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 Disaster management This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Archives

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

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 7 days are automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

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]

Curious why the blanket revert? Clearly an editor saw some problems, for example re describing Irgun as "fighters" not militants; and describing Human shields are "screens", I have never seen that euphemism used on Wiki before. There are more, can we start with these? Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 02:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some of Jim Fitzgerald's edits were improvements, including the elimination of that euphemism. The problem is that there were just a few good changes among a slew of POV edits and many others that changed the historical facts. Examples include replacing "killed" with "murdered" and "Palestinian militiamen" with "Palestinian troops". Somebody who has the patience can separate the wheat from the chaff. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] (talk · contribs) 04:06, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The edit was problematic, and changed things for no reason e.g. Arab militiamen (they were militiamen, according to the source) to Arab troops who tried to take up residence. Troops is quite wrong in this context. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:22, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, it can be a problem when an editor makes a bunch of changes at one time, especially to an article such as this one. Hopefully there can be specific discussions addressing some of the points and we can improve the article. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 10:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could Jim Fitzgerald say what he's trying to achieve with his edit and revert, please? The material doesn't conform to what the sources say, and using "murdered" only serves to provoke. None of the historians that I've seen call Irgun "militants," which is a late 20th-century journalistic term used to avoid "terrorist." And to call someone a "militiaman," you'd have to know that he was a part-time fighter, which may or may not be the case here, so it introduces an unnecessary complication to use it of the Irgun. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:20, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The thing I do not quite understand after reading a number of articles related to Arab-Israeli conflict, is that why members of Irgun or Lehi are not explicitly called militiamen, and in contrast Arab forces are often called militiamen. The word militiamen has a negative meaning, the usage of which makes article unbalanced. I propose that we do not use words 'militiamen' or 'militia' to describe either sides of the conflict, but use neutral words like 'fighters' and 'forces. E.g. Arab forces, Arab fighters, Irgun forces, Lehi fighters. The exception to the proposed rule might be when using direct quotes. -- Jim Fitzgerald ^post 19:26, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My memory is that I used the terms the sources were using. A militiaman is a civilian; it doesn't have a negative meaning, just a definition. By changing it to troops or forces, you're changing the meaning. If the sources I've used use different terms, by all means change them, but otherwise please don't. The Jews had formed a proper fighting force; the Palestinian-Arabs had not. Whether the Irgun was part of that fighting force is a matter for historians to decide, and we should use whatever terms they've decided are appropriate. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, SlimVirgin, if the militia is a civilian military self-orginized armed group, then why we do not, for the sake of NPOV/impartiality, call them 'the civilian self-defensive forces', would that satisfy the requirements of an English synonimum to 'militiamen'? Are you OK with this terminology? If you ask me, I do!-- Jim Fitzgerald ^post 19:57, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, 'the civilian self-defensive forces' is a phrase that describes them in a way that might not be true. The part "self-defensive" claims to know their purpose, but we aren't supposed to make such a judgement ourselves. Maybe someone else thinks they existed for offensive purposes (such as to raid traffic on the roads). Basically there are three types of fighting group. One is an official army (usually associated with a government, with ranks, uniforms, etc). The words "soldiers" and "troops" usually signify an army unless they are otherwise qualified. Then there are organized militia, also called irregular forces, that have names and leaders. Then there are ad hoc fighting groups, called "armed gangs" by their opponents, who are usually local civilians fighting for some local objective. The first step in wording is to follow what the sources say. The next step (if there is one) is to use neutral words that conform to the facts given in the sources. There is hardly any case where it is correct to change a word just based on the word used, without consulting the sources. Zero^talk 00:40, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Benny K, thanks for adding sources for the statement: the Irgun was aligned with the right-wing revisionist Zionist movement and Lehi, although not politically aligned, viewed itself as an anti-imperialist movement. Could you give me some idea where in The Stern Gang and The First Tithe I should look for verifications? -- ZScarpia (talk) 10:09, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article's title, "Deir Yassin Massacre" is very problematic. There are many historians who dispute the claim that there ever was a massacre and other historian and publications argue that the villager's were far from peaceful, heavily armed and reinforced by an Iraqi contingent and other Arab irregulars. To call it the "Deir Yassin massacre" is to presume facts that are hotly disputed and this immediately sets the tone for the article. I propose a more neutral title like "The Battle of Dier Yassin." I am open to other suggestions and encourage other editors to debate the issue.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 17:07, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]