Template:User article ban

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.

See /Archive for discussions mostly around Autumn 2003. Evidently these discussions led to a rewrite of the page and are difficult to follow now. Gadykozma 04:52, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

See /Archive2 for discussions around the representation of the Irgun and Lehi as terrorists. If you disagree with the current formulation you are strongly advised to read this discussion, as it contains lots of relevant information (as in, things you probably don't know). I left on the main page Joseph's final words (see below) since I had the impression it related to other occurrances around Wikipedia as well. Gadykozma 14:06, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It occurs to me, on reading the article, that most of the so-called 'eyewitness testimonies' are nothing of the kind - at best, they'd be eyewitness reports of what the aftermath appeared to be; at worst, they're inexpert speculation based on what the witnesses saw. To take Dr Engel's testimony as an example, he didn't turn up on the scene until significantly after the events; he clearly can't be an eyewitness to them. At most, he's a witness to the debris of the battle/massacre. This distinction is vitally important, and isn't made in any way in the article.

FWIW, the eyewitness testimonies also seem to contradict each other in many ways. The Irgun perspective seems to have been given remarkably little space/priority, too.

Examples of seeming contradictions:

Mohammed Jaber, a village boy, observed the guerillas break in, drive everybody outside, put them against the wall and shoot them.

-v-

Dr. Alfred Engel's eyewitness account (11th April): In the houses there were dead, in all about a hundred men, women and children.

-v-

Mordechai Gihon's account from the 9th: I estimated that there were four pits full of bodies, and in each pit there were 20 bodies, and several tens more in the quarry.

As an aside, I'm not sure the 107 minimum figure is in any way accurate or reliable - it's supposed to be a count of the number of dead following the entire incident - and the article seems quite clear that there were many killed in the fighting before the massacre began.

J-o-s-h hi, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thanks for trying to improve the article. It seems that you edited the beginning of the article so as no to say explicitly that a massacre indeed happened. It is true that a certain group denies that there ever was a massacre, but it seems that this is a very small group. The massacre is practically universally acknowledged, including within Israel. Therefore to preserve neutrality, it is best if this view is described at the end of the article rather than at it's beginning. Gady 03:06, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I don't think there's any doubt that there is some truth behind the story, but exactly what that truth is should surely be up to the reader to decide? Pejorative terms like 'massacre' are hardly NPOV. It is indisputable that there was an incident known as the DY Massacre; it is disputed as to exactly what took place. (I'm not going to change it back again without discussion, but I've noticed the same trend in various places on Wikipedia.)

I'm coming at this from a NPOV in that I've been trying to find out what actually happened. I don't think the article helped in any way; there has been deliberate obfuscation of the issue for so many years by so many different parties with conflicting political agendae that the actual truth is now undiscoverable. As such, I don't think it's possible to do a NPOV of this in any way other than to report all the various allegations and counter-allegations relating to the DYM. It's certainly not NPOV for the authors to be making judgements as to which statements are more believable. Reporting that almost everybody (including me, just to make that clear ;) believes that there was a massacre is objective fact. Reporting that the evidence shows there was a massacre is a subjective judgement.

Have you any comments on the eyewitness issue? Also, on further reading it occurs to me that there is clearly something missing from the part about the attack - no reasons are given as to why it took place, afaics.

I think it might be of benefit to start again from the beginning with a list of the indisputable facts of the issue. Josh

I am not sure I understand you objection: is the article unclear or is it unconvincing? Gady 21:50, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It's not only unclear, it's also not NPOV. It shouldn't need to be 'convincing' because it ought to be stating nothing more than the facts of the case, rather than someone's moral judgement of them.

To clarify, the article doesn't present a coherent account of the incident and fails to present the basic facts in a clear enough manner to allow the reader to use their own judgement. It's a bit of a mess, really.

I made several points above that you seem to have skipped over; they were the important bit, really. I don't find it surprising that an article about an issue this convoluted would be a little hard to follow, but there just doesn't seem to be any logic or forethought that's gone into it at all. It reads like someone's slapped together a bunch of quotes that supported their view and then someone else has edited it to try and make it more neutral, but has only elided, rather than added. Josh

First of all, there's no need to let the indentation slide away. Standard practice here is that a reply-to-reply is in the same height as the original text. Now to the article. You are claiming simultaneously that the article is unclear and POV. These claims should be separated very carefully. If you have ideas how to make the article clearer or more structured we might want to discuss them first, it will be easier and more satisfying.

The reasons I skipped over your eyewitness comments was that it was not clear to me how they relate to improving the article. Please reformulate these comments as suggestions to the article, and then I will be happy to discuss them. Gady 19:17, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

OK, I can agree with you on the indentation issue ;)

I'm suggesting that the lack of clarity is the major issue. There are some minor POV issues, but I think they'd come out with a re-write. (I don't think it's so much a POV issue as simply that it lacks balance.) Whether it's 'the incident known as the DYM' or 'the DYM' is a pretty minor difference - one of tone more than anything else - and a relatively unimportant one. To clarify what I wrote above, I get the impression that someone with a clear POV has had a good stab at doing NPOV but been unable to keep all their personal bias out of it. Much more importantly, though, the article looks like it's been edited so many times that it's lost cohesion. I think the only way to rectify that is to start from scratch - possibly utilising major chunks of the text, but starting with a clean slate.

As far as the 'eyewitness testimonies' go, at the very least it's imperative that those which are clearly not any such thing shouldn't be labelled as such. On top of that, I'm not sure how to reconcile the many contradictions between them - I believe they can't be, but the lack of corroboration between the witness statements is significant.

To address the issue of what should actually be done, I'd suggest that we could use this page to have a go at creating a new article to replace the old one. If we started by listing the basic, indisputable facts, and then listing the various different embelishments to the tale, it might be clearer. Josh 21:33 (GMT) 7 Nov 2004

I would suggest not to use this page for this purpose. Create a new page, for example Deir Yassin massacre/New version, and edit there. People will be able to comment on your work on Talk:Deir Yassin massacre/New version. When you are done, the text can be copied (and even the histories can be merged, if necessary).

I would highly suggest that you make every effort to separate POV and structure issues. This will make your version much more acceptable to people. If your POV issues are, as you say, quite small, you can address them after you address the structure issues.

As for the eyewitnesses, they report what they have seen with their own eyes, hence they are eyewitnesses. The fact that they contain contradictions is obvious: in a typical hit-and-run accident, eyewitnesses will disagree on the color and the make of the car. Such is human nature. On the other hand, there are too many of them. It might be worth while to take only representative eyewitness testimonies, and move the rest to a different page, perhaps "Eyewitness testimonies from the Deir Yassin massacre" or something like it. Gady 22:11, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I get the impression that you're telling me to go ahead and put my money where my mouth is :) I've no problem with that, but I wasn't sure quite what the etiquette was. You seem to be taking an interest in this page and I don't want to step on your toes. Josh 022208112004GMT

Basically yes. The etiquette says that large changes should be discussed before hand. The usual way is actually not to use a temporary page, but because the changes you suggest are currently a little vague, a demonstration would make the discussion much more effective. Gady 04:02, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think Josh's points are well taken, and a temporary page to sort out the problems with this article is an excellent idea. Jayjg 15:57, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Oh dear, I look terrible now. I am still interested in working on this, but I haven't had a lot of time recently. Josh 211226112004GMT

I've exercised the following sentence from the text:

His testimony has lately been challenged by Sid Zion of the Zionist Organisation of America and other right-wing Jewish organisations.

(regarding Meir Pa'il's testimony). Meir Pa'il was a general and one of the most respected Israeli public figures. His personal integrity is beyond doubt. Sid Zion is an American right wing nobody. These people would say any old thing if they thought that it is congruent with their twisted view of what's in Israel's interests. If they care so much about us, why don't they take their noses out of our business? In short, this sentence gives a false impression as if there is some controversy about Meir Pa'il. There is none. Gadykozma 09:56, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

“Paradoxically, the Jews say about 250 out of 400 village inhabitants [were killed], while Arab survivors say only 110 of 1,000.”38 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.

