::You can't draw meaningful distinctions if you keep shifting the criteria, or comparing what RS's "don't maintain" with what they "don't deny."  There are plenty of Palestinian sources who (contra the international consensus) assert that a massacre took place in Jenin, and there are plenty of Israeli sources who (contra the international consensus) deny that "willful killings" took place in Jenin.  And then of course there are lots of varying opinions about constitutes "circumstances of atrocity or infamy."  The problem with this list is you've created your own ad hoc definition of "massacre" which differs from the dictionary definition as well as that of Human Rights Watch.  Of course lining up your definition with either of these would be impossible anyway, because the former is subjective ('infamy' anyone?) and the latter is never articulated.  So you've come up with an arbitrarily precise definition, and one which ironically Jenin actually fits.  That's not an argument for including Jenin; that's an argument against building a list like this around a term that in the present context is contentious, political, and subjective.