Talk:Saeb Erekat/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Saeb Erekat#Battle of Jenin controversy

I just de-POV'd this somewhat - attempts to label Erekat as a liar is a very serious matter and goes against our WP:BLP policy. What I changed it to is that his comments proved controversial, because that's the only neutral way of saying it. He quoted a number, some people agreed, some people didn't. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

We have 4 references to say it's controversial. One is the perpetrators taunting him to sue them for libel (fair-hearing anyone?), one is a cult newspaper, one is the perpetrators talking about something else - and one is the UN saying the death-toll is 497 (the time-scales and areas were much bigger, but Jenin is the most significant part, perhaps 2/3rds of what went down).

Hence, we have no controversy worth mentioning in the sources of the event - and we certainly have no sources claiming it's significant in Erekat's public service.

I don't think the project should tolerate this ownership any longer, I propose scrapping the whole controversy section. PR^talk 21:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Removing the section would be the best bet - I don't think these controversies greatly affected his career anyway, and it could mean that users are able to move on and expand other areas. From a BLP perspective, we shouldn't give undue weight to areas that don't need it, and unfortunately, it does seem that the section has been created to get one up over Erekat. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the idea of removing the section. It would be fine to have a brief mention (like one sentence) integrated into the rest of the article along the lines of "frequent spokesman for Palestinians, has sometimes been a lightning rod for criticism in the Israeli press" if that can be sourced. But highlighting these two relatively minor incidents (compared to Erekat's career as a whole) has strongly partisan implications and is not really in line with WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP#Criticism. <eleland/talkedits> 22:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

BTW, PR, your numbers are a little fuzzy there. According to the UN, Nablus was actually the bloodiest incident in the series of incursions. A lot of bloodshed happened in Gaza, too. By the UN reckoning the Jenin deaths were about 10-11% of the total Palestinian casualties in the two waves of IDF incursions. (That's assuming the numbers really were 52-56, it's not clearly impossible that some number of excess deaths in Jenin could have been covered up in some fashion, but anything more than a dozen or two and we're really positing a major conspiracy theory.) <eleland/talkedits> 22:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

If I'm wrong, then I'll do you an abject apology - but I think it's you who has misread the UN report. It covers "recent events that took place in Jenin and other Palestinian cities" and then says (of Jenin only) "at least 52 Palestinians" but a figure of 500 "has not been substantiated in the light of the evidence that has emerged."

My reading of the report is that several 100 were killed in Jenin. It would add up, we have 80 in Nablus and then smaller numbers elsewhere, totalling 497 in 9 weeks (March, April and first week of May) in "Palestinian Area A". I'll grant you my "several 100" figure does not appear anywhere in the RS, but it's the "least surprising" conclusion to be drawn from all the evidence, including what Israel told us. The only evidence you have to exclude to get to that unsurprising conclusion is what the perpetrators suddenly started saying after the event was over, and they have an unbroken record of denial. PR^talk 23:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

question - how many times do you need CNN to confront you for the use of the word massacre on CNN, BBC and others to qualify for a mention of this wording on wikipedia?