Contrary to claims from Arab propagandists at the time and some since, no evidence has ever been produced that any women were raped. On the contrary, every villager ever interviewed has denied these allegations. Like many of the claims, this was a deliberate propaganda ploy, but one that backfired. Hazam Nusseibi, who worked for the Palestine Broadcasting Service in 1948, admitted being told by Hussein Khalidi, a Palestinian Arab leader, to fabricate the atrocity claims. Abu Mahmud, a Deir Yassin resident in 1948 told Khalidi "there was no rape," but Khalidi replied, "We have to say this, so the Arab armies will come to liberate Palestine from the Jews." Nusseibeh told the BBC 50 years later, "This was our biggest mistake. We did not realize how our people would react. As soon as they heard that women had been raped at Deir Yassin, Palestinians fled in terror." 45"Israel and the Arabs: The 50 Year Conflict," BBC.

According to Irgun leader Menachem Begin, the assault was carried out by 100 members of that organization; other authors say it was as many as 132 men from both groups. Begin stated that a small open truck fitted with a loudspeaker was driven to the entrance of the village before the attack and broadcast a warning to civilians to evacuate the area, which many did. Most writers say the warning was never issued because the truck with the loudspeaker rolled into a ditch before it could broadcast the warning. One of the fighters said, the ditch was filled in and the truck continued on to the village. "One of us called out on the loudspeaker in Arabic, telling the inhabitants to put down their weapons and flee. I don't know if they heard, and I know these appeals had no effect."

Contrary to revisionist histories that the town was filled with peaceful innocents, residents and foreign troops opened fire on the attackers. One fighter described his experience:

My unit stormed and passed the first row of houses. I was among the first to enter the village. There were a few other guys with me, each encouraging the other to advance. At the top of the street I saw a man in khaki clothing running ahead. I thought he was one of ours. I ran after him and told him, "advance to that house." Suddenly he turned around, aimed his rifle and shot. He was an Iraqi soldier. I was hit in the foot.

The battle was ferocious and took several hours. The Irgun suffered 41 casualties, including four dead.

Surprisingly, after the “massacre,” the Irgun escorted a representative of the Red Cross through the town and held a press conference. The New York Times' subsequent description of the battle was essentially the same as Begin's. The Times said more than 200 Arabs were killed, 40 captured and 70 women and children were released. No hint of a massacre appeared in the report.

At least some of the women who were killed became targets because of men who tried to disguise themselves as women. The Irgun commander reported, for example, that the attackers "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." Another story was told by a member of the Haganah who overheard a group of Arabs from Deir Yassin who said "the Jews found out that Arab warriors had disguised themselves as women. The Jews searched the women too. One of the people being checked realized he had been caught, took out a pistol and shot the Jewish commander. His friends, crazed with anger, shot in all directions and killed the Arabs in the area."

And so on, and so on... Mike23

So you have learned how to do copy and paste. Congratulations! Please come back when you have read the original sources cited by this article and so have the basis to make an informed report on it. Here's just one morsel for you: you copied "Surprisingly, after the “massacre,” the Irgun escorted a representative of the Red Cross through the town and held a press conference." Perhaps if you knew that the Red Cross representative wrote "All I could think of was the SS troops I had seen in Athens" you would start to realise that there is a little more to the story than you realise. --Zero 11:52, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Zero, please refrain from personal attacks just because somone diagrees with you. The man is offering support for his viewpoint, what was your purpose in including the Red Cross quote, which is ironically much more sensational and much less useful than Mike's quote. Please if you decide to contribute to a controversial subject and want your opinions to be listened to at least pretend to be neutral- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg

The article header says At least 107 Palestinian civilians were killed. Some sources report many more deaths, but their accuracy has been disputed. The body of the article has a long discussion of death numbers, which includes the statement It can now be said with certainty that the death toll did not exceed 120. These statements need to be reconciled. Jayjg 17:02, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

120 is larger than 107 (take my word for it, I'm a mathematician). But seriously, I don't see here any contradiction. The article goes into great length to dispute these other sources so it can finally make that certain claim. Gadykozma 17:23, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, if it fully refutes that, then the summary claim should list the conclusion of the debate, not the start of it. Also, the number given in Israeli massacres article (sorry, the actual name escapes me at the moment) is 100-110. These should all be reconciled; I propose the number be given as 107-120 in all three places. Jayjg 17:29, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

In this I agree with Jagj, the number most commonly accepted is around 107-120, we will never know for sure, it may also have been a bit higher, but survivers testimonies, and the evidence show the number in that range somewhere (not all the bodies were recovered). The exhaustive Birzeit study showed that. The numbers were exagerated by both sides, but the flight of refugees because of the Deir Yassin story is very real. Even Begin, the former terrorist, admitted it was worth a division or more I believe.

As far as I know I do not think there were any rapes, no real accounts, it may have been covered up or been hushed up due to shame, but unlikely? Again who knows? A small number of children and adults survived the attacks.

We do know for sure there was quite a bit of widespread looting, and theft of jewellery from dead bodies (cutting rings off, etc.) It is eneough the homes became the property of new Jewish immigrants. The ground was still warm Joseph 21:22, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

The most widely-cited death count was 254 until recently, now we have a number floated that is 107-120 or so. But the lead to this article uses the term "scores," I wonder will that be changed to "dozens" in time for the 60th anniversary of the massacre -- or might the new term be Deir Yassin "Incident" by then? Plus we also have attempts to count the dead as, at least partially, combatants. If a man raises his hand to stop the murder of his family maybe that makes him a combatant, right? So perhaps "dozens" is too high when applied to civilians? Incremental revisionism is widespread on Wikipedia, I have no strong feelings on this article but there are many who do, and it seems their perseverance will eventually win out in an edit war, I am interested in how Wikipedia will deal with this type of challenge.RomaC 08:49, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The 107-120 figure was given by a Bir-Zeit research, hardly a body with motive to practice "Incremental revisionism" regarding this subject, so your cynicism is quite out place. And many accounts refer to a very bitter battle being fought, very different from the "raising their hand to stop the murder" picture you try to paint. It was more like 'raising their hand to fire a machine-gun'. You also ignore the fact that Arab irregular fighters (mostly Iraqis) often used the village as a base to attack Jewish convoys (although the villagers themselves resented this for the very reason that it exposed them to Jewish attacks).

As for Joseph - when you say "We do know for sure there was quite a bit of widespread looting" - who exactly is "we"? And how exactly do "we" know this? Please present sources that back this claim.

-Sangil 19:47, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

107 is probably the correct figure. 240 was the figure promoted by the IZL and LHI themselves. It was reported by the BBC and the New York Times reported 254 shortly after. About a fifth of the victims were executed after the fighting in a nearby quarry. All of the reasons you give for the killings apply to the Kfar Etzion massacre. For an overview see Gelber, Yoav (2006). Palestine 1948. Appendix II: Propaganda as History: What Happened at Deir Yassin? (pp. 306-318). Sussex Academic Publishers. ISBN 1845190750. --Ian Pitchford 20:30, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(the following paragraph was posted as a reply to the one above, but it really started a new discussion so I retrospectively added a headline and reduced the indentation. Gady 16:13, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC))

So what are the source for 120 deaths? And why should we trust the research of Palestinian university its certainly partisan source. So i am adding back the NPOV. Also how we know they were all civillians and there was no armed man inside the village?

The research conducted by the university was well documented. I don't know where to get it, but I believe the information is all available. The university found out there were much less victims than originally thought, even though for propaganda purposes it would of course be better if there were more. Also 1987 was a different time, much less tense than today.

In short, for the purpose of the NPOV-ity of the article, what is important is to represent all opinions fairly. There is a small minority that claims that no massacre ever existed — their views are described under Deir Yassin massacre#Modern debate. Are you claiming that the article does not describe their opinions in a fair way? Or that there is another group which specifically rejects only the university study — presumably in this case they would need to accept previous numbers which were much higher?

Finally, just to let you know, the {{NPOV}} tag should be put on the article only if a reasonable attempt to solve the dispute on the talk page failed. Gadykozma 21:47, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

There was no reply so I removed it. Gadykozma 16:47, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

First of all this article based on research conducted by one of sides in this incident so how can we trust that research?

Second Academic research is not ultimate truth. For example there is Academic researches that denies holocaust it doesn't make them true

Third provide link to this research. So we can at least check it out.

I am restoring the NPOV

I removed the quote you added because it already appeared in the article, several sections above, with attribution. As for the {{NPOV}} tag, please be more responsive in the future. You can't slap a tag that says there is a dispute and then disappear for two weeks. As for the research of the university, I have no clue, but Benny Moris' book should be in any reasonable academic library and would definitely contain a reference. Gadykozma 17:42, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ok, let it be full of lies and misinformation, you will only hurt yourselves.

Everyone with sense, reason, and ther ability to research knows the truth. It is a shame this view has been taken, and it is akin to saying the Holocaust did not happen. I suppose those Arab homes the Jewish people live in in Deir Yassin were not Arab either, is that so too!

In any case, as others much wiser have said, it is a waste of time. Fill the content of the Wikipedia with non-sensical meanings, and vain attempts to hide facts, They will come out one day, when they do a deep shame should fill us all for all the innocent lives lost.

I feel sorry for the maligned truth on these pages. I guess if that is what the pro-Zionist supporters were after by blocking every entry I make then you got your wish. What a shame. There is no NPOV view or truth on any of these pages dealing with the Arab/Israeli conflict, and especially in respect to Palestinians Joseph 00:15, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

Let's decide on one of them and standardize the article. I prefer (in this order) IZL, Etzel, Irgun. What do other people prefer? Gadykozma 13:40, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Irgun is the most commonly used name in English, and this is English Wikipedia... Jayjg 17:44, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

OK, I changed it to Irgun in the few relevant places. Gadykozma 01:44, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ok, the truck with the mortar in the story near the end of the battle that comes from the Haganah; it says it fires "tree shoots". Is this a reference to "tree bursts"? The article seems to be talking about setting the mortars to explode above the building to kill snipers--this is best termed an "air burst".

Unfortunately, it seems the guy who wrote this, BL, has left Wikipedia on May. Therefore the only way to verify is to check the book referred to. My guess is that it should be "three shots"... Gadykozma 00:47, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't think that the article is pro-zionist. I just came here to read more or less what happened. I don't expect casualty figures or every report drawn from one book to be literally accurate. Just as you said, if you are too critical of the 'perspective' of wiki authors then it will descend into the same kind of political speech and bland, noncommital recitations that is popular in the American media.

A wikipedian sent this message to me after I made a comment on the votes for deletion page, in everyone's interest I have copied it here:-

See http://www.etzel.org.il/english/ac17.htm, http://www.zoa.org/pubs/DeirYassin.htm, http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/deir_yassin.html, http://www.freeman.org/m_online/may98/bedein.htm, http://www.theraphi.com/da/april/18.html and of course stage five in http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/deir_yassin.html. While the loss of non-combatants is regrettable in any war, the fact that the Arabs deliberately hid among civilians, opened fire from within civilian crowds and pretended to be dead and then ambushed Irgun solders (foreshadowing present day events) places the blame for the non-combatant casualites squarely on Arab fighters, not the Irgun. Indeed, a truck with a loudspeaker was deployed to warn Arab civilians of the coming attack (thereby forgoing the advantage of surprise). Irgun fighers were given strict orders to not harm the elderly, woman and children, and took any Arab who surrended prisoner, as opposed to the Arabs who would execute anyone who surrendered to their forces. Arab eyewitnessess claim that there was no massacre, and that the majority of Arab non-combantants were serving in a support role to the Arab forces, and thereby legimate targets. Many Arabs openly admit that the so-called "Deir Yassing" massacre was used as a tool to support invading Arab armies, and not represenation of true fact. I sincerely hope that you will look deeper into this issue, and come to realize that in every war their are innoccents harmed, but in this case everything was done that could reasonably minimize this unforunate occurrence.

Regards,

MSTCrow 15:32, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

This page can be reduced to probably four paragraphs like a normal encyclopedia entry. It is longer than the page on the Taiping Rebellion, China's civil war that killed 20 million people! The minute details are for further study elsewhere. An entry should contain: 1) who what when where, 2) significance of massacre/atrocity reports in the time period, 3) fact that most conventional history reports event as a massacre, 4) that a few challenge it, alleging certain things (x,y,z), 5) it remains subject of factual and political debate. The end. The details can be hashed out numerous places and are.

-- Anon, but knowledgable on subject

It has been stated that the opening paragraphs are really all one needs for the article; I wonder how others feel. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:00, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I totally disagree. This proves that the Taiping Rebellion article is too short, not that this article is too long. One of Wikipedia's great strengths is its ability to treat obscure topics in detail; its weakness, in fact, tends to be the articles on broader topics, which fit less easily into any one person's expertise. - Mustafaa 16:43, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, it's in desperate need of cleanup, particularly the footnotes which are formatted in the most obnoxious way imaginable. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:52, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The non-footnotes, you mean! I actually find them kind of convenient, but I agree that a standard footnote layout would be more aesthetically pleasing, if marginally harder to follow. - Mustafaa 17:02, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There does not need to be a Deir Yassin article AND a Deir Yassin Massacre article separately. At least the opening paragraph should say why the village is of interest, not the details of its location. The opening can give a summary of the reason for interest - a famous massacre reproted there -- and the basics, and report that the massacre allegation is challenged in some circles (IMO dishonestly and ridiclously but that need not be added). The rest of the article can be detailed by persons who want to write, amend, and reamend the massacre debate and details.

-- Anon but familiar

And someone keeps eradicating the Hebrew transliteration, even though it common appears (try Google) and was used and is used in Hebrew language literature and records on the subject and in translations of them. Stop it. What the village name is today does not mean there is no Hebrew transliteration of the former name.

The village had no Hebrew name, this transliteration is of a mispronunciation common among Hebrew speakers. This would be like putting "Betah Tiqoua" as a transliteration of Petah-Tikva.--Doron 06:40, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It is written in Hebrew in books and literature at the time and commonly transliterated that way -- see Begin's memoirs, do a google search. If you want to add a note to that effect, do it. The fact is that researching Deir Yassin is aided by noting that it often appears transliterated from the Hebrew as Dir Yassin. It may be a mistake, it doesnt matter, that's how it appears, and often odes in the literature on Deir Yassin; an encyclopedia aids researchers to find thngs, many things are listed as Dir Yassin, including a former Israeli punk rock band. The name Jonah for example is transliterated from Hebrew many ways but also via Greek as Jonas and that fact should be noted, if one is researching Bible references, one should note the common way it appears and in older English Bibles (particularly Catholic ones)and refrences to it you will find "JOnas". Deir Yassin DOES have a commonly appearing Hebrew transliterated name "Dir Yassin" (Google it, darn it!) in the same way there is a bad English transliteration "Deir Yassin" rather than the more accurate "Dayr Yasin". Given that much primary and secondary literature is in Hebrew and or transliterated from it, it should be noted. TO say the town doesn't have a Hebrew name is like saying Moscow doesnt have an English name. Yes, it does: Moscow. It is transliterated Moskva and is such in Russian. But in English it's Moscow. In Hebrww, an important language for researching Deir Yassin it appears often as Dir Yassin, even if mispronounced it is what it is.

Stop changing it.

-- Anon, but familiar

For handling alternative spellings, wikipedia uses redirects, so what you should have done is create redirects (such as [1] and [2]). Moscow and Deir Yassin are English names, "Dir Yassin" is a misspelling by the translator (I don't suppose the Hebrew original was written with vowels?).--Doron 12:28, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

______________ The redirects are useful, but does not give a useful explanation for the origin of the commonly appearing Dir Yassin. Mistakes in transliteration is how MOST foreign terms get popularized. Even mistransliterations, eg Jehovah is a mistransliteration of Yahweh consonants and later Adonai vowels, Paris is not Pah RISS but Pah reeee, but we pronounce as we read it. It is important to note the origin of Dir Yassin as anyone researching it in a book or online should look for that spelling; this tells why.

Deir Yassin is not an English name, it is a transliteration (and a poor one) from Arabic but it is the standard because it was the official British one. Dir Yassin is the standard roman transliteration from Hebrew. It should be noted as such. And not merely redirected.

