Misplaced Pages

Talk:Sabra and Shatila massacre: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 09:22, 2 July 2015 editKingsindian (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users8,374 edits Sayeret Matkal: cmt← Previous edit Revision as of 09:36, 2 July 2015 edit undoAll Rows4 (talk | contribs)589 edits Sayeret MatkalNext edit →
Line 82: Line 82:
:To recap: Kingsindian restored to the article a claim that 63 civilians ware massacred, based on one source he didn't read and can't read because it is in a language he does not understand, , and a second source which does not give the number 63, nor does it say civilians were massacred. This is about as gross a falsification of sources as I have come across. I am removing it, and if it is returned again based on these sources, expect to see a ] report. ] (]) 06:31, 2 July 2015 (UTC) :To recap: Kingsindian restored to the article a claim that 63 civilians ware massacred, based on one source he didn't read and can't read because it is in a language he does not understand, , and a second source which does not give the number 63, nor does it say civilians were massacred. This is about as gross a falsification of sources as I have come across. I am removing it, and if it is returned again based on these sources, expect to see a ] report. ] (]) 06:31, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
:: {{re|All Rows4}} I was not the one who added the statement initially. You removed the statement based on a wholly improper use of ]. Both of these sources are ], contrary to what you claimed in your edit summary. And you did not bother to check what they said, instead, you simply removed the statement. I simply restored the statement based on ]. I was the one who bothered to hunt down the sources and check what they say. I was in fact planning to remove the quote myself, and I am not planning to restore the statement while the status of the statement is unclear. If you feel that I have falsified sources, please feel free to go to ], otherwise I will appreciate it if you strike that very serious personal attack. ] ]] 09:22, 2 July 2015 (UTC) :: {{re|All Rows4}} I was not the one who added the statement initially. You removed the statement based on a wholly improper use of ]. Both of these sources are ], contrary to what you claimed in your edit summary. And you did not bother to check what they said, instead, you simply removed the statement. I simply restored the statement based on ]. I was the one who bothered to hunt down the sources and check what they say. I was in fact planning to remove the quote myself, and I am not planning to restore the statement while the status of the statement is unclear. If you feel that I have falsified sources, please feel free to go to ], otherwise I will appreciate it if you strike that very serious personal attack. ] ]] 09:22, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
:::I neither know nor care who originally put that statement in - but when you restored it, you take responsibility for it. My removal was perfectly in line with ] , per the explanation I gave - such an incident, if true, would have been headline news, with multiple high quality sources. ] doesn't mean you blindly reinsert material - you do so only after you verify it. Per you own account, you did not verify one of the sources (and can't, as you don't read French), and the second source which you did verify, does not support the claim that 63 civilians were executed . I am happy to hear you don't plan on reintroducing that source falsification back into the article. ] (]) 09:35, 2 July 2015 (UTC)


== Semi-protected edit request on 15 January 2014 == == Semi-protected edit request on 15 January 2014 ==

Revision as of 09:36, 2 July 2015

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconPalestine High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Misplaced Pages. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconLebanon Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Lebanon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Lebanon-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LebanonWikipedia:WikiProject LebanonTemplate:WikiProject LebanonLebanon
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconIsrael Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Project Israel To Do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconDeath Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Tip: #section links are case-sensitive on most browsers

Links from this article with broken #section links :
]

You can remove this template after fixing the problems | FAQ | Report a problem
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
Media mentionThis article has been mentioned by a media organization:

A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on September 16, 2004, September 16, 2005, September 16, 2006, September 16, 2007, September 16, 2008, September 16, 2009, September 16, 2010, and September 16, 2012.

Archives
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3
Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6


This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Recent lead edits

Regarding this edit;

@User:Stonewaters - I think the main issue with the edits you are trying to put into the lead is that they are too detailed, and not appropriate for the lead. The lead is meant to be a general summary. It is definately not meant to contain bullet point lists.

Additionally, can you provide a source for "individually identified and killed by an Israeli unit called Sayeret Matkal" that has a viewable url?

