Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Deir Yassin massacre/Evidence

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.

When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-conciousness rants are not helpful.

As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey use this form: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anomalous_phenomenon&diff=5587219&oldid=5584644] [1].

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.

Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section. Please limit your evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs, a much shorter, concise presentation is more likely to be effective. Please focus on the issues raised in the complaint and answer and on diffs which illustrate behavior which relates to the issues.

If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user.

Be aware that the Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to refactor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the arbitrators to move.

The Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as Arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.

Evidence presented by SlimVirgin

Guy Montag moved the page from Deir Yassin massacre to Battle of Deir Yassin on June 29, [2] after adding new content. The article was not being actively edited at the time; the article had last been edited on June 8, the talk page on June 11.

KimvdLinde's first edit was to the talk page on July 8, when she added a Requested move from Battle of Deir Yassin to Deir Yassin massacre, and voted to support the move. [3] She thereafter became an active editor of the talk page. Her first edit to the article was on July 14, [4] after which she became an active editor of the article.

The result of the page-move poll was no consensus to move the page back to Deir Yassin massacre.

On July 16, KimvdLinde posted a complaint to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement alleging that Guy had violated the terms of his probation by rewriting Deir Yassin massacre and moving it to the new title. She added that, because she was involved in the content dispute, an uninvolved admin should close the poll. [5] Despite her admission of involvement, she declared the results of the poll invalid the next day, July 17, and closed it herself. [6] She then moved the title back to Deir Yassin massacre, [7] using her admin tools to do so. [8] She said the poll was "corrupted" because Guy had asked five editors to take a look at it, [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] four of whom had subsequently voted.

Regardless of any other issue — whether Guy should have moved the page in the first place, or whether he should have asked five editors to look at the poll — KimvdLinde was an involved editor who had expressed a strong view. It was therefore a misuse of her admin position for her to declare the vote invalid because she didn't like the outcome, close it in her own favor, and move the page to the title she preferred, a move that required admin tools. This was particularly inappropriate coming on the heels of allegations that she had confused her roles as admin and editor at Israeli apartheid, a case that was before the Arbitration Committee when she closed the Deir Yassin poll. This indicates that these are not errors on KimvdLinde's part, or isolated incidents, but that she believes there is no need for her to avoid using her position as an admin when she is involved in content disputes. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Dissident

The creation of the article was on August 4, 2002 [14], almost four years, 406 other edits of the article [15] and 149 edits on its discussion page [16] before Guy Montag's move without discussion on June 29, 2006 [17]. Before that, article was nominated for deletion on May 19, 2005 [18], which resulted in an overwhelming consensus of keeping the article by a vote of 19 to 2, with not a single proposal to rename the article. [19]

In my opinion, the fact that KimvdLinde started a poll was a mistake because it retroactively legitimized Guy Montag's unilateral move, but to punish her for fixing this mistake afterwards would in fact only reward Guy Montag for what can only be described as propaganda pushing disruption. -- Dissident (Talk) 17:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Evidence presented by FrancisTyers ·

Guy inserted a number of paragraphs of copyvio text from the Zionist Organisation of America (and some other sources) in his rewrite. [20] Kim has a summary in this Word document [21]. At first a few paragraphs were found to be lifted word-for-word, and subsequently more were. Some of these may have been from the version before Guy started editing. - FrancisTyers · 17:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Evidence presented by User:KimvdLinde

Pre-move article dynamics

An article called the Deir Yassin incident was created at 7 October 2001 [22]. This information was incorperated into the Deir Yassin massacre when it was created. The article Deir Yassin massacre was created at august 4, 2002 (see dissidents evidence). It extisted under that name for nearly 4 years, although at various times, it has been tried to change the name or content to something else, mainly based on the IZL-narrative and the ZOA whitewash paper (see Archive 1 and Archive 2).

