Talk:Tel al-Zaatar massacre

Who Labeled this a 'massacre?'
According to this site: http://www.1stbusinesslebanon.com/civilwar/civil1.html  it was a pitched battle for months. A massacre implies killing of civilians, not those involved in hostilities 75.164.41.248 (talk) 04:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Confused
Was an explanatory paragraph deleted? It's not clear to me whom the combatants were in this. 68.40.65.164 (talk) 05:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed
I found no NPOV and reliable sources labeling the "Battle" of Tel al-Zaatar (as known in the Lebanese jargon) a massacre. Please discuss this issue here. Fadib83 (talk) 02:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * That's funny. A google book search reveals that there are a number of reliable sources that characterize what happened as a "massacre". For example,


 * 1) Noam Chomsky citing David Shipler of the New York Times calls it the "Tel al-Zaatar massacre", and identified Elie Hobeika as one of three Phalange commanders responsible for it (the others, according to ABC News who also call it a "massacre" according to Chomsky, were Fady Frem and Joseph Edde).
 * 2) Gil Merom calls it the "The August 1976 Christian massacre of Palestinians in Tel-Al-Zaatar..."
 * 3) Michael Hanne describes how the "right-wing Christian militias" were "responsible for the mass murder of Palestinian refugees during the Tel-Al-Zaatar massacre..."

Do you need more examples? Do you have sources that claim that it was not a massacre? If not, I think it's pretty clear that there is reliable and verifiable information that supports the use of "massacre" in this article. The NPOV tag should be removed.  T i a m u t talk 14:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

This paragraph in the introduction"In fact, there are some who would not consider this a massacre at all, but rather the casualties of war. In fact, 1stbusinesslebanon.com calls Tel al-Zaatar 'the final showdown between the Palestinians and the Lebanese Front in Beirut. It was one of the hardest battles fought during the war.'" is cited to a source that is not a reliable one. A business magazine in Lebanon should not be used to present a one-sided view against the writings of historical and political scholars as provided above. I would like to remove this from the introduction. I encourage those who wish to see this viewpoint represented to find reliable scholarly sources that make the same claims.  T i a m u t talk 14:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The books you pointed to do not seem to mention how many Palestinians were killed during the so-called "massacre". If it is so (in)famous, how come three book authors could not back their claims with numerical evidence? On the other hand, I found these videos: http://www.ina.fr/archivespourtous/?vue=notice&from=fulltext&full=zaatar&num_notice=2&total_notices=19 and http://www.ina.fr/archivespourtous/index.php?vue=notice&from=themes&cs_page=0&cs_order=0&code=C0524219454&num_notice=5&total_notices=18 (in French) about the evacuation of wounded from the camp. None of them mentions a massacre but they all describe the hardship endured by Palestinian civilians during fifty days or so of continuous fighting. Fadib83 (talk) 00:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Many massacres lack clear statistics on the number of people killed, particularly when the events took place within the context of a civil war (i.e. in a context where an authoritative, responsible body who could garner such statistics is lacking). This discussion is however largely irrelevant. There are three reliable sources who use the term "massacre" to refer to the event in question. Per WP:NPOV and WP:ATT, our job is to report the viewpoints existent among the reliable sources, rather than engage in personal judgments as whether or not their assessment is correct.  T i a m u t talk 07:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * So, given the lack of response, I will assume that the concerns you raised have been answered and remove the tags you placed in the article. I would ask that you not restore them and instead tag ndividual sentences you find problematic or in need of better sourcing so that we can work on improving the article.  T i a m u t talk 21:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * My understanding is that a massacre happens when civilians are murdered in mass outside the battlefield; in Tel al-Zaatar, the civilian casualties were mostly due to the fighting going on between the Phalange and the Palestinian fighters. Further, I have found some reliable sources labelling what happened there as a battle (http://books.google.fr/books?id=VrXpeELOUNsC&pg=PA100&lpg=PA100&dq=tel+al+zaatar+battle&source=web&ots=MS3qS-DL0b&sig=MTmcpNkcUI_MJHXX9Y-LagpFXY0&hl=en and http://books.google.fr/books?id=wwntdx2IFAEC&pg=PR5&lpg=PR5&dq=tel+al+zaatar+battle&source=web&ots=xvvCIfoaEL&sig=DgDmjyawb-A2Qm3Sxoelp3_CYe0&hl=en). One more thing: you didn't comment on the videos I linked to in my earlier post. Fadib83 (talk) 00:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Here are a couple of links that include the word "massacre" with what happened at Tel al-Zaatar: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,925773-6,00.html http://mondediplo.com/2008/07/14lebanon It is indisputable that many innocent civilians were massacred in the camp. The War of Lebanon documentary http://www.amazon.com/War-Lebanon-Documentary-Omar-Issawi/dp/B0006HBLQE/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1219099602&sr=8-1 shows footage of civilians who have been obviously murdered and at least one (young) female who was raped (pants pulled down exposing her genitalia, hands seemingly tied behind her back). Also, you may want to read what the caption to this photo says http://pro.corbis.com/popup/Enlargement.aspx?mediauids={cec4fe4f-ed4a-4619-b4d9-e55abbd9c21d}|{ffffffff-ffff-ffff-ffff-ffffffffffff}&qsPageNo=1&fdid=&Area=Search&TotalCount=11&CurrentPos=8&WinID={cec4fe4f-ed4a-4619-b4d9-e55abbd9c21d} —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guyinthedesert (talk • contribs) 23:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

according to Camille Chamoun diary edited in his book "crise au Liban"- 1977, pages 146 to 158 he relates that the red cross was allowed severall times, even before the end of the battle, to assess the civilians in the camp (Tuesday July 20, 1976- Saturday July 24,1976- Saturday July 31,1976- thursday August 12,1976). This denies the say that the civilians were given no chance or succour, and the word "massacre" should be replaced by "Battle", because the target was not the civilians but the palestinian armed forces who stood in their fortress for about 2 months. concerning David Shipler article of the New York Times, I think he is mixing Tell el zaatar battle with Sabra and chatila massacre which happened many years after. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.142.57.13 (talk) 05:50, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree 100% with Fadi and the user above this wasnt a defenceless camp filled with only civiliasn it had thousands and of PLO guerrillas who kept using the camp as a base for a long time ta attacking neigbouring christians. It took several months to siege camp? it was clearly a Battle since there were belingerents on boths sides, citing books from far-left ideologues, who were not present at the event and do not reference the origins of this event and that was the palestinian millitas using this camp to attack christians from, it was to protect their areas from further more attacks,lootings,rapes,kidnappings murders,etc nearly none of these sources who use this word do not bother to mention that.Or the fact the PLO had more advanced weapons than the Lebanese Front and were in higher numbers. Even the most Pro-Palestinian and Anti-Lebanese Christian journalist Robert Fisk mentioned the PLO used this for propaganda. wrote on Arafat in Pity the Nation ; '''Arafat is a very immoral person, or maybe very amoral. A very cynical man. I remember when the Tal-al-Zaatar refugee camp in Beirut had to surrender to Christian forces in the very brutal Lebanese civil war. They were given permission to surrender with a cease-fire. But at the last moment, Arafat told his men to open fire on the Christian forces who were coming to accept the surrender. I think Arafat wanted more Palestinian "martyrs" in order to publicize the Palestinian position in the war. That was in 1976. Believe me that Arafat is not a changed man.'''

I dont understand why is this a battle which occured between the PLO and Lebanese Front in result of casualities on boths sides that has belligerents called a massacre yet Beslan Massacre against a school of unarmed children taken hostage by chechen terrorists is called Beslan hostage crisis?

btw this link that the user posted which clearly biased POV PLO propaganda that states Damour only as an emptied village doesnt seem to mention the reason that village (defenceless no millitas present at the time) was emptied because PLO and their allies massacred Christians in that town in the Damour Massacre emptied their homes from everything including the toilet seats and chasing Lebanese residents of the town out their own village in their own country and had already destroyed homes squatted by Palestinian refugees and the PLO. http://www.corbisimages.com/Enlargement/Enlargement.aspx?id=42-18600496&ext=1

♥Yasmina♥ (talk) 01:17, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Perpetrators?
Why is the "Israeli military" listed as a "Perpetrator" in the info box? Israelis are not even mentioned in the article.Wilson44691 (talk) 00:19, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Since I had no answer, I've reverted the last edit. Wilson44691 (talk) 10:33, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I was with the Red Cross at the time
We counted the dead from the families who told us, they mounted up to about 230 civilians killed. I don't know who just added a zero at the end to make it in thousands, but nobody in Lebanon ever called it a 'massacre'. Certainly there were massacres committed, but Tel el-Zaatar was not one of them.

I can't even find one single article about the Lebanese Civil war that doesn't have biased claims with biased sources, and I always find opposing points of view and contradicting claims in the same article. Since this problem can't be solved, why not just make two articles about the battle, each one with the POV of each side?


 * Not verifiable. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:48, 19 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm just curious, what country you from? Just curious that's all. --Propaganda328 (talk) 16:25, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Procedure and policy
In order to make a page move, one should follow the instructions at WP:RM. Unilateral page moves without any talk page discussion isn't a good way to move forward. Particularly when the sources cited in the article and on the talk page support Tel al-Zaatar massacre (the original page name) rather than Battle of Tel al-Zaatar (where it is being moved). Please respect policy and procedure.  T i a m u t talk 18:07, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Most people on the talk page are calling this a massacre. And the only references you have are ultra pro-PLO western fanatics(who probably couldn't find Tel elZaatar on the map). This article concerns Lebanon mainly, and is viewed by all Lebanese as a Battle. And you and others, are enforcing your POV on everyone.--Propaganda328 (talk) 18:14, 19 September 2010 (UTC)


 * It doesn't matter what people here call it. What matters is what reliable sources call it. There are three cited above in the section Talk:Tel al-Zaatar massacre that call it a massacre. If you have some that call it a battle, please present them. Then go to WP:RM and mae a move request, following the instructions there, and opening a discussion here. Do not move it again yourself without presenting sources, discussing, gaining consensus for the change, etc.  T i a m u t talk 18:23, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Obviously you don't know jack shit about this country, so stop telling us what your opinion is, cause nobody cares what you think, cause we all know it as a battle, and it is known as the longest and most hard fought and most costly in lives battle for the christian militias in the whole civil war(I know becuause my dad was one of the attackers of noumour el 2a7rar, he lost his left hand in the battle, and most his comrades were killed, and he didn't recall killing any civilians). You obviously have an agenda here, and I'm not gonna let you twist our history and call our martyrs imaginary to satisfy your point of view. Trying to sound like a good-mannared "wikipedian" and refering everyone to some Wikipedia policy or rule that doesn't back you up with anything isn't intimidating anyone. And Noam Chomsky is as neutral and reliable source as Ariel Sharon.--212.30.42.10 (talk) 10:52, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Massacre or battle?
If it was a massacre, it needs the massacre infobox, not the battle one. And if it was a battle, remove massacre from the title. Fix that, please.-- HC PUNX KID 17:06, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Like most of these things, it was both. Initial battle turning into a massacre. So what matters is what most reliable sources refer to it as. I've mainly seen reference to the massacre. FunkMonk (talk) 17:16, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

New proposed move
I think this page needs to be moved to Battle of Tel al-Zaatar, even in light of the fair comment above. Yes, massacres frequently follow battles in many wars, but on Wikipedia the general rule is to incorporate the details of the massacre into an article about the actual fighting (the military engagement). Note the precedent set by such articles as the Battle of Cassinga, which has been alternatively described as the wholesale slaughter of a refugee camp or a raid on a guerrilla base when in fact it was a little of both. Cassinga is rather comparable to Tel al-Zaatar due to the fact that many, many sources call it the "Cassinga Massacre".

Since Tel al-Zaatar seems to have been example of this - it wasn't a one-sided massacre by any means, but rather a battle that included a lot of excessive killing - I'm going to propose renaming it accordingly. -- Katan gais (talk) 13:23, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Siege
Howzit all.

The article has been moved to "Siege of Tel al-Zataar" as per the discussion I started above. I decided to go ahead with this bold move for three reasons: firstly, the article content describes not only a massacre that happened on August 12, but the preceding siege. I think it's important to note that this article isn't just about a massacre, but about a significant military engagement as well, which involved shooting on both sides. It would be different if the article concerned only the massacre bit without any reference whatsoever to the fighting, but since it covers both the title should reflect this accordingly.

Second, the article is essentially describing a state of siege which lasted at least five weeks and possibly months, depending on how you want to look at it. We are misleading the readership if we use a title that implies a single incident, i.e. "Tel al-Zataar Massacre", or "Battle of Tel al-Zataar". Rather, it was an event that dragged on for a considerable amount of time, involving multiple attacks, and ultimately resulted in a massacre.

Thirdly, there is a Wikipedia precedent in this regard which needs to be followed. Where military incidents are concerned, the term "massacre" is only used in the title if it was a one-sided massacre, for instance Massacre at Huế. Battles and sieges which involved large scale massacres are still typically described as battles and sieges, i.e. Battle of Cassinga. This ties in well with reason #1 as cited: describing what happened at Tel al-Zataar solely as a massacre is a blatant attempt to overlook the fact it was also considered an engagement.

Anyway if there's any objection to the move, feel free to discuss here. I'd be happy to take this to WikiProject MilHist if additional third party consensus is requested.

Thanks, -- Katan gais (talk) 19:07, 20 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I stand by my rationale three years ago describing this as an armed conflict which resulted in large numbers of civilian deaths. It was not, however, a one-sided massacre like so many others in Lebanon, or a calculated act of terrorism which only targeted civilians. Please refrain from describing it as an act of terrorism without first discussing it here. Thanks, -- Katan gais (talk) 09:13, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * No, this is and was known as a massacre; I am quite surprised that it was moved without a major discussion. Huldra (talk) 23:27, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Siege of Tel al-Zaatar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080320032347/http://www.111101.net/facts/history/chronology/phase.php?year=1976 to http://www.111101.net/facts/history/chronology/phase.php?year=1976

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:38, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Name of article
Why is one of the most infamous massacres of the 1970s called "Siege of Tel al-Zaatar"?

The name seem to have changed from Tel al-Zaatar massacre sometime after 2015, without much discussion? Comments? Huldra (talk) 23:24, 13 August 2021 (UTC)


 * This has been undone given the lack of discussion for the move, regardless of how much time has passed. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:53, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Good, there's plenty of revisionism going unchecked. FunkMonk (talk) 12:44, 6 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I moved the original page and specifically asked for comments here first. Nobody responded to the discussion for years. I'm appalled by the notion that this was an undiscussed move; there was plenty of opportunity back then for other contributors to weigh in but they declined to do so. My rationale was that there was a military engagement between two opposing sides that were armed, not simply a one-sided execution of civilians (as the page title implies). -- Katan gais (talk) 17:14, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It was never discussed by way of an RM, which is the conventional way of seeking community input on a controversial move, which this certainly falls into the category of. No input by way of no one noticing a discussion is not silent consensus to proceed. Without an RM, editors from relevant WikiProjects were far less likely to notice it. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:30, 6 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Activity on this article and its talk page was so low when I made the move that I didn't see the rationale for an RM. Typically I open a discussion on the talk page and solicit views, and if it seems the move is controversial we can take it to a third forum (as I offered to do in my initial comments; indeed, I said I was happy to take the discussion to MILHIST if the move was controversial). This wasn't a subtle way of getting around community consensus because there didn't appear to be one at the time. This also begs the question that if the move was so controversial, why did the page name remain unchanged and unchallenged for almost ten years? -- Katan gais (talk) 19:45, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * A lot of Middle East history is pretty poorly covered and patrolled. No real surprises to be found there. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:54, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Thyme
The first sentence of this article claims that he translation of Tel al_Zaatar is "Hill of Thyme". Since there exists a Za'atar article, which explains that "zaatar" is a name for several related genera of which thyme is only one, wouldn't it be more prudent to translate as "Hill of Za'atar"? Alternatively, if we feel there is a need to stay close to the familiar, we could pipe it as follows: "Hill of Thyme". Debresser (talk) 01:15, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Infobox "Result"
Please note that Template:Infobox military conflict states against "result" that "this parameter may use one of two standard terms: "X victory" or "Inconclusive"." The infobox has been amended to reflect this. Please read the template "result" guidance in full before amending or reverting. It would probably be best to discuss any proposed change here first to seek consensus. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:13, 12 June 2023 (UTC)