Talk:Deir Yassin massacre/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

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: [1] and in books - 4 good ones [2]. 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)

Wikification?

The article is listed in Wikification WikiProject as in need of wikification since Nov. 2006. Yet it is not currently tagged. Would editors like it wikified (when unprotected)? Itsmejudith 22:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Sure. Why not? Screen stalker 17:32, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Could an admin please remove the Wikify tag? The article may need many things, but it looks adequately wikified. This is the SOLE article left in the Nov 2006 backlog, and if the tag is removed, we can count that month done. I looked over the article, and can see no compelling reason for the tag to stay (it isn't at the top, its about 2/3 of the way down). Thanks!--Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:12, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd differ from this (as a contributor to the wikification project). The article could do with some work on the formatting. It shouldn't stay protected for ever. Itsmejudith 09:58, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Request for addition to Historical Background - cutting of water supply to Jerusalem

I apologize if I make any errors in the format of this request. The Times 9/4/48 (day of the massacre) reported that the previous day the water supply had been cut to Jerusalem. This information should be in the historical background as cutting off the water supply was a potentially disastrous act for the Jews and could have provided a motive for a massacre. The water cut off was considered sufficently siginificant to cause a UN security council debate. I therefore suggest adding the following paragraph to the Historical Background: "On 8 April 1948 Arab forces cut off the water supply to Jerusalem placing the lives of the Jewish residents of Jerusalem at risk."Telaviv1 12:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Is this factor cited in the literature?--Doron 20:36, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

yes it is, i've read about it on a number of sources. hopefully i'll get around to it sometime soon... unless someone else picks up the glove first. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 01:09, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

(1)The suggested 'fact' is not material to the massacre. At this rate, the article on Deir Yassin would have to be expanded to include the whole history of Jewish-Palestinian relations since 1882. The villagers of Deir Yassin had nothing to do with the water supply and were massacred 'pour encourager less autres', as is often the case in massacres, Arab, Jewish, Russian, Chinese, Roman, Greek or otherwise. (2) Those who propose that this hypothesis be inducted into the page are scraping the barrel to try to create an image of a 'retaliation' based on 'existential' threats as a mitigating factor, in that it then would ostensibly provide a 'reasonable' motivational factor for the murderers at Deir Yassin (3) The one cutting off of Jerusalem's water supply which constituted a threat to the population of Jerusalem, Arab and Jewish, conducted in order to 'kill the Jews of Jerusalem from thirst', was that occurring on May 7th., a month after the massacre, by a group of Arabs at Ras el Ein. Even this didn't work since, as far back as January Zvi Leibowitz had built up the city's cistern reserves to a level sufficient to allow the city to cope with an eventual and predictable cutting off of the water supply for as long as 115 days. On his calculations, there was enough for 2 gallons a day, per person, over the coming summer (4) This means that the Jewish authorities had forseen the threat, and taken adequate measures to ensure it could not impact on the coming struggle, fully three months before the massacre of Deir Yassin. The problem was well known, technically prepared for, and therefore cannot be adduced as being a factor in a massacre that occurred in any case one full month before the militants of Ras el Ein tried to leave Jerusalem dry.(5) Jaakobou, on the Hebron massacre page, has proved his mala fides by dishonest sourcing already, as I have protested at the appropriate page.Nishidani 09:11, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

American Jews condemn Deir Yassin massacre in 1948 letter to New York Times

The following letter to the New York Times, signed by Albert Einstein, Hannah Arendt, and other Jewish intellectuals, is reprinted in full:

December 4, 1948 TO THE EDITORS OF THE NEW YORK TIMES:

Among the most disturbing political phenomena of our times is the emergence in the newly created state of Israel of the "Freedom Party" (Tnuat Haherut), a political party closely akin in its organization, methods, political philosophy and social appeal to the Nazi and Fascist parties. It was formed out of the membership and following of the former Irgun Zvai Leumi, a terrorist, right-wing, chauvinist organization in Palestine.

The current visit of Menachem Begin, leader of this party, to the United States is obviously calculated to give the impression of American support for his party in the coming Israeli elections, and to cement political ties with conservative Zionist elements in the United States. Several Americans of national repute have lent their names to welcome his visit. It is inconceivable that those who oppose fascism throughout the world, if correctly informed as to Mr. Begin's political record and perspectives, could add their names and support to the movement he represents.

Before irreparable damage is done by way of financial contributions, public manifestations in Begin's behalf, and the creation in Palestine of the impression that a large segment of America supports Fascist elements in Israel, the American public must be informed as to the record and objectives of Mr. Begin and his movement.

The public avowals of Begin's party are no guide whatever to its actual character. Today they speak of freedom, democracy and anti-imperialism, whereas until recently they openly preached the doctrine of the Fascist state. It is in its actions that the terrorist party betrays its real character; from its past actions we can judge what it may be expected to do in the future.

A shocking example was their behavior in the Arab village of Deir Yassin. This village, off the main roads and surrounded by Jewish lands, had taken no part in the war, and had even fought off Arab bands who wanted to use the village as their base. On April 9 (THE NEW YORK TIMES), terrorist bands attacked this peaceful village, which was not a military objective in the fighting, killed most of its inhabitants - 240 men, women, and children - and kept a few of them alive to parade as captives through the streets of Jerusalem. Most of the Jewish community was horrified at the deed, and the Jewish Agency sent a telegram of apology to King Abdullah of Trans-Jordan. But the terrorists, far from being ashamed of their act, were proud of this massacre, publicized it widely, and invited all the foreign correspondents present in the country to view the heaped corpses and the general havoc at Deir Yassin.

