nothing more than an unsubstantiated assertion. In other words, it's worthless.

What the author means is text books for history study... not "Historical studies" - meaning it's like blogs or websites

More unsubstantiated assertions. The ZOA article said history books, not "blogs or websites". You are clutching at straws. Gatoclass 03:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The burden is on you to actually quote what they say, and to say what evidence they have that there was a massacre. Shlaim is of course more rubbish than Pappe and is meaningless, but Morris even in the article doesn't say there was a massacre, and I'm not familar with these other claims of yours. Again, Milstein has provided such extensive research that it's undeniable today. They might claim there was a "massacre" in the sense ARMED women and children were killed or women and children from houses FIRING ONTO THE SOLDIERS. That's NOT a massacre. Milstein doesn't deny that, but it's not a massacre in any way. As for ZoA, you must be joking really.... that's unsubstantiated assertion of him but his counting of the books is somehow substantiated? You say he claims it's history books, and you base yourself on that ? Just let it go, you're being very silly and you're contradicting yourself - you're actually arguing now for a partial use of the quote based on the assumption that there are history books which you never have seen and even though they're totally unreliable and rubbish it proves that the massacre took place - RIGHT.... Amoruso 04:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The burden is on you to actually quote what they say - Amuroso.

"The most savage of these reprisal actions took place on April 9, 1948 in the village of Deir Yassin...men, women and children were slain, their bodies afterward mutilated and thrown into a well. Although the deed was immediately repudiated by the Haganah command, then by the Jewish Agency...the consequences of the massacre were far-reaching." - Howard M Sachar, A History of Israel from the rise of Zionism to our time, 1996, p 333.

"Deir Yassin is remembered not as a military operation, but rather for the atrocities committed by the IZL and LHI troops during and immediately after the battle. Whole families were riddled with bullets and grenade fragments...men, women and children were mowed down as they emerged from houses, individuals were taken aside and shot...the Jewish Agency and the Haganah leadership immediately condemned the massacre" - Benny Morris, Righteous Victims, 2001, p 208.

"...the decision to leave...was influenced by...the massacre in the Arab village of Deir Yassin...In coordination with the Haganah, an Etzel and Lehi force attacked the village, killing dozens of civilians, including women and children" - Tom Segev, "One Palestine, Complete", 2001, p 507.

In his critique of Morris' book, Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, Finkelstein says of the event: "Given the grossly apologetic Revisionist Zionist accounts of, say, the Deir Yassin massacre, one could reasonably expect a historian to treat such sources with a fair amount of skepticism. Morris evidently does not." - Finkelstein, Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine conflict, 2003, p 57.

you're actually arguing now for a partial use of the quote - Amuroso.

Not at all, I'm simply saying that Klein's assertion that "81% of books did no primary research" is based on the fact that not all of them quote their sources. But that does not prove they did no research of their own. It's simply an assumption on Klein's part. Apart from which, it wouldn't matter anyway, since it's not up to you, me or Morton Klein to decide which historian's interpretation of history is the more reliable one. They are all equally reliable in regards to Wiki policy. Gatoclass 05:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Gatoclass, let's try to keep the POV accusations down and stick to the materials. personally, at the moment, i think the title "massacre" is sadly the most reffered to one (even though it's a debateable issue), however, i think that we cannot remove the valid interpertation/narratvie/whatever (surely more valid than the original 250+ massacred claim) that this title reffers to a battle and not to an actual massacre. i understand that you think it was really a massacre because you constraint yourself to english sources and to poor sources also (did you say you have a finklestein book?!), but some very informative hebrew sources are out there also (and i think i've linked quite a few of them). it's a shame there's no valid arab source going deeply into the details of the issue. i've found only the very POV nakba website as remotely close to reliable and to counter what would surly be attacked as POV (the etzel testimonials) i inserted that one also for encyclopedic value and NPOV presentation into the wide array of opinions within' this debate. i think you are incorrect on this "95%" or even "81%", any researcher who goes into such detailism is a bad one and tries to impose his POV on the issue, even if he masks it with "facts".. fisk and finkelstein are notorious with these types of works so it's a shame you wasted money and time on the finkelstein book. would be far better to try and get someone you trust to look into the hebrew sources for you. Jaakobou 08:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Uri Milstein

I find it quite amusing that user:Abu_Ali had a RV summary of "no need to give Menachem Milstein undue weight... as he's a propogandist". That shows serious lack of knowledge so for those persons not familiar with the battle or the myth of the battle they should not participate in the article. The article is currently written in a way one would belive Milstein actually thinks there was a massacre. In fact, Milstein one of the most respected historians in existance, debunked this whole myth a long time ago, and this should be clarified. The distortion led by the usual antisemitic distorters in wikipedia is quite horrifying at times. Amoruso 22:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I really am bothered by the attempt to make it seems as if Milstein thinks a massacre took place but is "reluctant" to call it so. The full details and quotes of the interviews and comparison to Jenin will replace the current lies concerning Milstein. Amoruso 03:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Name change to Battle of Deir Yassin

In addition to the above comments, I think there has to be another vote to rename the page to "Deir Yassin battle" as soon as the page is unlocked. Common use, if indeed massacre is more, is pointless here. Google hits will include propaganda sites and the internet is full of Israeli haters and antiesmites and obviously every blog or forum with this usage will come up. It's meaningless. The truth is like mentioned above that we have Uri Milstein who has the latest study - together with the Bir Zeit study before. Milstein proves that this was not a massacre. It was exactly as Jenin. In order to maintain credibility and accuracy, the name will have to change sooner or later. There is no bypassing this. Battle of Jenin Amoruso 03:37, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

If you do that, I will move to have you banned from the page. Your tendentious edits, revert warring and blatant disregard of reliable sources is already more than enough I think to see you blocked, notwithstanding this apparent attempt of yours to create further confrontation and disruption here. Gatoclass 06:16, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Gatoclass, let's try to keep the POV accusations down and stick to the materials. personally, at the moment, i think the title "massacre" is sadly the most reffered to one (even though it's a debateable issue), however, i think that we cannot remove the valid interpertation/narratvie/whatever (surely more valid than the original 250+ massacred claim) that this title reffers to a battle and not to an actual massacre. i understand that you think it was really a massacre because you constraint yourself to english sources and to poor sources also (did you say you have a finklestein book?!), but some very informative hebrew sources are out there also (and i think i've linked quite a few of them). it's a shame there's no valid arab source going deeply into the details of the issue. i've found only the very POV nakba website as remotely close to reliable and to counter what would surly be attacked as POV (the etzel testimonials) i inserted that one also for encyclopedic value and NPOV presentation into the wide array of opinions within' this debate. i think you are incorrect on this "95%" or even "81%", any researcher who goes into such detailism is a bad one and tries to impose his POV on the issue, even if he masks it with "facts".. fisk and finkelstein are notorious with these types of works so it's a shame you wasted money and time on the finkelstein book. would be far better to try and get someone you trust to look into the hebrew sources for you. Jaakobou 08:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

i think that we cannot remove the valid interpertation/narratvie/whatever...that this title reffers to a battle and not to an actual massacre - Jaakobu

But I haven't argued for its removal. I'm quite prepared to see that side of the debate represented in the article - and given considerably more weight than the 5% or so of sources which support that position, if only to avoid acrimonious disputes.

All I've insisted on is that the debate not be misrepresented in the intro as bigger and more significant than it actually is. That's all. And all I've asked for is that a reference to "most scholars" be included. Not "95% of scholars". Not "an overwhelming majority". Just "most". That is already a very significant compromise in my view. But I'm not prepared to stand aside and see what is essentially a tiny minority view referred to on an equal footing with the majority view, because that is a blatant violation of WP:UNDUE.

As for the rest of the article, I'm certainly prepared to see the other side generously represented, so long as it isn't made dominant over or equal to the majority view. Given that the minority view is apparently very small, I think that is a more than fair compromise. Gatoclass 09:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

please don't be repetative, it's getting tiresome. you've stated your "5%" POV (which i very much object to), and i've stated my "hotly debetable" POV. re-repeating your opinion does not motivate and is far from a "fair comprimise". Jaakobou 09:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't really care whether you object to it or not, facts are facts, and it's hardly my problem if you are having trouble reconciling yourself to them.

However, let's try and get back to the point.

I've been trying to come up with a compromise edit that might satisfy both parties. How about this?

"While a majority of historians have accepted the position that a massacre in fact took place, at least one important scholar has suggested the high death toll may be attributable to collateral damage."

What do you think? Gatoclass 12:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Gatoclass, i think your "compromises" are showing a great deal of effort to make concessions and to meet halfway with other ediotors. surely such combinations as "in fact took place" and "one...suggested" show your willingness to adjust and accomodate to other editors.</sarcasm> btw, you should care if i object, considering that you don't own this article. i suggest you try to make your point in a more precise manner and a real compromize attempt rather than the above suggestion. btw2, reading hebrew texts (and avoiding people like finklestein) would really help your cause here. Jaakobou 14:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

There was a massacre after the battle. Does any serious scholar dispute that? --Ian Pitchford 12:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Apparently, Milstein does. At least according to Amuroso's translation of an interview with him on a Hebrew website (I'm trying to get an English translation of it now, BTW). Gatoclass 12:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Milstein has recently published a Hebrew book called עלילת דם בדיר-יאסין (roughly "Blood libel in Deir Yassin"; [37]). I don't know if there's an English version. I suppose whoever's making these suggestions ought to first read the book. I'll have a look at it myself as soon as I spot it (haven't seen it in bookstores yet).--Doron 12:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Ian Pitchford is of course aware that no scholar disputes that the deir yassin massacre is a myth. Assuming WP:AGF I hope he's not the person resposible for distorting Milstein on the page. One can think from the article that Milstein thinks there was a massacre. He in fact like Doron correctly notes, belives this is a blood libel. And this is the accepted historical fact today. Amoruso 13:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

There you go again. Where's the proof that "no scholar disputes that the massacre is a myth"? I've given you quotes from four recently published scholarly works which all refer to it as a massacre. You have provided no evidence whatever that any of them have changed their position since. At best you have provided some evidence that one historian, Milstein, denies the massacre. But the Klein study demonstrated that he is very much in the minority. So once again, the onus is on you Amoruso to prove your extravagant claim. Gatoclass 00:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not claiming anything, I'm only pointing out that he published a book, which I haven't read yet.--Doron 13:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I strongly opposed a name change per WP:UNDUE. Keep also in mind the following WP:NOT#DEMOCRACY. Lixy 14:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

i think your "compromises" are showing a great deal of effort to make concessions and to meet halfway with other editors. surely such combinations as "in fact took place" and "one...suggested" show your willingness to adjust and accomodate to other editors.</sarcasm>

I used "suggested" because none of you have yet demonstrated that Milstein has denied that a massacre took place. And I have at least one quote from Milstein suggesting the very opposite - ie the one that "massacres happened after every battle". So Milstein himself seems to be unsure of his own position. But if you can give me an unequivocal quote showing that M. has denied a massacre, certainly I'd be prepared to reconsider.

