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 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. Additional information: /  This article is not currently associated with a task force. To tag it for one or more task forces, please the task force codes from the template instructions to the template call. 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.

I have removed the following paragraph:

The massacre of Palestinians at Deir Yassin is one of the most significant events in 20th-century Palestinian and Israeli history. This is not because of its size or its brutality, but because it stands as the starkest early warning of a calculated depopulation of over 400 Arab villages and cities and the expulsion of over 700,000 Palestinian inhabitants to make room for survivors of the Holocaust and other Jews from the rest of the world.^[1]

It cites a website called deiryassin.org. I have seen no evidence to support the credibility of this website. Do they have an actual office somewhere? Have they produced any publications in major outlets? For all we know, this could just be a few students on a mission writing stuff on a website.

To make matters worse, we are not citing them on numeric facts, but on analysis (which is sharply POV). If you want to include this kind of analysis, it must come from a very reputable source. Screen stalker (talk) 12:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. I share Screen stalker's mind. Ceedjee (talk) 16:07, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deiryassin is an antisemitic partisan site, and should be removed for all wikipedia articles that still source it by extemsits... thank you for your due diligence. Amoruso (talk) 00:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very serious offense.

What Ceedjee has done here [1] is change this full quoted passage:

"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."

to this partial paragraph: ""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."

Then he changed the sourced "killed in battle" to the UNSOURCED "MURDERED"!

This should be a call for action for Arbcom. 79.181.17.163 (talk) 23:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I remove the whole section that was in the lead.

1. This was not WP:RS. This is in contradiction with WP:Lead. I also think that the information related to Milstein (here above) is WP:Undue.

Ceedjee (talk) 06:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can't cherrypick what you want from Milstein and what you don't. I'm glad you atleast were honest as in consistent atleast with regards to this source , and removed the whole passage of this. Kudos for that. Amoruso (talk) 00:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have often comes across this quote "in which between 107 and 120 villagers, mostly women, children, and the elderly, were killed." but have not been able to finds a credible list of these victims with their names/sex/age. Does such a list exist from a credible source and if it does where can one get access to it. It has been said the "list" exist in the Bir Zeit study but that also seems unavailable.Judadem (talk) 00:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know and never heard about the list.

But the information concerning the number of victims and their age has references from different sources. Ceedjee (talk) 06:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My question is that there has to be a credible source behind the names of the dead along with ::the age and sex. One cannot get from 254 to >over 100 without convincing proof from a

credible source. so far i have found this:

"A study by Bir Zeit University, based on discussions with each family from the village, arrived at a figure of 107 Arab civilians dead and 12 wounded, in addition to 13 "fighters," evidence that the number of dead was smaller than claimed and that the village did have troops based there." (Sharif Kanaana and Nihad Zitawi, "Deir Yassin," Monograph No. 4, Destroyed Palestinian Villages Documentation Project, (Bir Zeit: Documentation Center of Bir Zeit University, 1987), p. 55) (Bard)"

which on the face of it makes the concept of massacre difficult to digest.Judadem (talk) 04:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When you give your source, you should not give the sources of your source but directly refer to where you read the information !

Anyway, all this is in Gelber, Palestine 1948, Appendix II given in the article. :-)

Hadassah medical convoy massacre, Deir Yassin massacre, Kfar Etzion massacre... All these were military or guerilla operations that were followed or during which massacres occured. This is the way scholars explain these events.

Ceedjee (talk) 06:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I plan to cahnge the name to deir yassin incident. anyone object? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Etaicq (talk • contribs) 16:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please go back and read the talk page archives. The issues you are raising here have been debated ad nauseam already, and the concensus is that Deir Yassin massacre is the appropriate title. Also check the archives for the ZOA study, which showed that the overwhelming majority of sources refer to this event as a massacre. Gatoclass (talk) 18:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i hope you don't realy mea to tell me that the information in wikipedia is determined by the number of resources from each side. and when you say they describe it as a massacre, do you mean that the sources state that it's a massacre, or that by the definition of wikipedia it's a massacre? Etaicq (talk) 18:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Content on Wikipedia most certainly is determined by the relative proportion of reliable sources supporting a view, see WP:UNDUE. UNDUE is not the only factor taken into account of course, but it's a very important one.