The Deir Yassin incident exemplifies the character and actions of the Freedom Party.

Within the Jewish community they have preached an admixture of ultranationalism, religious mysticism, and racial superiority. Like other Fascist parties they have been used to break strikes, and have themselves pressed for the destruction of free trade unions. In their stead they have proposed corporate unions on the Italian Fascist model.

During the last years of sporadic anti-British violence, the IZL and Stern groups inaugurated a reign of terror in the Palestine Jewish community. Teachers were beaten up for speaking against them, adults were shot for not letting their children join them. By gangster methods, beatings, window-smashing, and wide-spread robberies, the terrorists intimidated the population and exacted a heavy tribute.

The people of the Freedom Party have had no part in the constructive achievements in Palestine. They have reclaimed no land, built no settlements, and only detracted from the Jewish defense activity. Their much-publicized immigration endeavors were minute, and devoted mainly to bringing in Fascist compatriots.

The discrepancies between the bold claims now being made by Begin and his party, and their record of past performance in Palestine bear the imprint of no ordinary political party. This is the unmistakable stamp of a Fascist party for whom terrorism (against Jews, Arabs, and British alike), and misrepresentation are means, and a "Leader State" is the goal.

In the light of the foregoing considerations, it is imperative that the truth about Mr. Begin and his movement be made known in this country. It is all the more tragic that the top leadership of American Zionism has refused to campaign against Begin's efforts, or even to expose to its own constituents the dangers to Israel from support to Begin.

The undersigned therefore take this means of publicly presenting a few salient facts concerning Begin and his party; and of urging all concerned not to support this latest manifestation of fascism.

(signed)

Isidore Abramowitz, Hannah Arendt, Abraham Brick, Rabbi Jessurun Cardozo, Albert Einstein, Herman Eisen, M.D., Hayim Fineman, M. Gallen, M.D., H.H. Harris, Zelig S. Harris, Sidney Hook, Fred Karush, Bruria Kaufman, Irma L. Lindheim, Nachman Maisel, Symour Melman, Myer D. Mendelson, M.D., Harry M. Orlinsky, Samuel Pitlick, Fritz Rohrlich, Louis P. Rocker, Ruth Sager, Itzhak Sankowsky, I.J. Schoenberg, Samuel Shuman, M. Znger, Irma Wolpe, Stefan Wolpe Blindjustice 16:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

• You need a reference for the above before you can use it in the encyclopedia. The easiest/best that I know of is: http://www.jfjfp.org/BackgroundN/einstein_et_al.htm (Jews For Justice for Palestinians). The JFJP is an organisation of UK Jews which claims over 1000 members, and whose petition "In mid 2006, our over twelve hiundred signatories included five rabbis; 99 professors (including four Fellows of the Royal Society and two fellows of the British Association); 107 medical and academic doctors; three OBEs; several OBEs, CBEs and MBEs, three knights and one Member of Parliament". (There are also portions of micro-fiche showing different parts of the letter, but they're not easy to read).
• Einstein had long been campaigning against the looming catastrophe. The following letter (12th April 1948, immediately after Deir Yassin) is co-signed by Leo Baeck, once the spiritual head of the German Jews, put in a concentration camp by the Nazis: "Appeal Made to Jews to Work for Goal of Common Welfare" - "Both Arab and Jewish extremists are today recklessly pushing Palestine into a futile war. ...... we feel it to be our duty to declare emphatically that we do not condone methods of terrorism and of fanatical nationalism any more if practiced by Jews than if practiced by Arabs. We hope that responsible Arabs will appeal to their people as we do to the Jews. Were war to occur, the peace would still leave the necessity of the two peoples working together, unless one or the other were exterminated or enslaved. Short of such a calamity, a decisive victory by either would yield a corroding bitterness. .... Jewish-Arab cooperation has been for many years the aim of far-sighted Jewish groups opposed to any form of terror. .... We believe that it is the unquestionable right of the Jewish community in Palestine to protect its life and work, and that Jewish immigration into Palestine must be permitted to the optimal degree."
• Einstein reminds us that Palestinian Jews were saying the same thing, this letter is from Jerusalem, March 28, 1948 (he refers to it in the letter above): ""An understanding between the two peoples is possible, despite the constant refrain that Jewish and Arab aspirations are irreconcilable. The claims of their extremists are indeed irreconcilable, but the common Jew and the common Arab are not extremists. They yearn for the opportunity of building up their common country, the Holy Land, through labor and cooperation." Signed by Dr. Magnes, the chairman, Dr. Martin Buber, Professor of Jewish Philosophy at Hebrew University; Dr. David Senator, administrator of the university; Dr. Kurt Wiihelm, rabbi of Emeth Ve'Emunah, liberal congregation in Jerusalem; Simon Shereshevsky, a surgeon, who belongs to the Mizrachi Zionist religious group, and Isaa Molho of the Spanish Jewish community.
• There are extremists who insist that Arabs were impossibly anti-semitic and therefore had to be driven from their homes - but that's not what the evidence shows. Einstein supported the immigrants - but he was horrified by what some of them were up to in order to seize Palestine. PalestineRemembered 17:49, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

