Talk:Deir Yassin massacre/Archive 3

message: I've exercised the following sentence from the text:
:His testimony has lately been challenged by Sid Zion of the Zionist Organisation of America and other right-wing Jewish organisations.
(regarding Meir Pa'il's testimony). Meir Pa'il was a general and one of the most respected Israeli public figures. His personal integrity is beyond doubt. Sid Zion is an American right wing nobody. These people would say any old thing if they thought that it is congruent with their twisted view of what's in Israel's interests. If they care so much about us, why don't they take their noses out of our business? In short, this sentence gives a false impression as if there is some controversy about Meir Pa'il. There is none. Gadykozma 09:56, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sid Zion, again 

message: Let's decide on one of them and standardize the article. I prefer (in this order) IZL, Etzel, Irgun. What do other people prefer? Gadykozma 13:40, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Irgun is the most commonly used name in English, and this is English Wikipedia... Jayjg 17:44, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Irgun, Etzel IZL 

message: Ok, the truck with the mortar in the story near the end of the battle that comes from the Haganah;  it says it fires "tree shoots".  Is this a reference to "tree bursts"?  The article seems to be talking about setting the mortars to explode above the building to kill snipers--this is best termed an "air burst".   
:Unfortunately, it seems the guy who wrote this, BL, has left Wikipedia on May. Therefore the only way to verify is to check the book referred to. My guess is that it should be "three shots"... Gadykozma 00:47, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question of Translation or Meaning 

message: This is pathetic.  Most Jews/Israelis accept this massacre took place (even Ben Gurion was appalled and later tried to kill Begin, who led Irgun.  See Altalena).  Does it really matter that much if 107 or 120 were murdered?  We will never have the precise figure, so the article should simply state that fact, have some varying evidence, and that's it.  I could quite easily call into question some of the above posters' impartiality given complaints about the trustworthiness of Palestinian academia - or can I call into question all statements and statistics provided on Palestinian groups and actions by all Jewish groups and organisations?  No, thought not.  Leave you politics and prejudice at the door. 86.15.169.220 12:56, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arguments about precise numbers of killed 

message: I don't think the stamp really belongs in the article.  I mean, really what does it show that is relavent to the article? roughly the location of Deir Yassin I guess, but anything else?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 10:48, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. This stamp is too emotional. Christophe Greffe 18:02, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  removal of lebenese stamp 

message: This makes the article pro-Israeli. Robin Hood 1212 13:43, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nonsense. The article cites numerous sources, both Israeli and non-israeli. Isarig 14:03, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Don't take info from the IDF 

message: I've rewritten the entire article and have renamed it to Battle of Deir Yassin, as it holds all the characteristics of a battle, and the title is a small part of the events themselves. The "massacre" will be a subcategory in the article. I've made sure that everything is sourced and uses many of the quotes already available within the article, but also gives them context and is cohesive enough to show a strict timeline of events, instead of a collection of quotes. Of course, there are things that can be expanded upon, for example the last two sections, and the source numbers are out of order but correspond correctly. I any case, I don't think they should be ordered until the article settles down enough, and I am sure that somebody will add other information very shortly. 
Guy Montag 23:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: well, I see that nobody has responded to this. If I do not get any answers (to e.g. to the apologies for breaking the  peace pact in the "Deir Yassin's Importance to Jewish Forces"-section ..I will remove them as irrelevant. Regards, Huldra 04:35, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Total Rewrite 

message: Robin Hood 1212 21:35, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The 1948 war began on May 15, the massacre occured in April 

message: :The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  
The result was corrupted vote due to votestaking. The move to Battle of Deir Yassin was unilateral, and can be challenged, as was done by this poll. It failed to recieve a consensus as the vote was effectively split 15-15 (12 back to original name, three to a different name). However, the voting was corrupted due to vote staking by Guy Montag in a late stage of the poll, see , , , , , all who opposed. The situation before the votestaking was that there was consensus for the move back. As such, I am going to move it back. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 03:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The vote on moving 

message: Even with Montag recruiting people to vote whom he knows agree with his POV (and, as far as I know, no one doing the same in the opposite direction) the best he can get is something near a tie.  Which leads to the question:  why are we voting on whether to move the article back?  Since Montag started this by whitewashing the article (deleting sourced information he didn't like) then moving the article without consensus, unless he has an overwhelming majority that the article should have been moved, I think we should go back to the status quo ante bellum -- put the article where it goes, and see if Montag can get overwhelming support for moving it here.  Otherwise we reward his childish behavior. -Rjyanco 12:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
*Support-- Kim van der Linde at venus 15:01, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

text: It might not hurt to actually read the article and the sources; historians agree now that Lehi's bravado was a propaganda stunt aimed at scaring the Arabs. A massacre is, of course, a massacre, but attempts to call this event as such rest on a rather shaky basis. Pecher Talk 19:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: disciplinary action? So everytime an editor disagrees with you he should be disciplined? What kind of talk is that? Isarig 21:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I oppose the move, but disciplinary action is kinda harsh. --Leifern 21:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The person responsible for the move is on probation for exactly this type of POV rearrangement of articles. --Ian Pitchford 03:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Comment. The article should conform to conventional usage. In addition to the extreme POV title change the deletion of scholarly sources is a very serious matter. --Ian Pitchford 02:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Was that directed at me? I don't believe I've ever edited this article. I certainly haven't deleted scholarly sources... Bibigon 04:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

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

message: :Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
*Support-- Kim van der Linde at venus 15:01, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It might not hurt to actually read the article and the sources; historians agree now that Lehi's bravado was a propaganda stunt aimed at scaring the Arabs. A massacre is, of course, a massacre, but attempts to call this event as such rest on a rather shaky basis. Pecher Talk 19:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: disciplinary action? So everytime an editor disagrees with you he should be disciplined? What kind of talk is that? Isarig 21:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I oppose the move, but disciplinary action is kinda harsh. --Leifern 21:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The person responsible for the move is on probation for exactly this type of POV rearrangement of articles. --Ian Pitchford 03:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Comment. The article should conform to conventional usage. In addition to the extreme POV title change the deletion of scholarly sources is a very serious matter. --Ian Pitchford 02:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Was that directed at me? I don't believe I've ever edited this article. I certainly haven't deleted scholarly sources... Bibigon 04:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

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

message: Hi, I'm a journalist writing a story on how contentious topics in the Middle East are dealt with on Wikipedia. I stopped by the Deir Yassin article to see how Wikipedia handles it, and I see that here on the talk page you're in the middle of resolving a pretty fundamental issue...what to call the article! If anyone is willing to discuss Wikipedia's Middle East articles with me, please e-mail me with the "e-mail this user" function on my userpage. Thanks! Krinkle99 22:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Would you care to clarify a bit more, which newspaper for example? -- Kim van der Linde at venus 01:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, this kinda sounds like some kind of spam.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 03:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's not spam. I'm honestly writing a story on Wikipedia's collaborative editing process, and would genuinely like to speak with anyone with experience editing Middle East-related articles. Regards, Krinkle99 13:05, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, I accept that, but without a bit more information, I am not going to help out. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 13:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I e-mailed you, Kim, and if anyone else would like information about the story I'm doing, feel free to e-mail me. Krinkle99 14:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Media query related to this article, and to the dispute over the name of this article 

message: Well, I think a clear consensus has been reached. Time to end the voting and get on with improving the actual article. Guy Montag 00:09, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I will do that later this evening. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 01:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL, do you mean you're sufficiently univolved and impartial to close the vote? That's the joke of the day! Pecher Talk 21:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Voting closed 

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

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

message: I've added an unbalanced notice to the page as I believe that evidence in support of a massacre is underrepresented and too much emphasis is laid on the opposing POV. Gatoclass 00:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seconded. --(Mingus ah um 00:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