Guy Montag unilateral move

On June 29, 2006, User:Guy Montag moved without discussion Deir Yassin massacre to Battle of Deir Yassin [23], and replaced the article [24] with a rewrite he had preparred at his user space (see: User:Guy_Montag/project1). This move/rewrite was contensted, see Talk:Deir Yassin massacre#Total_Rewrite and Talk:Deir Yassin massacre#Battle??? by four editors, and he was asked to move the page back [25], [26], [27], includes reference to violating the terms of his probation, [28].

Contentious editing

Whitewash

Benny Morris (2005: "The Historiography of Deir Yassin". Journal of Israeli History 24 (1): 79-107.) concludes:

The Israeli and Arab narratives cited above raise number of points of disagreement. The main point, of course, related to whether or not there had been a massacre at all (this dispute —between the Arab and the bulk of the Israeli narratives on the one hand, and the core IZL narrative on the other—is partly obscured or caused by unstated semantic differences over what constitutes a "massacre"). (Page 98)

He ends the conlusions with summarizing the events:

Combatants and noncombatants were gunned down in the course of the house-to-house fighting, and, subsequently, after the battle, groups of prisoners and noncombatants were killed in separate, sporadic acts of frenzy and revenge in different parts of the village and outside of Deir Yassin. The remaining villagers were then expelled. But this was no Srebrenica.(Morris (2005), page 100-101)

The Guy Montag version of the article followed the IZL and ZOA version ([29] and [30]) of the events, which is nothing less than a whitewash of a massacre as is confimed by major historians such as Milstein (1998 [1987]: “Chapter 16: Deir Yassin”, History of the War of Independence IV: Out of Crisis Came Decision (in Hebrew, English version translated and edited by Alan Sacks). Lanhan, Maryland: University Press of America, Inc.. ISBN 0761814892, 343-396.) and Morris (2004: The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited. Cambridge, UK ; New York: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0521811201; ISBN 0521009677 (pbk.)).

Claims authority because he read the relevant literature

Guy claims to have read the relevant literature: Historical evidence and studies that delve into the time period have found out new information regarding the battle, that refute earlier descriptions of "massacres". I've done enough research through secondary sources and historical documents that confirm such a view. [31], claiming later that: What I did is organize a cohesive string of events and bundled them with modern historical breakthroughs. [32] [33] [34].

Therefore, I asked him which version of Milstein he has read [35] [36] and he claims English 1999 version [37].

Regardless, he uses the unofficial translation [38] as a copyvio source, so he new the wider context, and also that the ZAO denialist page was contested (Uri Milstein's history forms much of the basis for the ZOA report denying the Deir Yassin Massacre. However, Milstein himself did not deny the massacre.[39]).

Debunking that claim

The claim he read the official english translation is a lie as in that case, the page numbers of the sources should be in between 343 and 396 and not in the 200 range [40] [41]. This casts doubt about his claim he had read it as he claims to have brought the book back to the library: [42] [43]. Furthermore, he claims that the translation is updated with new info [44] which is incorrect because that is normally explicitly noted in the book as that is important for scholars. Additional question by me about the years Milstein covers: [45]; never got an answer. Finally, inserted quotes were identical to the unoffcial online translation, and differed to a large degree with the official translation [46].

reliable sources

After I asked whether Morris was a reliable source, Guy responded: He is a legitimate source, but he bows to Milstein's eminance in regards to military history and the battle of Deir Yassin, as I've quoted earlier. [47].