The primary source for Einstein's letter is the December 4, 1948 issue of the New York Times. The web link http://www.jfjfp.org/BackgroundN/einstein_et_al.htm does not work. However, many links for Einstein's letter were found using a search engine, such as

• http://www.yayacanada.com/einstein_ltr_fascism.html (This link includes a copy of the original New York Times letter which was published on December 4, 1948.)
• http://www.physics.harvard.edu/~wilson/NYTimes1948.html
• http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Dissent/Einstein_NYTimes_Israel.html Blindjustice 06:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I was going to try and bring you up to speed and emphasise why the reference I offered is almost the only safe one to use, but I risk being accused of soap-boxing. There are lots of other references to this work in different places, but if you're to use the Einstein letter and reference to http://www.yayacanada.com/ then you need to prove that the site is not anti-semitic, and/or has never been accused of anti-semitism by the ADL or others. "Jews for Justice for the Palestinians" will have been accused of being "self-hating Jews", but not the imprisonable offenses of some of the others. (The JFJFP account shows in the Google cache in late July, it should only be temporarily off the web). Your Yaya Canadian activism reference does have a scan of the letter, which is valuable and I'd not realised existed on the web.

Sadly, even though you're over that considerable hurdle, you're not in the clear, because you'll be told that this is Einstein's opinion, it's not a fact. Read and inwardly digest a discussion that's already taken place.

(There's another wrinkle you need to understand, WP is written using secondary sources, not primary sources. It may seem odd, but the reasons for it are genuine). PalestineRemembered 13:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

• Update - the JFJFP web-site is operational again now, I don't know what happened to it?!. PR^talk(New Sig for PalestineRemembered) 09:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Predominantly women children and the old

Somewhere along the line, the statement that the victims were "predominantly women, children and the old" seems to have got lost or otherwise been edited out of the article.

This page has had this discussion several times, and I'm pretty sure nobody disputes it was women, children and the old (eg 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)).

Do we have to have a big discussion and a table of different sources, or can we simply agree this was indeed a massacre, and there were relatively few fit males (let alone combatants) amongst the dead? PalestineRemembered 21:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

i'm afraid we will have to go over the sources since the source in the article says the opposite. i note to you also that, as benny morris states, different societies have different unstated semantic differences over what constitutes a "massacre". considering that a good chunk of the israeli group who assaulted the village were hurt (and also the different accounts to exactly how many were women and chldren - despite the version you chose to cite), there'd be plenty who would call this a battle if they hear the actual details of it and not just the title and the 250 dead narrative... in fact, benny morris, who is a much loved source by pro-palestinians, is saying the opposite of what you are claiming... i.e. perhaps you should reconsider this POV.

p.s. i'd be more than interested in seeing the beir ziet name list and perhaps reconsider my position... until then, we have testimonies about women who were fighting support and probably direct fighting also. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 02:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

This page is extremely repetitive, as if each side editing it wished to hammer home points in its favour. There are reduplications everywhere. Can we agree upon a principle that you start with a brief intro. Follow that with a background para. Then describe in detail the events, with due regard for dissonance in the accounts. Then wrap up with consequences, and a review of the development of the historical literature from first reports in 1948 (the high figure) and revisions to that figure made by Milstein, Morris, and the Palestinian research on oral testimonies from survivors. At the moment it is unreadable for its poor organization of the material.Nishidani 07:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely.--Doron 07:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

same here, your suggestion sounds like a good one. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Doron What makes intervening on the page as it exists arduous is that, edit one point, and then you see the same point has been mentioned several times elsewhere, as often as not, and thus one's attempt to improve it only adds to the mess. Clearly a substantial amount of effort has been dedicated to it, and it is thick with rich and engrossing detail from the secondary literature. Thus there is no problem with knowing what happened, how interpretative problems arose etc. Perhaps, rather than touch the page, and generate edit wars, those who have done the hard work of harvesting sources should use this page to discuss it para by para (with in each case an eye to the overall text and its repetitions) and consolidate it into a continuous narrative that is dominated by the following primary principle: once a source, event or remark has been agreed on in developing the narrative, it need not be repeated beneath. This means consolidating the notes. Indeed much of the retrospective material (the large quotes from Begin and Morris, for example) could go into notes. Begin had strong connections to the groups engaged in that assault, and it is obvious that, in his memoir, he would say what he said, which doesn't sit well with what is now known, and only reflects Begin's POV: it is not much help against the uptodate historical research conducted by Morris, Milstein and others. Another delicate thing among many. The retaliation against 77, mainly unarmed Jews, in the Hadassah(sp?) assault is mentioned in detail in the early 'consequences' chapter, and then resynthesized later on, as if the editors were unsure whether the former remark would stick in the exhausted readers' mind. Technically, their position should be reversed, though I think it more intelligent, and less rhetorical, to mention the incident briefly with a link to the relevant page supplying the full details. I say this not to get that off the page, but because it establishes a precedent for anyone minded to 'equalize' the agenda, by citing, for example, the 24 Arab villages subject to massacres and retaliatory results in the year around this particular event, something in turn which would explode the page into a larger version of what it already is, a Wiki version of the battle of Deir Yassin. So, perhaps a Revision Proposal should be set up, a provisory synthesis on how to mark out the narrative made, and then, cooperatively, those who have dedicated their strenuous efforts to sourcing this, consolidate these disiecta membra into a semblence of a clear sequential non-repetitive account. I will abstain, since I haven't contributed, but I will be happy to chip in on the structural issue. RegardsNishidani 07:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The Introd.para's okay in my view, except for this sentence:-

'While the event is usually characterized as a notable massacre,[5] some scholars have argued that massacres by both sides were a commonplace during the war,[6] and that the event at Deir Yassin was publicized by all involved parties for a variety of different reasons.'