Thanks, NickCT (talk) 17:24, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I have added a single sentence of information about an Israeli unit involved in a massacre, in an article about that massacre. Given that the article includes details of Hobeika's life, his gang's recruitment, the use of flares and the time of day, you cannot seriously argue that this is "too much detail".
If you don't like bullet points, you can remove them without deleting a single word of my sourced edit. Instead you chose to delete.
I have no internet source (and wikipedia policy doesnt require one). Please check Misplaced Pages:Sources#Reliable_sources if you are not sure about my sources' validity: One is a university level reference work, the other is by a former News Director of Radio France Internationale.
Overall there is no justification in what you have said for your deletion of my sourced edit. Do you have any other explanations?
Stonewaters (talk) 19:42, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
re "I have no internet source" - Yeah. Well, I'm looking for sources and don't see any. That doesn't seem like a credible assertion. If it was true, I would imagine it would be easily verifiable.
re "you can remove them" - I can also revert your entire edit if I don't like it! :-)
How bout you remove em. Best, NickCT (talk) 20:43, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
You need to look at the sources I cite, that is why citations are left, so you can check them. You cannot revert entire edits because you don't like them. Reliable sources are the basis of wikipedia, not what you like. Stonewaters (talk) 21:01, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Rename "massacre" to incident

The current name as it is appears to be devoid of common NPOV, I recommend that all references be named to "Sabra and Shatila incident" to prevent provocative and emotional wording from resurfacing on the encyclopedia. This is also consistent with WP:GUIDELINE and particularly WP:NPOV 108.247.158.130 (talk) 17:12, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Please review the WP:POVNAMING section of the NPOV policy together with the associated WP:TITLE policy and explain how renaming the article would be consistent with those policies. You need to provide evidence to support your assertion. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:39, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Sayeret Matkal

Why are there no details on the murders by Sayeret Matkal, neither here nor on the dedicated page? It doesn't appear to have had any political repercussions, even though that was the Israeli army itself doing the killing, which arguably is worse than "merely" allowing another group to murder. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.165.8.243 (talk) 01:20, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps someone still has to write it. kashmiri 11:08, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

On 15 September 1982, 63 Palestinian intellectuals, notably lawyers, medical staff and teachers, were individually identified and killed by an Israeli unit called Sayeret Matkal.

Can someone clarify these claim & sources (quotes, etc.). Any way, it should be attributed. --Igorp_lj (talk) 10:15, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
I have not verified these claims. One of the sources is in French, which I cannot read. The other source (Trablousi) mentions Sayeret Matkal going into the camps but not this incident specifically. I will ping Nishidani to see if he has the time to rustle up something. Kingsindian  10:21, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

  1. Fawwaz Traboulsi, History of Modern Lebanon p218
  2. Alain Menargues, Secrets de la Guerre du Liban pp469-70

Ehud Barak and Moshe Ya'alon were senior Sayeret Maktal operatives within Beirut at the time. Perhaps we should email them. They certainly know what happened.

sur place, persuadés que leur statut de non-combattants les plaçait au-dessus de la mêlée. La premiére série de liquidations de civils palestiniens dans Sabra et Chatila se termina en fin d'après-midi, lorsque les groups du Sayeret Mak'tal israélien quittèrent les camps aussi discrètement qu'ils y étaient entrés. Le massacre avait commencé, deux autres équipes de tueurs devaient prendre le relais.'p.470

(subject missing) 'convinced that their non-combatant status put them above the fray. The first series of liquidations of Palestinian civilians in Sabra and Shatila was completed by the end of the afternoon, when groups of Sayeret Maktal left the camps as quietly as they had entered it. The massacre had begun, two other squads of killers were to take over.

He follows this up with a long para quoting a foreign correspondent (Robert Fisk?) with long service in the area to the effect that it would be inconceivable for Israel not to have used its special forces to undertake such a preliminary operation against the Palestinians.

Lacking the preceding page, I suspect Ménargues is surmising. Another source not considered here says that Ménargues is in fact saying that Sayeret Maktal special operations groups engaged in an initial groups of targeted assassinations,' 'fait apparaître qu'une première série de meurtres ciblés sera faite par les commandos israéliens du Sayeret Maktal chargé des opérations speciales,' (Maghreb, Machrek 2006 p.125)

That Israeli special operation agents were in the camp during the slaughter of 1,700 is attested by eyewitnesses (Robert FiskThe Great War for Civilization pp.1021-1026) The Israelis, 'after the slaughter was reported, handed over to the Phalangists, who had initially nbeen blamed for all of it, another 300 Palestinians who were kept in containers in hills as possible hostages, and when no deal was made, taken out and machine-gunned, and buried by a local chapel, that still exists. I'll keep looking (sorry for being late: power shortages) Nishidani (talk) 13:31, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I'd think that despite the sources, it requires for the moment (a) attribution (b) just more work. If any one can supply Ménargues p.469, it would be a help.(c) Fawwaz Traboulsi should be looked up in a library: he definitely mentions sayeret maktal on p.218 in the context of the slaughter. (d)Ménargues uses a source, so his footnote should be checked.Nishidani (talk) 13:33, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Despite attempts, I can't confirm the 63 as the number individually selected.That must be verified.Nishidani (talk) 13:46, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Trablousi (p 218):

On Wednesday 15th, units of the elite Israeli army ‘reconnaissance’ force, the Sayeret Mat`kal, which had already carried out the assassination of the three PLO leaders in Beirut, entered the camps with a mission to liquidate a selected number of Palestinian cadres. The next day, two units of killers were introduced into the camps, troops from Sa`d Haddad’s Army of South Lebanon, attached to the Israeli forces in Beirut, and the LF security units of Elie Hobeika known as the Apaches, led by Marun Mash`alani, Michel Zuwayn and Georges Melko.

He cites Menargues, and another author: Shimon Shiffer, Opération Boule de Neige: Les secrets de l’intervention israélienne au Liban (Paris: J.C. Lattes, 1984), pp. 172–3 Kingsindian  14:18, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

The Shiffer source would be important because there is a controversy about this theory, especially as presented by Pierre Péan,'Sabra et Chatila, retour sur un massacre,' in Le monde diplomatique September 2002. Péan has influenced several writers including Dominique Vidal. The Péan thesis runs thus:

'Sharon et Bashir Gemayel, who used the Israeli secret services directed at the time by Abraham Shalon, who had been ordered to linquidate all the terrorists. The Lebanese militias were nothing more than agents in a chain of command that led back, via the secret services, to the Israeli authorities.'/blockquote>

Péan's key source for this stating that the massacre was agreed to by Sharon and Bashir Gemayel (Davar and Amir Oren) state no such thing. One theory is that Elie Hobeika spread this version, and the bit about Sayeret Maktal, to absolve himself of complicity in the massacre by blaming the Israelis, with whom he once collaborated before siding with Syria. The journalistic investigation deconstructing this dismisses it as a legend, at least in this version. Shiffer however predates this by 18 years. It is also true that Robert Fisk, the only person who, with things like this, went round and cross-checked names of victims, interviewed relatives etc., does note that Israelis were handing over Palestinians to the Phalangists even after the massacre, Palestinians subsequently machinegunned and buried in a mass grave whose site is known; and that two people who survived mention being ordered by loudspeakers from Israeli outposts, and Israeli officers, during the massacre. In this kind of mucky world of spin, counter-spin, disinformatsiya and intelligence muddling of the waters, we simply cannot know, and should rely on historians like Henri Laurens, who habitually gives all versions, suggests which is more likely, but concludes that we will never know. The few people who do know have no interest in the truth, since for them 'real' history doesn't function that way (as Karl Rove more or less said). I'm sure Henry Laurens will deal with it in his final volume of La Question de Palestine, and if I'm still around will notify the board of his analysis.Nishidani (talk) 16:01, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
To recap: Kingsindian restored to the article a claim that 63 civilians ware massacred, based on one source he didn't read and can't read because it is in a language he does not understand, , and a second source which does not give the number 63, nor does it say civilians were massacred. This is about as gross a falsification of sources as I have come across. I am removing it, and if it is returned again based on these sources, expect to see a WP:AE report. All Rows4 (talk) 06:31, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
@All Rows4: I was not the one who added the statement initially. You removed the statement based on a wholly improper use of WP:REDFLAG. Both of these sources are WP:RS, contrary to what you claimed in your edit summary. And you did not bother to check what they said, instead, you simply removed the statement. I simply restored the statement based on WP:PRESERVE. I was the one who bothered to hunt down the sources and check what they say. I was in fact planning to remove the quote myself, and I am not planning to restore the statement while the status of the statement is unclear. If you feel that I have falsified sources, please feel free to go to WP:AE, otherwise I will appreciate it if you strike that very serious personal attack. Kingsindian  09:22, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
I neither know nor care who originally put that statement in - but when you restored it, you take responsibility for it. My removal was perfectly in line with WP:REDFLAG , per the explanation I gave - such an incident, if true, would have been headline news, with multiple high quality sources. WP:PRESERVE doesn't mean you blindly reinsert material - you do so only after you verify it. Per you own account, you did not verify one of the sources (and can't, as you don't read French), and the second source which you did verify, does not support the claim that 63 civilians were executed . I am happy to hear you don't plan on reintroducing that source falsification back into the article. All Rows4 (talk) 09:35, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 January 2014

