Talk:Saeb Erekat/Archive 1

Jenin massacre
I have removed a large part of the "Jenin massacre" thing, which in my opinion does noteven belong here at all.

Saeb Erekat has been a very important negociator in the Middle East for years. This "Jenin massacre" is an absolutely anecdotical detail of his biography ; Erekat is one among many proponents of this affair.

It is not acceptable to unbalance the article with such trivialities, which are already covered in their own article anyway. In addition, the wording was militant (who can seriously write things like "BBC and international media buying into the Propaganda" in an encyclopedia ?). Also, you say "Biography", not "bio", in an encyclopedia.

The sectionning is very, very wrong (putting "BBC and international media buying into the Propaganda" on the same level than "General Bio") ; it means that Erekat did two things in his life : be a proeminent diplomat and statesman, and, most importantly, be involved in one of the gazillion media mess that occure in the Middle East. Similarly Georges Bush Junior is President of the USA and a drunk ? Come on. Rama 09:49, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I will leave User:Jaakobou to respond in detail, but I will say I agree with Rama that alot of this edit is WP:POV and certainly needs to be tidied, but there is information here that needs to be added. I do not wish this to turn into a revert war, but I have reverted it to the state it was before I asked for this discussion, and not through mal intent. Jaakobou if you do not take this time to respond or re-write in a more objective manner, then Rama will have no recourse but to revert. Regards Khukri ( talk  .  contribs ) 10:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Note that even though I think that whole information is anecdotical and irrelevant, I am willing to settle to a short "Controversy over the Jenin Raid" paragraph, with a link to the main article (where the information belongs) and a brief text. But making this "event" more important comparably than the whole career of Erekat is in my view totally out of the question.
 * Jaakobou, although there is a need for this info in the article, as Rama has stated I think it can be drastically shortened, and doesn't need to take up 60% of the article. Khukri ( talk  .  contribs ) 12:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * i agree that it needs to be tidied up and that the quoetes should be affiliated as a stub. on top of that, much more information behind the reason for this and more about his life should be added - it's not my fault that the article was basically 2 paragraphs to begin with that portrayed him only as a peace negotiator - i added a section and expected people to add more - i was planning on adding more about his contribution to the palestinian life but didn't get around to it just yet - i'm redoing a few texts at the university - if you could let me know on how to make the quotes into stubs, i'd be happy to make that change - i'm also open to suggestions on changing the phrasing "BBC buying into the propoganda" which i chose due to their usual M.O. of broadcasting news about israel.
 * Jaakobou 17:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Erekat is a historical figure of Camp David and other similar negociations, which are way more important, in all respects, that this story.
 * Agreed, would you be willing to add it as a counterpoint? Khukri ( talk  .  contribs ) 12:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It is mentionned in the biography section. Naturally, it could be desirable to elaborate on this; Enderlin's Shattered Dreams gives hints on his role in these talks. But I am not a specialist of these questions, so I would not be as bold as to try this myself. Rama 13:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * i havnlt heard about Enderlin's book, but i think while his public image in the peace talks was one, his other image where he blatantly lied to the media constantly - also with his free "translations" to Arafat's words - were a part of his public image that should be recognized in a serious encyclopedia... indeed, as of now, they take too much of the article - i plan on expanding it, and hope others will join in expanding it - and not in shrinking it.
 * i was a little shocked to see that you took the title "terrorists" off the PLF on the article about Samir Kuntar.. i could understand the other edits - but when you removed that title from the PLF, you basically show your stand on this issue [the PLF are responsible for example for the kidnapping of a ship and trying to get their captured prisoners out of the israeli prisons, they are also accepted as a terrorist group not just by the USA and Israel but also the UN].
 * Jaakobou 17:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Besides, the story itseld seems to be much more nuanced than what Jaakobou seems to believe: it seems that Erekat might actually never have given this figure of 500 killed, nor spoken the word "massacre"  ; this should be taken into account in te article about jenin. Rama 11:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Rama, the story in itself is not neuanced at all, since up to that moment he was on the news on every clash between israel and terrorists [yes, terrorists, not freedom fighters].. whenever asked about a terror attack he would say something to the note of "what you really need to see is the oppression of the occupation" and then he would embellish it with pseudo facts and down right lies - he managed to do this for about 2-3 years becoming ever more popular on BBC, SkyNews and CNN.. [i can't say about other channels] up to the point that he put them all to mockery with this large incident where he was caught with his lies and pants down... i chose not to embellish the text the way i do so now... but to present the facts about BBC who even after the incident was revealed, refused to give way.. which is not the case with CNN [i can't speak for sky - our cable stopped airing them].
 * basically, he was trying to cover up all the under-the-table activity yasser arafat was doing with the terrorists where he funded them, imported weapons and promoted terror activity.. a lot of valuable proof was uncovered at the jenin raid.. i should add that information - but that would really be part of the "jenin battle" article.
 * as for the links you gave, they are ridiculously biased - you cannot say that they are more accurate than the transcripts of CNN - i gave a direct link on the article itself to avoid this type of sharade debate - here is one of them again: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0204/17/wbr.00.html
 * SAEB ERAKAT, CHIEF PALESTINIAN NEGOTIATOR: Well, I have a suggestion to make, Wolf, to Mr. Ben-Eliezer. How about if we form an international commission of inquiry, let them go to Jenin with the equipment needed (UNINTELLIGIBLE). And let them tell the world, this being American, European, anybody, we have1,600 missing menin this refugee camp. Mostly women and children, husbands and wives. I'm not saying they are killed. I'm saying that the situation in this refugee camp which we have been reporting from there now,even milk is prevented to the children now. Bodies are rotting. It's a disastrous area, Wolf.
 * So it is not for us to decide how many were killed.There is no longer a refugee camp there. And maybe the defense minister and the prime minister of Israel want to deny what CNN is showing, that the camp was totally destroyed. They conducted terror.They're not out there to fight terror. They are conducting terror. They're killing Palestinians. They have made Palestinians so filled now with anger, with hate. They have set the clock back to 30 years ago. All the work of the good people, Palestinians and Israelis who devoted their lives to make peace, reconciliation, healing have been destroyed in the last few weeks at the hands of Sharon and his people.
 * So, as far as he is concerned, we officially offer...
 * BLITZER: Mr. Erakat, let me interrupt...
 * ERAKAT: ... to have an international commission of inquiry to get the results (ph) and to decide how many people were massacred.And we say the number will not be less than 500.
 * in short 1, after the jenin "incident" - Erekat was no longer invited on CNN or BBC .. and now BBC sometimes give a quote here and a quote there by him, but refrain from making him a desirable persona on their channel anymore... sounds significant to me.
 * in short 2, i agree that more input about Erekat should be inserted and thus making the jenin "incident" take a smaller part out of the article... [i made it quite small considering the amounts of quotes i could have insereted from 3 years full of lies which practically ended at that point in time].. i may add some material myself about other topics - but i hoped others will contribute... Khukri, i hope you will help us resolve this out in suggesting and maybe making the quotes into stubs or arranging the section differently - without removing it.
 * note that jenin, right before the raid, was nicknamed "town of shaheeds" by the palestinians themselves and about 28 suicide bobmers came from there in a period of about 3 months.
 * note to Rama, a terror group is a terror group - the Etzel/Irgun was an Israeli terror group - you will not see me go into their page and change that into the word 'orgenization' - calling them/PLF/Samir Kuntar/Arafat freedom fighters is a mockery if you consider the actual tactics used... i suggest you watch a movie called "relentless" and afterwards watch "death in gaza". - on that note - Saeb Erekat is more than a diplomat and a peace negotiator - but he's also a manipulator propoganda officer for the Palestinian Authority, denying that would be defending a person on the basis of liking part of what he's doing... the most famous case of those in israel is about Arie Deri which his people wrote songs "who zachai" [he's innocent] even after his conviction.
 * sorry for rambling.. i probably repeated myself a couple times.
 * Jaakobou 17:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Listen, this is all very nice, but
 * You know nothing about me, so do not try to force political opinions down my throat
 * If you do not have direct quotations of Erekat "lying to the media", I see no reason to blindly repeat what the media reported if we have reasons to doubt their exactitude. What makes you think that Erekat did not genuially think that 500 people were killed ? The Israeli did kill 50 people, and forbid any access to the place for some time ; I do not see why you might make it a crime for Erekat personally to base his numbers on the number of missing people, for instance.
 * In the Battle of Jenin article, which is much more topical to this subject than this article, the point is developped with two lines : "Saeb Erekat, a Palestinian minister for Local Government is quoted in the Washington Post making the first allegation of a massacre [24]" and "Saeb Erekat estimates 500 or more dead in the whole Israeli offensive[27]"
 * In any case, the point is negligeable in regard to the carrer of Erekat.
 * In any case, the wording is appaling and certainly not to the standards of an encyclopedia. Rama 11:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I have re-worked the part in question.
 * We do not need lenghtly quotations that say exactly the same thing, awhich is what isalready  paraphrased in the paragraph ; sources are enough
 * The developpements of the perception by the BBC and God knows who are irrelevant ; this is an article about Saeb Erekat, not a general opinioned editorial about how biased the liberal media bla bla bla. Rama 12:33, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * i admit your edit is not bad, i'll probably add just a little bit more into it, but nothing like the way it was written before. still, since you havn't witnessed all of his TV appearances - you can claim ignorance on his part. where i - and the people who took his words for granted in those days - can tell you there is no mistaking that he lied intentionally in an attempt to stop the israeli raid from getting the papers where arafat signed paychecks for terror orgenization militants... there's a reason you don't see him on TV anymore, and there was no mistaking all his quotes.. he said he had seen a brotherly grave with 300 people in it.. this is not a media report but a direct quote... anyways - i appreciate your interest and your protection on neutrality on wiki.
 * Jaakobou 15:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Your personal opinion does not constitute a proof. What was known for certain is that Tsahal did kill a number of civilians in the camp ; that access to the camp was forbidden to International organisations, including the Red Cross. Erekat might have spoken out of genuine concern ; he might have exagerated his own fears ; or he might magically have had a precise figure of the casualties and actually have lied ; we certainly have no proof that the third case of figure actually happened.
 * Think about the way in which we treat discourses which were, for months, off reality by far greater margins, by people who had far greater means to gather accurate information, and which have had far more damageable consequences. Rama 16:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Numerous inaccuracies in Jenin section
Besides the grossly undue weight on this Jenin thing, the information there is very poorly verified and in some cases inaccurate. Furthermore, it ignores widely reported information in order to present Erakat as a manipulative liar.


 * "repeatedly claimed" is unsourced; the only sources I'm aware of who bring this "repeatedly claimed" language are partisan-hackery groups like ADL, CAMERA, etc. The source contains one claim, and it's not even entirely clear what was being claimed.

...and yet the only source which claims this is a report by Paul Martin in the Washington Times. The Washington Time, which is the organ of a religious cult, s has a reputation for poor fact-checking. Paul Martin specifically has been called out by Canada's national broadcaster for fabricating a false quotation from an Arab militant group, and for using an Arabic pseudonym to bolster his credibility on a Palestine story while actually reporting from London.
 * "Palestinian Fatah investigators claimed the death toll is 56, announced by Kadoura Moussa, the Fatah director for the Northern West Bank."

No, the UN reported that at a certain time, Amnesty had placed the current death toll at 52. Nowhere in the UN report is it stated that 52 was some kind of definitive or final number, and in fact the UN referred to two subsequent deaths caused by unexploded ordnance / mines left from the battle.
 * The UN put the final death toll at 52 Palestinians,[not in citation given]

Where in the source does it say this? The UN report repeated the conclusions of Amnesty and HRW that no evidence existed of a large-scale deliberate massacre, not that no evidence existed of deliberate killings of civilians. In fact, the UN report referred to several cases unearthed by Amnesty and HRW of apparent deliberate killings of civilians (though on a smaller scale).
 * and it concluded that no civilians were killed deliberately.[dubious – discuss]


 * The Israeli claim about hype and facts is promulgated with no attempt at balance from non-Israeli (or even dissident Israeli) sources.


 * Finally, we are ignoring the fact that the IDF also released very high estimates of body count! Numbers from 150-250 were thrown around, which in the words of IDF Captain Jacob Dallal, a media spin doctor, "made the Palestinian estimates seem reasonable". Instead, we're presenting the propaganda narrative where Saeb Erakat knew that these numbers were high but pushed them anyway. Given that the Israelis were not allowing access to the camp, and had just destroyed all the infrastructure of PA governance, Erakat was in absolutely no position to know.

&lt; el eland / talk  edits &gt; 21:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * ok, which part do you want to discuss first?  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  23:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * We do the easy parts first, and exclude anything referenced to hate-sources, or religious wishful thinking (like the Washington Times). Then we make sure that sources haven't lied about what they've taken from the UN report (as at least one RS did). PRtalk 17:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Eleland, feel free to continue the discussion from where we left off.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  17:24, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd say the ball's in your court, but unless you are planning to reference this information or offer some credible explanation of why it should stay, I'm planning on removing the entire section soon. The only verifiable information here is that Saeb Erakat made casualty estimates on the Battle of Jenin, but there is no reason to treat this as relevant or significant (the article on Shimon Peres, for example, makes no reference to his hastily-retracted "Jenin massacre" claim.) It would appear that the only people who see these statements as a significant part of his career are partisan pressure groups like the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs; I do not see why we are effectively authorizing them to write Erekat's biography. &lt; el eland / talk  edits &gt; 17:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Wait, you just deleted dissed PR's comment, which was helpful, on topic, and civil, without explanation. Don't be a dick. &lt; el eland / talk  edits &gt; 17:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, now I see. You are referring to the discussion section prior to the one I opened. It appears that you stuffed this article full of irrelevant and tendentious editorializing, then objective editors managed to bargain you down but didn't quite complete the task. Well, fine; Wikipedia is about consensus, after all. Find me a source, even a POV commentary source, which discusses Saeb Erakat as a malicious liar, and we can say "The [insert objective-sounding name of Israeli Hasbara group here] criticized Erakat for his conduct during and immediately after the Battle of Jenin, when he promulgated very high casualty estimates later found to be spurious." That's what your cringe-inducing revision boils down to once Wikipedia policy is applied. &lt; el eland / talk  edits &gt; 20:14, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * as you might have suspected, the version of the article, before the recent edits, was a hard earned consensus. now, i'm willing to rediscuss each point - however, there was plenty of refrences to everything on the text before it was narrowed down to a single paragraph (that's now been littered with "fact" and "bogus" tags.


 * maybe we can start our discussions without talks of [insert name of highly-POV group] or threats to remove material (as you've seen there's ample material in the old version), but rather by focusing on each point and finding out if we can slowly work out a new consensus on each.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  03:37, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm glad to know that we both wish to discuss this. Above, I raised specific objections based on both facts and policy. I added that "unless you are planning to reference this information or offer some credible explanation of why it should stay", I intended to delete it. If you wish it to stay, I would suggest you find accurate references for the information, or in some way engage with the factual and policy objections I have raised. &lt; el eland / talk  edits &gt; 04:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * everything was well cited and explained - you can go over the old version to see for yourself.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  04:17, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you be more specific? I have raised specific objections, to which you have not specifically responded. The quotations from Erakat were apparently all sourced, as was the Yediot Aharonot editorial, but nothing else was, including key statements such as "Saeb Erekat being the most prominent and outspoken...BBC and international media buying into the Propoganda...The UN put the final death toll at 52 Palestinians ... and it concluded that no civilians were killed deliberately." Furthermore, my specific objections also included questions of unbalanced POV and errors of omission, which I think merit further discussion. &lt; el eland / talk  edits &gt; 04:54, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * choose your favorite point from the list and start a new subsection.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  04:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, I don't understand what you are asking. I've elicited, several times, specific responses to objections I've made. I don't see how the use of ==== markup enters into it. I'm concerned that an overly bureaucratic attitude may have been adopted here; let's just discuss the issues freely, and resort to this type of micro-management if and when it becomes necessary. Let me re-iterate: I object to the current version on grounds of factual accuracy, unbalanced POV, and errors of omission, which I have already elaborated. Let's talk about those objections. Of course, if you wish to open subsections, you are absolutely free to do so. <tt>&lt; el eland / talk  edits &gt;</tt> 05:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * And now, instead of discussing, Jaakobou pushes the article back towards his preferred soapboxy essay. This kind of thing is unfortunate. Let's talk instead of edit-warring. <tt>&lt; el eland / talk  edits &gt;</tt> 15:42, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Pagenumbers tag
This refers to the "UN Report" citation. The UN report is at least two hundred paragraphs long. It's very difficult to verify statements like "[The UN] concluded that no civilians were killed deliberately" on the basis of citing the entire report. I do not believe that the report made this statement anywhere; unless we are pointed to the specific portion where this claim is made, it should be removed from the article soon. <tt>&lt; el eland / talk  edits &gt;</tt> 15:47, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * removing a source because it's hard to find the text within' it? that must be a new policy. this "i really want to remove this and that soon" style of interaction is a great way to build antagonism, why not just make a request that a source be clarified? ... or better yet find the paragraphs yourself... anyways, i'll fix it tomorrow if you won't help.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  17:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Most likely, the reason I can't find the paragraphs myself is that the paragraphs don't exist. The UN report does not appear to find that no civilians were killed deliberately.
 * The only use of the word "deliberate" in the main report appears in Section D, Paragraph 29: "While IDF soldiers have acknowledged in press reports that they forced Palestinians to knock on doors for house searches, they deny the deliberate use of civilians as human shields."
 * The word "intentional" appears in Section F, Paragraph 59: "The Palestinian Authority maintains that IDF 'had complete and detailed knowledge of what was happening in the camp through the use of drones and cameras attached to balloons … [and] none of the atrocities committed were unintentional'."
 * The word "purpose" appears in B10 discussing the Oslo II agreement ("Israel shall have the overall responsibility for security for the purpose of protecting Israelis...") and "purposely" comes in F53 saying "The Government of Israel maintains that ... 'armed terrorists ... purposely concealed themselves among the civilian population'".
 * "calculated" comes up blank
 * "planned" hits F45 "The Government of Israel has charged that, from October 2000 to April 2002, 28 suicide attacks were planned and launched from the Jenin camp." and F58 "In what both the Palestinian Authority and the Government of Israel describe as a "well-planned ambush" 13 IDF soldiers were killed and a number of others wounded"
 * "predetermined" and "prearranged" have no hits; "premeditated" or indeed any kind of "meditated" are blank. That pretty much exhausts my thesaurus, as well as my patience.
 * I appreciate your commentary on my choice of words and tone, and will redouble my efforts to avoid antagonism. <tt>&lt; el eland / talk  edits &gt;</tt> 17:49, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No reason whasoever for "Pagenumbers" tag, all references are web-sources. PRtalk 06:58, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Going to discuss, or just edit?
Thus far I've refrained from re-inserting maintenance tags, or from deleting extraneous content altogether. But there's no discussion going on here. I'd like to avoid any kind of edit war, so can "somebody" please respond to my earlier points? <tt>&lt; el eland / talk  edits &gt;</tt> 19:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Jenin
Start here, Jaakobou. Provide reliable sources about Erekat (not an article about Jenin that merely quotes Erekat) that present the Jenin episode as central to his life. Then we'll decide how much detail is appropriate.--G-Dett 15:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict: G-Dett beat me to it.)
 * Enough of your garbage, Jaakobou. I'm in full 3RR mode now, until you cease your disruptive insistence on making this page into your personal playhouse. We write biographies to reliable sources, not to the obscure conspiracy theories of right-wing bloggers. Stop disrupting, start discussing. <tt>&lt; el eland / talk  edits &gt;</tt> 15:51, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * how about the following source: "Palestinian cabinet minister Saeb Erekat was widely cited in press reports as having said that 500 people were killed in Jenin." added here by User:Eleland ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaakobou (talk • contribs) 17:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * What an idiotic, time-wasting bluff. Not only do you not address the numerous, specific, factual and policy-based objections raised above, you try to claim that a source stating, "despite an extensive search, I have been unable to find any directly quoted statement from any Palestinian official, including Erekat, using that figure for the death toll in Jenin...On April 10, 2002, Erekat did tell CNN that he believed that up to 500 people had been killed throughout the West Bank, not just in Jenin, since Israel had begun its "Operation Defensive Shield"...while the Jerusalem Post misreports what Erekat said it does highlight that at the same time that Erekat allegedly claimed 500 were killed, even Israeli sources were putting the death toll at up to 200. There are numerous contemporaneous press reports that Israeli Major General Ron Kitrey had put the death toll in Jenin alone at up to 300, but had later issued a statement saying that figure included dead and wounded...Although Erekat and several other Palestinian officials did later use the term "massacre," the first person to whom it was publicly attributed is Israeli foreign minister Shimon Peres."
 * I also note with interest that you refer to "Electronic Intifada" as a "source" for this purpose (it was an external link). Are you now saying that we can use Electronic Intifada as a reliable source?? <tt>&lt; el eland / talk  edits &gt;</tt> 17:31, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * i believe you are misrepresenting the sources, both the ones regarding the main article of Battle of Jenin and also the reference you yourself added into the article (i.e. electronicintifada.net) per, "pro-Erakat Palestinian link to balance". This reference is more than a good enough source to show notability of Erekat's statements regarding controversies in his biography (not to mention links to CNN and BBC).  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  17:46, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, you believe that I am misrepresenting the sources. That's a start. Can you tell us why you believe this? Can you provide a coherent and logical argument, backed with evidence?
 * Abunimah's article about the Jenin media coverage cannot be an effective guide for writing a biography of Erekat. The man is one of the most recognizable Palestinian officials there is. Surely he's been profiled by reliable sources. Do those sources expound on the alleged Jenin issue? How much weight to they devote to it? I can find you a thousand sources discussing some statement of Ariel Sharon or Shimon Peres at length, but this doesn't justify rewriting their biographies to be more than 50% devoted to this one statement. <tt>&lt; el eland / talk  edits &gt;</tt> 17:54, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * i think that if you link to all of the sources, then i will take the time to explain how you are misrepresenting them, however, i don't feel it's germane to the discussion of notability of his "Jenin Massacre" statements. you make an interesting point regarding ariel sharon and shimon peres, however - considering,
 * (1) this article goes at length at glorifying this guy's status as a peace negotiator.
 * (2) he made an impressive effort appearing personally on the main international news agencies to make these statements.
 * - i would find it odd that there'd be no criticism on such a public display of propaganda as he had made back then in April 2002.
 * p.s. if you feel there is a statement or two that ariel sharon or any other israeli public person have made repeatedly on multiple international news agencies of CNN and BBC's repute, then by all means, you should consider adding it to a controversies section in their articles.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  18:08, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * No, Jaakobou. I'm not going to do your work for you. You can "link to all of the sources" yourself (whatever that means). And if you didn't think my reading of the sources was germane, why did you bring it up in the first place? Your objection about "glorifying his status as a peace negotiator" is quite nonsensical. He was the chief negotiator for the PLO during the Oslo process. This isn't controversial, and mentioning it does not "glorify" anything. Your original research explanations of why you think the Jenin statements are notable to Erakat's biography are unhelpful. This article will be written after the fashion of reliable, published sources. If you acknowledge (as you seem to) that those sources don't treat Erakat's comments on Jenin as a notable or significant part of his biography, then we have very little to discuss. <tt>&lt; el eland / talk  edits &gt;</tt> 19:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Examples of profiles, biographies

 * Here's a BBC profile which makes no mention of the supposed controversy at all.


 * Here's globalsecurity.org's profile which makes no mention of the supposed controversy at all.


 * Here's the New York Times' three pages archiving "articles about Saeb Erekat", which make no mention in the headlines or lead sections.


 * Here's the Jewish Virtual Library (A Division of The American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise) bio on Erakat ; nothing about this supposed controversy.

I've excepted the numerous *.blogspot.com-type sites which may elaborate this so-called controversy; Wikipedia deserves better. <tt>&lt; el eland / talk  edits &gt;</tt> 18:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * so a news source who want to keep the opportunity of ever interviewing Saeb Erekat or reporting from without being threatened by the Palestinian Authority is supposed to make it into a report? (scroll down to find Palestinian Authority) not to mention that it was their blunder also.
 * p.s. i don't believe JVL has "controversy" sections on anyone, but they are quite common here on wiki.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  18:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * So the problem isn't that we've misinterpreted the sources, it's that the sources can't be trusted, because they're too scared of offending the Palestinians. Uh-huh. I don't see how that's in any way consistent with WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV. <tt>&lt; el eland / talk  edits &gt;</tt> 19:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * basically, your links do not negate my previous points. you should come up with better ones if you want to resolve this issue.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  20:04, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * What points? What are you talking about? You need to explain yourself more fully, using logic and evidence. <tt>&lt; el eland / talk  edits &gt;</tt> 21:37, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * you are free to reinspect the following diffs.
 * 
 * --  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  22:53, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * We're here to report what reliable sources say, not to trawl through TalkPage verbiage. The RS don't mention the Jenin Massacre in connection with Saeb Erekat, and there's no reason for us to do so. The clips we have from him in April 2002 are notable chiefly because CNN weren't giving him any worthwhile opportunity to speak. PRtalk 18:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * did you just say "CNN weren't giving him any worthwhile opportunity to speak"??! are you for real?  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  15:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I was a bit disappointed to hear the criticism of the Qadoura Moussa/Washington Times figure though, when the all the players from the main article are here should remember that it is accepted as an RS, or the implication that the UN's 52 figure was somehow significantly altered, when we all should also realise that is not so. That said, little of that is relevant here, and I tend to agree that there was far too much space given to what isn't documented as a major part of his life.  Tewfik <sup style="color:#888888;">Talk 01:06, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Tewfik, i disagree that it isn't documented as a major part of his persona/controversy - there's plenty of high profile sources discussing this issue - if anything, i can agree on the shortened version i agreed to before. however, i don't quite see why if the article is soo ridiculously short and untelling of one of the highest profiled Palestinians of all time (if not the most) would be void of criticism - esp. considering the amounts of criticisms he had dished out (and i'm sure will continue to) on international television.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  21:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone here is opposing a criticism section, just saying that there was far to much discussion of Jenin. If we all agree on that then there shouldn't be any problems.  Tewfik <sup style="color:#888888;">Talk 22:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Where is the Washington Times accepted as an RS? All the evidence suggests it's laughably unfit to be used for anything, let alone a truly "surprising" claim like this that would have been widely reported if any Palestinian had made this statement. The nearest thing we have to a definitive figure from the PA is "around 375" for the whole West Bank. Furthermore, as has been repeated many times, the UN figure is "at least 52" but not as much as 500. PRtalk 18:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * can you please bring the source for the "around 375"?  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  21:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thankyou for proof positive you've not even read the very most easily available and relevant sources. It's in the UN report - and this information has been repeatedly presented in the Battle of Jenin Talk.
 * Perhaps this treatment of sources explains why you wish to include a source owned by a cult, from a "journalist" known for Islamophobic falsehoods and available solely on two hate-sites.
 * And perhaps User:Tewfik can explain to us how the Washington Times can be treated as an RS. PRtalk 19:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That is the number 2 newspaper in Washington, DC. I'm not sure where you got the idea that it isn't an RS, but why don't you bring it to the noticeboard to hear others' ideas on whether it is a hate site.  Tewfik <sup style="color:#888888;">Talk 00:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, and the National Enquirer has a higher circulation than the Post and the Times put together. Source reliability is not determined by circulation. According to the Columbia Journalism Review, "because of its seemingly ideological approach to the news, the paper has always faced questions about its credibility ... The paper's sourcing has also raised questions. While editors defend the paper's use of unattributed sources, many of its most sensational scoops have relied on blind sourcing." The claim that a senior Fatah official released a Jenin death count wildly at variance with the other Palestinian reports is an exceptional claim requiring an exceptional source. If it was verifiably true, other papers than the Moonies's would have picked up on it. <tt>&lt; el eland / talk  edits &gt;</tt> 00:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

criticism
i'm waiting to see a serious attempt at resolving this dispute, as of now, all i can see is censorship of what is probably a too long version - however, i'm willing to find a middle-ground version that is close to the previously achieved consensus.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  22:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not written to a "middle ground" found between normal reliable sources and moonbat propaganda websites. If all you can see is censorship, get your eyes checked. This alleged controversy deserves about half a sentence - I'll add it. <tt>&lt; el eland / talk  edits &gt;</tt> 20:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


 * i thought wikipedia was also not a place for moonbat rants about verifiable sources. this is not based on a moonbat website and you are well aware of this. i'll go over your version and see if it's anywhere close to a version i can accept that gives the due level of notice to this controversial incident.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  23:54, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Jaakobou, no reliable sources treat this alleged controversy as relevant to Erekat's broader biography. Even the advocacy/flak sites like CAMERA treat it as just another occasion to bash their political enemies: see CAMERA: Names In The News: Saeb Erekat which lists six articles, only one pertaining to Jenin and Defensive Shield. The source I used for my version is not only pro-IDF, he is IDF, and was an officer attached to the IDF publicity office! In his in-depth article discussing the issue of Jenin casualty numbers, he only mentions Erekat once, while quoting an editorial by Ze'ev Schiff. Your comments suggest a potential claim of ownership over this page, which is problematic. Accept what every other editor here is telling you. <tt>&lt; el eland / talk  edits &gt;</tt> 00:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * i disagree with the WP:OWN suggestion, it would be just as easy for me to claim that you're not adhering to NPOV but i much rather find a solution/mediation process we can both live with. for now i haven't yet went over the new version and i don't plan on over-riding the changes without a serious inspection.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  11:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * i've now managed to go over the edit and i find it unacceptable. there seems to be an equivalence between a single mistake quote of one israeli officer (quickly rectified a couple hours later) with the repeated accusations, not only made by erekat but also repeated even more by people who were quoting him. to add, he was quoted in the UN document (under "palestinian official") as giving the "500" death toll number and i'm finding the recent edits by you and PR  to be treading over WP:NPOV.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  19:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * If you know better than an IDF press officer with intimate personal knowledge of the events, you really ought to explain how you know. Dallal states clearly and specifically that "With Palestinian leaders clamouring "massacre" on all the news networks, pressure mounted on the IDF to give its own assessment of Palestinian casualties. The result was a ‘guess-timate’ offered by field commanders based on the intensity of the fighting. While our office was saying around 150 Palestinians were killed, I heard very senior generals say up to 200, and the press quoted Defence officials with numbers ranging as high as 250. These figures made the Palestinian claims of 500 dead seem within the bounds of plausibility." (em mine)
 * In addition, Erekat was not "quoted in the UN document", in fact, nobody was quoted saying 500. The "500" claim appears to have originated with a sloppy report in the Jerusalem Post which changed 500 in the whole offensive to 500 in Jenin and Nablus, and was subsequently picked up as "500 in Jenin" by world media. Repeatedly, you have indicated that you haven't even read the sources you cite, and you link to policy pages with absolutely no explanation of what part of the policy you think applies or is being violated. This is a waste of everybody's time, Jaakobou. <tt>&lt; el eland / talk  edits &gt;</tt> 19:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * the israeli claim was made once and retracted a couple hours afterwards. palestinian claims were repeated feverishly. the UN quoted, "A senior Palestinian Authority official alleged in mid-April that some 500 were killed", not the JPOST. have you read the sources? repeatedly? btw, this is the second time you're recently wasted my time with false claims and accusations of wasting everyone's time, i suggest you try kicking the habit.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  23:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Again, please explain how you know better than an IDF Captain attached to the Spokesperson's Office. Dallal thinks that the high Israeli claims (and it was not merely one claim, there were several) bolstered the credibility of the Palestinian claims. And the UN made a statement, but it was not a quotation. There was no quotation, there was a "Chinese whisper" probably originating in an inaccurate JPOST article which became part of the mythology of the event. Nobody has ever established who made the claim of 500 or where and when they made it. Your original-research explanations of why the Erekat estimates are relevant, but the IDF estimates aren't, are totally unconvincing. <tt>&lt; el eland / talk  edits &gt;</tt> 00:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * you seem to be ignoring the majority of my text, both the content, and the request to avoid personal projection. i request you go over my points again and address them rather than duck themby saying "totally unconvincing".  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  00:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I addressed your points specifically. If you can't read what I said, you should check here rather than Wikipedia. <tt>&lt; el eland / talk  edits &gt;</tt> 00:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * i'm not sure on what you think you will accomplish with this link. however, i suggest you strike through it if you wish to continue this discussion without some form of administration involvement. i already took note that you believe because the information is not on the BBC website, that it does not matter. however, i've already replied to this by noting that they don't tend to carry "controversy" sections, unlike wikipedia. as for my notes that you have missed, they are that mostly that there is no equivalence between a few israelis going as high as 150, and erekat using the word 500 specifically and the term massacres on more than one occasion.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  01:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Jaakobou, we haven't stated that because the information isn't on the BBC website it doesn't matter. We've stated that because no reliable sources about Erekat specifically give any coverage to this supposed Jenin controversy, it doesn't matter. Of course reliable sources cover controversies, although they don't typically have those silly "controversy sections" that plague Wikipedia. I haven't "missed" your argument about equivalence, I've pointed out that it is original research which contradicts the knowledgeable IDF source cited. This is not a Usenet forum where we have endless debates over the facts; we stick to reliable sources and report what is verifiable rather than what is strictly true. The fact that your numbers are false and your summary of events is misleading is also worth pointing out, but it's not all that relevant. Shimon Peres first called Jenin a "massacre", though he quickly retracted that. Dallal's unit estimated as high as 150 (and did not hastily retract it), other units said 200, and the Israeli media quoted Defence Ministry officials going up to 250. Finally, an Israeli general reported 300, although he hastily retracted it and said he meant 300 casualties (incl. wounded) rather than 300 deaths. It's all in which you have been ignoring. <tt>&lt; el eland / talk  edits &gt;</tt> 01:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Accuracy of sources
(outdent) we've had camera verified (46 out of 50 citations) and also washington times which you still claim is unreliable (due to urban rumor about martin gilbert). we have articles found in the top 10 google searches that i'm sure you've noticed,. there was already a consensus on this page for maybe 6 months even until you decided that the consensus doesn't suit your POV.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  04:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * This is a spurious and non-notable controversy, and completely unfit to insert into a biography. It's a direct contravention of BLP, we don't make out people are liars in their bio unless we have really good reason and court-standard proof of it.
 * And there is no RS for this "controversy" about Erekat because there's no controversy there to cover. Even Israel doesn't consider it significant when they mention Erekat. The discrepancy in the numbers is both trivial and easy to understand. The accepted figure of deaths (for the whole of the West Bank) is 475, and the other major slaughter was 80 in Nablus. So Saeb's figure may be over by some 30% or 50% or perhaps 100% at the absolute outside. Compare that with Israeli spokesmen - their over-estimates are 100%, 200%, up to almost 300% over according to their own figures! PRtalk 16:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that's a typo, PR; the West Bank Defensive Shield number is 375. However, the total West Bank + Gaza deaths including the run-up to Defensive Shield and the aftershocks came to... 497! It's really remarkable that what seems to have been a quite accurate guesstimate has entered the record as a nefarious fabrication. If it's insisted that we present the minority view, expressed in partisan Israeli sources, that Erekat was a malicious liar, then we're at least obligated to present the minority view expressed in partisan Palestinian sources that Erekat's words were distorted by the media and then thrown back at him as a straw-man attack. <tt>&lt; el eland / talk  edits &gt;</tt> 17:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Oops, my bad, typo there as you say. The UN actually said "A total of 497 Palestinians were killed in the course of the IDF reoccupation of Palestinian area A from 1 March to 7 May 2002 and in the immediate aftermath", and I wrongly claimed they'd said 475.
 * As you say, it's utterly extraordinary that Erekat should be lambasted for an estimate we now think is very close indeed (except the muddle over whether it's all over the West Bank or in Jenin only). We could produce a rough figure for the real number of deaths in Jenin, since we know there were 80 Palestinians killed in Nablus, but sadly such speculation would be OR. But I can do a little bit of original research in Talk - its' likely, Erekat's over-estimate was between 25% and 67% (on those occasions when he applied the figure to Jenin only, in several cases he's spot on). Meanwhile, Israeli spokesmen over-estimated (according to their own figures) by up to 381%! Every Israeli spokesmen, when estimating the number of deaths (ie before their "final count") over-estimated by 100s of per cent!
 * Now then, the real question is, if each and every Israeli/IDF spokesmen gets it wrong so spectacularily (and it can only have been deliberate, for the purpose of deceiving people, in order that over-estimates be slapped down later in the fashion we've seen) could we use an article that calls this "Jewish duplicity" the way that Erekat's exaggeration is called "Palestinian duplicity" by a source and an article we use? (I have to add, it's the pro-Israel crowd who insist that the crimes of Israel are carried out by Jews, most critics are careful not to make that linkage - but defenders of Israel cannot have a real objection to others using the same language they use about this business). I really want your honest opinion now! Also, would it be wise to go back to the Battle of Jenin page and ask the same question there? PRtalk 10:50, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Jaakobou's suggestion above that Google can write our article for us is typical of his mis-understanding - or refusal to understand - core Wikipedia content policies. His two preferred sources are the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs and a poorly designed anonymous website called "Take a Pen". The JCPA openly describes its mission as hasbara (usually translated as "propaganda") serving "to present Israel's case to the world." Its President, Dore Gold, was an adviser to Netanyahu and Sharon, and an oft-seen TV spokesman for Sharon's government during the period he was JCPA president. The director of their Institute for Contemporary Affairs used to head up Israeli military intelligence's analysis division!
 * As for this "Take a Pen" site, besides looking like a Geocities page circa 1999, it's run by an anonymous "group of European and Israeli citizens concerned with the increasingly anti-Israel dominated media," who aim to "improve public relations for Israel and perfect our Christian-Jewish alliance." Its modus operandi involves mobilizing angry letter-writers to spam media outlets, because, hey, "YOUR COMMONSENSE is worth more than the tons of information a journalist has if he hasn’t the moral clarity needed." (capitals and grammatical errors all theirs).
 * But hey - they've a high page-rank - even if it is from ignorant blowhard bloggers linking their crap - so screw WP:RS! <tt>&lt; el eland / talk  edits &gt;</tt> 18:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * thank you for the mention of take-a-pen, give it another deep look and see the source of the text.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  10:01, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * p.s. i'm still willing to compromize on that same old version before you trumpeted onto the page with POV attempts to "NPOV" the article.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  10:03, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * What article? All I saw was a demand for letter-writing, signed by "Endre Mozes, chairman@take-a-pen.org". Anyway, you're demanding, based on false statements ("one radio notice retracted a couple hours later") which indicate you haven't read the sources or even the talk page, to include a spurious non-controversy which represents a very minor incident in Erekat's biography. Not only is it a mockery of WP:NPOV by WP:UNDUE weight, it's a violation of Biographies of Living Persons, because:


 * The views of critics should be represented if they are relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics; rather, it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to critics, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one. If the criticism represents the views of a tiny minority, it has no place in the article. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation is broadly neutral, in particular, header structure for regions or subsections should reflect important areas to the subject's notability.


 * Content should be sourced to reliable sources and should be about the subject of the article specifically. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association. Editors should also be on the lookout for biased or malicious content about living persons. If someone appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability.


 * <tt>&lt; el eland / talk  edits &gt;</tt> 19:43, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Palestinian duplicity?
It seems Erekat didn't lie afterall. His figures for the death toll are either correct by the accepted figure, or "only" exaggerated (I've had to draw an arbitary line, I've not called it a lie unless the exaggeration exceeds 100%).

Meanwhile, all (except for one, an exaggeration) of the early Israeli statements are lies, measured against their own official viewpoint.

All of which makes it even more odd that we'd pick up this smear on Erekat, exclusively from the blogosphere, and breach BLP so blatantly. Official figure from the UN accepted by everyone except Israel. Nobody gives a figure for Jenin only, but the Rest of World figure for the whole West Bank is in the UN report, which says: "A total of 497 Palestinians were killed in the course of the IDF reoccupation of Palestinian area A from 1 March to 7 May 2002 and in the immediate aftermath". The UN report mentions the "500 dead in Jenin alone" but doesn't confirm or deny it "Jenin city and refugee camp, 3-18 April 2002 .... A senior Palestinian Authority official alleged in mid-April that some 500 were killed, a figure that has not been substantiated in the light of the evidence that has emerged."

Israel official figure comes from Captain Jacob Dallal of "the International Press Office of the IDF Spokesperson’s Unit." writing in the AIJAC in 2005 telling us of the Israeli claim: "I gathered the press together and went over the Palestinian body count. According to the final UN Report on Jenin, 52 Palestinians were killed in the fighting, a figure Israel accepts as definitive.". He has thereby lied, since the UN report actually says: "By the time of the IDF withdrawal and the lifting of the curfew on 18 April, at least 52 Palestinians, of whom up to half may have been civilians, and 23 Israeli soldiers were dead." Sadly, this lie is picked up by a number of sources in 2002, however, it's clearly not true, and he's repeating it in 2005. (Jacob Dallal is not Jewish, but he is Israeli)

PLEASE NOTE, I HAVE NOT TABULATED EVERY FIGURE, AND I BELIEVE EREKAT IN PARTICULAR MAKES OTHER STATEMENTS - BUT I WOULD NOT EXPECT MISSING ENTRIES TO CHANGE THE PICTURE MUCH.

erekat controversy section II
we have a number of WP:RS discussing the subject of his propaganda during the battle of jenin.

here's a few:
 * - Palestinian spokesmen characterized Israel's counter-terrorist operations in Jenin, right from the start, as a "massacre." Palestinian Authority negotiator Saeb Erakat charged during a CNN interview on April 10, 2002, that Israeli troops had killed "more than 500 people." On April 12, he repeated the charge on CNN: "a real massacre was committed in the Jenin refugee camp." He added that 300 Palestinians were being buried in mass graves. On April 15, Erakat continued his charges: "And I stand by the term 'massacres' were committed in the refugee camps." He also began to refer to Israeli actions as "war crimes." - CNN (reported by a pro-israeli, yet respectable, source)
 * - BLITZER: Mr. Erakat, you probably know that you've come under some widespread criticism here in the United States for initially charging that the Israelis were engaged in a massacre in Jenin. Perhaps 500 Palestinians murdered in that massacre, you suggested. But now all of the evidence suggests that perhaps 53 or 56 Palestinians died in that fighting in Jenin. - CNN
 *  'Every word she says is a lie, including 'and,' 'but' and 'if'. What Mary McCarthy said of Lillian Hellman, so one could say about Saeb Erekat. Among Palestinians, the 46-year-old Jericho boss and chief PA negotiator is the single most widely quoted person in the English-language press, with 11,382 citations since 1988. (By contrast, runner-up Hanan Ashrawi comes in at 8,062 for the same time period, and Sari Nusseibeh gets fewer than 2,000). ... That he was chief mouthpiece of the Jenin massacre myth, bandying about figures of  500 Palestinian deaths as though it were incontrovertible fact "Liar, liar" by Jerusalem Post,  Dec. 26, 2002

i'm waiting to see links on how israeli officials did anything close.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  02:11, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I would argue that this UN report is the best source to use, putting the death toll at 497. This also gives a more accurate number than "over 500". The official UN report is certainly the most neutral we have, and also most reliable in the respect of having the most information available to them.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  17:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually it seems here that there is misrepresentation of facts. Some sources discuss the number of deaths between 3 April and 18 April 2002. Erakat looks to be commenting on total deaths over a larger period of time (1 March to 7 May 2002). This should probably be made clear in the article, rather than attempts to make Eraket out to be a liar.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  18:07, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * ryan, the UN document indeed talks about 497 deaths. however, it
 * (a) discusses a far larger time frame and leaves out any discussions over "black march", or 18th of april up to middle of may. erekat was talking about a massacre in jenin and nablus as early as april 10.
 * (b) he was accused for his false claims about jenin, clearly demonstrated by a CNN head anchor blatantly directing this question to him: "Mr. Erakat, you probably know that you've come under some widespread criticism here in the United States for initially charging that the Israelis were engaged in a massacre in Jenin". even, let's say for the sake of argument, he did not mean just jenin - that is how the global media saw his repeated calls for an investigation of the alleged massacre.
 * --  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  18:32, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The way this article reads at present is that Erekat lied on purpose - are there any sources which prove this? If not, then the article should explain why different numbers are used in different sources and explain how Erekat came up with the numbers he did.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  18:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * you have a point. i'd be interested in seeing a reliable source explaining his repeated claims.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  19:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

RS talk
Jaakobou, only one of your sources is in any way an RS, and it's simply a transcript of a fairly sharp questioning by a TV host. The other two are rants by advocacy groups of questionable (or, in the case of "take a pen", non-existent) reputation. We're writing a biography here, and we shouldn't be trawling primary sources for issues which are important to us personally. Personally, I have little but contempt for Ereqat, and I could provide plenty of commentary sources condemning him for spinelessness, ineffectiveness, corruption and grandiosity, complete incompetence in managing the media, etc - but I don't believe that's what these articles are for... &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 18:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * please explain why JPOST is not a reliable source?  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  18:32, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Show me the actual original JPOST source, then we can have that discussion. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 02:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * eleland,
 * if you continue to contest each and every source who's material you dislike i'm going to, eventually, degenerate to the same level. this WP:BATTLE atmosphere has been going on for too long.
 * enjoy - .  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  05:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks for digging it up, Jaakobou. Too bad we can't read the full text without paying, although the gist seems to be there. Good job. (Although I don't understand your apparent hostility towards WP:V, which would seem to exclude partisan websites by unknown authors, full of exhortations to place "moral clarity" over factual journalism...)
 * Now, we get back to the main issue here, which is that a biography of Saeb Erekat should cover notable incidents in his life, in rough proportionality to the significance of those incidents to him personally, rather than to the broader political millieu in which he may operate. The fact that a right-wing Israeli newspaper editor condemns the statements of a Palestinian minister is not terribly surprising, nor does it seem all that significant to the life of a man who has been at the center of Palestinian governance and the peace process for fifteen years. This is particularly true given the unwavering hostility and partisanship of the source provided, which seems to re-capitulate every heated dispute in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, predictably determining that in every case, Israel has been the victim of duplicity by the seemingly ever-present "Liar, liar" Erekat.
 * Now, I don't know whether newspapers across the Arab world make a practice of singling out prominent Israeli officials and subjecting them to such abuse, but I certainly would not countenance any effort to stuff the biography of, say, Tzipi Livni with seemingly random condemnations from the pages of Al-Ahram (and before you start, al-Ahram is an unreliable source for fact, but its editorial pages are fairly well-regarded) or the Daily Star. "Criticisms", "controversies", etc, sections should be reserved for criticisms and controversies which are demonstrably significant to a person's life story - not for the normal partisan chatter which exists about every politician in every country.
 * I'm still not sure what you're proposing for the article, but thus far you've been inserting sneering and didactic talking points meant to prove your personal case against Ereqat. Please accept that this practice is not acceptable for any article, let alone the biography of a living person. I've compromised already by inserting a summary of the Defensive Shield information, despite the utter lack of proven relevance to Ereqat's notability as a whole. I don't see any compelling reason to give up further ground - and certainly not for the purpose of scoring a WP:POINT. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 05:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * i apologize, you've managed to get on my bad side with repeated objections to each and every ref given by camera, the washington times, and the UN even. it wouldn't hurt if you do a serach yourself once in a while.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  05:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Eleland's compromise
I think Elleland's recent edit is an extremely good compromise, and takes the focus off Erekat's number of deaths quotation, merely giving it a passing mention in a neutral manner. I really don't think this particular incident needs to be elaborated on much more, the technical elements to it mean that it would be hard to write about without surpressing one sides views.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  19:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * i'll give it a look but remembering eleland's last attempt, i have my doubts.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  19:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * same as before, eleland not only miniaturized the repeated propaganda (also noted later on several high profile sources) to an "announcing very high estimates", but also compares it to a single error of an israeli official on an 'israel only' radio channel. CNN and BBC are the leading global networks and numerous quotations of him exist. i remind eleland of the previous consensus version agreed upon by me and Rama a while back, which is the version i tried persuading him to agree on - - however, now we've added a few sources so it can't be quite the same, though the spirit of the [rama at jaakobou] text seems like a fair consensus.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  05:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Jaakobou, why do you persist in this false claim that only one Israeli estimate is at issue, when I've told you about eight times that the cited source mentions a multitude of Israeli claims, adding that they "made the Palestinian claims seem reasonable"? Are you being consciously disruptive, or just ignorant? &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 07:34, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * i'd be interested in a BBC/CNN public appearance for comparison if you have them, until then i request you try not to be (to paraphrase:), "consciously disruptive, or just ignorant" .  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  16:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * As I said previously jaakobou, all this needs is a brief mention in the article, the bulk should be discussed in Battle of Jenin and elaboration can be made as to why the number of people killed difers from source to source. The previous version you point to still makes Erekat out to be a liar, yet the sources I've seen suggest that he was merely using a different time frame to the sources that quote a lower number - without proof with an extremely reliable source that he has exagerated the numbers killed, it's getting close to a BLP violation if it's added.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  11:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * it's quite simple. you can't go on international television a dozen times saying massacre -- promising at least 500 bodies, repeating the claims of the locals that there are hidden mass graves -- without getting a criticism section when the claims are refuted. some read into it as an honest mistake, some read into it as the truth and perpetuate the "jenin massacre" mythology; and some read into it as an intentional lie (as you might have). there's nothing BLP about it once Wolf Blitzer confronted him about it in front of the entire world and my suggested compromize was a mere paragraph.
 * p.s. if you have a reliable source with a good explaining on why he made this honest(?) error, i'd be happy to see and give it proper space.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  15:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not for people to create an article simply to refute claims made by someone. The article can state Erekats claims and in passing that some disagree with that, but major analysis should appear in the battle of Jenin article, not here. It is a BLP violation if you are attempting to create this article in order to create a negative image of a person as it seems is the case here. We don't critisise people in articles, we give neutral facts and in this case, simply to say that "Erekat controversially stated that 500 palestinian people had been killed by israeli soldiers during the battle of Jenin[source], a number which is widely refuted as being too great[source][source][source][source]" would surfice in this context.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  16:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Wolf Blitzer's job is to "confront" public figures; he'd be remiss if he didn't ask at least one pointed question of each of his guests. "Massacre" is subjective, we know there were mass graves (temporary, on the hospital grounds, dug by Palestinians), and both sides grossly over-estimated the death toll. You're making assertions about Erekat's conduct without giving any evidence to support them; the evidence you have provided is meager and open to interpretation. We can't play "connect-the-dots" with selectively highlighted facts in order to prove a political points. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 17:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, and for a defense of Erekay, try the Electronic Intifada source already provided above, which is reliable for a Palestinian-viewpoint commentary (that's what editor Ali Abunimah is widely quoted for in English-language sources, the Financial Times & even the Wall Street Journal have published his op-eds). In any case, as Ryan has noted, we don't do reverse onus when it comes to BLPs. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 17:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * this is not intended as a personal attack Eleland, but i'm having difficulty discussing things with you when you insist on making one-directional WP:OR excuses when these excuses clearly don't fit the refs . i don't recall Blitzer "confronting" him when he charged they will find 500 or more dead. but i certainly see him attacking him, angrily, afterwards when it turned out that [erekat] made him into a fool. i also don't see how your WP:OR about graves next to the hospital can amount to his public statement about a cover-up and 300 bodies in mass graves. i've provided enough WP:RS to clearly show notability.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  17:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Ryan, i'm only advocating for a single concise paragraph that does not distort the story - that is all.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  17:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Does the line I suggest distort the story? As a neutral party here, I think it clearly states the issue at hand, in a neutral manner.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  18:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * i see it missing a mention to how prominent erekat was in the media and the personally directed criticism he recieved, not only from pro-israel sources, but also from CNN. the word massacre and promise seem to be missing also.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  23:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * know what, forget the words promise or mass graves. however, the word massacre is integral to the rhetoric.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  23:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you are trying to say about Blitzer, confrontations, etc. In the transcript you linked, Blitzer asked pointed questions of both Ben-Eliezer ("BLITZER: But there could be a lot more bodies underneath the rubble from those buildings that were bulldozed.") and Erekat ("What about his proposal that if you hand over five suspected terrorists being protected ... [Arafat] could leave and go about his business just as he did before the Israeli military operation?"). Nor do I detect angry attacks in a question like "...Perhaps 500 Palestinians murdered in that massacre, you suggested. But now all of the evidence suggests that perhaps 53 or 56 Palestinians died in that fighting in Jenin. Do you want to use this opportunity to give us your assessment now, based on what you know, how many Palestinians were killed?"
 * As for the temporary mass grave in Jenin, that was reported by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and HRW . Since I never claimed to have personally visited Jenin and witnessed a grave, I really don't see how WP:OR applies. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 22:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * you'll have to explain to me how "Hani was buried in a temporary communal grave at the back of the hospital" translates into 300 bodies buried in secret mass graves.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  23:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Why the hell would I have to explain that to you, since I never said it? &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 00:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * i'm not going to play this game with you. you said "we know there were mass graves (temporary, on the hospital grounds, dug by Palestinians)" as a justification to erekat's claims. that is the reason i told you to avoid one-sided WP:OR excuses for erekat's statements.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  11:18, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

recent revving
per this edit:.

i'd appreciate some notes regarding what it is exactly that is being contested under "blog" justification.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  14:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey Jaakobou, I am not sure what is going on above and I really don't want to get too involved, but I have been working on See also sections per WP:GTL try to clean up articles. The two I removed are already linked above. Anyways, cheers! --Tom 15:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Simple, you've slapped together a collection of facts and opinions from your preferred sources (including a virulently anti-Muslim hate site) to illustrate your preferred partisan narrative, overwhelming the article and siding with Erekat's detractors. You've featured criticisms from right-leaning Israelis to the effect that Erekat is a notorious liar, criticisms from American rabbis on an issue which isn't even related to Erekat, etc. You've ignored or steamrolled any information which diverts from this narrative, such as the judgment of Capt. Dallal that "bad information" came from all sides during Jenin battle and IDF estimates were also highly inflated, or Abunimah's finding that Erekat probably never made the infamous "500" quote. You've inserted opinion from only one side of the conflict, violating WP:NPOV. Very much in the style of a personal blog, and unacceptable here per NPOV and WP:BLP. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 22:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Eleland,
 * please avoid the personal attacks.
 * please explain to me why Haaretz, CNN or MideastWeb are anti-muslim hate sites.
 * --  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  01:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * p.s. (offtopic) as long as nothing is mistrepresented, i don't mind adding sources that claim he has not made the quote.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  01:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * As I've noticed and commented elsewhere, it just gets really boring to come across articles like this one where they've had a pointless "criticism" or "controversy" section added, which is then stuffed with any old adverse comment partisan editors can drag up from the web (whether from fringe, or mainstream sites). That section then overwhelms the article, leaving viewers informed about not much other than the fact that the editor(s) responsible doesn't like the subject of the article.  Some people are genuinely controversial, others get involved in minor issues and disputes from time to time which are pretty irrelevant as part of their overall biography. --Nickhh 11:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

(Outdent) Jaakobou, I implore you to acknowledge the following: If it is unacceptable to state directly that Erekat is a horrible liar, it is also unacceptable to frame the presentation of facts in such a manner that any reasonable person would conclude that Erekat is a horrible liar. Rather, we should present the facts responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. We must not write in a manner that appears to overwhelm the article and side with Erekat's critics. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 12:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * please address the question raised (and stop reverting in a disruptive manner).  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  14:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't have to address it because it was an abysmally stupid question. This is a hate site. If you have such difficulty with English that you cannot distinguish "your preferred sources (including a virulently anti-Muslim hate site)" from stating that all of your sources are anti-Muslim hate sites, you shouldn't be editing the English Wikipedia. And if you understand my statements perfectly well, but are just feigning ignorance in order to waste everybody's time, you shouldn't be editing any Wikipedia. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 15:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * the papillonsartpalace site was already validated in your presence on battle of jenin to be accurate to the source; and even, lets say for the sake of argument, that it is a non reliable source - you still have only the option of deleting that source rather than reverting the entire page which has a good number of extra issues and references. hence - WP:DE. 192.114.4.12 16:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Stop trying to divert the discussion into ancillary non-issues. You are zeroing in on irrelevancies while ignoring the concern of literally every other editor on this page that your preferred versions are non-neutral and devote excessive weight to what are ultimately minor issues relative to Erekat's notability as a whole. I think it's a disgrace that we're currently making lengthy expositions of Israeli criticism of Erekat, while we have absolutely nothing about what the Palestinians think about one of their own prominent politicians. Case in point; what you falsely present as an effort by Erekat to de-legitimize Israel was in fact a principled, sound rebuff of Israel's denial of a fundamental human right. But the puppet master jerked his strings, and Erekat snapped back into his US-Israel approved role of obedient Quisling, apologizing to the enemy for his disobedience. How do you think the majority of Palestinians, who live in refugee camps dreaming of return to their former ancestral homes, felt about that little episode? I'm sure you don't care, but some Wikipedia readers might - and they might object to extended summaries of Israeli POV in the absence of Palestinian views. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 16:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * on point, i agree that your addition to erekat's later explanation to the "jewish state controversy" has room. however, you have not yet supplied anything to suggest the equation of erekat's massacre statements on international television and a few inaccurate israeli statements.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  23:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Let me ask a question which could be taken as incivil, but is, I think, entirely justified and necessary at this point: Have you even been reading this talk page?
 * "The IDF also released very high estimates of body count! Numbers from 150-250 were thrown around, which in the words of IDF Captain Jacob Dallal, a media spin doctor, 'made the Palestinian estimates seem reasonable'." (8 October)
 * "There are numerous contemporaneous press reports that Israeli Major General Ron Kitrey had put the death toll in Jenin alone at up to 300, but had later issued a statement saying that figure included dead and wounded" (20 October, quoting Abunimah but I can quote those contemporaneous reports directly if you like)
 * "If you know better than an IDF press officer with intimate personal knowledge of the events, you really ought to explain how you know. Dallal states clearly and specifically that 'With Palestinian leaders clamouring "massacre" on all the news networks, pressure mounted on the IDF to give its own assessment of Palestinian casualties. The result was a "guess-timate" offered by field commanders based on the intensity of the fighting. While our office was saying around 150 Palestinians were killed, I heard very senior generals say up to 200, and the press quoted Defence officials with numbers ranging as high as 250. These figures made the Palestinian claims of 500 dead seem within the bounds of plausibility.'" (14 November)
 * "Again, please explain how you know better than an IDF Captain attached to the Spokesperson's Office. Dallal thinks that the high Israeli claims (and it was not merely one claim, there were several) bolstered the credibility of the Palestinian claims." (15 November)
 * "Shimon Peres first called Jenin a 'massacre', though he quickly retracted that. Dallal's unit estimated as high as 150 (and did not hastily retract it), other units said 200, and the Israeli media quoted Defence Ministry officials going up to 250. Finally, an Israeli general reported 300, although he hastily retracted it and said he meant 300 casualties (incl. wounded) rather than 300 deaths. It's all in [Dallal's piece] which you have been ignoring." (15 November)
 * Talk:Saeb_Erekat contains a large table of figures released at various points by both parties, including very high Israeli claims. It's clear that the Israelis reduced their numbers more quickly than the P.A., but there are obvious reasons why the Israelis would know the numbers more quickly than the P.A., since at the time the P.A. was still under siege with its infrastructure in ruins, and Israel was in total control of the Jenin camp.
 * "Some sources discuss the number of deaths between 3 April and 18 April 2002. Erakat looks to be commenting on total deaths over a larger period of time (1 March to 7 May 2002). This should probably be made clear in the article, rather than attempts to make Eraket out to be a liar." (Ryan P., 29 November)
 * "I think Elleland's recent edit is an extremely good compromise, and takes the focus off Erekat's number of deaths quotation, merely giving it a passing mention in a neutral manner. I really don't think this particular incident needs to be elaborated on much more, the technical elements to it mean that it would be hard to write about without surpressing one sides views." (Ryan P., 29 November)
 * "Jaakobou, why do you persist in this false claim that only one Israeli estimate is at issue, when I've told you about eight times that the cited source mentions a multitude of Israeli claims, adding that they "made the Palestinian claims seem reasonable"? Are you being consciously disruptive, or just ignorant?" (30 November)
 * "The previous version you point to still makes Erekat out to be a liar, yet the sources I've seen suggest that he was merely using a different time frame to the sources that quote a lower number - without proof with an extremely reliable source that he has exagerated the numbers killed, it's getting close to a BLP violation if it's added." (Ryan P., 30 November)
 * Closing your eyes doesn't empty the room, and ignoring everything you disagree with doesn't make you right. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 17:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Protected
Arising from a report at WP:AN3, I have protected this page for three days. Please consider using this time to discuss the issues at hand rather than revert-warring anew when the protection expires. Stifle (talk) 12:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If there are WP:BLP issues that need to be urgently fixed please use editprotected to get an admin's attention. Stifle (talk) 12:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

"Jenin Massacre Syndrome"
Congratulations, Jaakobou, for managing to raise so much confusion and nonsense on this page that I've only just now noticed that the source does not contain the term "Erekat". &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 17:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * that is not a prerequisite to relate to the palestinian claims on international TV.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  20:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * What's the title of this article again? &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 20:58, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * what is the title of the subsection again?  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  21:19, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Jaakobou, perhaps I wasn't clear. An article about Erekat should discuss Erekat and events which are demonstrably significant to Erekat's notability as a whole. It should not veer off into discussions of tangentially subjects, especially when the discussion is all coming from one side of a controversial issue. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 23:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * User:Ryan_Postlethwaite already quietly agreed on the notability issue and earlier than that, User:Rama and User:Khukri agreed also. i'm afraid that CNN, Jerusalem Post and the BBC too, show that this episode was notable enough to be mentioned with a single paragraph.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  11:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Jaakobou, this specific source cannot be used, regardless of the episode's notability. This source does not mention Erekat. You only want it to bring in your "preferred hype to facts" line, but that line is not about Erekat. Give it a rest! &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 19:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

recent edits.
per these edits -.

i'd appreciate an explanations to the following changes. --  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  21:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) the removal of the link to the main article. *link
 * 2) came under criticism after Palestinian spokesmen, himself included, characterized -> characterized *link
 * 3) Erekat controversially repeated unsubstantiated claims that -> Erekat relayed unsubstantiated second-hand reports that *link
 * 4) Claims which were widely refuted as being false -> Both the claimed death toll and the existence of a massacre were later refuted. *link
 * 5) Israeli media leveled the accusation that "the international press prefers hype to facts." and accused Erekat of being a liar. -> Jerusalem Post editor Bret Stephens called Erekat a liar. *link

removal of the link to the main article
i find this change a tad strange. i would appreciate an explanation to it.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  21:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Palestinian spokesmen, himself included
i think it would be a mistake to "hang him out to dry" as the lone palestinian official to make the claims. i would not support this omission.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  21:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

controversially repeated vs. relayed
i think it would be a misrepresentation to portray the tenacity of his claims as "relayed" and i would object to this particular change. i keep an open mind to hear other suggestions that don't misrepresent the body/volume of references.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  21:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Claims were widely refuted vs. death toll+existence of massacre, later refuted
i prefer the first phrasing due to its succinctly capturing all the small parts in his statements that we've not indulged in, such as claims that the camp no longer exists and also the repetition of the hidden graves urban-legend/blood-libel.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  21:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Israeli media leveled the accusations vs. Jerusalem Post editor
obviously, if the jerusalem post publishes an article, they tend to stand behind it - add to that the letter to the edit which was published. also, i could find some more articles to support the Ynet article, but i think the earlier version was accurate enough and sourced enough to portray the israeli opinion on this controversy (which includes an ariel sharon mini-attack on wolf blitzer and many more examples).  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  21:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

offtopic comments
You think, you find, you prefer — what do the sources say, and what does WP:POLICY recommend? I have been trying for more than two months now to have a policy- and source-based discussion and still you persist in stating your subjective opinions and linking to whatever collection of opinion sources supports them. This is the definition of using Wikipedia as a soapbox and it's way out of line. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 23:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * i will appreciate your participation in resolving the dispute.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  11:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't understand what your messages above are meant to prove. You've listed particular changes, and then said "I like this version better. I like that version better. I think version 'B' is more in line with the sources." You're making baseless assertions, such as "claims that the camp no longer exists and also the repetition of the hidden graves urban-legend/blood-libel" which appear to be based on CAMERA's propagandistic and stupid "Study in Palestinian Duplicity and Media Indifference".
 * CAMERA quotes Dan Rather saying that David Hawkins was told by Erekat that "the Israelis have buried many Palestinians in mass graves." We'll need better than third-hand hearsay — and at the time (11 Apr), Israel still had official plans to truck off corpses of "terrorists" to a "special cemetery" in the Jordan Valley. Refrigerated trucks and cleanup squads may have already entered the camp before the Israeli Supreme Court issued an injunction against it on 12 Apr. Of course, CAMERA doesn't mention this.
 * If it is insisted we mention the "hidden graves urban legend/blood libel", we are at least obligated to mention that the "legend" was started by reports in Israeli press, including Israeli Army Radio, to the effect that Israel was planning a hidden grave site for Jenin casualties, and that this plan was apparently already in motion when it was canceled.
 * My view is that we should not be mentioning any of this; we should simply note briefly and dispassionately that his role as spokesman during Defensive Shield was controversial. But you want to dump in all sorts of information from one side, without admitting anything that might interfere with the bloggish partisan narriatve you favour. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 19:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Not good
I am not particularly happy that this page has come off protection and into another edit war, nor am I happy that people are using edit summaries to argue with each other. I strongly recommend opening an article RFC or using some other method to resolve this dispute than continuing to edit war. I will be back this evening with the protection hammer ready if needed. Please try to ensure that it is not. Stifle (talk) 09:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I love it! There is a new sherif in town :) Crack skulls dude! --Tom 19:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC)