This page is subject to the extended confirmed restriction related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Palestine High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Wikipedia. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: Middle East Start‑class This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale. Associated task forces: /  Middle Eastern military history task force

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

​ Archives by topic: Massacre-battle discussions​

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 7 days are automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 1.

Parking this here until I work out where to put it:

"Some of the fighters alleged that they had shot women only because some male villagers had dressed as women. Yehoshua Gorodentchik of the Irgun said the fighters had, "found men dressed as women and therefore they began to shoot at women who did not hasten to go down to the place designated for gathering the prisoners."^[1] Yair Tsaban was one of several youths who joined the burial team on April 12:

"What we saw were [dead] women, young children, and old men. What shocked us was at least two or three cases of old men dressed in women's clothes. I remember entering the living room of a certain house. In the far corner was a small woman with her back towards the door, sitting dead. When we reached the body we saw an old man with a beard. My conclusion was that what happened in the village so terrorized these old men that they knew being old men would not save them. They hoped that if they were seen as old women that would save them."^[2]"

Yeshurun Shiff, an adjutant to David Shaltiel, district commander of the Haganah in Jerusalem, was in Deir Yassin on April 9 and April 12. He wrote: "[The attackers chose] to kill anybody they found alive as though every living thing in the village was the enemy and they could only think 'kill them all.'... It was a lovely spring day, the almond trees were in bloom, the flowers were out and everywhere there was the stench of the dead, the thick smell of blood, and the terrible odor of the corpses burning in the quarry."^[3]

Yes Gelber says that it is a subject of dispute. He also repeatedly calls what happened a massacre. So do the multitude of other sources used throughout the article. A small, but extremely vocal, group the killings that occurred here as a vicious battle between heavily armed Palestinians backed by other Arab fighters and the freedom fighters of the Irgun. This is not new. I dont have to go back more than one archive to pull up the last time that this occurred. The fact remains that this is nearly uniformly called a massacre by the top sources, it is not a debate that occurs in academia. nableezy - 19:21, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The citatation reads: "However, what happened that day in the village — a bloodstained battle or a cold-blooded massacre — has remained highly disputed." (Sentence 4 of the cite.) The title of the article is 'Deir Yassin Massacre." If you wish to cite other parts of the reference, please feel free to do so. But do not ignore the original citation, which only serves to unbalance a WP article. After all, WP is an encyclopedia which should be fair and balanced. This is what the cite says, therefore it is only fair and balanced to leave it in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.43.87.117 (talk) 19:30, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that is supposed to be neutral, with neutral meaning representing all POVs with the weight they are given in reliable sources. With nearly no exceptions, reliable sources say what happened was a massacre. The use one line from one paper, a paper that itself repeatedly calls it a massacre, as the basis for questioning the countless other sources is not neutral. nableezy - 19:33, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV means that citations are correctly cited. As stated above, if you wish to cite other portions of the Gelber article, or any other reliable source, please feel free to do so. But do not distort the actual citation by selectively choosing portions that you want and ignoring what you don't like. I did not write Gelber's article, nor did you. If you wish to engage in an edit war, the best thing is to submit the matter for arbitration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.43.87.117 (talk) 19:47, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Im just going to wait for you to be blocked, then Ill remove this nonsense. nableezy - 19:51, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The only fair thing to do is submit the matter to arbitration. Your claim that Gelber repeatedly calls the event a 'massacre' is simply untrue. Here is the last paragraph of Gelber's article:

"The massacre at Deir Yassin, if what happened in the village deserves this definition, was an almost inevitable outcome of circumstances – the nature of the combatants on both sides, their organization and location, level of training, deployment and mastery of command and control, the absence of proper military targets, the presence of a large number of civilians, and overarching exigencies and special stresses inherent in this kind of intra-communal warfare. Certainly, it was not the bloodiest massacre of the war. The killing of 240 Jews in Gush Etzion after their surrender, and 250 Arabs during the occupation of Lydda and its aftermath were more extensive by far." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.43.87.117 (talk) 20:04, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have you even read the rest of Gelber's paper? And do you have any response to The use one line from one paper, a paper that itself repeatedly calls it a massacre, as the basis for questioning the countless other sources is not neutral.? Or that other sources routinely and nearly without exception call it a massacre? nableezy - 21:00, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have read the full article. Gelber's words, quoted above, speak for themselves.

Gelber doesn't rejet the fact it was a massacre in the full article, whatever this sentences taking out of its context says. The massacre occured at the end of the battle (which was not a massacre) and after it in a query. But there was a massacres and that is not disputed by reliable sources. Pluto2012 (talk) 22:17, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You do not seem to understand that WP is an encyclopedia. That means that source material must be summarized accurately. Gelber clearly states in sentence 4 that the event is a matter of dispute. If you don´t believe that, just read the Talk pages for this article. In the final paragraph of the cited article, he questions whether or not it was a massacre. Both are quoted in full above and, thus, are not taken out of context. My edit summarizes Gelber´s assertion that the event is a matter of dispute. If you have other reliable sources that you wish to add to the article to make it more informative, please feel free to do so. But do not delete an accurate summation of the citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.88.27.57 (talk) 16:57, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We dont understand that? Really? We are the ones that dont understand that one line in one paper, a paper that repeatedly calls what happened a massacre, doesnt trump the countless other sources that say it was a massacre? Funny, I thought I did understand that. A number of users disagree with your edit for several reasons, among them being that the overwhelming majority of sources say it was a massacre and it is UNDUE weight to give this single line from a single paper the same weight given to those countless sources. Oh, and you're already blocked. nableezy - 17:22, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, we are at an impasse in this dispute. The only fair thing to do is to submit it to WP Mediation. Do you agree? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.180.140.187 (talk) 00:55, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. Have you thought about any of the other WP:Dispute resolution procedures? Mediationn is a last resort, not a first step. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:27, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Taking a single sentence out of context violates WP:NPOVand is not encyclopedic. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 07:30, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]