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

text: Absolute dissent - the sources from both sides agree, and as it turns out the initial casualty estimates from the Jewish side were considerably higher than those the Bir Zeit study turned out. --Leifern 20:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not saying that it is balanced or unbalanced, but the very fact that the article is titled “Massacre” gives, in and of itself, a distinct leaning towards the fact that it was a massacre, and may need more to counterbalance it in the article. Now, if it was titled “Battle”, it would lean the other way, and I'd be more likely to agree with you. If we try a nuetral title like “Allegations of…”, that would just be silly. So the way it is now, I think it may make sense to need more anti-massacre weight just to balance the big, bold title up top—but, of course, that is just my opinion. -- Avi 01:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addition of Unbalanced notice 

message: So I've done some perusal of the literate surrounding this incident, and I've noticed that even more common than the name of the incident being the Deir Yassin Massacre is the incident being called simply Deir Yassin. I'm not sure what to make of this, but as far as the most common name for this incident, this appears to outstrip even the the "massacre" title. Just throwing that out there, as I'm not really sure this means for the name of the article. Bibigon 03:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not surprising really, I've noticed the same with regard to the massacres at Srebrenica and My Lai. Remember all the recent headlines calling the killings at Haditha "Iraq's My Lai"? It's just people being lazy, IMO... -- ChrisO 07:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name debate - Another angle 

message: The burden should be on those who want to characterize an event in the worst possible way that this characterization is accurate. The term "massacre" as it is intended to be part of a title, can not be arbitrary - it tells the reader from the very outset that a massacre occurred.
These are the definitions of the term "massacre," as a noun:
* The act or an instance of killing a large number of humans indiscriminately and cruelly. (American Heritage Dictionary)
* the savage and excessive killing of many people (WordNet ® 2.0)
* the unnecessary, indiscriminate killing of a number of human beings, as in barbarous warfare or persecution, or for revenge or plunder  (Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary)
For the term "massacre" to apply, at least two conditions must be met: 
# The manner of the killings - they have to be "savage," "unnecessary," "indiscriminate," "cruel," or "barbarous."
# Many people must have been killed
There are, of course, other killings that are heinous without being massacres. Murder would be one of them. 
The problem, of course, is that these two criteria rely on subjective judgment. Just what makes a killing cruel, or savage? And what is the threshold for many?
One thing is clear with Deir Yassin: there was a battle, with a number of battle casualties on both sides that clearly do not count toward a massacre. It is also clear that the Irgun and Stern forces deliberately allowed a number of villagers to leave, unharmed. It also seems clear that the total number of Arabs killed is less than 120, and that the majority of these were battle dead, including those non-combatants who were killed in the fog of battle.
I can see that we at Wikipedia should not determine whether the number of dead, and the manner in which they died, qualifies this as a "massacre." But there is no evidence that any of the cited sources goes through the exercise of deciding whether the events pass the threshold of qualifying as a "massacre." They have either accepted the term as common usage, or as a premise for their discussion.
One test would be to find a comparable event - a battle for a village, where the attackers gave advance warning, got engaged in heavy fighting and sustained heavy casualties, and something less than about 60 were killed under disputed circumstances - and see whether this is termed a "massacre." 
If you look at other "massacres" in Wikipedia, either the circumstances of the deaths or the numbers is different from this one, and usually both. There have undoubtedly been many cases of battles that went out of control, with tragic consequences, in various wars, but these are not typically called "massacres," even if they involve murder. --Leifern 11:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not up to us to define what a massacre is, but to look what verifiable reliable sources dealing with Deir Yassin have to say about it. What do authors such as Milstein and Morris say about this? -- Kim van der Linde at venus 12:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This only works if these authors have explicitly addressed the issue of whether "massacre" is the right term. If they use the term for the sake of convenience or common usage, we are no closer to an answer. What is clear, though, is that an accusation - which the word "massacre" clearly is - needs some level of substantiation before it can be considered NPOV. --Leifern 12:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So, the questions becomes, what do the verifiable reliable sources dealing with Deir Yassin and whether or not there is a massacre have to say about it. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 13:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

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

message: I would like to have the opinion of the various editors on whether they think (and why) this articles in its current form is written in NPOV (especially with regard to undue weight), and whether they think this articles is free of original research. About the latter, I find it curious that at places, there are only quotes of witnesses, and I fail to find the conclusions by authors like Milstein and Morris dealing with the topic on this, which I would expect to find. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 12:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV and OR 

message: Milstein starts this section with: The story of the Dier-Yassin massacre is now part of the heritage of both Arabs and Jews. Indeed, it cannot be denied: most of those killed at Deir-Yassin were old people, woman and children. Only a modest number were young men classifiable as fighters. This, despite of the resolution adopted at the ETZEL-LEHI command session to vote down a proposal to kill civilians, and despite the calls over the loudspeakers for the Arabs to clear ouyt the village when thye attack began. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 08:33, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you convert the article to use a standard reference format, the current format makes the article look worse than it actually is. - FrancisTyers · 15:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I started already. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 15:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chapter 16, section 12. The Massacre (page 376 Milstein) 

message: The version of this morning is ridiculous.  The first few paragraphs are now about what the Arab population did to warrant the massacre!  Imagine if someone wrote the story of the Holocaust that way!  We would all be justly outraged.  
It is time to stop this until you can get some help with POV issues.  The former article was quite balanced, it seemed to me.
Sorry, I forgot earlier to sign, so am doing so now. Amity150 15:00, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Truce 

message: I have filed a ArbCom case against Guy Montag for the violation of his probation, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Dier_Yassin. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 14:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course you did - he disagrees with you. It wasn't enough that you, as a party to the debate, had him banned from the article?  --Leifern 18:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If I was wrong, it will show in the ArbCom case. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 19:13, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Please try and be civil, Guy. - FrancisTyers · 20:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dier Yassin massacre ArbCom case 

message: Kim, there are disputes and discrepancies in everything you cite as facts. Morris is a biased source, and most of his writing has been debunked by real historians; and he has even retracted many of his points of view himself. "Mainly old people, etc," is completely misleading as it might lead a reader to believe that these could not have been combatants. The term "massacre" is, as previously mentioned, completely out of proportion and misleading. I am sorry you have such an unmitigated animus toward Israel, but facts are facts. --Leifern 18:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do you not show the reliable sources you base you statements on? -- Kim van der Linde at venus 18:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't consider Milstein and Morris reliable sources, so now we're at an impasse. Certainly the Irgun website has a different perspective. Just because you keep repeating "reliable sources" like a mantra, doesn't make the version you hope to be true, true. --Leifern 18:57, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They are reliable sources according to Wikipedia criteria, and the Irgun website is not. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 19:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, they're not - they're reliable according to your prejudices.--Leifern 19:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I asked Guy if Morris was a reliable source, and he agreed it was indeed a reliable source, see above. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 19:15, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

