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

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 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]

This page has already been fully-protected twice. Unless consensus can be reached, you can expect further and longer protections to be put in place. Suitably-referenced material should not be arbitrarily removed, and everyone involved in the edit war here should be aware that it will not be tolerated. Enigma^msg 18:53, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't make inappropriate threats. Just because something is "suitably-referenced" doesn't mean it belongs in an encyclopedia article (see WP:NPOV, for example). Also, please read the preceding section for explanations why the "suitably-referenced material" is not being "arbitrarily removed", but being removed for good cause. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:23, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty appropriate when we've seen full protections of a week and two weeks in quick succession. Enigma^msg 19:43, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But it becomes inappropriate when you make the suggestion that those removing questionable material are at fault and that they "should be aware that it will not be tolerated". nableezy - 19:45, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not what I was referring to with the last line. But I struck it if that assuages your concern. Enigma^msg 19:49, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, it does. nableezy - 19:54, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:55, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that in the current state, nobody should change anything on this page unless they have achieved consensus at the talke page first. And at the moment, there does not seem to be any consensus for any of the proposed changes. I can see a consensus emerging at the cross-dressing man issue, but no one has yet made a concerte proposal how to word it after there was kind of an agreement of the proper sources. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 01:56, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Protection was instituted because some editors stubbornly cling to a certain narrative. Any other narrative that is potentially embarrassing or provides a basis of greater understanding and context for the underlying facts is immediately set upon as "fringe," "biased," "marginal" and "undue." The fact is that subject edit is backed by seven sources and I have since found three more for a total of ten sources and they are;

• Sundquist, Eric J., Strangers in the land: Blacks, Jews, post-Holocaust America, Harvard University Press p374
• Leibovitz, Leil, Aliya: Three Generations of American-Jewish Immigration to Israel, St. Martins Press, 2006, p88
• Dershowitz, Alan M, The Case for Israel, Wiley & Sons, 2004, p81
• J Randall Price, Fast Facts on the Middle East Conflict - (Harvest House Publishers) (June 2003) ISBN 0-7369-1142-1, p 92
• Bard, Mitchell Myths and Facts: A Guide to the Arab Israeli Conflict, p134
• Lynne Reid Banks, A Torn Country: An Oral History of the Israeli War of Independence (New York: Franklin Watts, 1982) p.62
• Gelber Appendix II Propaganda as History: What Happened at Deir Yassin?, p 314
• Ervin Birnbaum, In the shadow of the struggle, Gefen Publishing House Ltd (1990) p220
• Michael Grossman, The reluctant Jew, Author House (2007) p344
• Milstein p. 276

The above noted sources confirm that some Arab combatants dressed or disguised themselves as women during the battle and may have also feigned surrender. The inclusion of the edit is important for three reasons. First and foremost, it provides proper context and possible explanations for civilian deaths. Second, it highlights the possibility that Arabs themselves violated the Laws of War during the battle and third, IT HAPPENED! It is a fact that can not be denied. It is corroborated by the testimony and witness accounts of both Arabs and Jews, civilians and combatants.

