Talk:Deir Yassin massacre

Tags

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

<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)

Map

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)

Same map with explanations "Following is a map of the attack, apparently from Irgun archives. It is not clear if this is the plan of attack, or the attack as carried out. The map shows the house of the Mukhtar in the West, and the main direction of attack of the Lehi and Irgun. It also shows quarries between Deir Yassin and Givat Shaul. In one of these quarries, according to Meir Pail, about 25 prisoners were shot by the attackers." http://middle-east.yu-hu.com/peacewatch/dy/deirmap.htm Kasaalan (talk) 18:36, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Also http://www.zionism-israel.com/ezine/Jerusalem_ben_yehuda_bombing.htm may help for other reference. Kasaalan (talk) 18:37, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

That's very helpful, thank you. I wonder if the first link you gave for the map would count as a reliable source. I'm concerned that I can't find this map on the Irgun site, and it's not clear who added the English. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:45, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Main site http://middle-east.yu-hu.com/peacewatch/ Deir Yassin section http://middle-east.yu-hu.com/peacewatch/dy/ maybe helpful to you ariga.com also belogs to peacewatch as a clearance

I cannot tell for sure how reliable they are right now, but they are somehow related to http://www.mideastweb.org/ and possibly an multicultural jew-arab effort. Mideastweb is used as a source in 128 other wikipedia articles in middle eastern issues. You may try asking via mail. Try checking this site to find mail address http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/5455/ of the site owner. Kasaalan (talk) 18:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

You should add the map, however with a claimed attack map note since we didn't verify source yet. Kasaalan (talk) 19:03, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Some other sources http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=LQcOAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA44&lpg=PA44&dq=irgun+deir+yassin&source=bl&ots=NVTH7jD_pS&sig=aBcN6zQEtUE4CTapDcVbg9gUgSs&hl=en&ei=JJg2SsD8PJuG_Abu1sjiCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=21#PPA44,M1 book pages 43-46, http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/deir_yassin.html, jewish source sided but maybe helpful for crossreference, http://www.thejerusalemfund.org/www.thejerusalemfund.org/carryover/pubs/20010926ftr.html holocaust and deir yassin museums. Kasaalan (talk) 19:03, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Main consequence

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)

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

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

Concering lead adjustments at Deir Yassin

(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)

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)

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)

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)

I'm waiting. Wikifan12345 (talk) 11:02, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

copied/pasted : "[in the lead] 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) 12:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Uh? Wikifan12345 (talk) 09:15, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

A note on a source

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. [3] 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)

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)

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

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)

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 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)

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)

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. [4]

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)

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)

I don't know what you guys are smoking. Those activist sites violate the most basic rules of wikipedia:reliable sources. We might as well throw in some CAMERA or IMEMC. Wikifan12345 (talk) 10:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Smoking is bad for health, thank for the reminder. Wikipedia is not a cencorship either. You use the most reliable source you can find on the matter, to include even minority views. If you feel the reference is not reliable enough, you can tag it, and make a search for a better source. Removing a source is not an option. In the same manner, CAMERA, ADL or any other pro ... site or any other organised site used (as long as they are talking about verifiable facts), Palestine Remembered can be used, with PR claims ... style. Kasaalan (talk) 13:23, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Can anyone make out what this image says? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 13:15, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

In the photograph, it writes Nachson Unit, maybe related to Nachshon Wachsman, but not really much sure. Kasaalan (talk) 13:29, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

No, the Wachshon Unit is a unit of the Israeli Prison Service that specialises in transporting prisoners. I can't read any more of the text. Zero^talk 13:47, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

It seems to be a plaque in Hebrew and Dutch, recognising the work of the Nachshon Unit. This is nothing to do with Nachshon Watchman; according to Hebrew Wikipedia, it is "the operational arm of the Prison Service". But this makes little sense in this context -- what I can read of the text refers to volunmteers from Holland, donations and "Friends of the hospital". I suspect this is a plaque in a hospital somewhere in Israel, named after an unidentified "Nachshon" and noting the donors. Where is the picture from? RolandR

(ec)I see now where you found the picture. The Kfar Shaul Hospital for Mental Health was established in the ruins of Deir Yassin in 1968; it now forms part of the Sarah Herzog Hospital. This plaque presumably commemorated donors from the Netherlands who established a wing at the hospital, though I can find no more information. RolandR 14:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I've written to that website for more information. They have some images that appear to be of the actual Deir Yassin buildings inside the hospital. [5] If that's what they are, I'll ask if they're willing to release any for our use. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 15:10, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it's a plaque inside the psychiatric hospital built on the Deir Yassin site. I just wondered if it said anything relevant to the article. It's from the Deir Yassin Remembered site. Could it be named after Operation_Nachshon (the operation during which Deir Yassin was attacked)?

Also on that site is roughly the same Catling quote I asked about above, this time without so many ellipses. Roland, is this in the Hirst book i.e. is the version below there?

"The recording of statements is hampered also by the hysterical state of the women who often break down many times whilst the statement is being recorded. There is, however, no doubt that many sexual atrocities were committed by the attacking Jews. Many young schoolgirls were raped and later slaughtered. Old women were also molested. One story is current concerning a case in which a young girl was literally torn in two. Many infants were also butchered and killed. I also saw one old woman . . . who had been severely beaten about the head with rifle butts. Women had bracelets torn from their arms and rings from their fingers and parts of some of the women's ears were severed in order to remove earrings." [6]

SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 14:50, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that is in Hirst. The complete quote is "On 14th April at 10 a.m. I visited Silwan village accompanied by a doctor and a nurse from the Government Hospital in Jerusalem and a member of the Arab Women's Union. We visited many houses in this village in which approximately some two to three hundred people from Deir Yassin are housed. I interviewed many of the womenfolk in order to glean some information on any atrocities committed in Deir Yassin but the majority of these women are very shy and reluctant to relate their experiences especially in matters concerning sexual assault and they need great coaxing before they will divulge any information. The recording of statements is hampered also by the hysterical state of the women who often break down many times whilst the statement is being recorded. There is, however, no doubt that many sexual atrocities were committed by the attacking Jews. Many young schoolgirls were raped and later slaughtered. Old women were also molested. One story is current concerning a case in which a young girl was literally torn in two. Many infants were also butchered and killed. I also saw one old woman who gave her age as one hundred and four who had been severely beaten about the head with rifle butts. Women had bracelets torn from their arms and rings from their fingers and parts of some of the women's ears were severed in order to remove earrings." Hirst's own footnote to this, giving the CID report as the source, itself cites Dominique Lapierre and Larry Collins' O Jerusalem!, suggesting that Hirst too had not seen the original, but relied on a secondary source. It would be worth checking whether Lapierre and Collins had themselves quoted the original, or even better to see the document itself, in order to verify the accuracy of the quote. RolandR 15:17, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Lapierre & Collins give the following references :

• doc. 179/110/17/65 from Sir R.C. Catling, Criminal Investigation Department. It was transmitted to General Cunningham on April 15, 1948.

It sounds as if they have had access to this but it not written.

The version I have of L&C doens't fit at 100% what is written here above. Maybe a translation problem ? Ceedjee (talk) 15:33, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Hirst cites the 1972 Simon and Schuster edition, p 276. Maybe you have a different edition? RolandR 15:40, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I have the French version, easier for me. I think it is a "problem" of translation. There is nothing relevant in the facts that would have been modified but the structure of the sentences is different.

From what I check, I think what is written in DR-R website is fidel, in particular for the testimonies given and reported in the book of L&C. Ceedjee (talk) 15:47, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for all this. There's something odd about this report. Gelber writes that he couldn't get access to the original. Lapierre and Collins said they had it, and that they had passed it on to the Brown University library, according to Gelber. Gelber reports that Brown was unable to find it. It all sounds very mysterious. I'll write to Lapierre and Collins to see what I can find out. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

The DYR site is not relevant now, since we have verified the quote in Hirst from 1977. The same version appears in other English books on my shelf; I think we can assume that this is the version that appears in L & C English. Since this was a British police report, the original would have been in English, so any difference with the French text you have is likely to result from the translation to French, not to English. RolandR 15:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

99% agree. (if somebody can check in L&C English, just for the principle, 100%) Ceedjee (talk) 16:06, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I've added the full quote now. [7] Thanks for typing it up, Roland. I'll try to pin down how many reports there were, and where the originals are. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

About 'Brown University library' and YG, you are right. I had forgotten this. I think Dominique Lapierre, Larry Collins and Yoav Gelber are all reliable of course. I ask on my side. Maybe the best, anyway, would be to ask the Brown University... Ceedjee (talk) 16:26, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Einstein - wp:undue ?

I think Einstein's letter is wp:undue. I have never read reference to this in any historian account of the events. This is quite logical given this has had no impact on the following events.
This is not an article about general relativity. The fact BG had wanted him as future First President of Israel is not enough - I think.
I would move this to the talk page until there are is far more big. Ceedjee (talk) 16:06, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

You could be right. I'm moving it here until we decide:

"Daniel McGowan writes that, on April 10, the day after the killings, Albert Einstein wrote to the American Friends of the Fighters for the Freedom of Israel, an organization that collected donations in the U.S. for the Irgun, and which had approached Einstein for help. Referring to the "terrorist organizations build [sic] up from our own ranks," he wrote that he was not willing to see "anyone associated with those misled and criminal people."

"Einstein protested again on December 2 that year, signing a letter with 27 other prominent Jewish intellectuals, including Hannah Arendt and Sidney Hook, which was published in The New York Times two days later. The letter criticized a fundraising visit to the United States by Menachem Begin, leader of the Irgun, and specifically condemned the attack on Deir Yassin:

Albert Einstein signed a letter of protest at Begin's visit to the U.S.

A shocking example was their behavior in the Arab village of Deir Yassin. This village, off the main roads and surrounded by Jewish lands, had taken no part in the war, and had even fought off Arab bands who wanted to use the village as their base. On April 9 (The New York Times), terrorist bands attacked this peaceful village, which was not a military objective in the fighting, killed most of its inhabitants— 240 men, women and children—and kept a few of them alive to parade as captives through the streets of Jerusalem. Most of the Jewish community was horrified at the deed, and the Jewish Agency sent a telegram of apology to King Abdullah of Trans-Jordan. But the terrorists, far from being ashamed of their act, were proud of this massacre, publicized it widely, and invited all the foreign correspondents present in the country to view the heaped corpses and the general havoc at Deir Yassin ...

"During the last years of sporadic anti-British violence, the IZL and Stern groups inaugurated a reign of terror in the Palestine Jewish community. Teachers were beaten up for speaking against them, adults were shot for not letting their children join them. By gangster methods, beatings, window-smashing, and wide-spread robberies, the terrorists intimidated the population and exacted a heavy tribute."

SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:19, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

The second "Einstein" letter, at least, is well-known and widely quoted. Google Books lists eight uses, and there are many more non-book Google hits. I think this should be restored to the article. RolandR 16:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

8 hits but none in books about Deir Yassin, the 48 war, the exodus and none from historian.

The most notorious (to me) is from a political book, not an historical book.

I would personnaly expect one from a notorious scholar of the '48 war to be quoted. To get a full section, I would expect quotes from several of them.

Fortunately, the story of the loudspeaker was reduced to one line (Morris and Millstein talk about this). We should at best do the same for the letters.

Ceedjee (talk) 17:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Your search is somehow wrong approach, expecting full quote is not required.

• 1948 herut einstein "new york times" 16
• 1948 menachem einstein "new york times" 40
• 1948 deir yassin einstein "new york times" 38
• "deir yassin" einstein 152

Also some of these matches are different sources and google search only search within indexed online results, not through all academic sources. But somehow the letter is more widely known after rescan in 2002, of the original opinion letter to New York Times. Kasaalan (talk) 04:19, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Kind of my area so I will declare some opinions. Wikicommons or some other wiki site like wikiquotes has the quote and scanned letter, I know because I contributed to that page before. Not only Einstein, but near 40 leading Jewish American wrote a letter, and published in The New York Times as far as I recall, condemning the event, and their concern over Zionist political violance in Israel.

Also you can of course discuss undue, but no need to check the integrity. Because original copy of the newspaper, is scanned and published (by a reliable academic party as far as I recall), I have read from original scan of the newspaper, if anyone doubts my word. Kasaalan (talk) 20:35, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

It is a bit interesting google search not helped for wiki page I mentioned, however I found required sources. Relevant wiki article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein#Zionism Source http://phys4.harvard.edu/~wilson/NYTimes1948.html Scan http://www.globalwebpost.com/farooqm/study_res/einstein/nyt_orig.html Kasaalan (talk) 04:19, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Also not reliable and a biased source but http://www.zionism-israel.com/Albert_Einstein/Albert_Einstein_zionism.htm has interesting quotes over Einstein's Zionism supportive thoughts (if they are verifiable). Kasaalan (talk) 04:19, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Kasaalan,

I didn't say the letters don't exist. They have a notoriaty and are known.