Shouldn't one be bold enough to just state something along these lines. 'In a period notable for many massacres on both sides, Deir Yassin has long being singled out for particular notoriety, and has, over the decades, been the object of acrimonious debates over the veracity of the original version given to the public.' (notes 5,6 for those interested)

My reason is that (a) all massacres are 'notable' (this is a matter of normal humanity) (b) that 'while' and the period (yet) 'some scholars . .' reads as implying: 'hey, sure, man, a lot of folks were killed there, but it was pretty much the fashion in those days', in plain language. I don't think that style of sentence and its implication is proper to an encyclopedia. (c> The instrumental use of the massacre is touched on in some depth further down.Nishidani 12:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not entirely happy with your suggestion but it's not easy to explain why. Basically, I think you have to realize that the end of the intro has been the subject of multiple acrimonious edit wars, and I can see your version quickly starting it all up again.

I might be prepared to see a modified version of your suggested text adopted, but not I think as it is. Gatoclass 14:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I think there will come a point when ArbCom has to get involved and topic-block editors who do this much damage to articles, driving all the most patient and knowledgable editors off them (and hence progressively out of the project). It's ludicrous and insulting that my TalkPage note asking to put back the "predominantly women and children" passage is opposed with a claim that Deir Yassin was not a massacre. It's sickening to see good editors then waste more of their time tearing their hair. I'm particularly concerned about User:Nishidani, who clearly has so much to give, and tries so hard to act in a collegiate fashion. He cannot have been exposed to unmoderated Usenet, where bad contributors invariably drove out good.

Alternatively, maybe we could do a straight swap - I'm prepared to stand back and not touch this article again if the most damaging contributor will do the same. PR^talk(New Sig for PalestineRemembered) 15:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Please, let's not start accusing each other of bad faith again the minute the page is reopened. It's hardly gong to help matters.

As Nishidani has pointed out, there's a lot that's wrong with the page, we don't have to start by tackling the most divisive issues, let's try and get some of the basic stuff fixed first. Gatoclass 16:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The best solution would, without formally going to some arbitration, for those who have built the text but are in constant dispute over details, to designate four very experienced editors they all respect(I'm a neophyte and cannot enter into this), with a reputation for neutrality and substantial knowledge of the area, to come in and either (1) list what is dysfunctional with the text (repetitions, useless jamming of secondary materials that do not add to the text, etc.) or/and (2) allow those people (Doron, comes to mind. I don't know much about his edit record, but the few I've chanced to see around Wiki show great equilibrium) a month or two to work at paring down the text, improving its structure, introducing a narrative of beginning, development, end as all high school students were taught to use decades ago), a few subsidiary sections requiring (aftermath, interpretative history, remaining controversies etc) mention. Put a copy of their text in the Talk (new page) and then allow a general discussion from the rest, who have voluntarily suspended their edits in the interest of this review, and a return to editing, with the proviso that the four or six editors' achieved text be considered a model to respect.

Gatoclass The sentence is very very awkward. I don't have, in the short time I have thought about it, a solution. But any attuned reader reading it will sense immediately that it reflects an awkward and unresolved edit war of ill-reconciled POVs, and clearly cannot stand. Ideally a WIKI text should not give this impression.

PR That is a sensible suggestion, and I hope those who are in conflict with, for one, you accept it as a sign of a bona fides, and come forth to offer a similar abstention until these stylistic and narrative fluency issues are ironed out. You overestimate me. I should not participate here because I am a newbie, relatively, lack editorial experience, and perhaps strike many as not sufficiently impartial (for that's the way here I am tempted to judge myself).Nishidani 18:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

ps.A minor but major technical point, which is perhaps obvious but not visibly acted on, re editorial procedure. Most editing is done with a window giving one small passage, hence the sense of that edit within the overall text is lost from view. One should print out a complete copy and go through it meticulously with annotations re repetition, rhetoric, hysteron-proteron sequencing, etc., and, with this in view, return to the online text, aware of the resonance for each edit right through the rest of the text.Regards Nishidani 18:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

It sounds like you want to do a total rewrite of the article yourself. I might be prepared to accept that, except that a quick look at some of your edits on other pages suggests (at the very least) some grammatical issues and perhaps a few POV problems of your own.

However, if that's what you want to do, no-one can really stop you, but you will have to be prepared to have your proposal rejected. I suggest you post any proposed rewrite on the talk page first, where it can be assessed for overall quality and changes made where deemed appropriate. If it was not your intention to do such a rewrite though, please ignore this suggestion and explain what else it was you had in mind. Gatoclass 05:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but that suggestion is absurd. I am bewildered when a clear assertion of black is read as a subtextual request for white.