Misrepresentation of scholary information

• Guy: It was considered a massacre by some polemecists before new evidence and interviews came out in 1997. [48]. Apparently, he include Milstein (1999: Chapter 16: Deir Yassin, Section 12: The Massacre, page 376-381) and Morris (2005: page 100-101) among those polemecists.
• Guy: I've added as much detail to the subject as I could and other editors have every right to add contextual information. [49]
• Guy: Milstein is the most comprehensive composer of information, and he didn't call it a massacre. [50] [51] [52] [53] despite that Milstien even names a whole section The Massacre (Chapter 16: Deir Yassin, Section 12: The Massacre, page 376-381), and he later in an interview explicitly stated:

  "I maintain that even before the establishment of the State, each battle ended with a massacre. . . [The] War of Independence was the dirtiest of them all . . . The idea behind a massacre is to inflict a shock on the enemy, to paralyze the enemy. In the War of Independence everybody massacred everybody, but most of the action happened between Jews and Palestinians... The education in the Yishuv at that time had it that the Arabs would do anything to kill us and therefore we had to massacre them. A substantial part of the Jewish public was convinced that the most cherished wish of say, a nine-year old Arab child, was to exterminate us. This belief bordered on paranoia." Professor Uri Milstein, quoted in Ha'ir, "Not Only Deir Yassin" 6 May 1992 (article by Guy Erlich, translation Elias Davidsson)

• Guy: instead of accepting the pov of one side. [54] [55]. That would be Milstein and Morris!
• Guy: I have to call an end to the shenanagins here. The article I wrote is not specifically about the alleged massacre, but about the battle with the allegations of mass killings as a subarticle. supported by others: Bibigon
• Guy: Finally, that quote about old people women and children is completely out of context or suspiciously from Morris.[56] when Milstien says: Indeed, it cannot be denied: most of those killed at Deir Yassin were old people, woman and children. (Milstein, page 376, available in unofficial translation [57])
• He denounces Morris (WP:RS according to Guy [58]): Benny Morris doesn't actually use recent information, just rehashed claims by Catling and others, all debunked. [59] Compare the backcover of Morris 2004 book: 'Birth.. revisited' represents a throroughly revised edition of earlier work, compiled on the basis of newly opened Israeli militairy archives and intelligence documentation.

Selective removal of well-sourced information

Guy claims to have removed: ...and deleted information that was vague, didn't have any context or were general statements of the pov of some eye witnesses after the fact of the battle. [60]

Apparently, this included information out of the 2006 publication by Yoav Gelber, a noted Israeli historian [61]: Although the Irgun and Lehi claimed subsequently that foreign combatants were present in the village all contemporary and later Arab testimonies, including those of the refugees themselves, as well as SHAI's Arab sources, confirm that the villagers were the only combatants present. Menachem Begin claimed in his memoirs that Iraqi troops were present in Deir Yassin, but these were in fact stationed in Ain Karim (Gelber, 2006, p. 311).

Another clearcut removal of well sourced information (original pre-Guy version versus Guy version):

In 1969, the Israeli Foreign Ministry published a pamphlet “Background Notes on Current Themes: Deir Yassin” in English denying that there had been a massacre at Deir Yassin, and calling the story "part of a package of fairy tales, for export and home consumption". The pamphlet led to a series of derivative articles giving the same message, especially in America. Menachem Begin's Herut party disseminated a Hebrew translation in Israel, causing a widespread but largely non-public debate within the Israeli establishment. Several former leaders of the Hagannah demanded that the pamphlet be withdrawn on account of its inaccuracy, but the Foreign Ministry explained that "While our intention and desire is to maintain accuracy in our information, we sometimes are forced to deviate from this principle when we have no choice or alternative means to rebuff a propaganda assault or Arab psychological warfare." Yitzhak Levi, the 1948 leader of Hagannah Intelligence, wrote to Begin: "On behalf of the truth and the purity of arms of the Jewish soldier in the War of Independence, I see it as my duty to warn you against continuing to spread this untrue version about what happened in Deir Yassin to the Israeli public. Otherwise there will be no avoiding raising the matter publicly and you will be responsible." Eventually, the Foreign Ministry agreed to stop distributing the pamphet, but it remains the source of many popular accounts. (Original information from Morris 2005, pp80-85, see also: Milstein, chapter 16, section 15, page 386, who also writes: Even in 1987, investigation in the affair made certain senior public officials apprehensive, and pressure was applied on the author to be less than thorough Page 386).

