Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deir Yassin massacre

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 02:56, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deir Yassin massacre

Original research. War propaganda used during the Israeli War of Independence by the Arab States in an attempt to shame Arabs into killing Jews. This has been openly admitted by Arab leaders in the past. Even if that were not so, ### no evidence supports the occurence of such an act. As this article is a known forgery whose only purpose is to incite racial hatred, it should be deleted. MSTCrow 05:56, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

Keep - The massacre most certainly occurred, and there are plenty of evidence in the article, from Arab, Jewish and international sources. User:MSTCrow brings no sources for his denial of the massacre.--Doron 07:01, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
See http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=18072 for sources. We cannot allow anti-Semitic rants based on original research to be propogated on Wikipedia. MSTCrow 22:56, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
The Deir Yassin affair is certainly notable. There are these possibilities:-
- 254 people were killed. (original propaganda in 1948)
- About 100 to 120 people were killed. (later opinion)
- Nobody was killed (except in battle). (seems to be implied by the sentence marked ### hereinabove)

Unless we can choose absolutely which is these is true, we better leave the evidence up and let the reader decide.
By "known forgery", do we mean that these quoted reports are not from the papers and publications that they are said to be from? Or what?
I spent some time tidying this article, but I did not alter its meaning or add more matter.

Please can we properly define the difference between "original research" and other ways of getting hold of information?

Anthony Appleyard 07:07, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - don't be silly. --Irishpunktom\^talk
Keep - whatever the truth this is notable--Doc Glasgow 12:36, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This appears to be well-cited. If you have information that the sources are incorrect, you should provide those sources and write about the controversy on the article. ESkog 14:01, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is little verifiable evidence that this really occured outside of Arab Propaganda. Deir Yassin is similar to the Jenin Massacre where ~~3000~~ make that ~~1500~~, would you beleive ~~600~~?, perhaps 50 were killed. Klonimus 14:30, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The event occured and the article is accurate.--Cynical 14:46, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Some people don't believe in the occurance of the incident . That doesn't mean that the article is of no significance .It is definitely worth a mention . However ,the article should be edited to match the beliefs of all in a nuetral manner. --IncMan 16:39, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Important event, article well cited. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:34, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Even if it were a hoax (I don't know one way or another) this would not preclude an encyclopedic article. We do have Zinoviev Letter, for instance. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:25, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- We also have Protocols of the Elders of Zion Klonimus 03:57, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed we do. But I thought you were in favor of deleting this article? Why are you doing so while simultaneously advancing excellent reasons to keep it? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:15, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. What Tony said. When you disagree with the accuracy of an article, you don't demand its deletion, you start an accuracy dispute. ---Isaac R 19:51, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This also matches the criteria for page deletion based on the "No original research" policy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research. One cannot have an accuracy dispute over something that never occurred. MSTCrow 22:58, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
- I don't think you can understand the No Original Research rule if you think it applies here. Elsewhere you have suggested that the article should be deleted because someone called David Meir-Levi says it never happened. Mr Meir-Levi's published view should probably be reported within the article, though it would be better if you could find a source more credible than the rightwing extremist Frontpagemag.com. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:23, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article contains references to other sources, so it is not original research (in fact, I wished more articles had so many references). Article has been around for years, has been extensively discussed on its talk page, and even went through peer review. Take your problems to the talk page. -- Jitse Niesen 03:05, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and cleanup. Notable event. Megan1967 06:46, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am quite shocked that some people are trying to make out that the Deir Yassin massacre never happened. PatGallacher 10:55, 2005 May 20 (UTC)
- A reply was sent to me, which I have posted on the talk page. PatGallacher 09:42, 2005 May 23 (UTC)
Keep - and cleanup, the style of the article is horrible. --Elian 23:23, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Obviously a notable historical event - otherwise nobody would be loudly demanding deletion claiming fraud, would they? --FCYTravis 23:45, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obviously there are many who believe the article to be useful. As long as there is controversy there is no reason to delete. That would stifle discussion and ignore one point of view.
Keep notable historical event. JamesBurns 09:41, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Its an important event. But the present entry has serious flaws. Quoting from clearly POV sources should be done carefully so that readers of the entry can evaluate the statements in the context of the bias from which they came.--Jsolinsky 19:04, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obviously. The article may have issues, but this was a real and notable event, documented by many sources, even if details remain in dispute.--Goodoldpolonius2 19:42, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Of course. Its nomination here is a remarkable example of Nakba denial. - Mustafaa 21:16, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.