I have said three times strongly that I do not want to interfere with the page, (since the few things I might add informationwise cannot be added in its present state). I am asking other people, with a rep. for balance and style, other than those who have engaged in edit wars, to sort out the mess. If I say I don't want to edit this page, I mean it. But it is, structurally a disgrace.

I had nothing else in mind that the slight nausea I get when reading high school papers written by eager kids who haven't yet learned to organize their material or write well. Nishidani 09:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I have said three times strongly that I do not want to interfere with the page

Well, you've certainly indicated as much several times, but given your apparent interest not only in improving the article, but lately in supplying step-by-step advice on how any would-be improver should go about the job, it looked to me as if you might be hinting at, or perhaps warming to the idea of, doing the job yourself. Obviously however, I was mistaken. Gatoclass 09:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't hint: I am, unfortunately, expansive in saying exactly what I intend by my words. Precisely this prolixity annoys many, and they have a point. If we use the criteria used at the recent Finkelstein para 1, debate, one can only ask what this is doing in the intro? for example.

While the event is usually characterized as a notable massacre,[5] some scholars have argued that massacres by both sides were a commonplace during the war,[6] and that the event at Deir Yassin was only unique in the way that it was seized on and publicized by all involved parties, albeit for a variety of different reasons.

Common criteria for all similar texts is one of the things that motivate my edits, which you take to be POVish. No one in his right mind, for example, would deny the 1929 Hebron massacre is precisely that, a massacre (the word was repeated 5 times in the intro., to hammer the point home, and is now modified, as I suggest you all do here).

Here ink have been wasted debating whether Deir Yassin was a 'massacre', with even the absurd addition that, conceding Milstein and Morris's work, 'it was not a Srebenica' (nor was Hebron Lidice , but you don't write that in a proper text. It is cogging the dice rhetorically and irrelevant). The answer is Hebron was a pogrom of undefended innocents, in Deir Yassin there was a stout armed resistance. The answer is, in turn, that a village which had stipulated agreements with Hasidim and Israeli command authorities to maintain neutrality, and not allow Arab troops to use it as a base for attacks on Israel, suffered an assault in violation of that agreement, and subsequently 120 died. (The irregulars responsible for the insanity have a large voice on the page). The answer to that is, but later research suggests first impressions were wrong and Iraqi regulars there, and the Deir Yassin people were deceitful etc etc. The answer in turn to that is the standard American historiography of the American Indian wars doesn't take self-defence to be a ground for denying the epithet 'massacre' to a tribe that defended itself against an army, on its home ground, which then proceeded to kill large numbers. etc etc.

It is simpler to say that in both cases, there were two communities who got wiped out in consequence of a massacre, in the intro. (like the Hebron page, the intro has 'massacre' too many times, by the way, because it is too long, in part).

POV here is that, in pages where when an Arab community is noted as having been massacred, intense efforts go into 'contextualizing' it in such as way that it becomes somehow 'tragically comprehensible', almost a result of a rare deviation from otherwise reasonable strategic necessities. If a page deals with a Jewish community that was massacred, no stone is left unturned to highlight the suffering, and the resulting narrative is vigorously and collectively defended to the last comma. Deir Yassin, like Qibya, comes in for especial pressure because they are the most well-known, frequently mentioned, and documented cases. Most of the massacres of Arabs Benny Morris lists do not even have a page. My interventions on this sad state of affairs aim for neutrality in the sense that these respective massacres should be 'in dialogue': what is said of one, mutatis mutandis should be allowed of another, without too much quibbling and anxieties about image consequences. If that stance is POV, as you suggest, then so be it.Nishidani 11:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality is an admirable goal, unfortunately establishing it in practice often proves to be problematic. It's all very well to complain about a pro-Israel bias in articles like this one, but it's not editors like me you have to convince of that, it's the editors who think the articles are not pro-Israel enough. The point being that Wiki is a collaborative enterprise, and that article content frequently ends up being a compromise between often widely disparate points of view, where no-one is either entirely satisfied nor entirely dissatisfied with the end result.

So while I might agree with your proposals, what I'm trying to point out to you is that my experiences on this page suggest to me your proposed edit would be unlikely to survive long without reigniting much the same edit war that has had this page locked for the last several months. That's why I'd prefer you not to go fiddling with the current version, which thus far doesn't appear to have raised much ire. At least, not until some of the other problems at this page have been sorted out. Gatoclass 14:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

'That's why I'd prefer you not to go fiddling with the current version'

YOu provide me with news again, about myself. I made two at the most three very small edits, consisting of specifying 'Hasidim' as those who prevailed on the Irgun to desist, and putting in links to Hebrew words, etc. I have not 'fiddled' with the text, and therefore can hardly be said to 'go on fiddling' with it, especially since I announced, after these few technical edits, that I would not personally engage in edits.

The current version hasn't raised much ire. Yes, it is the exhausted result of conflicting ires, and the battle-weary are sitting in the trenches, not so much licking their wounds, as consoling themselves for the salients won, on a broken line. I don't think any self-respecting editor can be content with the chaos. Of course, you are right. As a collaborative enterprise, where everything is minutely examined for the pro-or contra Israel implications, the text will probably never have any repute as a reliable one. A pity, and perhaps a warning to those who might aspire to make Wikipedia reliable for all publics, to be wary of wasting their time with the handiwork of incompetents who care more for their politics than for precise scholarship, a remark I do not address to you.Nishidani 14:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Nishidani - you are much too valuable an editor to lose. Pace yourself, your contributions are excellent, your effort is well worthwhile - and it's all paying dividends. 25% of Israelis are now draft dodging - our efforts contribute to reminding people what has really happened and help stop more of it happening. PR^talk 11:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Apropos the passage in the intro, which still disgusts me. While the event is usually characterized as a notable massacre,[5] some scholars have argued that massacres by both sides were a commonplace during the war,[6]

As I have said, the idea that some massacres are 'notable' and implicitly others not, here reflects a 'balancing act' where Segev and Morris (massacre) are balanced by Milstein who says both sides after all habitually engaged in massacres, no it's no big deal.