Some editors have wanted to preclude Bard because they view him as “propagandist.” But McGowan, Khalidi and Pappe are also noted as sources. Are they not “propagandists?” Do they not have a point of view? I see a double standard. Nonetheless, there are sufficient sources to support the edit even with Bard’s exclusion. Respectfully--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 15:31, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As most commentators agree on, the text as it stands is not acceptable. The text needs to be reworked (and shortened) if it is to have a chance of being included in the article. Please post the new version here so we all can have a look at it. --Frederico1234 (talk) 19:15, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like we have to burch again through the references. A bit more than just names would be appreciated. Whjat do they sayu about it? Do they just reference it, or do they actually examine it based on historical sources? -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 20:52, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get the quotes but it's time consuming. Please don't make me do the work for nothing if you have no intention of cooperating/compromising with me. If you're going to reject everything I edit outright, there's no point in even having this discussion.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 21:38, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you can do yourself a favour by taking a different approach to what you want to achieve. Edit warring doesn't work, you have experienced that already, it will only get you blocked. Trying to throw a lot of 'sources' to the discussion and claim because of that that you are right isn't going to work either. Because other editors can check the same sources and they will. And the more it looks like you just pull out every reference that just mentions Arabs dressed as women to make your point, you loose a lot of credibility in the process. So, do yourself and us a favour, and judge the sources yourself critically. What new information do they provide over the recognized standard works that we all know about? Just a quote of one of the participants that is already used in 10 other sources? That does not add anything. In the end, it is not about numbers (You seem to claim victory because you have more references than the opposition.), it is about reliability and quality. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 14:11, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The claim that some Arab defenders were dressed as women seems to have been made originally by the Lehi militant Ezra Yachin and has been included in the article (in the "Invasion") section for over a year - with a reference to the Reid Banks volume. Gelber refers only to the claim that Arabs had dressed as women to escape the fighting. A reference to this alternative claim would be relevant. Sundquist conflates both claims in a passing reference to the conflicting goals of the participants and makes no independent judgement. Obviously none of the unreliable sources (Dershowitz, Bard or Randall Price) should be used as they bring nothing new and undermine the credibility of the article. Ian Pitchford (talk) 08:11, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since Lynn Reid Banks is a novelist rather than a historian, and her book is described as an "Oral History", it is reasonable to assume that she does not make the claim herself, but simply quotes Yachin. It would be helpful to have the whole quote from her book; but it seems that the claim should be attributed to Yachin himself, not Reid Banks. RolandR (talk) 08:22, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have Reid Banks' book; it is a collection of interviews with very little commentary from Reid Bank. I think it is a valid reference for what her interviewees claimed but that is all. She does not claim to have investigated anything independently. She also has an interview with Meir Pa'il. As far as I have seen, after looking at everything I could find once before, is that there is no evidence apart from Irgun/Lehi testimony that combatant men dressed as women. Zero^talk 08:50, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, lets do this systematically. Post here sources in favour or opposed to the claim, and lets assess them (I summarize what I have read above about them):

• Sundquist, Eric J., Strangers in the land: Blacks, Jews, post-Holocaust America, Harvard University Press p374

  conflates both claims in a passing reference to the conflicting goals of the participants and makes no independent judgement.

  Section in question: "Although recent investigations have revised that number downward closer to one hundred, discredited the charges of rape, and revealed that some women may have been killed because Arab men were themselves dressed as women, the number killed and the degree of atrocity are less important than the use to which the bloodshed was put by Jews and Arabs alike. "

• Leibovitz, Leil, Aliya: Three Generations of American-Jewish Immigration to Israel, St. Martins Press, 2006, p88

  I would say unreliable, because they have key facts wrong, like the number of killed Arabs (~200). Doesn't provide sources for the claims, looks more like a summary than an analysis. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 13:38, 11 June 2010 (UTC) gatoclass added, not a historian to start with. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 19:01, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Section in question: "The remaining Arab forces in the village feigned their surrender, only to resume their attack once the unsuspecting Jewish forces entered the village. Another battle ensued, short and bitter, with some Jewish warriors, fearing further ruses, firing indiscriminately into the crowd. As the bodies fell to the ground, confusion reigned; some Arab warriors were dress as women, making it nearly impossible to distinquish combatants from civilians."

• Dershowitz, Alan M, The Case for Israel, Wiley & Sons, 2004, p81

  Unreliable. (His reference is to Milstein (1999) p. 262 (Vol IV) which is also used by Bard.) Gatoclass added that he is a lawyer and not a historian. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 19:01, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• J Randall Price, Fast Facts on the Middle East Conflict - (Harvest House Publishers) (June 2003) ISBN 0-7369-1142-1, p 92

  Unreliable (and just gives Bard as his reference anyway).

• Bard, Mitchell Myths and Facts: A Guide to the Arab Israeli Conflict, p134

  Unreliable. (His references are to Milstein (1999) (Vol. IV) pp. 262 and 276)

• Lynne Reid Banks, A Torn Country: An Oral History of the Israeli War of Independence (New York: Franklin Watts, 1982) p.62

  Collection of interviews, no original interpretation. [V]alid reference for what her interviewees claimed but that is all. She does not claim to have investigated anything independently.

• Gelber Appendix II Propaganda as History: What Happened at Deir Yassin?, p 314

  refers only to the claim that Arabs had dressed as women to escape the fighting

• Ervin Birnbaum, In the shadow of the struggle, Gefen Publishing House Ltd (1990) p220

  A one paragraph summary without any analysis, and basically stating the major claim of both sides without coming to any conclusions about crossdressing arabs. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 13:41, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Michael Grossman, The reluctant Jew, Author House (2007) p344

  Just quotes Ezra Yachin.

• Milstein p. 276

  Which book? (This is Bard's reference and points to Milstein, Uri (1999) History of Israel's War of Independence, Vol. IV. Lanham: University Press of America). p.276 covers the story of a Shai operative called Yisrael Natach who claims that he saw refugees from Deir Yassin in Ein Kerem and that they told him that the Jewish militants had found Arab warriors dressed as women. Natach says in order to scare the Arabs he told the press and the Arab Department that 1,500 people had been killed.

-- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 13:33, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Funny how you preclude Leil Leibovitz as a source because he cites an erroneous figure but when that very same figure was inserted by user Blindjustice here in the lede, you offered no objection. You object to Bard and Dershowitz as advocates for the Israeli side but issue no such objection to utilizing the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East as a source. They describe themselves as advocates for Palestinians “In occupied Palestinian territory,” but this seems to escape you. You argue that the subject edit is WP:UNDUE but there is an entire section dedicated to the “orphans left in the Old City.” And that is not WP:UNDUE? Your dismissive attitude and flawed analysis is a clear indication to me that you have no interest in any form of collaborative editing. It appears your only interest is to advance a certain narrative to the exclusion of all others.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 17:58, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

JJ, please stop commenting on the contributors and try to confine your comments to content. Your numerous attempts to personalize this debate can themselves do nothing but damage to the possibility of collaboration.

I consider Leibovitz to be a substandard source because he's not an historian, he appears to be nothing more than a minor league journalist. His piece on Deir Yassin reads like apologetics and he fails to disclose his sources. We can do a lot better than that when it comes to a high-profile event like this. Dershowitz is a lawyer with no expertise in the field, and a well known Israeli advocate, he's far from a reliable source. Bard is another well-known Israeli advocate whose works in the field have been dismissed by other scholars. None of these sources are reliable. Gatoclass (talk) 18:32, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry JJG, I do have a life and I do not see all changes made to this article. But to the point, whatever someone else did sometime and the lack of response of others really does not change the content of the source. Let me know when you are willing to discuss content and not editors. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 18:59, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty obvious this has been widely reported by various RS. The fact many published sources cite Milstein only makes it more reliable, see WP:RS. Your personal opinion on why published sources are not reliable is interesting, but I'd like to see some policy or at least guideline based objections. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:26, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But apparently what Milstein writes is that a Haganah agent states that he met unnamed refugees from Deir Yassin, who told him that unnamed "Jewish militants" found Arab warriors dressed as women. In the absence of a direct quote from Milstein (not from one of the propagandists who cite him, possibly inaccurately or out of context) this is pretty thin stuff. And, apart from unreliable propagandists, who has quoted this from Milstein? RolandR (talk) 20:01, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there are some WP:RS sources, and we are trying to get them on the table. Until now, I have not seen many reliable sources reporting this. But maybe you can provide the quotes that are WP:RS instead of just proclaimimg things?-- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 21:15, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the text from Milstein's "Blood Libel" book about Deir Yassin, English edition (which lacks the citations): "Yisrael Natach has related: "Refugees came from Deir Yassin and related that Jews have discovered that Arab soldiers were disguised as women. The Jews conducted searches also on women. One of those checked understood that he was caught, pulled out a pistol and fired at the Jewish commander. His comrades, who were wild with anger, fired in every direction and killed the Arabs in the area. I depicted a Jewish soldier stabbing an Arab woman with a rifle bayonet. I did not explain that he did not stab and the woman was a man. I gave this drawing for publication in the newspapers, through the Arab command center in Jerusalem, with additional information, that in Deir Yassin six hundred women were slaughtered, five hundred men and four hundred children. I exaggerated intentionally, to arouse fear in the Arabs. My drawing was published in one of the Arab newspapers." Note the quite pathetic sentence "I did not explain..."; it seems Natach is making an excuse for contradicting his own previous evidence. Then he admits lying on purpose, so portraying himself as a participant in the propaganda war. Not exactly courtroom stuff here. Zero^talk 12:04, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

None of the Deir Yassin testimonies, Arab or Jewish, would hold up in court and that is precisely why all testimonies should be presented. Nothing about Deir Yassin is cut and dry.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 02:50, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unbelievable that Bard and Dershowitz are rejected as "advocates for the Israeli side" but we can use WNRWA and Ilan Pappe? What kind of double standard is that? Pappe may be an historian but his writings on IP conflict are designated as historiography, not history. Pappe is an acknowledged advocate for the Arab Palestinians. UNWRA is an advocacy org for Arab Palestinians, and the most of its employees are themselves Arab Palestinians. At least most of these references/sources have some international reputation, unlike the ref for the "fact" that the Gaza war is called "the Gaza Massacre" in the Arab world. The ref there was a woman who writes articles about stylish pocketbooks and local events somewhere in the outback of 's Australia. Still we use her as a ref and the only ref in the lede of the Gaza War article. [1] This over JJ's and mine and many others' objections, it was edited into the lede and is studiously defended against any removal. This sort of "collaboration" goes on all the time, esp in this area, so *please* will people stop pretending to a righteousness, objectivity, and dedication to historical veracity that simply isn't there? Collaboration is compromise, and allowing both sides an opportunity to have their voices heard, even if you don't agree with those other voices. Stellarkid (talk) 03:31, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Will you crybabies please stop whining about Pappe? He is used in the article exactly once, as a source concerning the location of Deir Yassin. Clearly a double standard at work, right? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:45, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And what of the UNRWAPR. It describes itself as "advocates" for the Palestinian cause. What kind of RS is that. Where's the vetting process?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 04:15, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only UNRWA reference I can see in the article is one citing the establishment of an orphanage for Deir Yassin refugees. Gatoclass (talk) 11:37, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, there are TWO seperate issues here. The use of some potentially inappropriate references ELSEWHERE in the article. And the sources for the cl;aim of crossdressing fighters. Can we please keep those separated? If you have a problem with the use of a source at a specific place in the text, start a new section on that so it can be discussed on its merits. really, dragging issues elsewhere in the article to this discussion is not going to make the sources suddenly reliable. It does only one thing, it shows that you effectively do not have reliable sources. Because if they were reliable, there wouldn't be an argument. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 13:40, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense, the references given are perfectly reliable and appropriate. Just looking at the first two, Eric Sundquist has written some 9 books classified as history, although his specialty seems to be black history. [2]. Leibovitz has 4 history books under his belt [3]. Most historians get some fact wrong at some point in their lives. It is not up to WP editors to be vetting historians on the basis of what we believe to be facts or bias. We led the wider community of scholars do that. Stellarkid (talk) 14:18, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Our job is to identify a few of the very large number of available sources to feature in this article. Cherry picking of tertiary sources on the basis of content is not a permissible algorithm. I proposed above that we should limit ourselves to (1) direct quotes of eyewitnesses brought by reliable secondary sources, (2) opinions of historians who themselves conducted investigations (and didn't just copy the words of others). I propose that again, please explain why you want otherwise. Zero^talk 15:04, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, nobody here AFAIK has objected to the inclusion of the claim that some Arab men may have dressed up as women. The objection is that a WP:FRINGE claim that Arab combatants dressed up as women was featured in its own dedicated section in a blatant example of WP:UNDUE. Many of the sources cited in support of this section do not even make this specific claim, and those that do are not reliable. Gatoclass (talk) 15:41, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Humm, the fact that Sundquist wrote 9 books changes that he just mentions the claims of both sides and does not make independent judgement? -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 16:59, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify: Sundquist does not say that combatants were dressed as women, only that "some men" were. Zero^talk 21:25, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sundquist specifically says, in the Deir Yassin discussion: "Although recent investigations have revised that number downward closer to one hundred, discredited the charges of rape, and revealed that some women may have been killed because Arab men were themselves dressed as women, the number killed and the degree of atrocity are less important than the use to which the bloodshed was put by Jews and Arabs alike. "

Leibovitz says, "The remaining Arab forces in the village feigned their surrender, only to resume their attack once the unsuspecting Jewish forces entered the village. Another battle ensued, short and bitter, with some Jewish warriors, fearing further ruses, firing indiscriminately into the crowd. As the bodies fell to the ground, confusion reigned; some Arab warriors were dress as women, making it nearly impossible to distinquish combatants from civilians."

