Talk:Deir Yassin massacre/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Area "invaded"

Regardless of whether or not the actual arab troop movements entered areas designated as Israel or otherwise under the partition agreement, we cannot change the text from what is said in the source. I do not have a copy of the source; can anyone confirm whether or not the source supporting said paragraph uses the term "Israel", "Palestine", or something else? -- Avi (talk) 21:02, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

The source says Palestine. Benny Morris 1948, 2008, p. 127: "The broadcasts [about Deir Yassin] fanned outrage and reinforced the Arab governments' resolve to invade Palestine five weeks later." SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 21:16, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

You beat me to it. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:19, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Then Palestine it should be; thanks! -- Avi (talk) 21:20, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Welcome. :) SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 21:27, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

As a backup source, perhaps the following, from Cold War: A Student Encyclopedia entry on King Abdullah of Jordan might help:

During the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, Abdullah served as the commander in chief of Arab forces. As such, he sent his Arab forces into Palestine, occupying areas that he wished to annex. He avoided, however, attacking Jewish areas in the United Nations’ partition plan, but his army did battle unsuccessfully for control of Jerusalem.

Spencer C. Tucker (Editor), Cold War: A Student Encyclopedia, Volume 1, ABC-CLIO, Santa Barbara, California, 2008, p 51.

-- ZScarpia (talk) 10:36, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Jiujitsuguy's edits to lead

Jiujitsuguy is editing the lead without adding sources or discussing here. Please contribute on Talk. RomaC (talk) 00:15, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Jiujitsuguymay not have added any sources, but according to Morris, "The attackers ... rounded up villagers, who included militiamen and unarmed civilians of both sexes, and murdered them ..." (p. 237). — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I see. Editing to reflect the source. Ok, let's see, the article read: Around 107 villagers, including women and children, were killed. Some were shot, while others died when hand grenades were thrown into their homes.[3][4] Several were taken prisoner and may have been killed after being paraded through the streets of West Jerusalem, though accounts vary. To reflect the source, should this be changed to Villagers, including 107 unarmed civilians of all ages and four militiamen, were rounded up and murdered.? Reverting to the long-standing version while this is discussed.RomaC (talk) 00:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

First, where did you get the figure of four from? I don't have Morris handy (I was using Google Books), but from what I saw he didn't specify the number of militiamen.

Second, you shouldn't use WP:Popups in an edit dispute. It is intended primarily as an anti-vandalism tool, and its use effectively says, "Your edits were vandalism." I'm sure that's not the message you intended to convey. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I apologize, I was following WP:BRD and not expecting an edit dispute. I understood the convention was if an editor makes a bold edit, and it is then reverted, discussion should than take place. Is this not so? I wasn't expecting a second reversion. I am also sending a question on your talk page. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 01:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Disambiguation page

Just wondering whether there should be a disambiguation page with both "Deir Yassin (village)" and "Deir Yassin massacre" when someone searches up "Deir Yassin". My reason for suggesting this is that is more likely that someone who inputs "Deir Yassin" into the search is looking for information on the massacre, rather than the village in question: its a case of a particular event attached to the village being more notorious or renowned than the village itself. I can vouch for this as I actually searched "Dayr Yassin" expecting to be directed straight to an article on the massacre. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.43.238.129 (talk) 22:17, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for raising a good point. Typically, a disambiguation page is only used when there are three or more articles that share a name. In this case, Deir Yassin (the village) has a hatnote that directs readers to this article. That's what Wikipedia guidelines say we should be doing. We don't have to follow the guidelines, though, if they make it harder for readers to find what they want. Let's see what other editors say. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:27, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Irgun and Lehi - Sources

Benny K, thanks for adding sources for the statement: the Irgun was aligned with the right-wing revisionist Zionist movement and Lehi, although not politically aligned, viewed itself as an anti-imperialist movement. Could you give me some idea where in The Stern Gang and The First Tithe I should look for verifications? -- ZScarpia (talk) 10:09, 3 April 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 [1], [2], [3], [4], [5] 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.[6],[7] 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)

"nobots" tag

Curious as to why there is a {Tl|nobots}} tag on this article -- was doing citation maintenance using citationbot and it was disallowed. --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 22:25, 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)

