Talk:Sabra and Shatila massacre/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Great work

I just wanted to say to Mustafaa: great work. I'm sure we won't yet have full consensus on this -- we probably never will -- but I believe you have vastly improved the article. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:06, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

I believe it is vastly improved as well, but I still want to go over some issues. I might not have time till the weekend, though. Jayjg 01:31, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

One Addition

Mustafaa, I promised much more stuff but have been too busy lately. One thing that sticks out and could be fixed quickly is the beginning of the invasion. Yes, it is my fault for adding only the Argov incident, which now makes it sounds as if it was the main reason for invasion, which is of course wrong. So, the sentence:

• "On 1982-06-06 Israel invaded Lebanon in response to the attempted assassination of Israeli Ambassador Shlomo Argov by Abu Nidal in London on June 4."

should be expanded. This is a quickie list of basic facts:

• Israel had been bombing Lebanon/PLO for months, from the air, sea and land; and preparing for the invasion (see below, they couldn't have pulled of the invasion in a matter of days otherwise.)
• There was the attempted assassination Shlomo Argov ...
• The assassination attempt was used by Begin as an impetus to shortcut the Knesset's debate and move into Lebanon without full approval.
• Israel invaded with 60,000 troops.

I'll post links and add more explanations if needed. HistoryBuffEr 08:56, 2004 Dec 2 (UTC)

Here's a very different view of what prompted the beginning of the invasion:

In March 1978, PLO terrorists infiltrated Israel. After murdering an American tourist walking near an Israeli beach, they hijacked a civilian bus. The terrorists shot through the windows as the bus traveled down the highway. When Israeli troops intercepted the bus, the terrorists opened fire. A total of 34 hostages died in the attack. In response, Israeli forces crossed into Lebanon and overran terrorist bases in the southern part of that country, pushing the terrorists away from the border. The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) withdrew after two months, allowing United Nations forces to enter. But UN troops were unable to prevent terrorists from reinfiltrating the region and introducing new, more dangerous arms.

Violence escalated with a series of PLO attacks and Israeli reprisals. Finally, the United States helped broker a cease­fire agreement in July 1981. The PLO repeatedly violated the cease-fire over the ensuing 11 months. Israel charged that the PLO staged 270 terrorist actions in Israel, the West Bank and Gaza, and along the Lebanese and Jordanian borders. Twenty­nine Israelis died and more than 300 were injured in the attacks.

Meanwhile, a force of some 15-18,000 PLO members was encamped in scores of locations in Lebanon. About 5,000-6,000 were foreign mercenaries, coming from such countries as Libya, Iraq, India, Sri Lanka, Chad and Mozambique. Israel later discovered enough light arms and other weapons in Lebanon to equip five brigades. The PLO arsenal included mortars, Katyusha rockets and an extensive anti­aircraft network. The PLO also brought hundreds of T­34 tanks into the area. Syria, which permitted Lebanon to become a haven for the PLO and other terrorist groups, brought surface-to-air missiles into that country, creating yet another danger for Israel.

Israeli strikes and commando raids were unable to stem the growth of this PLO army. The situation in the Galilee became intolerable as the frequency of attacks forced thousands of residents to flee their homes or to spend large amounts of time in bomb shelters. Israel was not prepared to wait for more deadly attacks to be launched against its civilian population before acting against the terrorists.

The final provocation occurred in June 1982 when a Palestinian terrorist group led by Abu Nidal attempted to assassinate Israel's Ambassador to Great Britain, Shlomo Argov. The IDF subsequently attacked Lebanon again on June 4-5, 1982. The PLO responded with a massive artillery and mortar attack on the Israeli population of the Galilee. On June 6, the IDF moved into Lebanon to drive out the terrorists in "Operation Peace for Galilee."

Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger defended the Israeli operation: "No sovereign state can tolerate indefinitely the buildup along its borders of a military force dedicated to its destruction and implementing its objectives by periodic shellings and raids" (Washington Post, June 16, 1982).

"On Lebanon, it is clear that we and Israel both seek an end to the violence there, and a sovereign, independent Lebanon," President Reagan said June 21, 1982. "We agree that Israel must not be subjected to violence from the north."[3]

Also, it's unclear why Israel couldn't have mobilized that quickly. Do you have any sources for your various claims? Jayjg 01:38, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree this should be expanded. I'll see what I can do a bit later... - Mustafaa 03:14, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Referencing complete

I notice quite a few of our references are from websites that may or may not be reliable. Anyway, should anyone note any other websites/references, etc, please consult cite your sources. thanks! - Ta bu shi da yu 06:09, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That's why I was stressing using the Kahan Commission report.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 11:37, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)

1. When a source is referenced in an article, it should not be added at the bottom as well, we don't double link articles.
2. The references are mostly external links; references are books published elsewhere. Jayjg 02:32, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If no-one objects, I will be changing these links to follow Wikipedia standards in the next couple of days. Jayjg 15:27, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

So can we take off the NPOV tag yet? - Mustafaa 12:05, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It's fine with me, but do you object to cleaning up the references? Jayjg 16:50, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Cool. I have no particular opinion on how best to present the references. As long as they're all in there, any way is fine with me. - Mustafaa 17:19, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Elie Hobeika death date

Death date for Elie Hobeika was recently changed from January 24, 2004 to January 24, 2002. I believe the change is correct, but cannot verify, because the citation given -- http://www.worldpress.org/Mideast/460.cfm -- is, at least temporarily, a dead link. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:08, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

Many other sources give the same date, e.g. [4]. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:52, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The other Massacre

I would like to ask for the text below to be deleted as it seems to be some kind of political point that is made. 'Muslim' can mean many things, at the very minimum it should be stated who these militiamen were, what party or organization did they belong to? If this is about the 'War of the camps' it would be appropriate to have it changed to something along the lines of: 'The camps were also the scene of atrocities during the 'War of the camps' '. It is also questionable to talk of 'a similar attack', we are talking about a massacre that made some 400,000 Israelis take to the streets of Tel Aviv. The Peace Now movement was founded in response.

'In 1985 Muslim militiamen carried out a similar attack against the same Shatila refugee camp and the Burj-el Barajneh refugee camp nearby, killing at least 635 and wounding more than 2500. The better-known 1982 incident is the focus of this article'.

According to UN officials, they were Nabi Berri's Amal militia. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:28, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Precisely my point, this is known as the 'War of the camps', we could list many more refugee camps where massacres took place during this period, it seems more relevant under Lebanese history, or history of the civil war in Lebanon. Amal is a shiite based political movement, but they are not advocating an Islamic state so the term 'Muslim' seems irrelevant. A last point, the 1982 massacre was not an 'incident' so I call for the paragraph to be deleted or changed as suggested above.

I would like to suggest this paragraph be changed.

I am glad that Jayg found out the name of the militia, and I propose that we change the paragraph to be more specific. And I would welcome a full overview of all the massacres and atrocities that took place during the Lebanese Civil War, since most people seem to misled by propaganda into believing that the only atrocity was the Sabra and Shatila massacre, for which they hold Israel fully responsible. Perhaps there should be a category called "Middle Eastern massacres" that would include the catalogue of the vast array of such events, of which Israel was directly or indirectly involved in only a few. Of course, that would defeat the purpose of some participants here, in that it would highlight the fact that Israel has played but a minor role in the relentless bloodletting in the area. --Leifern 15:24, 2005 Mar 15 (UTC)

You seem to miss the point, this is not inconvenient in any way for 'anti-Zionists'. The 'war of the camps' is a well known fact. My suggestion above: 'The camps were also the scenes of atrocities during the 'War of the camps' and then a reference to another entry (eg. Lebanese History).

a) Please sign your entries. b) I'm not missing the point at all - I simply want readers to understand the full context for what they're reading. There is a separate article on the Lebanese Civil War that mentions several of these camp massacres, but this particular article should make it clear that at least Shatila was the scene of several massacres. My editorial aside has to do with the fact that there is always a lot of enthusiasm about fixing blame on Jews.. sorry, Israelis when it comes to conflicts in the Middle East, but much less interest in setting the record straight on other events. It's inconvenient for anti-Zionists to publicize the fact that the inhabitants of Shatila had to endure two massacres, and from two separate (and supposedly opposing) militias; it's much more convenient to let people believe that there was one massacre, and that this was Sharon's fault. --Leifern 19:33, 2005 Mar 15 (UTC)

The "full context" is infinite. We always have to make decisions how broad a context is appropriate to each individual article. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:23, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

I do not see your addition as providing a context. You are stating yourself that you have an agenda. Again, it is not inconvenient at all for this to be published as it is a well known fact. I am merely attacking the way it is done. Your use of 'Muslim' militiamen creates a false impression, it also goes a long way in explaining where you are coming from: Seeing the conflicts in the region as religiously based, muslims versus jews etc. If your agenda is to ensure the reader is aware of the 'war of the camps', what is wrong with my suggestion? Please respond to this specifically, I am more than happy for it to say Amal was the culprit by the way, does not trouble me at all, I have a feeling most anti-Zionists would agree....Tiller1 22:14, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't have any other agenda than presenting readers with a complete version of the truth. It certainly provides context to know that the massacre (tragically) was one of several; I would certainly welcome an article on the "war of the camps," where this is one of several listed. I have stated that I am open to another label than "Muslim," and I never meant to imply that massacring women and children is a characteristically Muslim thing to do - heaven forbid! But you will note that in the article itself, it is made clear that the 1982 massacre was carried out by Maronite Christian militias (sic). One would think that if characterizing the professed religion of one group of criminals would set a precedent for characterizing the other the same way. --Leifern 01:19, 2005 Mar 16 (UTC)

On the other hand, why not create an entry for Shatila camp and place the info there? 'Sabra and Shatila massacre' is after all quite specifically pointing to one massacre. Tiller1 22:18, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What I'd like to see, quite honestly, is a category that describes all the massacres carried out in Lebanese camps and equally full articles on each of them. While it is true that the massacre in Sabra and Shatila are particularly important in Israeli politics, it would be offensive to suggest that the deaths of those killed in other massacres matter less. --Leifern 01:19, 2005 Mar 16 (UTC)

[Resetting the margin] This discussion seems to be heading to a good place. Please create an article on the "War of the Camps". And we can then link to this article from there and also create an article on the Shatila/Burj al Barajneh episodes. It would be good to provide the part of the world that only knows about the Sabra and Shatila one to get a bigger picture.