But I just think it is not important for the article. Albert Einstein was a famous man, in physics, but for what concerns Deir Yassin, his mind comes low in the list of the relevance.

Ceedjee (talk) 06:10, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

You may have a point but you miss two things. First "When President Chaim Weizmann died in 1952, Einstein was asked to be Israel's second president, but he declined, stating that he had "neither the natural ability nor the experience to deal with human beings."", so he is not just some physician. Second the letter was signed by 40 leading members of Jewish community, not only by Einstein. Kasaalan (talk) 18:28, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi,

What means 40 leadings members of the Jewish community ? And Einstein declined. All this doesn't bring anything in the article and at best deserve a line and but never a section.

Simpy because it had no consequence and no effect on the events, reasons why it is not talked about by historians.

Ceedjee (talk) 06:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Einstein offered Israel's presidency but declined in 1950s as I quoted. I meant http://phys4.harvard.edu/~wilson/NYTimes1948.html letter to New York Times in 1948. 28 or more leading jewish american people signed the letter including Einstein, not personal letter. They are 2 separate cases. Kasaalan (talk) 18:25, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Parking some material

Parking this here until I work out where to put it:

"Some of the fighters alleged that they had shot women only because some male villagers had dressed as women. Yehoshua Gorodentchik of the Irgun said the fighters had, "found men dressed as women and therefore they began to shoot at women who did not hasten to go down to the place designated for gathering the prisoners." Yair Tsaban was one of several youths who joined the burial team on April 12:

"What we saw were [dead] women, young children, and old men. What shocked us was at least two or three cases of old men dressed in women's clothes. I remember entering the living room of a certain house. In the far corner was a small woman with her back towards the door, sitting dead. When we reached the body we saw an old man with a beard. My conclusion was that what happened in the village so terrorized these old men that they knew being old men would not save them. They hoped that if they were seen as old women that would save them.""

Yeshurun Shiff, an adjutant to David Shaltiel, district commander of the Haganah in Jerusalem, was in Deir Yassin on April 9 and April 12. He wrote: "[The attackers chose] to kill anybody they found alive as though every living thing in the village was the enemy and they could only think 'kill them all.'... It was a lovely spring day, the almond trees were in bloom, the flowers were out and everywhere there was the stench of the dead, the thick smell of blood, and the terrible odor of the corpses burning in the quarry."

topographic map

What is the reason for removing the topographic map? It is admittedly rather ugly but it does provide information otherwise missing (such as the relationship of the village to the Tel-Aviv Road that is sometimes disputed). Zero^talk 00:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I didn't remove this... But honestly, it is only by respect for you I never did so because it is really ugly and unreadable.

We could make a nice one having the same information but SV brought another one but discarded this due to lack of good source, I think.

Ceedjee (talk) 06:13, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I removed it because I couldn't see what it showed. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 15:18, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Can you put a link to the map. Kasaalan (talk) 18:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

It was this one. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Heading change

Wouldn't it be better if we renamed the section "Allegations that Arab militia were stationed there" to "Allegations of Arab militia presence" or something along those lines. It's a minor issue, but I just think the current title is too long and basic. Any thoughts/objections? --Al Ameer son (talk) 05:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it's too long. I'm currently just playing around with headers and section position to find a narrative structure that works. It's like wrestling with an octopus, so don't be alarmed if you see something odd, unless it's been there for a few days, in which case do be alarmed. :-) SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 12:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Concerns about sourcing

I've just bought the Collins and Lapierre book O Jerusalem, and it's clearly not a reliable source. It's a populist account, written as though the authors were there (Ahmed gently woke his sleeping wife, etc). We don't use it directly (I don't think), but we do rely on it (as do reliable sources) for the Palestine Police Force report, written by Richard Catling. Collins and Lapierre say in a footnote that they had copies of the original reports when they wrote the book, and the long quotation from Catling comes from them, though Yoav Gelber was, it seems, unable to obtain a copy from them. Hirst cites Collins and Lapierre when he refers to the Catling reports too.

I'm therefore concerned that we're also relying on it for the Reynier Red Cross report, because a Google search for Reynier's words is only returning sources who cite Wikipedia or Collins and Lapierre. Roland, can you please look in your copy of Hirst again, and see what he cites for the Reynier quote? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 04:40, 17 June 2009 (UTC)