• "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."
• "And I stand by the term "massacres" were committed in the refugee camp.
• "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."
• "Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat rejected the UN report, saying an "Israeli massacre in Jenin's refugee camp clearly happened... and crimes against humanity also took place"."
• "Charges of war crimes committed by Israel were made, while Palestinian authorities made unsubstantiated claims of a wide-scale massacre."
• "they are committing massacres"
• "It could lead to massacres"
• "condemns targeting of Israeli civilians yesterday in West Jerusalem and condemns also the massacres committed against Palestinians in Jenin refugee camp, also in Nablus and Bethlehem and other places."
• "In Europe and elsewhere, there are calls for an international investigation into Palestinian charges that Israeli troops massacred hundreds of men, women and children in Jenin."
• "What did he tell you about these allegations that the Israeli military may have been involved in what the Palestinians say was a massacre?"
• "At issue, as you know, Senator Lieberman, is the Palestinian accusation that Israeli military forces engaged in a massacre of Palestinian civilians in Jenin at that refugee camp on the West Bank."
• "yesterday I was in Jenin, and it is perfectly clear that the allegations of massacre in Jenin have caused anti- semitism because it's Israel, the Jewish state and the Jews. It's equally clear from having been there, talked to the UNHRA (ph) U.N. people that the allegations are totally untrue and without foundation."
• "Well, you know, the whole notion of a fact-finding group was born out of a fundamental lie, that Israel had committed a massacre in Jenin. Originally you had Palestinian spokesmen like Saeb Erakat stating on CNN that upwards of 500 Palestinians were killed in Jenin."
• "BEGALA: Well, we should keep in mind, he's the man who wrongly told the world that there had been a massacre at Jericho, wrongly told the world..."
• "OK. You brought up Jenin, and you used the word massacre there. Earlier this week, you said 500 Palestinians were killed there. Do you still stand behind those numbers in the refugee camp? ... But you said specifically and others said 500 in Jenin. Where are you getting the evidence that shows 500 people were killed there? ERAKAT: I don't have evidence.... There are no shootings. One side is shooting. ... They're trying to cover up" .. "Back to my question though... If their numbers are right and your initial numbers are wrong, will you come back here on our network and retract what you said? ERAKAT: Absolutely."

note: i left out at least a dozen links that repeat his claims... i have more if needed.

p.s. everyone rejected the massacre claims - they were not merely disputed. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not disputing the claim was controversial, but you cannot imply that Erekat lied like you have been doing without 100% proof he did. I'm neutral in this, and the way the sources read to me is that Erekat and his opponents are talking about two different time frames when giving the numbers of people killed. The UN source agree's with Erekat in the respect that around 500 people were killed over a two month period. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

You are reading the wrong section of the report - the actual reference to erekat is this: "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." [1]

are you certain the UN justifies his massacre claims, because it doesn't look like it to me or to the BBC [2]... do you need other sources saying that there was no massacre to persuade you that erekat made an error of judgement?

-- Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

continued

Discussion is based on the two versions in this diff: [3].

1. I've presented 14 reliable sources that use the word massacre, one of them has Erekat say "And I stand by the term "massacres" were committed in the refugee camp. - do I need to open WP:DR for this issue?
2. We have a single source where he repeats the Jenin hidden graves, coverup allegation. While this issue has not been raised with Erekat himself on many sources, he did repeat this Urban Legend and I find it an integral part of the allegation and would like to discuss the issue and present a few sources before this it is rejected from citation as something that was disproved.
3. I personally believe the sources (BBC link above for example) clearly say that the claims were widely refuted as being false. If there are other sources saying otherwise, I'm willing to inspect them and possibly include them if they hold merit... however, I cannot change my perspective if I don't see sources that say otherwise.
4. Israeli media, being quite upset at the blood libel, leveled the accusation that "the international press prefers hype to facts." and accused Erekat of being a liar... this is not my charge but a general Israeli media charge - If needed, I can add more refrences for this as Ariel Sharon and other prominent Israelis appeared on TV saying things to this note.

-- Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I've seen no RSes ever saying "that there was no massacre" (though it appears in 3 headlines). 100s of other RSes either treat it as a massacre, or speak of war-crimes. And we know the RSes never retracted their claims - because pro-Israeli sources tell us as much! Here are such sources 6 weeks, 14 weeks, 2 years and 4 years after the event, all complaining that the media continue to treat the events at Jenin as either a massacre or as war-crimes. I think it's high time we wrote this article (and the others) to the reliable sources. PR^talk 11:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

PalestineRemembered, I'm more than aware of your beliefs/personal-interpretation, you've been repeating them long enough. If you intend on entering the discussion for consensus building, I'd accept the discussion. However, your comment here does not address any of the points I've raised, so it creates a disruption.

Furthermore, I want it to be clear if the discussion is with your mentor, who has yet to respond to my notes since before the arbcom, or with you. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Last note: I don't know how many people told you this already, but allow me to repeat for clarity, you cannot use sources that say "there was no massacre and the media hyped the massacre reports" to claim that (supposedly) there was indeed a massacre. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The consensus amongst other editors is massively against you (8 to 1 by my count) on grounds of policy WP:UNDUE.