Having said that, the reason the Sabra and Shatila episode is much better-known is that a Defense Minister in what is often referered to (or was till very recently) as "the only democracy in the Middle East" was pointed to by a commission in his own country as being, at least partly responsible. (The fact that such a commission came into existence and then said what they said, is a testament to there being a democracy in the State of Israel, of course. And that should also be pointed out.)—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 03:11, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)

Trying to make things consistent with other war articles, I created a campaignbox for the War of the Camps and included all attacks I was aware of on camps in Lebanon since, well, Black September. There are probably more that need to be added. I decided to include the siege as well, since this was the equivalent of an outright massacre. Articles need to be written on these, as well as on the War of the Camps in general. We should also create a map. This could end up being very informative. --Leifern 13:52, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)

Battlebox

I'm not sure the addition of the "battlebox" to this article is entirely appropriate, especially because it effectively identifies the Palestinian refugees as "combattants". This was a massacre, not a battle. Either the template has to be modified so that can be recognized, or we should insert it once with "subst" and edit accordingly. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:42, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

I believe the Phalangists claim it was a battle. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:49, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, I was thinking of changing the titles to "parties" or something more neutral. These massacres were acts of war, though arguably criminal ones. That would avoid the back and forth on whether there were combatants. --Leifern 19:11, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)

claims of 2750 deaths

i suggest that we consider deleting the statement about 2750+ deaths as reported by the red cross, unless someone can document that the red cross actually said this, rather than simply that a certain number of sites with a clear agenda asserted that the red cross said this. note in particular that there are sharply different figures also attached to the red cross. furthermore, although the wikipedia article asserts that "several sources" give this figure, it's obvious that they are all in fact derived from one single source. take a look at the two sources here: one of them [broken in wikipedia] is al-jazeera's statement in

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/B26B8CE1-49E1-47FF-9ED5-8E1AE1305CC4.htm

"The exact number of victims will never be known. The International Committee for the Red Cross initially counted 1500 bodies at the time, but by 22 September this count had risen to 2400. The next day, another 350 corpses were uncovered, raising the total to 2750.

However, this toll does not include those still unaccounted for, buried in mass graves or carted away by militiamen, never to be seen again.

On 16 December 1982, the UN General Assembly condemned the massacre and declared it to be an “act of genocide”."

the other is attributed to Prof. Ahmad Tell, who is claimed to be "Dean of Zarka Private National Community College":

http://www.allaboutpalestine.com/sabrashatillapics.html

"The precise number of victims of the massacre may never be exactly determined. The International Committee of the Red Cross counted 1,500 at the time but by September 22 this count had risen to 2,400. On the following day 350 bodies were uncovered so that the total then ascertained had reached 2,750. Kapeliouk points out that to the number of bodies found after the massacre one should add three categories of victims: (a) Those buried in mass graves whose number cannot be ascertained because the Lebanese authorities forbade their opening; (b) Those who were buried under the ruins of houses; and (c) Those who were taken alive to an unknown destination but never returned. The bodies of some of them were found by the side of the roads leading to the south. Kapeliouk asserts that the number of victims may be 3,000 to 3,500, one-quarter of whom were Lebanese, while the remainder were Palestinians.

On December 16, 1982 the United Nations General Assembly condemned the massacre and declared it to be an act of genocide."

look at the wording, and it is obvious that the al-jazeera text is lifted completely from the other text. all other "sources" on the internet also go back to this single text.

so at most we have a single source making a single, unsubstantiated claim about another source. furthermore, it is difficult to tell whether this text, which seems to date from 1999, is even legitimate -- whether Ahmad Tell actually exists, or whether he in fact wrote such an article. for one, i cannot find any reference to where this article originally appeared. also, there is very little information about "ahmad tell" or "ahmad al-tal" anywhere on the internet, and if he was ever associated with Zarqa Private University, he does not appear to be anymore, as there is no reference to him on Zarqa's site. [note also that there is -- at this point, at least -- apparently no single "dean" of this University, and the name "Zarka Private National Community College" appears nowhere except in connection with Ahmad Tell. this is not positive evidence of a forged document, since Zarqa was only founded in 1994 and could have gone through various incarnations since then, but it at least throws into question its legitimacy, esp. given the various other incidents of media forgery or manipulation associated with the Israel-Palestine conflict, e.g. the "massacre of Jenin" and the numerous false statements attributed to Sharon, often complete with bogus citations to reputable sources.]

furthermore, the even more vague claim that "Many Palestinians claim between 3,000 and 3,500" -- based also on a single, highly inflammatory source -- appears to stem from this exact same article. note how the figure 3000-3500 cited here agrees with the figure cited in Tell's article.

so i'd suggest either deleting these or at least reducing both to a statement that clearly indicates the single-source nature of this claim, rather than falsely legitimizing it with qualifiers such as "several sources" and "many palestinians".

Benwing 8 July 2005 02:22 (UTC)

I've argued the same thing before; no-one has been able to find the actual Red Cross documents stating this, or any primary information on these higher numbers. Jayjg ^(talk) 8 July 2005 04:19 (UTC)

I believe (one of) the original sources of the "around 3000" "Red Cross" estimates is the Israeli journalist Amnon Kapeliouk of Le Monde Diplomatique, working from partial Red Cross data. They are much older than Ahmed Tell, dating back at least to Kapeliouk's 1982 book Sabra et Chatila: Enquete sur un Massacre. Don't think I have the book, but that's what Helena Cobban's 1984 The PLO says, and I remember such high estimates at the time. They're both a bit old, but Bayan Nuwayhed al-Hout's recent book should be the best source for the history of the estimates. These estimates should be kept in some form, it is possible that the true toll was that high. I believe that Kapeliouk's book is what Tell is referring to, as well as al-Jazeera, which I doubt got the information from the site rather than the book. The "International Commission of Inquiry" referred to by Tell is probably what is sometimes called the MacBride commission or report after the Irish Nobelist who headed it [5]. Of course the article's citations could be improved, but I hope this helps -at least it is quite a bit better than many sites already, though not up to the highest academic standards. --John Z 8 July 2005 05:18 (UTC)

Well, it's obvious that both al-Jazeera and Tell are reducible to one source in this case. From your description, it still sounds like a single-source estimate, going back to Kapeliouk. Given that there is clear contrary evidence concerning the Red Cross figure, and the fact that these are *by far* the highest numbers (and thus, whether true or not, give the impression that the actual figure is significantly higher than it probably is -- imagine quoting a figure 700-50,000 just because someone asserted 50,000!), I think it's important to go back and verify the actual statement by Kapeliouk. I bet it isn't too hard just to contact him directly nowadays and *ask* him to provide you the relevant info.

In this meantime I'm going to edit the text to reflect its single-sourcedness.

Benwing 8 July 2005 08:53 (UTC)

John, you've significantly altered Benwing's version; could you possibly explain why? Jayjg ^(talk) 16:46, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I found an English translation of Kapeliouk's book, and linked to it. His estimates are in chapter 6. I had suggested it earlier as a possible source of the 2,750 "Red Cross" estimate, and Benwing based his version on that, but on looking at it, this seems to be wrong - rather, he is the source of the 3,000-3,500 estimate from earlier versions. So I just summarized what Kapeliouk actually said, and more or less put the old version back in. I agree that this 2,750 is problematic and needs better sourcing - there may be some double-counting or mistakes as to who actually made these estimates when, since ICRC figures are usually considered very, very strong evidence. - or perhaps they come from preliminary ICRC estimates that they did not feel were good enough to formally release. But again, they are mostly independent of Kapeliouk, and even if not true and not well enough sourced, they appear to be a major estimate.