With respect to eyewitness testimony, it is famously the most unreliable testimony there is. As to the opinions of historians, that's fine, but the opinions of historians on both sides of the issue is imperative. Stellarkid (talk) 21:51, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken a second look at Gelber [4] who has written an exhaustive analysis of the incident. He argues that rather than being a "massacre," as its been described in the wiki article, an equally persuasive argument can be made that it was hard-fought urban combat with collateral damage. He cites a number of factors (Arabs dressing as women being among them) in favor of this argument and maintains that all sides had interests in embellishments to futher their own particular agenda.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 22:26, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That perspective really should be in this article. For example, while Israelis do not see the Gaza war as a "massacre," we nevertheless have "massacre" emboldened in the lede as the Arab view. Similarly, many Israelis and others question whether this was really a massacre or as you say, "a hard-fought urban combat." While I am not suggesting a name change, I think this perspective deserves a place in the lede of this article.

Further, looking at the revision history of May 30th with the disputed (sub)section in it [5] it is clear that it is an important subsection of the attack section. One of the main aspects that defines a "massacre," after all, is the killing of civilians and innocents, in particular women and children. If there is a valid exculpatory reason for the death of the women, acknowledged by several independent historians and scholars, it deserves its own section. The section was (is) well-written, informative and a mere two paragraphs (with quotes). Stellarkid (talk) 23:49, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I already said there are some alternative perspectives, such as that by Gelber, which may have a place in the article - provided they are accurately portrayed, and not exaggerated or overblown per WP:UNDUE. So I think we could probably look at that as a possibility. What I've said is that I'm opposed to the section on Arab combatants dressing as women which was previously added - I'm not opposed to the addition of alternative viewpoints per se, provided that any such material conforms to the appropriate policies. Gatoclass (talk) 01:47, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Simply because an author does not take a definitive "side" on this issue, it is sufficient that he acknowledges that it is a notable controversy and not a fringe view, as in Birnbaum [6]. In Grossman, he quotes Yachin ("If you were foolish enough to open doors, you got shot down -- sometimes by men dressed up as women, shooting out at you in a second of suprise.") but he also quotes villagers on pg 344 saying "some villagers reported: that 'upon discovering an armed man disquised as a woman, one guerrilla began shooting everyone.....'" Stellarkid (talk) 00:23, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again this looks like a poor source. I don't know what credentials Birnbaum has but his analysis is questionable and the Bibliography he provides for his book is pitiful. Gatoclass (talk) 01:49, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am getting frustrated. Can we focus in specific sections in a single topic, and not drag all kind of unrelated arguments to the discussions and basically have multiple discussions run together, becausee that way, we never get anywhere. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 02:22, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted to an earlier version of the lead, because unnecessary confusion and poor sources have been introduced regarding the numbers killed. The figure of 107 comes from modern Palestinian scholars, and is accepted by all the academics working in the area.

This material ...

A day after the massacre, Irgun leaders held a press conference and announced that 254 Palestinians had been killed. Jacques de Reynier, head of the International Red Cross delegation in Palestine, and his assistant Dr. Alfred Engel, visited Deir Yassin on April 11. In his personal memoirs, published in 1950, Reynier wrote that he had counted a total of more than 200 dead, men, women, and children.[4] The New York Times, on December 2, 1948, published a letter by Albert Einstein and two dozen other Jewish intellectuals, including Hannah Arendt and Sidney Hook, which states that 240 men, women and children had been killed at Deir Yassin by terrorist bands which had attacked a peaceful village.[5]

...is obviously not relevant except to show how the fear spread. But what people thought the day after is not what they think now, and what Einstein believed about the figure has no bearing on anything—how could he possibly have known how many died? That kind of speculative stuff doesn't belong in the lead. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:33, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've also removed the POV tag, as it seems to have been added because this edit ("Allegations of Arabs Dressing As Women") was being resisted. But that edit could not stand as written, regardless of POV. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 03:16, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This improves the lead a lot. Good work. --Frederico1234 (talk) 06:11, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone tell me what's wrong with this sourced edit [7] and why it was reverted. Gelber states specifically that some describe the incident with alternative phrasing. Also, both Morris and Gelber acknowledge that Arab combatants were among those killed so why does the lede stress "women and children" to the exclusion of Arab combatants? Why were the words "Arab combatants" removed? Blatant POV reverts. Let's hear how you're gonna spin this?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 03:43, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. I suggest that you become less aggressive. If you think this works, you are wrong.

2. The change in question is from:

The massacre became

to

The incident, which has been described as a massacre by some and a "bloodstained battle" by others became

No, it is called a massacre by most and a battle by a few. So, the sentence is incorrect. I suggest that you read The Historiography of Deir Yassin by Benny Morris to learn that one of the major problems why some claim there was no massacre is a definitional issue, but when the normal general used definition is used, it was a massacre.

3. The third point about combatants is mentioned later in the article, and I have added it to the lede. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 04:21, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In connection with #2, that's not what the source says. I have it right in front of me. It says the following: "However, what happened that day in the village - a bloodstained battle or a cold-blooded massacre - has remained highly disputed." (emphasis added)--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 04:30, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In connection with #3, your edit is insufficient. According to Gelber, at least 30% of the Deir Yassin deaths were Arab combatants. Morris is not specific and doesn't apportion numbers. He just states that the 120 or so deaths included Arab combatants. The adjective "few" was added by you in an attempt to minimize and downgrade this fact--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 04:35, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I'm not keen on calling it a massacre, though that's what reliable sources widely call it. I've thought of taking this to FA, but the title is one of the things that has made me hesitate, because I wonder whether it would get through FA with that title.

But throwing grenades into people's homes when they're inside them, including women and children, is not a "battle." And "incident" would sound odd and spooky, as though we had clothes pegs on our noses. So until we can think of a non-spooky neutral alternative, "massacre" is the most appropriate.

And it's not really highly disputed. Some details are disputed, but the broad thrust of it is not. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 04:40, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

JJG, you've presented one source that calls it a "bloodstained battle". What makes you think you can edit the article to say that "some" call it a "bloodstained battle"?

You make it impossible to AGF when you plagiarize sources and write untrue edit summaries, and here when you misrepresent what the sources say. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:48, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Malik. This is the third second time you've hurled a personal insult at me. Stop it!

Slim, I'm not saying you should change the title. I gave up on that idea for now. What am asking is that this edit be re-inserted to show that there is some dispute in connection with this massacre phrasing. It's one single sourced sentence for christ's sake. I would also ask that the adjective of "few" that precedes combatants be removed in accordance with my reasoning and sources noted above.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 04:53, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) This paper by Gelber is very good, where he analyses the numbers of dead and explains why various people were exaggerating the figures for their own political reasons. Gelber himself calls it a "massacre" throughout, though at the end he qualifies that by calling it "[t]he massacre at Deir Yassin, if what happened in the village deserves this definition," but several times before that, and once after it, he does himself use that term (e.g. "it was not the bloodiest massacre of the war"). SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 04:55, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

JJG, I'm sorry the truth hurts. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:02, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "combatants," that figure is also not clear, because it depends on the definition. If you own a gun, and you point that gun at someone who is trying to kill your children, does that make you a "combatant"? It's true that a percentage of the villagers were armed, but it's a leap to regard them as not civilians for that reason alone. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 04:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So are you rejecting both of my proposed edits outright?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 05:06, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not keen on them, no. We had this problem at Exodus from Lydda, where some editors insisted on calling it a battle. The position seems to be that if someone attacks a bunch of Palestinians, they have to stand dead still and take it, and make sure they don't arm themselves, because if they respond in any way, they're combatants and it's a "battle." So if you break into my home and I grab a bread knife to defend myself, I become a "combatant," and everything that happens from that point on is partly my own fault. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:11, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and I suppose that using that logic, the Gaza flotilla "activists" were just peaceful bystanders attacked by menacing Israeli soldiers armed with very dangerous paintball guns and they just "defended" themselves.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 05:18, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what happened there, but one thing we know is that they weren't in their own homes. When people's homes are invaded, and hand grenades are thrown into their houses, it's just odd to call them combatants because they were armed. There's a tendency on these articles to try to whittle away what happened until it seems not to have happened at all—the villagers were really soldiers, the women were really men wearing dresses, the children were probably borrowed for the occasion. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:35, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@SlimV, appears there is a clear campaign by some Israel advocates to edit that way in the I-P topic area -- if Palestinians offer any resistance while being killed, it's a "battle" -- no? ok then since it's disputed, let's compromise on "incident" -- which is selective, advocacy editing. Consider for example Hadassah_medical_convoy_massacre, where the M-word remains unchallenged despite the fact the convoy was heavily armed and made a battle out of it. RomaC (talk) 05:47, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah Roma, I knew you'd join us. Wouldn't be the same without you. Slim, As Gelber explains, the non-belligerancy pact between Givat Shaul and Deir Yassin disintegrated as Arab-Jewish strife intesified. There were exchages of fire between West Jerusalem residents and Deir Yassin. Deir Yassin residents partook in the battle of Kastel and some were killed there. Every villager had a rifle and Bren Guns and a quantity of munitions were recovered after the battle. Every house became a fortified bunker. There's a difference between shooting somebody in cold blood and throwing a grenade into a home to silence accurate fire, no?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 05:51, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is arguably a difference (though less than you're suggesting in my view, given they were defending their own homes in their own village), so I wouldn't be opposed to finding a replacement for "massacre"—just not battle or incident. We can easily write around it; for example we can say in the lead that the deaths had demographic consequences, instead of the massacre. The title's another matter, however. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:59, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a start. Please make the change--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 06:11, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed massacre to deaths in the lead. Not counting the title and consequently the first sentence, that was the only place we used the word "massacre" in WP's voice. All the others uses are e.g. X said it wasn't a massacre, or Y said it was, and that kind of thing. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 06:17, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I very much appreciate that. Can I ask one more favor. Currently, the lede reads women and children and "a few" combatants. Can you remove the words "a few" and just say combatants. Morris says 120, "civilians and combatants" or phrasing to that effect without apportioning numbers. Gelber says that 70% were civilians. In that case it would be more than just "a few" combatants. Even Kan'ana acknowledges that at least 11 of the dead were armed--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 06:24, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have to re-read the sources before I could agree to that. It's been about a year since I looked at them carefully. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 06:37, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surrounded by so many "friends." I feel like I'm on that Turkish boat.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 05:54, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Haha. Actually I've contributed so had this page on my watchlist since Guy Montag made his push to purge the M-word years ago. I didn't feel the need to chime in this time as your POV-push -- while based on many of the same questionable sources and tired premises, and equally aggressive -- was not nearly as well-constructed as Guy's. "Every house a fortified bunker"? Sorry, that's not even historical revisionism, it's just a bit ridiculous. RomaC (talk) 06:07, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's genius Roma. Dissing my beliefs while at the same time belittling my intellect--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 06:13, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Found your play on this article characteristically spirited but substantively wanting -- it can't be easy when the preponderance of sources stand in one's way. But I've never doubted your intelligence! And since you brought up beliefs, I'd guess that from where you sit, you believe your perspective is entirely correct. RomaC (talk) 10:36, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Roma, There are many differences between the incident at Deir Yassin and the Hadassah Massacre and comparison of the two is erroneous. First, the identities of those killed at Mt. Scopus were known and the number was never in doubt, never fluctuated. 77 doctors, nurses and medical students (who treated Arabs & Jews alike) were slaughtered and their bodies mutilated beyond recognition.

This stands in marked contrast to Deir Yassin where the body count fluctuated with the day of the week, the weather and whether there was a full moon. Arab propagandists alleged incidents of rape and the purposeful killing of pregnant women. Villagers, who were present, adamantly provided contrary accounts and were silenced when they protested the embellished narrative.

At Deir Yassin, all sources acknowledge that an attempt (albeit unsuccessful) was made to warn the villagers to flee. Those who ambushed the Mt. Scopus medical convoy never warned the group of impending attack. Moreover, in light of Hadassah’s history of treating both Arabs and Jews, without regard to race, they would have no reason to suspect that they would have been targeted for ambush.

Aside from the fact that the two incidents involved Arabs and Jews and occurred in 1948, there are no similarities between the two. The Hadassah Massacre was pre-meditated butchery of medical staff by a blood-thirsty mob. Deir Yassin was hard-fought urban combat with collateral damage.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 15:26, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a reminder, that maybe one of the editors is willing to use a different title does not mean that the remainider of the users is willing to do so either. This is generally known as the Deir Yassin Massacre, and therefore the only proper title to bring it to FA with. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 12:33, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]