Talk:Deir Yassin massacre/Archive 4

Some cleanup
This article needed some cleaning up. -- Patiwat 06:14, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Moved citations in intro to end of sentence
 * Tightened up wording of intro
 * Changed "Jewish irregular forces" to "Jewish IZL-Lehi forces" in intro
 * Changed death count in intro from 100-120 to 100-254 to account for full range of sources. Clearly noted that both sides exagerated the death counts.
 * Changed "during the so-called "civil war" period" to "during the "civil war" period of the 1948 Arab-Israeli War"
 * Took out the "(dubious assertion—see talk page)" superscript. No discussion on the talk page that I've seen denies that Milstein blamed the Irgun/Lehi, denies that the events were an atrocity, or the composition of the dead.
 * Turned the See Also into its own section

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

I'd suggest that the lead should: PalestineRemembered 10:51, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Replace "battle" with "attack".
 * 2) Replace "alleged to have been mainly old ..." with "largely the old ....".
 * 3) Replace the words "local Arab-Jewish fighting" with "Arab-Jewish polarisation and attacks".
 * 4) Replace "remain a source of discussion and debate" with "some sources still seek to debate".
 * 5) Take out alternative spelling clutter (though they'd be useful somewhere at the end).


 * Oppose attempt to make the article even more POV from the Arabic fable story. Amoruso 15:40, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I concur with Amoruso as regards content. "some sources still seek to debate": you'd have to prove that historical discussion is over and evaluation agreed upon. --tickle me 08:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm sure I can provide adequate justification from most significant Israeli historians (alone, leaving aside any others in the world) that Deir Yassin was indeed an atrocity. It's barely even necessary to say "some sources still seek to debate". (Leaving aside Amoruso's favourite, Shmuel Katz, a violent militant and professional propagandist).
 * And how about my other points - clearly, this was not a battle in the regular meaning of the word, equally clearly more than 50% of those killed were non-combatants, nothing alleged about it.
 * The first sentence of the first section speaks of an "incident". The article urgently needs stripping of these POV (and in some cases like this, deeply offensive) items.
 * Oh, look, here's what Meir Pail says - you're not still going to deny it was mostly women, children and the old, are you?
 * "Most of the houses there are one-story, though there are a few two story houses like the Mukhtar's house and a few others. In the corners we saw dead bodies. Almost all the dead were old people, children or women, with a few men here and there. They stood them up in the corners and shot them. In another corner there were some more bodies, in the next house more bodies and so on. They also shot people running from houses, and prisoners. Mostly women and children. Most of the Arab males had run away. It is an odd thing, but when there is danger such as this, the agile ones run away first.
 * Here is Haganah operations officer Eliyahu Arbel inspected the town on the Saturday:
 * "I have seen a great deal of war," he related 24 years later, "but I never saw a sight like Deir Yassin," largely comprised of "the bodies of women and children, who were murdered in cold blood."
 * You're not still going to claim that "alleged to have been mainly old people, women and children" is anything other than disgusting denial, are you?
 * PalestineRemembered 18:53, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


 * PalestineRemembered - I mean this advice sincerely. You have to stop believing that your interpretation of history is the only correct one. If you compare both the Irgun and Bir Zeit versions, you'll see that they agree in all major respects, especially in that it started with a battle. --Leifern 01:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't see how it can be a battle if an armed group approach/attack a village, and are met with nothing more than individuals protecting their homes. To have a battle you need two "opposing forces".
 * Furthermore, in cases like this, decency demands that we accept the word of the victims. Unless there is strong evidence that the victims were being duplicitous in some way - and I'm not aware of there being even a mild suspicion against them. Despite being firmly in the area set aside for Arab control, this particular town was falling over backwards to collaborate with the Yishuv.
 * Meir Pail's account is entirely consistent with everything else we think we know. This village was not attacked because it was threatening, quite the opposite, it was attacked because it was peaceful, friendly, and thought to be easy to knock over. Irgun and Lehi took several fatalities - but the Palmach presently swept through and wiped out all resistance with no injuries to their own. We don't know who they'd practised on, but by the time of Deir Yassin, they were quite skilled.
 * PalestineRemembered 22:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


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


 * You are quite right, one man's personal account on a web-page is not normally worthy of WP standards. In fact, I'm not sure why I introduced it. Here is the military historian Uri Milstein: "in fact, nobody denies: most of the dead in Deir Yassin were old men, women and children, and only a few of them were young men who could be classified as warriors" (The War of Independence Vol. IV, p273; translation by Ami Isseroff
 * However, this piece of (pretty blatant) denial was only what I could see in the first sentence of the first paragraph of this article. I'm sure it's all been much argued over already, but the article has been left in a state that looks to me completely unfit.
 * PalestineRemembered 22:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Minimization
Until today, the lead used to read "Contemporary reports of the event and the number of casualties (exaggerated by all sides) had considerable contemporary impact on the conflict, and were a major cause of Arab civilian flight from Palestine.[5][6][7] " User:Burgas00 changed this to read "Contemporary reports of the event and the number of casualties (exaggerated or minimised by all sides) had considerable contemporary impact on the conflict, and were a major cause of Arab civilian flight from Palestine.[5][6][7] ". This makes no sense. As the sentence says, there was a huge contemporary impact - the Arab civilian flight from Palestine. This flight was the laregly result of the exaggeration (by both sides). Even if contemporary reports had mimimized the scale (something which I am not sure is even true) - surely this would not have the considerbale impact reffered to in the latter part of the sensence. Adding "or minimised" to that sentence, in what appears to be a misguided attempt at NPOV, does not make sense. Isarig 22:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Im sorry! My mistake.--Burgas00 22:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm gald I was happy to better explain what I meant. So, will you revert your last change? Isarig 23:04, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Are these direct quotes?
Please check the footnotes in the article and let us know if the sentences in italics should really be in italics, or are they direct quotes from the sources? Sincerely, GeorgeLouis 04:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

This occurred during a period of increasing local Arab-Jewish fighting about one month prior to the regional outbreak of the much larger 1948 Arab-Israeli War. Contemporary reports of the event and the number of casualties (exaggerated by all sides) had considerable contemporary impact on the conflict, and were a major cause of Arab civilian flight from Palestine.

