Jump to content

Talk:Al-Dawayima massacre

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[unnamed section][edit]

I removed the sentence accusing the Irgun and Lehi of war crimes because they were never accused (much less convicted) of war crimes in any court of law, in Israel or outside it. Gadykozma 18:35, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I agree the first sentence claiming that it was Irgun and Stern members is very dubious. Could there be a place for mentioning that the 89th was set up by Moshe Dayan, though he was no longer their commander? Padres Hana (talk) 14:00, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]


again using benny morris as a source for everything is questionable, since he himself have retracted many of his claims in recent years. This article really has very little in it. Amoruso

Reverted. Please don't slap tags on multiple pages the way you just did. Instead, you should bring arguments specific to the article and the cites to back it up. See WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV. Your changes turns up on the NPOV backlog and other backlogs -- Steve Hart 01:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Morris has not retracted any claims. Merely his conclusion has become that Israel should have finished the expulsion and agrees with Uri Milstein in that the "atrocities" were part of a "War" and should therefore be dismissedAshley kennedy3 (talk) 00:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The citations desperately need to be cleaned up. When different people are saying different things, we really need to know where the different statements come from!. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Huldra pointed me this way. The first error I see is in the Benny Morris cite 4 where Benny Morris says that "hundreds were massacred" supposedly on page 333. He does not say this. The only reference to a "massacre" is when he says is "United Nations investigatores were unable to find evidence of a massacre..." He does not confirm any number, though it could be argued he accepts the number "dozens."' He quotes one investigator who gives the numbers 80 in battle and 22 "afterwards". He accuses the Arabs of exaggeration: "Arab reports, which reached U.N. observers, exaggerated, speaking of "500" or even "1000" victims. (talk) 02:55, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Benny Morris explicitly clarified that "hundreds" were killed at Dawayima, in his Ha'aretz interview, reproduced in Counterpunch here [1]. He ranks it as having one of the highest body counts of all 1948's massacres, along with Lod and Deir Yassin.Yochananyahya (talk) 13:45, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge[edit]

I can't think of any reasons for the proposed merge, I would be interested in seeing the rationale of the proposing editor. Dlv999 (talk) 07:58, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I also disagree with a merger. Operation Yoav was a far more extensive military offensive that affected dozens of towns and villages. This was a well-known massacre that claimed dozens of civilians in one of those towns during the operation. Brewcrewer needs to start a thread here anyway, or the merge proposal should be removed. --Al Ameer son (talk) 18:03, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

last edit[edit]

As far as the revert of the banned editor's sock, and to explain my edit summary, that editor wrote, in his edit summary, that he was soften[ing] claim, per morris. He did this by changing whose core clan, the Ahdibs, traced their origins to the Muslim conquest of Palestine in the seventh century. to whose core clan, the Ahdibs, claimed ancestry dating back to the Muslim conquest of Palestine in the seventh century. What Morris actually says is:

Hundreds of the refugees who made their way up the hills toward Hebron were from al Dawayima, a large village whose core clan, the Ahdibs, traced their origins to the Muslim conquest and settlement of Palestine in the seventh century.

So before any user restores the edit of the banned editor, taking responsibility for that edit, please be aware that it is a complete fabrication that Morris does not fully back the material as it had been. The close paraphrase should be corrected, and I'll attempt to do that now. But Morris does not say this is a claimed ancestry. nableezy - 04:26, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Recent changes by Brewcrew[edit]

I find the recent changes by Brewcrew problematic. The justifications by some of those involved in the massacre was already covered in the eyewitness section. Taking out testimonies giving only one POV and putting them in the background section, while leaving testimonies from another POV in the eyewitness section is not neutral. Also Brewcrew quotation is a misquote as he got the quote marks in the wrong place. Dlv999 (talk) 11:17, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please elaborate on the misquote.It is unclear from your comment or from your edit what you're referring to. Also, the account from the background was put in the background section because it related to the background not the actual killings. Not sure what POV angle you see here. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:45, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your misquote of Morris is literally two sentences long. I have already told you that yuo got the quotation marks in the wrong place. The fact that you simply reintroduced the error without bothering to check the two sentence quote indicates that you have not even made a cursory effort to address the concerns that I raised. Given that you are not even willing to address the obvious errors in your edits when they are directly pointed out to you leaves me with little hope that you will be able to work towards a consensus on the NPOV issues introduced by your edits that I raised in my first post. Dlv999 (talk) 06:43, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What quote are you referring to and how is it wrong? Are you perhaps confusing the Morris book and this additional source added to the article?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 10:59, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits only added one quote to the article. This is the exact text you added to the article:

Benny Morris writes:

According to one 89th Battalion veteran, Avraham Vered, the village houses “were filled with the loot of the Etzion Bloc [i.e. Kfar Etzion massacre]." … The Jewish fighters who attacked Dawayima knew that … the blood of those slaughtered cries out for revenge; and that the men of Dawayima were among those who took part in the massacre.

But if you check the Benny Morris tablet article we see this:

According to one 89th Battalion veteran, Avraham Vered, the village houses “were filled with the loot of the Etzion Bloc. … The Jewish fighters who attacked Dawayima knew that … the blood of those slaughtered cries out for revenge; and that the men of Dawayima were among those who took part in the massacre.”

So in the source text it is clear that the whole passage apart from the attribution at the start (According to one 89th Battalion veteran, Avraham Vered, the village houses) is a quote of one of the people involved in the massacre. In your text the quote marks for the Battalion veteran ends after [i.e Kfar Etzion massacre]. That coupled with your introduction of the quote (Benny Morris writes), erroneously indicates that the second part of the Battalion veterans claims (outside the quote marks in your text, inside the quote marks in the cited source) are the words and judgements of academic historian Benny Morris and not the claims of one of the perpetrators. Dlv999 (talk) 13:46, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, thanks for catching that. I'll fix that. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 14:12, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I corrected the qoute. You mentioned some NPOV concerns please elaborate on them. I assume you're not referring to murder>killing.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 13:53, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well the quote you put in the background section you created is not background. It is one of the perpetrators giving a justification for the massacre in an eyewitness account after the massacre occurred. Taking one eyewitness account out of the eyewitness section while leaving the others in the eyewitness section is not neutral. For instance why not put the Kaplan quote ("cultured officers ... had turned into base murderers and this not in the heat of battle ... but out of a system of expulsion and destruction. The less Arabs remained—the better. This principle is the political motor for the expulsions and the atrocities.") in the background as well?
In any case, you made a bold edit and were reverted. You should now look to try and address the concerns rather than trying to edit war your bold changes into the article. Dlv999 (talk) 11:18, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your edit messes up the chronological order of the article. You placed the content in a section in which the actual massacre is discussed prior to what led to the massacre. Anything that led up to the massacre belongs in a background section.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:26, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No. It is a witness statement by one of the perpetrators given after the massacre, giving a justification for the massacre. This material has been stable in the witness statement section for a long time before your bold edit which moved the material to the background section. There are other explanations given by witnesses explaining why the massacre occurred (e.g. The soldier-witness, according to Kaplan, said "cultured officers ... had turned into base murderers and this not in the heat of battle ... but out of a system of expulsion and destruction. The less Arabs remained—the better. This principle is the political motor for the expulsions and the atrocities."
Your bold edit is clearly non-neutral as you have taken only one witness statement, giving one particular viewpoint about the reason for the massacre and put it in the background section, leaving other explanations and viewpoints by witnesses in the eyewitness section. Dlv999 (talk) 23:08, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you would consider trying to get the opinion of some other editors before trying to re-add your proposed change to the article. If other editors support your change I will happily let it stand. But at the moment only the two of us have expressed an opinion and while that remains the case I believe the long term version should remain. Dlv999 (talk) 23:18, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Al-Dawayima massacre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:25, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Restoring material after RSN[edit]

On the basis of this external input I will be restoring the link to Ofir's translation. Nishidani (talk) 15:52, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No there is no consensus to restore.One editor agreed with you but other said that you should gain a consensus among speakers of the language.--Shrike (talk) 11:26, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You fail to read what Judith wrote. She addressed the contention about the translation. 'You can make your own translation if necessary, but if it is particularly sensitive, get consensus for the translation among Wikipedians who speak the language.'
A translation exists, the one you removed. Judith said using translations is not controversial, but if one thinks it necessary to make another translation, and it is of a sensitive nature, that translation requires consensus from bilingual wikipedians. I was not asking for another translation. I was noting simply that a translation by a competent journalist in an acceptable venue, exists, and it is absolutely normal to provide wiki readers with it, unless proof is forthcoming that it is inaccurate. I'll ask her to clarify. But the point is, all arguments given by Sir Joseph and yourself concerning the policy grounds used to remove what was stable were anaolysed by a third party and found meaningless. Nishidani (talk) 13:22, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No there is no consensus that is competent journalist and why his translation is WP:DUE to be included also there is problem of copyright who holds the rights to the letter?And does the holder of the right sanctioned that translation?We can't link to copyright infringing material--Shrike (talk) 14:02, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Shrike. On the RSN board you were told quite clearly that your edit summary justifying the removal was nonsense, and not only by me. You made a mechanical reply, but still refuse to provide an intelligent policy basis for what you did. You are still repeating here what Only in death does duty end stated was unsustainable policy-wise. Nows you are talking nonsense about a copyright violation. There can be no copyright violation when the text was not cited. Stop this prevaricating behaaviour of using nonsensical pretexts. onje after the other, to justify the removal of material no one else on that page thought a violation of policy for a year before you erased it. This obstinacy is a disgrace, to put it 'nicely'.Nishidani (talk) 16:28, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t have a problem with citing Haaretz. Citing random bloggers whose work could end up getting into academic texts or other places because they are cited on wiki is a problem. Anyone can read the Hebrew and make a translation. If there are details that need to be added to article based on said translation, please do so. What does the translation bring to the article? Seems like nothing but a promotion for Mondoweiss.Jonney2000 (talk) 18:44, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That is wholly subjective and the imputing to me of promo interests for Mondoweiss. This is quite simple. No one thought of removing this for a year, since it was a mere link to a translation of a Hebrew text paraphrased in our article. Shrike struck it out without rational authority. Neither of the two neutral people questioned on this thought there was any basis for Shrike's objections, or fussed about Mondoweiss, since it is known to be acceptable depending on the merits of the piece. I don't mind people disagreeing but I insist they be logical, policy based and not airy-fairy wafflers.Nishidani (talk) 20:33, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just to concur that Nishidani has correctly summarised my feelings. Either you have a genuine belief the translation at Mondoweiss is incorrect, in which case any bilingual wikipedian fluent in both can say yes/no. Or you think that the material itself is undue, and since it is already included from the original language, that argument is a non-starter unless you are also going to argue that all reference to the material should also be removed from the article. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:43, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I was saying, too. Having a translation is always useful. A published translation is in general better than one done by a Wikipedian, but if there is any problem then there are enough bilingual editors around to check it out, and you might end up making an annotation. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:05, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've invited the deleting editors to do so. None have. No one has raised any objections to the translation's fidelity. Nishidani (talk) 21:05, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, well, I've re-added it. So shoot me..... Huldra (talk) 21:27, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
how is that not a ds violation? Sir Joseph (talk) 03:52, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus of neutral parties supports its retention.Nishidani (talk) 20:55, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
there is a difference between a rsn noticeboard and consensus for inclusion. So far, there is no consensus for inclusion.Sir Joseph (talk) 03:52, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is a POV majority on this page which, from part experience, doesn't give policy based arguments, and invariably says no. So I asked outsiders to review and break the deadlock. They all said it's okay. Editing is not supposed to be a torture chamber or last holdout in petty battles.Nishidani (talk) 10:22, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, the Hebrew text linked above is behind a paywall, but there is another way to get to the article at Haaretz: [1]. Regarding the translation, editors who are fluent in Hebrew should speak up if they feel that the published translation is inaccurate. Otherwise it can be taken as a WP:Convenience link even if it wouldn't be judged as reliable as the sole source of the information. Note that WP:Convenience link is an essay rather than a policy. However, even if the translation's author is not considered reliable, the translation can still be quoted with citation if a qualified editor has judged it to be a faithful translation. The actual source is the Hebrew text. This is just use of a foreign language source, which has been permitted since Wikipedia got started. Zerotalk 12:15, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If its convenience link that it shouldn't probably be in article body but rather in reference as a note together with haaretz ref.--Shrike (talk) 13:22, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You should look at the text removed. It was cited purely as a reference, and the Haaretz original was cited above it.Nishidani (talk) 16:18, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]


The letter quoted by Haaretz contains an anonymous (Who is "Sh. (possibly Shabtai) Kaplan"?) secondhand recounting of an anonymous eyewitness repeating mostly hearsay (having arrived the day after the massacre took place). It was also lost before the article was written. As for the Mukhtar's account - it wasn't taken by the "UN team," but by an unnamed secretary of "The Arab Refugee Congress of Ramallah" who submitted it to the Technical Committee of the UN Conciliation Commission for Palestine, apparently in June 1949. His report states there were 4,000 refugees in the village and only 2,000 locals, while the 1945 Village Statistics found 3,710 residents in Ed-Dawayima. Kind regards -- (talk) 07:04, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]