File talk:Etzel diryasin.jpg

Battle vs. massacre

There has been an edit war for the past two weeks. Stop it. Commons is not a forum for such discussions. If it is about the description in language X, take it to the Wikipedia in that language. If you keep editwarring, you'll be blocked. Paradoctor (talk) 20:56, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The edit war was not about the name of the article in any other Wikipedia rather than judgmental POV-related edits by TheRealHuldra as you can learn from his edit summary ("Killing women and children, and STEALING from the survivors; (read the article9)"). I must say that though this is not the best solution, linking from the file's description to the article and letting the reader take its own judgment is a good solution. Tomer A. (talk) 07:07, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reason given in the edit by TheRealHuldra was certainly inappropriate. But editwarring is no solution. We work by consensus, which means that the first step in any content dispute is discussion. I see that you gave a policy-related reason in your first revert, which is ok in my book. At this very moment it was clear that you two had a content dispute. Every revert after that was editwarring, both by you and TheRealHuldra. If you two keep that in mind, it should improve your own Commons experience, as well as anyone else's. I know, the arguing can be a drag, but it beats the alternative. And you're never alone in here, outside views can sometimes be surprisingly helpful. I'll gladly put in my two cents on request.

"not about the name of the article": Sure, but wasn't it you who used the Hebrew Wikipedia's designation of the incident as argument?

On the upshot, since you indicated acceptance of the current state of the description, I trust it we can consider this issue peacefully resolved? Paradoctor (talk) 12:19, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Folks: This is not a "new" dispute, it has been going on over on English wikipedia for years. Basically; (ok; my take on this): followers, or people who are symphathetic to Irgun and Lehi has been trying for years to get this known as a "battle". There have been Arb.com-rulings on this on English wp; and the end result (for good reason, IMO) has been that it is known as "a massacre" and not as "a battle". See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deir_Yassin_massacre and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Deir_Yassin_massacre Calling it a "battle" is simply attempts at whitewashing, IMO. Cheers, TheRealHuldra (talk) 17:43, 14 March 2010 (UTC) (ps: btw, I´m a "her", not a "him" ;))[reply]

Thanks for the info on the history of this, I'll keep it in mind. Since the matter is settled, I'll go meddling elsewhere. ;) Paradoctor (talk) 19:56, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, and sorry for the SHOUTING in the edit summary ;) Cheers, TheRealHuldra (talk) 20:04, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to put things in the right context: procedurally- After seeing this turning into an edit war i asked here that someone will take another look with no result for a few days. to the matter itself- I used the argument of the article name as a reply to this edit summary. With all due respect to the English wikipedia and its arbcom rulings, this is a different project, Deciding based on what happens in the En wiki is an ethnocentric deed. My political views are far from being sympathetic to the lechi and Etzel (Irgun) but given the things in this talk page we can at least say that viewing this occurrence is disputable. have no doubt, this result is presenting a POV, it's just that i have better things to spend my time on. Tomer A. (talk) 14:26, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"no result for a few days": Sorry to hear that, drop me a line the next time it happens. Doesn't change the fact that an edit war is a collaborative game.

"Deciding based on what happens in the En wiki is an ethnocentric deed": "English" is not an ethnic concept. If the Hebrew Wikipedia decides that "battle" is the correct designation, I have no problem with a Hebrew description using this term. If you can show that "massacre" is the wrong term in English, WP is the first one interested in knowing about it. Files is our forte, facts is what Wikipedia is good at. The only alternative is not to describe at all. Paradoctor (talk) 15:00, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As stated, Commons is a server for wikipedia's, why we generally don't care a lot about NPOV. We do care about making the correct links to the various articles. All wikipedia's are some way or another ethnocentric, but most interwiki's of w:Deir Yassin massacre point to other massacres (the scandinavian IW's need badly updating). Frankly, what else can we do, maybe writing Mystery of Deir Yassin ? --Foroa (talk) 15:33, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This would be disputed as well, I'm afraid. We could describe it as "about what happened at GPS coordinates foo and time-coordinate bar". ;)

Thinking about it, that doesn't sound bad, actually. Imagine being able to search for files and articles by specifying ranges of spacetime coordinates. Commons:Geocoding provides the spatial data, shouldn't be too hard to extract time metadata, and make them available to the advanced search. Paradoctor (talk) 16:33, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

_{added after edit clash (sorry, I'm not familiar with the templates yet.}

Paradoctor, "English" is not an ethnic concept - En wiki is. It is based mostly on people which English is their first language. this means that their country of origin is of some finite set of countries. Their point of view does not necessarily represent the facts. Furthermore, your choice of words is not good. I do not need to show that massacre is the wrong term in English (since such a proof is based on historical facts and this will be an original research). What needs to do be shown is which name is commonly used. for that matter a Google search should give some initial results. "dir yassin massacre" gives about 1,300 results, "dir yassin battle" yields around 2400 results. The subject of the name in English cannot be determined by WP alone.