Anyhow, it was only a suggestion. If you don't like mine, how about coming up with one of your own?

btw, you should care if i object, considering that you don't own this article

I always take the opinions of other editors into account, but there is a limit. I'm not prepared to see the facts twisted or misrepresented just to accomodate someone's feelings. To do so would be to make a mockery of the whole project. Gatoclass 00:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

i've done quite a bit of explanation and NPOVing explanation here: Israelis Claim, i think your zeal is clouding your judgment here. Jaakobou 10:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Mind WP:NPA Lixy 12:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I think changing the name to "Battle of Deir Yassin" is unlikely to get consensus. While it's possibly less POV than labeling it a massacre when this is disputed, it still implies an acceptance of the opposing POV. I read the last discussion on this, and the title Deir Yassin incident was proposed and seemed to have some acceptance among opposing parties. I think that would be the best NPOV title. <<-armon->> 12:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I think its a great compromise.I proposed its in one of the polls--Shrike 13:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't fly 'cause of WP:OR. The ones "disputing" the massacre represent a very tiny minority in scholarly circles (though that proportion is clearly not the same around here). Massacre isn't POV; it's merely the dominating denomination. Changing it to "battle" or "incident" can be viewed by the victims as nothing more than blatant apologism. Lixy 14:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Da'at encyclopedia: "on 2.4.48 deir yassin people started sniping at the jewish neighbourhoods at Beit-Hakerem and Yafeh-Nof" - i claim jews were the victims until the battle took place, of which one side came out victorious, and the other went out crying "massacre and rape". if every time the losing of a battle can lie to the press and the end result would be a "massacre" title on wikipedia, then we are at a problem. remember the danish cartoons incident? have you looked into the dossier abu laben and akkari fixed up for the press? Jaakobou 15:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a source to "The ones "disputing" the massacre represent a very tiny minority in scholarly circles"?--Shrike 18:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

"Deir Yassin incident" is a classic weasel word. Apart from which it's against Wiki guidelines for titles, which say that the most commonly used name for an event or thing should be used. Gatoclass 14:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with a Gatoclass-based introduction for now, as it allows weight for the "battle", while sticking to what seems to be the majority "massacre" view. What I suggest from those disputing that "massacre" is the majority, is that they provide at least one other major position to join Milstein and counter Morris and Segev, or show that they're position is different than that demonstrated here. I don't grant as much weight to Finkelstein and others on the fringe, but they don't seem to be the primary proponents of the position. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 19:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

look up, da'at encyclopedia. very serious source written by another proffesor. Jaakobou 21:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Those who want to assert that massacare view is majority view should bring WP:RS source saying so.--Shrike 21:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

• Sigh* I have already done so, ad nauseam, on this page. I suggest you read some of the above, starting at the "Ongoing debate" heading. Gatoclass 04:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

So you consider ZOA article to be WP:RS?If so we shouldnt cherrypick from it but incoporate it fully into the article.--Shrike 07:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I think there are two separate issues to consider: one is whether the most common term for the incident is "Deir Yassin Massacre." The other is whether the incident qualifies as a massacre. As far as I can tell, the most common term is indeed "Deir Yassin massacre," but that may be a misnomer we should correct if a massacre didn't occur. --Leifern 23:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, let's try again. How about this:

"While the established view, supported by most scholars, is that the battle was followed by a massacre, a small minority - including at least one prominent researcher - have raised doubts about this version of events." Gatoclass 04:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Gatoclass, you're wasting your time with these POV "compromise" suggestions - you keep repeating your POV with a slight change of words. do you think it will fool us into accepting this narrative?? for starters, you ignored the last link which is yet another proffesor. continuing further.. i cannot support any source that says "95%", it shows poor scholarship and perhaps even misinterpertation by us considering the first reaction of the losing side would be to cry "massacre" and then most sources would be duped... similar to the battle of jenin incident. how many of these sources knew about the 107 death toll for starters?? that's new information... this seems like a very weak measure to "prove" that the majority thinks it's a massacre. we havn't checked the validity of any of those sources - and lord knows, there's a lot of pseudo-researchers out there. if you find some 10 high quality researches to counter the two very qualified recent researchers i've brought, then we can maybe discuss "the established view" proclemations. Jaakobou 08:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

No I'm not "repeating [my] POV" - I'm repeating the facts. And I'm repeating them in a way that I think represents a very reasonable compromise.

Whether you like it or not, the facts are that we have a 1998 study done by your side that reviewed all the available literature and found only 8 books out of 170 that cast doubt on the massacre. The ZOA is a reliable source according to Wiki guidelines and their study makes your position untenable, unless you can come up with an alternative study which shows otherwise - and it's clear you are not going to.

But even if there wasn't a definitive study to point to, I've given you a list of four books, with quotes, that affirm the massacre, and in response you've only given Milstein, whom we already knew about, and "Da'at Encyclopedia" which I doubt anyone in the English speaking world at least has ever heard of and whose quote you gave above seems remarkably unencyclopedic is irrelevant to the topic at hand. So at best it would still be two sources against four. But I'm sure I can easily access numerous other books which affirm the massacre if need be.

So please, reconcile yourself to the facts and stop wasting everybody's time here. There's plenty to do on this page apart from fixing the intro, and it's unfair to others to keep the page locked down like this.

Oh, and I don't know why you keep harping on the Birzeit Study as though it were somehow new or revelatory, it was done twenty years ago and its findings are widely known and accepted in academia today - by the very same historians who still refer to the event as a massacre. Gatoclass 12:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

(1) i disagree with your "the facts" narrative, based on a single source that allows itself "scientific" observations.

(2) allow me to ignore your ridicule of an article you cannot read... instead, i will simply quote some refrences of that encyclopedia:

עדויות ערבים תושבי דיר-יאסין

בתוכנית הטלוויזיה של ה - BBC, "50 שנה לסכסוך הישראלי ערבי", רואיין חסן נוסייבה ששימש בשנת 1948 עורך החדשות בערבית בתחנת השידור המנדטורית. הוא סיפר על מפגש שנערך בשער יפו בין ניצולי דיר-יאסין לבין מנהיגים ערביים, כולל חוסיין חלידי, מזכיר הוועד הערבי העליון.

"שאלתי את חלידי כיצד עלינו לסקר את סיפור הקרב", נזכר נוסייבה, הגר היום בעמאן. "עלינו להפיק את המרב מן הסיפור", ענה חלידי. לכן כתבנו הודעה לעיתונות שבה נאמר כי בדיר-יאסין נרצחו ילדים ונאנסו נשים הרות.

אחד מניצולי דיר-יאסין, עבו מחמוד, סיפר באותה תוכנית כי תושבי הכפר מחו על-כך נמרצות באותו זמן:

"אמרנו כי לא היו כל מעשי אונס", נזכר מחמוד. תשובת חלידי היתה: "עלינו לומר כך, כדי שצבאות ערב יבואו להציל אותנו מן היהודים".

ביובל ה-50 למדינת ישראל פרסם פאול הולמס, סוכנות הידיעות רויטרס, כתבה בשם: "דיר-יאסין, קורבנות הרובים והתעמולה". בכתבה עדויות של ערבים, תושבי הכפר דיר-יאסין:

מוחמד רדואן, כיום בן 70 טען כי לפי הרשימות שבידיו נהרגו בדיר-יאסין 93 ערבים ולא כמו שפורסם. "לא היו מעשי אונס. זה שקר. לא היו נשים הרות שבטנן בותר. היתה זו תעמולה בלבד שנאמרה כדי שצבאות ערב יפלשו לארץ-ישראל. בסופו של דבר גרמה התעמולה לכך שהערבים גורשו מארץ-ישראל".

בספרו "מלחמה ללא סוף" מספר המחבר, אנטון לה-גוארדיה, כי ביובל ה-50 למדינת ישראל ראיין את עאיש זיידן, הידוע כחאג' עאיש, שנולד בדיר-יאסין והיה בן 15 בזמן הקרב:

הוא אמר כי אף פעם לא האמין שמספר הקורבנות היה יותר מ-110, והאשים את המנהיגים הערבים שהגזימו במעשי הזוועה. "לא היו כל מעשי אונס", אמר. "הרדיו הערבי דיווח באותם ימים על נשים שנאנסו ולאחר מכן נרצחו, אבל זה לא נכון. אני מאמין שרוב ההרוגים היו לוחמים וכן נשים וילדים שעזרו ללוחמים. הסיפור האמין היחידי בדבר רצח היה הוצאתם להורג של שישה אנשים במחצבה".

when you can read it and/or bring a good array of sources, we can compromise to your "the facts" version... until then, i see no reason to change a statement that the issue is hotly disputed and that there's conflicting versions. Jaakobou 13:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

This is a complete red herring. Da'at is just one source. You have quoted one line from one source, and on this basis you want to challenge a comprehensive study of 170 books??? This is truly ludicrous.

You have no ground whatever for discounting the ZOA study. None. Very seldom would any Wiki page be able to point to such definitive evidence in support of a particular view. All you are doing is engaging in obstruction. Gatoclass 13:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense, EVERYBODY knows that Deir Yassin was Genocide, Rape and Slaughter.Paul T. Evans 13:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Everybody except those who were there. A resident of the village said "The Jews never intended to hurt the population of the village, but were forced to do so after they met enemy fire from the population, which killed the Irgun commander." That doesn't mean I want to change the name. I think the name is appropriate. But let's not believe the propaganda, shall we? Screen stalker 21:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Gatoclass, the 8 170 thing is meaningless. Either find all 170 books and relate to them or quote the person in full and say it's his statement, we don't know if it's true and we don't know how trashy these books are. Please stop repeating this irrelevant material... with all due respect, it's meaningless. Using this line is manipulative even if you had good faith. Anyway, the name of the article is inappropriate, we should use the neutral term "battle" per above, I don't think there's any question about it anymore really... I'll explain more - the truth is it's the best interest of you too to change it to "battle". There WERE actual massacres (ein zetun) and talking about this myth actually belittles the other cases and makes it all seem like a fable... it's the best interst of everyone seeking the truth not to make this an example of Pallywood (which is an appropriate "see also"). Amoruso 16:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

One wonders how much more good editing time will be wasted in yet another attempt to reverse the over-whelming (95.3%) verdict of historians published books on the subject. PalestineRemembered 20:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

here's another study against the 95% claim, Was There a Massacre at Deir Yassin? by Dr. Francisco Gil-White. Jaakobou 05:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Gil-White is an anthropologist, and history or Middle East studies are not within his area of expertise. This self-published "study" from his private website is just his personal opinion (of which there's plenty on that website), and it is as good as any blog.--Doron 05:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The issue of Gil-White's utility as a reliable source has recently been discussed at Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-03-31 ChrisO. I won't repeat all the arguments here, but in summary hirhome.com doesn't qualify as a reliable source. -- ChrisO 08:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The accepted mediation agreement in that case (which exclusively concerned this very same web-site) was "Sysops should block (a particular named user) if he continues to add links in violation of Wikipedia:External links". Editors have suffered long blocks for behaviour which didn't undermine policy (to any degree, let alone this) and was intrinsically less disruptive. PalestineRemembered 14:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Outside comments on the name

Just a few thoughts on this issue. I've dealt with similar naming issues elsewhere (specifically with relation to the former Yugoslavia), where the name for an incident isn't settled. The term "massacre" is often controversial. "Incident" is far too vague - it's definitely a weasel word in this context. On several instances, I've compromised between the two poles by using "killings" instead - as in Borovo Selo killings and Haditha killings, where there's a dispute between two sides as to whether the incident was a massacre or not. The definition of a massacre isn't always easy to pin down (as the dispute over this article illustrates!) but both sides can at least agree that there were "killings" in the incident. So that is one possible way forward.

