Talk:Deir Yassin

2005

It is a nonsense to have two articles, one about the Deir Yassin massacre (openly stating that it DID happen, and offering historical evidence) and another, this one, that is supposedly about the Deir Yassin village, but ends up curiously trying to deny that that very event happened (or at least it tries to reformulate it from a zionist perspective, clearly not NPOV). If you want to talk about the Deir Yassin massacre, please DO it at it´s appropiate article.Violenciafriki 20:45, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

I have reverted to the previous version of Jun 21, it was remarkable that these additions stood this long. The additions were almost all inappropriate for this article, as Violenciafriki noted. It is a remarkable statement to call an article which was basically a stub, almost entirely consisting of a table and a very few links "filled with hateful materials," removing the link to the DY massacre article is just silly, arguably minor vandalism, and the external link was to a POV website, but hardly a "terror website." The right way to do things is to try to balance such links with links to ones with POV more congenial to your own, and put them in the appropriate article. John Z 03:44, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Israeli military operation?!

May I remind readers that this "operation" took place before Israel existed as a state. The forces involved (Lehi, Irgun) were terrorist organisations, not sovereign military forces. Even Ben Gurion thought so (he later tried to kill Begin - see Altalena). To call this "an Israeli military operation" is to call Munich 1972 "a Palestinian military operation". I call into question the impartiality of this page. 86.15.169.220 12:32, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

The Irgun "gang" actually operated for several years, starting in the 1930s, under British control. Blowing up resistance fighters houses, assasinations of suspected troublemakers, etc were old British tactics. The Irgun were officially sanctioned terrorists. Also the Hagganah(sp).

One could also argue by that same logic that since the state of Palestine does not exist the various "militant groups" acting within the Palestinian Territories are "terrorists". This would include those allied to the Palestinian Authority since the single criterion for designating them "terrorists" is the fact that the state they represented did not exist at the time of their activity.Judadem (talk) 04:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

There are sources that depict that over 200 were massacred by the Terroirsit Forces of Irgun. Ill try to find links to this, but i have a question, Do you accept links in different languages? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edudmaps (talk • contribs) 01:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Please report your concerns at Talk:Deir Yassin massacre. This is the article about the village. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 18:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Arabic name

It is normal for the Arabic name for a village to be provided, and not simply the English transliteration. I hope some one can provide the necessary script.Nishidani 09:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Ynhockey

We are obliged to follow reliable sources. I for one am not going to trust personal assurances that you haven't found confirmation in a walk about the whole area. (1) unit names are referred to, not fighters (2) this is historic writing, and whether names recorded by Israeli reporters remain as they were decades ago or not is immaterial. Newspaper reports at the time by people like Nahum Barnea report data like this. Would you like me to add details about the festive celebrations in 1949 as the new village was established over it, and how Chaim Weizmann sent a telegram congratulating the new settlers? That looks like the difference between us. I don't put some things in. You take things out. Nishidani (talk) 20:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

By the way, the village had two mosques. It not longer exists, of course, but why did you cancel mention of the two mosques in the capsule on Deir Yassin's village? Nishidani (talk) 20:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the two mosques are relevant, at least in the infobox. This infobox is a lame copy of the one found at PalestineRemembered and is completely contrary to what is expected in Wikipedia articles. I don't mind having the information in the prose. Suppose I will make that edit. For the issue of names, I left comments here. Also the one with unit street names is Pisgat Ze'ev, just FYI. I do not mind a part that says 'according to reports from [year XXXX], a neighborhood was founded ... with street names for Irgun and Lehi fighters', but to state this is a current fact is wrong. I think that a street map is a significantly more reliable source than a Chomsky publication, and as I said, if you don't take my word for it, I am prepared to bring in other editors to confirm this point. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 21:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

What's also funny is that, now after just reviewing parts of the Chomsky book on Google books, it seems that on the previous page (166), it claims that '250 people were murdered by Begin's Irgun and LEHI...'. I for one am not prepared to call that a reliable source. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 21:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

After further careful inspection, it seems that Barnea didn't even say in the 1999 Chomsky book about the Irgun/Lehi street names. You appropriately sourced it with another source, which I am trying to find now. This raises the question: in that source, does Chomsky also quote Barnea, or anyone else, or does he come to this conclusion himself? I'd be very interested to know. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 21:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi,

Tom Segev, in 1949. The First Israelis (1987) talks about what became Deir Yassin after the war. I check what can be found there.

Concerning Chomsky, he is a WP:RS in the sense of wikipedia. If he is wrong (or lies), I think the information should be added in his own entry in a Controversies section with something such as : Noam Chomsky give faith to allegations according to which ....

But only if we are 100% sure these are allegations.

Rgds, Ceedjee (talk) 07:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Ynhockey You are in a state of extreme confusion.No one stated as 'a current fact' the street name changes. The text registered that streets were named after some of the units engaged in the 1948 massacre. A contemporary street map is no guide to historical toponomy (especially in Israel, where so much of the nominal landscape has been deliberately altered to erase the former Arab presence). The 250 figure is in a great many historical sources ever since an Irgun commandant boasted or boosted the figure. (2) That Chomsky echoes that outworn datum in some of his books does not invalidate those parts of his books that are very specifically referred to Israeli newspapers. You are very close to challenging a RS generically because you have found that it contains one widely bruited, but now recognisably, false historical cliché. That is not your job. Indeed, no one in Wiki would quote Chomsky on the death toll in Deir Yassin. They would quote Morris, or Milstein, or any number of scholars more au courant with recent research since 1988.