Foroa, "we generally don't care a lot about NPOV". Well, that's too bad, I can't imagine the uploader of this image contributing any more images to commons when him, or perhaps, his grandfather being presented as someone who butchered women and children. I don't know him so I can't speak for him, but I don't think he wants any special consideration for being the original uploader, only a fair presentation of the story. To your question, how should we call it? I still don't know, but i'm sure that by a collaborative work we can figure something out.

Regading the "proofs" brought here from en wiki. I did not yet read through all talk pages, but the ARBCOM ruling is definitely not about the article title. The ruling can be interpreted as either supporting the word "battle" or abstain decision over this matter. Tomer A. (talk) 17:07, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Google Scholar is generally a better source than Google for such matters. It finds 17 for "Dir Yassin massacre" and 0 for "Dir Yassin battle". Most of the results of the a search for "dir yassin" use massacre or compatible terms to describe the event.[1] Tomer A, please desist from edit warring. I find no evidence of support in the scholarly literature for your assertion that "Dir Yassin massacre" is biased. Please remember that the criterion is not truth, the criterion is what reliable sources say about a topic. Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:29, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

it is very hard to have to have two different conversions with people claiming to represent the same truth (commons policy) but giving mixing arguments. If you read carefully through this conversion you can see that it was I who said that the criterion is not the truth. A quick search in Google scholar can not lead you seriously to the conclusion that "I find no evidence of support in the scholarly literature" as those were presented by TheRealHuldra in the beginning of this paragraph. Needless to say that you did not responded to anything I wrote but quickly jumped to ask me to desist from editwarring (without checking what is the stable version). very well, let's have a full, meaningful discussion. For that matter, I ask that the article be restored to its stable version until the end of the discussion. Since I'm not familiar with the internal pages here I ask that someone will be kind enough to post a notice in the relevant noticeboard. Tomer A. (talk) 18:39, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You posted on COM:AN/B asking for comments.[2] Both Foroa and I have responded. I'm sorry that our responses were not to your liking. On Commons, we don't have resources to spend debating matters that are best resolved on enwiki and other projects; for that reason, we discourage the importation of content disputes from other wikis. You would be well-advised to pursue this issue elsewhere, if you choose. Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:24, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, the uploader of this image used the words: "Deir Yassin massacre" [3]. Secondly, I participate on English wp (my username there is Huldra)- -and my impression is that most of the editors there in the I/P-area are not native English-speakers. (I´m Scandinavian myself)-so to say that En. wp is ethnocentric is not quite correct, IMO. Btw, the "google-result" Tomer gives are to the Hebrew -google; and I agree: Google Scholar is in any case a better source. Anyway, if you look at the arb.com rulings I linked to, it started with a guy moving the article from "Deir Yassin massacre" to "Deir Yassin battle." After tons of discussions (there are many, many Hebrew speakers on En. wp)..it was, after looking at the scholarly writings, decided that the correct name would be "Deir Yassin massacre". I feel that this discussion here is "deja vu all over again", as the Americans say..;) Cheers, TheRealHuldra (talk) 20:17, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

@Tomer: Search engine tests are dreadfully sensitive to spelling:

"ethnic concept - En wiki is": Would that be the same English that is spoken by natives in India, Africa, Europe, the Americas, Australia and Arctic and Antarctic, as well as in orbit?

"his grandfather being presented as someone who butchered women and children": I'm German. My advice: get used to it. Everybody has relatives they'd rather forget about. You can take neither credit nor blame for their actions. Worry about your own conduct. If our ancestors had heeded this advice, a lot less blood would have been shed. Paradoctor (talk) 20:33, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tomar A.; I realized that I didn't explicitly respond to your request that the article be restored to your version which I think is what you meant by "its stable version". I'm denying your request. Also, it is my opinion that this discussion is at an end. Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention. Walter Siegmund (talk) 21:39, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've wasted enough of my time here. Please ignore my previous requests, frankly my dears, i don't give a damn. Tomer A. (talk) 23:58, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File talk:Etzel diryasin.jpg

Battle vs. massacre

Navigation menu

Search