However - and it's a big however - we also have to comply with the principle of least astonishment. Article names should correspond with the established names for the subjects. It's not for Wikipedia editors to decide that they don't like those established names. But how do you determine what the established name is? A simple Google search isn't usually a satisfactory method, as it can be swamped by non-reliable sources such as partisan websites, blogs etc. I tend to search published sources, using Google Books and Google Scholar, to identify what term scholars prefer.

In this instance, Google Scholar finds that 50 works use the term "Deir Yassin massacre" and none use "Battle of Deir Yassin". Google Books reports that 106 works use the term "Deir Yassin massacre". Only two works use "Battle of Deir Yassin". One of them isn't viewable, but the other one is interesting - it speaks of how "In October 1987 a motion was put before the Jerusalem city council to honor the five Zionist patriots who "had fallen during the battle of Deir Yassin ... Seeing that Israel might lose face by honoring those who had taken part in a massacre, Mayor Teddy Kollek forced the matter to drop". Other than this one quotation I can't find a single published source using the term.

I'm not familiar with the politics of this incident, but my gut feeling is that the term "Battle of Deir Yassin" is associated with some sort of historical revisionism, presumably arguing that the incident wasn't a massacre. I would be very cautious indeed about renaming the article "Battle of Deir Yassin". If the overwhelming majority of reliable published sources don't use the term, adopting it here would be a clear NPOV violation - specifically lending undue weight to a tiny-minority viewpoint. On a more general issue, please bear in mind that we're not here to rewrite history; we're only meant to report what others say and how they say it. -- ChrisO 21:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

You are quite right. --Zero^talk 01:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

You are quite correct Chris, and the figures from Google Scholar and Google books only serve to confirm that the characterization of this event as a "battle" rather than a massacre is a highly marginal POV. All that's happening here is that we have a couple of disruptive editors who are apparently prepared to ignore all the available evidence and keep the page locked indefinitely as a means of imposing their POV. Gatoclass 02:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Your links of google scholar are very misleading, but I'm sure you didn't notice. The thing is the words "Moon landing conspiracy" for example are also very common, but because it's interesting to talk about it, it doesn't mean it's true. They're both fiction - the conspiracy and the myth. You understand ? The words "Alien Invasion" and so on - these are fictional words created but are not true. So books mention the incident in its common lying term. But the scholary evidence shows that the Deir Yassin massacre was not a massacre. So a redirect of the name to the accurate retelling of the incident is better and more accurate. Secondly, most of the articles had common sources, Ilan Pappe or Said and so on, it's not unique sources that were represented. You might have missed these scholary sources by not typing "deir yassin battle" at Scholar: [38] and in books - 4 good ones [39]. This is in English and not in Hebrew and other languages. What's important to remember is how this all started. You might think it's a revisionist theory but it's not. The only person who made this myth known is Meir P'ail - all the myths were based on his testimonies, really more than 90% of the facts. Now Milstein proved that Meir Pail wasn't there. He proved why Meir Pail had the motivation to spread this story, how inaccurate he was, and why he was trying to highlight this event other than some Mapai's behaviour. This is all documented fact today. We should distance ourselves from our political views and just see the facts as they are. It's a personal/ideological rivalry thing that created this myth. We know that today. Why prented otherwise ? Amoruso 10:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

That's a new one -- a subject getting a high google scholar hit rate does so because it is a myth! Unfortunately, I checked most of them and haven't found any that refer to it as a myth -- surprisingly when they say massacre they mean massacre and not "massacre" (and if I overlooked any myth references, please correct me). So the "alien invasion" theory needs more substantiation before we can take it seriously.--Doron 21:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

That's odd, you've actually read the whole sources ? Because the links already provide excerpts not taking an opinion about the event, just calling it "massacre" but not saying if there was an actual massacre or this is just the name of the allegations that persisted. Amoruso 07:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

i have an interesting suggestion.. how about we call it the "deir yassin trauma" ? Jaakobou 04:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

i thought about it, and i agree with the comments above with a slight change... the name of the article should be changed from Deir Yassin massacre to->> Deir Yassin "massacre", sample link with that name used: http://www.begincenter.org.il/faq-content.asp?id=10 . Jaakobou 05:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Quotation marks in article names are deprecated. I can't quote the exact policy on it right now (I'll have to do some digging) but I do know that in previous cases we've disallowed their use for either stylistic or technical reasons, I can't remember which. From an editorial perspective, however, it would raise NPOV issues. Scare quotes are a device used to cast doubt on a statement - if the historical consensus is that the incident was a massacre then that's how it should be described, without scare quotes (e.g. Kaytn massacre, Srebrenica massacre). -- ChrisO 07:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Correct, and I'll note that there are people who deny that each of those incidents was a massacre. It isn't a good enough reason to rename those articles and it isn't good enough here either. --Zero^talk 09:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

ChrisO, there's no problem here as there's no dispute that Srebrenica took place. In fact, the dispute there is whether it's a massacre or a genocide. The consensus today is that Deir Yassin was a battle not a massacre. It should be named to the accurate term. There is also a consensus among antisemites and fundamentalists that Jenin was a massacre, but it's correctly called a battle. We should not push to perpetuate this blood libel. There was no massacre at Deir Yassin, but rather a very hard battle with casualties to both sides including the commander of the Irgun attacking force ! There were also dead women and children used as human shields etc. It was a battle and we should not lie about it, that's all. Amoruso 10:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

It is only the perputrators and their supportes who argue that the massacre did not happen. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 11:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

It is only Pan-Arab perpatrators and their supporters that argue massacres occurred when they lose a battle ?? (don't you have some "zionists" to battle?). Jaakobou 11:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Amoruso, I'm not familiar with the debate on Deir Yassin but I can tell you that there was (and is) definitely a dispute about whether Srebrenica took place. Until 2004, the Bosnian Serb government denied that there'd been a massacre. The line they used was that the people who died there were killed in a battle; some denied that there'd been any large-scale killing there and claimed that the whole thing had been invented or staged by anti-Serb forces. (Does this sound familiar?) Even now, there's still a substantial minority of ultranationalist opinion which denies Srebrenica, supported by a number of mostly far-left apologists here in the West. Of course, the key point is that the overwhelming majority of scholarly and legal opinion states that there was a massacre. Our article on the massacre mentions the fringe theories but it focuses first and foremost on the mainstream version of events. That's probably the best model to use in this case as well. -- ChrisO 00:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for this information, I'm indeed not familar with Srebrenica except the Wikipedia article really, But ChrisO, if you're not familar with Deir Yassin (which I am having read several books and having very good knowledge of Milstein who is a respected historian and not a "revisionist" or a "perpetrator" at ALL (he's not even right winged btw) --> how can you be sure it's the best model to use in this case ? You should indulge in the material itself and not in the browsing/hit results to reach a conclusion. You might realise the reason the name is common is because of highly suceessful propoganda, nothing more. Amoruso 07:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Isn't it common practice in Iranian media to write "Israel" instead of Israel?--Doron 21:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

i'm not sure they're allowed to write israel.. they use stuff like "this criminal zionist regime" or other fond nicnames... anyways, i don't see how it concerns our topic here. Jaakobou 21:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I was referring to the proposed use of Scare quotes.--Doron 22:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

what's the connection befween a semi-fascist thocracy refusing to accept a fact due to political agendas, and an encyclopedia which tries to be neutral while using the most common name? not agreeing with a suggestion does not in any way mean that it has any resemblance with what you compared it with. Jaakobou 23:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The consensus today is that Deir Yassin was a battle not a massacre - Amoruso

So you keep saying, but you've yet to provide a skerrick of evidence for this claim. And as WP:V states, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

The ZOA study, along with Google books and Google scholar, all show that characterization of this event as a "battle" is at best a marginal view. In addition I've given you quotes from four high profile scholars supporting the established view that a massacre took place. There is in short an abundance of evidence to show that the established view has not changed.

Indeed, I think that if there really had been a reassessment of this event amongst historians, it would surely have constituted a major controversy since it flies in the face of long held beliefs and would be fiercely contested by Arab sources for whom it is practically an article of faith. So it should be easy to find evidence of such a debate. But I've seen no evidence of it - none. And you've been unable to provide any.

All you've effectively done on this page is reiterate your own opinion over and over that "the consensus is that no massacre took place." But you've been unable to provide any evidence for this extraordinary claim. You are holding up development of this page for nothing. Gatoclass 01:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

While I don't place extensive weight on the ZOA survey for arguing the point (since it points out that many volumes were unsourced rather than arguing for the narrative's credibility), the quotes from Morris and Segev, along with the less mainstream quotes of Shlaim and Pappe mean that we should recognise in the entry that the majority opinion supports the "massacre" narrative, though Gatoclass seems willing to work with everyone with making sure that other significant opinions supporting the "no massacre" narrative, like Milstein, have proper representation. Whoever disagrees with the former narrative must recognise that that opinion is not held by the majority of experts, else they must produce sourcing showing that others stand with Milstein, or that Morris etc. have altered their positions. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 03:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. <<-armon->> 12:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Gatoclass is grinding water actually. He's still using the meanignless ZOA reference which if anything is damaging to him, very odd. He says that "New" Historians are supporting the theory of the massacre - Segev, ultra-left discredited Pappe, and Morris support this view - so who is the revisionist ? He hasn't even provided a quote of Morris saying that it was a massacre - in fact, in the article he says this wasn't a Srebrenica, so what does Morris actually say ? Not that it was a massacre but an unfortunate vicious battle perhaps - a massacre has different meanings too. I didn't see anyone except Meir Pail attacking Milstein's study - if you have such a quote let's see it. If not, there's no reason not to take Milstein as the truth here. Amoruso 07:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

To come back to the name of the article. I have to take seriously ChrisO's and other's comments on "incident" being too weaselly and vague. Yeah, I think they're right. What are people's thoughts on "Deir Yassin killings"? <<-armon->> 12:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I should explain why I chose to use "killings" for Borovo Selo and Haditha. In both cases, the nature of the incidents were widely disputed. In the case of Borovo Selo, the Croatians call the episode the "Borovo Selo massacre" (Pokolj u Borovom Selu), while the Serbians call it the "Borovo Selo incident" (Инцидент у Боровом Селу). Neither name is used much in English-language publications, though plenty do describe the episode (Google Books finds 85 works using the placename "Borovo Selo"). There was therefore no standard terminology and no consensus view of what to call it. So in chosing the title "Borovo Selo killings", I was finding a middle ground between two disputed points of view, without breaking away from any established term (because there wasn't one).