I'm fine with your last edit.--Doron 23:59, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The article claims "between approximately 107 and 120 Palestinian Arab civilians were killed" how do we know that all of who was killed was civilians there is various reports that there was indeed some Arab fighters in the village. Also the whole article based on Partisan research of Palestinian university how can we trust and such controversial figures like Morris.I think it should be labeled with POV tag.

This is pathetic. Most Jews/Israelis accept this massacre took place (even Ben Gurion was appalled and later tried to kill Begin, who led Irgun. See Altalena). Does it really matter that much if 107 or 120 were murdered? We will never have the precise figure, so the article should simply state that fact, have some varying evidence, and that's it. I could quite easily call into question some of the above posters' impartiality given complaints about the trustworthiness of Palestinian academia - or can I call into question all statements and statistics provided on Palestinian groups and actions by all Jewish groups and organisations? No, thought not. Leave you politics and prejudice at the door. 86.15.169.220 12:56, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article says Palestinian when they are killed and Arab when they are doing the killing. Am I missing something, can someone clarify?

To my mind either Palestinian should not be used (as it meant Jewish person in the Mandate at the time) or it should be used consistently (for clarity to modern readers).

Anyone have any thoughts or additional information?

User Zero0000 repeatedly deletes my edits to this page, to include this page: http://www.hirhome.com/israel/deir-yassin.htm along with the already existing "Webpage opposing the massacre theses" in a sepearte heading in the external links section titled "Those Opposing the Massacre Thesis." The existence of those that oppose the theory that there was a massacre should not be a secret, and since the actual piece is well documented and draws on a lot of verifiable data, I do not understand what reason he has, other than he simply disagrees with the conclusion, to constantly be deleting this link. Help? Ryan4 14:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User Ryan4 has been going around Wikipedia adding links to all the articles of amateur historian and propagandist Francisco Gil-White (who in real life is a psychologist). Either Ryan4 is actually Francisco Gil-White himself (he denies it) or he is a clone of Francisco Gil-White. The nature of Francisco Gil-White's site is essentially that of a private blog. He has collected his articles all together, given the collection a lovely name "Historical and Investigative Research", and now he wants to use Wikipedia to crank up his hit rate. That is not a role that Wikipedia is intended to play. As for the Deir Yassin article itself, it is a rant. There is no new evidence, no original thinking, nothing that provides anything at all which is not already better provided in the links we have already. If you want to read a proper account of the case against the massacre that we are supposedly keeping secret, read the article of Sid Zion. --Zero 15:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For someone who is supposed to be a moderator, you seem incredibly incapable of moderating in a level headed, dispassionate manner. You have repeatedly accused me of being someone I am not, you throw around the terms 'amateur' and 'propagandist' along with 'blog' like blanket accusations that prove some kind of defect of character or lack of credible views / corroborated facts. I have noticed many links on wikipedia to alternative media sources that promote a theory or viewpoint other than the official line (especially to The Emperor's New Clothes) and thus the criteria for addding external links seems to me not that they agree 100% with the accepted viewpoint but that they contain factual documentation that can be verified. All the articles on both HIR and TENC, both of which are at least partly the work of Gil-White, are written so as to ensure that any claim is both footnoted and supported by at least one source. Most of these sources are the mainstream western press. 'Blogs' and 'rants' in my mind are 'opinion' that have nothing to do with footnoted sources. 'Propaganda' are documents spread by people with political agendas (usually supporting the status quo) that contain claims either purposely misleading or downright false, again, with no emphasis whatsoever on factual accuracy or reliance on reliable sources. I can only assume that you are either using these words because you have not actually read the articles, or because you find the conclusions threatening to your point of view and wish to slander anyone who tries to have them read by others. Will no one end this moderator's ovbious vendetta against a perfectly legitimate alternate theory of events? Ryan4 20:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a moderator, I'm an administrator. That gives me some additional capabilities but I don't normally use them in articles where I'm involved as an editor. And, yes, I have read a number of the articles of Francisco Gil-White including the Deir Yassin article. I know propagandistic rants when I see them, having seen very many. --Zero 01:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would be interested in finding out exactly what the criteria are for becoming an administrator. I would hope that it would be a relatively open process, but that those chosen would have a calm disposition, a good writing style, a grasp of many topics and a scientific outlook. It seems you lack at least the latter. You claim that Gil-White is an 'amateur', yet aren't we all here at wikipedia? Shouldn't the point of an encyclopaedia that anyone can edit be that information does not flow, as it used to, from up on high, but is accessible to and provided by we, the people? The only criteria for including information or analysis, given this egalitarian position, should therefore be that the information is verifiable, and that the analysis is done in a rigorous, scientific way. That is to say - provide documentation, and provide a hypothesis that best fits that data. It should not matter whether the person providing that hypothsis is white, black, or, heaven forbid, a professor of psychology. Rather than resorting to ad hominem attacks, I would very much appreciate it if you could give at least one instance where Gil-White has made a factual mistake, or has made a claim that is not backed up. If you cannot, then I do not see what reason, other than a personal vendetta, you could possibly have for constantly checking the page and deleting the link I put there. Are there no other administrators that can play some kind of mediating role in this? Ryan4 03:11, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Ryan4- please fix the link you have provided (unless it's just me who can't open it, in which case ignore this), so we can all see for ourselves what this is all about.

Dear Zero- PLEASE avoid using insulting remarks, which IMHO have no place here. The Deir Yassin article has more propaganda than Pravda, yet I don't think getting personal will do anyone much good. For the sake of us who are relatively new here- If you think that the afore-mentioned link is a load of **** (which it may well be, I don't know) -then give the *reasons*, rather than your personal opinion of the author.

Happy St. Patricks! -Sangil 09:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, most of us are amateurs, but we don't publish our own research here. That is forbidden. We report on the work of the professionals who have published their research in the standard fashion, and we cite them. As for your own effort, I can't see why I should be bothered with it but anyway finding errors of fact or unsupported claims is a triviality.

• "A terrorist deliberately targets innocent civilians. Did the Irgun? No. Quite the contrary.". -- Such as when they set off a bomb in the Arab market of Haifa (July 25, 1938) killing 39 Arabs who were unlucky enough to be there. Apparently you don't know basic facts about the Irgun, but you want us to link to your article on it.
• "The name Palestine was revived after the fall of the Ottoman Empire" -- In fact the name was in use for almost the whole period since Roman times, including during the Ottoman empire as you can find documented by Porath and others. Apparently you don't know basic facts about "Palestine" either.
• "[8] The Jordanian daily newspaper Al Urdun, April 9, 1953." -- If you were a real historian and you were publishing in a serious place instead of just on your own web page, it would be regarded as serious misconduct to directly cite a primary source that you did not examine yourself.

--Zero 10:25, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan4, if you don't log in we can all see where you are connected from. Another amazing coincidence that you are at the same institution as Francisco Gil-White, don't you think? --Zero 13:59, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I have never heard of any use of the term 'Palestine' since Roman times until the British Mandate. I am most curious to examine the reference given by this 'Porath' you mention, or any other reference you may be aware of. Any chance you can direct me to it?

-Sangil 21:24, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the stamp really belongs in the article. I mean, really what does it show that is relavent to the article? roughly the location of Deir Yassin I guess, but anything else?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 10:48, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. This stamp is too emotional. Christophe Greffe 18:02, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Hood 1212 13:40, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

do you have any examples of this bias?

This makes the article pro-Israeli. Robin Hood 1212 13:43, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. The article cites numerous sources, both Israeli and non-israeli. Isarig 14:03, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've rewritten the entire article and have renamed it to Battle of Deir Yassin, as it holds all the characteristics of a battle, and the title is a small part of the events themselves. The "massacre" will be a subcategory in the article. I've made sure that everything is sourced and uses many of the quotes already available within the article, but also gives them context and is cohesive enough to show a strict timeline of events, instead of a collection of quotes. Of course, there are things that can be expanded upon, for example the last two sections, and the source numbers are out of order but correspond correctly. I any case, I don't think they should be ordered until the article settles down enough, and I am sure that somebody will add other information very shortly.

Guy Montag 23:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a few random comments about the article as is stands now ( Unrelated to the name question; that is a separate issue):

• as the article is now: it is difficult to know where to start... "everything is sourced" is used an excuse for including every self-serving statements there is from the perpetrators. The result is that if we are to believe this article, then the inhabitants of Deir Yassin must either have been complete idiots or totally suicidal. How else can one explain that they several times refused help from Arab militants, and then went on to attack Jews/Zionist, who were much better armed than they? Obviously, they wanted to die/be expelled...
• just take a word like "claim" versus "report": use the search and find on the article and find who "claims", and who "reports". Like the sentence: "They (=people from Deir Yassin) are shooting at passing cars" is reported, but it is "a villager who claims that" she saw her mother and brother being shot.

• Also: a "battle", but only 4 killed on the attackers side? More people have been killed from "friendly fire" than that.
• very basic information which is missing from the article is:
  • an estimate of number of inhabitants of the village, (according to Deir Yassin it had 610 inhabitants in 1945, how was it in -48?)
  • an estimate of the number of attackers of the village. (First attack force was 132 Lehi/Irgun men, but how many were the "sizeable Palmach unit"?)
  • Also missing: of the dead villagers: How many were male? How many were women? Children?
• ( Unrelated to the name issue: ) Why quote Abba Eban? Did he have any new or "inside information" on the issue?
• in the "Deir Yassin's Importance to Jewish Forces"-section: the following apologies for breaking the peace pact makes absolutely no sense to me: "The pact was not recognized by the Haganah Command and was temporary in nature. For example, Abu Gosh also concluded a local peace pact, but was subsequently quietly barracked by Haganah forces because it overlooked a strategic position over a site planned for a military airport." Firstly, from what I understand it was not the Haganah Command (I assume they refer to a central command?) that broke the pact. The article states that it was the regional leadership who both made the pact and then broke it. The second sentence does not exemplify what it is supposed to exemplify. It is not breaking a pact if both parts of the pact agrees that (parts of) the pact is no longer valid. The Abu Gosh example is therefore simply quite irrelevant. (The Nazareth example is far more relevant: the city surrendered on the written condition that all civilians were allowed to stay. A day later they were ordered expelled (by General Laskov, who had co-signed the very agreement the day before.))

• in the "Accounts of Battle and Aftermath" section: according to Uri Milstein, the reports on Deir Yassin that spurred the Palestinians into exile were "mostly fabricated or exaggerated by various elements on the Jewish side." (in: "No deportation, Evacuations", Hadashot, 1 January 1988.) Milsteins work is quoted extensively in the article, but this is for some reason missing..... Did I hear the word "cherry-picking"?

• in the "Allegations of Mutilations and Rape"-section: I do not have the main books with me just now, so I´m quoting from memory; but all the eye-witness accounts that I have heard/read from the Arab side strongly underlined that there were no rapes committed. So the "Allegations of Mutilations and Rape" gives a wrong impression. (I think most will get the impression that these allegations came from the Arab side.) Actually, in the article now it looks as if the only allegations of rape comes from Lehi men (against IZL). (This would fit well with Millsteins view).
• as to what the Arab broadcast said at the time: anybody with any knowledge of the socalled "broadcast controversy" (i.e about alleged broadcast on various Arab radio stations in 1948 urging the Palestinians to flee) knows that some supporters of Israel have a proven record of falsifying history. (I´m sorry, but there is simply no more diplomatic way of putting this. Please read e.g. Chapter 3, "Broadcasts", in "Blaming the victim" before you protest.) Allegations of what Arab broadcast said/did not say should be treated as such: allegations. (Printed newspaper reports is, ofcourse uncontroversial...well, mostly!: [3].)
• And quoting a Nusseibeh on a Husseini, is, well, it seems like, well, perhaps like quoting Lehi men on IZL? (Actually, I frankly do not know much about the internal relationship between Lehi/IZL/Palmack. But the hostility between the Nusseibeh and the Husseini clans is famous). And in spite of the headline: where are the allegations of mutilation? What were claimed is the killing at point-blank range: and a sentence like "many were shot at close range, consistent with door-to-door fighting" could just as well have been: "many were shot at close range, consistent with being slaughtered."

• that people "accepted" an order, or "accepted" the Geneva convention, does not mean that they followed it!

...and I haven´t even mentioned the sources of the massacre you have cut out/do not mention...That is a whole separate chapter. Regards, Huldra 16:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

well, I see that nobody has responded to this. If I do not get any answers (to e.g. to the apologies for breaking the peace pact in the "Deir Yassin's Importance to Jewish Forces"-section ..I will remove them as irrelevant. Regards, Huldra 04:35, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly suggest article title be reverted to "Deir Yassin Massacre" as that is the generally accepted term. Substituting "battle" frankly smacks of historical revisionism, in the perjoritive sense. Now this is a SAD ('sides are drawn') situation so it helps to remember Wiki is an encyclopedia and the event being addressed is already known by a certain name -- as tellingly posted elsewhere on this page, a Google search for

   "Battle of Deir Yassin" yields 103 results
   "Deir Yassin massacre" yields 27,200 results

People, be reasonable, our responsibility here is to respect and reflect the reality of the world we live in whether we agree with it or not.RomaC 07:18, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now Zionists want to cover up their crimes. They r Deir Yasin-deniers. :) Robin Hood 1212 03:16, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you actually have something constructive to add or was that it? Guy Montag 04:22, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This event is known almost universally as the "Deir Yassin massacre" and so the move is not legitimate, just as a move from "Kfar Etzion massacre" to "Battle of Kfar Etzion" would not be legitimate. I will leave you to move the article back. --Ian Pitchford 07:55, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These events have nothing to do with each other. In Kfar Etzion, most of the people where killed after the battle, in Deir Yassin, they were killed during heavy house to house fighting.Guy Montag 18:56, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If this goes to mediation or arbitration the article will be restored to its original location at "Deir Yassin massacre". It'll save everyone a lot of trouble and annoyance if you move it now. Then we can discuss the content. --Ian Pitchford 20:28, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you request a peer review if you are so sure. This is a neutral name for a battle that happened. A massacre is a premeditated mass murder of civilians. No evidence shows that there were killings of groups of people after the battle was over. The content is intrinsically tied to the name. Guy Montag 21:04, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're wrong about killings after the battle - but you've deleted the section and source confirming this from your version. I'm sure this was accidental. Basically, it doesn't matter what you or I or other Wikipedia editors think this event should be called. It is in fact known universally in the literature as the "Deir Yassin massacre" as a simple Google search or Google Book search will verify. Please move the article back or let me know if you would rather refer the issue for mediation or arbitration. --Ian Pitchford 07:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously I didn't include every quote available in the previous article, and deleted information that was vague, didn't have any context or were general statements of the pov of some eye witnesses after the fact of the battle. I didn't order the references for the pure fact that other information will undoubtably be included into the article, and I didn't follow any pretenses that what I wrote will either end the discussion or is so comprehensive that other sources need not be introduced. What I did is organize a cohesive string of events and bundled them with modern historical breakthroughs.

Historical evidence and studies that delve into the time period have found out new information regarding the battle, that refute earlier descriptions of "massacres". I've done enough research through secondary sources and historical documents that confirm such a view. Finally, please don't make argumentum ad google arguments, instead introduce facts that contradict my sources. Guy Montag 19:49, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, in your view this material you've deleted from the article, taken from a 2006 publication by Yoav Gelber, a noted Israeli historian (who is generally considered to be on the right), is "vague", "didn't have any context" or was "general"?

Although the Irgun and Lehi claimed subsequently that foreign combatants were present in the village all contemporary and later Arab testimonies, including those of the refugees themselves, as well as SHAI's Arab sources, confirm that the villagers were the only combatants present. Menachem Begin claimed in his memoirs that Iraqi troops were present in Deir Yassin, but these were in fact stationed in Ain Karim (Gelber, 2006, p. 311).

Your renaming of this article and deletion of reliable scholarly sources is a violation of the terms of your probation. Please move this article back to "Deir Yassin massacre" and then we can set about restoring the sources. --Ian Pitchford 22:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why only Arab "massacres" r called "massacres" but Zionist ones r covered-up? Robin Hood 1212 21:32, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can of course dismiss it as argumentum ad google, but googeling for

"Battle of Deir Yassin" gives about 92 hits today, while it gave about 82 yesterday.

