Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:49, 3 September 2007

This non-existent page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Module:WikiProject banner/doc This page is a soft redirect. This template has been replaced by Module:WikiProject banner Israel This page is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related Project Israel To Do: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Assess : Rate the Unassessed Israel-related articles and Unknown-importance Israel-related articles. Cleanup : Cleanup listing for this project is available. See also the list by category and the tool's wiki page. Collaborate : Participate in WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration. Copyedit : Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in 2005 Deletion sorting : Participate in discussions at WikiProject Deletion sorting/Israel. Expand : Ayala Procaccia, Diamond industry in Israel, Edna Arbel, Levin Kipnis, Rami Kleinstein, Sephardic Haredim, Zman Tel Aviv, Nachum Heiman, Public Defence (Israel), Prisoner of Zion, Trial of Benjamin Netanyahu, Day to Mark the Departure and Expulsion of Jews from the Arab Countries and Iran, Pre-Modern Aliyah See also Articles needing translation from Hebrew Misplaced Pages. Geographical coordinates : Add geographic coordinates to Israel articles missing geocoordinate data. Infobox : Add infoboxes to Israel articles needing infoboxes. Maintain : See Israel articles needing attention. Map : See discussion at Module:Location map/data/Israel. Add maps to articles in Misplaced Pages requested maps in Israel. NPOV : Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries Photo : Add pictures to articles in Misplaced Pages requested photographs in Israel. Stubs : See Israel stubs. Update : Basic Law proposal: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People Other : Translate to Hebrew : David Bar-Hayim, Guy Bavli, and Guy Oseary. Palestine This page is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Misplaced Pages. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

Archives

Archive 1

Malam Report (Hebrew)

I found this very interesting source, i thing we should add info from this to the article.. maybe i'll find time to do this soon, but i can't do it today.

main article: martyr city Attachments main: UNRWA terror supporter image sample attachment: translation and original

Jaakobou 16:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The neutrality and factual accuracy of this article are disputed.

article was first nominated on Aug. 3rd for inspection of neutrality by anon. user who did not open a talk page section.

Then first to introduce the "totally disputed" tag (same date aug. 3, much later in the day - 19:44) was User:Eleland, who also did not open a talk page subsection explaining this dispute.

this info was reinstated in this order: CJCurrie, PalestineRemembered, CJCurrie, PalestineRemembered, G-Dett, then it was removed by Eleland but reinstated again and reinserted by Speciate.

now, will someone from above editors please make a valid case for this "totaly disputed" tag or can we get rid of it without seeing it reverted in? Jaakobou 10:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Jaakobou, you know very well that there's a long, ongoing neutrality and factual dispute because you've been a major disputant. There is no provision which requires a separate section on talk just for the tag, when the dispute already exists. Don't you dare take the tag down again on such a shabby excuse. Eleland 12:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Eleland, your in no position state "Don't you dare...", if the article is "totally disputed", it means that it is extremely distorted and innaccurate and unreferenced etc. etc. which is not the case here. i see no reason for the orange tag except that one side is unhappy that they look bad with the material in the article. Jaakobou 18:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

This article was terrible, and it's not much improved. It's extremely distorted, beginning with the lead, it contains

Jaakobou - this article is a disgrace. All efforts to improve it are wrecked by the outrageous reverting back into the article of such garbage as"The allegations were debunked, and the Palestinian death toll was estimated at 52 by the UN". That's a provable falsehood (as well as being unencyclopedic). If this article were not so bad, you would quite likely have been perma-blocked for inserting such straightforward falsehoods. In your shoes, I'd keep very quiet about the tags - they're about the only tattered protection you have left! PalestineRemembered 13:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• And User:Jaakobou, there is a question I need to ask you. During the period of this action (April 2002) were you more than 4, more than 40, more than 400 or more than 4000 miles away from Jenin? If you were less than 4 miles away from it, did you handle a weapon or otherwise take any part in the Battle of Jenin? If you cannot (or refuse) to answer this question, then I think you should recuse yourself from editing this article, because of the grave danger of Conflict of Interest. If you'd told us earlier of your involvement, there'd still be a danger of CoI, but your editing behaviour would be more understandable. PalestineRemembered 13:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

When your username openly states that you have a quite partisan agenda, incivility and spurious allegations against other users are unacceptable. Please maintain a collegial atmosphere by reciprocating the lack of attacks against you, and focusing on content, rather than contributors. Tewfik 19:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

warning issued. Jaakobou 18:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know (nor do I care) how far away Jaakobou was from Jenin during April 2002. I was in Los Angeles during April-May 1992. Does that mean I shouldn't edit the article on the 1992 Los Angeles riots? This event was at least as controversial in the United States as the Battle of Jenin was in the Arab-Israeli conflict. --GHcool 17:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

If you were a police officer, a rioter, or a victim of rioting, there could be a CoI. That doesn't mean you can't edit the article. It means you should tread lightly and make others aware of the conflict. PalestineRemembered has not said that Jaakobou shouldn't edit the article, so your rhetorical question seems like a straw man. Eleland 17:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

he only made an accusation and demanded things based on that accusation. Jaakobou 18:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I have modified the template, so that it now links to here as "the relevant section on the talk page". Keep in mind that virtually the entire talk page comprises disputations of neutrality and factual accuracy, though. Eleland 17:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

there are disputes in every article, the disputes on this one do not justify such a strong "totaly disputed" tag, as most of the article is agreed upon and everything is well referenced. Jaakobou 18:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

now, will someone from above editors please make a valid case for this "totaly disputed" tag or can we get rid of it without seeing it reverted in? Jaakobou 18:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

A partial and provisional summary:

• The lede is mostly devoted to laborious explanation of the official IDF reasons for the raid (well, I presume they're the official versions, since there are no citations the reasons might actually be original research), and perniciously presents the widely reported fact that the Israelis used tanks, helicopters, and armored bulldozers as if it was only a "Palestinian claim".
• The "background" section is devoted entirely to hasbara, and I mean this word in its neutral sense. It's mostly a summary of Israeli explanations for why they "had to do it", with brief info about the units involved. There is no corresponding Palestinian Order of Battle, and it is capped off with a particularly disgusting line which describes defensive booby traps as "ten times larger than a typical suicide bomber's charge". It's as if the authors believe that WP readers are ignorant children who need to be reminded of the "correct" way to think about Jenin every sixty seconds or so.
• "The battle" section begins with "Israeli forces...secured the town of Jenin". I'm sure the dozens of Palestinians who died subsequently were glad to die "securely". It proceeds to an estimate from Israeli intelligence with no corresponding reports from neutral observers or Palestinians. It proceeds to present the IDF claim of "infantry instead of carpet bombing for humanitarian reasons" as objective fact, falsely claims that there were no targeted bombardments from aircraft, then describes a "limited" use of helicopters, a blatant misrepresentation of the cited sources ("The helicopters that swarmed angrily above the city's roofs, firing indiscriminately into the city's crowded refugee camp", "Houses pierced from wall to wall by tank or helicopter gun ships")

At this point my summary ends, because I am too filled with rage and disgust at you personally and your ilk to continue without violating CIV or NPA. Eleland 06:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

First of all, if this subject-matter is filling you "with rage and disgust", you might consider stepping back and taking a break. Perhaps you would appreciate this essay. As for your points:

• Perhaps you could explain what it is you would like to be added to the lead? AFAIK, there is no alternative explanation to balance that of the IDF. Tanks, armoured bulldozers, and helicopters are mentioned uncontroversially throughout the article, and are not presented as Palestinian claims. The Palestinian claim was that that military hardware was used indiscriminately to effect a massacre. Keep Misplaced Pages:Lead section in mind when replying.
• I'm not sure what you mean by calling it hasbara, but again, could you suggest specific changes? I didn't find any Palestinian order of battle, which is unsurprising since they didn't initiate the battle directly, which was framed as a response to the suicide attack campaign. I'm also unsure of what you mean about "the 'correct' way to think about Jenin", but that line is a specific paraphrase from Times section on Palestinian preparation for the battle.
• Few, if any people, died in the town of Jenin AFAIK. What other wording would you suggest? Do you have a corresponding report from Palestinians or neutral observers that we could use? Is there some other viewpoint about why the Israelis decided on infantry that you are aware of and would like to include? Do you have a source that says that aeroplanes were used? The quote "helicopters that swarmed angrily above the city's roofs, firing indiscriminately into the city's crowded refugee camp" is part of the article's reproduction of the Palestinian claim, and still doesn't comment on the extent of use, just an emotion being attributed to them by the observer. Likewise the second quote only documents that helicopters was used, and doesn't comment on how many.

I hope that I was able to address your points adequately, and I hope that you've found away to not get so upset from Misplaced Pages. Cheers, Tewfik 07:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

There remain massive problems in this article, starting with the lead. Since you wish to act cooperatively, how about doing some "write for the enemy", referencing the words of the prime witness/perpetrator of the leveling of the camp? Jaakobou did this, I thought his attempt was terrible, but at least he tried. I'm doing the same below on one of the Time Magazine clips. PalestineRemembered 08:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I've already explained above what the passage does and doesn't say. There is no 'admission' that the Israelis were really lying. Tewfik 19:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

My "rage and disgust" was specifically related to the blatant misrepresentation of and , and ending my comment to go copy-edit unrelated articles was my break.

I can provide some suggested additions to the lede, but of course, one doesn't need to have a suggested solution in order to identify a problem. It's a travesty that the lede does not mention the findings of serious widespread violations of the laws of war ("war crimes", in English) by the IDF, by credible and respectable observers.

The presentation of "Palestinian claims" of "indiscriminate" attacks is fine, except that:

• factual information should not be wholly replaced with "claims"
• it was not only Palestinians or Arabs claiming; I propose

Buildings in the camp were struck by shells and missiles fired from tanks and helicopters. Palestinians, Human Rights Watch, and UNRWA Commissioner-General Peter Hansen called the firing "indiscriminate".

• What I meant by "hasbara" was "explanation of the official-Israeli POV". Your statement about no order of battle is difficult to parse. An OOB is "an organizational tool used by military intelligence to list and analyze enemy military units", basically a detailed summary of strength and organization. I object to the "suicide bomber" line for the same reason I would object to a line noting that Operation Defensive Shield killed more people than the Nazis did in Lidice; whether Time magazine is playing that game means little. On a side note, I do have to question why this one single report from Time is cited so pervasively, while other investigations are not. Could it be because Time chose to editorialize and emphasize events in a manner more favorable to Israel than many other reports?
• My point about "secured" was that, while "secured" may be correct in technical military jargon to describe "securing ones' control over the area", it also means "provided security for". The line seemed to say that Israel was protecting the town, rather than occupying it.
• Peter Beaumont of the Observer describes "helicopters that swarmed angrily above the city's roofs, firing indiscriminately into the city's crowded refugee camp ... what we could see was a long-range assault, unequal in every part. We could see the tanks manoeuvering and shelling houses from the plain. We could hear them firing from the ridge behind us. Most shocking, however, were the Apache helicopter gunships that hovered like an angry swarm above the city, approaching, often in pairs, and firing bursts of cannon-fire every five minutes into the camp. Every now and then they would fire a pair of missiles which would explode and send a plume of darker smoke above the white haze of gunsmoke already hanging above the camp." Statements about "reproduction of the Palestinian claim" and indiscriminate being "an emotion" are completely unsupportable by any normal reading of the text. So is "appears to have been a limited bombardment". He explicitly says he saw it with his own eyes. Your personal interpretation of emotional helicopters is not a suitable basis for editing the article. How many helicopters is not at issue, it's whether helicopters were alleged to have fired indiscriminately, and by whom, and it's whether the cited sources say "limited bombardment by helicopters", which they obviously don't.

Also, note please that my summary of problems was partial, provisional, and personal to me: other editors have raised serious complaints. I'm not campaigning to have the TotallyDisputed tag stay for all time, but I don't see the discussion getting to that point for at least several weeks at the most optimistic. Eleland 08:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

You should by all means identify problems that you see. I was just pointing out that solving those problems requires an additional step:

• Again, the Israelis don't deny, and we discuss uncontroversially, their use of tanks etc. The "claims" refer to allegations that there was indiscriminate firing. HRW only says that firing was indiscriminate "at times", while criticising Palestinian tactics as being indiscriminate without such qualification. Both points are discussed in their respective sections, and are undue weight in the lead. Hansen's statement is from March, and has nothing to do with Jenin.
• Again, I have found no Palestinian order of battle, or very much other information about their side. If you find such information from RS, feel free to add it. When you say that it is "explanation of the official-Israeli POV", discussing a specific change would necessary to improve it. The analogy about Lidice wouldn't make sense since the Israelis had nothing to do with Lidice, while the bombs were both manufactured by the same people who made suicide bombs, and as the latter is a familiar phenomenon, it is an ideal means of comparison - do you have a different suggestion? Regarding your questioning my motivation on Time, please see Misplaced Pages:Assume good faith.
• This was mostly addressed above, but "helicopters that swarmed angrily above the city's roofs, firing indiscriminately into the city's crowded refugee camp" is part of the article's reproduction of the Palestinian claim as in "The Palestinians have called it a 'massacre', alleging that their houses were bulldozed with families still inside, that helicopters fired indiscriminately on a civilian area", and what, if not an emotion attributed by the observer, does "swarmed angrily" describe?

Feel free also to reply to the rest of my previous response. Tewfik 19:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

If it is being argued that an extended summary of Israeli hasbara for "why we had to invade Jenin" ("martyrs' capital", etc) in the lede is fine, but that statements of Palestinians, major human rights groups, and a British journalist present on the scene referring to "indiscriminate" bombardment is "undue weight", then I have little interest in continuing the discussion.

The Hansen quote was a mistake on my part. I had thougt I was linking to a later statement Hansen made, on 7 April. It is partially quoted here: "Pitiless assault ... we are getting reports of pure horror ... that helicopters are strafing civilian residential areas". I do not know if Hansen used the word "indiscriminate", since I can no longer find the original statement, but I do recall that Israel and its diaspora propagandists pilloried Hansen for this, and that UNRWA stood by him, saying "That IDF helicopters have strafed Palestinian residential areas in the West Bank during March and April 2002, particularly in the Jenin refugee camp is now widely accepted as fact".

An aggreived tone and reminders to assume good faith do not answer the important question: Why does this article cite one Time Magazine piece twenty times? Is it because the piece uses convoluted language ("compelled Palestinian civilians to take the dangerous job of leading the approach to the buildings") instead of ("used Palestinians as human shields"), at times even slipping into direct Israeli point-of-view ("the Palestinian defenders retreated to ... where their defenses were strongest. It was time to hit harder.")? Is it because the piece, an after-the-fact "investigation" conducted partially from Tel Aviv, substantially differed from the contemperaneous reports of European journalists on the scene? And from reports of investigations by independent human rights groups?

Any reading of the Observer quotes on helicopters as "reproduction of a Palestinian claim" is impossible. In his second paragraph, Beaumont says, "The helicopters that swarmed angrily above the city's roofs, firing indiscriminately into the city's crowded refugee camp". At this point, he has not made ANY reference to ANY Palestinians, indeed the only people he mentions are "Israeli soldiers". Later, he tells us that "from a rooftop in the adjoining village of Wad Burqin, we watched the fighting ... what we could see was a long-range assault ... We could see the tanks manoeuvering and shelling houses from the plain. We could hear them firing from the ridge behind us. Most shocking, however, were the Apache helicopter gunships"

You have read a clear and unambiguous statement from an eyewitness, who even tells you where and when he stood when he observed events, and concluded that it is a "reproduction of Palestinian claims"?

Again any further comment would violate WP:CIV, so that's it. Eleland 20:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm unsure as to where I am being unclear, but that is not what I said above. The Palestinian claim is included, while I explained that what you see as evidence of "indiscriminate" (The Observer clearly says "Palestinians have called it", though even if you believe that Beaumont felt the need to attribute to Palestinians something that he objectively believed, his distant observation outside the camp hardly grants him the ability or expertise to broadly label anything as "indiscriminate", especially as human rights groups don't say that) is far from clear. The rest of your comment doesn't deal with whether "indiscriminate" is claimed. As for Time, the majority of the references, if not all of them, are to mundane or undisputed claims from the detailed report, and do not include the quotes you used above. So yes, I will be aggrieved by what seems like an attempt to attack my intentions, rather than any specific edit. I point you to WP:AGF so as to avoid such a waste of both our time, and I hope that this discussion can return to a productive vein. Tewfik 06:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Time quote

I took out this Time Magazine quote because I thought it was unreferenced (I was wrong). Time reported that while houses were knocked down by the bulldozers, they could not have buried the amount of people alleged by Palestinians since it takes a half-hour to fully wreck a building, and because Israeli soldiers say they always called any residents to leave in advance. In this form, it sounds as if someone has investigated how long it takes to "fully wreck" a building, that this is significant, and hence another Palestinian claim is disproved.

But it still needs more work, because our re-write has (quite accidentally) exaggerated the impact of the article. The "time to fully wreck a building" is no more than an assertion. Read the actual words of the article, they come across much like an op-ed. "Undoubtedly, the D-9s destroyed houses, but they certainly didn't bury as many people as Palestinian officials have alleged. It takes the D-9 at least half an hour to fully wreck a building. Israeli soldiers say they always called to residents to come out before the bulldozers went in. But even if the innocents were too frightened initially to leave, most would surely have done so as soon as the D-9 started its work." Time magazine is an RS, but we shouldn't imbue the article with more credibility than would be gained from reading the article. (Compare this with the Kurdi Bear clips I used, reading the entire article makes it more credible and thought-provoking, not less).