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The article has a factual error regarding Sean MacBride. In this article Sean MacBride is listed as "a former UN secretary general". Sean MacBride was never Secretary General of the UN. He was previously a High Commissioner for Namibia and Chairman of UNESCO. 173.25.248.109 (talk) 20:38, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting that. I've rewritten it (see ). Sean.hoyland - talk 03:18, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Mass deletion

‎Peleio Aquiles, you are the one removing well-sourced material, while also rephrasing a sourced sentence in a POV manner. You should at least self-revert your mass deletions rather than pretending you are restoring sourced material. If not, I will simply revert you tomorrow.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:23, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not pretending anything and what I did is not "mass deletion" - it's replacement of POV material with reliable sources. Before my latest edit, the Shlomo Argov edit did not even make sense - it couldn't, since the latter half of the paragraph that completed the first one was removed and replaced by something unrelated. What's more, all the material inserted by me today - about Israel's casus belli and the UN's commission's finding that Israel was responsible for the massacre - was there before my latest edits and only got removed, possibly by POV-motivated authors, this month or in Septmeber - not coincidentally, the month of the massacre's anniversary, when the entry's views would spike. In any case, you can see both edits were already there months ago. Both edits are well sourced and, after a cursory look at the editing history, it can be seen whoever removed them did not give an explanation for their actions. The casus belli edit has as a source David Hirst's book about Lebanese history. The book was widely reviewed on mainstream media, and praised. It sits at the top of Misplaced Pages's reliable source chain. And even though this isn't required, the book is excerpted to show it supports the edit's content. In case anyone's in doubt, several other sources give support to Hirst's narrative. Remove it all you like - I, too, can revert you tomorrow again.Peleio Aquiles (talk) 23:39, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
That's not how consensus is formed. You are clearly acting in bad faith. The PLO and Israel's Lebanon War are excellent sources. If you continue to delete them with no explanation as to why, you must take them to RSN. I will also add PLO in Lebanon, which says plainly "From July 1981 to June 1982, under cover of the ceasefire, the PLO pursued its acts of terror against Israel, resulting in 26 deaths and and 264 injured." I am not in a similar bind, because I do not want to delete Hirst's book.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:50, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
So The PLO, Israel's Lebanon War, and PLO in Lebanon are unreliable, but a polemical attack on Christopher Hitchens and a newspaper editorial about Nidal are needed to source an uncontroversial fact no-one has disputed? Again, your behavior is extremely suspect.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:59, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
None of those two books are quoted - how am I supposed to know if, and to what extent, they dispute Hirst's book? The quote you do adduce, though horribly POV to be honest, in no way implies that was a casus belli for the invasion of Lebanon. As for the two other sources I added today, the book is peer reviewed and therefore is fit for Misplaced Pages. The editorial is syndicated in a mainstream source, The Independent, and has an extremely notable author when the subject is Israel, Palestine and Lebanon: Robert Fisk. It more than surpasses Misplaced Pages's notability standards. And I just added a third book about Israel's military history.Peleio Aquiles (talk) 00:07, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
You may think that kind of drivel will distract others from the plain truth, but it will not. You have provided no explanation for your mass deletion. I do not care about the credentials of the book on Hitchens or any other source. Either take my sources to RSN when I restore them, or stop trying to mislead readers about the pristine peace and tranquility along the Israel-Lebanon border. It is not, by the way, my job to prove my sources say what they say--nor is "POV" a valid reason for deletion, as if Fisk is 100% neutral.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:25, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
@TheTimesAreAChanging:The closest the neutral we're going to get is Benny Morris. Let me quote him:
"The most immediate problem was the PLO's military infrastructure, which posed a standing threat to the security of northern Israeli settlements. The removal of this threat was to be the battle cry to rouse the Israeli cabinet and public, despite the fact that the PLO took great pains not to violate the agreement of July 1981. Indeed, subsequent Israeli propaganda notwithstanding, the border between July 1981 and June 1982 enjoyed a state of calm unprecedented since 1968. But Sharon and Begin had a broader objective: the destruction of the PLO and its ejection from Lebanon. Once the organization was crushed, they reasoned, Israel would have a far freer hand to determine the fate of the West Bank and Gaza Strip." He directly refutes your claim. Your source is most likely "Israeli propaganda", as it so happens. JDiala (talk) 14:35, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, User:JDiala. Tomorrow I'll re-insert the paragraph in its original sense and the material you have presented us will be quoted to represent a prominent Israeli academic POV. I can't do that now as another POV editor has reverted the properly sourced material yet again.Peleio Aquiles (talk) 10:05, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I advise bad editor, canvasser and sockpuppet user TheTimesAreAChanging not to remove properly sourced material inserted by a large number of editors just because the truth hurts your political sensibilities. Your will doesn't override that of everyone who has ever edited this entry. All the material you have desperately been trying to remove has been there before anything between you and me came up, and was inserted via legitimate and honest editing work. Respect the work of other editors and stop trolling the entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peleio Aquiles (talkcontribs) 15:49, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Is the long background section necessary at all? There's the 1982 Lebanon War article after all. And it's actually POV if so many edits are about Israeli government's responsibility, when in the end it was a massacre done by Christian Lebanese on Muslims. Yuvn86 (talk) 22:14, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
If you make one more false, unfounded, defamatory accusation that I have used sockpuppets to edit this page I will have no choice but to seek admin intervention. You have no idea what you are talking about--just as you have no idea what you are talking about when you attribute statements such as "years after the war" to books you never read, or seek to debunk PLO terrorism overseas by reference to the state of "relative" calm along the Lebanese border. When I say Wlglunight93 is likely responsible, I say that with confidence because he attempted to canvass me through email, and I refused. When you employed a sockpuppet, I filed an investigation, and you admitted wrongdoing. You can take the same action, but you cannot continue to attack me personally.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:18, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Edits to the lead

I have reverted these edits to the lead per WP:BRD:

  • edit1: WP:REDFLAG is applied inappropriately. The two sources cited are indeed WP:RS. If you believe that there is something wrong with them, take them to WP:RSN or get some other consensus.
  • edit2: The removal of IDF role in the events is improper. As mentioned in the lead, the MacBride commission held Israel responsible, and the Kahan commission held Israel "indirectly responsible". The area was under Israeli control, the Phalanges were military allies of Israel in this war, and Israel used flares for illumination, among many other points. Kingsindian  09:16, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  1. Morris, Benny (2001). Righteous Victims : A History of the Zionist-Arab Conflict, 1881-2001. New York: Vintage Books. p. 509. ISBN 978-0-679-74475-7. {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
Categories: