Talk:Deir Yassin massacre

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."

Jiujitsuguy's edits to lead

Jiujitsuguy is editing the lead without adding sources or discussing here. Please contribute on Talk. RomaC (talk) 00:15, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Jiujitsuguymay not have added any sources, but according to Morris, "The attackers ... rounded up villagers, who included militiamen and unarmed civilians of both sexes, and murdered them ..." (p. 237). — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I see. Editing to reflect the source. Ok, let's see, the article read: Around 107 villagers, including women and children, were killed. Some were shot, while others died when hand grenades were thrown into their homes.[3][4] Several were taken prisoner and may have been killed after being paraded through the streets of West Jerusalem, though accounts vary. To reflect the source, should this be changed to Villagers, including 107 unarmed civilians of all ages and four militiamen, were rounded up and murdered.? Reverting to the long-standing version while this is discussed.RomaC (talk) 00:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

First, where did you get the figure of four from? I don't have Morris handy (I was using Google Books), but from what I saw he didn't specify the number of militiamen.

Second, you shouldn't use WP:Popups in an edit dispute. It is intended primarily as an anti-vandalism tool, and its use effectively says, "Your edits were vandalism." I'm sure that's not the message you intended to convey. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I apologize, I was following WP:BRD and not expecting an edit dispute. I understood the convention was if an editor makes a bold edit, and it is then reverted, discussion should than take place. Is this not so? I wasn't expecting a second reversion. I am also sending a question on your talk page. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 01:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Disambiguation page

Just wondering whether there should be a disambiguation page with both "Deir Yassin (village)" and "Deir Yassin massacre" when someone searches up "Deir Yassin". My reason for suggesting this is that is more likely that someone who inputs "Deir Yassin" into the search is looking for information on the massacre, rather than the village in question: its a case of a particular event attached to the village being more notorious or renowned than the village itself. I can vouch for this as I actually searched "Dayr Yassin" expecting to be directed straight to an article on the massacre. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.43.238.129 (talk) 22:17, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for raising a good point. Typically, a disambiguation page is only used when there are three or more articles that share a name. In this case, Deir Yassin (the village) has a hatnote that directs readers to this article. That's what Wikipedia guidelines say we should be doing. We don't have to follow the guidelines, though, if they make it harder for readers to find what they want. Let's see what other editors say. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:27, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Irgun and Lehi - Sources

Benny K, thanks for adding sources for the statement: the Irgun was aligned with the right-wing revisionist Zionist movement and Lehi, although not politically aligned, viewed itself as an anti-imperialist movement. Could you give me some idea where in The Stern Gang and The First Tithe I should look for verifications? -- ZScarpia (talk) 10:09, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Article's title

The article's title, "Deir Yassin Massacre" is very problematic. There are many historians who dispute the claim that there ever was a massacre and other historians and publications argue that the villager's were far from peaceful, heavily armed and reinforced by an Iraqi contingent and other Arab irregulars. To call it the "Deir Yassin massacre" is to presume facts that are hotly disputed and this immediately sets the tone for the article. I propose a more neutral title like "The Battle of Dier Yassin." I am open to other suggestions and encourage other editors to debate the issue.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 17:07, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

This has been debated at length several times in the past, and the result has always been to use this title. See [1], [2], [3], [4], [5] and there are probably more discussions that I have missed. RolandR (talk) 17:37, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your response but the fact that it’s been debated before does not preclude current debate. I believe that the title is deeply flawed and biased. I’ll take your response to mean that you oppose change to the title.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:12, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Please see WP:COMMONNAME. The most widely used name for the incident is "massacre". — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:39, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Deir Yassin massacre#Choice_of_article_name, Cheers, Huldra (talk) 18:44, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

First, there are not MANY historians that dispute what happened. So, before you propose to change the name of the article, first provide some evidence in the form of many historians for your claim. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 19:20, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

The term "Massacre" is designed to evoke emotion and stir passions. It is far from neutral. The fact that it is commonly referred to as "massacre" does not make it so. For years, people believed the earth was flat and composed of four elements. Are we to repeat this drivel simply because it was the prevailing view? There is a growing body of evidence suggesting that Deir Yassin was far from a peaceful village and that its inhabitants partook in road ambushes and sporadic rioting. There is also evidence suggesting that the villagers were heavily armed and reinforced by irregulars and an Iraqi contingent and that far from being a massacre, it was a pitched battle with intense fighting. I'm not saying that a massacre did not take place. Nor am I saying that civilians weren't killed, perhaps deliberately. What I am saying is that by calling it the "Deir Yassin Massacre," you are in effect taking sides on a very volatile issue and that is flat out wrong. I therefore ask that the matter be thoroughly debated in an open, honest and objective manner.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 19:26, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thank you for letting us know that you just made up the claim about MANY historians. Just like you have not provided any evidence of the growing body of evidence suggesting various things. And finally, you haven't provided any evidence that those many historians and piles of evidence label it nowadays just a battle. What we need is heaps of links to reputable sources underpinning your claim of many historians and piles of evidence before we can even start considering a name change. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 19:39, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

• Historian Uri Milstein states that the battle was ferocious and took several hours. He provides the account of an Israeli combatant: “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.” History of Israel's War of Independence. Vol. IV, (Lanham: University Press of America. 1999), p. 262.