For the record, on the page List of massacres committed during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war, we are given 29 'massacres' of which 5 and a half are attributed to Arabs, i.e. I in 6 roughly, which means of course, as Milstein says, that both sides more or less equalled out the use of massacres pour encourager les autres

As an annex, I include Donald Neff (Time Bureau Chief in Israel for many years) in his historical work on the period, on the year preceding this one.

1947: A Year of Terror

Jan. 12, Four killed by Irgun terrorist bombing of British headquarters.

Jan. 13, Arab kidnapped and castrated by Jewish terrorists.

March 1,Sixteen Britons killed by Jewish terrorists/Britain invokes martial law

March 10, Jewish informer killed by Jewish terrorists.

March 11, Two British soldiers killed by Jewish terrorists.

April 8, British constable killed by Jewish terrorists.

April 8, Jewish boy killed by British troops.

April 8, Jew beaten to death by Arabs.

April 22, Eight killed in Jewish terrorist bombing of the Cairo-Haifa train.

April 25, Five killed in Jewish terrorist bombing of British camp.

April 26, British police official killed by Jewish terrorist.

May 8, Three Jewish shops in Tel Aviv whose owners refused to contribute to Jewish terrorist groups burned down by Jewish terrorists.

May 8, Jew killed near Tel Aviv by Arab terrorists.

May 12, Two British policemen killed in Jewish Jerusalem.

May 15, British policeman killed in terrorist ambush.

May 15, Two British soldiers killed in terrorist Stern Gang attack.

May 16, Two British police officers killed by terrorists.

May 18, One Jew killed, one wounded by Arab terrorists.

June 5, Jewish terrorists introduce letter bombs in Middle East.

June 28, Four British soldiers killed in Jewish terrorist raids.

July 3, “Anti-terrorist” Jewish families beaten up by Irgunists.

July 18, British soldier killed by Jewish terrorists.

July 19, Another British soldier killed by Jewish terrorists.

July 20, Yet another British soldier killed by Jewish terrorists.

July 23, 65 Jews killed when Haganah sinks immigration ship.

July 26, Two British soldiers killed in booby trap.

July 29, Three Jews executed by hanging. Jewish terrorists retaliate by hanging two British soldiers.

Aug. 5, Three British police killed by bomb; plot discovered to poison the water supply of non-Jewish parts of Jerusalem with botulism and other bacteria.

Aug. 10, Four Jews killed in Arab terror attack on Tel Aviv café.

Aug. 12, Five Jews, four Arabs killed, others injured, in spread of violent incidents over three days.

Aug. 15, Twelve Palestinians killed in raid by Haganah troops.

Aug. 18, Shops of five Jews in Tel Aviv destroyed by Jewish terrorists.

Aug. 23, Five Arabs of one family—two men, a woman and two children—killed by Jewish terrorists.

Sept. 7, French foil Stern Gang plot to air bomb London.

Sept. 21, British messenger killed by Jewish terrorists.

Sept. 26, Four British policemen killed in Irgun terrorist bank robbery.

Sept. 27, Illegal Jewish immigrant killed by British.

Sept. 29, 13 killed, 53 wounded in Irgun terrorist attack on British police station.

Oct. 4, Two Jews killed in ambush, two Arabs killed in retaliation.

Oct. 13, Two British troops killed by Jewish terrorists in Jerusalem.

Oct. 26, Jewish settlement policeman found killed near Gaza.

Nov. 3, Jewish policeman killed, reportedly by Stern Gang after refusing to reveal secret police matters.

Nov. 12, 21 killed in British-Jewish clashes.

Nov. 14, Jewish terrorists kill 4 Britons in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv

Nov. 30, Violent riots erupt throughout Arab world following adoption of U.N. partition plan. In Palestine, seven Jews killed and eight wounded in the first day. All told, during the first week at least 159 persons were killed in the Middle East, 66 of them in Palestine.

Dec. 2, Palestinians begin 3-day protest strike; 20 Jews, 15 Arabs killed. Five Arabs and seven Jews were killed the next day during a six-hour battle on the Tel Aviv-Jaffa border.

Dec. 13, 35 Palestinian civilians killed in Jewish terrorist attacks.

Dec. 14, 14 Jews killed by Arab Legion in retaliation.

Dec. 18, Palmach (“assault companies”) kills 10 Arabs, including 5 children, in nighttime raid on northern Galilee village of Khissas. The following day Haganah troops blew up the home of the village elder of Qazaza in central Palestine, killing several inhabitants. Wrote The Times of London: “While the Jews are suffering mainly through sniping at their road convoys, the Arabs have lost many lives through Jewish assaults on their villages.”

Dec. 20, Haganah raid on village of Qazaza kills one Palestinian.

Dec. 24, Stern Gang member killed for betrayal of another member.

Dec. 25, 16 Arabs, Jews and British killed on Christmas.

Dec. 25, Palestinian landowner killed for selling land to Jews.

Dec. 26, Ben-Gurion proposes major offensive to reduce Arab population.

Dec. 26, Jewish terrorists get $107,000 in heists of diamond plants.

Dec. 29, 14 Arabs killed by Irgun bomb in Jerusalem.

Dec. 29, Irgun flogs British major and three sergeants.

Dec. 30, 41 Jews, 6 Arabs killed in riot sparked by Stern Gang.

Dec. 31, Irgun claims to have killed 374 Arabs and British during year.

All are welcome to make the appropriate adjustments and draw a 'balance of terror', with inferences, from the above chart.Nishidani 20:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you're playing the propaganda game of the Israelis with this listing. They're proud to be so effective at whatever they turn their hand to, so your list is further evidence of that, but contributes little to understanding what was going on. In 1947, they could excuse all their actions because they were fighting the British for blocking immigration and not giving them a state. In April 1948 they had no real excuse for slaughtering predominantly women, children and the old. PR^talk 20:39, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Quote by Mordechai Raanan

I like to see original Hebrew version of this quote WP:V as requires.--Shrike 10:56, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Gelber, at that reference, never mentions Kfar Etzion

User:Ceedjee, to whom I have been friendly and collegiate under your previous persona - you've reverted me for no reason that I can see. Gelber doesn't mention Kfar Etzion. Nor is there any reason to link Deir Yassin (a friendly village, well outside the area granted to the Yishuv) with a settlement that sought to reject the partition and defy the new administration. I fail to understand why you'd put it back in when it appears to be false, with a phraseology that strongly suggests denial. PR^talk 21:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• At the very beginning of his analysis, Gelber states :

"These stories were the nucleus for a narrative — in this case both Palestinian and Israeli — that has since been invented and embellished. The Palestinians’ objective has been to besmirch Israel in the eyes of the world and make it responsible for the refugee problem. The Israeli Left has exploited Deir Yassin to slander “the dissidents” and blame them for continuing international condemnation of Israel on account of the massacre and for violating tohar haneshek – the principle of Purity of Jewish Arms (a code of behavior that originated during the Palestinian rebellion of 1936-1939, whose ethical standard held that Jews should not retaliate against women, children and old people.) Both narratives, the Palestinian and the Israeli, have been partisan and apologetic — each covering up guilt feelings of the authors. (...)"

It is written in the article : "The military scholar Uri Milstein maintains that massacres were not uncommon during the war and that the events at Deir Yassin were unique only in the manner they were "seized upon and publicized by all involved parties, albeit for a variety of different reasons." [8] This analysis is shared by historian Yoav Gelber.

• The last lines of the article of Gelber'analysis (ie his conclusions) are :

"The massacre at Deir Yassin (...). 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."

It is written in the article : "historian Yoav Gelber who points out that far more people were massacred at Lydda or Kfar Etzion.".

Ceedjee (talk) 08:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Editing of articles is based on the presumption that editors will be careful and will check things when challenged - your clip is definitely wrong. Gelber doesn't refer to Kfar Etzion anywhere in that Appendix. Though on p.116, he does he refer to Gush Etzion, I trust you'll make that correction now I've pointed it out.

Or rather - don't make that correction, take the whole nasty passage out, comparisons of this kind have no place in articles. Deir Yassin is iconic for several good reasons, there's no reason or excuse for downplaying it's importance.

In fact, the reference used in this case gives further reason to question whether Gelber deserves to be treated as a historian. The death toll he gives is way out of line with anybody else's estimates. eg our WP article says that 157 defenders died in total at Gush Etzion, with the massacre accounting for between 50 and 129 of them. So it may well have been less deadly than Deir Yassin (and these weren't the old, women and children, either). I see other material from Gelber on the same p.116 that seem odd coming from "a historian" eg "Contrary to later accusations, the documentary evidence proves that throughout this period the Yishuv had no comprehensive strategy of expulsion".[3] I've never noticed scholars writing like that - I wonder whether we should be using Gelber for anything. PR^talk 18:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

PR. Definitely no. This discussion is closed. I don't have time to lose with you.

Ceedjee (talk) 23:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Unlike the sources PR seems to prefer (self-published Marxist activists), Gelber is a trained historian, holding senior academic positions in recognized institutions of higher learning, and the peer-reviewed book to which this claim is sourced was published by an academic press - Sussex Academic Press. It is an impeccable source, and there is nothing wrong with using it here, or other relevant articles. Canadian Monkey (talk) 23:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Faulty Source in Intro -DYR is not the ZOA ppl!

Here is a line in the intro: "While discussion continues, very few English-language history books raise serious doubts that a massacre occurred." It then links to an item that says "^ "Deir Yassin: History of a Lie", Zionist Organization of America, 1998: "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.""

This item apparently is meant to suggest the ZOA (Zionist Organization of America) supports this conclusion. However, if one goes to the link, one finds its for 'Deir Yassin remembered' not the ZOA. The source says its from the ZOA: its heading bar says its a ZOA Press Release. It is not. The ZOA isn't even mentioned in this article.

This source is suspect! It should be removed poste haste!

