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.

What are the POV and unreferenced issues, Wikifan? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The POV tag has been on there for quite some time but I wasn't involved in the dispute. Not much has changed since the tag was removed and there wasn't any consensus/discussion so I put it back. There are far too many unreferenced tags and entire paragraphs without sources so that was the logic behind the reference tag. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how the tagging system works. If you add or restore a tag, you have to propose how the issue can be resolved; you also have to say what the issue is. Otherwise, we could all go around tagging articles where we don't like the POV, without engaging further, and the article would end up tagged for the rest of its life. That's called drive-by tagging, and we don't allow that. I'm going to remove it until you can list your specific concerns, with suggestions as to how they can be resolved.

Have you started looking for references, so the unreferenced tag can be removed soon? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:51, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the material that had a "citation needed" tag. Is there anything else you can see that needs a cite? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 06:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You removed a tag that was obviously justified without referring to discussion. Is there a policy that supports random deletion of tags? I have no idea what the issue is aside from the fact that the article is clearly controversial and archives show an overwhelming support for a dispute tag. As far as I know the dispute has not been resolved. I really don't like your attitude in assuming that my editing is politically motivated. Maybe you should look in the mirror. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the tag is obviously justified, can you say how, exactly, so we can fix it? It's obviously important to fix an article, and not allow it to sit since 2007 with a tag on it that no one is discussing. That's not how these tags are meant to be used.

If you think I'm politically motivated, perhaps you could outline what my motives are exactly?

In the meantime, the article needs to be improved. As it stands, I see nothing controversial in it—in the sense that it doesn't deviate from what the major sources are saying, as best I can tell. If you disagree, please give examples and we can look for sources. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 08:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just took a quick scan of the article and it looks very well-referenced. Sure there are a few passages without citations, but none of it seems like controversial material and there's not enough unsourced material to merit a refimprove tag. I don't see how this could be argued. I would remove the tag immediately, but I will wait to see what argument could be brought up in defense of the tag. --Al Ameer son (talk) 08:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You removed the tag without a rationale or seeking opinion from the principal editors of the article. I've only done little touch ups and don't feel like investing a whole lot of time over a clearly necessary dispute tag. But for the hell of it, what makes you think the tag is no longer necessary? What has changed since the 4 hours you removed? In terms of references, there are entire paragraphs without citations and much of the article relies (correction - more than half of the references) on Morris and Uri Milstein, who happens to be very extreme in his support/illusion with the IDF's actions in Deir Yassin. Wikifan12345 (talk) 08:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which sentences or paragraphs would you like to see additional references for? I'm happy to help look for them. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 08:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Thanks for ignoring everything I wrote. Wikifan12345 (talk) 09:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which part of this are you requesting a reference for? "At the time of the attack, no major offensive action had been undertaken by the Irgun and Lehi ground forces. The guerrillas consisted of a mix of hardened veterans and some inexperienced teenagers. Deir Yassin was situated on a hill which overlooked the main highway entering Jerusalem, although a direct line of sight from the village to the highway was blocked by a ridge below. It was also adjacent to a number of Jerusalem's western neighborhoods. The pathway connecting the town to nearby Givat Shaul and the elevation of the hills in the area made control of the town attractive as an airstrip." SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 11:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

<undent>You removed the tag without a rationale or seeking opinion from the principal editors of the article. I've only done little touch ups and don't feel like investing a whole lot of time over a clearly necessary dispute tag. But for the hell of it, what makes you think the tag is no longer necessary? What has changed since the 4 hours you removed? In terms of references, there are entire paragraphs without citations and much of the article relies (correction - more than half of the references) on Morris and Uri Milstein, who happens to be very extreme in his support/illusion with the IDF's actions in Deir Yassin. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to use this map, but I can't find it anywhere else, so I'm not sure if it's genuine. Does anyone have knowledge of it? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:12, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the main consequence of Deir Yassin was it~s impact on the April-May Palestinian exodus. You can find information about this in Morris... The Birth and I think most if not all books about this. I don't have time to give more help but that is really a major issue. Rgds, Ceedjee (talk) 06:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Ok. It is in the lead but not the core of the article) Ceedjee (talk) 06:17, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, that needs to be added. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 09:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(copied from User talk:SlimVirgin)

I'm posting this here since you did not include any rationale in talk.

