Content deleted Content added
→Jenin / Prima Facie: 2 suggestions on how to proceed |
|||
Line 874:
The HRW report overview does not say "we once said prima facie, and now we don't" - it just says prima facie. Reading the part that does not say prima facie while ignoring the part that does as ''proof'' that their position had changed is original research and not the conclusion of the report. Attribution of "indiscriminate" to 'Human rights organisations' instead of the previous 'Palestinian and international organisations' was a limitation introduced by [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Jenin&diff=161769094&oldid=161767618 this edit], but even so, along with the UN, Amnesty does not make such a declaration. Moreover, to revert to your language, including in the introduction the charge of war crimes along with selected examples of said war crimes only serves to buff up the charge through undue emphasis.
Another logical fallacy that keeps getting presented is the idea that if the NGOs confirm one point that the Israelis argued [regarding "no massacre"], that they then achieve some status of "definitive" [regarding war crimes]. I'm not sure where people have gotten that idea, but your agreement with someone on ''one point'' would hardly force you to then agree with everything that person argues. <font style="color:#22AA00;">'''[[User:Tewfik|Tewfik]]'''</font><font style="color:#888888;"><sup>[[User Talk:Tewfik|Talk]]</sup></font> 08:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
::I don't think any of what you've written above makes any sense, Tewfik. Much of it in fact seems willfully nonsensical. We don't need "proof" that HRW's position has changed because we're not saying it has changed. We're simply saying the major human rights organizations agree that the IDF carried out war crimes. We have quotes from both where they say this unequivocally. It is inappropriate for you to keep deliberately misleading the reader into thinking that AI tempered their findings of war crimes with any language about "prima facie." Your wikilawyering about "indiscriminate" is likewise dead in the water, Tewfik, and has seriously eroded my belief in your good faith.--[[User:G-Dett|G-Dett]] 14:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
:''Page protected. Pls let me make 2 suggestions. (#1) You all have identified and debated the issues, without much repetitiveness, so how about we '''open a [[WP:RFC|Request for Comment]]'''? If you can't agree on how to describe the dispute, you can let some mythically fair-minded editor write the RfC (humble me?) or share it. (#2) You all should check to see if you're satisfied with the '''AI and HRW sections'''. This part of the lead should only reflect/summarize the content below, right? So your discussion could help get buy-in for those sections, too. How's that? [[User:HG|HG]] | [[User talk:HG|Talk]] 12:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
::I think if we're going to open an RfC, it should be on substantive issues where reasonable people who have read the sources could conceivably disagree. Tewfik's equivocations about "indiscriminate" and "disproportionate" (and his disruptive editing of same) is not an example of this. Equally absurd is his argument that it is appropriate to sift through the findings of HR organizations, and present some of them as definitive facts and others as allegations. Sophistries like this are an insult to the intelligence, and deserve to be ignored or flatly rebuked by any editor of good faith.--[[User:G-Dett|G-Dett]] 14:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
| |||