The situation was similar for Haditha, with the added complication that the matter was subject to current legal proceedings - the question of whether it was a massacre or not is at the heart of the ongoing court-martial of the alleged perpetrators. In this instance, calling the incident a "massacre" had original research as well as NPOV implications.

I think Deir Yassin is rather different. Borovo Selo was relatively obscure compared to (e.g.) Srebrenica or Vukovar, which is probably why there's no well-established term for the episode. Haditha is too recent and too disputed for a term to have become well established. Deir Yassin by contrast was nearly 60 years ago and it's been extremely widely covered (649 works on Google Books mention it by name). If a particular name has been established and is in majority use, that's the name that we should use. We're not meant to substitute our own judgment for that of the experts. -- ChrisO 20:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

True. But if it is a case that the consensus has broken down among those scholars who have independently researched the event, how do we determine that, and should we therefore take a more agnostic position? I also took your point about "historical revisionism", but the New Historians like Morris, were revisionists themselves, so I don't know where that leaves us. <<-armon->> 01:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

But consensus hasn't broken down. There is no evidence of that. And if it was breaking down, I think we'd be hearing a lot more about it.

There is still only one prominent historian that I am aware of who has questioned it, and that is Milstein. But it's still not even clear what Milstein thinks exactly, because he has made different statements about it at different times. Sometimes he says every battle was followed by a massacre, sometimes he seems to indicate that massacre is not the right word, and such events should just be called "brutality". Now he's apparently written a book called "Blood Libel at Deir Yassin", but is he referring to the massacre itself, or just accusing Meir Pa'il of lying about it? We don't know. So even in Milstein's case there is a question mark over his position. But on the other hand, there are plenty of historians who are still prepared to call it a massacre, so there is really no debate here. Gatoclass 07:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

OK I think you may be overstating your case here a bit. It looks to me that there is some significant dispute, (for example, Uri Milstein below) however, it is a minority view and I don't think it's enough to warrant a name change. <<-armon->> 12:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying there is no debate in academia, there is obviously some but I've yet to see any evidence it is widespread enough to represent a serious challenge to the established view. Who knows perhaps in time it will but right now there is no evidence that such a reassessment has taken place and plenty of evidence to the contrary.

When I said there is no debate I was talking about the debate we are having about this article. I meant that we shouldn't be having a debate about changing the name here, or about whether or not the Milstein view deserves equal weight in the intro and the article, because by any objective measure, it doesn't. Gatoclass 14:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Scholary discussion

Uri Milstein, an historian not affiliated with Irgun or Lehi or extremists btw, says in his thesis explicity that there was no massacre. He explains the whole origin of what he says is a myth, how it was originated and what actually happened. My question is does Segev or Morris relate to Milstein and contradict him at any point ? If so - great. But if not there's no reason not to base article on Milstein's so thorough and complete analysis. Please provide quotes to counter Milstein on differnet points if you read their books on the matter (articles?) I think we can agree that Pappe should not be related to (see what Morris says about him - totally discredited person with agenda). Amoruso 08:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Milstein has not changed his opinion substantially since his book appeared in 1991. His version is widely cited both positively and negatively. For example, Morris's 2006 paper on Deir Yassin in the Journal of Israeli History refers to Milstein 17 times in the text not counting the notes and references. This article should not be based on Milstein any more than on any other single source. --Zero^talk 09:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Basing an article on a single source is almost always a bad idea. Especially regarding history. <<-armon->> 12:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Amoruso, the debate isn't if Milstein's view is true, it is whether or not it is significant. From WP:Undue_weight, "Views held only by a tiny minority of people should not be represented as significant minority views, and perhaps should not be represented at all." Tarc 14:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I strongly agree with what ChrisO says about the article name. I think that people forget that this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, and they treat it as a debating society. So, if an honestly curious person goes to look up "Deir Yassin Massacre," because that is what it is commonly called, perhaps he will be redirected to "Deir Yassin Battle" -- score 10 points for the revisionists! But from the standpoint of the average encyclopedia user, how is that helpful? If there is a credible scholar who claims that there was no massacre, include his claims in the article. But changing the name would be silly. --Marvin Diode 20:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Uri Milstein claims there was no massacre (=consensus today)

He claims they were all killed during the battle. This is also the accepted scholarly opinion today. I really don't understand why the article misrepresents his view so strangely. Especially in the intro. Attempted to fix it. 79.182.116.232 (talk) 00:38, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

No. This is not the concensus today.

It is rather Milstein 1. who changed his mind, 2. who is "alone" to claim so. (Milstein's pov).

Ceedjee (talk) 08:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

nabkainhebrew.org is a jihadist site. you might as well quote bin laden. But it indeed proves the point. There is a witness that was never there - Meir Pail - and a historian. Go figure. Ha. No one serious questions Milstein's findings, not the article even. 79.181.17.163 (talk) 14:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

It is inconceivable to actually quote Milstein as the authority for the NUMBER of the dead, the IDENTITIY of the dead (Women and children?) and to censor the fact that he found out that this massacre is not a massacre at all , but a complete fabrication, and that the people died in battle !! Amazing... such contradictions are likely to happen with false propaganda by anti-semites. Btw, why is the article called "Deir Yassin massacre" at all if it's based on Milstein? Strange. 79.181.17.163 (talk) 14:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

He changed his mind. This denial of a massacre is quite new. Ceedjee (talk) 15:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, he didn't really... but it doesn't matter. What you've done in your RV is very serious. You deliberately manipulate the quotations. Continue in this path you'll surely be banned from wikipedia. 79.181.17.163 (talk) 23:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

wtf

I plan to cahnge the name to deir yassin incident. anyone object? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Etaicq (talk • contribs) 16:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Please go back and read the talk page archives. The issues you are raising here have been debated ad nauseam already, and the concensus is that Deir Yassin massacre is the appropriate title. Also check the archives for the ZOA study, which showed that the overwhelming majority of sources refer to this event as a massacre. Gatoclass (talk) 18:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

i hope you don't realy mea to tell me that the information in wikipedia is determined by the number of resources from each side. and when you say they describe it as a massacre, do you mean that the sources state that it's a massacre, or that by the definition of wikipedia it's a massacre? Etaicq (talk) 18:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Content on Wikipedia most certainly is determined by the relative proportion of reliable sources supporting a view, see WP:UNDUE. UNDUE is not the only factor taken into account of course, but it's a very important one.

As I said though, your points have already been discussed in great detail on this page. For the number and proportion of reliable sources describing this event as a massacre for example, see the discussion from the section header entitled "Ongoing debate" in Archive 4 of this page. Regards, Gatoclass (talk) 19:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Article's name change proposal

Indeed the artice's name is not encyclopedic. It should be changed and it inevitably will. Milstein's academic book is not contested by any scholar. Amoruso (talk) 00:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Which book exactly ?

Isn't this rather an article ? Ceedjee (talk) 06:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

ok. I have found.Ceedjee (talk) 12:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC).

Milstein's academic book is not contested by any scholar.

To note the obvious, Amoruso and repeat what all threads have established exhaustively. After mentioning Milstein's argument on Deir Yassin, Benny Morris writes: 'the existing contemporary evidence paints a different picture’. (1) Benny Morris,The Road to Jerusalem: Glubb Pasha,Palestine and the Jews, I.B.Tauris, London, New York 2003 n.327 p.264 (2)The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited, 2004 Cambridge UP, Cambridge p.294, notes 563,564. Of course, one could argue that Benny Morris is not a scholar :)Nishidani (talk) 09:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

It depends on what he says and if I agree or not ;-)))) -> That is the problem with Morris. One cannot just tag him as "good" or "bad", "black" or "white"... A French journalist said about Morris he was Dr Jekyll and Mr Hide.Ceedjee (talk) 12:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

No, cher ami. He is a brilliant archival scholar. Judgements only differ when he plays Jekyll/Jeu (de) quilles contre l'haide de ses adversaires professionelles!Nishidani (talk) 12:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid that what Nishidani said makes no sense at all, unless he or Benny Morris somehow managed to change the space time continumm. Apparently, Nishidani brings here a reference of Morris from 2003. A different picture of what ? Anyway, Milstein's book is dated to 2007. I will add this to the intro, since much of the article deals with intro, including some of it in the lead. You can't cherry pick what you like from Milstein. Again, if there is a counterview to Milstein's latest book, for example from Benny Morris, one can add it in. 79.181.151.254 (talk) 15:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I have here Morris's book from 2008 : 1948 : A History of the First Arab-Israeli War. PP.126-127 he talks about atrocities, the shotting of unarmed civilian, the executation of villagers after they were trucked into Jerusalem and the executation of prisonners in a quarry.

And we could use the same argument as you do : Morris's academic book is not contested by any scholar :-)

Ceedjee (talk) 18:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi,

I re-established the subsection. :-) Ceedjee (talk) 10:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Milstein controversy

• Uri Milstein, after researching the events of the battle, asserted that "there was no massacre at all," but rather "fighting in built-up areas in which there were many casualties."
• "he military scholar Uri Milstein maintains that massacres were not uncommon during the war and that the events at Deir Yassin, which he believes do not constitute a massacre at all, were unique only in the manner they were "seized upon and publicized by all involved parties, albeit for a variety of different reasons."
• This analysis is shared by historian Yoav Gelber, who points out that far more Arabs were massacred at Lydda (Lod) or Jews at Kfar Etzion than is claimed were massacred at Deir Yassin.

This should be added only in a controversy section. If Milstein denies there was a massacre while all (the majority) of other scholars call this a massacre, we must only put this there.

Note somebody added "which he believes do not constitute a massacre at all", which makes that Gelber doesn't share this analysis. He only considers massacres were not uncommon !

Ceedjee (talk) 06:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. We went through all this exhaustively last year. Unfortunately Amoruso appears to want to reopen this futile debate again. Gatoclass (talk) 11:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

What is a fact and what is not is not determined by popular opinion, or even the reactions of those first on the scene. Jenin is a good example of the hype and politicizing that surrounds an event like this, which I will remind everyone was part of a war scenario. Regarding the numbers of dead, the Bir Zeit University study (an Arab study) in 1987 — Arab researchers confirmed that the dead were 107. Once an idea is in the public mind and 'accepted' knowledge, eg that Deir Yassin was indeed a 'massacre' other writers will simply repeat what they believe to be a 'fact', thus creating a myth, of the very sort we are trying to correct here. There are in fact witnesses to the event (mostly from the Jewish side, but not entirely) that claim that there was in fact a battle going on, and that the Jews threw hand grenades into homes that were firing at them, thus causing civilian casualties. Also there are Arab witnesses that claimed that some 11-13 Arab fighters were killed, and Israelis say some 40 Jews were wounded. The question would be that if that was indeed the scenario,(and there is plenty of evidence that it was) would that be a definition of a real 'massacre'? I think not. Juanita (talk) 16:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Milstein's Blood Libel at Deir Yassin – The Black Book 2007 National Midrasha Publishers and Survival Institute Publishers, latest scholar's book, uncontested

Article should be primarily based on the new evidence, or at least put a lot of focus on this. Wikipedia is not an anti zionist platform, but it's supposed to present the best known facts. People used to think the moon is made of cheese too. Amoruso (talk) 16:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

2008, Benny Morris, 1948. A History of the First Arab-Israeli War. Only published in the USA up to now. Should be published on 21 may in Europe and elsewhere... Latest scholrar's book. uncontested. :-)

(note this is not an argument, of course but given it is yours, I do adapt myself).