"Deir Yassin massacre" gives about 31 500 hits (same yesterday)

Oh, and: Deir Yassin-deniers gives about 828 hits ;-D Regards, Huldra 04:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are arguing that although it is a fallacious argument the numbers supposedly speak for themselves. The thing is, they do not and are inflated. Many of those 31 thousand are simply a part of an ungoing discussion of "there was a massacre" and "there wasn't a massacre," with both sides using the same terminology. Hence the fallaciousness of the google argument as the 31000 number includes the arguments of both sides and has nothing to do with the name. Interestingly enough, over time the numbers in google will even out. 92 today, 2000 in a couple of months. Give it a year and you will be complaining about argumentum ad google. Guy Montag 05:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And y don't u call me an anti-Semite too and say that the massacre was a myth like all Zionists do? Those ppl r trying to portray themselves as victims, they even deny that Palestinians ever existed. I wonder who they r fighting in the WB and GS. Robin Hood 1212 04:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Hood 1212 21:35, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are different phases of the 1948 war. Operation Nachson marks the beginning of the second phase. Guy Montag 22:34, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm a journalist writing a story on how contentious topics in the Middle East are dealt with on Wikipedia. I stopped by the Deir Yassin article to see how Wikipedia handles it, and I see that here on the talk page you're in the middle of resolving a pretty fundamental issue...what to call the article! If anyone is willing to discuss Wikipedia's Middle East articles with me, please e-mail me with the "e-mail this user" function on my userpage. Thanks! Krinkle99 22:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would you care to clarify a bit more, which newspaper for example? -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 01:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, this kinda sounds like some kind of spam.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 03:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not spam. I'm honestly writing a story on Wikipedia's collaborative editing process, and would genuinely like to speak with anyone with experience editing Middle East-related articles. Regards, Krinkle99 13:05, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I accept that, but without a bit more information, I am not going to help out. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 13:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I e-mailed you, Kim, and if anyone else would like information about the story I'm doing, feel free to e-mail me. Krinkle99 14:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think a clear consensus has been reached. Time to end the voting and get on with improving the actual article. Guy Montag 00:09, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will do that later this evening. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 01:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, do you mean you're sufficiently univolved and impartial to close the vote? That's the joke of the day! Pecher ^Talk 21:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kim,

You have completely corrupted the result of the vote to your own baised agenda.

Guy Montag 04:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, votestaking does that. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 04:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, a person can propose a move, and then when result turns out negatively, she can use the administrative powers that she happens to possess to cancel the vote? The person who makes the motion gets to decide when "corruption" has occurred? I have read that "Wikipedia is not a democracy", but whoever came up with that saying, I don't they meant that Wikipedia is a Soviet-style dictatorship. And I don't think it is, at the top, but a few of the lower-level apparatchiks don't appear to have gotten the memo. 6SJ7 05:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kim, your actions here are completely unacceptable. You started this vote, so any claim from you that the vote didn't have legitimacy in the first place has absolutely no validity. Furthermore, even before the alleged corruption, there was no consensus for the move. It got to about 2:1 for the move at it's peak, which is below the standard generally used for consensus. So we have a vote which you initiated, which implies that you aknowledge the validity of the vote. That vote fails to achieve consensus for a move initially, so it is kept open as a result. The lack of consensus for a move becomes even clearer, so you then close it claiming corruption of the process? Then you somehow declare victory for the side which you support? How exactly does that work?

As you surely know, process matters on Wikipedia. Your actions here are completely out of process, and that is why I reverted your move. The fact that you are currently involved in an ArbComm case about an out of process move makes your actions here even more curious to me. Could you please explain your reasoning?

In the future, please try and build consensus for controversial edits, rather than unilaterally making edits which you know are not going to be acceptable to other editors. Bibigon 05:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rrrrrrrrrigh. Now, could you please point out to us where Guy Montag -or anybody else, for that matter- build consensus for the move to "Battle of Deir Yassin" in the first place? Thank you. Regards, Huldra 06:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guy Montag's behaviour is not the issue here. He may have also acted improperly; I don't know. It's not relevant to this particular move. This issue has since come to a vote, initiated by KimvdLinde, and the result was "No consensus" for the move back. If Kim's contention was that Guy Montag acted out of process, then she should have dealt with as such. She did not, instead choosing to start a poll, presumably indicating that she would try and build consensus for the move back. What was the purpose of the poll otherwise? If there was consensus, then Kim was going to move back, and if there wasn't consensus, then Kim has shown us that she was going to move back anyways. Why did we go through a process which apparently had no hope of ending with anything but KimvdLinde moving the article back? Bibigon 06:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly: I cannot see that your allegation of going "through a process which apparently had no hope of ending with anything but KimvdLinde moving the article back" is correct. As I have tried to point out: *IF* the vote had showed a consensus for *not* moving the article back; then I cannot imagine that Kim would have moved the article. So to say (directly/indirectly) that the poll did not matter is simply incorrect, IMO. Secondly: I think you are both wrong...and right.... on the question of whether Guy Montag's behaviour is at issue here...clearly, we would not have been in this mess if he had not started it...on the other hand: he is now banned, so its time to move on (and undo the mess...). Thirdly: The article as it appears now is extremely one-sided, partly because information, (with proper sources), have been taken out of the article. Eg here: [13], the edit-line falsly claim that the inf. is reinserted elsewhere, but parts of the inf. was NEVER reinserted. Now, nowhere in the article is there any information about the theft of jewelry and money from the prisoners by the IZL and LHI men. (btw; to my knowledge it is uncontested that such theft took place, but you certainly cannot learn that from WP.) Also: events in the article which appear uncontested (like the shooting from the village at the beginning of the day) are in fact quite contested. (there are witnesses who say it never took place). I just haven´t bothered to add it, when I see that properly sourced information is removed -with false explanations- from the article. Regards, Huldra 07:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Responding only to the name issue, not the NPOV issues, since they are seperate... Votes such as the one Kim started have one of two results. Either a consensus exists for a change, or it doesn't. The nature of the lack of consensus is relevant to the action undertaken. If consensus exists, then the action is taken. If a consensus does not exist, be it through a mixed situation, or through a consensus opposed, then the result is identical, a lack of a move. Kim started a poll. The result of the poll was that a lack of consensus existed for a move. She undertook a move anyways. If she started a poll where her intention was to make a move unless a consensus existed against her, then she similarly acted improperly, because Wikipedia requires consensus to make edits, not a lack of consensus opposed to those edits.

Regarding Guy Montag's banned status, that is irrelevant to the validity of his move, and to the validity of Kim's move back. His move was either proper, or it wasn't. The fact that he is currently banned does not affect the propriety of his actions. It certainly doesn't affect the propriety of Kim's actions. Bibigon 08:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First: regarding Guy Montag's banned status; I agree with you that the propriety of Kim's actions is not affected by Guy Montag's status. But I just do not understand your statement about "The fact that he is currently banned does not affect the propriety of his actions."...He was banned from this article because of his actions here, and then you argue this ban say nothing about "the propriety" of those actions?? My argument is obvious: do people get banned for for edits which have nothing unpropriety about them? I would have thought that the answer is "no" (at least if you do not contest the ban.)

Secondly: not answering the NPOV issues: that is the problem: nobody does. Anywhere. Look at my questions/comments under Talk:Battle_of_Deir_Yassin#Total_Rewrite. The whole article is now manipulated to reflect the "Battle.." version of the story. Even such a simple (and, to my knowledge, uncontested) statement like "The IZL and Lehi officers agreed to expel the inhabitants of Deir Yassin" has been cencored out of the article!