Chomsky is a RS, and for every comment he makes on Deir Yassin he gives an Israeli newspaper source. So while you wish to challenge him by looking at maps, you are not challenging him, but challenging his sources. In The Fateful Triangle, to cite one example, the sources for each statement are:-

212. Cited by Nahum Barnea, Davar, April 9, 1982.
213. See TNCW, p. 465, for references.
214. The Dawn (Al Fajr), Jerusalem, Sept. 24, Oct. 1, 1982.
215. Davar, April 9, 1982, the anniversary of the massacre.

Now it is not my job to check Chomnsky's or any other reliable scholar's sources. My job is to refer the article's content to reliable sources, not take a flight to Jerusalem and check if the citations he makes are correct. Since you wish to do this, (WP:OR) I suggest you go to a library and check these and other notes against the back issues of the newspapers he cites, publish an article on it, and get the article cited.

LUser:Ceedjee is a close checker of facts, and will look, as another helpful gesture, at Segev's report. I will endeavour to ascertain the precise indications on p.465 of his 1982 Towards a New Cold War(even if technically I am not obliged to control the sources used by a reliable source). But I would strongly advise you, as a matter of procedure, not to keep challenging a reliable source because personal checking of street maps doesn't yield you the information in question. Other editors are not to be expected to follow you round Jerusalem.Nishidani (talk) 08:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I was not really disputing the information about Deir Yassin found in the Fateful Triangle book (except the death toll, which is not relevant for this argument anyway). I was disputing the one found in the Towards a New Cold War book, which I was neither able to acquire, nor preview (namely, the assertion that streets there were named after Irgun and Lehi fighters - Israel doesn't usually change street names which were named after a person - only generic street names). It would help if you provided Chomsky's sources for that assertion, as well as the exact quote from the book. Chomsky as a reliable source is a highly disputed statement, and if a mistake is found in his books which makes its way to Wikipedia, I feel it is my duty as a Wikipedian to correct the mistake using other reliable sources. However, remember that the burden of proof always lies with the user who wants to insert information, not the one wishing to remove it. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 16:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind the compromise you suggest. But technically I would note that you are asking something I am not required to do. Chomsky's interpretations have often been contested ()whose haven't?). He is not known for forging evidence, or making up quotes. He is an outstanding scholar of the Hebrew language, among other things, and reads the Hebrew press. Since he has written over a dozen books on Israel, its politics and history, there can hardly be point to challenging his competence in that area. Many wiki articles quote Chomsky, that it is legitimate to cite him as a source on the region has been challenged, but, to my knowledge, not successfully. Exclude him, and you will have to exclude Walter Laqueur and a large number of Zionist writers who lack qualifications, and yet write histories that are cited here. The opposition to Chomsky is political here. It is my duty as a Wikipedian to seek reliable sources and cite them where relevant. It is not my duty, nor yours, to check out and verify those sources' sources, something which would entail original research. Nonetheless, I will endeavour to get the exact sources he uses. It may take time. My book resources are on two continents.Nishidani (talk) 16:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for making an attempt to find the sources for me, and notifying Al Ameer son (hopefully this will make things quicker). In any case, I believe that this is a prime case of 'Exceptional claims require exceptional sources' (WP:REDFLAG), because the article seems to imply that not only did the Israelis murder many innocents at Deir Yassin, but they also put salt on the wounds of the victims and their families by demolishing their village and calling the streets there after the murderers - this is definitely an exceptional claim. Even if Chomsky does qualify as WP:RS (which, again, is disputed, not only by me), there needs to be either an exceptionally reliable source (accepted as such by both sides), a slew of sources from both sides confirming the same fact, or both. This has not been provided so far. Cheers, Ynhockey ^(Talk) 18:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Not much info concering your issues in Segev. Sorry. Ceedjee (talk) 19:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

For the convenience of the participants in this discussion, an English map of the Deir Yassin area in Jerusalem (Carta, fair use). -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 12:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's another one - a map, also by Carta, in the Russian language. I'm not sure what year it's from (the booklet it's found in says it was printed in 1995), although judging by other maps from the same booklet, it is from before 1988 (read: over 20 years old!). The map shows no trace of streets in those neighborhoods bearing the names of Irgun and/or Lehi fighters. link (filesize: over 3 MB). -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 18:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Uh.. We are not looking for what, on I think three occasions, you call streets named after Irgun/Lehi fighters. Chomsky says streets were named after units of those organisations. Unit in English is a military term (not as in some other languages a person) for a group of soldiers.Nishidani (talk) 21:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I misread. Still doesn't change the fact that no streets named after military units feature in any of the neighborhoods around the former Deir Yassin area. I think streets in Pisgat Ze'ev (nowhere near Deir Yassin) are named after IDF units (close enough). The Irgun and Lehi didn't really have any named units to name streets after anyway (further reading), so if Chomsky is somehow insinuating that a whole neighborhood could have streets bearing solely Lehi and Irun unit names, he is inherently wrong and there isn't even a need for me to find maps of the time talked about, or for you to look for the sources - the sentence should be removed with extreme prejudice. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 22:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

You are familiar, I gather, with rumours about Chomsky, but not with his writings. He doesn't insinuate. He makes clear precise statements, one after another, each usually with a footnote to a mainstream newspaper or printed source. No one I know has ever accused Chomsky of inventing sources. They contest the way he interprets historical patterns, and his view that information is manufactured. So leave out 'insinuations'. The insinuations, sir, are of your own imagining, since neither I nor Chomsky have spoken of 'whole neighbourhoods'. For the second time, I will reprint the relevant passage (note the close noting of every remark, typical of his style)