text: But you're working to get Guy banned from Wikipedia, so you obviously don't credit his opinion much. Clearly, the number and composition of casualties is uncertain, so stating it as a fact runs counter to the sources themselves. --Leifern 19:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Leifern, if your view of "reliable sources" were generalized you would have no argument against an editor who wanted to delete published academic sources and rewrite current events in the region as the Hezbollah website characterizes them. Hardly a standard for Wikipedia to aim for. --Ian Pitchford 21:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're misreading my point. I haven't advocated deleting any cited allegations, or facts, in this article, but I think they need to be properly qualified. As even a cursory read of this article and the cited sources will show, the actual events at Deir Yassin are subject to revision and debate to this day. Morris, Milstein, and even the researchers at Birzeit struggle to reconcile conflicting accounts and the relative scarcity of historial records. So it follows that characterizing the casualties as a matter of historical fact overstates the level of certainty. You may think that Irgun veterans are an unreliable source, but it is equally clear that Morris has - or at least had - an axe to grind by presenting the Israeli public with an alternative narrative. The interesting thing is that the accounts converge over time, so a read of the Irgun and DeirYassin.org accounts aren't as different as one would expect. As far as the composition of the casualties is concerned, this is confounded by allegations that men dressed up as women, women and children supported combatants, etc. Though the Irgun veterans' account can't be considered impartial, they are a source that should be cited, just as the Deiryassin.org account should be cited. As a side note, subsequent findings lend considerable support for Begin's account in The Revolt. Sometimes parties to an event give factual accounts for it. In fact, Hizballah derives much of its credibility in the Arab world for being more honest than most if not all Arab goverments. --Leifern 17:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The basic facts really aren't disputed - see the summary by the right-wing Israeli historian Yoav Gelber in Palestine 1948 for example. --Ian Pitchford 09:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello. I was just here for a few minutes. I want to point out that it is not very wikipedian to claim that Yoav Gelber would be a right-wing historian. It doesn't mean anything and is only pejorative. A kind of "ad hominem" argument. Talking that way, Morris would extreme-right politician ? and Pappé ? Etc. But no matter. I go back ;-) Alithien 11:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

text: "I don't consider Milstein and Morris reliable sources, --Leifern 18:57, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't have the page number but Gelber writes texto : that today all historians agree that there were around 110 victims. Alithien 11:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Gelber works with the right-wing Ariel Center for Policy Research. --Ian Pitchford 10:19, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources and Kim 

message: First: now, there is a quote from "Righetous Victims", p 208, at the end of the article. That quote is sourced to different eye-witnesses, including Mordechai Gihon and Yitzak Levy. I put the extended quote here: . Would it not be better if we "liftet" the quotes by e.g Gihon out of the  "Righetous Victims" part, and into his "eye-witness" account? -preferably sourced both to the original report (in IDFA) and where it is quoted. And the same for any other eye-witness accounts?
Also: Should we quote  Abba Eban and Menachem Begin at all? None of them were present, so they are of no interest as eye-witnesses. And they are not historians, they are (Israeli) politicians, with their own agenda.  They are, basically, only voicing their own opinion. They should possibly have a place in "the modern debate" section, but I  cannot see that they have any place as sources for the event/incident/battle/massacre. Regards, Huldra 23:46, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you on the quotes and replacing them. That would be a good start. I would go further and in my opinion, we should eliminate as much as possible the many quotes from eyewitnesses, and try first to document the conclusions of what can be found in reliable sources. After that, we can see where a quote of an eye wutness account. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 23:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah well, just a quick note again: perhaps we should start from scratch with agreeing on which sources are reliable and should be quoted? I say this because I react to the extent of quoting of  Eban and  Begin. I simply do not see why they should be quoted ....(If I remember correctly; wasn´t it Eban who once said in the UN that Israel had "not expelled a single Arab"? ) Huldra 18:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Benny Mooris: Righetous Victims, Abba Eban, Menachem Begin 

message: There is an unofficial translation available from Milstein on the web here: http://www.ariga.com/peacewatch/dy/umilst.htm It is a read, but worth doing. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 03:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unofficial translation Milstein 

message: The word terrorists should not be used in relation to Irgun, Hamas, Hezbollah, or any other militant group unless they expressly refer to themselves as terrorists, Wikipedia:Words to avoid. It could be said that "The British described the group as terrorist". But we can't label them terrorist outright. "Militant", and "Gunman/men" are better wordings. - FrancisTyers · 17:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree, Milstien calls them various things, militia, army of amatuers, etc... -- Kim van der Linde at venus 17:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, if this is the convention on Wiki I will drop use of the term, at least until I confirm whether or not you are correct. However, I still believe that something needs to be said about their activities prior to the attack on Deir Yassin. After all, there are reams of stuff in the article about the alleged prior history of the DY villagers, much of it highly contentious to say the least. Gatoclass 23:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thinkthere is a lot in the article that coudl use a rewrite and a better sourcing, and I think there are various things that need to be added and expanded. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 23:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of "terrorist[s]" 