Allegations of Arabs Dressing As Women

This section is a joke. "The case for Israel" as a neutral and reliable source? Bard as a reliable source? And the latest addition, Lynne Reid Banks, a childrens book writer. Please. --Frederico1234 (talk) 18:06, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Please get involved, many of the editors here were recently blocked as socks. Agreed this section seems a POV push with questionable sources and undue weight. RomaC (talk) 01:44, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The section seems like a poorly sourced POV push. It gives undue weight to a relatively insignificant allegation. On top of that, it's a close paraphrase (and hence a WP:COPYVIO) of two sources and a quotefarm with respect to the others. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree it is poorly sourced and a massive case of WP:UNDUE. As I've said there may be a case for adding some "dissenting" material to the article, or at least reorganizing some of the existing content, but this material is simply not appropriate. Gatoclass (talk) 10:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I beg to differ. Combatants disguising themselves as women or feigning surrender represent serious breaches of the Laws of War. It also provides a partial explanation for civilian deaths. As for the sources, I've named seven and I can give you another seven if you want. It is documented fact. It happened, so deal with it. It’s quite obvious why you want to preclude this information and it has nothing to do with Wikipedia guidelines. If you go to the Six Day War article there are disproportionately huge sections dealing with alleged Israeli killings of Egyptian POWs and the Liberty incident. I don’t see you screaming WP:UNDUE. Please stop being hypocritical. I am open to compromise if you are willing to discuss. Otherwise, we’ll go around the same ferris wheel when protection is lifted. Respectfully--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 16:27, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh please. Accusing me of hypocrisy over an article I haven't even looked at for years? If you think I'm a "hypocrite", show me an edit I have made that you think demonstrates the charge, I'm not personally responsible for the state of random I-P articles. And while you're at it, kindly leave the gratuitous bad faith assumptions about my alleged motives aside. Gatoclass (talk) 15:54, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Really, you are threatening to edit war again once the page is unprotected? -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 16:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm actually trying to avoid one by working collaboratively toward a solution.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 16:55, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, just to be clear. Because there is no consensus about adding it, anybody adding it starts the edit war again. So, if you do not want to edit war, reach consensus here first. Okay? -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 17:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I concur. There, we actually agee on something. Can you think of a solution?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 17:03, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Good. And now that we agree that we won't edit the section in question till there is a consensus on this talk page, lets start with the first thing: reliable sources. And instead of just mentioning many sources and avoiding the discussion whether they are WP:RS, lets deal with it. Propaganda sides are NOT WP:RS, news programs are not WP:RS for historical information. So, what do the historians actually say about cross-dressing women in this case. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 17:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Personally I think that a brief paragraph devoted to this question is permissible, but your (JJ's) text is not. Most of your sources are not good (please explain why someone famous for "fielding an expedition to Turkey to find Noah's Ark" is worth quoting), and the way you present them is also not good (eg. you imply that real women were not killed, contrary to almost all sources, and you cite Gelber as supporting your claim that combatants dressed as women when he does not support that claim). The facts seem to be (1) some Irgun/Lehi participants claimed there were combatant men dressed as women and one gave it as the reason many women were killed, (2) Gelber says that some men trying to escape dressed as women, (3) eyewitness Yair Tsaban reported that amongst the bodies were "two or three cases of old men dressed in women's clothes". We only need fairly direct quotes from eyewitnesses without excessive repetition (Reid Banks is acceptable in my opinion), and opinions of historians who actually investigated the matter seriously (Gelber, Morris, Milstein, Levy). We don't need tertiary sources that are just noise from people with political opinions (Dershowitz is absolutely unacceptable). Zero^talk 17:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you zero for the productive comment and I'm not being facetious. Hopefully, we can reach a compromise that we all can stomach. Respectfully,--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 17:38, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The material about men dressed as women is marginal at best, and I see little reason to devote space to it. All Gelber - one of the few reliable sources to mention it - has said about it is that some men dressed as women to try and escape execution. Well if someone wants to add that to the article I wouldn't object but it would merit only a sentence in my view.

What I might support is a section which might be called something like "Dissenting views", outlining the views of Milstein and Gelber that the massacre was no worse than other massacres that occurred during the war, that it was exaggerated in scale for a variety of political reasons, that there may have been unique factors that worsened it, and so on. Such a section would however have to be relatively short, in keeping with UNDUE, and it would have to be made clear that these are very much minority views. Gatoclass (talk) 15:41, 5 June 2010 (UTC)