Amoruso, I assume you are not aware that Israeli scholars decided not to answer and not to review Ilan Pappé, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine... So it will remain uncontested in the academic field... With such arguments as yours, do you realize where we would go... Ceedjee (talk) 18:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Ilan pappe's books have been contested by many scohlars and exposed for what they are - trash (Pappe himself does not believe history books should represent the truth btw). Efraim Karsh reviewed this book and refuted it... so what you say is in fact not true. Again, give me a morris quote about the new book, and we can add both opinions then. Amoruso (talk) 02:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

It is not true that Milstein's book is "uncontested". In a withering critique of Milstein's methodology, Israeli psychologist Michael Sharon argues that the book is worthless, since "the testimonies in Dr Milstein's book on Deir Yassin are not valid due to deflection of the cognitive thought of the elderly by the intentions of the interviewer." [40] RolandR (talk) 10:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Recent attempt to censor the current scholar's facts about Deir Yassin

I'll say it again. You can't perpetuate this lie to meet your political needs. The lie has been exposed. Now, if you want, you can review the whole article and re-write it. AT THIS STAGE, the article is BASED on URI MILSTEIN, who is NOT CONTESTED in any way. I don't see a quote here contesting Milstein's new book by Morris. Simply writing Morris' name will not be enough. All the article is filled with MILSTEIN'S QUOTES supposedly supporting the massacre fantasy. He says that it never happened in this new book. Therefore, you can't possibly say that old people died there and all these lies, without listing the current book of the scholar you're using ANYWAY ! Not to mention that "number most scholars agree" is itself a lie, as explained. Do not revert the page since it may be construed as vandalism of reliable sources. Amoruso (talk) 01:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

You write:'I don't see a quote here contesting Milstein's new book by Morris'.

Of course, if it is a 'new book', it doesn't mean it is the truth, or that lack of immediate review means it is 'uncontested'. Scholars take their time to ascertain the facts. And in the meantime:-

'Milstein admits that whole families were gunned down in the course of the fighting'. Benny Morris, The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited, 2004 p.294 n.564. Nishidani (talk) 08:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• "Morris engages in five types of distortion: he misrepresents documents, resorts to partial quotes, withholds evidence, makes false assertions, and rewrites original documents." [41]Juanita (talk) 03:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Poor Morris. It is not easy to be a real historian nowadays. :-)

Karch was talking about 1988's book of Morris : The Birth. Since then, Morris tuned his work and this work has been widely recognized by all scholars ! There are only some controversies concerning some of his analysis and conclusions. Nothing fundamental.

His last book (1948) has not been much commented. It has just been published. But if you are interested by the 1948 War, you should buy this. I am sure all sides will find quotes they were looking for. It is dense, precise and sourced. It introduces the controversies without (always) taking party.

I haven't finished yet. All I can say is that the 150 first pages are of high quality.

I just wonder about his conclusions... I think he will give his mind there...

Ceedjee (talk) 06:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Can't trust Morris. If Milstein admits that, let's see the Milstein quote. Juanita (talk) 04:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Not contested in any way. He is contested by direct contemporary reports written by the Haganah's intelligence chief on the spot.

‘the existing contemporary evidence paints a different picture. One Haganah intelligence report stated: ‘Some of the women and children taken prisoner by the LHI were moved to Sheikh Bader (a former Arab district in Jerusalem). Among the prisoners were a young mother and a baby. The guards killed the baby in front of its mother and after she feinted also murdered her. 7 old persons and women taken prisoner by the IZZI, were paraded through the city streets in trucks. Afterwards the Arabs were taken to Deir Yassin’s quarry and murdered’ . (Yitzhak Levy commander of Haganah Intelligence Service in Jerusalem=summed up the operation.’(There was)) confusion among them (I.e. the attacking IZL-LHI force) . .The conquest of the village was carried out with great brutality. Whole families, women, old people, children, were killed and piles of corpses accumulated. Some of the prisoners taken to places of detention, including women and children, were brutally murdered by their guards. The IZI and LHI men looted and stole quantities of money and food’ cited Benny Morris, The Road to Jerusalem: Glubb Pasha, Palestine and the Jews, IB Tauris 2003 p.264n.327

• Morris not trustworthy. Which intelligence report and by whom? Does anyone else cite this source? Juanita (talk) 04:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

It is Milstein's right to contest contemporary evidence by saying it is not factual. It is not your right as one of many editors to take his revisionism as establishing the facts on the ground. : Nishidani (talk) 10:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Nishidani is right.

I have done what was agreed on sooner -> to move the controversy in a sub-section. Ceedjee (talk) 15:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

"Massacre most commonly refers to individual events of deliberate and direct mass killing where the victims have no reasonable means of defense and pose no immediate physical threat to the assailants." Virtually all sources including Arab sources agree that there was gunfire coming from the homes and that there was a battle. More on this later Juanita (talk) 20:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

This has been debated in great depth in Wikipedia, check the archives. (2) No editor will be permitted to challenge the text on 'massacre' by redefining the word idiosyncratically against historical usage. (3) As you suggest we do because some people under fire fired back. That is immaterial. Jews fired back in Warsaw, and no one doubts that that was a massacre on the specious grounds that it can't be, since they tried to defended themselves. So think again, before wasting our time.Nishidani (talk) 20:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Not defining the word idiosyncratically against historical usage.

Massacre is the intentional killing of a considerable number of human beings, under circumstances of atrocity or cruelty, or contrary to "the usages established among civilized peoples" (International Humanitarian Law term from the Martens Clause). to massacre: 1. (transitive) To kill in considerable numbers where much resistance can not be made; to kill with indiscriminate violence, without necessity, and contrary to the usages of nations; to butcher; to slaughter - limited to the killing of human beings. Juanita (talk) 02:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Dajudem,

unfortunately, we don't perform personal analysis on wp. Even if they are wise and pertinent. If the main denomination is "massacre", then we talk about "massacre". If the main denomination is "battle", then we talk about "battle", if the main denomination is "operation" then we talk about operation...

Just to give you some additional material : after the battle, prisonners were killed in a quarry and also in the LHI base at Jerusalem and according to a LHI member, IZL members would have raped and then murdered some women.

Ceedjee (talk) 06:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

One could argue that "personal analysis" is misapplied when one employs a concept defined by wp to a discussion in wp about that very subject. What is the purpose of having a definition of "massacre" but then not employing it, particularly in controversial conditions? one might argue that by not addressing the wp defined "massacre" to what happened in Deir Yassin that the concept NPOV, another wp defined concept could be employed when the subject concept is employed. If wp defined concepts are to be abandoned then are we not left without a concensus on the very concepts we use to argue with. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Judadem (talk • contribs) 03:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure to get all you wrote... Sorry... But the reason why we cannot use a wp definition to title a topic is that wikipedia is not a reliable source and cannot refer to herself. Each article must refer to Reliable Sources.

Additionnaly, we cannot analyse ourselves primary sources to see if the events fit the definition because we are not expert in the field and we don't know if we have access to all primary sources and we cannot evaluate the reliability of each of them. WP:RS secondary sources are good because they refer to reliable people who studied the topic and have the education, training and experience to give a good analysis. Ceedjee (talk) 12:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

i wish to apologize, i am not use to this and will do better Davidg (talk) 04:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

What about considering Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary definition of massacre?

1 : the act or an instance of killing a number of usually helpless or unresisting human beings under circumstances of atrocity or cruelty 2 : a cruel or wanton murder 3 : a wholesale slaughter of animals 4 : an act of complete destruction *the author's massacre of traditional federalist presuppositions R. G. McCloskey*

Is there also a big debate about the Boston Massacre? (I believe only 4 people were killed in that incident.) Does anybody really question that the indigenous population of Deir Yassin was either killed or managed to escape to make way for the jewish state? 169.253.4.21 (talk) 22:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The unhabitants of Deir Yassin were not killed (or managed to escape) "to make way for the jewish state". They were killed during and after a battle aimed at catpuring a village and that took place in the context of the 1948 Palestine War, more particularly the siege of Jerusalem. Ceedjee (talk) 08:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

which makes the use of 'massacre' problematic when employing 'ol reliable, Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary's definition: "1 : the act or an instance of killing a number of usually helpless or unresisting human beings under circumstances of atrocity or cruelty"Davidg (talk) 15:13, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Judadem,

This occured «during and after the battle».

Please, try to read what happened in details and then, only then, come and give your mind.

Today, you just doesn't like it is tagged as a massacre because you don't like these stupid propagandists who associate what happened at that time with Israel today.

Ceedjee (talk) 15:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Moving the article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tiltle dispute of "masscare"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New lede, less POV

How's this:

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

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

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

Is there a source for this sentence?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi Sposer,

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

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

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

About the use of the word massacre

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

Changes need in article and title

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reasoning for changing title now:

1) NPOV tag is placed,

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

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

Immidiate edit, for now:

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

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

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

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

and finally:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It is true it is not neutral.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Note for the archive: the article was rewritten between June 10 and June 22, 2009

Diff of main changes. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 08:56, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Article's title

The article's title, "Deir Yassin Massacre" is very problematic. There are many historians who dispute the claim that there ever was a massacre and other historians and publications argue that the villager's were far from peaceful, heavily armed and reinforced by an Iraqi contingent and other Arab irregulars. To call it the "Deir Yassin massacre" is to presume facts that are hotly disputed and this immediately sets the tone for the article. I propose a more neutral title like "The Battle of Dier Yassin." I am open to other suggestions and encourage other editors to debate the issue.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 17:07, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

This has been debated at length several times in the past, and the result has always been to use this title. See [42], [43], [44], [45], [46] and there are probably more discussions that I have missed. RolandR (talk) 17:37, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your response but the fact that it’s been debated before does not preclude current debate. I believe that the title is deeply flawed and biased. I’ll take your response to mean that you oppose change to the title.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:12, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Please see WP:COMMONNAME. The most widely used name for the incident is "massacre". — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:39, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Deir Yassin massacre#Choice_of_article_name, Cheers, Huldra (talk) 18:44, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

First, there are not MANY historians that dispute what happened. So, before you propose to change the name of the article, first provide some evidence in the form of many historians for your claim. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 19:20, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

The term "Massacre" is designed to evoke emotion and stir passions. It is far from neutral. The fact that it is commonly referred to as "massacre" does not make it so. For years, people believed the earth was flat and composed of four elements. Are we to repeat this drivel simply because it was the prevailing view? There is a growing body of evidence suggesting that Deir Yassin was far from a peaceful village and that its inhabitants partook in road ambushes and sporadic rioting. There is also evidence suggesting that the villagers were heavily armed and reinforced by irregulars and an Iraqi contingent and that far from being a massacre, it was a pitched battle with intense fighting. I'm not saying that a massacre did not take place. Nor am I saying that civilians weren't killed, perhaps deliberately. What I am saying is that by calling it the "Deir Yassin Massacre," you are in effect taking sides on a very volatile issue and that is flat out wrong. I therefore ask that the matter be thoroughly debated in an open, honest and objective manner.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 19:26, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thank you for letting us know that you just made up the claim about MANY historians. Just like you have not provided any evidence of the growing body of evidence suggesting various things. And finally, you haven't provided any evidence that those many historians and piles of evidence label it nowadays just a battle. What we need is heaps of links to reputable sources underpinning your claim of many historians and piles of evidence before we can even start considering a name change. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 19:39, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

• Historian Uri Milstein states that the battle was ferocious and took several hours. He provides the account of an Israeli combatant: “My unit stormed and passed the first row of houses. I was among the first to enter the village. There were a few other guys with me, each encouraging the other to advance. At the top of the street I saw a man in khaki clothing running ahead. I thought he was one of ours. I ran after him and told him, "advance to that house." Suddenly he turned around, aimed his rifle and shot. He was an Iraqi soldier. I was hit in the foot.” History of Israel's War of Independence. Vol. IV, (Lanham: University Press of America. 1999), p. 262.