message: Deir Yassin Remembered P Bennis - Middle East Report, 1998 - JSTOR []
(journalists at the time and historians since differ on the exact number 120-254 of victims, but agree they were almost all children, women and old men)--Stone 16:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Gelber writes that today all historian agree there were about 100 victims with a majority of children, women and old men. (ref : II - Yoav Gelber, Palestine 1948, Sussex Academic Press, Brighton, 2006, ISBN1845190750, pp311-312) Alithien 08:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ref 

message: there's no basis in saying that this was a massacre. It's clear POV. It was a fight, and the commander of the Israeli unit was killed. Of course when fighters shoot from within civilian houses, people might die. But it's still not a massacre since it all took place during a fight (between armies that is). The title needs to be changed ASAP.
I've addred some other details to make the article a little less biased.  Amoruso
:At Deir Yassin, it was not exactly a fight between "armies". And it was not part of the Yishuv Nachson operation. But never mind. Most historians and people refer to this as the "Deir Yassin massacre". In a title we can only respect the Npov rule in using the "commonly used expression". Any other title would be push-pushing by comparison with the standard expression. Alithien 08:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  people relate to it as "Deir Yassin massacre" only in the context of the "false proven claim by the arabs.... of it being a massacre". It was a military fight and the facts are all there to see that the arabs made up this story for their own use. If one keeps this title , since it's a common name, then in the introduction one should mention that the name references to the claim and not for the actual event, which its facts are disputed. 
as for google scholar, please ian pitchford, do not make false claims or lies. Amoruso 08:44, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Ian Pichford is CERTAINLY NOT a google scholar. At Deir Yassin, all historian agree there were a massacre. EG this one :  who is certainly not pro-palestinian biaised. Alithien 20:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  when will the title be changed ? 