Milstein calls it a massacre, read Chapter 16: Deir Yassin, Section 12: The Massacre, page 377 of the book you cited. What you are doing here is cherry picking from everything he wrote. Not okay.

• A New York Times account of the battle is similar to Menachem Begin’s narrative and provided no hint of a massacre. Dan Kurzman, Genesis 1948, (OH: New American Library, Inc., 1970), p. 148.

• According Milstein, the attackers left open an escape corridor from the village and more than 200 residents left unharmed. For example, at 9:30 A.M., about five hours after the fighting started, the Lehi evacuated 40 old men, women and children on trucks and took them to a base in Sheikh Bader. Later, the Arabs were taken to East Jerusalem. Starting at 2:00 P.M., residents were taken out of the village. The trucks passed through the Orthodox neighborhood of Mea Shearim after the Sabbath had begun, so the neighborhood people cursed and spit at them, not because they were Arabs, but because the vehicles were desecrating the Sabbath. Milstein, p. 267.

Same story as the first point.

• Another source says 70 women and children were taken away and turned over to the British. (Dayr Yasin," Bir Zeit University). If the intent was to massacre the inhabitants, no one would have been evacuated.

Source? The second sentence is original research from your side.

• There were women among the dead but according to Yehoshua Gorodenchik's testimony, many of them became targets because of Arab combatants 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.” Yehoshua Gorodenchik, testimony at Jabotinsky Archives.

So?

• Gorodenchik’s testimony was supported by a Haganah officer who overheard a group of Arabs from Deir Yassin who said "the Jews found out that Arab warriors had disguised themselves as women.” Milstein, p.276

This just a fraction of the evidence available and it is sufficient to cast dispersion over claims of massacre of peace loving villagers. The title of the article should be changed to "Battle of Deir Yassin," or in the alternative, "The Deir Yassin Controversy." Referring to it as the "Deir Yassin Massacre" when the facts are in dispute is inconsistent with Wikipedia guideline for neutrality.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:51, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

What you have done here is the same as Guy Montag several years ago, and that is taking the propaganda peddled at this webpage:

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/deir_yassin.html This is not a reliable source, in fact, it is a fast way of showing that you have an agenda that is contrary to the purpose of wikipedia's neutrality.-- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 21:56, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Deir Yassin massacre is the correct title. That is the overwhelmingly most common English name for the event and the description overwhelmingly most supported by historians. Titles should not reflect minority viewpoints. Zero^talk 03:30, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Kim van der Linde, your dismissive response is an indication that you are not interested in civil discourse. Rather you are interested merely in perpetuating and regurgitating one particular narrative over another. First off, who anointed you judge and jury over what is or isn’t a reliable source. Second, the compiled sources are of first hand witness accounts, historical archives and noted historians who are recognized among their peers. Moreover, here’s what military historian Chaim Herzog had to say about the battle; “While operation Nachshon was being carried out, one of the more controversial episodes in the war took place. An attack was mounted by an Irgun unit with members of Lehi on the Arab village of Deir Yassin, on the western edge of Jerusalem. In the course of the fighting, over 200 of the villagers were reported to have been killed. There have been numerous conflicting reports about the attack on Deir Yassin. Certainly, it became a weapon in the hands of the Arabs over the years in their attacks on Israel, and the words ‘Deir yassin’ were used over and over again by the Arabs to justify their own atrocities. The Irgun version maintains that they called upon the village to surrender, but that when fire was opened on them, inflicting casualties, they found themselves involved in a military attack.” (Herzog, The Arab-Israeli Wars, p.31, Random House 1982). I have now listed three historians who have questioned the narrative or at least present the issue as a matter of dispute. Based on the aforementioned, I maintain that the article’s title be changed to the “Battle of Deir Yassin.”--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 01:33, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Herzog was not a "military historian". He was a career army officer and lawyer, who subsequently became Israel's ambassador to the United Nations, and then president of Israel. In effect, he was a professional propagandist, and his writings have to be read in that context. RolandR (talk) 07:40, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The majority of your sources are Jewish/Israeli accounts of the massacre or the analyses of Israeli historians. Of course the Irgun fighters are going to make claims like this, what did you expect? If you look at the majority of sources from the Arab perspective you'll find the exact opposite of these claims. This "battle" is widely regarded as being a massacre, any controversial accounts can be left to the body, but the title should not reflect a minority viewpoint. Respectfully,ElUmmah (talk) 01:46, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Herzog doesn't even deny it was a massacre, read it carefully. Zero^talk 02:18, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

There is no reason to go around the same Ferris wheel with the same vested players from four years ago. I would instead recommend JJ to improve the article by adding context, improving language, or start a new article in Wikipedia about the battle before the incident described in this article, and link it so people can read about it.

Today, there is a case before the High Court of Israel, with participants asking for files regarding the case from the the IDF archives. Once those archives are released in a couple of years, there will be more information about the subject. Guy Montag (talk) 17:12, 13 May 2010 (UTC)