A year later, Ha’aretz reported the “settlement festival” for religious settlers who were founding Givat Shaul Beth (now part of Jerusalem) in “the former village of Deir Yassin.” Ha’aretz reports further: “President Chain Weizmann sent his greetings in writing...the chief Rabbis and Minister Moshe Shapira took part in the ceremony…the orchestra of a school for the blind played…”212 In 1980, the remaining ruins were bulldozed to prepare the ground for a settlement for Orthodox Jews. Streets were named after units of the Irgun which perpetrated the massacre, and of Palmach, the kibbutz-based strike force of Haganah, which took part in the operation but not the massacre. These units were to be “immortalized on the site,” in the words of the Israeli press.213 More recently, most of the Deir Yassin cemetery was bulldozed to prepare the ground for a highway to a new Jewish settlement.214 Nahum Barnea writes that “at first Deir Yassin was forgotten. Now it is celebrated.” He describes a (to him, horrifying) tour to Deir Yassin organized by the Society for the Protection of Nature, perhaps, he suggests bitterly, because “nature was the only thing not destroyed there on April 9, 1948.” The tour (an annual event) was led by a former Irgunist, who whitewashed the operation before a largely passive audience. The actual site of the village is now a mental hospital, as is the Acre prison, site of another Irgun operation.215

Note I never added things like congratulatory remarks from Chaim Weizmann, festive celebrations etc. Unlike many who write extensive articles on the way Arabs are supposed to have celebrated in the streets 9/11, I am not a monger of Schadenfreude-trash on wiki. Al Ameer is doing us both a courtesy in undertaking to see exactly what source Chomsky used for that statement. I have as much a curiosity about this as yourself, and will happily stand corrected if, when you actually go back through the archives to photocopy the source page Chomsky refers to, and provide us with a copy to check, and measure whether the information he refers from it is correct or not, it turns out that in this case Chomsky got a ref. wrong. This is not according to Wiki rules. It is a courtesy, and an act of courtesy elicits, normally, a tolerant patience.Nishidani (talk) 22:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for quoting the direct passage from Chomsky's book - I thought you didn't have it with you, and didn't ask you to do this. It has clarified some things. With the help of the Hebrew Wikipedia, I zeroed in on the precise location of Deir Yassin - now a light industrial zone and mental hospital, with very few streets between them. For now, let's just wait for Al Ameer son to find the sources. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 23:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Clear denial in this article

Everything about this article seems calculated to insult Palestinian (indeed, world) memory of this village. The primary reference is Mitchell Baird at the JVL, a near-denier ("References to Deir Yassin have remained a staple of anti-Israel propaganda for decades because the incident was unique") and likely falsifier ("This was the first major Irgun attack against the Arabs"). Why would we care how many of the attackers were injured? Why are they not described as the terrorists everyone agrees they were? Why, when we have solid references that streets in the new town were named after Irgun units, do we have to have the totally unreferenced "no such streets found in 2008"? PR^talk 20:23, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

PR, please stop making this another episode of an alleged conspiracy to undermine Palestinian suffering. For a long time I have tried to keep this article as little as possible about the massacre, for which there's a main article. However, if the event must be talked about, we should put it into perspective and not make it into a stage for the precise anti-Israel propaganda that Baird talks about. The article for each suicide bombing inside Israel has the name of the Palestinian terrorist responsible, so there's absolutely no reason why Irgun deaths should not be mentioned.

The issue about "no such streets are found in 2008" is the outcome of the long discussion seen above, which I hope you'll take the time to read. In the discussion, I clearly showed that Chomsky's outrageous and non-authorative claim (he isn't an historian) was a lie, and indeed no such streets ever existed, certainly even in 1988 (see map linked to somewhere above). However, having no sources from 1951 clarifying the street names, the most that could be done was a compromise which had the above statement, sourced for a recent full street map of Jerusalem. Please don't rekindle the discussion if you don't have new reliable sources either confirming or disproving Chomsky's claim (especially, I'd like to see the claim made by an actual historian, such as Morris or Gelber). -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 20:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a copy of TNCW, so I can't check Chomsky's source. I have, however, found this in Haaretz: "In 1986, Jerusalem's Municipal Names Committee decided to name a street after the victims of the Deir Yassin massacre - not the Arab victims - but the five Jewish ones, who were members of the two underground Jewish armies operating during the British Mandate in Palestine, the Irgun and the Lehi. It took then Jerusalem mayor Teddy Kollek two months to rescind the decision". [1] This article is from 2007, and I haven't yet been able to find a contemporary reference. But Haaretz is certainly a reliable source, so we can assume that the decision was indeed taken. Chomsky has always been extremely well informed about Israeli political developments, with many contacts who keep him up to date; and this is exactly the sort of story which the late Israel Shahak would have forwarded to him. So Chomsky would be likely to have come across this story at the time. It's also worth noting that, although not in Deir Yassin/Givat Shaul B, there are indeed streets in Jerusalem called Palmach, Etzel, Lehi and many other unit and military operation names. RolandR (talk) 22:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

The Haaretz source is certainly interesting, but it's very different from what Chomsky said. Chomsky claimed that the streets were precisely on the former grounds of Deir Yassin, and as far as I know, the street that was supposed to be named after the Jewish victims was supposed to be in one of the new neighborhoods being built at the time (which, as you correctly noted, have street names for Etzel and Lehi, that despite the attack on Deir Yassin are today considered important contributors to Israel's independence). Chomsky also claimed that the streets were named after Etzel/Lehi units, and neither organization had any officially-named units anyway. Lastly, Chomsky claimed that the streets were named thus at the time of their construction in the 1950s, while the Haaretz article talks about 1986. Again, I personally believe that Chomsky, as a non-historian with a heavy political slant, is a completely unreliable source, but have agreed to the current compromise. Since you seem to be interested in old Israeli newspaper archives, perhaps you can find a source disproving Chomsky? I'd be really greatful if you could, because his assertions are clearly misinformed. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 23:06, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Disproving something is a lot harder than proving something. There may be reliable sources which state that such street names were created; but there are unlikely to be any which state that they were not (unless responding to earlier claims). So, even if I were interested in disproving Chomsky, I would find this a near-impossible task. Meanwhile, until someone can check the reference in TNCW (and I won't be able to for a few days at least), it would be wrong to accuse Chomsky of being misinformed or, as you did above, of lying. Let's see first what his source was, wherher ir ccan be considered reliable, and whether he quoted it accurately. Only then can we make any assessment, and if necessary provide a counter citation.

By the way, I read the Chomsky quotation from Fateful Triangle to refer to the 1980s, not the 1950s: " In 1980, the remaining ruins were bulldozed to prepare the ground for a settlement for Orthodox Jews. Streets were named after units of the Irgun which perpetrated the massacre, and of Palmach, the kibbutz-based strike force of Haganah, which took part in the operation but not the massacre. These units were to be “immortalized on the site,” in the words of the Israeli press". So the proposed new names in the mid 1980s would indeed be relevant. RolandR (talk) 23:48, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

That's pretty interesting, because not having Chomsky's book, I based my knowledge of what it said on Nishidani's word, which I guess was misleading. I guess in this case, Chomsky wasn't lying (although he wasn't entirely correct, having used the word 'units') and the Haaretz source confirms that the plan to give these names was cancelled by Kollek. Saying this directly would violate WP:SYNTH however, so the wording needs to be carefully chosen. What do you propose? -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 00:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I would propose that we write about the suffering of Palestinians the same way we would write about the suffering of any other peoples. And we treat denial of their suffering the way we'd treat the denial of any other people's suffering - with particular notice that, since it's an ongoing affair, anyone who might be involved should not interfere with those articles. The current state of this article is poor and insulting to the victims and world opinion - let's fix it. The village site is completely un-marked, the iconic massacre memorialised only 1000s of miles away, and the bodies (numbers uncertain) still lie where they were tossed - how is it we leave things directly pertaining to the village out of the article?

I would also propose that wilful attacks on sources not be made unless those sources are obviously guilty of extremism or fabrication. Chomsky's credibility is vastly better than the reference we're using for the massacre, the very thing that made and makes this village world famous. PR^talk 11:21, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

PR, this is the article about the village. For the massacre, see Deir Yassin massacre. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 12:23, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The village is not memorialised in any way, either on the site, or anywhere else in Israel. It's an astonishing omission not to mention it. The dead of the village were tossed into a ravine, where they still lie, I think now under tons of rubbish. I'm not sure what this article would look like if written from an NPOV, nor how much it would say about the massacre. But it clearly wouldn't depend for information on that latter feature to an article written by an apologist. To do so is insulting to the victims (have I seen one of them claiming to have lost 80 relatives?). Note - Mitchell Baird's JVL web-site has no "reputation for fact-checking", and no oversight that I can see - but it is not uniformly bad, and I've seen other articles there I'd classify as valuable. PR^talk 12:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Moving to left
PR, Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view, which is not the same as a point of view favoring the victims of a conflict. The Jewish Virtual Library is a reliable source, so removing it is out of the question. However, if you feel like more (relevant) content should be added to the article, feel free to do so with other reliable sources. No one is saying that the Jewish Virtual Library should be the exclusive source for this article, but you also cannot remove it because of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 13:02, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Not everything at the JVL is objectionable - but the publisher of "Myths and Facts" could hardly be anything other than a propaganda organ. It takes an apologist view of the Deir Yassin massacre, making it completely unfit to be used as the sole reference for this part of the article on the village. You're an experienced editor, I shouldn't need to remind you of policy on reliable sources. Nor should I need to remind you of the importance of not insulting minorities over anything, let alone massacre and mass expulsion. PR^talk 16:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Givat Shaul Bet

Is there a confusion here between Givat Shaul and Givat Shaul Bet? Givat Shaul existed, but Segev says Givat Shaul Bet was built on Deir Yassin. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Oops. Actually, I had no idea they were different. Go ahead and make the adjustment in the article? --Al Ameer son (talk) 20:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm not 100 percent sure they're different myself. I know only that various sources speak of them as two separate places, though one source refers to Givat Shaul Bet as the hospital itself, so I'm confused too. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't have any of my books with me right now (maybe in a few hours), so I'm just going to go by the article on Givat Shaul which says Givat Shaul Bet is a sub-neighborhood of the neighborhood. Do you have any reliable sources that say otherwise? --Al Ameer son (talk) 20:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The Jerusalem municipality, which has the final say on which places are considered separate neighborhoods, says that Givat Shaul Bet and Kfar Shaul are now part of Givat Shaul. However, originally they were all separate places, and Givat Shaul Bet is actually closer to Kfar Shaul than the original Givat Shaul. All three appear on most maps even today (including Google Maps). —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 20:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I recently put in the article that Givat Shaul Bet was established in 1906, thinking it was Givat Shaul. This is incorrect, right? If so what year was the latter neighborhood established? --Al Ameer son (talk) 20:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

It was 1949 according to the Deir Yassin article (and Tom Segev). That was why Buber and the others were protesting, because it was so soon after the massacre. See the last section of the massacre article. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Gotcha. I am going to wait until I get hold of my Khalidi book in two or three hours. I won't oppose anyone making the necessary changes in the article, however. --Al Ameer son (talk) 20:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I've tidied it as best I can with the sources I have here, but I don't have Khalidi, so feel free to change what I've written. I removed Chomsky because he's not a historian, and I find he's usually wrong about points of detail in this area. For example, he said the Deir Yassin cemetery was bulldozed. [2] But I watched a recent video of someone walking through the cemetery. It's been allowed to turn into a mess, but it's still there. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:52, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Nothing against removing Chomsky (I believe it was added by another user a while back), but I would like to add a sentence centered on how the massacre provoked the Palestinian exodus since that seems like the biggest effect the event had. Could you add this with the source you used in the massacre article? --Al Ameer son (talk) 20:59, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, will do. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:27, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Just to inform everyone, Khalidi states on p.291: "In the summer of 1949 several hundred Jewish immigrants were settled near Dayr Yasin and new settlement was named Giv'at Sha'ul Bet, after the older settlement of Giv'at Sha'ul which had been established in 1906." --Al Ameer son (talk) 14:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for looking it up. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 15:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Map

I have concerns about the use of this map, given how confusing the issue is already. Some names and roads have been superimposed, so it's not clear what is from the original map dates (and there are two, because two maps were spliced), and what was added. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this particular map is difficult to read, but we certainly need some sort of detailed map in the geography section. Perhaps the one being used in the massacre article: File:JerusalemWest1870s.jpg? Anyhow, I added the pushpin map to the infobox, but we still need a detailed map. --Al Ameer son (talk) 00:38, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Sure, that would be fine with me. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:40, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The new map is fine, but I believe the previous map should be included somewhere too. It is the only map we have that actually shows where Deir Yassin was, vis-a-vis modern locations in Jerusalem. It is more important than most other depopulated villages, and its location will likely be of interest to many people. The other maps don't really show where the location of Deir Yassin's remains is today, or where the village really was (in any understandable way). —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 17:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

That's true, but the previous map is kind of confusing. I there a clearer one by any chance? --Al Ameer son (talk) 17:54, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

There is a very good and clear map of Jerusalem District Villages, 1948 in the Tamari book I noted above. It shows the location of Deir Yassin relative to other villages, to Jerusalem, and to the main Jerusalem-Jaffa road. The map is credited to House of Maps in Ramallah. I haven't been able to find it online. I could scan it, but would I be able to post it either to this talk page or to the article? RolandR 18:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

If it's copyrighted, you can't post it here as an image (no fair use images allowed on talk), but you can link to it. However, maybe it's a PD map, like most maps from that period. It would be interesting to see, please at least scan it for me :) —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 18:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I can't link to it, as it doesn't seem to be available online. And I think it is a modern schematic map, not from 1948. I could send it to you if you have email enabled. And by the way, re the below, Zero has recently returned to editing, which is welcome news. RolandR 18:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I see you haven't enabled email. I have, so write to me and I can send you the map. RolandR 18:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Re to Al Ameer son: Well I'd be really excited to get my hands on the original, but Zero0000 doesn't edit anymore, and I have no idea where to find this map. Any assistance would be greatly appreciated :) If you are based in the US, you might have access to such materials. Of course, I could just make a map, but with the dispute going on about this one which is made from an authorative British map, I shudder to think what other Wikipedians will say about a map made from scratch by a Wikipedian. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 18:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

There is a possibly useful map at the PASSIA site [3]. It's not as good as rthe House of Maps one, but shows some of the same information. RolandR 18:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The Library of Congress...

...has this rather nice photo of 'Turk. Trenches, Deir Yassin' if anyone wants to upload and use it. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Yehuda Lapidot at daat.ac.il

Regarding this edit and the Hebrew source used by Yehuda Lapidot. I think this may be the English version of the same text. I have no idea whether it's regarded as a reliable source either with or without attribution. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:34, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Sean's link is a partial English version of the Hebrew text. In fact, the Hebrew starts from the previous page [4], at the paragraph beginning "In March, the acts of hostility reached their peak". But some of the English seems a rewriting, rather than a translation, of the Hebrew.Yehuda Lapidot was a professor of biochemistry, a former Irgun member, and later head of Israel's underground propaganda activity in the Soviet Union. He wrote several histories of the Irgun; I have no idea whether they are considered reliable. RolandR (talk) 15:06, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Lapidot was himself a participant at Deir Yassin, in fact one of those in charge of it, so his words have to be taken with that in mind. Zero^talk 03:36, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

German speakers?

It would be very nice if some good at reading old German could translate Tobler, 1854, pp. 529 -530. He also gives some sources, but I haven´t been able to find them.

I wonder if the Deirassin, RHH, pp. 41 -42, No 164, mentioned in 1136, is it? Cheers, Huldra (talk) 16:39, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

einstein and the arab propaganda

this ok than here you go "https://books.google.com/books?id=9dI8cUKQplgC&pg=PA375&lpg=PA375&dq=deir+yassin+arab+propaganda&source=bl&ots=YjwSUfryeR&sig=hwvcaDRisVUQLE6Cz-DSjWwpc_0&hl=en&sa=X&ei=MI5YVef6C-3X7AaCtIGIDw&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=deir%20yassin%20a this is said that the arabs spread propaganda about their yesin massacre and the whole world was brainwashed cuz of that. "Although he claimed further that it was not atrocities at Deir Yassin but Arab propaganda “ so if we can say it about the whole people who were condemn this even cuz of that we can say that about einstein. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.246.130.58 (talk) 12:55, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

It's not at all clear what point the IP is trying to make above; but it appears that Einstein is not even mentioned in the source s/he cites, so it would in any case be unacceptable synthesis to claim that this characterisation refers to him. As it happens, the IP is quoting a statement ascribed to Menachem Begin, one of the people widely held to be responsible for the massacre, so it is hardly surprising that he would deny that there were any atrocities committed there, and ascribe it all to "Arab propaganda". There is no way that we can use this claim in Wikipedia's voice; if we use it at all, we must say whose view this is. RolandR (talk) 15:38, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Raised?

This word makes no sense in the lede. Is it meant to be "razed" or "erased" or am I just misreading the context. Tigerboy1966  19:59, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Pretty sure someone just misspelled "razed". Thanks for pointing that out. --Al Ameer (talk) 20:02, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Street Names

Because I do not have an account, I am not being permitted to edit. So I will make a note here: anyone who looks at a map of Kfar Shaul or Givat Shaul B, which are listed in this article as existing on the former site of Deir Yasin, will note that there is not one street named for a military unit of any militia: https://goo.gl/maps/LwSttLEx9Fn. Since this is a religious neighborhood, all street names are for rabbis. I am writing as someone who grew up in this part of Jerusalem and knows every street AND I am providing actual evidence (a map!). The so-called source is Noam Chomsky, who has presumably never visited the neighborhood. Because of this factual inaccuracy, I wonder whether we can trust him for the other information in the paragraph. He is not a historian (he is a linguist). Did anyone check what his sources are? Just because a book is published, does not mean all of its facts are accurate. Maybe he relied on false hearsay? But the claim about street names is indisputably false. I understand the decision not to let anonymous users like me to edit, but someone else should at least consider what I am writing and make the change. Actually, I figured out how to log into my old account. So now I am not anonymous. Hopefully now the edit can be accepted. Qadisiyyah (talk) 08:30, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

In the map you link to, the pin you placed is in Kfar Shaul, though the article itself refers to Givat Shaul and Givat Shaul Bet. As can easily be verified, one of the main junctions leading to Givat Shaul Bet is Plugat Yehonatan Square, which is named after one of the main units fighting in the battle for Jerusalem.[5] One street is actually called Meginei Yerushalayim ("Defenders of Jerusalem"), while another is named after Irgun and Lehi member Ya'akov Eliav. Your contention is incorrect. RolandR (talk) 12:24, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Moreover, the streets on the map with obvious rabbi names are the streets of Har Nof. That neighborhood was only established in the 1980s and most of the streets are even more recent. So their names are entirely irrelevant.

I cringe at using Chomsky as a source (for actual facts - anything that isn't an opinion) - he's a political POV writer, not a historian purporting to offer a neutral view. Materially, the current stmt that the streets were name for units is wrong (as I see it - there is one square named for the youth company - which was Hagana), another one for knafi nesharim (wings of eagles - due to use of the location as an airfield in 1948). Some commanders (as you note). And many streets seem to be not connected to 1948 figures at all. I don't see one named for an Irgun unit (and note that in the political environment at the time in Israel - Irgun was repressed (Begin was Ben Gurion's political rival) - in general they didn't get too many things named after them until post-1977) - but I might be missing something.Icewhiz (talk) 12:47, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

The edit is cited to Fateful Triangle, though Chomsky footnotes this to Towards a New Cold War. I have checked this source, where Chomsky writes (footnote 40, page 465) "Further details appear in the Ha'aretz supplement (Kol Hair), June 6, 1980, where it is reported that the prime minister's office had received a letter from a private citizen requesting that one of the streets in the new housing development in Deir Yassin be named after his uncle, who "was one of the commanders of the Deir Yassin operation." But "the request had to be rejected" because the Jerusalem municipality "had decided that only the names of entire units [of Palmach and the I rgun] would be immortalized on the site." Cited in Israeli Mirror, June 27, 1980." This seems pretty solid to me, and using your own evidence to contradict this would be unacceptable original research. I will amend the citation to TNCW, to make it easier for others to confirm the source. If you wish to remove this, you will need a more solid reason than "I don't like him". RolandR (talk) 13:14, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Well - the actual street names, as seen in a map, don't match up. Maps are acceptable sources. You yourself mention that one of the streets is named for Ya'akov Eliav (who is not a unit), and another one for Meginei Yerushalayim ("Defenders of Jerusalem") which is again not a unit. The main street (knafi nesharim) is also not a unit (but is connected to 1948). Regarding the sources you brought (which are much better than chomsky!) and which you quote - They cover a prospective naming decision (from 1980) - would be immortalized - coverage of future names at the time of construction. Was this actually done? This really shouldn't be a POV-pushing issue (in either direction!) - street names really are a relatively simple fact check.Icewhiz (talk) 13:31, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Looking at Chomsky ([6]) - he also cites Middle East International (August 1, 1980), in which he allegedly cites "busily erasing the last traces of Deir Yassin" to prepare the ground for a new settlement for Orthodox Jewish families, where "streets will be named after units in both the Irgun and the Haganah"- again will be named. Was this actually done? This source doesn't resolve this. Note that Kol Ha'ir (the other source) is earlier, also in future tense, and a local newspaper. The sources you provide support the notion that there was a plan to name the streets after units - but not that this was actually done.Icewhiz (talk) 13:39, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