The item is http://www.deiryassin.org/denierspr-980309-99.html

The fact that this source was used in the intro suggests that the concerns about the neutrality of this wikipedia article are well founded. 141.166.230.9 (talk) 04:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The quote of the article disputing Deir Yassin

This quotaiton in the intro was used out of context. One may WP:AGF but it seems to have been used maliciously in order to confuse the reader. The article says that books do not question the massacre because basically these are propaganda books. It is not a reliable source, or if it is, one should put it in context. I did. 79.182.14.171 (talk) 23:03, 9 April 2008 (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)

Paragraph citing deiryassin.org

I have removed the following paragraph:

The massacre of Palestinians at Deir Yassin is one of the most significant events in 20th-century Palestinian and Israeli history. This is not because of its size or its brutality, but because it stands as the starkest early warning of a calculated depopulation of over 400 Arab villages and cities and the expulsion of over 700,000 Palestinian inhabitants to make room for survivors of the Holocaust and other Jews from the rest of the world.

It cites a website called deiryassin.org. I have seen no evidence to support the credibility of this website. Do they have an actual office somewhere? Have they produced any publications in major outlets? For all we know, this could just be a few students on a mission writing stuff on a website.

To make matters worse, we are not citing them on numeric facts, but on analysis (which is sharply POV). If you want to include this kind of analysis, it must come from a very reputable source. Screen stalker (talk) 12:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course. I share Screen stalker's mind. Ceedjee (talk) 16:07, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Deiryassin is an antisemitic partisan site, and should be removed for all wikipedia articles that still source it by extemsits... thank you for your due diligence. Amoruso (talk) 00:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Deliberate manipulation of data by Ceedjee (talk)

Very serious offense.

What Ceedjee has done here [4] is change this full quoted passage:

"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."

to this partial paragraph: ""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."

Then he changed the sourced "killed in battle" to the UNSOURCED "MURDERED"!

This should be a call for action for Arbcom. 79.181.17.163 (talk) 23:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I remove the whole section that was in the lead.

1. This was not WP:RS. This is in contradiction with WP:Lead. I also think that the information related to Milstein (here above) is WP:Undue.

Ceedjee (talk) 06:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

You can't cherrypick what you want from Milstein and what you don't. I'm glad you atleast were honest as in consistent atleast with regards to this source , and removed the whole passage of this. Kudos for that. Amoruso (talk) 00:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

List of victims with ages and sex

I have often comes across this quote "in which between 107 and 120 villagers, mostly women, children, and the elderly, were killed." but have not been able to finds a credible list of these victims with their names/sex/age. Does such a list exist from a credible source and if it does where can one get access to it. It has been said the "list" exist in the Bir Zeit study but that also seems unavailable.Judadem (talk) 00:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know and never heard about the list.

But the information concerning the number of victims and their age has references from different sources. Ceedjee (talk) 06:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

My question is that there has to be a credible source behind the names of the dead along with ::the age and sex. One cannot get from 254 to >over 100 without convincing proof from a

credible source. so far i have found this:

"A study by Bir Zeit University, based on discussions with each family from the village, arrived at a figure of 107 Arab civilians dead and 12 wounded, in addition to 13 "fighters," evidence that the number of dead was smaller than claimed and that the village did have troops based there." (Sharif Kanaana and Nihad Zitawi, "Deir Yassin," Monograph No. 4, Destroyed Palestinian Villages Documentation Project, (Bir Zeit: Documentation Center of Bir Zeit University, 1987), p. 55) (Bard)"

which on the face of it makes the concept of massacre difficult to digest.Judadem (talk) 04:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

When you give your source, you should not give the sources of your source but directly refer to where you read the information !

Anyway, all this is in Gelber, Palestine 1948, Appendix II given in the article. :-)

Hadassah medical convoy massacre, Deir Yassin massacre, Kfar Etzion massacre... All these were military or guerilla operations that were followed or during which massacres occured. This is the way scholars explain these events.

Ceedjee (talk) 06:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

---

The Number of Murdered

Where is the link so to say that the number was only about 100. This convo should remain Neutral, but you should get the facts, not something that appeals to both sides —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edudmaps (talk • contribs) 01:48, 22 May 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." [5] RolandR (talk) 10:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

"Overview of the event and its consequences" needs a major rewrite to be POV

Imagine a statement like this without any verification: By noon over 100 people, half of them women and children, had been systematically murdered. Or "Over tea and cookies they amplified the details of the operation and justified it..." or "The cemetery was later bulldozed and, like hundreds of other Palestinian villages to follow, Deir Yassin was wiped off the map."

Most of the contentious issues are not even sourced! Juanita (talk) 16:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course. I deleted.

due to the energy required to neutralize some editors on wp, we don't see big mess such as the one you pointed out ! Thank you ! Ceedjee (talk) 18:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The fact that Deir Yassin was bulldozed and wiped off the map is well-known, built over by a mental hospital. I gave one of many reports in the Deir Yassin page. ^ Noam Chomsky Fateful Triangle: The United States, Israel and the Palestinians, Pluto Press , London 1999 p.167 Contest the author if you like, but many reports exist on this (some of the area has the names of Irgun members involved in the massacre memorialized there) Nishidani (talk) 10:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

What it has become is not the issue. It can be stated. It was the remaining. (Are you sure you wanted to edit this section ?). Ceedjee (talk) 15:18, 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." [6]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)