Here is the lead before my first edit on June 10:

June 10. Here is the current lead June 11. The latest completely violates neutrality policy. Many points in the lead, which are dubiously portrayed as unquestioned truth, are analyzed and debated in later parts of the article. The lead is to provide a neutral and safe introduction that won't confuse the reader. Can you please slow down your editing at the article and collaborate in talk??? I'd like to revert the current lead to the previous one but I'll wait on that. Thanks. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the links: the previous lead; the current lead.

WP:NPOV says we must represent majority and significant minority views, but not tiny minority ones; in a subject such as this, that will tend to mean the majority and significant minority views of historians. WP:LEAD says the lead must be a stand-alone summary of the article, including the topic's significant controversies.

Which part of the current lead do you feel violates either of the above? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 09:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikifan,

What happens here reminds me of what already happened in the past between us on another article. You criticized too the neutrality but refused systematically to state with accuracy what you disagree with, admitting you didn't know the topic.

SV already asked you several times (as I did at the time; and as did third:party at the time too) to state very precisely the sentence that does not respect wp:npov and why...

If you don't give this precisely, it is not possible to address any of your comment.

So, once again, and I hope I will not have to, as last time, copy/paste without end this request on the talk page : what sentence(s) do you disagree with and why ? What pov do you think should be added, precisely ? If we don't have this, do you have the wp:rs source (author, book, page number) where it is detailled.

...

Ceedjee (talk) 09:24, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Provide a rationale for your lead rewrite. There was no talk discussion, no explanation, just 10 anonymous edits and then expecting me to dispute. Here, picture this: I go and rewrite the entire lead and then expect you to explain why it's POV. Wikipedia=collaborate. A major adjustment like that requires a thorough rationale. I was pretty explicit in my post. The lead shouldn't confuse the reader, the previous version was fine and no one seemed to have a problem with it. Then Slim had the audacity to gut the lead unilaterally and now dubiously demands users explain why she is wrong. I really don't like how she came in and accused me of POV-pushing when I didn't even edit the article except for a restoring a tag which she removed without rationale. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:22, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting here, in case anyone notices and wonders about it, that I've listed an article by Ronnie Kasrils in The Electronic Intifada as a source. [1] I'm citing his article only because I took Red Cross and British police quotes from it. He cites his sources, and as soon as I've seen those directly (or another scholarly equivalent that also uses these quotes), I'll refer to them instead. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your footnotes state "cited in Hirst, cited in Kasrils". I take this to mean that you have not read them in Hirst, but only in the Kasrils article. I do not have the updated version of Hirst's book, but can confirm that these same quotes are in the 1977 Faber & Faber paperback edition, on pages 127-8 and 126 respectively, and that Kasrils has repeated them accurately. RolandR 20:21, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Roland, that's very helpful. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kasrils is far from a wp:rs source.

Anyway, I have most of the text in French (de Reynier was a Belgian) and the translation, if selective, is fidel to the text, except that the word "gang" is used to translate the word "troupe" which should simply be translated by "troop" or "platoon".

I didn't find the references about the facts that they were well disciplined and only obeyed to orders but I lack a part of the text.

Ceedjee (talk) 21:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Small note: I'd hate to see Electronic Intifada or any Jewish equivalent (like opinion pieces on "http://www.sos-israel.com/") used for citing external quotes (or almost anything else) on here. Please remove the source and cite the text with a ^{[citation needed]} tag until such time as you find a proper source for it. These type of sources would be brilliant if we wanted rumors and falsehoods spread like fire in a dry corn-field.
Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:23, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

EI should never be in any Jew/Pal article unless we are quoting the media/advocacy org for its own article. All info from the site should be removed without question. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:26, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy links to websites like Palestine Remembered are, in fact, allowed. The ultimate source was Hirst, and that's now been clarified, thanks to Roland. [2]

Another source question: I'd like to quote from this Irgun statement, which has been translated into English by a Wikipedian. However, there's no source on the image page, and I can't find one elsewhere. I've written to the uploader on the Commons, but he doesn't edit much and may not see it. Does anyone here know about the provenance of the statement? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 08:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SlimVirgin,

Are you honestly saying that "websites like Palestine Remembered" are to be promoted for adding content to the project?

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:18, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]