message: It is sad to see that Wikipedia even allows the article to be named "massacre" because there is proof that there was no massacre there! For example
The Arab radio talked of women being killed and raped, but this is not true... I believe that most of those who were killed were among the fighters and the women and children who helped the fighters. The Arab leaders committed a big mistake. By exaggerating the atrocities they thought they would encourage people to fight back harder. Instead they created panic and people ran away. 
these are the very words that a survivor said!
more proof:
the words of a top arab journalist to the Jerusalem Report:
'I asked Dr. Khalidi how we should cover the story,' recalled Nusseibeh. 'He said, "We must make the most of this." So we wrote a press release stating that at Deir Yassin children were murdered, pregnant women were raped. All sorts of atrocities.' "
I tried to edit the article for FACT but people kept changing it.
There you go- the proof is there! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaddict (talk • contribs) 
:Some quotes are not sufficient to refute the extensive research of historians, you have to come up with better evidence. Preferable ones that fullfill WP:V and WP:RS. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 01:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: these quotes brought above by user:Gaddict are cited by historians, and fullfill WP:V and WP:RS as a secondary source atleast. Amoruso 02:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, quotemining is a form of original reasoning. What we need is the conclusions of those historians. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 03:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: well actually these quotes brought are already in the article. Amoruso 03:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, and the conclusions of the historians that there was indeed a massacre also. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 03:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the conclusion of some historians, while many other believe there wasn't , and they bring some of these citations as evidence. There were attempts to censor these citations by certain editors, attempts that were partially succesful. Amoruso 03:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Than the question becomes, where are those MANY other historians you claim. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 03:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dan Kurzman, Amos Perlmutter, Bowyer Bell, Uri Milstein, Sharif Kanaana, Nihad Zitawi, Yehoshua Gorodenchik, Shmuel Katz... Amoruso 03:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah right. Milstien, see quote above where is is very explicite about the massacre. Kanaana, see his report on the massacre. Katz, chief propagandist or the IZL, not WP:RS. You have to come with better series. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 03:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid you're wrong on all 3 accounts. Both milstein and kanaana writings confirm there was no massacre. Katz , a historian cited by google scholar, and highly regarded, is 100% WP:RS . And all the other sources I mentioned are only a fragment who confirm this basic fact of history. Amoruso 03:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So, you can provide the exact quote and page number of Milstiens book where Milstein concludes that therte was no massacre? Please, provide it to me. And please, indicate whether the pagenumber is based on the Hebrew version or the English translation. Thanks. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 13:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed basically every historian in the world explains that there was no massacre. Of course women etc were killed. But they were killed because they were used in the battle as human shields and so on. I guess there's a disagreement over what a massacre means. Everybody agree that there was a battle. In the course of the battle, since the Arab soldiers shot from within the houses, non combatants or innocent lives died. This is a consensus throughout serious historians. The quotes brought depicting this are in line. Milstein doesn't deny "some aspects", he refutes the whole story. The identity of the dead is not related to the question of a massacre or not. the allegation that a massacre took place concerns the events after battle where there is only the account of Me’ir Pa’il. Not one historian has collaborated this. Milstein writes, on the battle itself, the use of women as human shields, disguising themselves as women and the confusion it caused. Kanaana (and also Nihad Zitawi), "Reinterpreting Deir Yassin," Bir Zeit University, (April 1998) talks about a much smaller number of dead, essentially proving they were killed during the fight since their number only cite 107 Arab civilians dead and 12 wounded, in addition to 13 "fighters," --> calculate the number of "civilians" in each house... for sure, since we have admisson there was fabrication from Khalidy and other leaders, it falls into place (for example the rape claims). In fact, Katz probably has the biggest number of dead of them all so I don't know why he's being attacked :) Generally, the Israeli sources have the bigger numbers. Eventually, the most detailed account of what happened was the BBC research which concluded there was no massacre and most poignantly brought Hazam Nusseibi, who worked for the Palestine Broadcasting Service in 1948,  who admitted being told by Hussein Khalidi, a Palestinian Arab leader, to fabricate the atrocity claims. Zero's allegations are blatant lies. Gorodenchik of course denies the fabrication story of a massacre, but says that least some of the women who were killed  became targets because of men who tried to disguise themselves as women.  That's of course not a massacre. Amoruso 06:00, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your extensive original research. Unless you come with quotes from those historians where they indeed conclude that there was no massacre ,which I have not found in Milstein's book, I think this discussion is pretty clear. There is no discussion about the around 100 civilians, and there is also no discussion about that it were mainly women, children and older people. If you like some others want to redifine massacre as something that happens only after a fight, that is original research as that is not the usuall usages, but the IZL usage of the term. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 14:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

text:  Milstein denies some aspects of the usual story, but writes: "in fact, nobody denies: most of the dead in Deir Yassin were old men, women and children, and only a few of them were young men who could be classified as warriors" (The War of Independence Vol. IV, p273; translation by Ami Isseroff ).  Amoruso is also incorrect to say that Bowyer Bell denies there was a massacre.  Not only does he say there was a massacre, but he writes that some of the Irgun/Lehi people "privately admitted that men, women and children had been shot on sight" while denying rape and mutilation (Terror out of Zion, p296).  If I recall correctly (?), Torn Country by Reid Banks also records such private admissions.  As for Amos Perlmutter, one long article I have claims the opposite: "...Amos Perlmutter's sympathetic biography of Menachem Begin ("The Life and Times of Menahem Begin"). The author, in the chapter on Deir Yassin, which the author concedes was a massacre, cites Gorodenchik's testimony in the Jabotinsky archives as confirming that a massacre-–a general slaughter of Arab civilians—did indeed take place ("Dir Yassin" chapter)." (I can't confirm or deny this.) Then we have Gorodenchik, an Irgun member who was there and so not an independent source.  Anyway, his hand-written testimony that still sits in the Jabotinsky Archives in Tel-Aviv says: "We had prisoners, and before the retreat we decided to liquidate them.  We also liquidated the wounded, as anyway we could not give them first aid.  In one place, about eighty Arab prisoners were killed after some of them had opened fire and killed one of the people who came to give them first aid.  Arabs who dressed up as Arab women were also found, and so they started to shoot the women also who did not hurry to the area where the prisoners were concentrated." (Silver, p93) If that's a denial I wonder what an admission would sound like.  Finally, Sharif Kanaana and Nihad Zitawi were the authors of the Bir Zeit study on Deir Yassin.  Claiming that they deny there was a massacre is a blatant lie.  Who is left on Amoruso's list?  Ok, Dan Kurzman.  His "Genesis 1948" was one of the earliest detailed accounts in English and he sure as hell does describe it as a massacre.  Even the ZOA article says that.  In summary, Amoruso's list of eight historians who support him crumbles down to one: the Irgun's chief propagandist Shmuel Katz.  Enough said. --Zerotalk 05:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  no massacre 

message: If it isn't obvious already...
Some editors have suggested that the title "Deir Yassin massacre" reflects an anti-Israel POV, that the events described in the article do not merit the term "massacre", and propose "Battle of Deir Yassin" as an alternate.  Others claim that "Deir Yassin massacre" is a long-accepted term in English for the events in question, that the events do constitute a "massacre", and that changing the term nearly sixty years after the incident is the POV title, not the term under which the article has existed for quite a while.
At least one arbcom case is pending concerning the dispute.
I know rather little about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, so I won't comment on the merits of either name.  Consider this an administrative notice, to go along with the  tag placed on the article.
Now, if I might make one polite suggestion--it seems to me that the incidents described in this article are part of a larger Battle of Deir Yassin; perhaps the battle as a whole is worthy of an article in addition to this article (whatever title is given this article), rather than being created via a page move?  A page move accompanied by a significent rewrite strikes me as similar as an out-of-process deletion coupled with a new article creation--in other words, a questionable maneuver.  Of course, that may just leave folks with two articles to argue about.  :)  Please note that this suggestion does not imply an endorsement of any particular article version whose subject is the Battle of Deir Yassin, just that the battle as a whole might be a useful separate topic.
--EngineerScotty 04:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Surely WP:NOR applies? This event is known as the "Deir Yassin massacre" and it was promoted as a masascre by its perpetrators at the time. It doesn't matter whether Wikipedia editors think it should be called something else. --Ian Pitchford 07:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It can hardly be "anti-Israeli" to call it a massacre since the Zionist mainsteam called it a massacre right from the beginning and still do.  It is only the Irgun and its ideological descendants that don't like it.  --Zerotalk 10:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

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

text: In almost every single account of history the incident is called the Deir Yassin massacre, and the killing of 100-120 civilians definatley merits the title. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia which gives information on events that have occured, and since this is an event that definatley occured and the widely accepted name for it is the Deir Yassin massacre, the name should not be changed  --Amjra 01:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi. Take care 100-120 is the total number of victims. Not the number of people massacred. Alithien 19:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed title 

message: This article is entirely removed from its context, the Arab Siege of Jerusalem. I am curious, does anyone believe that the siege didn't happen? Or that it shouldn't be mentioned? Please contact me and explain why.Scott Adler 03:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To start with, "Arab Siege of Jerusalem" is not an acceptable name.  There was a battle between Jewish and Arab forces for control of Jerusalem; we should not describe it from the viewpoint of one of the two sides.  --Zerotalk 04:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly disagree. The water, food, and communication routes to the Jewish sectors of Jerusalem were specifically attacked. While the Arab sectors were attacked, they were not subject to the same conditions, and I would be quite surprised to see historians that take a different position. TewfikTalk 19:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just Curious: Did the Arab Siege of Jerusalem (1948) Happen?