I'd propose "Time magazine asserts that the demolitions could not have buried as many people as Palestinian officials have alleged, due to the time needed to fully wreck a building. Israeli soldiers say they always called any residents to leave in advance". However, in that form, it's barely worth including atall. Perhaps we should bring out the real significance of this clip, and say "Time magazine breezily conceded that people were crushed alive in their homes, but disputes the numbers who could have died in this way" PalestineRemembered 09:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Copyvio Section

The amnesty international report subsection is was pure copyvio. Kyaa the Catlord 15:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

So is the UN report.... Kyaa the Catlord 15:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The UN report subsection has been rewritten to avoid copyvio concerns. Kyaa the Catlord 15:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

REMINDER "Content that violates any copyright will be deleted". Its on every edit page. Kyaa the Catlord 17:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm positive that your reading of copyvio is wrong. After you posted the above, I posted a moderately complete explanation to your TalkPage here. Regards. PalestineRemembered 09:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll repeat what I stated on YOUR talk page in response: "The copyvio issue was that the Amnesty International section was not "used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea is acceptable under "fair use"." It was a stand alone chunk of text stolen from another source. You have subsequently changed that, although I've not ran your new section through google... yet." Btw, this section still remains at this point. Kyaa the Catlord 10:14, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Copyvio or not, it is far from clear what relevance these different statements, selectively picked, have to the article. They do not add any new info- merely rehash known information, spiced up with proven falsehoods. Are we going to reprint every statement made by any UN member state on this topic? See WP:NOT . Isarig 14:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

This article is stiff with information from Israel (sometimes fed through Time Magazine). Of course a statement from the Palestinians has to be included! Especially when it has their estimate of the death toll (sadly, they've not broken it down by town). Other International observers need to have some reference too. PalestineRemembered 22:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Please leave your conspiracy theories about how Israel controls Time magazin out of our encyclopedia. If there is some important data in the Palestinian statement not already in the article, feel free to summarize it and add it. Isarig

I can find no accusation of Israeli control over Time in his comment. He implied that Time passed along Israeli claims unduly. That's hardly the (implicitly anti-Semitic) conspiracy theory you make it out to be. And it's his encyclopedia as much as it is yours. Eleland 23:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

This article uses Time as a source for numerous claims, which do not quote any Israeli official nor refer to an Israeli claim. As such, they can safely be assumed to be Time's editorial position. To claim that this is "really" information from Israel ..fed through Time Magazine - is an insinuation that Israel controls Time's editorial staff. It is a wacko conspiracy theory that does not belong in our encyclopedia. Note the use of the word "our" encyclopedia, not "my" encyclopedia. If you have trouble with this simple English construct, I will be happy to explain the difference. Isarig 23:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Um, I didn't see PalestineRemembered here say anything about a conspiracy theory either - that merely appears to be your rather paranoid construct. They were simply making the - fairly uncontentious - point that this article has a lot of content reflecting the official Israeli point of view. And then made the secondary point that some of that content happens to be sourced from Time (I would add that this is neither surprising or controversial - Time, along with other media outlets, will quote use information - including direct quotes - from media spokespeople from Israel, as well as from the PA and other countries etc). What is more at issue is which of those quotes what elements of that information Misplaced Pages editors choose to highlight in these articles. And would it be unfair of me to point out quite how often certain editors complain that the BBC, Guardian etc are supposedly under the control of anti-Israeli forces? As for the "our encyclopedia" point, the distinction between "my" and "our" isn't that simple of course - it depends of course who EXACTLY you mean by "us/our". Let's assume you did mean all editors, not merely a select group of them. --Nickhh 14:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC). (amended to reflect that not all info sourced is from direct quotes --Nickhh 15:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC))

Revert at 2:18am 8/8/2007

Rationale: 1. Addition of unencyclopedic "Was there a massacre?" heading rather than the less investigatory heading that originally appeared. 2. Readdition of unsourced "statements". These need to be more than a blockquote of text copied from somewhere and MUST BE SOURCED. 3. The "moves" of information broke my references fixes. Please be more careful when you're editting. 4. POV and NOR, the use of the header adds a level of synthesis which comes close to breaking WP:SYN. Kyaa the Catlord 08:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, I'm in the midst of fact-checking this article. Some of the sources I've found do not support some of the statements they are supposed to be providing verifiability to. Kyaa the Catlord 08:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear Kyaa - I don't understand your explanations above. This revert of yours:

1. Reinserted that the UN "found claims of a 'massacre' to be baseless". The UN report doesn't mention massacre (though it does include the submissions of the PA and Jordan, the latter is quite specific that there was a massacre).
2. Removes the Palestinian and Jordanian investigatory reports (which are of far more significance than the "Floor Statement" to Congress).
3. Re-inserts "Allegations of massacre", with the piece of the ADL at the top. It is debatable whether any such opinion piece belongs, but it should clearly come after the numerous real investigations.
4. Divides the new "Was there a massacre" back into two sections, the second being "Post-fighting investigations", which now leads with the fairly trivial investigation done by Time magazine. (Other than walking through the camp, it's not clear they've done anything themselves).
5. Re-inserts the unencyclopedic (and out of place) statement "Massacres refer not only to the numbers killed, but also to the method used."
6. Reinserted the distorted paraphrasing of Powell's words "that there was no evidence of mass graves or a massacre", when he appears to have said the very different "I have no evidence of mass graves. I see no evidence that would support a massacre took place." (Though you later corrected this, thankyou).

I had hoped that it would be possible to improve this article at last but it might be better to abandon the attempt and just leave it tagged "Totally disputed". However, given that you were editing at 2.30am (your time), and have corrected one of the most blatant errors you made, I'm prepared to give this article another chance. I will painstakingly repair what you've done, avoiding the temptation to revert it (and/or charge you with the deliberate disruptive insertion of fraudulent material).

Please also note that in large, contentious and/or badly flawed articles like this one, it is better to do a series of single edits with explanations of each change, as I was doing. It is impolite bordering on disruptive to revert anything in the middle of such a series of edits (though it is not necessarily very obvious that that is what I was doing). If you need to make a change, only do a re-write, and only if you're confident that the other editor has finished with that section. Thankyou. You may be confident I will continue to try and treat you as a serious editor, but it does depend on working in a cooperative fashion. PalestineRemembered 09:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The number 1 rule of wikipedia is "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable." You need to have sources for your insertions of text. You readded the Jordanian and Palestinian statements directly and did not attempt to source these properly. Your opinion of the ADL is noted. I suggest that if you do not like their characterizations, find and include alternative viewpoints. You may also not like the Time article, that's fine. You're free not to like it. But as long as we have properly sourced material, the simple fact that you do not like the inclusion of verifiable, mainstream press accounts are valid sources. The "unencyclopedic" ""Massacres refer not only to the numbers killed" is a direct quote. Again, I don't like it statements bear little weight. Kyaa the Catlord 10:02, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

There are several key principles of WP. Verifiability is certainly one of them, but it doesn't permit undue weight. There may (perhaps?) be a place for opinion pieces in this article, but they cannot come in front of the results of actual investigations, and belong in a section "Was there a massacre?" or something similar.

It should have been clear that the Palestinian and Jordanian reports and Spain/EU reports were included in the UN report, but I've glad you've brought that to my attention, because it has enabled me to greatly improve that section.

You've objected to the part about the Military Advisor to Amnesty not backing them in the reference I gave you, I'm afraid this is carelessness on your part and (in the circumstances) potentially disruptive. I've put the entire clip from Derek Holley in there (you may think there's too much, please feel free to trim it again). PalestineRemembered 11:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

You're making some very bold accusations, Palestine. I'd advise you to remain calm and realize that the link does not contain the information that you claim. Fact-checking isn't personal, but... if you have a problem with being checked against, please take it to ANI, I'd enjoy that. Kyaa the Catlord 11:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Kyaa on this. Any insertions, especially of such length, must be referenced. That said, copying large chunks of the reports here both violates copyright and content policies. Tewfik 18:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Refuted

When claims are made of "hundreds of people massacred", but subsequently only 50+ bodies are found, and 5 years later, the number is still 50+, and when Amnesty reports that "Within five weeks all but one of the residents was accounted for.", the claims have been refuted. Isarig 21:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The initially higher numbers have been refuted, yes, but that is decidedly not what you've written in the lead. What you've written in lead is that the "allegations of war crimes and massacre" have been refuted, which the body of the article does not support. The relevant section in the article quotes British military expert David Holley (quoted by the BBC) saying "it just appears there was no wholesale killing"; what you leave out is that Holley goes on to say the "hard fact" is that "war crimes" took place (that "cannot be disputed"), and he moreover cites "very credible witnesses" attesting to the following: "They have seen snipers cutting people down in the streets with clear views of civilians trying to get away from the fighting. These are individual killings that need to be investigated." Please don't make edits that suggest that a casualty estimate revised downwards amounts to a "refutation" of war crimes allegations generally; I'll revert it.--G-Dett 22:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

My focus was on the inflated body counts. Some POV-pushers still want the article to insinuate that the 52-56 confirmed dead are just a minimum - it's "at least 52", only 52 were "confirmed" etc.. - and that he "real" toll could yet, someday, be as high as the baseless fabrications tossed about by the Palestinian leadership and embraced whoelheartedly by the international media. Check the recent edit history to see what I mean. I should have made the clearer in my edit. Isarig 22:14, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

You seem to have neglected the fact that both Palestinian sources and the international media were led to understand there were 100s of deaths by the Israeli sources too. PalestineRemembered 07:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I tried to point this out a week or so ago, and make sure it was included for the sake of proper balance .. but had to give up because partisan editors would simply keep removing the info. And of course, the fact that the IDF kept the camp closed to journalists merely encouraged media speculation about the extent of the death toll (ie "what are they trying to hide?") --Nickhh 14:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

In case my edit-summaries were unclear, I changed the key bit to only stating a refutation of the "massacre" allegation, which the main NGOs etc. have stated did not happen, while clarifying that they still maintain the "war-crimes" allegation, as Amnesty and HRW do. I am not aware of any continuing mainstream reference to the events as a massacre, and I've perused most of the sources here, as well as many elsewhere, so I restored the previous wording. As far as a "international sources" alleging indiscriminate attacks, I discussed above the one qualified mention and why I believe that a broad statement is problematic. As for providing a range, there is only a single claim of 56, while the consensus among the UN and NGOs (and even the Israelis) is 52. The Palestinian claim is discussed below, but creating such a range in the lead grants that claim undue weight. I hope that explained my entire rationale. Tewfik 05:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the business of "Was it a massacre" needs a proper discussion in here. The current setup is confused, with this topic untidily draped across three section, Body count estimates, Allegations of a massacre, Post-fighting investigations. If it was treated as one topic, the article would read much better. PalestineRemembered 07:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep in mind that we are not conducting an investigation that should be asking questions, but rather presented verifiable and previously-published reports etc. I do agree that the information could be organised well, but I think the main issue is the extensive quoting from rather than summary of certain documents, and so per Kyaa, that should be a major focus before we embark on other changes. Tewfik 18:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The verifiable and previously published reports say a large number of things that are still not properly in the article. They say that substantial war-crimes were committed, they say that helicopters "swarmed" over the camp, they say that the Israeli estimate of people remaining is a severe underestimate, they say that the camp was sealed off for about 5 days after the end of shooting (though some parts of it were opened to conducted tours after only 3 days). The sources say that the devastated camp was extremely dangerous after Israel withdrew, but Israel blocked the bomb-disposal people going in for weeks afterwards. The sources say that Israel made at least two further incursions in the weeks that followed. All of this needs to be refered to before we can say this article is a half-way proper description of these events. PalestineRemembered 20:45, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

UN Report section

This is blatant copyvio from http://www.un.org/peace/jenin/ and needs to be removed. Taking portions of the section and using the firefox "find" feature, you can find the exact same sentances in different orders on the UN webpage. This is not acceptable. Kyaa the Catlord 07:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Copyright infringing text has been removed. Kyaa the Catlord 07:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

This is a drastically new reading of copyright law, and (if it were generally applied) would gut the encyclopedia. It's completely unsupported by anything in policy, and flies in the face of all previous handling of quotations. I trust you're not being disruptive, removing material that you don't like for bogus reasons. PalestineRemembered 09:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

You know, I'd be following proper protocol if I reported this article for copyvio, PR. You really, really don't want that. Kyaa the Catlord 10:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

You can quote some sentences if they are clearly attributed, but some parts of this section were really copied verbatim from without attribution. The current version (reworded and pruned) should be OK though. Regards, High on a tree 10:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I rewrote what you rewrote for POV and some grammar problems. :P Kyaa the Catlord 10:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks (although I don't know what you mean by "some grammar problems", except maybe that "April 16" is more elegant than "16 April"). Of course the section was not meant to be complete yet, it should still be expanded to provide more context, especially about the events during the first two weeks of April. Regards, High on a tree 11:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

To be completely honest, I subscribe to the "less is more". We should not be recreating the report here in different words, rather we should have a concise summary of their findings. We currently have more than that.... Kyaa the Catlord 11:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

We need a lot more than "a concise summary" if we're attempting to write a good encyclopedia article. We need actual information from Reliable Sources. Israel's claims, given the heavy-handed concealment, and given the multiple serious accusations against it from most/nearly all observers, belong a long way down the page. PalestineRemembered 12:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

We need to follow Misplaced Pages's rules. It certainly seems that everyone who has weighed in on this issue other than yourself agrees that what I've removed has been copyvio material. Even High on a tree agreed and reworded the statements, albeit worded it in a way that made it sound like the only day that food was delivered to this camp was April 16. Kyaa the Catlord 15:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Our work is made much, much more difficult by applying a ferociously exclusionary version of "Fair Use", such as doesn't apply anywhere else in the project (and would gut 100s of 1000s of articles if we tried to apply it generally). But in the meantime, we need to include the considered verdicts of the PA, Jordan, the EU (and likely something from Qatar). All those sources are vastly better than that of those who blocked outside observers, right up to and including the UN. And vastly better than a magazine which appears to have done no "investigation" worth speaking of, and is only parrotting the words of denial from the perpetrators. PalestineRemembered 22:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Strange edits

Perhaps Kyaa the Catlord could take some time to explain the rationale of these edits:

• , which changed

"The EU's report said ''"at least 4,000 remained inside and did not evacuate the camp."''<ref name=UN>"

to

"The EU believes ''"at least 4,000 remained inside and did not evacuate the camp."''

• the next edit removed this very sentence, saying ""

In other words, Kyaa the Catlord first replaced a good referencing by a bad one (it is of course correct that Misplaced Pages articles should not be cited as a reference), and then later removed this statement because it was badly referenced.

Besides, the first edit removed another statement (apparently well-referenced, citing the UN report) and destroyed a multiple reference to a BBC article (resulting in this empty citation in the present version). And I don't see the "huge chunk" of text that was restored according to the edit summary?

Regards, High on a tree 11:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

If you look at the actual article links, you'd see that I had actually replaced a large chunk of the article which had become mysteriously invisible in the first edit which inadvertently removed the updated source. Feel free to replace the removed text if you would like. Tossing out accusations is pointless, however, and I'd like to remind you to WP:AGF and maybe look a little deeper next time. Kyaa the Catlord 11:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

For ease, please view the table of contents here: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Battle_of_Jenin&oldid=150127081 and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Battle_of_Jenin&oldid=150135929 and you will see that subsections 2.1 and 2.2 went missing somewhere. I know, its tricky to see a huge chunk of the article missing like that.... Kyaa the Catlord 11:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Understanding that remark about the "huge chunk" wasn't my main concern, but thanks - comparing these two links I can see it too. It is quite weird that this is not visible in the diff (but then again the diff function is known to have some rare bugs).

I did not express any assumptions about your intentions, so I can't accept your accusation that I had violated Misplaced Pages:Assume good faith. Instead I invited you politely to explain edits that (as I think we both agree now) significantly damaged the text. You are saying the damage was done inadvertently, which I accept, although I am still wondering why you hadn't noticed this by pressing "Show changes" - it must have been a second failure of the diff function.

I am going to repair the corrupted references now, although I would have appreciated it if you had seen this as your own responsibility.

Regards, High on a tree 12:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Didn't realize anything had broken... *shrug* Your tone really doesn't come off as someone I want to talk to so, I'll just leave it at that. I found a huge problem and took care of it. You found something relatively minor in comparison and are still trying to accuse me of something. Are you in a bad mood or just being cranky for crankiness sake? Kyaa the Catlord 12:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not going to spend time arguing about my "tone" with somebody who is calling me "cranky". Regards, High on a tree 12:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Being called out to explain something that should not require any explanation if you took the time to compare what was there prior and what was there after really strikes me as someone who is assuming I'm doing something sketchy. But I'll just assume you overreacted since you duplicated the problem when you tried to fix whatever you discovered was broken. Kyaa the Catlord 12:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Again, my concern was not about the "huge chunk" but about the citations you damaged, and you still haven't explained that (above I suggested a second very rare failure of the Mediawiki software as an explanation in your favor).

And I have no idea what you mean by "you duplicated the problem". Where did I change a good citation to a bad one, and then removed the corresponding statement for the reason that it was badly referenced? Regards, High on a tree 13:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

You're assuming I changed the reference so I could remove it while duplicating the exact error that caused me to make the change which removed the huge chunk of text from the article. I even pointed out the problem to you and you are still hung up on your mistaken belief that I am trying to use the edit to somehow remove text that actually appears TWICE on the page while only removing one instance of it, due to what was, at the time, a legitimate concern. Kyaa the Catlord 14:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I can confirm that your behaviour to other editors has been aggressive since you arrived on this article. People seeing my comments on your TalkPage can confirm for themselves that I was trying to be helpful and understanding - I don't feel I've had anything like the same in return. You've done considerable damage to this article, removing sheaves of the best material on threatening (but as far as I can tell, quite spurious) grounds, just that I know of. I'm not surprised you've been found to have messed up other parts. PalestineRemembered 14:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm rather shocked by your accusations PR. If you look at your own talk page, you can see that I responded to your statements on my talk page in a manner that shows I was willing to work with you towards a comprimise as long as you avoid copywrite violations. I'm sorry you feel it necessary to lie though. Kyaa the Catlord 15:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The comment that you've just passed on my TalkPage is the first evidence I've had of any kind that you're here other than to be disruptive (and you've succeeded, raising two serious complaints against me - one block, lifted, one just irritating). So aggressive has been your behaviour that I put you down as hormonal. Now you tell me you're not of the female persuasion, I'm wondering whether perhaps your next step is to be personally harrassing, as I see happens to other good-faith critics of Israel. I've twice asked for someone of a different POV to write up the (highly significant) Kurdi Bear interview. Would you care to do it? Would it be the first piece of writing I've seen from you? PalestineRemembered 18:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't even know how to respond to this. You assumed I was menstruating and thus was acting aggressively? I... don't know what to say. Kyaa the Catlord 22:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

And you broke it again. Kyaa the Catlord 12:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Where? Regards, High on a tree 12:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

You subsequently fixed it. :P Kyaa the Catlord 12:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, you mean the trailing "/" that the author of the previous version had left out? It just occurred to me while doing this that it might be better to separate the corrections of your edit from further fixes, so I decided to make two edits. I take the opportunity to remind everybody of Help:Footnotes, especially for using multiple references. Regards, High on a tree 13:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

If you take out that "/" you'll see what I tried to fix. And quit lecturing, you're coming off like an ass. Thanks. (Just for your enlightenment, I did not realize that it was just a "/" missing and actually copy/pasted text from prior to whoever originally included the "ref name" reference and forgot the "/" which had broken the page, quite similarly to how you "rebroke" the page after you first started giving us a lecture here.) Kyaa the Catlord 14:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Let's compare how it was before I "fixed" it: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Battle_of_Jenin&oldid=150127081 to how it was after your initial edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Battle_of_Jenin&oldid=150166641

Notice how both versions are missing a large chunk of the section headed with "The Battle". My mistake was that I did not realize that the change which had caused this problem was a missing "/" in the ref name tag and my "fix" reverted it back to before user:Tewflik had changed the reference to the one with a name from the one which appeared previously. For your information, I had asked Tewflik to doublecheck my "fix" here: http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Tewfik#Battle_of_Jenin_3 Note how this was long before you started tossing out accusations of misdeeds at me. I agree that how I "fixed" it was clunky and that had Tewflik not accidentally forgotten the "/" in his ref name tag I'd not have removed that piece of text, but throwing a hissy fit over a simple mistake like this is unique in my years of editting wikipedia. Kyaa the Catlord 14:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

It would appear there are people making quick and sloppy edits, thereby making all work by productive editors much harder. I'm not sure at what point this becomes disruptive, but it certainly does nothing for the project. PalestineRemembered 15:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it would probably be best to write this off as a miscommunication, and leave it at that. PR, in such a case, it is not very helpful to jump in with allegations of 'aggressive behaviour'. If we all remain civil and assume good faith, we should have no problem continuing to raise the quality of this article. Tewfik 18:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The work of productive editors has been made extremely difficult in this article, and it's sometimes difficult to be sure that contributors are attempting to enlighten. What have we said about helicopter gun-ships "spraying the camp like rain" according to one account, and "swarming" by another? Where is the Kurdi Bear account - I've twice asked that people with another POV write it up for consideration, I've not even had the courtesy of an answer. It would be a travesty if the "totally disputed" tag were lifted before this work was done. PalestineRemembered 18:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

sharon

is there ANY source for this edit? (as opposed to the CNN source given)

What exactly is the CNN rush transcript supposed to prove? CJCurrie 05:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

are you planning on referencing your direct accusation at sharon, or can we go back to rely our text on the validated sources? Jaakobou 05:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe you've provided a validated source for your preferred version. CJCurrie 05:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

are you planning on providing a reference? Jaakobou 06:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

btw, since when is CNN not a valid source? Jaakobou 06:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

No-one's saying CNN is not a valid source, generally. It is simply being pointed out that this particular transcript is irrelevant to the issue at hand (which of course it is). And not for the first time, you are going round in circles about a citation issue, after having - and transparently "losing" - exactly the same debate with other editors some months previously.(http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Battle_of_Jenin#widspread_hatered) --Nickhh 09:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

i don't see a "loss" in the link you provided, i see some one valid point about the first issue and an invalid reasoning on the second one. Jaakobou 16:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The reference to "losing" that debate may be a little unfair, but at the same time it's the only way to describe the end result of struggles like it, where others try to get you to accept what is or is not - at a fairly basic and obvious level - in the sources you cite as apparent evidence for your own viewpoints and assertions. I recall for example the whole "the Palestinians claimed genocide" debate I had with you, which you kept trying to keep in the intro, claiming it was "well sourced" in several different references - none of which even mentioned the word.

To clarify here - this transcript, even in the widest possible interpretation you can give it, does not make the connection that you want it to. It does not even mention Jenin. Hence it is not, as CJCurrie points out, a validated source for what you are trying to insert into this article. And you should know this, because another editor pointed it out to you a while ago. --Nickhh 17:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

this transcript is from the CNN coverage of the clashes in israel, this news segment concentrated on the arab reactions to the israeli incursions into palestinian militant hotbeds. the word jenin is a redundant unnecessary considering all the people interviewed that day and considering that 10 minutes before they were talking about a suicide bomber ripping through central jerusalem, right along jaffa road (by the al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade) and about colin powell's visit to try and negotiate a cease fire. what makes you contest that this source is not connected to the action?? (p.s. note that the source ends with "We will get more coverage here in a moment, live from Jerusalem") Jaakobou 20:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Totally Disputed tag

I know it feels good to put this tag up, but its pretty darn worthless, imho. pov-section would be better, marking the specific statements with dubious would be best. Could someone who is involved with the placement of this tag perhaps make these improvements so we can work on specifics not a broad generalization? Kyaa the Catlord 17:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose - this article is a very long way from being NPOV. It systematically puts the Israeli POV first - and they're the one that many sources accuse of war-crimes, for goodness sake!. Furthermore, the IDF put immense difficulties in the way of all observers, right up to complete defiance of the UN. The current state of the article is bad, bad, bad.

Other problems include putting the "Time magazine investigation" (did they do anymore than walk round the camp and publish what they were told by Israel?) ahead of groups that really did investigate.

I've been forced to get all the real information on this business cleared for "copyright", it would be a travesty if this article was labelled anything other "totally disputed" until we've had a chance to write it up properly. PalestineRemembered 17:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

This article was created in September of 2002. Five years and it still isn't written up properly? If we follow that logic, the tag will never be removed. Kyaa the Catlord 17:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

If I go back to the earlier versions, I can tell you whether this article has deteriorated with time. Currently it is confused in layout and wildly POV in choice of references. The Time magazine "investigation" might as well be propaganda. There were observers from all over the world telling us what had gone on, the only thing they failed to find was any evidence of mass killings or mass graves. There were statements from the PA, from Jordan and from the EU (and Qatar handed over tapes from it's world-respected television station), none of whom had anything to conceal, nor (that we know of) did conceal anything. Those 3/4 nations, along with the NGOs, documented lots of evidence of really serious abuses. It will not be possible to get get all of that stuff in, nor easy to agree where the balance has to lie. But we've not even started. PalestineRemembered 19:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your humble opinion but I certainly don't share it. The article is positively dripping with contempt for Palestinian resistance, hammers endlessly on the concept of Jenin as some kind of headquarters for suicide terror (ignoring the obvious explanation that suicide bombers come from Jenin because it's the closest large Palestinian city to Israel's central coastal plain). Depending on the revision at hand, it presents verified facts as mere "Palestinian claims". It places massively undue weight on a single questionable Time magazine piece while downplaying the reports of international observers such as Human Rights Watch, and seems to be positively obsessed with the idea that scheming Palestinians knowingly promoted a false blood libel (which was bound to be disproved rapidly) when even Israeli officers admit that the furor was due mainly to their own actions and their poor communications strategy. This is just off the top of my head. There are greater problems within the text. Finally, I don't know of any policy which allows TotallyDisputed tags to be removed simply because it's difficult or unlikely to come up with a not-totally-disputed version of the article. Kyaa, I appreciate your efforts at cleanup here, but the tag really has to stay for now. Eleland 19:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

My goal is to get these easier to find and correct. So... even if the tag stays, if you find places that desperately need to be fixed, please mark them and I'll do my best to find something to make them more NPOV. Thanks! Kyaa the Catlord 19:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

please User:Eleland, find me a quote in the article that "positively dripping with contempt for Palestinian resistance". perhaps you are confusing resistance activity with indiscriminate terrorist activity (a.k.a. suicide bombings). Jaakobou 19:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Apart from anything else, Israel attacked cities all over the West Bank, and Jenin was expected to be in the second division in difficulty (and in importance? not sure). Nablus was expected to be far harder to crack. As it happened, Nablus was a walk-over (71 or 80 Palestinians killed there to 3 (4?) Israeli soldiers). In Jenin the Palestinians resisted. Your comments underline the systematic bias we have in this article. PalestineRemembered 19:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

PR, what on earth are you talking about and how is it relevant to the totaly disputed tag? Jaakobou 20:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

please User:Eleland, find me a quote in the article that "positively dripping with contempt for Palestinian resistance". Jaakobou 22:47, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

"Palestinian and International Sources allege that the camp and its dwellings were attacked indiscriminately..."

Tewfik, I'm trying to understand why you keep deleting "and international" from this formulation. Your edit summary says: "disregarding that I've provided detailed explanation on Talk, the UN does not take that position, but only presents quotations." I'm sorry if I'm being thick, but I can't find your explanation on talk. And I can't understand how you've arrived at the conclusion that the report from the UN investigation only presents quotations from Palestinian sources. The UN report lays out what its sources are right at the outset:

The report was written without a visit to Jenin or the other Palestinian cities in question and it therefore relies completely on available resources and information, including submissions from five United Nations Member States and Observer Missions, documents in the public domain and papers submitted by non-governmental organizations. The Under-Secretary-General for Political Affairs wrote to the Permanent Representative of Israel and the Permanent Observer of Palestine to the United Nations requesting them to submit information but only the latter did so. In the absence of a response from Israel, the United Nations has relied on public statements of Israeli officials and publicly available documents of the Government of Israel relevant to the request in resolution ES-10/10.

The body of the report refers on a number of occasions to "indiscriminate" and "disproportional" use of force, etc. In some of these instances the characterization is attributed to Palestinian witnesses, in others to "human rights and humanitarian organizations," and in still others the characterization is made by the UN itself.

"Palestinian and international sources" is the right formulation for this; please stop changing it.--G-Dett 18:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I've discussed these topics at length here. The UN report says indiscriminate in quotes, and attributes that to the vague "reports". It then appears in the narrative voice of the Palestinian statement in the annex. While it may be unfortunate that the UN was denied the ability to carry out an on-site inquiry, we cannot repackage something that they do not themselves say as indeed originating from them, and certainly not with the vague "international sources", which implies a number of such explicit opinions. As for "refute", I am not aware of a single mainstream organisation that still maintains there was a massacre, and I am hoping that we don't make these reports say something that they are not. It would also be helpful if both sides could ensure that violations of WP:CIV and other conduct protocol are avoided in the future. Tewfik 23:45, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I should add that at least one British journalist present specifically used the term "indescriminately" to describe the helicopter bombardment, despite Tewfik's pathetic and unsustainable attempt to label this "reproduction of a Palestinian claim"; see "NPOV/factual dispute" talk section above. Eleland 19:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Eleland, please give a visit to WP:CIV. this type of language most certainly falls under personal attacks.

User:G-Dett, from my inspection of the UN link, i've seen that the UN document is claiming international sources interviewed palestinians. so in my opinion, the proper reference would be that palestinian sources made the allegations and international sources and the media repeated them. Jaakobou 19:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

It's what's called "Secondary sources". Perhaps you need a crash course in policies applicable to the encyclopedia, "Verifiability not Truth" and all that jazz. PalestineRemembered 22:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Tewfik and Jaakobou, I agree with you that civility has been breached here. I am at a loss to understand how sourcing issues have skittered off the tracks into hormonal and menstrual ones. That said, some of the frustration here is understandable, and I think a little more candor and rigor when discussing the sources – both in the mainspace and on the talk page – would do more to reverse the erosions of civility and good faith than merely citing behavioral policies to those already familiar with them.

The UN report uses the word "indiscriminate" six times. Only twice is it in quotes, and only once Three times it is attributed to Palestinians. Here are the six instances:

1. As IDF penetrated the camp, the Palestinian militants reportedly moved further into its centre. The heaviest fighting reportedly occurred between 5 and 9 April, resulting in the largest death tolls on both sides. There are reports that during this period IDF increased missile strikes from helicopters and the use of bulldozers - including their use to demolish homes and allegedly bury beneath them those who refused to surrender - and engaged in "indiscriminate" firing. IDF lost 14 soldiers, 13 in a single engagement on 9 April. IDF incurred no further fatalities in Jenin after 9 April.
2. Following the ambush, IDF appeared to have shifted tactics from house-to-house searches and destruction of the homes of known militants to wider bombardment with tanks and missiles. IDF also used armoured bulldozers, supported by tanks, to demolish portions of the camp. The Government of Israel maintains that "IDF forces only destroyed structures after calling a number of times for inhabitants to leave buildings, and from which the shooting did not cease". Witness testimonies and human rights investigations allege that the destruction was both disproportionate and indiscriminate, some houses coming under attack from the bulldozers before their inhabitants had the opportunity to evacuate.
3. Over the past 20 months, Israel, the occupying Power, has waged a bloody military campaign against the Palestinian people and has escalated many of its unlawful policies and practices, routinely violating the provisions of international humanitarian law guaranteeing protection to the Palestinian civilian population, in addition to violating the existing agreements between the two sides. Since the beginning of the Al-Aqsa intifada on 28 September 2000, which began in response to the infamous visit of Mr. Ariel Sharon to Al-Haram Al-Sharif, Israel has been expanding its use of "retaliation" and "deterrence" and intensifying its illegal practices, including willfully killing civilians; using excessive, disproportionate and indiscriminate force; using lethal force a gainst demonstrators, including children throwing stones; imposing military siege and severe restrictions on the movement of persons and goods; imposing collective punishments; targeting of ambulances and medical personnel and obstructing their access to the wounded; and destroying agricultural fields and uprooting of trees. (from the Palestinian report submitted to the Secretary-General)
4. On 29 March and throughout the period under report, the Israeli occupying forces waged a large-scale military assault against the Palestinian people, unprecedented in its scope and intensity since the start of the Israeli occupation. The Israeli occupying forces invaded and reoccupied most Palestinian populated centers, including cities, villages and refugee camps and practically all areas under Palestinian control in the West Bank. The Israeli occupying forces dramatically increased the indiscriminate use of lethal force, using heavy weaponry, including tanks, helicopter gunships and warplanes, to attack and, in some cases bombard, heavily populated Palestinian areas. A large number of Palestinians, including civilians, were killed, many willfully. The occupying forces also continued the practice of extrajudiciary executions, using snipers, helicopter gunships and sometimes tank fire, killing identified people as well as others. In some cases, extrajudiciary executions were even carried out against surrendered fighters and people in Israeli custody. (from the Palestinian report submitted to the Secretary-General)
5. "On the third day of the invasion, we heard a very loud explosion on the top floor of our house (a three-storey house), where my sister was getting her things together and preparing to join the 13 members of my family. They had fled to the ground floor, seeking refuge from the indiscriminate bombing." (from eyewitness account of Hajj Ahmad Abu Kharj)
6. The massive destruction, especially at the centre of the refugee camp, to which all heads of mission in Jerusalem and Ramallah can testify, shows that the site had undergone an indiscriminate use of force, that goes well beyond that of a battlefield. (from the attached Report of the European Union, "elaborated by the European Union Consul Generals in Jerusalem and the heads of mission in Ramallah.")

To sum up. The UN Report lays out its sources at the outset as "submissions from five United Nations Member States and Observer Missions, documents in the public domain and papers submitted by non-governmental organizations." We have one instance of "indiscriminate" within quotes, where it's attributed to "reports," which we have no reason to believe are exclusively Palestinian. The next instance of "indiscriminate" is not in quotes, and is attributed to "witness testimonies and human rights investigations," the latter of which again we have no reason to believe are exclusively Palestinian. In two subsequent instances, both within the Factual and Legal Context subsection, the Palestinian report, the UN uses "indiscriminate" twice in its own voice , first to describe Israel's general campaign against the Palestinians throughout the second intifada, then to describe the Israeli crackdown beginning "on 29 March and throughout the period under report." Then we have one Palestinian eyewitness who uses the word. Finally, we have a report from the European Union, describing in its own voice Israel's "indiscriminate use of force."

I hope this settles the issue: "Palestinian and international sources" it is.--G-Dett 12:59, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Had the UN wanted to say indiscriminate, they would have done so directly, without qualifications and attributions. As it is, the claim only appears in other nations' reports in the annex, and as reference to the claims of others in the body, but never in the objective narrative voice, and thus saying "international sources" in that position as if the United Nations unambiguously endorsed this position is misleading. I would appreciate if the other claims dealt with above were replied to before any reversions. Tewfik 06:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

They never "qualify" their use of "indiscriminate" at all, and they do not attribute it solely or even primarily to "Palestinian sources"; your repeated assertions of this debunked claim try the patience, and your willingness to edit-war over it verges on bizarre. The UN report attributes its account of "indiscriminate" and "disproportional" use of force explicitly to "human rights investigations," and implicitly to its carefully laid-out sources: "five United Nations Member States and Observer Missions, documents in the public domain and papers submitted by non-governmental organizations." And there is this statement from the European Union: "The massive destruction, especially at the centre of the refugee camp, to which all heads of mission in Jerusalem and Ramallah can testify, shows that the site had undergone an indiscriminate use of force, that goes well beyond that of a battlefield." The European Union is not a "Palestinian source," Tewfik, and any edits implying that it is will simply be reverted, without further explanation.--G-Dett 11:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I do not think that you believe I was calling the European Union a "Palestinian source". As I said above, when major international organisations like the UN refuse to use that language directly, and when others feel the need to qualify it, saying "international sources" in the lead misleads the reader into thinking there was a larger consensus on the point that there was. And while you seem to have accused me of plagiarism in an edit summary, you still haven't replied to said points on Talk. Please, lets not head down this sort of road. Tewfik 18:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Just a clarification: The Factual and Legal Context is from the Palestinian letter contained in the UN report. This isn't in the UN's voice, its in the voice of the author(s) of that submission. So, all of these allegations of "indiscriminate" stuff come from outside statements, not in the UN's own words. Kyaa the Catlord 19:49, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you're quite right about that. I've emended my text above.--G-Dett 20:19, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Note also the Observer report mentioned earlier, where a British eyewitness specifically describes the assault as "indiscriminate". But anyway, I don't want to get sidetracked here. The camp WAS attacked with tanks, helicopters, and armored bulldozers, some 10% of it was totally leveled, and damage to structures was extensive. I'm worried that hanging our hat on this "indiscriminate" thing is really a convenient way of casting doubt on the reality of the whole attack. It's like saying that "Americans alleged that Pearl Harbor and its battleships were attacked with bombs and torpedoes without provocation. Japanese sources disputed this." Those sentences are technically true but only because of the additional "without provocation" claim. Eleland 19:54, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Noone is saying the attack did not happen. But a large portion of the "story" about the Battle of Jenin is the misreporting upon in and that many of the claims, by both eyewitnesses, governments and new agencies were later shown to be incorrect and, possibly, exagerated for propaganda reasons. Kyaa the Catlord 19:59, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

note: sorry i missed this extensive debate, i was preoccupied with a few other issues, and will go over this seriously sometime soon (hopefully today) and join the discussion. Jaakobou 10:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

We've not even mentioned Sharon's declared aim

Clearly, this article cannot cover everything that happened on the West Bank in the spring of 2002. But we can't fail to mention that Sharon intended to punish ordinary Palestinians, he said they must be hit, in a fashion that was to be painful. They (ie all of them) had to lose, to be victims, to pay a heavy price. He said all of that to the press less than 1 month before the attack on Jenin. PalestineRemembered 20:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

PR, let's not forget all the POV we can muster about the arabs either. Jaakobou 20:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

If there are people wishing to inject a "Let the people back to their homes" soap-box into this discussion, I've not noticed them. In the meantime, we've still not documented the fact that Sharon told the world's press that "the Palestinians" (by which I presume he meant every last man woman and child amongst them) were to be hit, punished, feel pain and the rest of it. That's quite a serious lapse on our part, this article is not complete without some passing reference to the intention of the troops. Of which you've still not answered the question - were you one of them? PalestineRemembered 22:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

1. i've issued a notice about this issue to an admin inspecting my AV/I complaint.
2. we did pass a reference to the "intention of the troops" . we made notice to Nabil Shaath's claims. if you have more sources like this about "the intentions" of the troops, i'd probably be more than happy to include them.

-- Jaakobou 15:04, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I fear that asking if you have a Conflict of Interest is hardly sufficient to ask that I be blocked for 7 days, as happened here. PalestineRemembered 19:42, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

You accused him of being a war criminal, PR. That's... not cool. Very not cool. Kyaa the Catlord 19:44, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Not sure why I bother really. Every - relatively minor, but accurate - change I make is explained in an edit summary or on the talk page, often in some detail, yet if Jaakobou doesn't agree with them, as usual they are all reverted wholesale without any attempt to address the points being made http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Battle_of_Jenin#Incorrect_edit_summary_24th_July.

And again we have a recent fraudulent "NPOV" edit summary on their part. In this case this has even reverted to English that includes glaring spelling errors. That's fine, we can all do typos, but it does show that you don't even look at what you're changing, as long as it reverts to a favoured version. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Battle_of_Jenin&diff=150661017&oldid=150651338. "Supporeted" anyone? --Nickhh 23:26, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Various points re recent changes -

1) where is the source or citation for the suggestion that "refuted" - and implicitly malicious - Palestinian allegations about Jenin led to an "increase in negative feelings for Israel"? This keeps getting reinserted into the intro. If there is a reliable poll of world opinion somewhere that verifies this, fine. Alternatively, if you can find a comment piece from the Weekly Standard or the New Republic which asserts this, then put the claim somewhere in the main article, and describe it as being one editorial viewpoint. This may be a pretty minor point overall, and of course there are plenty of reasons why people actually do have negative feelings about "Israel"/the IDF/Ariel Sharon etc (some justified, some not), but we may as well be accurate.

2) why is the claim that the massacre allegations were "refuted" kept in, but the equally relevant and accurate point that the IDF was nonetheless accused of war crimes constantly being removed? To keep it more neutral, given the genuine debate over what constitutes a "massacre", I'd rather say as well that "the suggestion that a deliberate, large-scale massacre may have taken place" was "rejected". But I know I'm never going to get that one past anybody.

3) why has any reference to the specific fact that Palestinian civilians were killed by the IDF been taken out of the introduction?

4) why do certain editors insist on removing any reference in the introduction to initial IDF estimates of the death toll? These received attention in the international media as well as the Palestinian claims, as did the fact that the IDF excluded journalists from the camp, with the effect that they could not verify - or challenge - those estimates. This is explicitly pointed out in the referenced articles.

5) please explain precisely why the "ten times larger .." quote is relevant. Surely a more relevant comparison - if a reference to one can be found - would be to the size of the munitions the IDF were using in their assualt on the camp.

--Nickhh 08:48, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

1) the ref has been moved to the body of the article, it is the TV telethon in saudi which was broadcast on april 11 and discussed on CNN the following day. numerous people stated their perspective on "when we watched the massacres our brothers in Palestine".

2) both sides have been accused of violence within' civilian areas, i think my latest edit was fairly clear on this, however, User:Nickhh, you've decided to revert it.

3) i don't think it is the main issue of the battle, however, we can add a mention to it next to the "estimated at 52" text.

4) this information about IDF estimates is in the body of the article, and it's unnoticeable in comparison to the "500-3000/sabra-shatila" palestinian claims. the exclusion of journalists from joining the battle zone seems also like an unimportant add to the introduction, and it's mentioned in the body of the article.

5) i don't think it's overly important, but if a newspaper published it, i think we can add it to the article. p.s. i have not searched for the reference to this.

6) i don't believe the West Bank article has been renamed into occupied West Bank, so please reconsider such insertions which could result in a backlash of people changing it's name into Judea and Samaria.

-- Jaakobou 11:08, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for at least addressing some of the issues this time, rather than simply reverting. However -

1) For the 100th time - The. Cited. Source. Does. Not. Back. Up. The. Assertion. Are you trying to keep this debate going longer than the ridiculous "genocide" one? This is a pretty glaring piece of OR, all the more so for being in the introduction.

2) Um, what does your response here have to do with the point I made about war crimes conclusions, being included or not in the introduction? Nor in any event do I see where my revert - which you've helpfully linked to - actually took out any mention of violence within civilian areas, as you seem to be trying to suggest.

3) I think it is quite a significant point that a large proportion of the casualties were civilians. Maybe that's just my POV though

4) I know it's in the main body of the article, and so it should be, in some detail. However the introduction should give a broad overview of what's in the article. That's my whole point here - it shouldn't just cherry-pick the bits that some editors want in. The exclusion of journalists is important - the journalists themselves (eg CNN's Ben Wedeman) are quite open about how their exclusion meant they couldn't verify or challenge the initial casualty estimates, and even that it suggested to them that maybe the Israelis WERE "hiding" something. Again I've had this debate with you and others on this talk page and shown you the quotes.

5) I don't think it's overly important - I just think that by comparison it's clearly more relevant than the reference to the amount of explosives suicide bombers use

6) I inserted the word "occupied" because I was trying to stress the point that this was a military incursion into a town outside Israel (ie it wasn't just a "domestic" operation). I have no intention of pursuing the point, as it's pretty tautologous anyway - everyone knows the West Bank is occupied territory. That is if the UN collectively, every member state government other than the US & Israel, mainstream Israeli public opinion, most of the people who actually live there under that occupation etc etc is taken to count as "everyone". --Nickhh 11:53, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

A quick note on "massacre" allegations: I have never seen a report, as distinct from a newspaper editorial, or some TV presenter speaking extemporaneously, which categorically said there was no massacre. (The BBC report was headlined 'No massacre', but they put it in scare quotes, and headlines are not written by journalists and not subject to the rigorous fact-checking that they are.) What they said was always something like "there was no wanton and deliberate massacre" - leaving open the possibility of a deliberate non-wanton massacre, or a wanton accidental massacre, or what have you. Or, "a massacre - in the usual sense - did not take place", well, was there an unusual sense of massacre? There was no systematic death squad operation where the IDF tried to kill as many people as possible, which is what Palestinians feared in those dark days after the fighting ended, but before Israel would let anyone in or out. That doesn't mean there was no massacre. Eleland 12:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Human Rights Watch found no evidence to sustain claims of massacres -- Human Rights Watch. THF 12:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

"Found no evidence" is not saying "there was no massacre", it's saying "we couldn't find any evidence of a massacre". And they said "massacres or large-scale extrajudicial executions", which clearly shows that they were defining "massacre" in the same nuanced terms used by media outlets. It would be acceptable to say that "Human Rights Watch found no evidence of massacres, but found strong prima facie evidence of IDF war crimes." Eleland 14:06, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Third-party comment

1. I don't think there's any legitimate dispute that misleading coverage of Jenin inflamed international opinion against Israel. But the CNN cite does not support this, except as a violation of WP:SYN. To the extent people are insisting on a cite, a better cite is needed; Google turned up this one, but one would prefer a source other than the ADL for the claim.
2. Is there still a dispute over the lead's "raised allegations of war crimes and massacre" language? I find that acceptable, but perhaps I'm not understanding what the two of you are arguing.
3. I see one main-text report of 22 Palestinian civilians killed in the fighting. Is there a source for how many of those were killed by the IDF, and how many were killed by fellow Palestinians? Is the HRW figure accepted, or does Israel contend the number is lower? #agree that some mention should be made in the lead, but it needs to be NPOV.
4. The Israeli casualty estimate was 150. It was never as high as Palestinian estimates. The version in the lead equating the two overestimates was misleading, and it's undue weight to include a fully-elaborated sentence in the lead. See WP:LEAD.
5. "ten times larger" is useful context. A lay reader doesn't have a sense of what it means to have 113 kg of explosives, and the size and scale of the explosives is certainly important information about whether Israeli claims of terrorist operations had basis.
6. "West Bank" is the accepted neutral phrasing. Israel calls the terrorities "disputed," so "occupied" violates NPOV.

Hope this helps to resolve a dispute. THF 12:15, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

notes/introduction to the old talk

1) the last talk about this opinions against israel can be seen here: Talk:Battle_of_Jenin#sharon, i can reference my statements on that subsection (i did not reference them much in that talk subsection). i agree that CNN does not spell it out blatantly, but everyone talking about "massacres in palestine" and support for the "martyrs" lends itself very strongly to this assertion. i agree that better sources should possibly be found, but until then. the CNN source is not that bad of a source to this statement.

2) the argument seemed, to me, to be about what human rights ended up saying. at first they joined in on the massacre claims, but when the final reports were given they abrogated their massacre claims and gave out statements about both sides being overly violent in a civilian area, placing civilians at harm. from what i understood, nickhh was requesting information be made that the IDF was no longer blamed for a massacre but was accused for war crimes. i wrote this version down: "critique for placing civilian lives at risk was attributed to both sides." in the edit i referenced above (the one nickhh reverted)... from what i now see in his original statement, he also wanted to change "massacre.. refuted" to "deliberate, large-scale massacre.. rejected".

3) the number of militants/activist/innocent-bystander is very contentious in the middle east conflicts. in this battle, more than half the palestinian casualties were verified as militants while the rest remain an issue of uncertainty. i'm not against some inclusion of a note about this into the intro if it's done properly.

-- Jaakobou 14:55, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Using Jaakobou's numbering ..

1) Indeed the CNN transcript does not "spell it out blatantly". Exactly, that's what makes this sentence WP:OR. The only source that will "spell this out blatantly" is a reference to an international opinion poll, showing that Palestinian "lies" about Jenin - as opposed to IDF actions - impacted on Israel's image. This is surely a very simple point? I am surprised at THF's comments that there is no "dispute" about this - that's a pretty big assumption.

2) "Critique for placing civilian lives at risk was attributed to both sides" is a) pretty poor english & b) not the same point at all as saying the IDF was censured for war crimes

3) Please stop trying to hint that all Palestinians killed by the IDF are all sort-of-guilty-really. It gets very tedious, not to mention grossly offensive

ps User:THF: i have no issue with the wording reflecting the fact that some Palestinians raised allegations of war crimes and a massacre (your 2) since they did - but while arguably the latter was refuted, the former most definitely was not, and some editors are cherry-picking those facts for the introduction .. actually (your 4) some Israeli estimates talked about 250 dead .. in what way exactly is "ten times larger .. " (your 5) useful context? .. as for the "occupied" issue (your 6), as I've said I'm not going to push that in the article, although I would reject the suggestion that "Israel" refers to them as merely "disputed" - mainstream Israeli media, politicians and opinion have no problem with the word "occupied"--Nickhh 18:34, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The allegations of war crimes were levelled against both sides. Tewfik 18:58, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposed paragraph replacement

Right now there is only one paragraph in the lede which actually talks about what happened in Jenin, as distinct from Israeli explanations of why they made it happen.

1. Palestinian and international sources alleged that the camp and its dwellings were attacked indiscriminately by Israel with heavy military equipment, combat helicopters, rockets and missiles, and raised allegations of war crimes and massacre, which were reported in the international media, leading to an increase in negative feelings toward Israel. The allegations of massacre were subsequently rejected by outside observers, though major human rights organizations controversially maintained that other war crimes had taken place and criticized the actions of both sides. The Palestinian death toll was estimated at 52 (including 22 civilians), while 23 Israeli soldiers were killed.

This paragraph is a) inadequately sourced b) curiously worded. It seems to cast doubt on the reality of the attack itself, when only the "indiscriminate" part is in any doubt. Furthermore, it devotes more attention to the media battle than to the ground battle! I propose a replacement:

1. Israel attacked the camp using infantry, tanks, combat helicopters, and armored bulldozers, causing extensive damage, and ultimately razed at least 10% of the camp., Palestinian and international sources called the assault indiscriminate and alleged war crimes and massacres, drawing extensive international media coverage. Both Palestinian and Israeli sources initially gave very high Palestinian casualty estimates, which were subsequently revised downward to 52-54. 23 Israeli soldiers were also killed in the fighting. Subsequent investigations by major human rights organizations found evidence of widespread war crimes, although rejecting allegations of a deliberate massacre.

The sourcing is a work in progress, see User:Eleland/Sandbox. Eleland 13:46, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

"Both Palestinian and Israeli sources initially gave very high Palestinian casualty estimates" is highly misleading for the reasons I stated above. It's POV to include only the human rights organizations' POV without noting that it was controversial. The first part of the change is an improvement:

Israel attacked the camp using infantry, tanks, combat helicopters, and armored bulldozers, causing extensive damage, and ultimately razed at least 6% of the camp in the process of responding to booby-traps set by Palestinian militants., Palestinian and international sources called the assault indiscriminate and alleged war crimes and massacres, drawing extensive international media coverage and leading to an increase in negative feelings toward Israel. Israel stated that it took reasonable precautions to avoid civillian casualties. The allegations of massacre were subsequently rejected by outside observers, though major human rights organizations controversially maintained that other war crimes had taken place and criticized the actions of both sides. The Palestinian death toll was estimated at 52 (including 22 civilians), while 23 Israeli soldiers were killed.

THF 14:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

note 1: in previous discussions we've found that while the (known for anti-israeli bias) BBC stated 10 percent, another source not known for any bias (which supplied images), stated 6 percent as the amount destroyed. note 2: i would like to remind that 100kg explosives were planted all around the fight zone and making the assertion that the IDF razed the camp in such a circumstance is one sided POV. Jaakobou 15:31, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I've tweaked the edit per the two notes. THF 15:34, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The two sources for the 10% figure are the Washington Times and an Israeli foreign ministry spokesman. See User:Eleland/Sandbox. The BBC doesn't enter into it. Besides, there is no objective evidence that the BBC has an anti-israeli bias. Indeed, a Scottish study some years ago found that Britons who were informed solely or mainly by BBC and ITN had a badly skewed and ignorant view of the situation — skewed, that is, to the Israeli side. GlobalSecurity.org is basically the personal blog of a guy named John E. Pike and not a reliable source. Eleland 16:25, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Eleland's paragraph is a great improvement from any angle. I object to any a la carte well-poisoning regarding the findings of human rights organizations in the lead (i.e. treating their rejection of massacre claims as definitive, but their affirmation of war-crimes allegations as "controversial." Jaakabou, what is your source for the 6%? From the above discussion, it appears to me that's your number average between your personal estimate (3%) and the BBC estimate (10%). Is that right? Are you adding your opinion to the "biased" BBC's to get 13%, dividing that in half to get 6.5%, then rounding down to 6 for good measure? If so, this would be a novel approach to WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR, and other core content policies.--G-Dett 16:27, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

User:G-Dett, you're addressing me a little too much with this math game and well poisoning. just read the full text of the discussions and inspect history to see who made which edit. Jaakobou 16:43, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

p.s. i'll give a look at the new sources as soon as i get around to it. Jaakobou 16:44, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Jaakabou, this is all I can find here on the discussion page:

btw, i saw images of the destruction, and to me "the facts" looked much closer to 3% destruction of the camp and not 10%. JaakobouChalk Talk 06:38, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

i guess if you mix my own bias and the BBC bias, you get the proper number (6 percent), as i just added to the article. havn't removed the BBC, they are still a large news body, bias and all.

The "math game" appears to be yours. What am I missing here? Where does 6% come from?--G-Dett 16:53, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

it comes from GlobalSecurity.org. i added the reference when i inserted something like: "between 6% (GlobalSecurity.org) and 10% (BBC)" into the article (you can look it up in the article history). the 3 percent was a generic uncommitted POV i mentioned based on old memory of the GS.org images that i've seen in the past, i don't make the habit of writing into articles without proper sourcing and i was only laughing at myself when i made the "bias" remark that the source was in between my initial babble and the BBC article. Jaakobou 18:02, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Agree with both G-Dett and Eleland. There is currently far too much focus on Israel's justifications of their actions and the media reportin of the event, and Eleland's paragraph would be an improvement to the accuracy and neutrality of the article.Nwe 16:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

current status estimate

the following is my current moment concerns about this "in the works" version.

1) obviously an Israeli Foreign Ministry Spokesman cannot discern between 6 percent destruction and 10 percent destruction.. he also did not say "the IDF razed 10 percent" but said it's a result of the battle. same goes for the washington times... which also goes with the assertion that 33 Israeli soldiers were killed in the incursion.

2) i really don't see how you can compare the "500-3000/sabra-shatila" casualty estimates with the "as high as 150" and expect it to pass.

-- Jaakobou 18:13, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Apologies for joining in the lovefest, but I agree as well that Eleland's proposal for the introduction (as above) is a far more accurate and neutral exposition. Disputes around who is to "blame" for inaccurate casualty figures, what is actually meant by the word massacre, what the impact was on world opinion etc are better discussed in the body of the article. The intro should simply point out in a very broad and balanced way - without selectively using information to push one side or the other or making judgements about either side - that "X said A" .. "Y said B" .. "the investigations said C" and so forth, and in particular on what can be shown to have actually happened in the camp. I am surprised that this is proving so difficult. --Nickhh 18:47, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

image caption POV + antipathy

image caption POV

1) why is the statement that the D9 was instrumental in changing the style of combat and the outcome of the battle. a POV? 2) i believe the change in the intro, flipping placing the events leading to the attack after the attack is chronologically confusing and makes the intro hard to read. Jaakobou 17:49, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The image caption is POV because it enthusiastically relishes the success and use of the bulldozer, and considers its application from the perspective of those using it. The phrasing "instrumental in...the outcome of the battle" suggests a subtle approval of that outcome, but also provides very little useful information about how it was used. The claims regarding the bulldozer are also completely unsourced.

As for the intro, an introduction to an article shouldn't be chronological. It should first provide basis details of the events the article describes, and then, possibly, some background information. It is when, as in this case, intros follow some chronological order that they become difficult to read and confusing.Nwe 17:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Check Palestinian eye witness, they too admit that the armored D9 bulldozers forced them to surrender. MathKnight 18:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC

That's not the point.Nwe 15:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

antipathy

the "inciting extreme antipathy toward"->"eliciting strong criticism of" change i'm not sure why the reference about the CNN telethon was removed and i don't see how unfound allegations of massacre and telethons for "martyrs" fall under "criticism". Jaakobou 17:49, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Complete proposed paragraph replacement & move

I propose that the current final paragraph of the lede be replaced with the following version. Also it should be moved to the second paragraph, since it summarizes the actual battle, rather than background information or various POV explanations thereof. Not that I'm saying "POV explanations" do not belong in the article or even the lede. But they don't come before a factual summary of events. Eleland 19:15, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

By the way, the reason for the "specify" tag on casualties is that I simply couldn't find a final tally. It's simply not enough to say that by May the Jenin hospital had collected and counted 52 corpses. In lieu of a reliable source, preferably more than one (since I sourced nearly everything in this paragraph to multiple sources, and when possible used Israeli sources to report details considered harmful to Israel's reputation), it's original research as well as handwaving to say "Hospital X on day Y had Z corpses; we would know if actual toll >Z, therefore final tally = Z". Eleland 19:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't find any "final tally" either. The nearest is the PA reporting to the UN that there were 375 by the 7th May, apparently refering to the whole of the West Bank. 70 to 80 of those would be the death-toll in Nablus (4 soldiers killed there), according to the Amnesty source. PalestineRemembered 15:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Revision

Israel attacked the camp using infantry, tanks, combat helicopters, and armored bulldozers, causing extensive damage, and ultimately razed at least roughly 10% of the camp. Palestinian and international sources called described the assault indiscriminate and alleged war crimes and massacres, drawing extensive international media coverage. Both Palestinian and Israeli sources initially gave very high Palestinian casualty estimates, which were subsequently revised downward markedly. 23 Israeli soldiers were also killed in the fighting. Subsequent investigations by major human rights organizations found prima facie evidence of Israeli war crimes, although while casting doubt on allegations of a deliberate massacre. Some investigations also criticized Palestinian fighters for operating in close proximity to civilians, but found that the only deliberate use of Palestinians as "human shields" was by Israel.

1. Azure magazine: Urban Warfare and the Lessons of Jenin: "the army deployed tanks, infantry, and attack helicopters" ... ", the IDF began using D-9 armored bulldozers"
2. ^ The Observer: Ten-day ordeal in crucible of Jenin, Peter Beaumont: "helicopters that swarmed angrily above the city's roofs, firing indiscriminately into the city's crowded refugee camp", "We could see the tanks manoeuvering and shelling ... Most shocking, however, were the Apache helicopter gunships"
3. Brig.-Gen. Eival Giladi, Head of Strategic Planning, IDF Policy and Plans Directorate. Communications and Strategy: Lessons Learned from Jenin:"The deployment of armored bulldozers. Because of the extensive damage they caused and their threatening appearance..."
4. CNN.com Transcripts: American Morning Gideon Meir, Israeli Foreign Ministry Spokesman: "A week ago I was in Jenin and I saw that the devastation out of this first battle was only at 10 percent of the camp."
5. Washington Times  : Jenin 'massacre' reduced to death toll of 56 "The destruction, pictured graphically on television ... constitutes only about 10 percent of the housing in the camp"
   Archived from Washington Times site; as retrieved from
6. European Union submission to UN Report on Jenin, Paragraph 1: "The massive destruction, especially at the centre of the refugee camp, to which all heads of mission in Jerusalem and Ramallah can testify, shows that the site had undergone an indiscriminate use of force, that goes well beyond that of a battlefield."
7. BBC News: Jenin 'massacre evidence growing': "Prof Derrick Pounder ... said the Amnesty investigation has only just begun but Palestinian claims of a massacre were gaining foundation as the team continued its analysis."
8. ^ CNN.com - Powell postpones meeting with Arafat, April 12, 2002: "Chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erakat said earlier this week that 500 Palestinians had been killed in Jenin and Nablus alone", "'A real massacre was committed in the Jenin refugee camp,' Erakat said"
9. Sydney Morning Herald: Evidence and reality collide in a battle of words (16 April 2002): "First the Israelis talked of scores and then there were dozens. Early yesterday an IDF spokesman said the figure was likely to be "several hundred" dead Palestinians and 23 dead Israelis. Another spokesman put the estimate at a precise 250 Palestinians dead, but by last night the IDF count of dead Palestinians had been wound back significantly to 45."
10. The New Republic Online: Bad Information, the Lesson of Jenin, by Jacob Dallal: "Worse still, the IDF was releasing what turned out to be erroneous, highly inflated estimates of Palestinian casualties ... guessed at 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 defense officials with numbers ranging as high as 250. These estimates made the Palestinian claims of 500 dead seem reasonable."
    Archived from The New Republic: as retrieved from
11. Guardian Unlimited: Jerusalem suicide bomber kills at least six (12 April 2002): "The army's chief spokesman, Brigadier General Ron Kitrey, told Army Radio that there were 'apparently hundreds of dead' ... But the Israel defence forces later issued a statement that it 'wished to clarify that comments made this morning regarding Jenin refer to casualties - those killed and wounded'."
12. ^ HRW: Jenin: IDF Military Operations: "There is a strong prima facie evidence that, in the cases noted below, IDF personnel committed grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions, or war crimes." although "Human Rights Watch found no evidence to sustain claims of massacres or large-scale extrajudicial executions by the IDF in Jenin."
    
    "Human Rights Watch has so far found no evidence that Palestinian gunmen forced Palestinian civilians to serve as human shields during the attack. But Palestinian gunmen did endanger Palestinian civilians in the camp by using it as a base for planning and launching attacks, using indiscriminate tactics such as planting improvised explosive devices within the camp, and intermingling with the civilian population during armed conflict, and, in some cases, to avoid apprehension by Israeli forces."
    
    "Throughout the incursion, IDF soldiers used Palestinian civilians to protect them from danger, deploying them as "human shields" and forcing them to perform dangerous work."
13. ^ Amnesty: Shielded from Scrutiny: IDF violations in Jenin and Nablus: "In Jenin and Nablus the IDF carried out ... grave breaches of the Fourth Geneva Convention ... are war crimes."
    "IDF units frequently forced Palestinians to take part in operations by making a Palestinian camp resident enter a house first and then search it; they also used Palestinians as 'human shields' to shelter behind."

This is superb work Eleland – concise, neutral, comprehensive and thoroughly sourced. I have made several minor tweaks (mostly for syntax and flow), using brackets and struck-out text so you can easily check what I've done.--G-Dett 21:51, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Very good work. I see only trivial objections, I suggest you put it in as it is. PalestineRemembered 14:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I have a problem with the last statement. The Palestinian forces used the entire camp as human shields by using it as their base. Kyaa the Catlord 17:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, you have a problem with that? Are you a reliable published source, Mr. "Catlord"? This claim was not made by anybody except the IDF and its backers, while credible and neutral human rights organization did indeed "criticize Palestinian fighters for operating in close proximity to civilians, but found that the only deliberate use of Palestinians as "human shields" was by Israel." Read the source material. Eleland 21:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

further source discussion

There are a number of content-problems with it, most or all of which were addressed by myself and others when you previously made similar changes, some of them as recent as the past 24-48 hours. Repeating the same issues is not helpful, and I suggest you review past discussions or raise specific issues with the current lead, which is almost entirely the work of G-Dett and THF. Tewfik 00:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh my, this is lovely. When I raise complaints, I am criticized for not providing an alternative. When I provide an alternative, I am criticized for not raising complaints. (Even though I did.) I should note that I have been largely un-involved in the fast-paced editing conflict of the last several days. I must assume that no question of fact is at issue, since virtually every clause in my paragraph has two citations from either neutral or pro-Israeli sources to back it. As for "content problems", I do not intend to scour the (often incoherent) objections raised in an entire massive talk page discussion to find anything which might theoretically apply to a post I made this afternoon, nor am I a skilled psychic who can discern the alleged content problems from only a vague general statement that they exist. Barring the appearance of specific, coherent, and valid criticisms, based on WP policies, I see no reason to refrain from my proposed changes. Eleland 01:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

And that is not what I said, which was that most of the specific changes you suggested "this afternoon" were already suggested by yourself prior to that point, and replied to in kind. For example, there has been extensive discussion, both in the past, and extremely recently, about hy equating the Palestinian and Israeli overestimates creates a false picture. It has already been pointed out that there is a problem with refraining from representing the unambiguous lack of a massacre. It has already been pointed out that putting the range of 52-56 in the lead lends undue weight to the single Palestinian 56 claim, when every other neutral (as well as Israeli) source agrees on 52. The rest of the lead, supposed to be a broad summary, chooses to highlight only certain aspects, and uses language which results in a decidedly nonneutral tone. I don't see what is wrong with the current phrasing, wherein the only point of contention (AFAIK) is whether or not to say "international" sources. Tewfik 01:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Uh, the criticisms raised earlier were, how shall I say... complete garbage? Jaakobou worried that "BBC stated 10 percent" although the BBC is not, actually, the source for that claim, (the sources were an Israeli military spokesman and a rightist pro-Israel American newspaper) and that "another source not known for any bias (which supplied images), stated 6 percent" even though the source is obviously not a WP:RS, and the "6 percent" figure referred to one specific area of destruction excluding other areas. He also noted that "100kg explosives were planted all around the fight zone and making the assertion that the IDF razed the camp in such a circumstance is one sided POV" which I can't make heads or tails of, is he arguing that the Palestinians demolished their own camp? This is a novel idea which does not appear in any sources, and is indeed contradicted by numerous Israeli and pro-Israeli sources including sources which I cite here. Later, our pal Jaakobou insisted that "obviously an Israeli Foreign Ministry Spokesman cannot discern between 6 percent destruction and 10 percent destruction", although apparently a random pseudonymous Wikipedian can. He raises an unexplained claim that the 10% was destroyed "in the fighting" rather than "razed" by Israel - perhaps the Palestinians have a batallion of armored bulldozers which nobody remembered to mention? If this is seriously disputed, I can and will go through the wearying ritual of digging up more sources for what everybody here already knows to be true. Finally, Jaak argues that I am comparing "the "500-3000/sabra-shatila" casualty estimates with the "as high as 150" and expect it to pass", a bizzare and rambling accusation which has no bearing to what I actually wrote, considering that 500 was the highest Palestinian claim, and 250 was the highest Israeli claim, which a professional IDF propaganda officer says "made the Palestinian claims of 500 dead seem reasonable". And that's the total extent of the objections. The only serious content problems here exist in the minds of certain contributers. Eleland 02:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what is in anyone's mind, nor do I understand why it is you feel that "garbage" is the right word to refer to other users' points with, but the objections I listed are both present, and unaddressed. Tewfik 03:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

You objected in very broad terms that the lead is "supposed to be a broad summary" but "chooses to highlight only certain aspects". And yet the present lead uses much of its length on suicide bombings in Israel, a background issue which is not immediately relevant. Regardless of any "massive discussion" on the "false picture" created by "equating Palestinian and Israeli overstimates" (no such equation is made in my proposed changes), the connection is drawn clearly and directly in the source material by a professional IDF media officer! (See note 10) Can you explain why we should ignore the word of an Israeli officer, a media expert, with direct personal knowledge of the effect of those overestimates in favor of unspecified talk page objections?

I don't know where it has been "pointed out" that not categorically denying a massacre is a problem, but this is simply incorrect. As I have said numerous times, verifiable published sources report that some people, not evidently constituting an extreme minority of opinion, believe that what happened was a massacre nonetheless, so we shouldn't contradict them. Although clearly no systematic execution-squad campaign took place, there is no hard and fast definition of "massacre". Amnesty reports testimony — apparently credible — of three civilian prisoners shoved up against a wall and machine-gunned. "I heard Gaby say in Hebrew ‘Kill them, kill them’, then the other soldier took his gun and sprayed us with bullets. He shot from left to right, so ‘Abd al-Karim was hit first and then Wadah. I don’t know how I wasn’t shot except that when I heard the shots, I fell to the ground. My son’s body was resting on mine." Amnesty found apparent confirmation of the incident from "Major-General Giora Eiland, the Head of the IDF Plans and Policy Directorate", who "described this case as one where IDF soldiers found three men hiding, one with a suicide bomb belt," but they found the bomb story hardly credible. Was this a "massacre"? It appears to fit the dictionary definition. This is the point. The rumors which spread after the fighting had ended, while Israel had locked down the camp and was conducting house-to-house searches and mass detentions, turned out to be false. They don't represent the totality of allegations made.

As for "all reliable sources" saying 52, I have not seen these sources. I've seen several reliable sources which say that at one point, the count from one hospital was set at 52, but this is in no way the same as "all reliable sources say 52 total" period full stop. Fascinatingly, the exact source which you brought up, for the "within five weeks all but one of the residents was accounted for", actually says 54! Eleland 12:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and I notice now that note 3 from my proposal, the report of a conference held by Tel Aviv University's "Center for Strategic Studies", says "When it was over, 56 Palestinians were killed in the Jenin refugee camp". But hey, when the game is minimizing Palestinian casualties, who really cares what your own side says — the key is just to pick the lowest number you can get away with and obstinately insist on it. Eleland 15:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

But hey, when the game is minimizing Palestinian casualties, who really cares what your own side says — the key is just to pick the lowest number you can get away with and obstinately insist on it. What sort of productive discourse do you expect with incivil and bad-faith comments like these. You raised several points that I was in the process of replying to until I got to the last part. I've already asked you once not to make such comments. I understand how frustrating this can all be, but I've not once attacked you, and hope that you can return that basic courtesy. Tewfik 08:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

what is with all this unneeded bickering? simply state the Palestinian allegations, and then the Israeli allegations. this is a highly controversial topic. there's no need to try to create objectivity where there isn't any.

Also, if you want to, you can simply state that Palestinians believe that everything Israel does is a massive effort to dispossess, oppress and otherwise bother Palestinians. i say this as a pro-Israel supporter. the way to achieve consensus is for each side to increase the amount of information provided about the other side's motives, until both feel that it reflects the true reality. --Steve, Sm8900 16:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

While I appreciate in principle Steve what you are trying to do in terms of introducing balance and your reasoning for it above, I think the material that has now gone in here -

Many Arabs and Palestinians continue to use the term "Jenin Massacre" (Arabic: مجزرة جنين). Palestinians generally allege that the entire battle was a massive, unprovoked attack on numerous civilians, with no justification whatsoever, and was a massive violation of international law, decency and every standard of human conduct. They also allege that Israel's general policies are colonialist, oppressive and unjustified.

is way too broad and OTT in its language for an encyclopedia article, and as a result pretty inaccurate. For example not all "Palestinians" of course believe the same thing about "Israel" as a monolithic entity. The issue with the disputes here - at least as I see them - is that there is in fact quite a lot of specific material available which can be referenced, sourced and quoted in a proper manner, relating to both original accusations and estimates of what happened and also to the results of subsequent investigations. However that is being done very selectively by some editors to favour one POV - a right-wing Israeli one - which they continue to push even when basic errors of citation are pointed out to them. As I've said, I am not "pro-Palestinian", whatever that means anyway, and have no stake in the conflict per se - I would just like to see as balanced an article as possible. --Nickhh 20:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

thank you, but that's not exactly my point. my point is, enough stupid bickering over what each side is permitted to say. My point was also, do you guys want to express all Palestinian allegations abouyt Israeli actions. Fine; i see no problem; in fact my attitude is the more we express of Paesltinian ideas, allegations and sentiments, the better. We can make it clear it is the assertion of of one side. --Steve, Sm8900 20:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I do understand your point, and I thought it was rather clear from my response that I did understand; however I just disagree with your proposed solution. You think more of each side's views we put in the better, and I agree - where those views are accurately represented and sourced to references, which your suggested wording is not. Indeed a lot of the problems with this article have been a bit more subtle than it just giving more weight to the IDF version of events - what editors have tried to do in the past is make untrue claims for example that Palestinians alleged genocide was taking place, highlight the fact that this was found not to have been the case, and thereby suggest that some kind of malicious "hoax" or "propaganda" offensive was being perpetrated at the time, in a bid to defame Israel (both these words have been in the article in past versions). By in fact throwing in invented versions of "the Palestinian viewpoint" at the time, which are then easily knocked down, they were trying to minimise the reality of what did actually happen in Jenin. I might add that a lot of the more bitter debates here have started at the points where one particular editor here starts hinting on the talk pages that some of the civilian victims were not really as innocent as they seem. That editor has in turn come in for some pretty near the knuckle attacks themselves. --Nickhh 20:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) by the way, please understand, i am not seeking to trivialize or side-step any genuine Palestinian assertions. All i am saying is, enough of this stupid bickering. If one side wants to say something, let them say it. Stop pretending you;re on the same side and all you want is objectivity. Let each side have its say, then balance it with your own data and facts. there is absolutely no point to having so much argument or bickering, or even so much excessive or voluminous discussion at all on this talk page. --Steve, Sm8900 21:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Steve - the problem in this article is that significant reports are being removed and edit-warred out of the article, when I think almost anyone would think they belonged. I've been away for a few days, but the parts that I put in and were reverted out include the following:

1) Helicopters "swarmed" over the camp (word used by the Observer newspaper), one account has their firing "like rain" in the first 3 days.

2) The "Kurdi Bear" account, the D9 driver who described what he did and told us he brought houses down with people inside them, believes people died this way. I've repeatedly asked that this statement be "written for the enemy" (might you be interested?).

3) Statements from the PA, the EU and Jordan (and tapes from Qatar) presented to and by the UN. These statements include vital statements such as that the EU believes there were 4000 in the camp right through the attack, not the 1,300 claimed by Israel.

All of these statements should be in there (in fact, all of them should come ahead of the Israeli account), and there are more.

Plus there are other serious distortions eg:

1) The minimising of the various investigations (and complete elision of one of them by 12 Internationals) while the Time magazine "investigation" (near enough a statement from Israel) is prominently displayed.

2) Putting Israel's reason for the attack before the actual description.

3) The half-baked non-discussion of "The Massacre" allegations.

4) The insistence that the number of dead is 52. That's not what the observers claim, and it's fundamentally unlikely. (It appears to be the number of bodies that reached the Jenin hospital).

The current state of this article really is a disgrace. Get back to me if you find any of the above statements surprising or needing references. PalestineRemembered 07:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

A google search of "Kurdi Bear" returns only wikipedia responses, mostly talk page hits at that. Verifiability of this "report" would be, apparently, impossible. Kyaa the Catlord 07:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see what you're claiming - "Kurdi Bear" gets 420 hits. Interestingly, few of them are blogs (which often distort the number of references) and many would be RS's in their own right (ie reputation for fact-checking). (For some reason, 'Kurdi Bear' gets over 27,000 hits). There's no question the article is genuine (it's also on the web in Hebrew) and the only objection that Jaakobou had was that the fact that the English version comes top and tailed with comments. PalestineRemembered 13:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. I'm now getting a different response from google than I did earlier. That is just bizarre. Kyaa the Catlord 14:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm still going to have to call WP:REDFLAG on this one. The Israelis gave a drunkard, first time bulldozer driver a 60 ton armored bulldozer and let him at it. Hard to believe. You're gonna need to back this one up with really impeccable sourcing, and no, blogs, indymedia and the like aren't gonna cut it. Kyaa the Catlord 14:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Nothing "surprising" in any way in that interview. Jaakobou and Tewfik confirm it's existence. Jaakobou didn't even see anything very exceptional about it, he put some parts of it in himself. It clearly belongs, along with all the other things I listed above. WP is written by "Verifiability not Truth", as we know. PalestineRemembered 15:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Precisely my point, we require verifiability which per WP:RS would ask that "Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple high quality reliable sources, especially regarding scientific or medical topics, historical events, politically charged issues, and in material about living people." I don't believe that this requirement has been met with the sources available. Kyaa the Catlord 15:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

This is not an exceptional claim in any way, and it's not been treated in that way by two other firm defenders of Israel. There were some 12 bulldozers available/doing this work, at least one of them was driven by a "problematical army reservist" in the words of one of our fellow editors. It's reported in an Israeli newspaper (and never disputed anywhere). Of course it belongs! You could get on and write it in - or tell me what was wrong with any of the versions I put in. PalestineRemembered 16:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The dispute with that report has focused somewhat on the less-than-perfect translation, but mostly on the quoting selectively in such a manner as to distort what was actually said. I've addressed that in detail a number of times above. Tewfik 08:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

If you have a different translation, then by all means present it. In the meantime, I've hung back from putting in the reference to this personal statement (and RS source) because of the benefits of another doing a "writing for the enemy". I've asked two people so far, including twice asking yourself. My first version is here. Jaakobou says "looks close to ok, please find the YNET source" so it's clearly genuine - and then there's Jaakobou's own version. If you feel like putting up a version you think is more accurate, encyclopedic or suitable then by all means do so. But don't simply take out a personal, detailed account of this event - particularily not when it refers to the very most memorable part about it, the bulldozing. PalestineRemembered 13:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I feel that Kyaa and Tewfik are correct on this issue. Just wanted to express that, briefly. --Steve, Sm8900 16:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

"It's reported in an Isreali newspaper." Which Israeli newspaper? Do they have a web-based edition which you could link to? Going to a third party website like this one which is definately agenda-driven (I looked it up) for sourcing is a problem with WP:RS. I'm not seeing it linked to a news organization that provides proper editorial oversight. I'm not against including it, but at this time we need to meet the standards before we include it. Kyaa the Catlord 16:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

If this was as groundbreaking as some make it out to be, then it would be subject to multiple, nontrivial mentions in the press. All we have is selections from an interview mirrored on dozens of partisan websites. Moreover, it does not say what some editors here say it does, and its text was distorted in its various inclusions. The primary method of ensuring that such primary sourcing says or doesn't say something would be to use RS press sources, which again, do not exist. Tewfik 18:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The "stupid bickering" pertains to matters of fact, not allegations. It's a question of fact whether Israel razed some 10% of Jenin camp. It's a question of fact whether independent, credible human rights organizations found strong prima facie evidence of war crimes. Adding background information about opinions is useful, but only when those opinions are properly sourced to people or groups. It's simply not cool to phrase allegations in such sweeping and specific terms and then attribute them generically to "Palestinians". We might as well say that "Israelis generally believe that Palestinians are an undeserving and inferior people with no national rights or identity." This is probably true, but it's not our place to make the assertion. Eleland 21:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

well if that's what you wish to do (meaning the point in your first two sentences), and it is properly sourced, then the pro-Israel side (of whom I am one) should allow you to do so. this is an encyclopedia, and some sort of professionalism would be appropriate here. enough with fighting each other over every single fact, point or source, no matter how minor or trivial. I don't mind if there is some unusual discussion here, but there is no reason these article should have a whole set of dynamics which is different than other articles at Misplaced Pages. --Steve, Sm8900 21:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The "properly sourced" comment is crucial here - people actually should NOT be allowed to say what they want in this encyclopedia. One of the reasons why there is so much text on this talk page is because it took for example about ten lengthy posts before one editor finally conceded that the word "genocide" doesn't even occur once in the any of the three separate references they were trying to use to back up their straw-man allegation that "Palestinians claimed genocide was taking place". If there was more genuine give & take the process would be easier (as there has been over the removal of the word "occupied" to refer to the West Bank, or the insertion of words to the effect that both sides endangered civilians in the camp, neither of which I have personally challenged or engaged in endless debate about). Equally, when totally fraudulent citations are being included, even in respect of one word (which happens to be a highly loaded word), I will point that out, and if necessary, take a stand on it.--Nickhh 21:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

By the way, so as not to be disingenuous, let me explain where I stand on this. I am on the opposite side of this issue from some people here, and I may disagree with their approach, their attitude and their opinions. however, my support for the Israeli Army is like my support for the NY Police Dept; I may support them, but if someone brings me documented claims or accounts of any police misconduct, I don't fight frantically to stop properly-sourced material from even being mentioned. So that's why I feel that even if there is some discussion necessary here, this talk page should not contain constant cases of people fighting over the most minute parts of the text. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 13:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

You might be a good person to write up the "Kurdi Bear" interview, I've previously suggested to two others that they do it in the best traditions of the encyclopedia, but they seem reluctant. The interview is at here in English and here in Hebrew. It's been suggested there are translation problems in the English (though most likely pretty trivial). If you become aware of anything like that we'd be interested to see your comments. I've done several versions trying to get it in, the first one is at here. There is also Jaakobou's version. PalestineRemembered 14:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the idea. I will try to take a look at it, but I'm not sure right now if I will be able to it at this point. But thanks for the information. will try to be in touch, if I find anything. --Steve, Sm8900 14:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm very sorry to hear that ..... the way out of difficulties in this article is for us to each "write for the enemy". If you have parts you think should be in there, then by all means point them to me and I'll do something. PalestineRemembered 15:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

"Ten times larger than a typical suicide bomber's charge"

Away from the introduction debate for a while - Tewfik, I genuinely couldn't find your rationale on talk for keeping this phrase in (that's what I meant in my edit summary). I'm happy to be pointed in the right direction on that, but in the meantime to me it just reads as an attempt to make sure the phrase "SUICIDE BOMBER!" appears as often as possible in this article, for subtle (OK, not so subtle) POV reasons. It doesn't add much else - suggestions that it helps readers see context is a bit daft, given that most people presumably don't have much of an idea how big a suicide bomber's average payload is. --Nickhh 06:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

An average suicide bomber explosive is 10 kg and ranges from 5 kg to 20 kg. An IED of 100 kg can destroy a M1A2 Abrams tank (however, Israeli armored Caterpillar D9 bulldozers withstood much larger IEDs). MathKnight 11:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

How about, "fifteen times larger than a typical anti-tank mine". (Without the wikilink.) Eleland 11:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The discussion is with Eleland, and contains the word "Lidice". I believe the reason that Time used that phrasing was that the explosives were made by the same people who made suicide-bombs, a phenomena which people are familiar with from the massive coverage the events receive. I doubt that any similar level of familiarity or association exists with a "typical anti-tank mine". Tewfik 08:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Introduction

"Referred to as "martyr capital by Palestinians" is just plain POV. Firstly it is not called that by all Palestinians (only by some allegedly) and secondly the only reason the phrase is there is to justify the Israeli military operation.

Secondly the introduction to the article is contrary to wikipedia established policy. In the introduction one briefly gives the facts of the occurence i.e. an Israeli military operation with X number of deaths on both sides. One does not start by describing previous suicide bombings also, justifying the operation and distracting from the main content of the article. If you want that info to be included, do so in the "background" section. --Burgas00 17:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not just POV to use it, it's likely "not true" in any meaningful sense. The IDF attacked Nablus first, killing some 70/80 Palestinians and losing 4 soldiers. Jenin seems to have been a secondary target, into which they advanced on foot, not expecting much in the way of resistance. If the Palestinian population had realised suicide bombers were coming out of Jenin, Israel would have known it as well, and acted accordingly. If the phrase "martyrs capital" is now really being used about Jenin by Palestinians (do we really have credible references for it?), it likely refers to April 2002, not anything that came before or since. PalestineRemembered 18:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Removing well-sourced information from articles like you have this morning can be, and often is, considered vandalism. Please refrain from doing so again when your only rationale is WP:IDONTLIKEIT Kyaa the Catlord 19:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Burgas00's rationale was WP:LEAD, not WP:IDONTLIKEIT. What is your rational for reverting him? Go easy on "vandalism"; the term is used sparingly on Misplaced Pages, and only when it's clear that an editor does not believe he or she is improving the encyclopedia.--G-Dett 19:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Based on his response , I'm having some problem accepting that he was acting in good faith. The context of the incidents at Jenin, including the verifiable information that the Fatah referred to Jenin in the way that he wishes removed from the article is covered in WP:LEAD and his removal of this sourced data is considered vandalism per WP:VANDAL. Thanks! Kyaa the Catlord 19:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

He was pretty rough in the talk page link you provided, obviously irritated and all, but I don't see any evidence of vandalism; on the contrary, both his version of the lead and his interpretation of WP:LEAD are very sound and well-reasoned. An article on an incredibly controversial event like this one can't begin with a full paragraph devoted to the moral rationale for one side's actions. There are two reasons why not. One is that it fails WP:NPOV, a problem which should be obvious and can't be willed away with a citation to a Fatah official and a see!-even-the-Palestinians-are-saying-it talk-page talking point. The second reason why you can't do this is even more elementary: the lead has to be about the event, period. If there's an entire paragraph in the lead where the subject of the article is not the grammatical subject of the sentences, it's a pretty good indication the thing's gone off the tracks.

At any rate, you, your sources, and the Israeli government believe this paragraph represents "the context." Other editors with other sources think the context is something quite different. And Palestinians people, not to mention Palestinian officials, also have their view of "the context." Unless you're prepared to allow a balanced presentation of these differing "contexts" in the lead, per WP:NPOV, I suggest you move official moral rationales for the "why" of the event to the "background" section where they belong, and let the lead cover the "what." That seems to work best with contentious subjects.--G-Dett 22:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not certain why you are defending the recently blocked Burgas00. His edits have not improved the article, rather they have broken references and his unwillingness to work within the rules of Misplaced Pages has led to his blocking. The material he's repeatedly removed contains the viewpoint of the Fatah, which was the ruling party of Palestine at the time of the sourced material used in the crafting of his removed text. It was not simply the Israeli viewpoint, but also the viewpoint of Palestinians. The views of even more palestinians are presented in the next paragraph in the lead which, unsurprisingly, remained when Burgas00 removed the material repeatedly. Who is pushing for a one-sided view? Oh yes, that would be you, PR and Burgas00. Kyaa the Catlord 22:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I think my reasons have been explained well enough. A number of users agree with me on the heavy bias of the phrasing and unsourced statements. Please do not message me accusing me of vandalism, Kyaa. Thankyou.--Burgas00 19:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for erasing your edits G Dett. As you can see I have restored them! --Burgas00 19:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

At the very least repair the broken references you just spawned. Thanks. Kyaa the Catlord 19:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Into and Image Caption Changes

I have had my changes to this article persistently reverted, and the best explanation I have received is that the current version has bee previously explained. Something more categorical than that is needed. What is the excuse for the reversion of the following edits I have made.

• Change in the order of the sentences in the into, prioritizing an outline of the battle, as is customary, ahead of the Israeli reasoning for the assault.
• Removal of the assertion that it was "previously referred to as the Jenin Massacre", which is plainly inaccurate, as many still regard it as a massacre.
• Reversion of my changing of the image caption. The current wording is POV.

There are many other problems with this extremely POV article, which others have raised and are raising. The resolution of the discussion on Eleland's proposed paragraph replacement, a significant and timely improvement to the current version, is also, I think, relevant to my concerns. But I'd personally like to have these minor matters resolved first before considering the rest of the article.Nwe 17:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The order is significant and properly mirrors that of the rest of the article. I agree with point two, the wording needs to be changed to reflect that this is still called the Jenin Massacre by those who believe it to have been one or have not had the opportunity to peruse the evidence refuting the claims. Eleland's proposal needs a lot of work, imho. Kyaa the Catlord 17:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Update: I've made some changes to the revision by Eleland which causes it to more accurately reflect her sources. Please review it. The original is still available in the history and I hope he/she does not mind that I was BOLD and directly editted the revision rather than duplicating the block of text.) Kyaa the Catlord 17:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

note: all these issues have been raised already on the talk so it would be great if editors could try to focus each topic of discussion on it's own subsection rather than make this talk page more confusing to follow than it already is. p.s. i agree with kyaa. Jaakobou 17:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

As far as point two, I've several times asked for sourcing showing that it is still referred to as a massacre by mainstream sources. Tewfik 19:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Serious NPOV issues. The next steps are an RfC and/or mediation

Tewfik, I appreciate very much your mildness of tone on the talk page; it goes a long way towards maintaining an atmosphere of good faith. That said, I find your latest edits extremely distressing from the point of view of basic policy and common sense. Can you explain, in as much detail as possible, why you keep adding an ADL statement to a section devoted to "Post-fighting investigations"? The ADL is an advocacy group (a lobby). They do not carry out "investigations" of any kind. They make pro-Israel statements on a daily basis, in response to the daily news. Why are they in this section? You keep saying "we can afford the space," but space is a red herring. The point is it's misleading to add lay commentary to a section on investigations. This has puzzled me for several days; I'll concede that my puzzlement has leaped into the territory of outrage when I now see you deleting from that very section the results of a three-week investigation (and accompanying 52-page report) from one of the world's major international human rights organizations, Human Rights Watch. On grounds that it violates WP:UNDUE. And that Human Rights Watch findings are "punditry" (unless they're exonerating Israel of massacres, in which case they're definitive). Is this really your position? That in a section on "post-fighting investigations," it is a violation of undue weight to present the findings of a 3-week investigation by one of the two most prominent human-rights organizations in the world, but it's appropriate to include a windy evaluative judgment by a lobby organization that's never set foot in Jenin? Tewfik, it boggles. I ask you to reconsider. There are other problems with what you're edit-warring over, but frankly this is egregious and must be dealt with first. To be necessarily blunt, soothing tones on the talk page are not sufficient to maintain an atmosphere of good faith in the face of edits like these.--G-Dett 23:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I notice that you've also deleted part of the sentence, "Palestinian sources, the European Union, and major international human rights organizations alleged that the camp and its dwellings were attacked indiscriminately by Israel with heavy military equipment," etc., on the erroneous grounds that it was supported by "just the EU report annex & a qualified mention by one NGO". As I indicated in the summary of the very edit you reverted, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and the European Union described the Israeli attack on the camp as "indiscriminate." This is what I summarized as "Palestinian sources, the European Union, and major international human rights organizations." That was accurate; please stop deleting it and substituting something misleading and tendentious.--G-Dett 00:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad that you appreciate the tone, but as I find that some of the most recent comments on this page are peppered with colourful speculations of intent and hostile language, I do hope that the editors here will try to emulate said tone a bit more in the future.

As far as the content, I believe that almost every change I made was accompanied by a reasoning on this Talk page, many of them since the last week, and most of which have not been acknowledged, much less responded to. That said, since you've stated your objections here, I'll likewise address them, but want the record to reflect that at least for most of the points, this is not the first time:

1. I've mentioned several times that the ADL statement is a direct reply to the previous paragraphs, all of which deal with the evolution of "allegations of a massacre". If there are indeed several such statements of equal notability, then perhaps a separate section would be in order, but since I made the request days ago, no such suggestions have been made.
2. Yes, extensive discussion of the HRW report, and repetition of their allegations of war crimes, are inappropriate in a section dealing with the evolution of "allegations of a massacre". That said, some of the details selected wouldn't belong in the summary in any event.
3. You say that Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the European Union use indiscriminate, yet all I could find when looking in the cited reports was the EU annex to the UN report, and qualified usage in HRW. As I could be mistaken, I would appreciate if you could provide links and quotes to the mentions that I am missing.

Again, I've explained these things before, and so I'm not sure how you've arrived at some of your hypotheses regarding my intent, but note how I've managed to not make such assumptions of nefarious intentions (or of any intentions) on your part. Please reciprocate. Tewfik 20:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, where is my hypothesis about your intent? I can neither remember nor find on the page any such hypothesis. Nor can I make out the significance of the fact that you haven't assumed "nefarious intent" on my part. I'm not edit-warring to keep in place a version of the article that a) opens with a long paragraph devoted to the Palestinians' version of the context for the battle is, with no balancing Israeli version; b) gives heightened emphasis to the war crimes charges that have been sustained and validated, while downplaying those that were discredited; c) quotes MPAC, CAIR, or the ADC at length in the "post-fighting investigations" section; and c) is larded with metaphorical atmospherics prejudicial to the Israelis, such as describing boobytraps as carrying an explosive charge "one-twentieth that of the bombs Israeli jets drop on residential areas in the Gaza strip." If I were, then the request for "reciprocation" would have a rudimentary basis. But I'm not, and it doesn't.--G-Dett 22:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

My apologies. The gist of this was directed at comments emanating from Eleland, which I kept misattributing to you (yes, even after I made note of it). That said, comments like "soothing tones on the talk page are not sufficient to maintain an atmosphere of good faith in the face of edits like these" or assertions that I am larding the text (aggrandising, embellishing, padding) are still not helpful. I would like reciprocation of myself not insinuating that you are trying to downplay anything. Tewfik 23:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

comment - i can't speak for tewfik, but i will say that human rights watch is just as much an advocacy group as the ADL - one protects civilians, and the other protects against defamation - and this case included both civilians and defamation. Jaakobou 10:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Human Rights Watch is not an advocacy group and they are not comparable in any way, shape, or form to the ADL. Nor does an ADL press release commenting on media coverage constitute a "post-fighting investigation"; nor is said press release in any way, shape, or form comparable to a three-week on-site investigation by one of the two most renowned human rights organizations in the world. If Tewfik shares your confusion on these points then that may be the source of the problem here.--G-Dett 12:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

considering how both run their "investigations", i stand by my statement. these "on site" interviews with the citizens from the west bank capital of "martyrs" (a.k.a. suicide bombers), which btw, rumors say were told what to say by radio transmissions, is as much of an investigation as a public reading of hannan ashrawi quotes. Jaakobou 13:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Taken from the lead of "Human Rights Watch is a United States-based international non-governmental organization that conducts research and advocacy on human rights. Its headquarters is in New York City." Um, advocacy != advocacy? I'm confused. Kyaa the Catlord 13:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Are you really confused about this? Human Rights organizations advocate for human rights. They do not advocate on behalf of countries. They invariably infuriate whatever state or entity (yes, entity: they published a lengthy report on Hezbollah's human-rights violations, for example) comes under their scrutiny. The ADL, on the other hand, advocates on behalf of Israel. In every situation. Human rights organizations carry out extensive on-site investigations, and publish their findings in detailed reports. Meanwhile ADL staffers surf the internet and write three-paragraph press releases to which Abe Foxman's signature stamp is added. It is astonishing to me that you don't understand the difference. And it's unsettling to me as well, because when these same human rights organizations conclude that Israel carried out no massacre, you see that as not only significant but definitive. It's not unusual for state officials, political figures, propagandists, media pundits, and even Wikipedians to take exactly this sort of a la carte approach to the findings of major human rights organizations. Indeed this ubiquitous, all-too-familiar a-la-cartism is strong evidence for – and a steady reminder of – the very non-partisanship of these major human-rights organizations.--G-Dett 14:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

i believe i explained my position quite well, no need to repeat ourselves in this already messy talk page. still to clarify, and repeat myself, HRW advocates for people regardless of what they do, ADL advocates against defamation that is beyond what israel does.Jaakobou 14:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

These are very elementary distinctions, and recognizing them is absolutely essential for any serious editor of this article. This page is "messy" because of the absurdities that have been tirelessly piped into it. Elementary distinctions – such as that between the findings of major human rights organizations, on the one hand, and press releases from lobby groups on the other – have a way of dispelling the fog of sophistry that has blocked serious progress on this article. I'll repeat them as often as necessary, even more so as we move into RfC and comprehensive mediation mode.--G-Dett 14:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

your statement is incorrect, esp. in this case where HRW simply reported what they heard the residents of Jenin tell them (later toned down a notch when it became clear the statements were bogus) and this is more of an advocacy than ADL even, since (best i'm aware) ADL are not alleging anything that did not occur. regardless, i'm willing to hear some 3rd party opinions about this issue about this "very elementary distinction". Jaakobou 15:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

My statement is not incorrect, nor does your post even attempt to substantiate that assertion. If you are ready to dismiss the authority of major international human rights organizations as "punditry," then the first thing we'll do is rewrite the article so that it doesn't present the massacre allegations as having been refuted. If Human Rights Watch is just an "advocacy group," then we'll just quote their "opinion" that a massacre didn't occur alongside the opinions of others that it did occur, and leave it open as to what happened.

You need to understand, Jaakabou, that these sophistries won't fly with me. I will explode them every time, and every time this happens your credibility takes a hit.--G-Dett 15:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

i think you need to take a step back and read your comment again. i do not wish to engage in what could be considered as a fight for the bigger ego. Jaakobou 16:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Not about egos, Jaakabou. It's about the level at which you're pitching your discussion. It needs to be significantly raised, if you want to be taken seriously on this page.--G-Dett 16:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

HRW is a long-standing, experienced, and respected organization. While they do start with testimonies of witnesses, they do not finish there; they extensively cross-check for inconsistencies, look for physical evidence, look for reports from "the other side" that might confirm or shed some light on the allegation, etc. Their credibility depends on it. I would urge you to look into criticisms of HRW; a good place to start would be Criticisms of Human Rights Watch. Invariably, these criticisms focus on perceived selection bias, or bias in the rhetorical emphasis placed on some aspect of a report. For instance, here's what your friends at the ADL had to say about the Jenin report:

Both Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch charged Israel with violations of international law and war crimes. Neither discussed the international law violations involved in arming a refugee camp, or demanded the United Nations be held in any way accountable for its lack of oversight in the camp. While Human Rights Watch acknowledged in a May 3 report that there was no evidence of a massacre and that Palestinian gunmen had contributed to endangering Palestinian civilians, they continued to emphasize that there was prima facie evidence Israel committed war crimes.

Note that not a single factual objection is made; the criticisms all relate to emphasis and perceived blind spots (including nonsensical and bizzare ones, such as demanding that the United Nations exercise "oversight" over a camp which they do not administer and in which they have no police or security forces of any kind, but that's another story). HRW just doesn't run with an allegation unless they've checked it out and believe there is something to it. Maybe you heard different on Arutz Sheva or wherever, but that doesn't make it true. Eleland 16:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is questioning the inclusion of information from the HRW. We're questioning the removal of data from the ADL, which albeit partisan, is a long-standing and respectable organization. (Albeit sometimes seen as partisan and extremist, but so is the HRW and Amnesty International. Its hard to take a stand for ANYTHING without being accused of being insert colorful phrase.) Kyaa the Catlord 16:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Tewfik has indeed "questioned the inclusion of information from the HRW"; he deleted it here on grounds that it was "punditry," and that for us to include HRW's reference to "the strong evidence suggesting that some were willfully killed" was a violation of WP:UNDUE. And there is no "data from the ADL" being removed; as has been explained countless times, there is a paragraph of lay opinion from an ADL press release that is being removed from a section on "post-fighting investigations," on the good solid grounds that the ADL doesn't and didn't carry out any investigation. Again, as I've said countless times, if you want to create a section for lay commentary and put the ADL statement there, by all means do so, and we can add other opinions to balance it out. Now please, please stop with the strawmen arguments. They're piling up and creating a fire hazard.--G-Dett 18:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

A suggestion

I have a suggestion to combat the ridiculous amount of fighting and edit-warring over this article:

1. Find an editor who (a) is knowledgeable about Middle East issues (b) has no history of pro-Israeli or pro-Palestinian editing, and most importantly (c) has not edited this article before (or at most for spelling or grammar). Any suggested editor can be vetoed by one of the protagonists if they deem the choice to be non-neutral.
2. Ask that editor to rewrite it from the start.
3. Accept the neutral version and then spend your wikitime on more worthwhile activities such as the hundreds of kibbutzim/moshavim/MKs/other things that are lacking an article.

This has worked in the past (my rewrite of Kach and Kahane Chai stopped a near-month long slow-motion edit war) and if all editors can control themselves, I don't see why it shouldn't work here. Thoughts? Number 57 14:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I walked into this article like a week ago and ran into flame-war-fest. My contribs are mainly centered in anime, not in palestine and crap. I hope whoever gets suggested has some asbestos underpants. Kyaa the Catlord 14:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

i'd like to note that User:THF gave a few 3rd party comments also if you scroll up. as for the suggestion body, i find it odd that a possibly pro-palestine editor (basing this statement on our past interactions) claims neutrality and talks about his edit on a group often used to promote anti-isral sentiments.

to the suggestion itself, i'd prefer a 3rd side commentary who could perhaps review each side's claims to each dispute, rather than a full rewrite to a really long article, which i firstly find unnecessary and secondly believe will lead to a step backwards in the article's consensus status rather than a step forward. Jaakobou 14:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

off topic babble by Jaakobou and Number57

i'd like to note that User:THF gave a few 3rd party comments also if you scroll up. as for the suggestion body, i find it odd that a possibly pro-palestine editor (basing this statement on our past interactions) claims neutrality and talks about his edit on a group often used to promote anti-isral sentiments. to the suggestion itself, i'd prefer a 3rd side commentary who could perhaps review each side's claims to each dispute, rather than a full rewrite to a really long article, which i firstly find unnecessary and secondly believe will lead to a step backwards in the article's consensus status rather than a step forward. Jaakobou 14:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

"pro-Palestine" editor? I am a neutral. Whilst you may not think this as your and my opinions on issues are very far apart, I am very much a Zionist, but I am not one that is willing to cover up bad behaviour by the Israeli establishment when it happens. Would you care to point out any "anti-israel" bits which I inserted into the Kach and Kahane Chai article to justify your accusations of POV? Number 57 14:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

my opinion regarding you (that you might not be as neutral as you state) is based on the arguments around the map of israel, when you supported having the change "occupied" added to the original UN map whose original did not include the word - if my statement here is wrong, i'll apologize but this is what i remember. and also based on your "NPOV" statement that Ariel is not in Israel. i have no position to your claim of being 'very much a Zionist' (which can be interpreted in so many ways these days), and if you read my words carefully you'll notice i did not say you were anti-israel but said you were 'possibly pro-palestine'. i add that i have not read the Kach article or your changes on it, but i also note to you that most people who are anti-israel love to mention them as proof to their bogus zionism=racism narrative. Jaakobou 15:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Ariel is obviously not in Israel, or it would not be called an Israeli settlement. If you have evidence that Israel has annexed that part of the West Bank I may be open to compromise. As for saying that the WB and Gaza are occupied territories, that is not POV, it is NPOV. POV is saying that they are part of Israel or part of the State of Palestine. NPOV is the middle view (and the international law version) that they are occupied. Even some Israeli government websites call them occupied territories! Number 57 15:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

i'm fairly sure you can find the word "occupied" in ALL (not some) of the arab knesset parties if you look for it. Jaakobou 15:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not talking about Arab parties in the Knesset. The Knesset website profile of Ezer Weizman describes how he was "in confrontation with Arik Sharon, the Agriculture Minister, regarding settlements in the occupied territories". Number 57 15:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

are we really turning this page into a forum about how certain terminologies can mean different things to different people? do i really need to remind you how the knesset website described esterina tarticman's biography and the public outrage that followed? Jaakobou 16:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

You are the one that started this discussion by accusing me of POV. Before then I was making a suggestion to stop the messy argument that this article is causing. I didn't see how my background is relevant to the suggestion, as I was not putting forward myself for the job, but I am not going to stand by and let accusations go unanswered. Feel free to delete our whole conversation (including your accusation that I am "possibly pro-palestine") so that we can go back to the original suggestion. Number 57 16:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Blind reverts

Please try to take some care when you revert the article. I've asked NICELY repeatedly for people not to break the references in the lead since it impacts the rest of the article. Kyaa the Catlord 16:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree and find this mass edit to be unhelpful in the least. Jaakobou 17:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The version which was reverted away was monstrously NPOV.

• Palestinian sources raised allegations of massacre, initially reported in the international media and repeated by several human rights groups.

"Repeated" implies credulous echoing, and "initially" is flat-out-false. Human rights groups waited until they had access to the camp and then conducted thorough investigations. They did not "initially" "repeat". And this is unsourced to boot. Note than an alternative version which was meticulously sourced was reverted out of hand.

• They also maintained that the camp and its dwellings were attacked indiscriminately by Israel with heavy military equipment, combat helicopters, rockets and missiles,

"Maintained" is a loaded word which implies implausibility of the "maintained" claim. Furthermore this implies that the attack itself, rather than the single word "indiscriminately" was somehow only a "maintaining" by "Palestinian sources". For the dozenth time, why are we reporting a known fact as an "allegation"?? The camp was attacked, heavily, with all of the equipment listed. I previously provided sources including senior IDF officers to show this. The only question is whether it was "indiscriminate", which was not an allegation of mere "Palestinian sources" but of EU consuls-general, journalists, and Amnesty International - indeed, virtually every non-IDF observer who was in a position to know. Again, the sources are found in the alternative version I proposed above, which was reverted summarily.

• and made comparisons to the Sabra and Shatila Massacre.

CAMERA is not a reliable source; I could not find the transcript listed at the CNN site. Furthermore, the fact that a single Palestinian spokesman said that " will not repeat what he has done in Sabra and Shatila" is hardly the kind of "comparison" implied here (ie, scale and character).

• The massacre allegations were subsequently rejected by the outside observers

The allegations were rejected by headline and editorial writers thousands of miles away. The observers on the scene found no evidence of a systematic massacre but did not and could not say whether the atrocities they did document constituted a massacre, as that term has no definition in international law.

• who maintained the position that human rights violations had taken place by both sides.

False balance. The HRW and Amnesty investigations overwhelmingly concentrated on Israeli violations; they found that IDF actions could constitute "grave breaches" of the Geneva conventions "which constitute war crimes", but made no such finding on Palestinian actions.

• The Palestinian death toll was estimated at 52 (including 22 civilians), while 23 Israeli soldiers were killed.

This 52 number has been plucked out of the air. It is the specific number of bodies collected at Jenin hospital in May. Multiple sources, including the IDF's think tank at Tel Aviv University and Amnesty International, say 56.

It's too bad that sources further down the article are being broken. It's much worse that this travesty of a lede section is being pushed over all objections. Eleland 18:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I addressed most of these issues, mistakenly attributing the corrections to G-Dett. Tewfik 20:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

My "mass revert" went back to CJCurrie's version from yesterday; I am not aware that that version had any broken references, but I apologize if it did.

I am willing and eager to bring this conversation around to a serious discussion and pursuit of consensus. I have only a few "red lines" here, and they are very modest, and reflect only a baseline conservative application of core policy to the shape of this article. They are as follows:

1. An article on the battle of Jenin will not begin with a full paragraph devoted solely to the official Israeli explanation for why they lay siege to it. We can either a) present the two competing accounts of the "context" for the battle; or b) relegate such contentious material to the "background" section where it probably belongs.
2. The article will not gerrymander its subject matter, either in the lead or in the body of the article, in order to put great emphasis on allegations of massacre that were subsequently refuted, and to bury the allegations of war crimes and "indiscriminate" use of force, that were subsequently validated.
3. Corollary to #2: the article will not take an a la carte approach to the findings of major human rights organizations, treating them as definitive when they go one way, and mere "punditry" when they go the other way.
4. The article will not be larded with POV-pushing atmospheric details, such as how a 113-kg explosive charge is "ten times larger than a typical suicide bomber's charge," even if such atmospherics are sourced. We cite our sources for facts; we don't selectively assimilate their rhetoric.
5. The article will not conflate the reports of human-rights organizations following on-site investigations with lay commentary or lobbyists' punditry, and it will not mispresent an ADL press release as a "post-fighting investigation."

These are my red lines; anything crossing them will be reverted. I trust they derive self-evidently from the modest application of core policy. I look forward to serious and good-faith collaboration.--G-Dett 18:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I've addressed your earlier points above, but for clarity, I'll respond here to the others:

1. That the Israelis launched their operation in response to suicide bombings does not seem to be controversial assertion based on teh sources that I've reviewed in the course of editing here, but for the sake of argument, what exactly is the alterantove rationale which you propose presenting alongside it?
2. While there was a recent edit that moved the massacre bit to the paragraph's first line, I moved it back promptly. Both a specific allegation of war crimes, and the allegation of "indiscriminate attacks" from which it partially stems are included prominently in the lead (noting the ongoing dispute on how to characterise the latter). I feel that including both statements is a bit much, but I'll leave that alone if it is the only problem.
3. The continuing assertion that there is an a la carte approach is not true in my mind, but I'd much rather discuss specific cases rather than such vague statements.
4. I've stated a rationale for inclusion of the "suicide bomber" phrasing several times, but it has never been replied to, or acknowledged by yourself thus far. In brief "the bombs were both manufactured by the same people who made suicide bombs, and as the latter is a familiar phenomenon, it is an ideal means of comparison" - there is also discussion in this section.
5. I dealt with this in your above comments.

I again remind everyone to please abide by WP:CIV and WP:AGF; descriptions like "lardy" would be great in an Opinion column, but are not conducive to dispassionate communication here. Tewfik 20:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

1. The alternative context would be something like the Palestinian report included within the UN report: "On 29 March and throughout the period under report, the Israeli occupying forces waged a large-scale military assault against the Palestinian people, unprecedented in its scope and intensity since the start of the Israeli occupation. The Israeli occupying forces invaded and reoccupied most Palestinian populated centers, including cities, villages and refugee camps and practically all areas under Palestinian control in the West Bank," etc.
2. The gerrymander I'm referring to is limiting the scope of "post-fighting investigations" to the charge of "massacre."
3. I've detailed very explicitly what this a la carte approach to the findings of major human rights organizations entails. There's nothing vague whatsoever in my account of it; please read the relevant posts again.
4. This is a very poor rationale for larding the article with POV-atmospherics. If you feel strongly that it's a sound rationale, put an RfC on the matter. But be aware that if it's decided that atmospherics are permissible so long as they're sourced, there are plenty of a different sort to be found.--G-Dett 21:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
5. If you want the ADL comment, we'll create a section for lay commentary. Stop putting it in the "post-fighting investigations" section.

Finally, "lardy"? I said "larded." It's a verb. It means "4. To intersperse or garnish (speech or writing) with particular words, expressions, ideas, etc.; to interlard" (OED).--G-Dett 21:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

1. That statement is merely a less neutral description of "what" happened. Israeli context is "suicide bombing" (which seems not to be challenged AFAIK, but maybe I am wrong). The Palestinian context would also be a "why".
2. ~41% of the body's text deals with the extensive discussion of the various investigations ("International statements and human rights reports" comprises 1,730 odd words of about 4,230). If anything, this needs to be cut down. As to whether there should be a section discussing the "massacre" allegations, considering the central position such allegations play in this event and its notability (probably the only reason we are here, since there was far more intense fighting in other events), there certainly should be.
3. You made reference to a la carte in this edit, presumably because of the "controversial" qualification which you removed, and which 'stayed removed'. You also referenced it regarding the same "controversial" once on talk, again in reference to the ADL passage, and then three times more in the two most recent threads. So maybe the problem is in my comprehension, but I still don't know how to address this general complaint, and I believe that it would be most productive if you could point to specific cases as they happen.
4. I did not argue that the phrasing belongs 'because it was sourced', but because it is relevant to compare the one weapon with another in the same organisation's armoury, and because a suicide bomb's scale is a frame of reference familiar from the attention it is granted in the news-media. None of the comparisons above about the Nazis in Lidice and the IDF or about these same Palestinian bombs and the IDF are parallel, since this is about Palestinian militants' suicide-bomber scale homemade bombs, and the same Palestinian militants' anti-personnel and anti-materiel homemade bombs.
5. The ADL comment is a direct response to the "allegations of a massacre" by a notable organisation. As I said several times already, if there are other equally notable comments dealing with this subject matter, only then should we create a second subsection, but no one has yet made any move to include such material.