The Palestine Red Crescent 2,000 estimate is worth noting - it agrees with Kapeliouk's (and others') more solid explicitly counted post facto number which was arrived at by adding ca 800 bodies buried by the authorities and the Red Cross, etc plus 1200 buried by the families, again according to the Red Cross and the government.) On the other end, Schiff and Ya'ari also mention that the 460 number consists of 425 men and 35 women and children, this is seems quite unlikely a priori to be complete, the number of children being impossibly low for reasons I mentioned earlier.

I also added something about the reason for the discrepancies, which I think is generally agreed on - the problem is far from entirely being the usual sort of propaganda war, for there are major difficulties in getting good numbers, as the Lebanese government never allowed digging up mass graves, and researchers are/were in fear of their lives if they tried to find out what happened too zealously. I believe that the number of Lebanese dead who had fled from the south and were only recent arrivals in the camps is a major source of uncertainty, which is why I changed the proportion sentence, based on an NYT report of Thomas Friedman.

I think all these problems are covered in the al Hout book, relating all these estimates, but unfortunately, I only saw and skimmed the book at a bookstore, and when I came back to buy it, it was sold. So it may be a while before I or someone else can add something better. --John Z 21:12, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the Kapeliouk info. His book is well-sourced and certainly deserves mention. However, I've looked at the Kapeliouk book, and it conclusively contradicts Tell's report [please note, you put back the "several sources" language after I specifically showed this to be false]. Note that of the relevant paragraph in Tell's report, 3/4 is taken directly from Kapeliouk. The remaining attribution of 2400 bodies to the International Red Cross is wildly greater than and completely at variance with all other reports, including Kapeliouk's, and hardly appears credible; if that number was anything other than a deliberate falsification, then the essayist would surely have combined it with Kapeliouk's other data to get a figure of 6000 or so. It looks to me like a deliberate falsification, which was then quoted uncritically by al-Jazeera. Given further that the entire essay is totally unverifiable [see my comments above], I have deleted this section. Please do not put it back unless you can locate and verify the actual source, if any, of this claim. Benwing 03:01, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm not going to put it back in again without better sources - I felt I had to because your first version was based on a mistake coming from me - and I am uncomfortable in defending figures I find dubious. I was going to add some language that suggested that, but I disagree that the several sources part has conclusively shown to be false, and I doubt that there is deliberate falsification going on, rather than probably just (biased) errors, carelessness and misattribution. I have a vague feeling I have seen these numbers somewhere else long before, but can't put my finger on it. Kapeliouk worked so soon after the massacres that it is possible the ICRC released some numbers after he did, or put their imprimatur in some fashion on (something like) these disputed numbers, which could very well incorporate the other breakdowns of the numbers in some way. (E.g., they could have released a statement saying we think the Palestine Red Crescent or Kapeliouk numbers are accurate, plus some additional info.) What is troubling is that an ICRC number is usually thought to be a "hard" number, and nobody else's numbers that are more than "very rough" estimates exceeds 2,000. --John Z 05:28, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

OK, sounds good to me. You're right that it may be due to (biased) carelessness rather than deliberate falsification; that's probably too strong a claim. What i mean about the several sources is that in some literal sense, it's true that several sources are making this claim, but unless it can be shown that they don't all derive from the same source, it is not meaningful to state this. In this case, the Al-Jazeera report clearly derives from Tell's, and after an internet search i couldn't find any other sources but these two. Benwing 14:54, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Some more interesting confusion: I took a look at Howard Sachar's History of Israel - a very mainstream scholarly secondary source one might however presume to be pro-Israel, and to therefore logically use low numbers - but he says 2,300 bodies were identified ! (by the 23rd IIRC), unfortunately without a specific source I could find- an example of a supposedly "hard" number - not based on estimation - which is over 2,000. Might be coming from the MacBride report, which was in his references I forgot to check for a mysterious ICRC report. It is notable that the estimates don't line up in the expected manner - there are many low Arab estimates, and high Israeli estimates.--John Z 07:18, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Kinda quasi citation

From the article: "On February 14, 1983, Der Spiegel (a leading German magazine) carried an interview with one of the phalangist who participated to the massacre. According to this person, Israeli soldiers fought along the phalangists and shelled the camp to help them overcome the Palestinian resistance." Name of article? Page number? Author? Anyway, why is this in the main line of the article rather than used as a citation? Could someone at least flesh out this partial citation? -- Jmabel | Talk 23:40, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Norwegian diplomat

"Ane-Karine Arvesen" was recently changed to "Gunnar Flakstad", anonymously and without comment. The latter is the name that John Harbo gave in his comments above. I'm not sure where the former came from. Since an article by Harbo is our citation, and since we definitely established that it is John Harbo we were in touch with (we contacted him through his newspaper to confirm), I'm not too worried about this edit, but I would like to understand what is going on. Unsurprisingly, I do not have access to a copy of Aftenposten from 1982 to check the citation. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:19, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

What???? You don´t have access to a copy of Aftenposten from 1982?? Horrrrrible.. ;D Anyway.....here is what I have managed to dig up, (without going to the nearest University Library to check the microfilm of Aftenposten, 1982)...:

Both Arvesen and Flakstad were Norwegian diplomats, both are now dead (Arvesen last year). Both were in Lebanon for parts of the war (In Fisk´s "Pity the Nation" he mention working with Arvesen in Beirut, June, 1982). However, I can find no account of ms. Arvesen witnessing the Sabra and Shatila massacre. The Friday, September 17 episode about Harbo and Flakstad are fairly well known; besides the the ref. given, it is also e.g. mentioned in "Pity the nation": "A Norwegian diplomat - one of Ane-Karine Arveson´s colleages- had driven down the road outside a few hours earlier and had seen a bulldozer with a dozen corpses in its scoop.." (p365 in my ed.).

There is a book called "Nederlaget" (="The defeat") by Odd Karsten Tveit (He was/is correspondent for the Norwegian Public Radio and Television). Tveit was in Beirut at the time (He also figures in "Pity the nation")..(I don´t think "Nederlaget" is translated into English). The Friday episode is mentioned in "Nederlaget" on p.301 & 302. There Flakstad is named, as the "newly arrived head of the [Norwegian] embassy". Tveit writes that Harbo and Flakstad drove towards Chatila (<-Tveit´s spelling) Friday afternoon from the south when they encountered the bulldozer--and were driven back by furious falangistmilitia before they could investigate further. He also writes that at the same time he entered Chatila with a TV-team from the north. The photographer filmed people saying that the falangist shot everybody. In the Gaza hospital (=in Sabra) people came carrying a small boy who screamed that the falangist had killed his mother and father. Young palestinians offered to show them a house where the whole family were killed, but a man came running and said the falangist had cut off the last open way to the house. Tveit, with his team, retreated out of Sabra the same way they had entered; to the north. ....All this took place on Friday. (Tveit returned the next day, Saturday, with Fisk and Jenkins)

Conclusion: Gunnar Flakstad is definitely the correct name here, I have no idea how Arnesen came into the article (except that she was possible better known?). Regards, Huldra 05:42, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

PS: Also on Friday: 500 palestinians who had escaped north towards the Mazraa-boulevard (under white flags) were turned back by the Israelis. This according to Thomas Friedman, New York Times 26/9-1982 (quoted in Tveit). This is not mentioned in the article. Perhaps somebody could check it?

Why Chomsky?

Why is Noam Chomsky relied upon so heavily in this article? His views are in complete opposition to WP:NPOV. Conspiculously absent are the views of any of these people. Conspicuously, because of the fact that this article seems to have been written by a Chomsky devotée. Or a New York Times journalist. Tomer^TALK 01:20, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

NPOV is not about citing only centrist views. From WP:NPOV: "Articles without bias describe debates fairly instead of advocating any side of the debate." Chomsky is cited here for his opinions, which are either quoted and attributed, or described objectively by that narrative voice of the article. This is entirely appropriate. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:48, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm gonna go ahead and disagree. Chomsky's opinion on the subject is not notable. Just because the man kibbitzes constantly about all manner of things about which he clearly understands very little, doesn't make him a reliable authority. If this were an article about Israeli pronunciation of Hebrew, or about Palestinian Arabic, then his opinions would be worth mentioning, but that's not what this article is about. His highly politicized opinions on Israeli internal military investigations are neither noteworthy nor relevant. Just because he's a famous linguist doesn't make his opinions on Israel any more important than the fact that Paris Hilton or Ron Jeremy are famous make their opinions on US foreign policy relevant. Tomer^TALK 07:19, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Clearly he is not being quoted as a linguist. He is being quoted as one of the leading public intellectuals of the American left. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:45, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Clearly. And so, I again ask, why is he being so heavily relied upon? He's a leading public intellectual, and he's a prominent American leftist, but his rôle as a leading public intellectual is based on the fact that he's a renowned linguist, which he has parlayed into prominence as a leftist. That's the problem. Nowhere in these "qualifications" is his analysis of the Sabra and Shatila massacre established as politically or historically authoritative. His conclusions are (if you read the source material) based on selective readings of the Kahan Commission report and even the conclusions of other leftist commentators. This is hardly what I would call well-established notability for Chomsky's analysis of Israel's capacity to have prevented the massacre. Tomer^TALK 04:30, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

This just seems like you're rationizing down why Chomsky can't be considered in this piece. To be, as you say, politically or historically authoritative and eliminate a man who has spent his life studying these issues, we'd certainly have to toss out your recommended list above of neoconservatives. What you're really concerned about here isn't bias or point of view, it's making sure that your own bias and point of view are prominent. If you've got a problem with Chomsky being in this article, include your own additions with your own sources and let the readers decide, don't omit something because you don't want it to be true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.32.157.25 (talk) 7 Jan 2006

State terrorism

I suppose we could argue for a long time what role Israel played in this, but it's not a good example of state terrorism, which is itself a problematic term if the US State department of terrorism has any meaning. So I removed the category tag. --Leifern 21:07, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Belgian claims

Recently cut:

Documents presented in the Belgian war crimes lawsuit against Ariel Sharon allegedly show that the claim about presence of the PLO fighters in the camps was a cover story prepared by Israel. [6]

I realize the trial never took place, but there were pre-trial hearings. Does anyone know more about the actual content of the documents in question? I'm not at all certain that there is nothing here that belongs in the article. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:07, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Indirectly Personally Responsible

Is that actually possible?? Robert Taylor 19:36, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Sure. It means that he as an individual was singled out as being, in some degree responsible, but not having direct responsibility. -- Jmabel | Talk 09:11, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

No, I think you're wrong. Because was found PERSONALLY RESPONSIBLE. PERSONALLY. But indirectly?? It doesn't make sense.

Makes perfect sense to me. He, as an individual, bore indirect responsibility. There is nothing conflicting about the words "personal" and "indirect". Babajobu 22:31, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

My partial conclusion is that this is almost exactly a new and improved original copy of the true illusion of a sincere lie.

per·son·al (pûrs-nl)adj.

  1. Done, made, or performed in person: a personal appearance.
  2. Done to or for or directed toward a particular person: a personal favor.

in·di·rect (nd-rkt, -d-)adj.

  1. Not directly planned for; secondary

Robert Taylor 00:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Roberttaylor, you're welcome to intepret it however pleases you most. However, if you take the first definition of each word you have a perfectly coherent concept: the judgment related to Sharon in particular, and judged that his responsibility was indirect. Not complicated, really. Babajobu 00:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Goodness. I don't think I'm getting through to you. It's an oxymoron. No, I'm not insulting you right now, as you might also confuse, because you seem to not be getting it. When you say that the judgement was that his responsibility was indirect, you forget to add the personal part. Personal and indirect are a conflict of words. Therefor the statement is an oxymoron. Robert Taylor 01:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

"Personally" adds nothing, no real meaning, to "indirectly responsible" other than to provide a rhetorical exclamation point. Clever, clever.--sasmith

But that's precisely the point: it's not an oxymoron. There is nothing oxymoronic about personally bearing indirect responsibility. You seem to think that the word "personally" is being used as some sort of intensifier. It's not. It's being used in sense number one of the definitions above: the judgment related personally to Sharon. It's all very simple. Here's an analogous situation: when someone is convicted of being an accessory to a crime, they personally are convicted of assisting in the commission of a crime. This does not mean they committed the crime itself. Hope that helps clarify this for you. Babajobu 01:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Well then, I think I may start to understand how you think. In that case, if what you say is true, and the words "personal" and "indirect" to not conflict with eachother, I am going to take the liberty to remove one of them. I wouldn't want Wikipedia articles to be filled with redundancies. Robert Taylor 01:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

LOL! Two words not conflicting does not mean they are synonyms. For example, if I say "Robert Taylor is handsome and wise", the words "handsome" and "wise" do not conflict, and yet they are also not redundant. This is really a logic issue more than a language issue. Babajobu 01:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

No, wait a minute. It was a redundancy. Because it says in the dictionary that Responsibility involves personal accountability or ability to act without guidance or superior authority. So in saying that he was found to be indirectly responsible doesn't need the word personal, because responsibility by definition is personal. I'm confusing myself. But I think Chomsky would agree. Robert Taylor 01:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Haha, I don't think two statements have ever sat aside one another in more delicious harmony than do I'm confusing myself and But I think Chomsky would agree. Anyway, we can hopefully put this line of inquiry out of its misery by observing that we needn't debate the merits of the "personal, indirect responsibility" construction: we are simply citing the Israeli Supreme Court's judgment, rather than rewriting that judgment. Babajobu 01:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I notice that you have modified the above definitions to remove the offending (because correct) senses. How Orwellian of you. Babajobu 01:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

That was a joke I was hoping you wouldn't catch. But in full honesty, I think it's time for a good old fashioned Wikipedia vote. But allow space for both of us to put our sides of the story....Robert Taylor 01:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

What would we be voting over? Whether or not to rewrite the Israeli Supreme Court's Decision? Do you realize that that's what you are doing? We are citing the judgment made by the court. You are rewriting that judgment because you don't like the words it used. If you remove the word "personal", someone will inevitably reinsert, since the Kahane Commission used that word. Nevertheless, I'm not getting into a revert war over this. Take care, Robert. Babajobu 02:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)Babajobu 02:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect citation of Kahan commission Grabowksy testimony

The article said: "Lt. Avi Grabowsky was cited by the Kahan Commission as having seen (on that Friday) the murder of five women and children. He spoke to his battalion commander about it; he replied 'We know, it's not to our liking, and don't interfere.'" In fact, the Kahan report does not say Grabowsky heard the above line from his commander. Instead, Grabowsky anecdotally asserted that a "tank crew told him that they had already heard a communications report to the battalion commander that civilians were being killed, [and] the battallion commander had replied" with the above line. I've made the appropriate change to the article. Gni 22:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Hobeika and Sharon

"No action, national or international, was ever taken against the pro-Syrian Phalangist commander Elie Hobeika, who was killed by a bomb in Beirut in 2002, days after agreeing to testify against Sharon at a Belgium based war crimes tribunal investigating the massacre." This wording strongly suggests that Sharon was behind his death. As our article on Hobeika says, "Hobeika wasn't short of enemies and his murder remains unsolved." The wording here should make that clear. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:07, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Casualties in reoccupation of West Beirut

In a passage that had read "…the Israeli army reoccupied West Beirut, killing 88 people and wounding 254…, User:Leifern removed the casualty numbers, apparently because they are not cited. A quick web search turned up these particular numbers from Jean Shaoul, Sharon’s war crimes in Lebanon: the record (part three), 25 February 2002 on the World Socialist Web Site (published by the ICFI). Not an ideal citation, and certainly not neutral but I see no reason to think it has its facts wrong. Leifern, do you consider this an acceptable citation? Do you have something that gives different numbers, or see any internal evidence that the Shaoul article is playing fast and loose with facts? Shaoul takes care to note that exact numbers for the Sabra and Shatila massacre are not known, and to cite multiple differing estimates for that. For whatever it's worth, the Shaoul article gives citations, but they are entire books, so it could take quite a while to work out where these numbers come from. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:38, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think there is a pattern (viz Jenin) among critics to Israel to exaggerate casualty figures related to Israel's military operations, especially if one could infer war crimes. Having said that, the numbers are certainly plausible, given the type of operation and conditions in Lebanon at the time. I'm not sure why the numbers are important, especially when they are uncertain, but one could certainly write something like "with estimates placing casualties as high as 88 dead and 254 wounded." --Leifern 11:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Leifern, I will use your wording and my citation. - Jmabel | Talk 06:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Controversial claim cut from lead paragraph

I cut the following statement from the lead paragraph: "But according to Alain Menargues' book on the lebanese war,Israeli soldiers dressed as militia members entered first,followed by Saad Haddad's SLA who perpetuated the massacre then Hobeika came in." For starters, the list of References at the bottom of the article does not even cite a book by Alain Menargues, so this is hardly a citation: name the book, give a basic bibliographical reference, and indicate where in the book (page numbers) he makes this claim. But besides that: a controversial view put forward by one writer, and disagreeing with such major investigations as the Kahan Commission and the bulk of other writers on the subject may belong in the article, but it does not belong in the lead paragraph. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:24, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it doesn't even belong in the article at all.

No Citation for estimated Deaths

In the background I took out: The two major invasions of Lebanon by Israel (in 1978 and 1982) claimed around 20,000 lives, mostly Lebanese and Palestinian civilians.

Because there are no citations and thus how do we know if this is a correct estimate. It should go back in provided someone cites it source —This unsigned comment is by 64.20.226.14 (talk • contribs) 9 March 2006.

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat3.htm#Lebanon gives some citations in this range for 1982 (they don't separate 1978 out from the Lebanese Civil War), but they are not mainly from the most neutral of sources. According to that site:

• On 3 Sept. 1982 the Washington Post cited the Beirut newspaper An Nahar as estimating 17,825 killed during invasion: 5,515 (military and civilian) in the Beirut area, 9,797 military personnel (including PLO, Syria, etc.) and 2,513 civilians killed outside the Beirut area.
• On 14 October 1982, the Christian Science Monitor again cited the An Nahar estimate; they also cited the Palestine Red Crescent Society as saying 27,000 casualties (killed and wounded)
• A 5 March 1991 Associated Press story apparently said 19,000+, mostly civilians, but that site's citation of the AP story is not clear whether that was deaths or total casualties, nor where AP got their number; it might be worth tracking down the AP story.
• Ploughshares 2000 said 12,000 people, including 500 Israelis, killed during the 1978 and 1982 invasions of Lebanon. Again, it might be worth tracking this down to see whether this is based on anything much.

From what I can see, none of these are very good sources. I've used this site before, and cross-checked it a couple of times. From what I can see, it is generally well researched, which is discouraging in terms of finding more citable numbers. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:22, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Confusing paragraph

However, no persons were handed over to Israeli forces and there was little fighting. However, Schiff and Ya'ari report that over the next 10 days "huge quantities of ordnance--including twelve cannons, eight heavy mortars, Katyusha-mounted vehicles, and 520 tons of ammunition--were indeed removed from dozens of caches in West Beirut."

I don't think I've ever before seen two sentences in a row begin with "however": I'm reminded of Tevye's "on the one hand… on the other hand…" How do these sentences stand in relation to one another? Why is the second somehow a contrast ("however") to the first? Why is it even in the same paragraph? I don't understand the intent at all. - Jmabel | Talk 05:14, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Recent edits.

Jayjg has inserted the following: "some speculated he was preparing to testify in the Belgian inquiry into the massacre, though others doubted he intended to testify at all." The source given for this is:"^ a b Elie Hobeika's Assassination: Covering Up the Secrets of Sabra and Shatilla, Jerusalem Issue Brief, Vol. 1, No. 17, 30 January 2002. "

However, if one actually visits the website, one would find the quote: "Hobeika may have been interested in testifying in Belgium ...Yet there were those, like Syria, that might have been concerned where Hobeika's testimony could lead...." This indicates that the article leans towards saying that Hoeika did plan to testify. On the contrary, where does the article actually say that Hobeika wasn't going to testify at all???

Also, Jayjg called my following additions nonsense: "Many newspapers, Arab and non-Arab, noted that Hobeika had said that his testimony would implicate Sharon even more deeply into the massacre. "

Yet they were based on the source [7], which said: "The Daily Star noted that Hobeika once told its editors he made tapes of his own testimony regarding the massacres and entrusted them to his lawyers—testimony he said that would implicate Sharon even more in the massacres than is widely believed." SImilar beleifs have also been held by Arab newspapers, such as "Al-Sharq al-Awsat".

Hence my edit was justified.Bless sins 03:53, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

What is "The Daily Star"? Is it a non-Arab newspaper? Is it "many" non-Arab newspapers? Why do you state that they have "noted" he would testify against Sharon, as if it were a fact, when they in fact believed he would testify against Sharon? Why do you quote opinions of newspapers in any event? Why don't we note that many Arab newspapers equally suggested that his testimony would implicate Syrians and Lebanese? Why don't we note the other statements that indicate that Hobeika claimed he was not going to implicate Sharon at all? Please review WP:NPOV. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:04, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

By the way, the source for my edits was your link, which stated "columnist Michael Young opined that Sharon certainly had a stake in killing Hobeika, but there were doubts that Hobeika actually intended to testify in the first place". My link, in fact, indicated that if he was going to testify at all, he was not going to testify against Sharon. And in case you're wondering, The Daily Star is a Lebanese newspaper, [8], and Michael Young is their opinion editor. Jayjg^(talk) 20:02, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg, why do you keep on removing the following: "A Lebanese newspaper, The Daily Star noted that Hobeika once declared that he made tapes of his own testimony regarding the massacres and entrusted them to his lawyers; it is believed by the newspaper that the testimony would implicate Sharon in the massacres." It is sourced and relevent.Bless sins 23:43, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Did you read the comments above? They already address that issue. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I did. Your comments don't adress the issue. You have been talking of WP:NPOV. WHat I'm trying to post is merely the POV of a Lebanese newspaper. I'm not trying to post it as if it were a fact, but as an opinion. (The fact the Hobeika did make tapes, is not POV, it doesn't implicate Sharon any more than it proves him innocent).Bless sins 00:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Did you notice the questions made both here, and in edit summaries, as to why the opinions of newspapers would be relevant in the first place? Compound that with the fact that you have made no attempt whatsoever to provide any of the other opinions of that newspaper, much less the other sources, and it's quite clear that the edit is made in bad faith. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:08, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The opinions of the newspapers obviously reflect one persepective (that Hobeika wanted to implicate Sharon). Another perspective should be added (by you perhaps), if it is sourced. Pls. don't criticize me for not researching the newspaper inside out, as you haven't done either.Bless sins 22:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm tired of having to NPOV every single entry you make; if you refuse to add an NPOV entry that covers all aspects of a situation, and only includes relevant information, then I will simply revert your additions. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Do you (and Pecher) add entries that "that covers all aspects of a situation"? In the Islam and anti-Semitism article you inculded (or reverted in) many peices of info that were totally one sided (eg. the Maimonides quote). Pls. don't oblige me to follow a rule you yourself don't follow. I don't see anything wrong with presenting an opinion on a topic where the reality is unknown.Bless sins 22:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Please do not misdirect; as I've said, you are well aware that there are many opinions about whether or not he was going to testify, and if so, against whom. Do not enter information which you know violates WP:NPOV, as it will be immediately reverted. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

IF there are many opinions you should add them to the article (they need to be well sourced and relevent ofcourse). Have I EVER told you not to? Cna you also exactly explain how the info violates WP:NPOV? IT would help us both betterBless sins 23:17, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

There are many opinions given in the very article you are using as a source. You, however, insist on only quoting one opinion; this violates WP:NPOV. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok Jayjg, I've found some opinions:

• Most Lebanese and Arab pundits agree that Hobeika had many enemies but none seemed more suspect than Israel, given the timing.
• Sharon is “suspect number one.”
• Israel’s charge that Syria was involved in the assassination is “unlikely.”
• Had Hobeika been indicted, it'd have reflected badly on Syria.
• Others in Lebanon (perhaps former phalangists) are afraid of “revealing secrets of another kind.”

Does this mean I should quote all of them?Bless sins 09:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Where are you getting this information from? How reliable is it? How relevant are "opinions"? Please provide some sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:19, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand you. First you say: "There are many opinions given in the very article you are using as a source." Then when I do get opinions from the very source you tell me to get opinions from, you ask me "Where are you getting this information from? ". It's like you're a different person everytime. Can you pls. pay some attention to the posts made? Bless sins 21:00, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm paying attention, but your summary doesn't appear to have much to do with the sources themselves. Could you please quote the sections you think actually support your "re-wordings"? Jayjg ^(talk) 15:53, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

WHat's the problem Jayjg? You told me to get differing opinions from "the very article you are using as a source". When I get these opinions, you want me to get more specific. Pls. take a quick look at the article, and you will find the opinions that I seived out. You're gonna have to do some reading.Bless sins 20:40, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I have read the article, and, as usual, your summary does not match its contents, so I'm asking you to be more explicit. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure about that? Here are the "quote(s)":

• Opinion: Most Lebanese and Arab pundits agree that Hobeika had many enemies but none seemed more suspect than Israel, given the timing.

Quote: "Most Lebanese and Arab pundits agree that Hobeika had many enemies—among them Lebanese, Palestinians, and Syrians—but none seemed more suspect than Israel, given the timing. “Who benefits from this crime?” asked Joseph Samaha of Al-Safir (Jan. 25).“This is the obvious question to raise after the assassination. And the equally obvious answer is: Ariel Sharon and consequently the Israeli state.” "

• Opinion: Sharon is “suspect number one.”

Quote: "The “remarkable coincidence” between the assassination and the Belgian prosecution and the way in which Sharon so clearly benefits from Hobeika’s disappearance makes Sharon “suspect number one.” "

• Opinion:Israel’s charge that Syria was involved in the assassination is “unlikely.”

Quote: "For commentators like Al-Sharq al-Awsat’s Iyad Abu Shaqra (Jan. 25), Israel’s charge that Syria was involved in the assassination is “unlikely,” since no advantage was to be gained by Syria. "

• Opinion:Had Hobeika been indicted, it'd have reflected badly on Syria.

Quote: "“Hobeika’s indictment in Belgium would have reflected badly on those who collected him in 1986, after his ouster from East Beirut,” he added in apparent reference to Syria. "

• Opinion:Others in Lebanon (perhaps former phalangists) are afraid of “revealing secrets of another kind.”

