Talk:Sabra and Shatila massacre

Genocide / Abstentions

On December 16, 1982, the United Nations General Assembly condemned the massacre and declared it to be an act of genocide.[23] Paragraph 2, which "resolved that the massacre was an act of genocide", was adopted by ninety-eight votes to nineteen, with twenty-three abstentions: All Western democracies abstained from voting.

Except I can think of more than 23 Western Democracies. Perhaps it would be of more use saying x y & z abstained from voting. Hrcolyer (talk) 14:31, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

This bit is solved now, I hope, with new internet links etcetera.--Corriebertus (talk) 19:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

One very basic question

Habib Shartouni and Bashir are both Maronite Christians, and Bashir headed the Phalange party whose major supporters were Maronite Christians. And the Christian Phalangists committed the massacre against Palestinian(predominantly Muslim) refugees. I think the article would be a lot better off if a few lines were included in the opening paragraph as to why the revenge act was particularly against the Palestinian refugees. As someone not very knowing about the Middle Eastern politics, I could not understand this central point even after reading through the whole article. Naw66 (talk) 04:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Sources 12, 40, & 41 (perhaps others)

Are documentaries, especially ones that include no direct video or audio of a given claim, acceptable as encyclopedic "sources?"

Love him or hate him, no one disputes that Michael Moore makes documentaries. Imagine accepting any conclusion offered in a Michael Moore documentary as an encyclopedic source. Or from a Rush Limbaugh documentary, if he produced one. Anyone else see a problem there?

Documentaries are vastly more subject to market forces than purely scholarly and journalistic work. Even ostensibly journalistic documentaries (e.g., from Al Jazeera, MSNBC, the BBC, or Fox News) are far less likely to have been made seeking strict objectivity or balanced accounting of an event. Unlike news media's purely journalistic efforts -- and even they fail with some frequency in regard to objectivity and balance -- they have no responsibility to do so.

It occurs that the above inquiry applies to Wikipedia as a whole. But with heated, controversial issues such as the subject here, perhaps it's a matter worth considering per-article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pause2Reflect (talk • contribs) 07:11, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Depending on the source of a documentary, it may or may not be a good source, unless the citation is to support a statement that references the documentary. For example, sources 40 and 41 are cited in statements that explicitly discuss the corresponding documentaries; that's a good use. Source 12 is a BBC documentary, and I would lean towards journalistic documentaries being viable as sources in most cases. They're not as good as articles that have been reviewed by multiple editors perhaps, but they're at least on par with op ed pieces by notable sources. ← George ^[talk] 07:29, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

challenging the genocide status of this massacre

In section 'Controversies - Genocide status', the paragraph relating to Leo Kuper is wrongly placed, because mr Kuper does not challenge that genocide status. He seems unhappy with certain events, but since he does not challenge this U.N. conclusion, his remarks do not fit in this section. I give that whole paragraph here below; perhaps someone wants to place it somewhere in Wikipedia on a proper place.

Citing Sabra and Shatila as an example, Leo Kuper notes the reluctance of the United Nations to respond or take action in actual cases of genocide for most egregious violators, but its willingness to charge "certain vilified states, and notably Israel", with genocide. In his view:

This availability of a scapegoat state in the UN restores members with a record of murderous violence against their subjects a self-righteous sense of moral purpose as principled members of 'the community of nations'... Estimates of the numbers killed in the Sabra-Shatila massacres range from about four hundred to eight hundred - a minor catastrophe in the contemporary statistics of mass murder. Yet a carefully planned UN campaign found Israel guilty of genocide, without reference to the role of the Phalangists in perpetrating the massacres on their own initiative. The procedures were unique in the annals of the United Nations.

--Corriebertus (talk) 19:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I've constructed a new article, also useful for the above-mentioned comment from Leo Kuper. The new article is: Sourness in non-Israeli citizens after criticism on Israeli politics.--Corriebertus (talk) 21:03, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

"Bernard Lewis, who is Jewish"...

For the time being, one man with a certain, though perhaps also disputed, reputation as scholar, wants to inform the public that media attention was predominantly ‘demonizing Israelis’. We don’t have to decide whether Lewis is right, we only have to decide whether his opinion is authoritative enough to be denoted in Wikipedia. I personally think, Lewis has enough fame to put down that opinion of his in this article, shortly. I consider it not relevant, and rather suggestive, to denote there also that Lewis might be Jewish. So I removed those three words. It would suggest that ‘a Jew’ can’t have an unbiased, reliable opinion on matters concerning the state of Israel. That would be an infamizing treatment by Wiki of a scholar of repute. If that suggestion is not the reason to denote that Lewis would be ‘Jewish’, than what is the relevance to denote that?--Corberto (talk) 19:48, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

"Perpetrators"

Why should the infobox not include the information that the massacre was carried out while the camp was surrounded by Israeli troops who allowed the Phalangists to enter the camp and slaughter its residents? Why should the fact that an Israeli commission found Israel to be "indirectly responsible" and Ariel Sharon to be "personally responsible" for the massacre not be included in the infobox? nableezy - 16:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I added a source for that, I don t know why it was reverted. I ll add it again. may be the deleter will explain why in the discussion page. --Helmoony (talk) 16:56, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

do you know the definition of belligerent? what you described in the above comment does not match. 174.112.83.21 (talk) 17:06, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, How are you ? Ok let s talk. Please do not revert because the last reviewed version (I mean by a reviewer) included Israel as a belligerent. I added a source. Can you please give us a source that says that Israel is not a belligerent ? I added a source for the participation of Israel (MacBride, Seán; A. K. Asmal, B. Bercusson, R. A. Falk, G. de la Pradelle, S. Wild (1983). Israel in Lebanon: The Report of International Commission to enquire into reported violations of International Law by Israel during its invasion of the Lebanon. London: Ithaca Press. pp. 191–2. ISBN 0-903729-96-2.). --Helmoony (talk) 17:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

stop making up your own rules. so typical... read WP:BRD. you made a bold edit, it was reverted, now it's up for discussion. you have no consensus for this radical change. i do not have to find a source that proves israel is NOT a belligerent. the onus is on you to find one that says otherwise. this is absolute nonsense. 174.112.83.21 (talk) 17:18, 27 August 2010 (UTC).

Thanks for the information, here is my source (MacBride, Seán; A. K. Asmal, B. Bercusson, R. A. Falk, G. de la Pradelle, S. Wild (1983). Israel in Lebanon: The Report of International Commission to enquire into reported violations of International Law by Israel during its invasion of the Lebanon. London: Ithaca Press. pp. 191–2. ISBN 0-903729-96-2.). --Helmoony (talk) 17:28, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

your source does not say israel is a belligerent 174.112.83.21 (talk) 17:31, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

can you read this <In 1982, an independent commission chaired by Sean MacBride concluded that the Israeli authorities or forces were, directly or indirectly, involved.> and this from an Israeli commisiion <The Israeli government established the Kahan Commission to investigate, and in early 1983 it found Israel indirectly responsible for the event, and that Ariel Sharon bears personal responsibility for the massacre for allowing the Phalangists into the camps. The Israelis had been supplying the Phalangists with weapons and equipment, and had provided transportation of the Phalangists to the camps. > in the book [1]. thks ;) --Helmoony (talk) 17:38, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

i have read the report before, and i have read it now again. like i said, it does not say israel is a belligerent. i suggest you look up the definition of belligerent to clear up your confusion. 174.112.83.21 (talk) 17:48, 27 August 2010 (UTC)