As I said though, your points have already been discussed in great detail on this page. For the number and proportion of reliable sources describing this event as a massacre for example, see the discussion from the section header entitled "Ongoing debate" in Archive 4 of this page. Regards, Gatoclass (talk) 19:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed the artice's name is not encyclopedic. It should be changed and it inevitably will. Milstein's academic book is not contested by any scholar. Amoruso (talk) 00:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Which book exactly ?

Isn't this rather an article ? Ceedjee (talk) 06:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ok. I have found.Ceedjee (talk) 12:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Milstein's academic book is not contested by any scholar.

To note the obvious, Amoruso and repeat what all threads have established exhaustively. After mentioning Milstein's argument on Deir Yassin, Benny Morris writes: 'the existing contemporary evidence paints a different picture’. (1) Benny Morris,The Road to Jerusalem: Glubb Pasha,Palestine and the Jews, I.B.Tauris, London, New York 2003 n.327 p.264 (2)The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited, 2004 Cambridge UP, Cambridge p.294, notes 563,564. Of course, one could argue that Benny Morris is not a scholar :)Nishidani (talk) 09:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on what he says and if I agree or not ;-)))) -> That is the problem with Morris. One cannot just tag him as "good" or "bad", "black" or "white"... A French journalist said about Morris he was Dr Jekyll and Mr Hide.Ceedjee (talk) 12:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, cher ami. He is a brilliant archival scholar. Judgements only differ when he plays Jekyll/Jeu (de) quilles contre l'haide de ses adversaires professionelles!Nishidani (talk) 12:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that what Nishidani said makes no sense at all, unless he or Benny Morris somehow managed to change the space time continumm. Apparently, Nishidani brings here a reference of Morris from 2003. A different picture of what ? Anyway, Milstein's book is dated to 2007. I will add this to the intro, since much of the article deals with intro, including some of it in the lead. You can't cherry pick what you like from Milstein. Again, if there is a counterview to Milstein's latest book, for example from Benny Morris, one can add it in. 79.181.151.254 (talk) 15:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have here Morris's book from 2008 : 1948 : A History of the First Arab-Israeli War. PP.126-127 he talks about atrocities, the shotting of unarmed civilian, the executation of villagers after they were trucked into Jerusalem and the executation of prisonners in a quarry.

And we could use the same argument as you do : Morris's academic book is not contested by any scholar :-)

Ceedjee (talk) 18:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Uri Milstein, after researching the events of the battle, asserted that "there was no massacre at all," but rather "fighting in built-up areas in which there were many casualties."
• "he military scholar Uri Milstein maintains that massacres were not uncommon during the war and that the events at Deir Yassin, which he believes do not constitute a massacre at all, were unique only in the manner they were "seized upon and publicized by all involved parties, albeit for a variety of different reasons."^[2]
• This analysis is shared by historian Yoav Gelber, who points out that far more Arabs were massacred at Lydda (Lod) or Jews at Kfar Etzion than is claimed were massacred at Deir Yassin.^[3]

This should be added only in a controversy section. If Milstein denies there was a massacre while all (the majority) of other scholars call this a massacre, we must only put this there.

Note somebody added "which he believes do not constitute a massacre at all", which makes that Gelber doesn't share this analysis. He only considers massacres were not uncommon !

Ceedjee (talk) 06:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. We went through all this exhaustively last year. Unfortunately Amoruso appears to want to reopen this futile debate again. Gatoclass (talk) 11:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is a fact and what is not is not determined by popular opinion, or even the reactions of those first on the scene. Jenin is a good example of the hype and politicizing that surrounds an event like this, which I will remind everyone was part of a war scenario. Regarding the numbers of dead, the Bir Zeit University study (an Arab study) in 1987 — Arab researchers confirmed that the dead were 107. Once an idea is in the public mind and 'accepted' knowledge, eg that Deir Yassin was indeed a 'massacre' other writers will simply repeat what they believe to be a 'fact', thus creating a myth, of the very sort we are trying to correct here. There are in fact witnesses to the event (mostly from the Jewish side, but not entirely) that claim that there was in fact a battle going on, and that the Jews threw hand grenades into homes that were firing at them, thus causing civilian casualties. Also there are Arab witnesses that claimed that some 11-13 Arab fighters were killed, and Israelis say some 40 Jews were wounded. The question would be that if that was indeed the scenario,(and there is plenty of evidence that it was) would that be a definition of a real 'massacre'? I think not. Juanita (talk) 16:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article should be primarily based on the new evidence, or at least put a lot of focus on this. Wikipedia is not an anti zionist platform, but it's supposed to present the best known facts. People used to think the moon is made of cheese too. Amoruso (talk) 16:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2008, Benny Morris, 1948. A History of the First Arab-Israeli War. Only published in the USA up to now. Should be published on 21 may in Europe and elsewhere... Latest scholrar's book. uncontested. :-)

(note this is not an argument, of course but given it is yours, I do adapt myself).

Amoruso, I assume you are not aware that Israeli scholars decided not to answer and not to review Ilan Pappé, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine... So it will remain uncontested in the academic field... With such arguments as yours, do you realize where we would go... Ceedjee (talk) 18:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ilan pappe's books have been contested by many scohlars and exposed for what they are - trash (Pappe himself does not believe history books should represent the truth btw). Efraim Karsh reviewed this book and refuted it... so what you say is in fact not true. Again, give me a morris quote about the new book, and we can add both opinions then. Amoruso (talk) 02:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not true that Milstein's book is "uncontested". In a withering critique of Milstein's methodology, Israeli psychologist Michael Sharon argues that the book is worthless, since "the testimonies in Dr Milstein's book on Deir Yassin are not valid due to deflection of the cognitive thought of the elderly by the intentions of the interviewer." [2] RolandR (talk) 10:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Imagine a statement like this without any verification: By noon over 100 people, half of them women and children, had been systematically murdered. Or "Over tea and cookies they amplified the details of the operation and justified it..." or "The cemetery was later bulldozed and, like hundreds of other Palestinian villages to follow, Deir Yassin was wiped off the map."

Most of the contentious issues are not even sourced! Juanita (talk) 16:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. I deleted.

due to the energy required to neutralize some editors on wp, we don't see big mess such as the one you pointed out ! Thank you ! Ceedjee (talk) 18:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll say it again. You can't perpetuate this lie to meet your political needs. The lie has been exposed. Now, if you want, you can review the whole article and re-write it. AT THIS STAGE, the article is BASED on URI MILSTEIN, who is NOT CONTESTED in any way. I don't see a quote here contesting Milstein's new book by Morris. Simply writing Morris' name will not be enough. All the article is filled with MILSTEIN'S QUOTES supposedly supporting the massacre fantasy. He says that it never happened in this new book. Therefore, you can't possibly say that old people died there and all these lies, without listing the current book of the scholar you're using ANYWAY ! Not to mention that "number most scholars agree" is itself a lie, as explained. Do not revert the page since it may be construed as vandalism of reliable sources. Amoruso (talk) 01:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You write:'I don't see a quote here contesting Milstein's new book by Morris'.

Of course, if it is a 'new book', it doesn't mean it is the truth, or that lack of immediate review means it is 'uncontested'. Scholars take their time to ascertain the facts. And in the meantime:-

'Milstein admits that whole families were gunned down in the course of the fighting'. Benny Morris, The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited, 2004 p.294 n.564. Nishidani (talk) 08:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not contested in any way. He is contested by direct contemporary reports written by the Haganah's intelligence chief on the spot.

‘the existing contemporary evidence paints a different picture. One Haganah intelligence report stated: ‘Some of the women and children taken prisoner by the LHI were moved to Sheikh Bader (a former Arab district in Jerusalem). Among the prisoners were a young mother and a baby. The guards killed the baby in front of its mother and after she feinted also murdered her. 7 old persons and women taken prisoner by the IZZI, were paraded through the city streets in trucks. Afterwards the Arabs were taken to Deir Yassin’s quarry and murdered’ . (Yitzhak Levy commander of Haganah Intelligence Service in Jerusalem=summed up the operation.’(There was)) confusion among them (I.e. the attacking IZL-LHI force) . .The conquest of the village was carried out with great brutality. Whole families, women, old people, children, were killed and piles of corpses accumulated. Some of the prisoners taken to places of detention, including women and children, were brutally murdered by their guards. The IZI and LHI men looted and stole quantities of money and food’ cited Benny Morris, The Road to Jerusalem: Glubb Pasha, Palestine and the Jews, IB Tauris 2003 p.264n.327

It is Milstein's right to contest contemporary evidence by saying it is not factual. It is not your right as one of many editors to take his revisionism as establishing the facts on the ground. : Nishidani (talk) 10:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]