Quote: A similar point was made by Zoheir Qusaibati in Al-Hayat (Jan. 27), saying that one can point fingers in the direction of Sharon as well as others in Lebanon who are afraid of “revealing secrets of another kind.”Bless sins 18:19, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Please read WP:RS. We do not add journalistic speculations into articles only because these speculations can be sourced. Pecher ^Talk 21:08, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Adding all of these opinions was not my idea. I only wanted to add one. Jayjg, however, thought that it would be NPOV to add all these opinions.Bless sins 03:13, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense. I pointed out again and again that there was no point in adding journalistic speculation. I also objected to your adding just one of the many opinions present in the article, and also of ignoring what other articles said. You've also been stating opinion as fact, and whitewashing; for example, somehow "Lebanese, Palestinians, and Syrians" got dropped from the list of potential suspects in your first sentence. Furthermore, you've editorialized the opinion - as a simple example, where did "perhaps former phalangists" come from? You just made that up. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

This is what you said:"There are many opinions given in the very article you are using as a source. You, however, insist on only quoting one opinion; this violates WP:NPOV. " .Bless sins 11:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

On May 3 I asked "Why do you quote opinions of newspapers in any event?". On May 9 I asked "Did you notice the questions made both here, and in edit summaries, as to why the opinions of newspapers would be relevant in the first place?" On May 10 I asked "How relevant are "opinions"?". Not only do you consistently quote sources in a biased and inaccurate way, but you have started doing the same to my own statements. Stop. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Number of victims mentioned in header

I added the number of victims to the header since this seems to be an important piece of information related to this article. Was there some reason it wasn't included? I know the numbers of victims seems to vary greatly based on the different sources and is disputed. Also, being a novice to the subject matter, I must admit that the header could use a little more detail. Where are/were these camps located, ect.? Thanks--Backroomlaptop 04:35, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

"Commander"

What on earth does it mean (in the infobox) to refer to an unknown "commander" of the massacred civilians? This should simply be blank or "N/A", no? Otherwise, there is a suggestion that in some shadowy way the victims of the massacre had an extant command and control stucture. - Jmabel | Talk 05:39, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Racial?

I see that this has now been placed in Category:Racial massacres. That seems very odd to me. Are Maronite Christians racially distinct from Palestinians? I suppose that the Maronites, as a group, probably have more of a non-Arab admixture in their ancestry, but still, I would not have described this as a racial issue. - Jmabel | Talk 00:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Recently added link

This recently added link—Sabra and Shatila Report—strikes me as slight and maybe even spammy (I've been seeing a lot of links to this site lately, all anonymously added). I haven't been all that active in this article, so I'm just raising the matter and letting someone else make the call. - Jmabel | Talk 06:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

"Allegedly"

With reference to Israeli complicity, there is a lot of "allegedly" in the article. I suspect that a good bit of this could be cited to the Kahan Commission, which (being an Israeli commission) would be a very strong citation. Then we could replace the weaselly "allegedly" with "according to the Kahan Commission". - Jmabel | Talk 01:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Battle Box??

Really, was this a battle, whoever added the battle box must have been reffering to another article, & to claim that 75% of the casualities were PLO fighters, how did he reach that conclusion? was he guided by the statement of the phalange terrorist who said ( we have killed more than 2000 terrorists, men & women), doesn't he know that israel & its allies consider any arab a terrorist from the day he is born till the day they take his life away. doesn't he know that most palestinian fighters were deported out of beirut after the beirut seige & the camps were left completely defenseless, or is it an attempt to justify the massacre, i am going to fix it now & if it was reverted again without explanation by god i will change each & every attack on civilian israelis & christians into a battle..your people have commited a crime against humanity, stop twisting the facts & accept who they really are.213.42.2.23 08:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)Mr. Fed up of this shit

I agree with the substance of this in terms of things that are wrong with the article, but this "your people" shit and "israel & its allies consider any arab a terrorist from the day he is born…" frankly constitutes equal and opposite bigotry. - Jmabel | Talk 18:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

You are right, i might have been carried away a little, but how would you feel if someone described 9/11 as a battle & the victims as having a commander, i doubt it would be considered in good faith, about "israel & its allies consider any arab a terrorist" i really think this is the case, you can grasp such ideology from statements such as we have killed more than 2000 terrorists, men & women in the same sense that most arabs consider any israeli their enemy.213.42.2.28 06:16, 11 September 2006 (UTC)Mr. Fed up

This article got a media mention, and so did this discussion page

This is an "excellent, dispassionate" article, and its editors are revolutionaries creating a new way to tell history, according to this profile of Wikipedia! PlainWrap 00:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

POV article

I think this article is very pro-Israeli biased. Peace. --Nielswik_(talk) 16:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. This is one of those articles where a shameful event has occurred, and supporters of the person, group or organization who bear responsibility for the event edit the article to death so that the role of that person, group or organization is obscured as much as possible. Characteristic of this non-neutral stance is the section "Controversy regarding Israel's role in the massacre", which begins with three paragraphs of how biased and unfair the mainstream media accounts of the event are, including emotional discussion of the (clearly unjustified) "backlash" that took place.

The result of this bias is that the article is not informative for a general reader. I'd like to ask humbly that pro-Sharon (or pro-IDF, or pro-Israeli government) partisans simply accept that this is a sad and shameful event and it needs to be discussed honestly, without counter-productive attempts to finesse the central details through carefully slanted emphasis.

(I apologize for not signing this comment with my username but my personal experience with debates over Israel is that a small number of people do not play fair. I sincerely do not wish to impugn the integrity of the majority of other people with strong views on either side of the debate, however.) --Anon, 9 April 2007

The 'media and public' relations section is farcical. Every single paragraph is clearly there to argue one particular POV. I came to look at this article browsing to see how WP handles the middle east (I'm more interested in Ireland myself). Frankly, this all looks as pathetically one-sided (and therefore as irrelevent) as something coming out of Soviet Russia. The rest of the article isn't any better. Cooke 08:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I always have great hope for wikipedia, but this article really disappoints me. Pro Israel contributors have done their best to try and diminish Israeli responsibility. Even in the short intro, the events are deflected by mention of a different massacre. I am aware that through organisations like hasbara & GIYUS there are concerted efforts toward this type of bias and here it is in practice. --manchester_me 01:09, 08 January 2008 (UTC)

Oddly formed citation

There is a statement in the article cited only as "[FT]". Could someone please clarify the citation? In the context, I'm guessing Fateful Triangle but for all I know it could be Financial Times. - Jmabel | Talk 05:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

"allied with Israel"

The inclusion of this phrase in the first sentence creates an unbalanced and disputed view, seeming to indicate that this was some sort of joint operation whose intended result was agreed to beforehand by Israel and the Lebanese militias. Israel's relationship to this massacre is outlined in a more neutral and accurate way in the second paragraph. If you must include the information, it belongs in the body. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

No. It is obvious that the militia are pro-Israel. Why is it disputed? saying "pro-something" doesn't mean it is joint operation. Peace. --Nielswik_(talk) 04:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

It's "obvious"? Not sure? Relevant for the first sentence? Definitely not without context, just an attempt to poison the well, as explained. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

We have the context there: "The degree to which the Israeli military was involved in the incident is a matter of controversy (see below)." To any fair-minded reader this suggests that Israel's involvement is not clear. It should, however, be made clear that the militia was pro-Israel, (just as it is made clear on other articles that Hizbullah is pro-Syria). I see no reason why this is excluded from the intro of the article.Bless sins 06:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Inserting "allied with Israel" in the first sentence would suggest that they committed the massacre in alliance with Israel, which is false. Beit Or 06:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Firsly that would not be entirely false, since Israel's role in the massacre is questionable, (but it would not be true either). Secondly how about calling the group "pro-Israel"? That would only imply that the group was on the Israeli side of the Lebanese civil war.Bless sins 07:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Maronite militias were not pro-Israel. True, Israel was their ally, among others, at that stage in the war, but this is not the most important fact about them. Beit Or 07:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

According to this link they were. The detail is important as Ariel Sharon is the number one man suspected behind this, and he wsa Israel's defence minister at the time. Not to mention Israel was fully supporting the phalangists, while disarming pro-Palestinian, anti-Israeli groups.Bless sins 09:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Agree with Bless sins. the massacre was committed during Lebanese civil war, and that time Maronite was Israel's ally. This is important, because things would be different if they had not been supported by Israel. I can't see why this is irrelevant. Peace. --Nielswik_(talk) 09:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Being an ally is not the same as being pro-something because the latter phrasing implies the dominance of one party. The US was am ally of the UK during WWII, but it would be incorect to say that the US was pro-British. Furthermore, inserting the "allied with Israel" phrase into the sentence implies the massacre was committed jointly, which is not true. Beit Or 10:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Israel is the major combatant during the civil war. But "allied with Israel" would also be OK. Regarding your last statement, BBC(a RS) does say christian militiaman's alliance with israel what does that imply? Peace. --Nielswik_(talk) 10:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The allainces are mentioned in the body of the article. The controversy about the role of Israel is mentioned in the first paragraph. The version of teh intro you're insisting on would devote more attention to Israel than to any other party. Beit Or 10:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Body? LOL. read the very first sentence of the article:

The 1982 massacres of Palestinians at Sabra and Shatila refugee camps claimed the lives of at least 800 civilians, murdered by Lebanese Christian militiamen allied to Israel during its brief occupation of the Lebanese capital, Beirut.[9].
Peace. --Nielswik_(talk) 10:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

notes

Well, you've managed to stick "pro-Israel" before anything else? Is that now the official name of the militias? Pro-Israeli Maronite militias? Insertion of this claim in the first sentence is POV-pushing; the second paragraph deals with the information in a more contextual and less misleading way. Jayjg ^(talk) 12:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Israel's role is addressed with a whole paragraph right away in the intro, following WP:NPOV#Let_the_facts_speak_for_themselves. What Nielswik proposes would give undue weight and evoke guilt by association. --tickle me 13:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Please stop adding in the POV "pro-Israel" descriptor. We've discussed this quite enough, and the idea that at this stage the same edits continue to be made don't strike me as productive. Tewfik^Talk 15:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

See even BBC put it on the 1st sentence. As I&bless sins told you, maronite's alliance with Israel is important in this case. Peace. --Nielswik_(talk) 15:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Israel's role is given one whole paragraph (of two) in the lead, the BBC's policies have nothing to do with Wikipedia's policies, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a broadcaster, and you're just repeating yourself not making new arguments. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Setting aside the questionable veracity of BBC's objectivity when it comes to this issue, I think we want to avoid implying something that is controversial. By way of example, there is no question that the Soviet Union and the US were allied during WWII; but I don't think anybody would want to imply that the US in any way was complicit in the atrocities toward people in the Balkan states following WWII. And "allied" with Israel is not equivalent to "pro Israel," whatever "pro Israel" is intended to mean, anyway. --Leifern 16:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

WW II is not good analogy. USA was not involved in Balkan front, while Israel was involved in Lebanon civil war. Peace. --Nielswik_(talk) 22:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

"See even BBC put it on the 1st sentence": We don't recreate BBC (or any other broadcaster's) articles. --tickle me 01:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Tendentious material on inadequate sourcing

The entire section "Media and public reactions" appears to be cited to exactly three pages from Bernard Lewis. I will assume for the moment that Lewis's views have been reflected accurately, since I haven't had a chance to look at the book. Still, even stipulating that, quite a few statement strike me as either assessments or opinions; if the assessments and opinions are Lewis's, then they should be clearly identified as such:

• "Most reports focused on the Israelis and usually failed to mention the Lebanese Maronite militias…" (seems very unlikely, if Lewis remarked this in passing, that's a weak citation)
• "The media accepted and published what was later proved to be propaganda from partisan sources." This really begs for clarification. The media always uses information from partisan sources. Certainly the Israeli government was a partisan source in this matter.
• "words were chosen to draw parallels between the Israelis and the Nazis: 'blitzkrieg', 'lebensraum', 'genocide', 'final solution'. This means nothing unless we know who used these words. The New York Times? The Associated Press? Al-Ahram?
• "badges were distributed with the star of David and swastika intertwined", doubtless true, but by whom? If this came from Jean-Marie Le Pen, the only surprise is that he would say bad things about Nazis.

Also, this section is written almost as if Israel had nothing to do with the events, a conclusion that the Kahan Commission firmly rejected. - Jmabel | Talk 02:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The section is about the presentation of that event in the media; given the enormous number of press reports, it is no surprise that Lewis makes some generalizations. Beit Or 20:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

If they are his generalizations, this needs to be worded to make that clear. Because right now they look like Wikipedia's generalizations (and, in the case of the remark about the badges, vaguenesses as well). - Jmabel | Talk 08:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Beit Or

Why is info about Israel being allied with Phalangist irrelevant? Peace. --Nielswik_(talk)

See two sections above on the Talk: page. Please try to actual engage in discussion on the Talk: page, rather than the typical blind reverts. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

There are 2 paragraphs in the lead. One is only about Israel. That's already undue weight. Amoruso 03:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Agree. It must be shortened to one sentence. Beit Or 07:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we can shorten this by just adding the "allied with Israel" or "pro-Israel" (to me both mean the same thing, but whatever you guys want is ok). We can also add at the end "... though Israel's involvement is subject to debate".Bless sins 22:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Subsequent massacres in Sabra & Shatila?

According to the "Sabra & Shatila after Israeli withdrawal" section:

"Two subsequent massacres took place at the camps after the Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon."

However, no sources on this are provided whatsoever, and I haven't been able to find any. Where is this information coming from? It's considerably heavy statement to make with no support...

74.102.81.2 21:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)Yoni

Since no sources have been forthcoming, I have removed the claim. Gatoclass 11:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Bernard Lewis the Jew

Gatoclass, please stop poisoning the well and yellow badging Bernard Lewis as a "Jewish historian". He is, in fact, Cleveland E. Dodge Professor Emeritus of Near Eastern Studies at Princeton University, and according to the Encyclopedia of Historians and Historical Writing "the most influential postwar historian of Islam and the Middle East." Your edits are perverse and verging on WP:POINT. Must he always be identified as a "Jewish historian"? Should we move the article about him to Bernard Lewis (Jewish historian)? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't necessarily think he must "always be identified" as a Jewish historian. But when he is commenting on controversies involving Jews or Arabs, then certainly his ethnicity is relevant. It's only fair that readers be alerted to a possible bias on his part. And one can hardly describe that as "poisoning the well" (unless of course you think there's something wrong with being Jewish, which I'm sure you don't).

Gatoclass, that's almost an offensive argument, which implies that Jews aren't capable of independent thought. As for your "first reference" argument, why focus on his ethnicity and not on his credentials, which are infinitely more relevant? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

"Almost" an offensive argument? I think it's well over the "offensive" line, and veering towards something much darker. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

But let me just make it clear that I'm not being one-sided here. For me it's an issue of principle. I actually happen to agree, for example, that when members of the Israeli Knesset call Israel an apartheid state, their ethnicity as Arabs is also deserving of mention. And I'm sure you wouldn't disagree with that. I'm simply maintaining that the principle needs to be applied consistently, and not just to one side.

Also, more generally, I'm in favour of giving basic information about people the first time they are mentioned in an article. Just telling the reader that "Bernard Lewis" or "Uri Davis" thinks such and such is telling them nothing at all. Readers shouldn't be forced to click on hyperlinks just to find out that x is an historian, or a politician or whatever. Gatoclass 21:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I find your justifications for poisoning the well astonishing. You can't use your own bias to "alert the reader" to what you imagine Lewis's bias might be. The basic information is not that he is a Jew, but that he is "the most influential postwar historian of Islam and the Middle East." Your deliberate yellow badging is shameful and disruptive, particularly given your tit-for-tat reasoning. This will not stand. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

In that case, what is your position on Uri Davis being described as "a Palestinian Jew" on the Israeli apartheid page, or on two Knesset members being described as "Arabs"? Gatoclass 22:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Your Uri Davis example is ridiculous, it is quoting him describing himself. Your comment that you are merely pointing out a possible bias is nothing short of loathesome, and the implications of which are simply offensive.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 22:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks so much for helping promote WP:AGF! Gatoclass 23:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure that there isn't a corrollary in WP:AGF that instructs editors not to read.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

It's actually in the guideline itself, in bold: This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

As Moshe points out, Uri Davis characterizes himself as a "Palestinian Jew"; does Lewis describe himself as a "Jewish historian"? Your disruptive "two wrongs make a right" argument is noted and dismissed for the logical fallacy it is. Please don't go messing up this article because you have some grievance elsewhere. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Can you really be so lacking in objectivity that you cannot see the very obvious parallel? It matters not a whit what Uri Davis "calls himself". Characterizing him as a "Palestinian Jew" in the text is every bit as potentially prejudicial to the reader's perception as labelling Lewis a "Jewish historian", indeed considerably more so.

Labelling Knesset members "Arabs" is also an instance of exactly the same phenomenon. I can scarcely believe you would even attempt to argue otherwise. Gatoclass 23:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

why focus on his ethnicity and not on his credentials, which are infinitely more relevant? - SlimVirgin

I could ask you exactly the same question about Uri Davis. Why focus on his statement that he is "a Palestinian Jew" rather than the fact that he holds masters degrees in philosophy and anthropology? Gatoclass 23:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Why do you continue wittering about some other article on this Talk: page? As I said before, your disruptive "two wrongs make a right" argument is noted and dismissed for the logical fallacy it is. Please don't go messing up this article because you have some grievance elsewhere. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with Mr. David, but Bernard Lewis, agree with him or not, is not particularly known for his "Jewishness," assuming that he is indeed Jewish. I rarely see him photographed genuflecting at the Western Wall or kissing the ring of the Lubavitcher Rebbe (or whatever). Absent any obvious manifestations of his "Jewishness," or authorship of books with titles like "Why I like being a Jew," I think that bringing up his faith in this article is uncalled-for, don't you think?--Mantanmoreland 23:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Jayjig, you clearly haven't listened to what I said. I said I thought it was probably justified to use the phrase "a Palestinian Jew" in Davis' case, just as it is justified to refer to those Knesset members who called Israel an apartheid state as "Arabs". It's justified because their ethnicity might reasonably be seen as prejudicing their views.

I'm simply arguing for the application of the principle in all cases. It's not "two wrongs make a right", it's "two rights make a right". Gatoclass 00:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Um, whatever. Regardless, it's poisoning the well and highly prejudicial to state that Lewis's views might be biased because he's a Jew. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

And it's not prejudicial to refer to Knesset members who oppose Israel's occupation as "Arabs"? Gatoclass 00:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

You could just as easily refer to him as a "British historian" or an "Ivy League historian," both of which might imply biases of some sort. Or, even better, you could simply put some brackets around his name and let people click on it and see all the information themselves. To take another example, in discussing Edward Said here, neither Said's religion nor ethncity are mentioned, nor need they be. IronDuke 00:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

That's just nonsense. Why should a British historian care about alleged vilification of Jews in the media?

The point is that this is a situation where a member of an ethnic group is defending that ethnic group. There's a very obvious potential conflict of interest there, and it is not in the least unreasonable to make the reader cognizant of that potential conflict. Gatoclass 00:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Referring to my arguments as "nonsense" without replying to their substance does not make them so, it simply further weakens your point (which wasn't hugely strong to begin with). By the way, what you're trying to insert here is considerably more pernicious than "nonsense." I think you should tread carefully. IronDuke 01:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

It's "pernicious" to argue for a principle to apply across the board? That's strange, I was always taught the opposite.

And I've already addressed your arguments in this thread. It's not my fault if you've chosen to ignore them. If you want a reply, I suggest you read through this section a second time. Gatoclass 04:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

"Why should a British historian care about alleged vilification of Jews in the media?" Why should a Catholic priest care about persecution of Jews? Why should a nun dedicate her life to fighting anti-Semitism? There is nothing at all odd about a historian having a conscience, whether he is Jewish or not.--Mantanmoreland 02:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, let's try to get back to the point.

Jayjg, you still haven't replied to my query, so let me ask you again. Is it "poisoning the well" to refer to members of the Israeli Knesset - in a passage outlining their opposition to Israeli "apartheid" - as Israeli Arabs or Arabs? Yes or no?

When you've made up your mind about that, maybe then we can start getting somewhere. Gatoclass 04:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I looked, I see nothing that addresses my points. That you wave your hand vaguely in the direction of a non-existent rejoinder elsewhere on the page is not persuasive. You have been shown again and again why your Arab Knesset analogy is false, and irrelevant to this page even if true, yet you persist. Also, consensus is very much against you here, which you should think about respecting in the not too distant future. And as for "pernicious," I wasn't referring to your standing on nonexistent principles but, rather, that attempting to discredit a historian because he is Jewish has decidedly unpleasant historical echoes that I'm sure you're aware of. IronDuke 13:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Gatoclass, I'm discussing this article, no other. Lewis is noted for being "the most influential postwar historian of Islam and the Middle East", not for being a Jew. It is, at best, poisoning the well to refer to him as a Jew. At best. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Sabra and Shatila after the massacre

Firstly, there is no mention of massacres at the war of the camps link. So the claim about massacres is still unsubstantiated.

Secondly, the text is constructed in such a way as to make it sound as though Israel was preventing further massacres by its presence. If in fact any massacres did take place during the war of the camps, they took place years after the Israeli withdrawal and thus should not be referred to in such a way as to suggest they occurred as a consequence of, or shortly after, the Israeli withdrawal.

Thirdly, my edit succinctly provides a great deal more information about the subsequent history of the area than just a throwaway comment about "more massacres". Gatoclass 23:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Here's more information about the 3 subsequent battles/sieges/massacres from a strongly anti-Israel source]. More information from another anti-Israel source. More information from a less rabidly anti-Israel source. Here's incomplete information from a more neutral source. As the Amal Movement article points out, in the third "battle", the death toll in the camps was almost 4,000. According to the U.N., in the first "battle" over camp over 600 inhabitants were killed, and 2,500 wounded. None of these articles have trouble mentioning the first Sabra and Shatila massacre along with the subsequent 3. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I've read through all four of those references, only one of them refers to a massacre during the camps war, and then only one massacre.

In any case, that was not my primary problem with the text. The problem, as I've said, is that it misleadingly implies there was some sort of direct causal and chronological link between the Israeli withdrawal and a subsequent massacre or massacres, which is simply not the case. The two events are scarcely related at all. Gatoclass 00:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

People are loath to use the "massacre" word when they can't somehow implicate Israel; that doesn't really change the facts, though. But where on earth do you see a causal link? All of these articles mentioned all of the massacres, simply because they all took place in the same place, over a fairly short period during the larger war. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

You are mistaken, the only massacre mentioned in three of those articles is Sabra-Shatila. And the two massacres did not take place "over a fairly short period". The Sabra massacre by Amal occurred almost three years after the Sabra-Shatila massacre by the Phalange, in a different war, and between different protagonists. So the link between the second massacre and the Israeli withdrawal three years prior is tenuous at best.

And it certainly isn't appropriate to imply, as the current text does, that the Israeli presence was somehow preventing further massacres. In fact, the opposite is the case. Israel actually assisted Amal during the war, by shelling PLO positions. Gatoclass 01:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The war lasted for decades, the camps wars happened during a fairly short period during the larger war. And, as explained before, the current wording in no way implies "that the Israeli presence was somehow preventing further massacres." That's just something you have imagined. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Allow me to quote the sentence in question: "Two subsequent massacres took place at the camps after the Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon." While it doesn't explicitly state that one was a result of the other, it clearly leaves that impression.

Apart from which, as I've said there is no compelling reason to mention only the subsequent massacre when a much more detailed sketch of what subsequently occurred can easily be provided in the space of a few words, which I think my edit achieved. So I can see no reason why you have chosen to revert it. Gatoclass 03:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

It "leaves that impression" only in your mind. The wording in no way implies that. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

In that case, you won't mind if I edit it slightly to make it clear that one did not follow immediately after the other, will you? Gatoclass 07:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Given that you're trying to "fix" a non-existent problem, it's hard to imagine that the change you suggest would actually improve the text. What kind of edit are you proposing? Jayjg ^(talk) 13:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Section on Media Coverage

I tagged the section on media coverage as not being NPOV because all it is, is criticism of a perceived anti-Israel bias in the European media. Oneworld25 03:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Not only that, but it makes a statement that is, in essence, unproveable, ie the claim that Most reports focused on the Israelis and usually failed to mention the Lebanese Maronite militias.

If it was properly attributed, fine, but it can't be stated as if it's an objective fact. Gatoclass 04:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The section begins thusly:

The massacre received much attention from the world media. Most reports focused on the Israelis and usually failed to mention the Lebanese Maronite militias.

I have several questions.

1) Is it NPOV to assign the job of analyzing media coverage of the massacre to Bernard Lewis?

2) If the statement is true, then why is our presentation of the massacre so categorically at odds with that of "most reports"?

3) If the statement is false (as I think it demonstrably is), then why are we quoting it as established fact?

4) Why are we quoting one scholar-pundit's opinion about a controversial matter as established fact in the first place?

It seems to me there's something very extraordinary going on with this article. It sets out to correct for what it sees as bias in source materials, both by presenting the subject itself very differently, and by including a section where a hand-selected pundit (whose opinion is professedly not representative) gets to critique those materials and tell about the bias he thinks he's found there. This really is very remarkable.--G-Dett 20:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

After a while WP:STALK becomes more than just an annoyance. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

You've got to be kidding. Focus on content, not personal grudges.--G-Dett 01:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Not kidding at all. After a while, your showing up on articles and Talk: pages I am editing stops being merely creepy, and moves into violation of policy territory. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Jay, you edit dozens, scores, perhaps hundreds of Middle-East-related articles, and make 50+ edits a day for tens of thousands of edits annually. I'm running a much smaller operation, to put it very mildly, but about 3/4 of my edits are Middle-East related, which brings me into your stomping grounds. Anyone who edits these pages knows that you see the same editors on each, over and over again. Editors as prolific as you are downright ubiquitous. We're going to run into each other. Deal with it. I'm afraid I don't take your accusation of WP:STALKing seriously at all; if you think others will, then by all means report it.--G-Dett 04:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

That argument might hold water if it were true; however, in fact, in any given day I don't edit that many articles, and often go a day or two between editing, so it's more than a coincidence if you suddenly show up at articles I've edited in the past day or so. It happened at Hamas, when you showed up 14 hours after I last edited, a month later at Talk:Hamas, where you showed up 6 1/2 hours after me, Islam and antisemitism, when you showed up 27 minutes after I commented there, it happened at David Irving, though you had the grace to wait almost 2 days before responding to my points, and after a 6 months hiatus, again at Talk:Hamas, where you responded to a comment I made 22 hours later, and now it's happened here, where you waited a whole 18 hours before following me. I suppose I should be flattered, but really, it's creepy, and it violates WP:STALK. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

No, you shouldn't be flattered, you should be shaken out of your narcissistic reverie. My post above does not respond to anything you've written here. It addresses bias in the presentation of a second-tier (in terms of visibility, not importance) Middle-East-related issue; this – not you, Jay – constitutes my editorial focus in Wikipedia. Of course this brings us into occasional contact with each other, along with all the other usual suspects on ME pages. But if there is a persistent pattern to our occasional encounters, it is your unseemly recourse to smear-tactics as a means of avoiding substantive dialogue. I am not a litigious Wikipedian, as you know, but I'd have plenty to report you for if I were. If on the off-chance you actually believe this latest crazy accusation of yours, my advice for you is to stop looking feverishly over your shoulder or counting the hours and days between unrelated posts. If you have anything to say about the content issue I raised above, please do so, and we'll move constructively past this unpleasantness. If however you wish to get anxieties, resentments, and so on off your chest, I am available on my talk page. On article talk pages, it is best to focus on content, not other editors.--G-Dett 14:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)