Finally, to the "real" issue: to me it seems like you are turning the whole argument on it´s head. Or do you actually believe that somebody who is in favour of moving Battle of Deir Yassin to Deir Yassin Massacre would not also be against moving Deir Yassin Massacre to Battle of Deir Yassin in the first place?? To me it looks as if your whole argument hinges on that those two moves are different, i.e. people will have different preferance w.r.t the title depending on whether you start with the "Battle.." version, or whether you start with the "Massacre.." version. I am of the opinion that when people have a preferance on one of the titles, A or B, then they will have that preferance, irregardless of whether the poll is about moving A ->B, or if it is about moving B->A. Do you disagree? And if that preferance is static for any one editor, then the result shows that there was no concensus for the move to the "Battle" version in the first place. (The story would of course have been completely different if GM actually had gotten consensus for his move in the first place. But he didn´t! And that is the whole point!) Regards, Huldra 10:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kim, you both started the poll requesting the move from Battle to Massacre and then without consensus implemented the move you requested. Beyond the process issues 6SJ7 and Bibigon have described, you seem to have acted in a contradictory manner: the only viable argument aired so far to revert without consensus is that the preceeding move from massacre to battle was out-of-process. If one doesn't claim that, no other basis for such a revert has been presented here, and what you did then was not justified, and should not have occurred. If one does claim that the preceeding move was out-of-process, then you began the poll either in confusion, ignorance, or farcically: either you were or were not aware you harbored intentions to move the article back regardless of the poll results (otherwise, you acted without consensus, as others have pointed out). If you were, then it was a farce throughout, and borders on violating WP:POINT. Nysin 06:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since when does a no consensus vote to move something back, (regardless of your groundless claim at votestaking) is considered to be a reason to move it back to the other name? The whole point of the vote was to decide whether to move it or not. You have overstepped the line here. Guy Montag 05:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Guy, what "consensus" did you seek before moving the article to "Battle of Deir Yassin" in the first place?).

My two cents on this issue - I am opposed to the holding of these "consensus" polls on controversial pages in any case. They should only be held when absolutely necessary, as a last resort, and even then their results should not necessarily be regarded as definitive. It's too easy for one party or the other to engage in a quiet bit of meatpuppetry on polls to get the result they desire.

More importantly, I think these polls tend to violate the guideline that Wiki is not an experiment in democracy. I quote: Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy or any other political system. Its primary method of finding consensus is discussion, not voting. In difficult cases, straw polls may be conducted to help determine consensus, but are to be used with caution and not to be treated as binding votes.

The important thing to remember is that NPOV trumps consensus. It's NPOV we should be striving for, not some bogus consensus achieved by any particular cabal of POV editors.

To put it another way, I'd prefer to see issues resolved by discussion, commonsense and goodwill, rather than by resort to straw polls which can never be any guarantee of NPOV. Gatoclass 10:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't need consensus on moving the article. It hadn't been edited in months, a dead talk page, and needed incredible improvements and was stuck in a bad format. I worked to improve it and moved it with a rewrite per wikipedia encouraging editors to be bold. The name of the article reflected the content and was simply an npov way of describing a highly contentious topic instead of accepting the pov of one side. Instead of editing the topic, and inserting relevent data, an abusive administrator started a poll and when she didn't get her way she used her powers to push through her own agenda. As far as I see it, there is no cabal, but there is a flagrant violation of due process. Guy Montag 16:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say there was a cabal, the point I was making is that the poll process is open to abuse - especially on topics where people have a significant emotional involvement.

As to your comments about the flaws on the page, it appears your edits were not considered appropriate as you now find yourself banned from further editing of this article. Perhaps it would have been more productive to discuss your proposed title change on the talk page first? Gatoclass 17:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My ban is related to Kim having an axe to grind with editors who hold pro Israeli views, and not the content of the page. The closest thing I heard for my ban was "disruption" by placing a humorous barnstar on this talk page. Finally, there was no one to discuss the topic with. The article wasn't edited for months and all discussion was dead. When Ian finally began a discussion with me it was over content, and I consistently told him to insert whatever content he believes was left out. In the middle of this conversation, kim initiated a vote, and all discussion about content ended or was lost in the ton of other edits.

Through out, I have stated a simple thing, if you disagree with the content, edit the page neutrally and cite your sources.

Guy Montag 20:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The initial renaming on July 29 ("massacre" to "battle") was committed without any attempt to solicit opinions, support or consensus, so isn't it backward that we should vote to move back an article that was moved improperly in the first place? RomaC 15:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone can move an article and there are no rules against unileteral moves. This particular poll was about whether to move it back, and there was no consensus on moving it back so it stays as Battle of Deir Yassin. Guy Montag 16:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone can move an article and there are no rules against unileteral moves.

Well then I guess there was nothing to stop Kim moving it back when her proposal failed to achieve a consensus, was there? Gatoclass 17:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there is, its called the voting process. Anyone can move an article, but when it is submitted on requested moves it has to go through a consensus process. It did not reach consensus and by moving it, disregarding the vote breaks the rules. As it says,

"Discussion to find consensus is encouraged for page moves requested on this page. Requested moves may be implemented if there is a Wikipedia community consensus (generally 60% or more) supporting the moving of an article after five (5) days under discussion on the talk page of the article to be moved, or earlier at the discretion of an administrator."

So Kim is on very thin grounds here. She is already involved in an arbcom process relating to Israeli apartheid because she broke her role as a mediator and sided with users in the discussion who claim her views, and she has done the same here. Clear abuse of powers. Guy Montag 19:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me, but your argument sounds very much as if you believe that others need to establish consensus before making controversial edits, but you do not.RomaC 01:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The GNU Free Documentation License needs to preserve a history of modifications to a document, in this case this article. I just reverted a cut and paste page move. Sadly, the page move to Battle of Deir Yassin could've been cleanly reverted. Sadly, now the page really can't be moved to Deir Yassin massacre without an administrator to intervene. (Likely from Wikipedia:Requested moves) Again, please don't try to move pages by cutting and pasting text. We loose the valuable editing history. Kevin_b_er 07:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The invention of this massacare is one of the highlights of Arab lies in order to attack Jews publicly and to maintain their fictional rights on the state of Israel. Wikipedia shouldn't give any even slight residue of entry to support their propaganda which is exploited as further excuse by terrorists. Very sad. Amoruso 18:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well said! SoCalJustice 20:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is the type of situation that Wikipedia:Naming conflict (originally developed by Ed Poor and myself) was written to resolve. The guideline states that "Wikipedians should not seek to determine who is "right" or "wrong", nor to attempt to impose a particular name for POV reasons. They should instead follow the procedure below to determine common usage on an objective basis." It sets out three key principles, the most important of which is "The most common use of a name takes precedence."

Note that the issue of POV naming is specifically excluded from consideration by the guideline - if a subject is particularly contentious, there will almost always be someone who disagrees with the article title. The guideline sets out the use of objective criteria, such as frequency of use, and discourages the use of subjective criteria, such as political acceptability.

The name "Battle of Deir Yassin" seems to be virtually unknown (only 81 Google hits) while "Deir Yassin massacre" seems to be much more widely used (21,100 Google hits - Wikipedia entries excluded in both cases). Using a novel term for a well-known historical incident seems to me to be a classic example of impermissible original research ("defining new terms"). We should use established and recognisable terms, not create new terms of our own. -- ChrisO 23:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The naming here both breaches the Naming Conventions and the Most Common Name rule in the Manual of Style. The only issue for me is Wikipedia rules. They are clear. Deir Yassin massacre is the name required. It is rather annoying when having set Wikipedia-wide policy we then allow individual pages to declare themselves independent republics and make up their own names that run against NC and MoS rules. The farce of off-the-wall makey-up Wikipedia namings strikes again, here. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 23:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree entirely. The problem is, how do we resolve this, since the proponents are blatantly ignoring policy to pursue their own POV agendas? I've posted a note at WP:AN#What to do if a move poll is determined by partisan reasons?. If you have any suggestions for where we go from here, please add them to the discussion! -- ChrisO 23:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ChrisO, that was almost a valid point. Almost. The problem however is that this article is not about the Deir Yassin Massacre. It is about the Battle of Deir Yassin, and about the allegations of a massacre. Were this article about the Deir Yassin Masscre, and there was another faction asking that it be called say, the Deir Yassin Slaughter, or some other synonym, then you'd be absolutely correct. Unfortunately, that is not the case here. The dispute isn't centered around what to call this, but what the article is about in the first place. Good thinking however. Bibigon 04:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have to call an end to the shenanagins here. The article I wrote is not specifically about the alleged massacre, but about the battle with the allegations of mass killings as a subarticle. For example, Tiananmen Square massacre is redirected to Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 precicely because there is more to the events than the Chinese killing students.Unless every mainstream historian agrees the Lehi marched in without fighting to Deir Yassin, rounded up all the civilians and shot them, then I consider this to be a valid name because people from both sides were in a state of "Armed fighting; combat" It isn't that difficult to understand that I am simply adding context.