After 16 months of edit-warring you've finally been over-ruled on BLP as well, biography of living people (you were battling both policy and 4 to 1 consensus on that score).

You have miniscule RS (3 sources in headlines, none of them in the body of the article) to support your position, and there is a mass of RS (likely 100s) to say that you're wrong.

And of course, totally partisan pro-Israel sources tell us the same thing I'm doing, this incident is treated by all RSes as either a massacre or a war-crime. Our article needs to reflect what is verifiable, not your fringe view of what is truth. PR^talk 17:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

note the following:

1. Your mentor disagrees on notability since he has not deleted the text.
2. Your chart includes comments from 2006 when the information was played out with more than a single paragraph (I think 4-5 maybe). We achieved an agreed upon consensus with a single paragraph.

If you continue repetition of old inaccurate claims, we will not move forward - I give you a chance to seriously address the points I've raised rather than ignore them. If you ignore my points, how can you expect me to take yours seriously when you first raise them. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The ArbCom on your conduct has only just closed, and yet you're continuing to demand that your fringe version of the April 2002 events be included in the article over the consensus of between 4 (BLP) and 8 (UNDUE) other editors.

And of course, you've totally failed to address the case that even the most pro-Israeli bloggers are still speechless in rage that their version of events has never been included in the RS.

Wikipedia is based on verifiability, not truth - "reliable sources" have overwhelmingly presented a dramatically different version from the one you're trying to impose. PR^talk 18:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Please provide links to and related quotes from these reliable sources you're speaking of. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

p.s. The ArbCom was on your conduct also. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 06:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I am amazed to find a discussion here which so much ignores Jaakobou's reasoned and sensible points so much. Why are we still arguing over whether there are any sources admitting there was no massacre? There are numerous sources for this view, including several from Palestine Remembered, when he cited several sources saying that there was no massacre and that reports were hyped. He stated that these sources upheld his view because it proved that such allegations had been real. however, you can't then deny that there are at least some source which do in fact confirm that there was no massacre. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 17:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Suggested version:

following discussions on here, I've decided to rearrange the paragraph in accordance to numerous sources and post it here first for comments. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Jenin controversy

Main article: Battle of Jenin

Erekat, the most prominent representative on Western television stations for the Palestinians, came under criticism after Palestinian spokesmen, himself included, characterized Israel's operations in Jenin as a massacre since its early stages. Erekat repeated unsubstantiated claims that, "people were massacred. And we say the number will not be less than 500 [in the Jenin refugee camp]", "the Jenin refuge camp is no longer in existence",, "[Israel is] trying to cover up [a massacre]", and that he "stand[s] by the term "massacres" were committed in the refugee camp." as witnesses told him that, "they dug graveyards and have buried a lot of people" Claims which were widely refuted as being false. While Erekat rejected the UN report the Israeli media leveled the accusation that "the international press prefers hype to facts." and accused Erekat of being a liar.

Comments:

• I've placed high importance on high-end sources/references for every statement in the text. The references are: Jerusalem Post (1), CNN (7), Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs (1), Washington Times (2), United Nations (1), BBC (1), Yedioth Ahronoth (2) and Haaretz (1). Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
• Personally, I was happy enough with less references, but seeing the strong BLP, UNDUE and FRINGE objections coming mainly from 2 involved editors -- I believe there is no refuge but using a version with a high number of sources. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

On top of the BLP issues (where you're opposed by 4 other editors by my count, nobody has ever supported you in 16 months), and UNDUE issues (opposed by 8 other editors by my count), there are even big question-marks over the factual content you wish to include:

1) The first use of the word massacre came from Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres on 9th April, published in an Israeli newspaper. You cannot claim that Erekat had no substantiation when he's repeating what top Israelis were saying.

2) Claims of a massacre are substantiated in detail by Amnesty. The Independent newspaper cites it to the Red Cross and HRW observers. This particular incident is apparently even substantiated by the IDF (though the details they give are different, see the Amnesty report).

3) None of your references state that the claims were refuted - since they were not, other than by the word of the perpetrators - who repeatedly gave us estimates of several 100 dead. Meanwhile, 100s of real RSes speak of atrocities and war-crimes - and the blogosphere is filled with angry accusations that these claims were never retracted, proof indeed of what we know.

