Jump to content

Talk:Deir Yassin massacre

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Page extended-confirmed-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 19, 2005Articles for deletionKept
April 14, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
On this day...Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on April 9, 2011, April 9, 2016, April 9, 2018, and April 9, 2021.

Casualties have been reported as 240 Palestinians killed

"The Assassignation of James Forrestal" second addition by David Martin 181.73.83.103 (talk) 14:08, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes this is mentioned in the article in the casualties section. That is an estimate which was widely believed in the past but estimates today are closer to 100. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 14:27, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why is eliezer tauber's book not cited?

I saw the discussions in the archive. However, none of them mentioned how this book has been praised by respectable historians for the data collection and had respectable historians (such as [[Benny Morris]]) participating in the data collection. Those who praised Tauber for the data collection do not agree with his conclusions. Nevertheless, we can draw information from the book despite its controversial conclusion, given that the data (specifically, names and causes of death) is generally not considered inaccurate Someonefighter (talk) 20:25, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source/examples to support that it was/is "praised by respectable historians"? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 23:30, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
gadi 7itman https://campuscore.ariel.ac.il/wp/jimes/wp-content/uploads/sites/147/2019/01/Jimes-Vol1_GadiHitman_2017-11-16.pdf pages 57-59
3ude bashrat (israeli arab historian) https://www.haaretz.co.il/literature/study/2017-11-29/ty-article-review/.premium/0000017f-dbf6-d3ff-a7ff-fbf6e7750000 Someonefighter (talk) 23:49, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
English sources are preferrable. I don't speak Hebrew. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 00:08, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
these works and articles don't appear to have been translated to english. additional sources would require extensive research by me. could you get away with machiene translation? Someonefighter (talk) 00:16, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If "extensive research" is required to find positive reviews of Tauber's work, wouldn't that suggest it is rather fringe and/or undue to cite here? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 00:28, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
no, actually. I just overestimated the time. a quick google search finds this https://campuscore.ariel.ac.il/wp/jimes/wp-content/uploads/sites/147/2025/01/04-JIMES-10-2-Rinehart-Review.pdf Someonefighter (talk) 05:44, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
heres another one https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/eliezer-tauber-massacre-never-myth-deir-yassin-creation-alex-grobman (writer is an American historian) Someonefighter (talk) 06:49, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This was published in The Jewish Press, I don't think that's a very good source for this topic, certainly not a scholarly/academic source.
And am I missing something or is that article not immediately racist when it begins with "When it comes to propaganda, the Arabs have become masters of deceit." IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 14:50, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Bro 💀 wtf I didn't notice. It's written by a historian but yea the racism is questionable. Either way all the sources I added other than that one are valid academic sources and shouldn't be disregarded Someonefighter (talk) 14:54, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
653-Reflections-on-Deir-Yassin-Groiss-final.pdf (begin saadat center)
Three Case Studies of the War in Palestine in 1948 - Tel Aviv Review of Books (Tel Aviv University) Someonefighter (talk) 15:30, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here's how the second article begins (translation agreed by two different machine translators):

"Deir Yassin: The End of the Myth": A Book Suggesting Ben-Gurion Was Responsible for the 1948 Massacre
In the narrative presented by Eliezer Tauber in his book on the massacre in Deir Yassin, there are so many errors, misunderstandings, and such an excessive desire to avoid harm to civilians, that the reader ultimately feels compelled to scold the village residents who were murdered and thus tarnished the reputation of the Irgun and Lehi fighters.

The author's thesis in this piece is that the attack was a Haganah operation probably supported by Ben-Gurion, and that the Irgun/Lehi attackers were essentially engaged to do the dirty work. Zerotalk 03:21, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

later in the article:
ספרו של טאובר גדוש בעובדות, שנטוו בסדר כרונולוגי מרשים, והן חשובות ביותר לכל מי שמתעניין במה שהתרחש בדיר יאסין באותו יום נורא. למרות כוונותיו של הכותב לטהר את שמם של הפורשים, זה ספר זורם שנצמד לעובדות. זה סוד כוחו וסוד משיכתו, ומנגד גם סוד חולשתו — שכן אין בו ההקשר הכללי. איני מתכוון לערער על העובדות המובאות בספר, אך על בסיס אותן עובדות מצאתי נרטיב אחר מזה של טאובר לאירועים.
Translation (agreed upon by multiple machine translations):
Tauber’s book is packed with facts, woven together in an impressive chronological order, and they are extremely important for anyone interested in what happened in Deir Yassin on that dreadful day. Despite the author’s intentions to clear the names of the Irgun and Lehi fighters, it’s a compelling :book that sticks to the facts. That’s the source of its power and appeal — but also the source of its weakness, as it lacks broader context. I don’t intend to dispute the facts presented in the book, but based on those same facts, I arrived at a different narrative than Tauber’s regarding the events Someonefighter (talk) 06:00, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this discussion is going to get anywhere. This has been discussed before and I believe there is a consensus that Tauber's work is fringe/unreliable.
You yoursef have said "Those who praised Tauber for the data collection do not agree with his conclusions. Nevertheless, we can draw information from the book despite its controversial conclusion". How are we to decide what in the book is accurate/reliable and what is not? It seems to me to be simply not a reliable source. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 14:53, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@IOHANNVSVERVS all the sources I sent agree that the facts (raw facts, like who went where when, what happened to that specific guy, when did the attackers arrive etc) are true. where they disagree is the analysis. we can draw the raw facts from the book. specifically what I had in mind when I made this discussion, is his table for who died, where and when. these are things that are not something an opinion can influence, and are what the academics talked about when they say the facts are reliable. As far I'm concerned, by my search in the archives, none of the discussions making up the consensus have quoted as many scholars as I have. (in fact, I couldn't find anyone criticizing the raw data collected, which as I said, had respectable historians like Benny Morris participating in). I've provided multiple sources the predecessors who tried to discuss this didn't. so far you've disregarded all of my sources despite them being from scholars. Someonefighter (talk) 15:10, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]