Guy Montag 00:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. This article is an account of a battle, not a massacre. Battle naming conventions were established to deal with names of battles (eg Bull Run/Manassas), not whether they were battles or skirmishes or whatever else. --Jumbo 04:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article is an account of an engagement at Deir Yassin. The problem that we face is that almost nobody calls that engagement a "battle", any more than they call the engagement at Srebrenica in July 1995 a "battle". Wikipedia policy compels us to use the most common name, not invent our own. -- ChrisO 07:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chris, your comparison to Srebrenica Massacre is less than ideal because there doesn't appear to be any real debate in that case about whether a massacre took place or not. The ICTY ruled on it, and in general, it does not appear to be disputed. In this case, the dispute over whetehr it was a massacre is real, current, and lively. There has been no "official" finding of it being a massacre, nobody with the standing of the ICTY has ruled on the matter. If you want an article on "Deir Yassin Massacre", then that's fine, as long as that article describes the term "Deir Yassin Massacre", not the events of the battle and alleged of massacre. The google search is a good proxy to determine if a term is common enough to warrant an entry. I think "Deir Yassin Massacre" probably passes that threshold. However, this article is not about the term. It is about the event itself.

As an aside, arguments based around simply referencing other Wikipedia articles are generally quite weak and do not hold much water. The addage of "two wrongs don't make a right" is the simple reason why. Wikipedia is currently a work in progress, and as such, there is no reason to believe that the Srebrenica Massacre article is in particularly good shape(And in fact it's not. Almost none of the text is sourced, and there entire article is essentially one giant WP:NOR violation it seems. That article is in very bad shape...) The fact that another article may exibit the same flaw(which in this particular case is not what's going on) doesn't mean that we should ignore how Wikipedia should be structured, and instead focus on how it is structured. Many articles, especially the disputed ones which are most likely to be referenced as comps to this case, are in pretty bad shape regarding Wikipedia rules.

Finally, the other problem with this method of argumentation is that it is subject to other examples on Wikipedia suggesting a different "precedent." For example, the Battle of Jenin article; the term "Jenin Massacre" is four times more common than "Battle of Jenin." In that article, the determination was reached that because the evidence of a massacre was so weak, and in fact, the UN had issued a finding that there was no evidence of a massacre, that the article should be called "Battle of Jenin" instead of the more common, but far less NPOV term. Not that the Battle of Jenin article makes me right either, just that there are other examples supporting a name like "Battle of Deir Yassin." Bibigon 07:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, when is this page going to be moved back? -- Dissident (Talk) 03:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When a consensus is reached that it should be moved back. Isarig 04:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's disingenuous as there never was a consensus to move it here in the first place. I'm seriously thinking about starting a RfAr over this. -- Dissident (Talk) 05:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do if you feel it is appropriate. However, your RfAr would probably be rejected on two counts. First, there have probably not been adequate steps taken towards other forms of dispute resolution yet, such as a mediation request, at least not that I'm aware of. Second, RfArs are used to determine if users have acted inappropriately. They are not to settle content disputes such as what the name of an article should be. While it seems likely that Kim would be reprimanded by a RfAr should it be accepted, I don't see what purpose that would serve at this point. However, if you feel it is appropriate, then please do so. Bibigon 06:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The issue of consensus is actually not entirely relevant to this situation. In particular, I quote WP:CON: "It is assumed that editors working toward consensus are pursuing a consensus that is consistent with Wikipedia's basic policies and principles - especially the neutral point of view (NPOV). At times, a group of editors may be able to, through persistence, numbers, and organization, overwhelm well-meaning editors and generate widespread support among the editors of a given article for a version of the article that is inaccurate, libelous, or not neutral, e.g. giving undue weight to a specific point of view. This is not a consensus." This is exactly what has happened in this case; the current article name violates multiple fundamental policies, including WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. No consensus can override basic policies - they're non-negotiable and not dependent on voting.

I certainly think mediation could be appropriate, though I note that it requires the participants to be acting in good faith. I propose instead to do a short exercise in identifying and inviting agreement on a set of principles applicable to this article, a little similar to the way that the Arbitration Committee's workshops operate. I'll put this at Talk:Battle of Deir Yassin/Workshop later on today. -- ChrisO 07:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how the article title is a violation of WP:NPOV. Is there a WP:COMMON SENSE policy in existence? Regardless of what one side or another calls the encounter, clearly it was a battle between armed forces acting under military command and not a massacre in any realistic sense, of which history provides a lamentable plenitude of examples to draw upon for comparison. --Jumbo 08:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please consult the materials referenced under the "Wikipedia's policy on naming conflicts" section above. Wikipedians are editors not historians, if you try thinking that way it may help. Editors do their best when disinterested, hardly the environment here and I would imagine that is why there is so much frustration evident on this page! RomaC 08:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I read the materials, but with respect, that does not refer to the naming of conflicts, but naming conflicts. The engagement was clearly a battle, being a conventional armed conflict between two military forces over a geographical feature. This article describes that battle. Similarities to undoubted massacres are few and disputed. Referring to a battle as a massacre, especially in the context of a half century of propaganda is POV in the extreme. I suggest that there be two articles, one describing the battle and the other the deaths of civilians which formed a part of the events as well as the various claims by both sides. --Jumbo 10:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:KimvdLinde submitted her move closure for review at the administrators' noticeboard. She was criticized for closing a move she was involved in rather than having an uninvolved admin do it. I am an uninvolved admin with some experience in move requests and no axe to grind in Middle East issues. I've spent some time reviewing this case and discussing it with other admins at WP:ANI#Battle of Deir Yassin/Deir Yassin massacre: move poll closure review requested. Here is my closure analysis.

The article was created at Deir Yassin massacre on 4 August 2002. It remained there until 29 June 2006 when User:Guy Montag moved it. There was clearly no consensus for the move at the time and a subsequent poll failed to gain consensus for the new title, despite selective soliciting of votes by Guy. Thus, I'm moving the article back to its original title. This is a procedural administrative action, I'm not very well informed on the issue itself and I don't feel confident in making a material judgment on the best title. You should feel free to continue discussion and try to reach a rough consensus on the best title. Haukur 09:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So the question I have now pertains to something that ChrisO quoted above from WP:CON: "It is assumed that editors working toward consensus are pursuing a consensus that is consistent with Wikipedia's basic policies and principles - especially the neutral point of view (NPOV). At times, a group of editors may be able to, through persistence, numbers, and organization, overwhelm well-meaning editors and generate widespread support among the editors of a given article for a version of the article that is inaccurate, libelous, or not neutral, e.g. giving undue weight to a specific point of view. This is not a consensus."

I believe the current name massacre is a clear case of this, hitting the trifecta of being inaccurate, libelous, and not neutral. Given that the article not about about the massacre, but about the battle and the massacre, the curren version is inaccurate. Given that that the title asserts the existence of a massacre which is heavily disputed, it is libelous. And given that only one POV believes it was a massacre, it is a neutrality violation. I feel fairly confident that this article violates these principles.

ChrisO, since you are the one who quoted this section, presumably implying that if an editor sees that occuring, they can ignore a lack of consensus, could you suggest to me a course of action consistent with that quotation and that belief? Bibigon 11:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There doesn't seem to be any dispute that the engagement was a battle in the conventional sense of military forces in conflict. The dispute is over what to call the article. --Jumbo 11:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't about "a number of editors", this is about the most common name in the English language. Google books says that is "Deir Yassin massacre" by quite a wide margin. Indeed I'd never heard of the "Battle of Deir Yassin" until this farcial move war. The name is not libellous, that is absurd. If you are saying the name is not neutral because it doesn't conform to your POV then that is also irrelevant. As for inaccurate, well I can't comment but I suspect that considering there are 152 books results, many from reputable publishers that you are wrong on this count as well. - FrancisTyers · 12:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]