Don't want to start a fight, but I've taken out "probably exaggerated" number of victims
I think I noticed that this has gone backwards and forwards a bit, but as far as I'm aware, it's a "Well Known Fact" that the number of victims in the Deir Yassin Massacre was exaggerated by everyone.

That being the case, it's probably wrong to say "victims 100 - 254", but I've left it in, partly in the interests of only making incremental improvements (of which there are still quite a few to do).

PalestineRemembered 16:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Emanuel Winston appears to be completely wrong about the geography, and is an avowed supporter of ethnic cleansing
1) Emanuel Wlnston appears to have picked up on and published a piece of propaganda, aimed at denial. Deir Yassin was not strategic. eg: "I know that Raanan, commander of the Irgun, later said it had strategic value and controlled roads and logistic axes and so on, but that is all nonsense. Deir Yassin did not maintain any observation or fire control over the main road to Jerusalem, or any other route to Motza or Qastel. They didn't shoot at anything, certainly not at the road, because it was impossible to shoot at the road from Deir Yassin. Deir Yassin is high above sea level, but it, and Givat Shaul, are separated from the main road to Jerusalem by a big ridge where the Givat Shaul cemetery is located now, and you cannot see anything of strategic value from Deir Yassin. Everyone knows where the cemetery is, so it is ridiculous to claim they could fire on the road from Deir Yassin".

2) Emanuel Winston is a political commentator, not a historian. And an unashamed supporter of ethnic cleansing eg from "No to Palestinian state" by Emanuel A. Winston Editorial/Opinion section, Page 14A USA TODAY, 22 February 2002: "there is no ready solution for deprogramming the Arab culture that has taught its youth to hate and kill with such ferocity that nothing, including a state of their own, will change their minds or cure their murderous behavior ......... The simple answer, instead, would be to create a vast separation from Israel, resettling the Palestinians in Jordan, where 80% of the population already is Palestinian" . I hesitate to further label his beliefs, but the statements he's made and stands by are out there. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by PalestineRemembered (talk • contribs) 02:30, November 10, 2006   (UTC)


 * That is your opinion and original research. If you feel that strongly, I believe the way to edit constructively would be to place a quote from a reliable and verifiable source that addresses the issues Winston raises after the Winston citation. -- Avi 07:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * There are infinitely many commentaries out there by infinitely many commentors on all sides. We have to restrict the article to the best representatives of the main themes, we can't just keep adding more and more stuff from more and more people who don't have any special expertise.  Otherwise it keeps getting more and more junky.  Also, it is not original research to note that Deir Yassin did not control traffic on the road; you can see it for yourself on the contour map.  The fact that Winston gets this basic datum (not opinion!) wrong means he isn't a reliable source.  So there are two good reasons he is not suitable for inclusion.  --Zerotalk 09:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this is a classic example of original synthesis, which cannot be used. Regardles of how obvious anything may appear to you or me or anyone else, if it is not already published in a reliable source, making the argument is expressly forbidden as wikipedia cannot be a primary source. Secondly, an expert in the field may point out something that does not appear obvious. I am certain a number of battles in WWI and WWII were fought over pieces of land that were "obviously" not strategic, but over whom thousands of people died because someone thought it was. Regardless, to point that opinion (that it was not strategic) out IN the article, you need to find an existing reliable source to quote, according to wikipedia policy. Thanks -- Avi 12:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The map is a published reliable source, Avi. The same obvious fact is published by several of the sources listed in the article already.  --Zerotalk 14:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The map is. Your analysis of the location's strategic importance (even if based on many decades of military command and planning) is not. -- Avi 14:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * So an official map of Florida is not a reliable source for the claim that Miami is in Florida. That's your logic. --Zerotalk 02:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No, my logic is that an official map of Florida is not a source as to the strategic importance of Florida to Balboa and the Spanish claims to new world colonization. -- Avi 23:28, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * We have an excellent source that says Deir Yassin did not/does not overlook the road.
 * We have nothing approaching a WP:RS claiming that it does overlook the road (and it's very easy to prove such a positive).
 * It would be a travesty to give "equal time" to those who attempt to cover for this atrocity, when the only evidence we have supporting that view comes from a commentator with no qualifications (or even claim) to be a historian, and a proven enthusiasm for ethnic cleansing.
 * PalestineRemembered 16:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Regardless of where Deir Yassin was in relation to the road (though it is not in any doubt), Winston is just a random polemicist who is copying claims from somewhere else. Given the large number of historians who have studied this subject in detail using original documents, we don't need to bring quotations from random commentators who contribute nothing except opinions.  It isn't even an original opinion.  --Zerotalk 02:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Seems to me that Winston is more than a polemicist, he's an avowed believer in ethnic cleansing. 60 years ago it was perfectly proper to give these people their real name - what's wrong with doing so now? Or are your hands bound with wire?
 * PalestineRemembered 20:12, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

regardless of the strange censoring attempt of a WP:RS by certain known POV pushers, the POV intro that Palestineremembered tried to enforce can't stand and should be restored to the original. It's bad enough the article's name is still "massacre", the whole incident, alleged and debate changes or rather damages to the intro should be restored ASAP. I still can't believe that a battle that no serious scholar believes was even remotely a massacre and that there's clear evidence and in fact testimonies that this was fabricated is still named a "massacre" in the title. Amoruso 04:36, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The most extreme Zionist gunmen snuck up on this peaceful and Zionist-friendly village very early in the morning .... it's pretty outrageous to call this a "battle". There were no opposing force of any kind - check out web definitions of "Battle" to understand the meaning of English words.
 * We have an excellent source that says Deir Yassin did not/does not overlook the road.
 * We have nothing approaching a WP:RS claiming that it does overlook the road (and it's very easy to prove such a positive).
 * It would be a travesty to give "equal time" to those who attempt to cover for this atrocity, when the only evidence we have supporting that view comes from a commentator with no qualifications (or even claim) to be a historian, and a proven enthusiasm for ethnic cleansing.
 * PalestineRemembered 21:33, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Winston's quote above will obviously be placed back. Also, we have evidence this was a battle from the testitmonies and newspaper reports at the time. We also have evidence of shootings from the village towards jewish neighborhoods, see below. Amoruso 23:22, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't doubt that some very POV material will be placed into this article, including from people like Winston, a polemicist and an open supporter of ethnic cleansing.
 * I'm sure that people who hate the Jews as much believe they should be quoted as experts on historical matters and quoted in the encyclopedia.
 * I'm quite sure that clips from such people would not be tolerated here.
 * Tell me again - why are people who want to rob and kill people (solely because they're Arabs) apparently acceptable as sources?
 * PalestineRemembered 17:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

My two cents: this Emanuel Winston is no expert on the issue (neither history nor geography), just a onesided "commentator", supporter of "population transfer", not worthy to be quoted on Wikipedia. Using such a source would not be unlike quoting some Holocaust denier in article about Lidice massacre. --Magabund 19:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Replacing "Attack" with "Battle" looks like an edit against the content of the article
You've changed "The Irgun and Lehi discuss the planned attack on the village with the Haganah, but don't intend a massacre" to "Battle Plans"

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

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

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

PalestineRemembered 19:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Your edits which changed the exiting "battle plans" and "battle" to the verbose, unencyclopedic title seem like a POV attempt to avoid recognizing that there was indeed a battle there, which preceded the massacre. Read the article, as well as other well documented sources that point out there was a battle- the attacking Jewish forces suffered casualties, there were armed defenders in the village, which would seem to show that there were "two forces" at Deir yassin. The article states, for example, quoting Me'ir Pa'il that "Villager fire inflicted heavy casualties and drove off the Irgun". It further cites Reuven Greenberg saying 'Intense Arab firepower caused the fighters' advance into Deir Yassin to be very slow" . seems like a battle between two forces to me. Isarig 19:41, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Looks like classic WP:OR to me. There is no indication anywhere of there being any "Force" within Deir Yassin, and strong indication that the village refused to house any Arab soldiers. There were few amongst the dead who even might have been soldiers.
 * Perhaps you could explain to me why known terrorists such as Menachem Begin sought to lie about and minimise the evil and horror of this unprovoked attack on friendly people.
 * PalestineRemembered 21:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You seem to be under the impression that a "battle" can only take place between forces belonging to a formal armies. That is not the case. The fact that the villagers were armed and, according to witnesses, inflicted heavy casualties and drove off the Irgun fighters, is more enough evidence to support the claim that a battle did in fact take place. Virtually all of the battles in the civil war that raged in the Mandate area from November 1947 until the invasion by the regular forces of the neighboring Arab countries in MAy 1948 took place between irregualr forces. That is not to say that a massacre did not follow the battle, but denying that there was a battle first seems to fly in the face of evidence. Isarig 17:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm going by the regular meaning of the word (and the WP - see Battle). "Generally, a battle is an instance of combat in warfare between two or more parties wherein each group will seek to defeat the others ...... Wars and campaigns are guided by strategy whereas battles are the stage on which tactics are employed."
 * A sneak attack of this kind on a village we are pretty sure wasn't garrisoned (in fact, had refused a garrison) cannot be described as a "battle". This is not one force surprising another at 5.00am, it's an attack by "soldiers" on people's homes. People surprised in their homes and beds don't "employ a tactic", there is no such thing in self-defence.
 * Under such circumstances, use of the word "battle" does not belong. The first stages of this event were "an attack" (a completely unprovoked attack at that - the villagers of Deir Yassin had done nothing whatsoever to be treated in this fashion).
 * PalestineRemembered 19:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * ' a battle is an instance of combat in warfare between two or more parties ' - this is preciesly what happened here. One party are the Etzel forces, the other party is the irregular, armed combatants in the village. It is not required that they belong to an organized army. They were armed, and inflicted heavy casualties on the attckers- clearly a battle took place. Isarig 20:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Many of the combatants were also Iraqi and Syrian soldiers making them not irregular. Amoruso 23:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It seems the revisionism will go on. There must be a few occasions in the history of the world when a force attacked an ally, or "protected citizens", and people remember it as a battle. But I can't immediately think of any, and this plainly isn't one.
 * Nor is it seriously suggested by anyone other than the attackers that there were any Arab soldiers there. Milstein refers to a claim that one soldier was there, all witnesses agree only a few young men were killed.
 * PalestineRemembered 07:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Historical fact
There is no doubt that Deir Yassin served as a post for gunning down Jews in the Jerusalem Tel Aviv Road in a 3km line. The newspaper "Davar" from April 4th brought a detailed account of shooting from the village towards the neighborhoods of Beit Hakerem and Bait Vagan. As there is no doubt that the place was a grave danger since Iraqi soldiers were brought in as well as the fact that among the bodies were Iraqi and Syrian soldiers from actual units. Also there is no doubt that there was no massacre but a battle - there were a myriad of arms on the site. Also no doubt of the use of grenades and automatic weapons by the Arab forces. As there is no doubt of the hoax of the stories of abuse of the bodies after the thorough detail reports on the 12th april in the site. Honestly, it's very disturbing that wikipedia users allow the use of a proven hoax and try to censor the fact this was a sound military target. Amoruso 11:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yawn. --Zerotalk 11:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * There seems no limit to the revisionism that some people wish to put into this article. Here's one account of the aftermath of this "proven hoax" "...... Meanwhile a crowd of people from Givat Shaul, with peyot {earlocks}, most of them religious, came into the village and started yelling 'gazlanim' 'rozchim' - (thieves, murderers) "we had an agreement with this village. It was quiet. Why are you murdering them?" They were Chareidi (ultra-orthodox) Jews. This is one of the nicest things I can say about Hareidi Jews. These people from Givat Shaul gradually approached and entered the village, and the Lehi and Irgun people had no choice, they had to stop. It was about 2:00 or 3:00 PM. Then the Lehi and Irgun gathered about 250 people, most of them women, children and elderly people in a school house. Later the building became a "Beit Habad" - "Habad House.' They were debating what to do with them. There was a great deal of yelling. The dissidents were yelling 'Let's blow up the schoolhouse with everyone in it' and the Givat Shaul people were yelling "thieves and murderers - don't do it" and so on."
 * Needless to say, there are a number of other very well attested accounts of what the attackers did to villagers surprised in their beds.
 * PalestineRemembered 20:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It should be called "Deir Yassin attack". 1) Investigative groups came in and did not find evidence of a massacre, 2) The incident was highly exaggerated and used as propaganda on both sides, 3) Iraqi and Arab soldiers were in the village, 4) Many of the women were combatants, 4) It had occured during the Arab attack on Israel and siege of Jerusalem, making it more of a battle. --Shamir1 18:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * We should call it how the consensus of scholarship calls it. A massacre.  --Zerotalk 04:05, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