4) But you'll be pleased to know I'm leaving the article untouched as a monument to ownership. PR^talk 14:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• I've once again removed the part about Erekat being a liar - One source was unreliable, one source didn't even mention his name. I'm at a loss as to where to go from here now, I honestly can't see Jakobou acting neutrally in this - you've failed to look at any sources which suggest that Erekat might be correct which could have acted as a rebuttal to the claims that his remarks were false. From a BLP perspective, this needs to be done, and needs to be done quickly because pushing only one school of thought that makes the subject of a biographical article look bad is a very serious problem. Remember guys, this it Wikipedia, not congress. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

PalestineRemembered,

1. I don't see a reference for your claim. If memory serves me well, Peres claimed he was misquoted by Haaretz and Haaretz retracted the story.
2. From your AI reference: "Those within the camp reachable by telephone were confined to their homes and could not tell what was happening. It was in these circumstances that stories of a "massacre" spread...UNRWA set up teams to use the census lists to account for all the Palestinians (some 14,000) believed to be resident of the camp on 3 April 2002. Within five weeks all but one of the residents was accounted for."
   1. Erekat is noted by the BBC to reject the UN conclusions and Amnesty does not support the "massacre" and "there is no camp anymore" claims.
   2. The Independent does not have a very good record regarding claims about Israel and is not considered a reliable source (certainly in comparison to the BBC and Haaretz), and just as important, 'Fathi Shalabi' repeating his Jenin story (stories exist in abundance), is not considered a reliable source either.
3. My references do say that the massacre claims were false - here, blitzer notes that the numbers erekat stated are false, here, the wasington times repeats the lower death toll, here the BBC says that the UN says no massacre in Jenin adding that "A United Nations investigation has rejected claims that hundreds of Palestinian civilians were killed" and that "Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat rejected the UN report". this is also noted here and here. All these sources reject the allegations, and clearly - the camp still exists and the BBC clearly agrees that the [Palestinian authority] claims were unsubstantiated [4]. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Ryan Postlethwaite, (per this diff [5])

1. Please forgive me, but it is my understanding that the Jerusalem Post has been in existence since before the creation of the state of Israel (under the name 'The Palestine Post'). It is my understanding that they are considered a reliable source and a highly regarded representative of the "Israeli media" ("Israeli media leveled the accusation that..."). If it would help convince you, I can also add numerous citations by Israeli officials, but I figured that 'the post' is respectable and reliable enough. Do we need to go to WP:RSN to examine this source's reliability or should I add more citations?
2. WP:BLP requests that, "We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high quality references." and also that "The writing style should be neutral and factual, avoiding both understatement and overstatement".

To be frank, if you insist that I got the story wrong despite 16 high quality references (CNN, BBC, and others) then I'd expect more proactive interaction on the talk page (I've waited for your comments since January 8). I honestly believe that "forgetting" the talk page adding I've "failed to look at...sources which suggest that Erekat might be correct" (who?) is assuming that such sources exist in abundance and are of high reliability (CNN and BBC don't share this perspective). Well, Haaretz's Hebrew reference quotes the Damascus radio (Syria) for criticizing the UN report's conclusion saying that "the report encourages the Israeli gov., headed by Sharon, to kill more and more Palestinians and commit even more dangerous massacres"... but my Arabic is not good enough to look for the actual Syrian references. Would you be interested in a note about the Syrian position into the paragraph for complete neutrality? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

If you want to reference the Jerusalem Post, then reference that directly, not a site titled "Liar Liar" that basically looks for people who they see as lying. What you should do is look for counter sources that give the reasoning behind Erekats statements. As the article currently stands, there are sources saying he lied, but from a BLP perspective, if you're having negative comments about someone, you should counteract them with the positive ones that say he didn't lie and agree with his ascertation of events. In a nutshell, if you want to put in that some people thought he was lying, you should also put in that some people thought he was telling the truth. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Ryan Postlethwaite,

1. I've found two more Israeli sources making the claim. One calls him "minister of propaganda" [6] and the other one quotes an Israeli officer calling him a "liar". [7]. I also have more if necessary.
2. The Jerusalem Post article is titled "Liar, Liar" [8] - I've examined the Take a-Pen website which hosts the full article [9] (and a published letter) and believe it to be reliable to the source. May I revert this back in now (adding the extra sources)?

(offtopic) I have not seen ANY reliable sources which justify his statements and to further expand on this story with the entire blood libel story would be untopical and relating to the battle article. However, if you or any pro-Palestinian editor finds worth including and integral to the story that I've missed, I won't object to its inclusion. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

This most certainly isn't a reliable source. If you need to reference the article, reference the actual article, not the take-a-pen website. I'm not convinced of the need to call him liar - there's heresay that suggets he is, but no firm facts that he lied. You've made you point in the article now and got it in that many people disagreed with his numbers, we don't need to push it further and start accusing people of lying. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I would like to, after being asked to help with this article, try and add some perspective and foster this conversation in the right direction.

• WP:BLP doesn't actually say that you should balance negatives with positives. What it does say is "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." What should be discussed rather than trying to "counteract" negatives with positives is instead what are the respective weights of the positives and negatives in the majority opinion?
• It is my understanding that the Jerusalem Post is a solid source, and this article seems to be on topic. I would steer clear of the Take-a-Pen site as it seems to have an obvious agenda. The other two I cannot speak to because I do not read Hebrew.

I look forward to seeing this conversation through to a successful end. - Revolving Bugbear 19:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Ryan, I respect your concerns regarding the take-a-pen hosting and I've contacted the Jerusalem Post directly and they've sent me a reprint of the original article and letter. I have confirmed it was indeed as strongly worded as the previous (questionably reliable) site had indicated. So we've got a highly regarded source, a stronger-than-usual statement from one of their reporters, and an unusual situation from the standpoint of technically citing the thing.

Now, Erekat did repeat quite harsh statements about Israel and the international press reported it so it would be basic fairness to allow a single line for the Israeli response. So I'm left to ask, would you work with me to ensure that the citation and the relevant article text are correct per site policies? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I suppose if statements made in the heat of a sanguinary conflict by Palestinian representatives and proven retrospectively to be inexact, entail that the bios of those people must have massive documentation (if often from whiffy sources), much leaning on the use of the word 'liar', to prove how disreputable these people are, then we'll have to do a huge amount of rewriting of most Wiki articles on all politicians, American, Israeli, European, Chinese whoever.

I say this because Jaakobou is making a huge effort to stage this as a central fact in Erekat's bio, as the 'lie' smear is used to cast into a negative light the wiki page on Israel Shahak, and several other pages on critics of Israel. It is a standard hasbara device to hang a lifelong reputation on one exquisite (apparent) error. I will not enter into the merits of his evidence, but simply note that, using the same criteria, we would be required to showcase in the pages on GWB, Olmert, Rice, Cheney, (add any other names of choice) the fact that, according to two recent studies by authoritative journalistic centres:-

President George W. Bush and seven of his administration's top officials, including Vice President Dick Cheney, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, made at least 935 false statements in the two years following September 11, 2001, about the national security threat posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq.'

None of Jaakobou's business of course to rewrite also those pages, but if wiki has to be consistent, it should have some minimum regard for the weight attributed to single episodes. That volume of intense documentation is of thesis-footnote intensity, and this itself reveals the obsession in the edit proposed. The POV is patent. Palestinians like Erekat are liars, whereas the rest of us are decent. I could in the subjects I specialize in give a dozen footnotes on most minor issues, but the rule is, one or two authoritative ones. This is pure overkill and ugly Nishidani (talk) 18:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Ryan, I'm still waiting on your input but my patience is running out a tad (it's been 10 days). Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

You can't source to one op-ed, whether in the Jerusalem Post or elsewhere, and then insert text in this article saying "The Israeli media leveled the accusation that ... ", as if one writer speaks for the whole of a nation's media. The second source you've cited, as has been pointed out before, makes no reference to Erekat, let alone to him being a liar. I tried to delete some of this stuff, but the paragraph is so scrappy and stuffed full of references that it was virtually impossible to pick through it properly on the edit page. Plus of course, it just looks a mess on the article page proper. And that's not even getting to the WP:UNDUE and other issues that have been done to death already, albeit with little seeming impact (and which seem to have been used instead as a justification for drowning the text in footnotes). You don't have the right to revert to your heavily disputed version just because you happened to have been the last person to post on the talk page recently. --Nickhh (talk) 18:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Nickhh,

1. It is the head editor for the Jerusalem Post, the leading English newspaper in Israel. There is also a published letter thanking him for the article within the reference. If more sources are needed as examples, I can site a number of Israeli officials who appeared on CNN... but I didn't think there would be a need since JPost is credible enough. Anyways, I'm willing to hear other suggestions.
2. I was fairly content with the (very) old consensus made with Rama a long long time ago, but Eleland insisted there's no references and the material is undue, which forced the issue on finding a higher number of quotes he's made and use many of the found references to support the text. I don't see a way that we can go back after all the fuss made.
3. Erekat's claims were given wide publication and it is only proper to allow the Israeli press to have 5-6 words of say about the "Jenin massacre" accusations and hype. Even if his name is not in the article, it is no synthesis that the article talks about the same Palestinian allegations issue.

-- Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

1) It's still only one writer. If this really is to stay in, it should certainly be made clear that it is only a "some people have said ..." situation. Has it not occurred to you that anyone can probably find an op-ed somewhere in the world to back up pretty much anything they want to?

2) You may well have been content with that. However we don't need 20 sources for "Erekat used the word massacre" or to show that on occasion he may have overestimated the casualties in Jenin. No-one disputes this - what is at issue, as it always has been, is whether he did this as a deliberate lie/slander or because the situation at the time was confused. And also whether it is relevant in the grand scheme of things, to this level of detail, in a short page about his whole life. You haven't solved this fundamental problem by just chucking in more and more media references to events around Jenin and clogging up the look of the page with them.

3) This is an article about Erekat. Not about Jenin, or other supposedly related issues. --Nickhh (talk) 20:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Consensus

Can we have thoughts then of what to do? I'm very much against calling Erekat a liar in this article - it goes again WP:UNDUE and it gives one side of the equation. Can we have some more opinions so we can move forward? Ryan Postlethwaite 20:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Erekat makes many claims against Israel and also states his lack of acceptance of the UN's report. Frankly, I don't see how 5-6 words from the Israeli side is undue. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

My opinion is the same as ever; this article doesn't need anything about Jenin or the "Jewish state" issue. It could do with a sentence or two, that's a matter of opinion and editorial judgment. Anything else is a violation of WP:BLP and WP:COATRACK achieved via serial POV-pushing and original research against consensus. That's been clear for a long time now. <eleland/talkedits> 05:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Eleland, what part of the article is original research? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

To the current status of the article and the request to go back:

I believe that with all the efforts made on "no reliable sources can be found" -- a fundamentally false statement made when the article had a single quote written into it with 3 refs -- the article could have been widely improved if the focus would have been on actually building the biography instead of forcing an already made consensus into source inspecting. To remind you, you stated that:

"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..." Eleland, 13 October 2007

After all the efforts put into this (3 months of debates), I don't see how we can revert back to the original consensus verLsion you rejected more than once. Everything is well referenced to high quality sources and Erekat himself "stands by the term massacres" (on CNN) and rejected the UN report (on BBC). Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

But we're not discussing whether Erekat used (or still uses) the word massacre or not, why do you keep going on about how good your sources are for this? We're discussing the significance of it, to this article, and whether we need to flag up one op-ed accusing him of being a liar because he said it. --Nickhh (talk) 15:40, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

He didn't just say something, he used 'figurative speech', repetitions and embellishment. If any other person representing 10 million people would have done the same as Erekat, I'm 100% sure it would appear on their wiki page. I can't recall anyone else being singled out by the U.N., BBC, and CNN for false claims like this, that's for sure. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I can face the whole Jenin argument again. But to repeat a few things, i) this issue is a minor part of his overall history; ii) others, IDF spokespeople included, estimated a higher death toll at the time; iii) every incident of this sort can see initially overestimated death tolls, simply because the situation is so confused; iv) it would appear, yes, that he did still refer to the events as a "massacre" after the UN report took the view that it wasn't one - that is his right, and of course a massacre can refer to the method of killing as much as to the numbers involved you know; v) there is no provable assertion in a news piece that he lied - all we have is one op-ed (I can find op-eds that say all sorts of things, but I wouldn't dump them all into Wikipedia articles). And I haven't even mentioned this time the poor English phrasing or the cluttering up of the paragraph with so many references. As usual, the latter just smacks of desperation. --Nickhh (talk) 18:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• Would it be a good idea to bring in outside opinions via an RfC or third opinion regarding this matter? We've been at a deadlock for sometime now. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The issue of Mr. Erekat or any person making claims or accusations of a "Massacre," is not related solely to inflated casualty tolls. it also has to do with that person having alleged that massive criminality was committed by the IDF, while at the same time that person had taken very few strong positions against terrorists. So that is one reason it does seem notable to mention that he made false claims of a "massacre", since those were later refuted conclusively. thanks. (changing my comment; my intetion all along was to support Jaakobou, but I had expressed myself very unclearly.) --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 17:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• Jaakobou, could you please explain why you readded the part about Erekat lying? You are the only person suggesting this be added, and everyone else is against it's addition - you're completely going against consensus. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I've inserted the Israeli position regarding Palestinian statements and changed the phrasing to try and accommodate your concerns. If you believe there's a consensus among editors actively discussing and editing on this article, then please have those people state their perspective on the completely new version. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

btw, you promised to bring to the table sources that support the massacre claims. How is that going for you? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The massacre claims were not "refuted", they were rejected by some observers including, yes, the UN. Refuted implies comprehensive and complete evidence to the contrary (eg, the claim that the earth is flat has, indeed, been "refuted"). Adjudging something to be a "massacre" or otherwise involves a high degree of subjectivity and interpretation, related to the numbers of dead, who they were, and also the causes of their deaths - it's not a question of someone concluding that there is either definitive "support" or the lack of it for "the massacre claims". The problem with the current version - aside from the cringeworthy and clunky English phrasing, the undue weight issues and the messy overload of footnotes - is that it paints Erekat as a knowing and malicious liar, who has been proven to be so in most of what he said about the events in Jenin by both the UN and much of the world's media. Whereas of course the reality is that he claimed that large numbers of people had been killed in IDF incursions into various parts of the West Bank (they had been, civilians included); he alleged in live interviews, at a stage when the IDF was barring entry to the camp, a higher death toll in Jenin than was subsequently revealed (as did many Israeli sources in this case, as did New York authorities in the early hours after 9/11 etc); and he also accused the IDF of war crimes (a point broadly supported - not contradicted - by the UN report into events in Jenin). As ever Jaakobou, the picture is more nuanced than you want it to be. --Nickhh (talk) 20:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Nickhh, the massacre, grave digging, coverup, and obliteration of the entire camp from existence claims were indeed refuted.

We have multiple high-quality sources within the article saying just that.

• 'Jenin "massacre" reduced to death toll of 56' by Paul Martin, Washington Times (host site) (mirror host)
• UN Report on Jenin (Source PDF) - Pg 11-12, Para 52-53, 56-57
• CNN Transcripts: Interview with Condoleezza Rice; Last Chance for Arafat?; How to Best Protect the Cockpit?
• 'UN says no massacre in Jenin', BBC
• UN states: There wasn't a massacre in the Jenin refugee camp, Yedioth Ahronoth (in Hebrew)
• U.N. General Council will discuss the Jenin report, Haaretz (in Hebrew)

If you notice the sources mentioning Erekat's claims, the controversial claims issue is not nuanced at all. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 05:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

declaration of intent

I intend on expanding the article's body, giving more input on day to day accomplishments of Erekat. If you have suggested topics/stories, please list them down and I will try to do the research into it. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• http://www.jmcc.org/politics/pna/newemerggov03.htm - Done.
• http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3033601.stm - Done.
• http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/palestine/saeb_erekat.htm - Done.
• http://info.jpost.com/C004/QandA/qa.erekat.html

-- added a few sources/leads. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)