Change: Hagannah opposition removed, withdrawl of pamphlet removed, explanation of Foreign Ministry for distortion removed, Yitzhak Levi's statement removed.

Conclusion: revisionist positive material remained, counter material, which was based on WP:RS, was removed selectively.

Original research: massacre definition

According to Guy Montag: A massacre is a premeditated mass murder of civilians. No evidence shows that there were killings of groups of people after the battle was over. [62] [63] [64] [65] adding at one time: If there was no organization to their killing then it can't be catagorized as a massacre. [66] He even claims that: It is now widely known that there was no actual massacre as defined by dictionaries, but simply deaths during a battle. [67]

Some dictionary definitions to compare:

1. a brutal slaughter of a large number of people Oxford Dictionary
2. The act or an instance of killing a large number of humans indiscriminately and cruelly. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language
3. the act or an instance of killing a number of usually helpless or unresisting human beings under circumstances of atrocity or cruelty Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
4. the savage and excessive killing of many people Dictionary definition

Conclusion: None includes the need for organisation, or being after a battle. As such, his definition is at odds with dictionary definitions and needs to be considered original research, which has been pointed out to him [68]

Original research: self-reference to article

Guy was repeatly asked for sources claiming there was no massacre [69] [70] [71] [72] [73] [74] [75]. His responses was to refer to the article itself [76] [77] [78] or with a large explanation why he thinks it is just a battle [79] in which he mentions Milstein, but fails to provide evidence for the claim that it was not massacre.

Original research: alteration of source

Guy Montag copies in: Other fighters confirmed afterwards that indeed one of the Arabs was about to shoot. (see User:Guy_Montag/project1). The only place where the first part of the sentense shows up is at wikipedia and in the unofficial translation google search. However, the unofficial translation says: Other fighters confirmed afterwards that indeed one of the Arabs was about to {text is defective in Hebrew - A.I.}.[80]. In the official translation, the sentence is translated as:Other men confirmed later that one of the Arabs had stood up. (Milstein (1999), Chapter 16: Deir Yassin, Section 12: The Massacre, page 381). The difference between the source and Guys completion is clear.

Original research to push POV: primary sources

A major issue resultng in substantial original research is the over usage of eye-witness accounts. With historical events like this, there will be always a substantial number of eye-witness accounts available, and they can be grouped in anyway to result in a favourable POV. This article, in old and new version is riddled with eye-witness accounts. Eyewitness accounts should be used only in context with conclusions of scholars.

Copyright violations

All copyvio's are listed here: http://www.kimvdlinde.com/wikipedia/Deir_Yassin_Copyright_violation.doc and includes copying from:

1. http://groups.msn.com/Mishpocha/deiryassin.msnw, Deir Yassin: History of a Lie March 9, 1998 © 2000 The Zionist Organization of America (mirror)
2. http://www.aish.com/jewishissues/middleeast/Arab-Israeli_Conflict_2_1948_War_of_Independence.asp or http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/deir_yassin.html (mirrors)
3. http://www.ariga.com/peacewatch/dycg.htm
4. http://www.ariga.com/peacewatch/dy/umilst.htm
5. http://www.etzel.org.il/english/ac17.htm

Dynamics: Denies copyvio, changes that to ZOA to be credited, followed by more denial (only primary sources quoted) then will request permission [81] WP:AN/I.

Votestacking

1. Leifern opposed
2. Moshe_Constantine_Hassan_Al-Silverburg opposed
3. IZAK opposed
4. Crzrussian opposed (includes WP:CIVIL violation)
5. Irongaard opposed (changed username in the mean time)

Attacks

• Guy: My ban is related to Kim having an axe to grind with editors who hold pro Israeli views, and not the content of the page [82] My view is quite ok towards Israel, so I do not see why I have an axe to grind. I am critical, but not against the existence and to a degree, I actually understand their actions in the Middle-East. (more attacks [83])
• Liefern: I am sorry you have such an unmitigated animus toward Israel, but facts are facts [84] (and some more attacks [85] [86] [87] as well as biased editing [88])

Page ban of Guy Montag

Guy is on probation, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Yuber#Guy_Montag_placed_on_probation.