And by referring to 1980 development, Chomsky is clearly referencing Har Nof (and not Givat Shaul and Givat Shaul Bet) - as Har Nof was what was constructed in the 1980s. And Har Nof seems to be currently full of Rabbi street names (beyond a map, this looks like the complete current list - [7] (Hebrew) - and these are not unit names and are mostly clearly "rabbi" oriented). So whatever happened to the alleged 1980 naming plan, it doesn't seem to be in place.Icewhiz (talk) 13:46, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

After a bit more digging - it seems Har-Nof was built during 1979-1984. It was only populated in 1985, as per the municipal site - [8]. So these alleged citations (which we see in Chomsky's book, don't have the actual source) from 1980 are for a naming scheme five years in the future.Icewhiz (talk) 15:50, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

You need to decide where Deir Yasin was located. The pin in the map I provided above is the exact coordinates listed in the top right of the article on Deir Yasin (check it yourself). In fact, the pin is nearly precisely above the hospital, which the article itself states is located where the former village buildings are. So you need to decide--if you want to claim that somewhere else in Jerusalem there are streets named for pre-state Jewish militias, that is true, but misleading (because not on former village of Deir Yasin). Furthermore, the reference to Kanfei Nesharim going to Givat Shaul B refers to the operation in which Jews of Yemen were rescued and brought to Israel. It has nothing to do with the 1948 War, except if we want to consider that these were Jewish refugees being ethnically cleansed from Yemen. Finally, this whole debate about Chomsky (a very unreliable source) is silly because the most basic evidence is available: maps. And the maps clearly show that streets in this area are not named for Irgun or Haganah. As for the comments above, Plugat Yehonatan Square is located between Givat Shaul and Givat Shaul B (but not on the former territory of Deir Yasin according to the Wikipedia entry), Meginei Yerushalayim ('Defenders of Jerusalem'--not a reference to a military unit but to the defence of Jerusalem in general) is located in Givat Shaul near the main highway and nowhere near Deir Yasin (it's on the other side of the ridge!), and the same for Yaakov Eliav. It's obvious to anyone who has been here that these neighborhoods are far from the hospital which is supposed to be where Deir Yasin stood. Look from the map, you can see the roads winding and curving as they go towards Kfar Shaul. So, once again, I suggest that you remove the line about street names, since there is absolutely no proof to the claim that streets in the former village are named for Irgun or any other military unit. It's false and easily disprovable. One final point to the person who wrote about streets in Givat Shaul. Look at the map that Wikipedia includes on Deir Yasin page: https://www.qudswiki.org/?query=Deir_Yassin#/media/File:DeirYassin1948.jpg. You can clearly see that Givat Shaul--precisely where the Meginei Yerushalayim and Yaakov Eliav streets are located today--already existed. Plugat Yehonatan Square is located also far from the village. And I should point out that even if these three examples had been on lands of the former village, they are only three arguable examples (since Meginei Yerushalayim is not the name of a military unit/figure), so Chomsky's claim is false from every single angle. Qadisiyyah (talk) 16:49, 6 June 2017 (UTC) By the way, I am not the first person to raise this point. Look above, on this same page, in 2008, under the section "Ynhockey". It is obvious to anyone in Jerusalem that this claim is completely false. I do not understand why it must stay on Wikipedia simply because Noam Chomsky, who likely never visited the neighborhood, wrote in a book that this was the case. As i wrote before, just because a book was published, does not mean its contents are all 100% true. In this case, we are talking about a demonstrably false claim. It's about time that this line be deleted. Chomsky was wrong. Can you find any other source that provides proof for his claim?? The onus should be on you to prove that streets are named for Irgun, not on everyone else to demonstrate that it's not true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qadisiyyah (talk • contribs) 17:05, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Chomsky, writing in 1980, might have been (based on a local town newspaper, maybe on a letter to the editor, not clear) correct that was the planned scheme in 1980. But that does not mean this was implemented in 1985 when the neighborhood was actually populated. Maybe someone at the municipality read Chomsky and adapted, or maybe plans changed as per usual course of things, but it is quite clear that the streets are not named in this scheme.Icewhiz (talk) 17:41, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

After considering all this, I am not satisfied that the information is reliable and don't object to it being removed. Incidentally, I found this story which is relevant but dated too late to be Chomsky's example (?):

"In 1986, Jerusalem's Municipal Names Committee decided to name a street after the victims of the Deir Yassin massacre - not the Arab victims - but the five Jewish ones, who were members of the two underground Jewish armies operating during the British Mandate in Palestine, the Irgun and the Lehi. It took then Jerusalem mayor Teddy Kollek two months to rescind the decision." [9]

Israel's willingness to name streets after terrorists is proved by the proliferation of Raziel Streets, Hanoch Kalai St and many others, but that doesn't make every claim true in its details. Zero^talk 00:06, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

The question of whether these are terrorists or freedom fighters fighting for national liberation is a POV one. The operation against Deir Yassin was against a military target that was basing fighters who were blockading Jerusalem - regardless of the alleged massacre following the battle (in which the attacking company force, of 112 (72 Irgun + 40 Lehi) men, suffered a 17% casualty rate (5 dead, 14 wounded as per one source) - which is heavy - and is indicative of a battle, not just a massacre of hapless of civilians (which is alleged to have occurred following the battle). In any event, wikipedia should be POV pushing, anf definitely not contain outright errors (which regarding street names per Chomsky clearly is an outright error). Treating the Irgun as terrorists is clearly a matter of POV (British POV - which also applied to Hagnah at times), but treating Raziel, who died in British service (1941 in Iraq, during WWII), is even odd by those standards.Icewhiz (talk) 04:24, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Raziel was the leader of the Etzel when it killed over 200 bystanders with marketplace bombs. You think that makes him a freedom fighter; good for you but I prefer my POV to yours. Regarding your ahistorical comments on DY, the attackers suffered casualties because they were crap soldiers and the villagers defended themselves. That is proved by the ease with which the Palmach took the village when it was asked to help. Zero^talk 08:37, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Raziel was buried in a British military cemetery (in Iraq, then Cyprus), so clearly this wasn't the British view at the time of his death. Regarding reprisal actions in 1936–1939 Arab revolt in Palestine - these were reprisals in a conflict, tit for tat, a doctrine used by many (organized countries included - e.g. Bombing of Mannheim in World War II - a 1940 british terror bombing raid in reprisal to German attacks on civilians (should we label all RAF personnel involved, the war cabinet, and Churchill as terrorists? I think not)). Reprisal attacks on civilians were accepted practice by almost all nations at the time. Regarding Deir-Yassin - as per yourself, the armed villagers were an effective opposing military force in relation to the (allegedly crappy) Irgun/Lehi force. (to be fair, much of the Israeli and Arab forces in the war were crap - a hodge-podge of poorly trained, poorly disciplined, and poorly equipped militias (and armies that weren't much more than a militia). The Palmach was an exception, as were some Arab Legion units. The Palmach's crack forces were the deciding factor in many engagements - usually as reinforcement to an initial cannon fodder wave). In any event - the five dead Irgun/Lehi fighters were killed during armed opposition in the battle and not when they were allegedly massacring. I wouldn't say this is a-historical - the battle-plans (and coordination between Hagnah/Irgun/Lehi) are known. Several Arab sources mention trenches, anti-tank traps, and armament of the villagers.Icewhiz (talk) 08:57, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

While I think the removal of the sentence about the street names from the article was a good edit, I would point out that using a map in this fashion (i.e., reading a map to discern for whom streets are named) constitutes the interpretation of a primary source, which (according to Wikipedia policy) is something Wikipedia editors should not be doing. I don't have a problem removing poorly sourced material, but I don't want another editor to come along saying, "Look at this map. You have to change the article to say..." — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:25, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Using maps and similar sources in Wikipedia articles, when countering an outright fallacy, sometimes primary sources are what we have (in this case a list of street names, and a map + dubious source from 1980 and not 1985). In this type of caes secondary sources covering particular naming schemes (rabbis, flowers, municipal figures, etc.) are in most cases non existent, as this is not something that RS would typically write about.Icewhiz (talk) 04:36, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Please don't quote an essay as a refutation to a policy. If no reliable secondary sources can be found that make an assertion, it's called original research and it shouldn't be included. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:40, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't see here any reliable source only some polemics by linguist with no expertise in the area .Shrike (talk) 06:20, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

I indeed quoted an essay. A map is WP:PRIMARY. and could be used in an article Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. They most definitely can be used in a talk-page to refute an unreliable secondary source - that contradicts every single primary source. As a thought experiment consider how you would refute an OWS writer claiming in a secondary source that "many Greenwich, Connecticut streets are named after swindlers, ponzi scheme artists, and other financial criminals" - if you don't have a secondary source covering street naming policies in Greenwich (a rather dreary topic of little interest I would assume) - you would go to lists of street names and maps.Icewhiz (talk) 06:57, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

I have another question: the text of the Wikipedia article states: 'the ruins of the village were bulldozed to ...'. But at the same time, the article includes a number of pictures of homes and other buildings from the village. So which is it? Was everything bulldozed and razed? Or were perhaps some buildings removed, while others have remained? There is a distinction. One gets the impression from reading the article that no trace of the village remains; this is not true--as evidenced by the photos. Also, in response to Malik Shabazz above: if you are opposed to the use of modern street maps because they are a 'primary source' (albeit one that cannot be misinterpreted), why are you not opposed to photographs, which are also primary sources? By posting a photo, one has consciously determined what to photograph/not photograph, how to frame the photo, etc. There's an editorial decision involved. Qadisiyyah (talk) 08:18, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Canaan-source, anyone?

Does anyone has copy of the Canaan-source? -Huldra (talk) 22:15, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

• Canaan, T. (1933). The Palestine Arab House: Its Architecture and Folklore. Jerusalem: The Syrian Orphanage Press.

A New Book about Deir Yassin

Eliezer Tauber, The Massacre That Never Was: The Myth of Deir Yassin and the Creation of the Palestinian Refugee Problem (The Toby Press, 2021), 336pp. 2A06:C701:4836:400:8875:FE7B:9860:E408 (talk) 20:48, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, but its been discussed at Talk:Deir Yassin massacre. nableezy - 21:19, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

In the first chapter of this book there are a lot of details about the village that one can add to the article. 2A06:C701:73EB:5400:BF8:41C8:D48D:A9E7 (talk) 10:29, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 January 2024

Change "he five" to "The five" in the following sentence:

he five hamulas (clans) of Deir Yassin were the Shahada, 'Aql, Hamidad, Jabir and Jundi. AnthonyTF (talk) 10:07, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

 Done M.Bitton (talk) 14:47, 3 January 2024 (UTC)