Milstein calls it a massacre, read Chapter 16: Deir Yassin, Section 12: The Massacre, page 377 of the book you cited. What you are doing here is cherry picking from everything he wrote. Not okay.

• A New York Times account of the battle is similar to Menachem Begin’s narrative and provided no hint of a massacre. Dan Kurzman, Genesis 1948, (OH: New American Library, Inc., 1970), p. 148.

• According Milstein, the attackers left open an escape corridor from the village and more than 200 residents left unharmed. For example, at 9:30 A.M., about five hours after the fighting started, the Lehi evacuated 40 old men, women and children on trucks and took them to a base in Sheikh Bader. Later, the Arabs were taken to East Jerusalem. Starting at 2:00 P.M., residents were taken out of the village. The trucks passed through the Orthodox neighborhood of Mea Shearim after the Sabbath had begun, so the neighborhood people cursed and spit at them, not because they were Arabs, but because the vehicles were desecrating the Sabbath. Milstein, p. 267.

Same story as the first point.

• Another source says 70 women and children were taken away and turned over to the British. (Dayr Yasin," Bir Zeit University). If the intent was to massacre the inhabitants, no one would have been evacuated.

Source? The second sentence is original research from your side.

• There were women among the dead but according to Yehoshua Gorodenchik's testimony, many of them became targets because of Arab combatants who tried to disguise themselves as women. The Irgun commander reported, for example, that the attackers "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.” Yehoshua Gorodenchik, testimony at Jabotinsky Archives.

So?

• Gorodenchik’s testimony was supported by a Haganah officer who overheard a group of Arabs from Deir Yassin who said "the Jews found out that Arab warriors had disguised themselves as women.” Milstein, p.276

This just a fraction of the evidence available and it is sufficient to cast dispersion over claims of massacre of peace loving villagers. The title of the article should be changed to "Battle of Deir Yassin," or in the alternative, "The Deir Yassin Controversy." Referring to it as the "Deir Yassin Massacre" when the facts are in dispute is inconsistent with Wikipedia guideline for neutrality.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:51, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

What you have done here is the same as Guy Montag several years ago, and that is taking the propaganda peddled at this webpage:

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/deir_yassin.html This is not a reliable source, in fact, it is a fast way of showing that you have an agenda that is contrary to the purpose of wikipedia's neutrality.-- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 21:56, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Just the last sentence in this article makes it abundantly clear that is cannot be used as a source; it claims "References to Deir Yassin have remained a staple of anti-Israel propaganda for decades because the incident was unique." (My bolding). Of course, "the incident" was not unique. Just take the Ein al-Zeitun massacre and (possibly the worst:) the Al-Dawayima massacre. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 11:13, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Deir Yassin massacre is the correct title. That is the overwhelmingly most common English name for the event and the description overwhelmingly most supported by historians. Titles should not reflect minority viewpoints. Zero^talk 03:30, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Kim van der Linde, your dismissive response is an indication that you are not interested in civil discourse. Rather you are interested merely in perpetuating and regurgitating one particular narrative over another. First off, who anointed you judge and jury over what is or isn’t a reliable source. Second, the compiled sources are of first hand witness accounts, historical archives and noted historians who are recognized among their peers. Moreover, here’s what military historian Chaim Herzog had to say about the battle; “While operation Nachshon was being carried out, one of the more controversial episodes in the war took place. An attack was mounted by an Irgun unit with members of Lehi on the Arab village of Deir Yassin, on the western edge of Jerusalem. In the course of the fighting, over 200 of the villagers were reported to have been killed. There have been numerous conflicting reports about the attack on Deir Yassin. Certainly, it became a weapon in the hands of the Arabs over the years in their attacks on Israel, and the words ‘Deir yassin’ were used over and over again by the Arabs to justify their own atrocities. The Irgun version maintains that they called upon the village to surrender, but that when fire was opened on them, inflicting casualties, they found themselves involved in a military attack.” (Herzog, The Arab-Israeli Wars, p.31, Random House 1982). I have now listed three historians who have questioned the narrative or at least present the issue as a matter of dispute. Based on the aforementioned, I maintain that the article’s title be changed to the “Battle of Deir Yassin.”--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 01:33, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Again, what you are doing is original research using non-reliable sources to make your point. You have listed one pseudo-historian who disagrees, as the two historians who are generally considered the most reliable sources, Milstein and Morris, calls it a massacre. And yes, my response is dismissive, because we should be dismissive at wikipedia of original research and non-reliable sources. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 07:42, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Herzog was not a "military historian". He was a career army officer and lawyer, who subsequently became Israel's ambassador to the United Nations, and then president of Israel. In effect, he was a professional propagandist, and his writings have to be read in that context. RolandR (talk) 07:40, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The majority of your sources are Jewish/Israeli accounts of the massacre or the analyses of Israeli historians. Of course the Irgun fighters are going to make claims like this, what did you expect? If you look at the majority of sources from the Arab perspective you'll find the exact opposite of these claims. This "battle" is widely regarded as being a massacre, any controversial accounts can be left to the body, but the title should not reflect a minority viewpoint. Respectfully,ElUmmah (talk) 01:46, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Herzog doesn't even deny it was a massacre, read it carefully. Zero^talk 02:18, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

There is no reason to go around the same Ferris wheel with the same vested players from four years ago. I would instead recommend JJ to improve the article by adding context, improving language, or start a new article in Wikipedia about the battle before the incident described in this article, and link it so people can read about it.

Today, there is a case before the High Court of Israel, with participants asking for files regarding the case from the the IDF archives. Once those archives are released in a couple of years, there will be more information about the subject. Guy Montag (talk) 17:12, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

This article could perhaps use some improvement, but recommending that someone start a WP:POVFORK in response to it is completely inappropriate. Gatoclass (talk) 17:50, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I didn't mean to suggest a povfork. Nonetheless, more information and less volatile language would improve this article and help to assuage the situation. There is a reason that people have suggested over five times to change the title. I think it stems from the overall bias of the article itself. If that were to be mitigated, then the name of the article would become less of a contentious point. Guy Montag (talk) 01:19, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

And there is a reason that each time, the consensus view has rejected a change of title. Most editors, along with most reliable sources, accept this title as the correct and object description of the events, and prefer it to any of the more POV alternatives suggested. RolandR (talk) 07:07, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Support rename per JG. The current name may be more "popular", but not by mainstream sources. Besides, per NPOV, a lesser popular name should be preferred to a more popular name when the more popular name is as contentious as this one.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:43, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

"Mainstream sources" overwhelmingly call this a massacre. Could you list the "mainstream sources" that use something else? nableezy - 04:27, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

In

Summary

Ok, so, we had our 6 month bout of name change discussion, with the nothing new added. We have the same assertions by some editors that historians overwhelmingly support a different name, that mainstream sources are all using a different name and the usual original interpretation of cherry picked sources that should persuade the other editors that a different name should be used. As usual, only a few non-reliable sources are provided, which are generally cherry picked from propaganda pages, which includes funny assertions that Milstien does not call it a massacre, while he has devoted whole sections of his book on this aspect. So, I suggest we close this discussion till one of the proponents of a name change actually provides links to sources where reputable historians clearly indicate that it was not a massacre and that the name should be changed. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 10:58, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry friend but you don't get to decide when the discussion is over. The discussion has only begun.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 23:47, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

In that case, I suggest you start finding some new non-partisan sources (like reputed historians etc) that proof your point. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 11:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Please see The Arab-Israeli Conflict by Richard Worth. Worth describes the circumstances surrounding Deir Yassin as follows: “In April an incident occurred at Deir Yassin, which like many other elements of the long conflict between Muslims and Jews, is surrounded by controversy.” Please further note that he captions the discussion of events at Deir Yassin as “Controversy over Deir Yassin.” I advocate that the title of our article at Wikipedia be changed to this very same neutral format. Others recognize it as controversial and subject to different narratives. The issue of massacre can be explored further in the body text. However, to presume facts in the title violates neutrality. Respectfully,--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 15:29, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

In the index, it is called the Deir Yassin Massacre, and he is only describing the controversy, not arguing that one or the other description should be used. The last lines actually provides more evidence to the claim that it is a massacre, as the loudspeaker truck never reached the town. So, no reputed historian who claims that the name Deir Yassin massacre is wrong. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 21:44, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

The only dissent he quotes is the leader of the Irgun!! Thanks for disproving your own case. Zero^talk 15:52, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not try to prove or disprove anything. I'm merely showing you that non-partisan others, recognizing the controversy, have adopted a more neutral heading and so should we.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 16:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I have never heard of Richard Worth before, but an online search shows that he is a writer of popularising non-fiction for children and young adults.[47],[48] This does not in itself, of course, make him an unreliable source; but it certainly does not qualify him to disprove the opinion of virtually all the genuine scholarts and experts on this.RolandR (talk) 16:39, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

It seems that you will go to great lengths to protect what you deem to be the truth by casting doubt and dispersion over any source that doesn't fit your narrative. Please then have a look at this link. These are words spoken by Palestinians who were there. Hopefully, there will be one or two of you that will put aside our differences and allow fairness and balance to prevail. Respectfully,--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:33, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

There were some discussions in the Russian Wikipedia to change the title of the article. But the paries agreed that in Russian "the battle" is also mostly known as massacre. Jim Fitzgerald ^post 19:05, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

As an outsider reading this, it is apparent that there are claims for both sides. "Massacre" strongly points to one side, however. In all fairness, I would support a title change to "Battle" which would give weight to both sides. 141.155.148.197 (talk) 19:49, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