Guy reported for violation (page move, biased editing, votestacking) [89], banned by User:Ral315 [90], confirmed by User:Fred Bauder [91], unbanned by involved admin User:Briangotts [92] [93] who earlier had voted oppose and shows lack of NPOV here.

Banned again by FrancisTyers for copyvio [94] [95] who gets a message of User:SlimVirgin [96] User_talk:FrancisTyers/Archive6#Your_note and unbans Guy [97] [98] [99].

Continued POV-pushing

The article suffers from continued POV-pushing, especially Amoruso (talk · contribs). -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 17:42, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

It does, but not from me. The very name is POV. Amoruso 23:25, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

My page move

I should not have moved the page as I was myself marginally involved by starting a poll whether the page should be moved back and voted in support for that. The rational for the move was posted at WP:AN/I, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive121#Guy_Montag_banned_from_Battle_of_Deir_Yassin here and the analysis and conclusion was considered valid [100] [101] and was moved to Deir Yassin massacre by an uninvolved admin [102]. Uninvoled admins told me that I should have not moved it myself as I was involved. Is dealt with here Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Israeli_apartheid/Workshop#Administrators_admonished and here Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Israeli_apartheid/Proposed_decision#Administrators_admonished.

More

Guy Montag and others have been repeatedly asked to provide evidence from reliable sources for their contention that the correct title was Battle of Deir Yassin, for which never an aswer came (see #Original research: self-reference to article). Polls are not votes, but a way to generate discussion and find consensus, see WP:DR#Conduct_a_survey. As this was a page move survey, it was listed at Wikipedia:Requested_moves. If one thing became clear from the discussion, than it is that there are no reliable sources that suggest that Battle of Deir Yassin is a better name than Deir Yassin massacre.

Some SlimVirgin distortions

• Claim 1: after which she became an active editor of the article. I made this initial edit, which consisted out of removing a duplicated paragraph (directly about the removed paragraph), which is NOT content but housekeeping. After that, I made one more edit to the article [103] which was a spellings error. The next edit was to move the page. Only after the page move, I edited the article based on the literature that I had collected from the library. I am so utterly not interested in articles of this category (I have done only minor editing (typos, grammar, etc) on this type of articles (except as a mediator)), but as I had the literature, I felt it would be opportune to insert soem scholary information.
• Claim 2:The result of the page-move poll was no consensus to move the page back to Deir Yassin massacre. See Talk:Deir_Yassin_massacre#Move closure for the assessment of an uninvolved admin, see also above.
• Claim 3: She added that, because she was involved in the content dispute, an uninvolved admin should close the poll. I said: As I started the vote to get an idea if the unilateral move was supporeted by the community, I feel another admin should review the case and close the vote. Only after Guy Montag was banned, I closed the poll as an uninvolved editor had confirmed the votestaking by him.
• Claim 4: It was therefore a misuse of her admin position for her to declare the vote invalid because she didn't like the outcome, close it in her own favor, and move the page to the title she preferred, a move that required admin tools. This is the opinion of SlimVirgin about my motivtion, which is incorrect. I was here to help building an encyclopedia, and an encyclopedia should be NPOV. The poll was to get an idea about the sources at both sides, which showed to be absent for the original unilateral move. If there had been good sources, I would not have moved the page. The assumption by SlimVirgin that I had a other motivation is assuming bad faith from her side.

Evidence presented by {your user name}

First assertion

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion, for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring". Here you would list specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring

Second assertion

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion, for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks". Here you would list specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.