You mean the consensus of Palestinian propoganda sites like "Palestineremebered". All scholars agree that it was a battle. Meir Pail wasn't even there. Amoruso 12:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Scholars (we can exclude Katz from this category, for reasons that are pretty obvious) agree it was a massacre.
 * One scholar (Milstein) claims that there is no verifiable evidence that Meir Pa'il was there on the morning of the massacre and there is no independent verification of his meeting with Palmach commander Yaki Weg (killed later) and Moshe Wachmann (though the latter was still alive when Pail first published his account). This meeting occured (according to Pail) after the Palmach had pacified the more difficult, western part of the village in about 15 minutes. Pail outranked Yaki Weg, thanked him for what he'd done and asked him to leave. For the rest of his life he blamed himself for what happened after these regular (though unofficial) forces left. Earlier, he'd been along to spy on the irregulars and photograph what they did. He was hiding in a disused house on the eastern edge of the village while the irregular's unsuccessful assault on householders was going on.
 * Other statements made here ("no independent evidence of massacre" and "Deir Yassin served as a post for gunning down Jews in the Jerusalem Tel Aviv Road", "myriad of arms on the site") are completely unworthy.
 * PalestineRemembered 22:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * These are Palestinian lies. The testimonies of Arab residents themselve of Deir Yassin prove that there was no massacre. I don't know of any unbiased historian who claims that this battle was even remotely close to a massacre. Amoruso 23:01, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The shooting incidents Appear not only in Davar but also in the Palestine Post. for example some I saw :

1947 Dec 29 : shooting on givat shaul from Deir Yassin 1948 Jan 13 : it says that the Arabs in the place refused to allow arab gangs to shoot from there that sunday night which proves it was potentially used. obviously these refs should be added. of course the palestine post account of the battle also tells of the warning given by etzel, of the vast amount of arms found and the tough battle. Amoruso 23:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit surprised to see you claim that Meir Pa'ils words are "Palestinian lies".
 * I see nothing from you to justify the statements that have been made, that Deir Yassin overlooked the road. I see nothing from any serious historian disputing there was a massacre.
 * And independent witnesses looked over the village, seeing nothing of what you claim about arms and soldiers and quantities of weapons. I know of nothing to indicate anything like what you claim.
 * PalestineRemembered 09:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You can read the article, the version before too, there are many Arab testimonies who agree that there was no massacre - there's unquestioned evidence that shows exactly that this was a hoax and why there was a hoax. There's also no question about the arms and the existence of the Iraqi soldiers. Amoruso 10:53, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * There are people who rubbish many proven examples of mass murder carried out by violent racists - regular folk have a word for this practise, and names for the people who do it.
 * PalestineRemembered 17:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It's denial of something that didn't happen, it's true. Anyway, Arab propaganda has a long history with these fables, it's part of a whole ideology, it's not surprising. You're just a version of Baghdad Bob. Amoruso 18:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC) Amoruso 17:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * This exchange is veering toward PA territory. Let's be civil --Rrburke(talk) 00:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

This article got a media mention, and so did this discussion page
Despite the fact that this article is protected from editing due to a dispute, this article is a model of dispute resolution and a testament to the power of collaborative editing. At least that's what a hopelessly polyanna-ish media profile of Wikipedia claims. PlainWrap 01:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

"allegedly" mostly elderly, women, children
I don't think anyone disputes that the dead were mostly of these types -- except POV pushers on this page, of course. Even those who don't think there was a massacre and it was all an outcome of a battle don't disagree about the nature of the dead, even if they disagree about the numbers. Grace Note 10:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * wrong, there's a dispute whether it was mostly iraqi soldiers or others and this is a part of the fabrication of the myth of deir yassin. read the article and see, we stay neutral. it's bad enough the article is called massacre.85.64.221.76 23:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Not irakis of course and nothing any more is alledged concerning Deir Yassin. But I am not sure there were mainly elderly, women and children. I will check. Alithien 23:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The strong presence of Iraqi troops are no longer disputed by anyone except people trying to perpetrate the lie of this event, battle. Amoruso 23:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe 6 which is not sure. (should check reference) Out of 100-110 victims. Alithien 00:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * We don't know the amount of soldiers dying not all in uniforms, but the presence was considerable of course. All were militants of course, no "victims" here. Amoruso 00:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Amoruso is not helping much the discussion here. I agree with you when you say "All were militants of course" but strongly disagree with your "no victims here". Clearly, every single Palestinian is a militant by necessity. When a grandmother becomes a suicide bomber, I seriously doubt it was not strongly motivated. The bottom line is that it'd only be a hoax if Tsahal didn't enter the village. Also, I resent such statements as "Arab propaganda has a long history with these fables, it's part of a whole ideology". I never heard of an international mainstream media controlled by Arabs besides the newly founded Al-Jazeera. How can you speak of propaganda in these conditions? Lixy 13:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The IDF hadn't even been formed at the time so no, Tsahal did not enter the village. So now the whole mainstream media is controlled by the Jews I see? It's funny that the only accounts I see in the article from people who were actually there say there was no massacre. Were Yoav Gelber or Benny Morris there? No, neither was that guy who testifies he hear the shots being fired after the battle had already ended. He also is hardly reliable as he was with the Hagana and it was in his and the group's interests to make the Irgun seem to be evil. My grandfather was there after the battle and showed the scene to the Red Cross representative and I tend to believe him rather than a bunch of anti-Zionist historians. Yonatan (contribs/talk) 14:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the precision. But was it really necessary for you to twist my words to convey your point? You trust your grandfather and I trust mine. Lixy 16:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * What would you suggest to report when witnesses disagree about the events ? Alithien 16:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * When both sides are accusing each other of having an agenda, one should stop listening to them and rely on more supposedly "objective sources". Maybe people who are neither Arab nor Jewish for a start. On an unrelated note, deleting posts is frowned upon according to Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines Lixy 22:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe that Jewish and Arab contributors to wikipedia could be clever enough to try to report all points of view without agenda... Alithien 16:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yoav Gelber, Palestine 1948 (2006), p.311 :
 * Contrary to the IZL and LHI claims after the action (apparently generated by the desire to justify or spread the blame for the tragic outcome) there is no evidence of foreign combatants - ALA's or others - in Deir Yassin. Menahem Begin asserted in his memoirs that Iraqi troops who were stationed in the village prevented the residents from escaping at the beginning of the assault. However all contemporary and later Arab testimonies described the villagers themselves as the only combatants in the hamlet, and there is no reason to question this account. According to the SHAY's Arab sources and the refugees' testiminies, the Irasiq were stationed in Ain Karim, not in Deir Yassin.
 * p.312 he explains that it is very difficult to determine if people killed where civilians or combattants. He reports that 25 young people were executed after the battle but nowhere he talks about "children, women and old people" as the main victims.
 * Alithien 13:56, 3 February 2007 (UT)

can someone check ?

 * Of the killed, most were old people, women and children, while only a limited number were young men that could be seen as fighters. 

HIR?
There are users who seriously want to remove this link and keep "Deir Yassen remembered" and the others on the claim of personal hate site ? :) Amoruso 18:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Weird sentence
What is this supposed to mean? ''On January 27 a force commanded by Abdel Khader El-Husseini Suleiman. Again the villagers resisted and the force had to leave.'' Please fix. -- Ynhockey 08:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Eyewitness Accounts
I am surprised to see that my father was quoted in this (Yunis Assad) as saying that there was no intention to hurt the Palestinians and that the results were exaggerated. I have since spoken to my father and he is looking for the original article so that it can be put back into context. I believe that the neutrality of the eye witness accounts is skewed, and would like to have links to the exact sources. I think that my father's quote should be deleted until verified.

Talal101 03:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC) Talal Asad 3-24-2007
 * I'm removing the quote again, WP:LIVING states that "unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just highly questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space". The reference appears as if it was taken directly from Al Urdun of 1953, which I find hard to believe. Since it is related to a living person, until someone gives a reference to who quoted it or proves she/he have actually read it, the quote is out.--Doron 07:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

This is a famous "quotation" that lots of substandard authors pretend to cite to the original newspaper article when in fact they are just copying it off each other. It would be lovely to know what the original actually says. But please note that Wikipedia rules make it difficult to use privately-provided information. The best outcome would be a scan of the newspaper article. --Zerotalk 08:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That is not my understanding of BLP. We have no way of knowing who Talal101, and this passage is currently sourced. Unless you can bring a better source or some evidence that this is a misquote or some evidence that the person being quoted is challenging this, the passage remains sourced information.  Tewfik Talk 19:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * In what way is it considered "unsourced or poorly sourced"? Jayjg (talk) 19:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

You think it is well-sourced? I suppose if it is indeed so, then perhaps one of the editors here can look it up in the nearest library and send a scan of the article with that quote? Because my library doesn't stock al-Urdun issues from 1953. I'll go through the trouble of translating it myself.--Doron 23:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It is unsourced or poorly sourced since nobody here has ever looked at it. They just copied the claim from some web page or book that copied it from someone else.  The claimed content of the "quotation" screams lack of context.  It is also a violation of WP:CITE to cite a source via an unnamed third party.  None of the serious accounts of Deir Yassin (I've got many) consider this "quotation" even worth mentioning; it is only the junk publications that use it and none of them provide anything except the exact same sentence or two, indicating that they got it by copy-paste.  --Zerotalk 01:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * "The claimed content of the "quotation" screams lack of context". If I understood the implications, that logic would view as suspect all the quotations of Arabs not accusing the Jews of malicious intent, since the content is only a reiteration of the classical Israeli narrative. With all due respect, your personal favour for certain sources over others shouldn't trump WP:RS as long as its criteria are met, and my not having access to this source shouldn't be grounds for disqualifying it, and certainly not on the say so of an anonymous individual no matter who he claims to be. In all fairness, Talal does claim to have access to the original source, so if he or someone else can point us all to it in the coming days, then we should of course defer to that account.  Tewfik Talk 01:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll say it more clearly -- I cannot accept the source as reliable because nobody here seems to be able to verify it. Did you verify it? How do you know it is indeed a true quote? How do you know it is a faithful translation? Surely you'd agree that anyone can make up such quotes, and nobody would have any chance to disprove them. It is not a quote from a source that can be ordered by mail or found in a major library. What I'm asking for is very simple -- if indeed the quote is genuine, surely there shouldn't be any problem to prove it. If you have problems with other quotes, we can discuss them as well.--Doron 09:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, all quotations are suspect until their verifiability is established. I don't see any good reason to believe that the newspaper Al Urdun in 1953 published anything of which this "quotation" is a fair report. Why should I? The "quotation" doesn't even make sense: ""The Jews never intended to hurt the population of the village but were forced to do so after they met hostile fire from the population which killed the Irgun commander."  The Irgun commander was not killed.  And which Arabic word is translated as "forced" here?  Who translated it?  The fact that we don't a clue about such basic questions means that the verifiability criterion has not been met.  These high standards should be the norm: the last two times I cited a very rare source (an Arabic memoir from the 1950s and an illegal Hebrew newspaper from the 1940s), I uploaded scans.  Let's see a scan of this one.  The Library of Congress apparently has it but that's too far away for me.  --Zerotalk 13:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * While we certainly should go to reasonable lengths to find the primary sources involved, I don't think RS demands that we provide scans of the newspaper, else not quote it. While I understand the problems with not being able to verify online and such, I don't see how simply citing whatever source printed this wouldn't satisfy any demands of policy. As I said above, I am willing to wait several days for Talal to deliver his source, but his not following through doesn't mean that this sourced passage should be kept out. Cheers,  Tewfik Talk 02:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Just out of curiosity, suppose Talal was to return and say that he looked through the issue at the archives of al-Urdun and found no such passage, would you then consider the case closed? Or suppose I were to write that I did so, would that be enough?--Doron 08:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * And if Talal doesn't return, Tewfik, where are you going to cite this "quotation" to? In case you are not aware of the rule, on WP:RS you can read that we aren't allowed to just copy a source from some third party.  We have to cite the place where we got the information from. And another thing: who is Yunis Assad?  Why is his testimony noteworthy? --Zerotalk 12:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Allegations of victims
There is consensus in anti-Israeli literature that the victims of this event were "mainly" children, elderly, etc. That is not the same as a neutrally verified perspective. I'm not going to get into a revert war, but would advise editors to please consult NPOV. If we're going to move to entrenched positions, this article should be renamed Battle of Deir Yassin. --Leifern 23:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I totally agree, as 35% of the involved israelis were injured in this, it should be renamed 'Battle'. Jaakobou 01:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Please look through the discussion page history, it is called on Wiki what it is called in the real world, it's that simple. If you want to change the name then start thousands of web pages and publish thousands of academic papers and books which call it the "Deir Yassin Fracas" if you like and if one day that becomes the prevalent name then Wiki can reflect it as such.RomaC 01:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * good point, i'll get started on it :) Jaakobou 01:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Israelis claim
The involved Israelis claim that this was a harsh battle, a statment that is not refuted by many sources (if not most of them). I don't see how a "some israelis don't" is a good reasoning to expunge the well sourced notes from the intro. Jaakobou 01:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The involved Israelis (who, according to Pail) attacked the village because it was easy and nearly defenseless are hardly WP:RS. They have provably lied about the place, describing it as overlooking the road.
 * Meanwhile, Israeli historians (all of them, as far as I'm aware, plus others) call the event a massacre. The definition of a battle usually refer to "two forces". Other than unproven and unlikely claims of the presence of Iraqi soldiers, there is no indication of the defenders being anything other than householders (and poorly prepared ones at that).
 * This discussion about "battle vs massacre" has gone round and round in talk, always with the same result, it was most certainly a massacre. PalestineRemembered 06:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

User:PalestineRemembered, what i'm saying is that in this war/conflict the Arab/Palestinian side had (and still has) a penchant for exaggerations - which is sort of valid as a war tactic, but not for an encyclopedia. Jaakobou 08:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) I don't see why the testimony of the villagers of a location that has shot at nearby Jewish convoys (and denied it), creating a long term blockade on Jerusalem, is any more valid than the testimony of the Israeli forces.
 * 2) For example, I think Talal Abu Rahmeh from the infamous Muhammad al-Durrah libel is lying through his teeth on more than one occassion - but, we do state his testimonies on the al-Durrah article.
 * 3) Claiming: "They have probably lied about the place" and also claiming that "all the Israeli historians call it a massacre" is a mistake - I present as counter, the Israeli article about it which is named "Deir Yassin Affair" (other names such as battle and massacre are presented as depending on POV).[]
 * 4) No offense, but just yesterday sombody told me about the "Holocaust" of israelis on palestinians. i.e. a comparisment between systematic killing 6,000,000 non combatant contributing members of society based on geneology and between maybe 30,000 Arab deaths during more than 8+ large scale wars, most of them declared by the Arabs on the Jews in which many Jews died also. A more than crude comparisment.
 * I was under the impression that no serious historian anywhere (even from Israel) still disputed this was a massacre. Thank you for apparently demonstrating that the best alternative evidence is another Wikipedia article (not acceptable as a reference) in a language other than English (not acceptable as a reference). PalestineRemembered
 * actually, (1) other languages are allowed when a better source cannot be found. (2) that source is the official etzel website. it is as POV as the the palestinian "nakbainhebrew" one that i've added.. if not less. (3) just as in the Battle of Jenin article, both views are allowed to be presented. (4) i'm not very appreciateive of the undertones in your reply that act as though i'm some type of history revisionist. I'm not. Jaakobou 19:19, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Reliability issues?
Is there a problem with the http://www.etzel.org.il that makes it not acceptable to wikipedia? -- Avi 22:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say that whatever's in the Etzel website is what "the Israelis claim". The Etzel's POV is hardly representative of Israel. Perhaps you could rephrase, to clarify that it is the Etzel's POV you are quoting?--Doron 22:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, that is just my point. Thanks Doron.


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

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

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

(2) the battle described on hebrew wiki
more from that page:
 * some info about diwhere attacks started and locations and equipment used.
 * "before the start of the battle the etzel and lehi gave up on the surprize element and notified the villagers about the intended attack so that women and children will have enough time to escape from the village, by that the forces tried to prevent an injury to residents of the village."
 * "The battle started before the intended time because the Etzel forces' location was revealed by the village guards."
 * "despite the purpouse of the operation was to capture the village and evict the population (e.g. since israel claim it was being used to attack convoys and it was a stratecig location to break the seige on jerusalem), matters turned into a battle, in which many of the villagers were killed, including women and children.
 * Ezra Yakhin (elkanam) of the Lehi, who participated in the fighting, says: "at the beggining of the battle the women of the village joined the men who were also masking themselves as women, which gave a difficulty at seperating the fighting population with those who are not fighters"
 * "current researches no longer raise the allegations of abuse, rape, or blowing up houses with the residents inside."

(3) historion writes serious book about it with documentation
this i only now found - ... the historian is israeli.

(4) Da'at encyclopedia

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


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

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


 * First, let me commend you for not starting (or continuing) an edit war, which is far too common in these articles. We can work out this issue better by discussing it without disrupting the article itself in the meantime. Now the problem with the reverted version, as I see it, is that the view of the Irgun was represented as the view of "the Israelis", which is far from correct. We should work out a phrasing that either makes it clear that the presented view is of the Irgun, or find a more representative description and reference of the "Israeli" view, if there is such a thing (since there's controversy even among Israelis on how the events should be viewed).--Doron 10:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * User:Doron, my edit may have been a tad hidden - so i reedited the layout some so i hope it's more legible now. Jaakobou 11:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

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


 * (1) allow me to start with this one: "Even at the time, The Zionist leadership denounced the massacre." - Israel has a history of first saying sorry and later making a full investigation - to add to this, at the time, there was no real intention at letting the arabs think that jews are cute and nice people - to remind you, jerusalem was under seige and convoys were being shot at repeatedly. both sides were involved in spreading that 250+ died. this does not negate the current general belief to the event which is very controvercial.
 * (2) there's allways been israeli counter opinions - that's what's so great in democracy - however, they do not constitude "the israelis" the same way that people like "walid shoebat" does not constitude "the palestinians" - if it's a matter of semantics, than i suggest we say "the villager palestinians" and "the etzel and some isareli historions" or something close... personally, i preffer my previous phrasing.
 * (3) i'd be happy to hear who are these many israelis - prefferably with serious links their conducted research method and accounts of the battle - to validate that they are not groups with mainly arab-israeli supporters. Jaakobou 12:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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


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


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


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


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


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


 * i'm sorry, i know you worked hard to find that blog, but i don't consider blogs who infringe copyright as valid sources - who knows what they added and what they neglected to promote their agenda, who knows if it's a true production of the original.. and who knows how valid the original is. i've managed to see some reasonably valid blogs, but one that is called "deir yassin remembered" would not make the cut. Jaakobou 11:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Denial is not a very attractive trait when everyone in the world knows that a massacre was carried out. It's not even as if there are (modern) Israeli historians disputing it. PalestineRemembered 18:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


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


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


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


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

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


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


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


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


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

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


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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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


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


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


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

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

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


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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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


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

EditProtected Request
I request an edit to the POV template to update the "talk page" link to point to the "Ongoing debate" heading above so that readers can quickly find their way to the current debate about the page. The current link doesn't work. Thanks Gatoclass 02:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. &mdash;dgies tc 23:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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


 * Apparently, Milstein does. At least according to Amuroso's translation of an interview with him on a Hebrew website (I'm trying to get an English translation of it now, BTW). Gatoclass 12:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Milstein has recently published a Hebrew book called עלילת דם בדיר-יאסין (roughly "Blood libel in Deir Yassin"; ). I don't know if there's an English version. I suppose whoever's making these suggestions ought to first read the book. I'll have a look at it myself as soon as I spot it (haven't seen it in bookstores yet).--Doron 12:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

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


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


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

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


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


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


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


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


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

i've done quite a bit of explanation and NPOVing explanation here: Israelis Claim, i think your zeal is clouding your judgment here. Jaakobou 10:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Mind WP:NPA Lixy 12:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I think changing the name to "Battle of Deir Yassin" is unlikely to get consensus. While it's possibly less POV than labeling it a massacre when this is disputed, it still implies an acceptance of the opposing POV. I read the last discussion on this, and the title Deir Yassin incident was proposed and seemed to have some acceptance among opposing parties. I think that would be the best NPOV title. &lt;&lt;-armon-&gt;&gt; 12:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think its a great compromise.I proposed its in one of the polls--Shrike 13:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't fly 'cause of WP:OR. The ones "disputing" the massacre represent a very tiny minority in scholarly circles (though that proportion is clearly not the same around here). Massacre isn't POV; it's merely the dominating denomination. Changing it to "battle" or "incident" can be viewed by the victims as nothing more than blatant apologism. Lixy 14:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Da'at encyclopedia: "on 2.4.48 deir yassin people started sniping at the jewish neighbourhoods at Beit-Hakerem and Yafeh-Nof" - i claim jews were the victims until the battle took place, of which one side came out victorious, and the other went out crying "massacre and rape". if every time the losing of a battle can lie to the press and the end result would be a "massacre" title on wikipedia, then we are at a problem. remember the danish cartoons incident? have you looked into the dossier abu laben and akkari fixed up for the press? Jaakobou 15:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you have a source to "The ones "disputing" the massacre represent a very tiny minority in scholarly circles"?--Shrike 18:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * "Deir Yassin incident" is a classic weasel word. Apart from which it's against Wiki guidelines for titles, which say that the most commonly used name for an event or thing should be used. Gatoclass 14:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to agree with a Gatoclass-based introduction for now, as it allows weight for the "battle", while sticking to what seems to be the majority "massacre" view. What I suggest from those disputing that "massacre" is the majority, is that they provide at least one other major position to join Milstein and counter Morris and Segev, or show that they're position is different than that demonstrated here. I don't grant as much weight to Finkelstein and others on the fringe, but they don't seem to be the primary proponents of the position. Cheers,  Tewfik Talk 19:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * look up, da'at encyclopedia. very serious source written by another proffesor. Jaakobou 21:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Those who want to assert that massacare view is majority view should bring WP:RS source saying so.--Shrike 21:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Sigh* I have already done so, ad nauseam, on this page. I suggest you read some of the above, starting at the "Ongoing debate" heading. Gatoclass 04:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * So you consider ZOA article to be WP:RS?If so we shouldnt cherrypick from it but incoporate it fully into the article.--Shrike 07:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

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


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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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


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

Nonsense, EVERYBODY knows that Deir Yassin was Genocide, Rape and Slaughter.Paul T. Evans 13:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Everybody except those who were there. A resident of the village said "The Jews never intended to hurt the population of the village, but were forced to do so after they met enemy fire from the population, which killed the Irgun commander." That doesn't mean I want to change the name. I think the name is appropriate. But let's not believe the propaganda, shall we? Screen stalker 21:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Gatoclass, the 8 170 thing is meaningless. Either find all 170 books and relate to them or quote the person in full and say it's his statement, we don't know if it's true and we don't know how trashy these books are. Please stop repeating this irrelevant material... with all due respect, it's meaningless. Using this line is manipulative even if you had good faith. Anyway, the name of the article is inappropriate, we should use the neutral term "battle" per above, I don't think there's any question about it anymore really... I'll explain more - the truth is it's the best interest of you too to change it to "battle". There WERE actual massacres (ein zetun) and talking about this myth actually belittles the other cases and makes it all seem like a fable... it's the best interst of everyone seeking the truth not to make this an example of Pallywood (which is an appropriate "see also"). Amoruso 16:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * One wonders how much more good editing time will be wasted in yet another attempt to reverse the over-whelming (95.3%) verdict of historians published books on the subject. PalestineRemembered 20:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

here's another study against the 95% claim, [http://www.hirhome.com/israel/deir-yassin.htm Was There a Massacre at Deir Yassin? by Dr. Francisco Gil-White]. Jaakobou 05:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Gil-White is an anthropologist, and history or Middle East studies are not within his area of expertise. This self-published "study" from his private website is just his personal opinion (of which there's plenty on that website), and it is as good as any blog.--Doron 05:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The issue of Gil-White's utility as a reliable source has recently been discussed at Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-03-31 ChrisO. I won't repeat all the arguments here, but in summary hirhome.com doesn't qualify as a reliable source. -- ChrisO 08:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The accepted mediation agreement in that case (which exclusively concerned this very same web-site) was "Sysops should block (a particular named user) if he continues to add links in violation of External links". Editors have suffered long blocks for behaviour which didn't undermine policy (to any degree, let alone this) and was intrinsically less disruptive. PalestineRemembered 14:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)