No, it wouldn't. It would imply that this was a clash between two more-or-less equal participants, rather than a deliberate attack on civilians by militia. As such, it would reject the overwhelming consensus of historians in favour of the self-serving narrative of the aggressor. RolandR (talk) 20:12, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Roland, ur revert was unwarranted and abusive. First off, I also cited Morris but you were so trigger happy on the rervert button you didn't even bother looking. Second, As far as Bard is concerned, who appointed you judge and jury over whose reliable. Stop reverting sourced content and stop edit warring.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 20:30, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the comment above about using "Battle" to give fair weight, particularly in light of Milstein's quote above proving that Deir Yassin was not filled with civilians only. And, Dr. Bard certainly has known credentials. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HumanitarianHeart (talk • contribs) 20:59, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Bard is well-known. Not as a scholar, but he is well-known. Jiu, please get a better source for that claim, the American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise meets none of the requirements of WP:RS. This is a well-documented event, we dont need to use such sources. nableezy - 21:11, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Despite the arrival, during the same hour, of two brand new editors, choosing to make their first-ever edits on Wikipedia in endorsement of this name-change, it remains my considered opinion that the proposed edits are tendencious, and having been discussed on and off for years and rejected as such and non-compliant, we should proceed cautiously; to wit, reverting similar, ipso facto tendencious edits balanced on cherry-picked sources that sought to re-frame victims as militiamen. By the way, "The invasion occurred as Jewish militia sought to relieve the blockade of Jerusalem during the civil war that preceded the end of British rule in Palestine" is curious to have in the lead, resisting a blockade as reasoning for such an attack, and this rationalization right up there at the top of the article. RomaC (talk) 00:38, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Funny how it's open season on Bard while the likes of Ilan Pappe (who represents the extreme left of Israel and advocates its demise), Daniel McGowan of Counterpunch and Rashid Khalidi (who never met an Israel hater he didn't like), are considered untouchable. It's hypocracy in the extreme. If you preclude Bard, you must preclude Pappe, McGowan and Khalidi as they represent the other extreme.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 05:03, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Bard didn't even write Myths and Facts, he is just the latest of a list of editors. M&F is a load of rubbish well known as existing (since the 1960s) for propagandistic purposes, and there's no way it can satisfy WP:RS. As for this page, we'll let you use it if you can identify "Habib Issa, secretary-general of the Arab League". No such person, and the rest is of similar quality. Finally, your attempt to prove there weren't any women killed is absolutely contrary to all the main sources. One or two women dressed as women were reported, that's all. One Irgun witness gave the discovery of one such person as the excuse for shooting women; I don't see that cited but I might. Zero^talk 05:24, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Um, Rashid Khalidi isn't cited in the article at all. And Pappe is used as a reference concerning the location of Deir Yassin. Keep going, though, you're off to a good start. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:29, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, keep in mind that WP:BLP applies to article Talk pages. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:31, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of Pappe, does "Pappe 2006, p. 90" really say that Deir Yassin was overlooking the highway? You can see from the topographic map that it did not overlook the highway. Actually people from DY would have needed to walk about 1km towards the highway before being able to see it. Zero^talk 05:43, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

M&F is generally ignored in academic circles as it isn't recognized as a history book. But it is reviewed sometimes. Here are some choice sentences from reviews of M&F in academic journals: "Simply put, Davis' work is that of a compiler who has gathered virtually every piece of Zionist propaganda produced since the mid-1940s. The reason this book is undocumented is because one cannot document lies." (Wright, 1987) "The problem is that Bard and Himelfarb utterly fail to lay out anything approaching the truth. Although their prose is studded with footnotes, Myths and Facts is not a scholarly work. It fails even as propaganda." (Neff, 1993) "The Arab-Israeli conflict is littered with propaganda masquerading as information. Both sides are active in this black area, where distorting the facts to one side's favor is considered success. In general, Israel and its supporters have been more adept in this poisonous pursuit, mainly because of their wide media access in the United States. The latest edition of Myths and Facts, however, is not one of the better efforts by the pro-Israel side, mainly because it is less adroit than usual at twisting the facts to the benefit of Israel." (Neff, 2002) Exact citations on request. Zero^talk 05:59, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

In addition to Myths and Facts, I've noted three other sources supporting the claim that Arabs dressed as women.

• 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., Wiley & Sons, 2004, p81

What basis do you have to revert these sources?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 06:39, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

You are not even attempting to present a balanced view. There is agreement that a few Arab men dressed as women but beyond that there is no agreement. Look up to the top section on this talk page; that is well documented and must be a part of any discussion on this topic. You can't just insert a few selected versions that suit your wishes. Zero^talk 08:16, 23 May 2010 (UTC) And Dershowitz is not a historian at all; admit him and all sorts of random activists are permitted. Zero^talk 08:22, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I reverted because you violated the copyright of Sundquist and Leibovitz by copying text from their books verbatim. Please read the first sentence that appears under the edit box: Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:55, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I looked it up. According to the guidelines it may be used if it's "brief quotation used in accordance with non-free content policy and guideline." so I think I'm okay. If you disagree, please let me know and I'll adjust accordingly. Respectfully,--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 15:39, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Zero, your comment that humanitarianheart was “probably a sock” represents arrogance in the extreme. You imply that no one would ever disagree with you and therefore it had to be a sock. Well people do disagree with you and I suggest that in the future you accord them a measure of respect and don’t be so dismissive. I now count at least five editors (myself included) who support the edit and support changing the article’s title. As for the edit, I have now noted six sources that support the claim that Arab men disguised themselves as women and this may have been a contributing factor in the killing of women during the course of the battle. I stress that it was a “contributing factor” though not the only factor. The following six sources were used.

• Gelber, Appendix II Propaganda as History: What Happened at Deir Yassin?, p 314
• 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., Wiley & Sons, 2004, p81
• Randall Price, Fast Facts on the Middle East Conflict - (Harvest House Publishers) (2003) ISBN 0-7369-1142-1 , p 92
• Bard, Mitchell Myths and Facts: A Guide to the Arab Israeli Conflict, p134

You may have problems with some of the sources utilized and that’s fine. I can work with you and possibly remove some of the sources you find most offensive. I can also rework the edit itself if this will help to achieve its inclusion. However, you can not be dismissive of all the noted sources simply by referring to them as “Propagandistic.”--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 15:42, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I removed the section. Most of your sources are partisan and of poor quality. To put this in perspective, Gelber devotes a single sentence to this alleged deception and you have created an entire section for it. That's a massive case of WP:UNDUE. As I said earlier, there may be some room for adding some dissenting material to the article, but this is not the way to go about it. Gatoclass (talk) 16:07, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I don't wish to edit war. How do you propose resolving this? I am open to suggestions. This reverting business is getting us nowhere.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 16:16, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

It's really late here and I can't open a debate about this tonight. I will try to find time to review the article tomorrow and perhaps make a suggestion or two. Gatoclass (talk) 16:24, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I am restoring the edit for now and promise to self-revert pending your suggestions for improvement and resolution of the matter. I understand and respect your position. I must point out however that the issue of the "alleged deception" is but one of many components to this controversial battle. There were also allegations of prior warning, whether the villagers received that warning, allegations of rape and counter allegations that no rapes occurred, allegations of enbellishments by various parties for various interests, etc... It is precisely because there are so many facets to this case that the issue of women's disguises and possible deceptive tactics get glossed over and buried in a myriad of allegations and counter-allegations. But that does not make it less important and it is an issue that comes up time and again. However, In the interest and spirit of collaborative editing, I will self-revert, assuming that good faith alternatives are forthcoming.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 16:43, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Malik, which specific passages do you think are COPYVIO? You're blanking a whole section with multiple sources without ever explaining what exactly you're objecting to. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:14, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

As I wrote above and on Jiujitsuguy's Talk page, everything not in quotation marks was copied and pasted from Sundquist and Leibovitz. There was nothing in the section but (plagiarized) portions of Sundquist and Leibovitz and quotations from other sources. This is Wikipedia, not Wikiquote. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:23, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I have made additional edits and revisions in an attempt to address your WP:COPYVIO concerns.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 20:11, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Changing a few words here and there isn't enough. See WP:Close paraphrasing. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:18, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Malik, please remove the tags. I believe your tags are disingenuous. Your first objections to the edit had nothing to do with WP:COPYVIO and then you shifted gears and changed tactics. Your tags have nothing to do with WP:COPYVIO and everything to do with objecting to content you and your cohorts don't approve of. I have offered compromise but you're turning it into a zero sum game.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 22:21, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I don´t think Bard or Dershowitz are used as sources on history in any serious work (Dershowitz is not an historian, AFAIK). It is not acceptable, methinks, that people edit-war to keep in such sub-standard sources. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 20:26, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Roland, the entire article is contentious and in dispute, why pick on one edit? --Legallymine (talk) 21:54, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Argument for title change

The edit lock on this article has given both camps a reprieve from the endless edit warring that has plagued this and other I-P articles. The problem here stems primarily from the fact that a rather small, like-minded group of hard core revisionists have chosen to disregard recent studies debunking the myth of Deir Yassin. Instead, they have adopted a biased narrative that chooses one side at the expense of the other. I have proposed changes to the article title that comports with WP:NPOV, giving equal weight to both sides. I have provided mainstream sources that describe the battle in neutral terms.

Chaim Herzog describes the battle this way; “While operation Nachshon was being carried out, one of the more controversial episodes in the war took place. An attack was mounted by an Irgun unit with members of Lehi on the Arab village of Deir Yassin, on the western edge of Jerusalem. In the course of the fighting, over 200 of the villagers were reported to have been killed. There have been numerous conflicting reports about the attack on Deir Yassin. Certainly, it became a weapon in the hands of the Arabs over the years in their attacks on Israel, and the words ‘Deir yassin’ were used over and over again by the Arabs to justify their own atrocities. The Irgun version maintains that they called upon the village to surrender, but that when fire was opened on them, inflicting casualties, they found themselves involved in a military attack.” (Herzog, The Arab-Israeli Wars, p.31, Random House 1982). There is no mention of “Massacre.”

In his book The Arab-Israeli Conflict, Richard Worth describes the circumstances surrounding Deir Yassin as follows: “In April an incident occurred at Deir Yassin, which like many other elements of the long conflict between Muslims and Jews, is surrounded by controversy.” Please further note that he captions the discussion of events at Deir Yassin as “Controversy over Deir Yassin.” Again, there is no mention of “massacre.” Rather it is described as a “controversy.”

Gelber states that “The massacre at Deir Yassin, if what happened in the village deserves this definition, was almost an inevitable outcome of circumstances.” Note his carefully chosen words and qualification, “if what happened in the village deserves this definition.” This qualification speaks volumes about the controversy surrounding the incident.

Milstein equates the myth of Deir Yassin with a modern day blood libel.

There are many points of contention on this topic. Recent accounts have debunked charges of rape and the number of villagers killed has been revised downward to less than half originally reported. Several sources have acknowledged that Arab “warriors” violated the laws of war by either feigning surrender or disguising themselves as women. Nearly all sources acknowledge that the battle was fierce and all the hard core Israel bashers have conveniently chosen to ignore this report.

I am not here to argue one point or another. It is quite possible that a massacre did occur. However, it is our responsibility not to take sides but to present sourced facts in the body text. By calling it a massacre in the title, you instantly take sides and set the tone for the entire article. This is wrong, violates WP:NPOV and must be corrected.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 16:08, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, it is unfortunate that you claim to seek WP:NPOV, with a extreme biased approach to insert original research into the article. Most of this has already been discussed above, and you keep pushing the same line of propaganda.

• Chaim Herzog is not a historian but military, an intelligence officer and later president of Israel. What you have quoted is literally everything he says about the massacre. Does not discuss whether there was a massacre or not, but only the effect of the case. Basically, not a WP:RS source.
• Richard Worth article has been discussed already. Your claim that he does not call it a massacre is incorrect, as demonstrated above. Besides that, not a reliable source, as demonstrated above as well.
• Yoav Gelber is probably the most reliable source that you have, but a qualifier from someone without a proper reasoning really does not mean it did not happen. Worse, he calls it a massacre: "Certainly, it was not the bloodiest massacre of the war".
• Milstein calls it a massacre, read Chapter 16: Deir Yassin, Section 12: The Massacre, page 377 of the book you cited.
• News articles are not WP:RS, this includes video segments.
• Your claim that you are not here to argue one point of the other is bunk. You misquote the most important historians,or worse, they are absent from your arguments at all. Your sources are generally rightwing propaganda sides, and their distortions.

So, do you now actually have spome reliable sources that have solid arguments that it should be called something else? -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 21:54, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Kim van der Linde, you are the one recycling used trash. Your arguments amount to nothing more than calling sources you don't agree with, "propaganda." Herzog is an accomplished historian and author. The fact that he is Israeli or Jewish does not negate his contribution. You claim that Richard Worth is not an RS "as demonstrated above." No such "demonstation" was made. Gelber's qualification of the term "massacre" is backed by credible, thorough research and reasoning and Milstien refers to the entire episode as a blood libel. Moreover, this report is certainly relevant and your failure to address it speaks volumes about your bias. In addition, I cited six sources clearly demonstrating that some Arab combatants violated the laws of war by disguising themselves as women, feigning surrender or both. Your cohorts blather about Bard and Dershowitz as "unreliable" but fail to address the fact that I noted four other sources, including Gelber. Curiously however, until I made the edit, there was no mention of this repugnant conduct in the article. I wonder why?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 23:19, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Just repeating your claims is really not going to sway anybody. Just as reading selectively what has been written earlier. But heck, not that I am surprised based on the discussion until now.-- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 10:07, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Because you didn't look properly? The allegation has been mentioned in the article for a long time. Your version of it is however exceedingly one sided. Bard and Dershowitz contributed nothing except words, neither of them even claimed to have done an actual investigation. I don't object to a version which (1) mentions the allegation, (2) cites or quotes Gelber, (3) cites or quotes the eyewitness testimonies of Gorodentchik and Tsaban see the top section of this Talk page. Zero^talk 01:33, 26 May 2010 (UTC) PS: I just noticed that one of your sources is J. Randall Price, who "In 2009, he drew media attention when fielding an expedition to Turkey to find Noah's Ark". Is this what "reliable source" means to you? Zero^talk 01:40, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

The arguments presented above are misrepresented -- on page 123 of the Worth book the event is indexed under "Deir Yassin Massacre"; the term is also used by Gelber and Milstein as shown above. The title of the article is the term used most by reliable sources. Please stop ignoring this.

Have been following this article since the Guy Montag campaign, now another has taken up the cause. What I see here is not a reasonable participation in the project (explore sources to create content); but rather advocacy editing, (start with the desired content then move backward, cherry-picking supporting sources). The instigating editor's claim that he is "not here to argue one point or another" sounds nice, but is totally unsubstantiated. RomaC (talk) 03:27, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, Guy Montag is directing this campaign, so no surprise about how this discussion is done. But it is nice to have the evidence in writing that Guy Montag is directing this campaign. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 10:07, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, would note with concern that that the accounts 141.155.148.197 (talk • contribs); HumanitarianHeart (talk • contribs); Legallymine (talk • contribs) and Truesade (talk • contribs) were all created in the last two weeks and have participated only on this article. RomaC (talk) 03:41, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I am amazed and disturbed by the obvious perversions here. In light of the much varying evidence and views, it is the term massacre that clearly represents a one-sided position as it denies that controversy exists. Battle would represent a truthfully unbiased position as it gives fair weight to both opposing parties. This is a definite, almost comic, case of turned tables where the proposer of Deir Yassin Battle is being branded as the one with "an extreme biased approach...pushing the same line of propaganda." I have always valued neutrality and impartiality, golden principles of humanitarianism (see my signature name). When the neutral and impartial term is being mocked as one-sided, it is nothing short of perversion. And it pains my conscience. The Dier Yassin incident is heartbreaking, as is the Hadassah Medical Convoy Massacre (which is undisputed and lives up to its unfortunate title). The world is not a fair, pain-free one. Every death hurts. But, by abusing painful incidents and slanting them with very suggestive labels (massacre in this controversial and dubious case), you are guilty of making the world an even more unfair place. You are seeking to cause extra, legitimately questionable pain to an already troubled world. (Re the BBC clip, it can not be denied that it is a powerful primary source that explains the massacre controversy.) Deeply disturbed, HumanitarianHeart (talk) 03:55, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Welcome again to Wikipedia HumanH. I left you a page of links on Wiki policies when you joined us last week, in this case you could consult naming conventions, which explains: "the (article) title may contain a word of questionable neutrality, such as "massacre" or "terrorism," if this word is part of the common name." Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 04:19, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Roma, address HHearts issues, it seems that you implement the neutrality card only when the comment is (true) against your opinion but not against the facts. It goes both ways. Shalom.--Truesade (talk) 04:35, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Seeing as how HumanitarianHeart has been blocked as a sock of you, you could have just said "Roma, address my issues". nableezy - 15:26, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

There are now at least five editors (Brewerscrewer, Guy Montak, Breein, No More Mr Nice Guy, and myself) who advocate title change and inclusion of more balanced edits in the body text. (Two other accounts that expressed support were closed due to alleged sockpuppetry). I have identified seven editors (RolandR, Zero, RomaC, Kim van, Malik, Huldra and Nab) who oppose any change. It seems that it's rather close and edit warring is a real possibility when protection is lifted. I am open to compromise. One possible suggestion is to leave the title as is with the word "controversy" placed in parenthesis alongside it. As for the added content concerning Arab combatants dressing as women, this is a serious charge, represents possible violations of the Laws of War and expresses a concern that is not at all addressed in the body text of the article. Moreover, six sources can not be discarded with the swipe of a hand. Even excluding Bard, you're still left with five. However, I am open to compromise on this issue as well. Any suggestions--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 15:41, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

You missed ElUnmmah and Jim Fitzgerald, who both opposed changing the name. And, since Guy Montag is topic banned, mainly because of his edit-warring on this article, his support is of no account. So that is a balance of more than two to one against the change. You certainly cannot claim any sort of consensius for your proposal, or even a close result. RolandR (talk) 16:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

There is plenty of room in the article to present whatever controversy there is. The article title should reflect the most common English usage according to policy, and strangely it already does. Zero^talk 15:49, 26 May 2010 (UTC) Incidentally, Gelber does not support the claim that combatants dressed as women; he refers to men trying to escape, not combatants. You'd probably cross-dress too if you thought it was your only chance to stay alive. Zero^talk 16:00, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Here are some high quality sources that say that what occurred at Deir Yassin was a massacre:

• Lewis, William (1984), The British Empire in the Middle East, 1945-1951: Arab Nationalism, the United States, and Postwar Imperialism, Oxford University Press

  p. 575: The Deir Yassin massacre is a touchstone of historical controversy in the Middle East. ... On the 9th of April 1948 Jewish irregular forces under the command of the Irgun killed 240 men, women and childen in Deir Yassin, an Arab village on the road to the western entrance of Jerusalem. The massacre helped to trigger the mass exodus of Arab refugees who by 1949 numbered 726,000, or about seventy per cent of the population of Arab Palestine.

• Segev, Tom; Weinstein, Arlen (1998), 1949, the first Israelis, Macmillan

  p. 88: In Deir Yassin hundreds of innocent men, women and children were massacred.

• Tal, David (2004), War in Palestine, 1948: strategy and diplomacy, Routledge

  A tragic by-product of the fighting over al-Qastal was the Deir Yassin massacre. The circumstances of these events are a matter of controversy, especially concerning the role of the Hagana and knowledge of the plan to attack the village. ... A combined IZL and LHI unit, supported by Hagana mortar fire, attacked and conquered Deir Yassin, an Arab village on the outskirts of Jerusalem, not far from al-Qastal. During the takeover of the village, which up to that moment had remained out of the fighting, the Jewish forces massacred some 120 men, women and children, and the survivors were expelled to East Jerusalem.

• Tessler, Mark (1994), A History of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Indiana University Press

  p. 291: Deir Yassin was a Palestinian village about five miles west of Jerusalem, and on April 9, 1948, forces of the Irgun and Stern Group entered the village and massacred 254 defenseless civilians, including about 100 women and children.

• Morris, Benny (2004), The birth of the Palestinian refugee problem revisited, Cambridge University Press

  p. 239: The massacre was immediately condemned by the mainstream Jewish authorities, including the Haganah, the Chief Rabbinate, and the JA ... The most 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.

• Sa'idi, Ahmad; Abu-Lighod, Lila, eds. (2007), Nakba: Palestine, 1948, and the claims of memory, Columbia University Press

  p. 104: Deir Yassin was a village whose inhabitants had a nonaggression pact with the Hagana but was attacked by a joint Irgun-LEHI force that by conservative estimates slaughtered about 115 men, women and children and stuffed their bodies down wells. Publicity about the massacre through Irgun and Hagana mobile loudspeaker units in Jaffa and Haifa and through Arab radio created enormous fears. (Many more instances of calling it a massacre)

There are many more high quality sources that say flat out that what happened here was a massacre. Even Dershowitz's "The case for Israel" (which is not a RS, just demonstrating a point) repeatedly calls it a massacre, see p. 82 (2003). nableezy - 18:54, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Lets not forget Milstein himself in his book. I think also important in this context is Morris, Benny (2005). "The Historiography of Deir Yassin". Journal of Israeli History. 24 (1): 79–107. doi:10.1080/13531040500040305.. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 19:16, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

And while we are at it, Neve Gordon recently wrote a column titled Even Picnics in Israel are Political (available on Counterpunch and some other sites), where he writes "Deir Yassin was a Palestinian village located on the outskirts of Jerusalem. The Jewish neighborhood, which now stands in its place, was built not long after Israeli paramilitary forces evicted its Palestinian residents, while massacring an estimated 100 men, women and children out of a total population of 600." nableezy - 20:20, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Half the accounts in the rename campaign were socks, why am I not surprised? Anyway policy is clear it does not fall to us to decide it was "really" a massacre, articles are named with the most common English term. For example Hadassah medical convoy massacre, Kiryat Shmona massacre, Ma'alot massacre, Coastal Road massacre, Avivim school bus massacre, etc. RomaC (talk) 03:07, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Abusive POV reverts

Can someone tell me what's wrong with this sourced edit [49] 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)

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)

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)

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)

This page is an archive, so I'm going to copy these comments to Talk:Deir Yassin massacre. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:10, 28 August 2010 (UTC)