I am aware of the meaning of larded, and I affirmed my continuing objection to its use in a WP:AGF environment in my comments above. Tewfik 23:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

1. I am quite sure you are aware that Israelis tend to cite Palestinian misdeeds as rationales for their actions, while Palestinians tend to cite Israeli misdeeds as rationales for their actions, and that devoting an entire initial paragraph to the Palestinian misdeeds that allegedly led to the subject of this article, the siege of Jenin, is a violation of WP:NPOV. It is possible that you simply have a much more flexible, anything-goes approach to WP:NPOV than I do, but somehow I doubt that. That is to say, if I went to First Intifada and inserted into the lead an entire paragraph devoted to the oppressiveness of the Israeli occupation that, by all accounts, precipitated that uprising, my guess is you'd revert me, and on none other than WP:NPOV grounds. Please correct me if I'm wrong on that last score.
2. You are quite wrong that the "massacre" allegation is the only thing notable about Jenin. The flattening of a sizable portion of the camp attracted international attention, as did some of the more grisly findings of international human rights organizations, such as wanton killing of civilians, indiscriminate missile attacks on residential areas, the crushing to death of an elderly man in a wheelchair who was not allowed to be evacuated from his home before it was demolished – you know, the findings you keep erasing from the article citing things like WP:UNDUE, even as you shoehorn in lobby statements and a journalist's helpful explanation of just how heavy 113 kilograms is. Other things that make Jenin notable are: the unanimous demand of the international community – including President Bush – that Israel withdraw and end the siege; the findings regarding Israeli war crimes; the international debate it set in motion regarding the ethical dilemmas of urban warfare.
3. The a-la-carte approach to the findings of human rights organizations is apparent when Jaakabou edits the article to say they're merely "repeating" the claims of Palestinians; when Jaakabou and Kyaa together argue on the talk page that HR groups are no different from lobbies, their reports no different from ADL press releases, except of course when they're refuting massacres in which case they're definitive; and when you insist, again and again, on representing the findings of HRW and Amnesty (regarding the Israelis' indiscriminate use of force) as merely the "allegations" of "Palestinian sources," finally grudgingly conceding that "some international sources" have said it. This a-la-cartism is moreover built into the entire article, suffusing and informing both its tone and structure, a fact I trust you're sufficiently literate to apprehend.
4. Again, you and I may radically differ in our sense of the strictness of the WP:NPOV policy, but I don't think so. I think if I found similarly atmospheric details from The Nation or Harpers's coverage of Jenin, say, comparing the size of the missile payloads used in the siege to that of the two-ton bombs Israeli jets drop on Gaza, or perhaps comparing the blockading of Jenin to the blockading of Sabra and Shatila during the Sabra and Shatila massacres, and if I reasoned that it was "relevant to compare the one weapon with another in the same organisation's armoury," that the missile fired into a refugee camp and the daisy cutter dropped on an apartment in Gaza are "both manufactured by the same people," or that the reference to the Sabra and Shatila massacre provides the reader with a "a frame of reference familiar from the attention it is granted in the news-media," you would object. I feel confident that you would object, on WP:NPOV grounds. I feel confident, that is, that you know generally what WP:NPOV means, and are merely involved at the moment in some very special pleading.
5. There is the HRW comment, which is not "equally notable" to the ADL press release but in fact far, far more notable. I added it; you deleted it.

I believe you know and knew all of the above, which is what makes exchanges like this so depressing and enervating. The only thing I believe you didn't know was the meaning of the word "larded," which you evidently mistook for a "fatso"-type insult. The word has its origins in the kitchen, and is a nice word and nice image in my mind. When roasting meats prone to drying out, you take a needle, like a large sewing needle, with a long strip of fat attached to it, and you thread it through the meat and leave it there; many such strips will dissolve during the cooking – moistening, tenderizing and flavoring the meat from the inside. In a properly larded roast, one doesn't taste anything foreign; the flavors have melded. In this case, you larded the dry facts of a defensive barricade with a juicy image of suicide bombing, in the hopes that the latter would dissolve in the reader's mind and flavor his impression of things.--G-Dett 13:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, incivility is still not helping this discussion (It is possible that you simply have a much more flexible, anything-goes approach to WP:NPOV than I do; the findings you keep erasing from the article citing things like WP:UNDUE, even as you shoehorn in lobby statements and a journalist's helpful explanation of just how heavy 113 kilograms is; etc).

1. Maybe I wasn't clear: what specific alternative reasoning do mainstream sources attribute to the Israelis on behalf of the Palestinians?
2. I am not arguing that the "massacre allegation" is the only thing notable and so I don't understand why you wrote a paragraph 'disproving' that. My point is that in an event that was widely and erroneously characterised as the Jenin Massacre, a short section discussing the history of those charges and their refutation is in order. As I said before, 2/5 of the body is dedicated to the NGO reports, and I don't think that repeating them throughout the rest of the entry follows our content policies.
3. I'll only respond to the parts that aren't already covered on other bullets, which is that I didn't "grudgingly concede" that some international sources was an accurate representation, but that I used the formulation while waiting for you to respond to my request above: "I would appreciate if you could provide links and quotes to the mentions that I am missing". Such quotes have not yet been provided, and so the only unqualified allegation of "indiscriminate" that I am aware of is still just the Spanish/EU annex to the UN report. HRW says the IDF was indiscriminate "at times", particularly on the morning of the 16th, while using no such qualification for the Palestinians' tactics. At the very least, the language should be restored to reflect that the charge was mutual. AI does not make the allegation AFAIK.
4. If one of those sources published a comparison that not only had the same logical consistency ("the bombs were both manufactured by the same people who made suicide bombs"), but also the utility ("and as the latter is a familiar phenomenon, it is an ideal means of comparison"), then inclusion would be appropriate.
5. I did not delete the HRW comment, but removed the extensive quoting, and moved the actual text from "allegations of a massacre" to the HRW report section, since it was not discussing those allegations, but responding to the UN report.

I've already stated that I know that larded means "embellished" which is the usage that I twice protested to, and which you even acknowledge - why in the world would you think it is okay to accuse me of "...lard the dry facts of a defensive barricade with a juicy image of suicide bombing, in the hopes that the latter would dissolve in the reader's mind and flavor his impression of things"? To repeat, stop using WP:CIV and WP:AGF violating phrasing - I can appreciate your wit without the hostility, but I can't collaborate with it. Tewfik 23:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

this sub category about disrutive editing turned into another disruptive rant real fast. let's please try to promote the article. Jaakobou 20:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

To Eleland: You might be confused as to what I'm referring to, check the history. CAMERA Is not being used as a source in the lead section which G-Dett reverted away and I specifically made mention to. I'm hunting for the CAMERA mention you've complained about and will investigate the reliability of it as a source at that time. (I really should be asleep!) Kyaa the Catlord 22:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Intro debate - Israeli explanation

I request people stop mass reverting based on "red lines", and address the issues properly.

in an attempt to get a little consensus, i open this first section (more will follow) in regards to how the intro should be written in regards to the Israeli reasoning for the operation.

User:G-Dett has suggested the following in regards to this matter:

a) present the two competing accounts of the "context" for the battle; or b) relegate such contentious material to the "background" section where it probably belongs.

please select your preference pro A or pro B and give a reasoning. remember, this is not a popular vote and reasoning must be stated. In the chance that you have a question/opinion/thought, please state it on Talk:Battle of Jenin#AB comments.

p.s. try to keep it short and to the point. Jaakobou 20:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

i'd request all the active people to participate since reverting once this issue is resolved could be considered as disruptive.

pro A

• I totally support giving the Palestinian pretext to the battle in the intro. to be frank, i believed it was already stated that they considered the attack to be indiscriminate and raised allegations of massacre (was there another narrative i'm unaware of?) Jaakobou 20:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  • comment - "Pretext" and "context" are not even remotely the same thing. In this case "context" refers to the perceived reasons for the action. What you are describing ("indiscriminate, allegations of massacre") is not "context" but factual information about the events themselves. Conflating these two would be a serious mistake. Eleland 21:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
    • reply comment - my stand is based on WP:LEAD, meaning that the massacre allegations are the only reason this battle was notable. Jaakobou 22:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
      • reply comment The massacre allegations are not the only reason this battle was notable. Documented Israeli war crimes was another. And there are several other reasons.--G-Dett 20:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
        • reply comment - if you have documentation for this, i'd expect you to bring the documentation forward rather than claim notability without sources. Jaakobou 10:10, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

pro B

• Even a bare minimum summary would tend to dominate the lede section, which ought to emphasize what actually happened in early April 2002, rather than perceived or proclaimed motives, objectives, etc. We ought simply to note that Jenin was one of many West Bank locales reoccupied in "Defensive Shield" at leave it at that. Issues of motive and justification often descend into "Israel said X, but Palestinians say Y, to which Israeli responded Z, which was countered by A, leading to accusations of B..." which is awkward in a main article section, but totally disastrous for readability of a lede. Eleland 21:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  • comment - As long as the references aren't broken, I'm ok with removing the details from the lead as long as context is firmly established. Kyaa the Catlord 22:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
    • reply comment - is that your "vote" or just a comment? Jaakobou 22:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Just a comment, for now. Kyaa the Catlord 23:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Having a context doesn't really belong in the beginning of the article. I've looked at other battle and siege articles for guidance. Siege of Antwerp, Siege of Paris, Siege of Warsaw, Battle of the Bulge, as well as many other lesser known siege of -- articles. Sometimes in requests for comments, the question is not posed as pro-A or B because it tends to be divisive. Jerseycam 18:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
  • comment - Battle of the Bulge seems to have quite a lot of pretext/context/etc. and two out of the other 3 are very much incomplete articles. Jaakobou 20:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
    • reply comment - Battle of the Bulge has a lot of detail, but I don't see pretexts, justifications, casus belli, etc.--G-Dett 20:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

AB comments

• comment - we should probably mention in the background section that the wave of suicide bombings has it's pretexts in the Israeli-palestinian conflict but i don't find this notable enough within' the article to be given a bigger place on the intro than the events which actually led to the attack on jenin. note: i find that people stating the suicide attacks are the "official" reasoning for attacking jenin (in contrast to the conspiracy genocidal/sabra-shatila theories) insulting. Jaakobou 20:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - I object strenuously to any attempt to tar one side exclusively with accusations of "mass reversions". Clearly, certain "pro-Israel" editors have shown very little restraint in conducting reversions of their own, even to the extent of restoring broken English and weird phraseology - and yet they generally do not clearly indicate that their edits are reversions, which is contrary to best practice. Eleland 21:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  • comment - I specifically reverted most of the changes that you objected to above. My missing one hardly warrants this reply, especially given my attempts to ensure that your past neutral edits were preserved along with any changes I made. Tewfik 21:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  • reply - i agree to some extent, but disagree as a whole considering the way things have been done; but mostly i disagree with the accusative polemics which will not help us move forward. regadless, i request you perhaps shorten your comment to my choice of pro A and also consider moving it to this AB comments section. (i took the liberty to move a portion of your comment eleland, i hope you don't take offense by this) i am trying to stop the personal interactions and make everyone's opinions and ideas written down in an easy to follow way rather than the current debate mess we have. p.s. please let's focus not on polemics, but on just discussing the issues. Jaakobou 21:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• comment - Your proposed "A" position would require us to say something like "Israel conducted what it termed a large-scale counter-terrorist operation after 100 Israelis were killed in a wave of suicide bombings, Palestinians called it a collective punishment designed to demoralize them and encourage their submission to Israeli military occupation ongoing since 1967" (I'm conjecturing on the Palestinian side, in the actual article we'd have to find proper sources.) Eleland 21:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• questions to Jerseycam - (1) what is your opinion about WP:LEAD? (2) was that note a vote for B or just commentary?
  • reply - Regarding your question 1 to me, WP:LEAD is a style guideline. Regarding question 2, I'll try to put it in a diplomatic way. We all make commentary unless we simply write "I am for B" or "I am for A". Commentary is one of the purposes of the talk page. The fact that my commentary supports B and that it is under the B column would be factors that would allow a reasonable person reading the talk page to assume that I am voting for B. Jerseycam 07:50, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
    • reply - thank you for clarifying. Jaakobou 15:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

war crimes

to resolve the dispute about who did what and how the war crimes should be attributed i open this subsesction so that we can handle this dispute properly.

please add all sources relating to who did what either to Israeli war crimes, Palestinian war crimes, or Both were complicit, make your comments on the comments section.

note: please pay careful attention to who says what on your provided sources, don't misrepresent, and try to keep it short and easy to follow. Jaakobou 10:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Israeli war crimes

• Palestinian report submitted to the Secretary-General -
  • http://www.un.org/peace/jenin/
    • relevant quote: Many credible sources have reported about atrocities committed... prima facie evidence of war crimes... it is probable that a massacre and a crime against humanity might have been committed... enhanced by the statements made at some point by the occupying forces... and their reported attempts to move bodies from the camp to what they referred to as the graveyards of the enemy.
    • note: if you wish to expand/discuss on the palestinian part of this source in length, please start a new subsection. Jaakobou 10:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Palestinian war crimes

Both were complicit

• http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2165272.stm
• UN - Report of the Secretary-General
  • http://www.un.org/peace/jenin/
    • relevant quote: 32. Of particular concern is the use, by combatants on both sides, of violence that placed civilians in harm's way. Much of the fighting during Operation Defensive Shield occurred in areas heavily populated by civilians, in large part because the armed Palestinian groups sought by IDF placed their combatants and installations among civilians. Palestinian groups are alleged to have widely booby-trapped civilian homes, acts targeted at IDF personnel but also putting civilians in danger. IDF is reported to have used bulldozers, tank shelling and rocket firing, at times from helicopters, in populated areas.
    • note: if you wish to expand/discuss on the Secratery-General part of this source in length, please start a new subsection. Jaakobou 12:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

war crimes comments

• comment - I will not enter a pseudo-vote on the grounds that it is ridiculous to subject clear questions of fact to such a process. It is abundantly clear that credible third party observers (Amnesty, HRW) only used the words "war crimes" or the legalistic equivalent "grave breaches " when describing Israeli actions in Jenin. Palestinian fighters were criticized for putting civilians in harm's way, but that is not the same as saying they were accused of war crimes. Much like the earlier "genocide" discussion, there seems to be a persistent confusion between editors' personal interpretations of claims made, and the actual claims. For example, the report listed under "both were complicit" simply doesn't use the phrase "war crimes" in any context at all. After several fairly deep Google searches (getting in to obscure Likudnik blogs and the like) I simply haven't found any accusations of "war crimes" or "grave breaches" by Palestinians during the battle, even by extremist partisans of Israel. In summary, there is no objective reason to discuss this at all. Eleland 12:31, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
  • comment - Per Eleland, this is silly. Only one source has been listed under "Both were complicit," and this one source never mentions "war crimes." A while back Eleland wrote a version of the lead that handled the matter with elegant fairness: "Subsequent investigations by major human rights organizations found prima facie evidence of Israeli war crimes, while casting doubt on allegations of a deliberate massacre. Some investigations also criticized Palestinian fighters for operating in close proximity to civilians, but found that the only deliberate use of Palestinians as "human shields" was by Israel."--G-Dett 16:27, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
    • reply comment - User:G-Dett, please go over the sources, you've just quoted a phrasing used by the palestinian submission to the UN, who also alleged on that submission a very large possibility for mass graves. I would add some extra commentary, but i suggest we not turn this into polemics and just expose the sources and what everyone said. Jaakobou 17:52, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
      • question - Um, huh? I quoted a sentence from Eleland's lead proposal above; the sentence is accurately sourced to Amnesty and Human Rights Watch. What are you talking about? And why are you talking about mass graves?--G-Dett 18:10, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
        • reply - please go over Talk:Battle_of_Jenin#Israeli_war_crimes. Jaakobou 19:31, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
          • Jaakobou, I don't know or care whether the phrase "prima facie evidence of war crimes" appeared in the Palestinan submission to the UN, but as I properly indicated in my preferred intro version, HRW said "There is a strong prima facie evidence that, in the cases noted below, IDF personnel committed grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions, or war crimes," and Amnesty said "In Jenin and Nablus the IDF carried out actions which violate international human rights and humanitarian law; some of these actions amount to grave breaches of the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 1949 (the Fourth Geneva Convention) and are war crimes.". You'll note that I actually chose the less strongly worded of the two, "prima facie evidence" at least allowing the possibility that some subsequent investigation will disprove the evidence. By the way, can we stop with this comment and reply comment thing? It's not a straw poll. Eleland 21:25, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

• comment - this is not a vote, this is a summary of the refs as we have and some categorization of them so that we can have a clearer image on who said what and each person can make a more knowledgeable assessment that is not only based on hunches and preconceived beliefs. please add your references and try to keep commentary short and easy to follow. Jaakobou 17:52, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
  • reply comment - How's this for short and easy to follow: you've provided no sourced references to Palestinian war crimes, and there don't appear to be any.--G-Dett 18:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
    • reply - the reference section is incomplete, i've started it out for the other editors to work on. please focus on improving this talk section so we can move forward with this dispute. Jaakobou 19:23, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
• comment - Generally speaking, a dispute involves two or more sides making a case and presenting evidence for it, rather than one side making a case and asking the other side to provide evidence for it "so we can move forward". Quite simply, nether G-Dett nor I have found any sources which accuse Palestinians of war crimes - the closest I could find was a really slipshod pro-Israel blog which ranted about "UN complicity in war crimes" on the basis that UNRWA was running schools and hospitals in Jenin, so they should be able to forcibly prevent Islamic Jihad from running cells in the camp, but it was a reference to suicide bombings and not to the actual battle. The way to "move forward" would be to avoid raising spurious disputes which do not exist in the source material, which is abundant and clear. Eleland 19:31, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
  • comment - it would be helpful if you focus on what you can contribute rather than what you can't. Jaakobou 19:34, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Wow, Jaakobou, you said it. It would be nice if I could focus on positive contributions. Unfortunately, I can't make them — or rather, I can make them but I will be reverted on shabby pretexts within hours. And on the talk page, I can't make positive contributions because they keep getting bogged down with spurious disputes which do not exist in the source material. I'll say it one more time: No sources have been found, nor by all evidence do any reliable sources exist, which accuse the Palestinian side in the Battle of Jenin of committing war crimes. Eleland 21:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

previously referred to as the Jenin Massacre

considering this edit that changed:

previously referred to as the Jenin Massacre -> referred to by some as the Jenin Massacre.

it is my contention that the terms 'Jenin' and 'Massacre' were unanimous at around April 15th 2002 regardless if it were CNN, BBC, SkyNEWS (western media) or ArabNews, AlJazeera, etc. (arab media).

after the numbers became evident, western media, and international bodies stopped using this terminology and the only ones who persist are considered unreliable partizans.

i totally agree that we should note this on the article, and we do in the body, but i disagree with the change to the intro, which would have us believe that "some" of the mainstream opinion is to still call it massacre.

if there is any evidence about these some in mainstream media, then surely we can add this to the article body and if the notability justifies, then we can make the change in the intro also. Jaakobou 18:10, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

In literally every report I've seen, and I've gone through dozens including those specifically cited by the ADL as falsely accusing Israel of a massacre, the reports always described talk of massacre as a "rumour", "claim", "statement", "allegation", or sometimes "report". I didn't find a single piece which said "Israel has committed a massacre in Jenin", let alone "here's our report on the Jenin Massacre." It's one thing to say that many news articles contained the words "massacre" and "jenin", perhaps even in the same sentence. It's another to say that CNN, BBC, etc actually referred to the battle as the Jenin Massacre. If it can be shown that all the major Arab satellite outlets, Arab newspapers like al-Ahram or the Daily Star, etc etc started using the term Jenin Massacre, and then later stopped using it, then you have a point. This hasn't been shown. Eleland 18:22, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

1. i totally agree with you as to how people described the statements of massacre, that is the very reason for the conflict on the 3rd paragraph.
2. you raise a good point, that perhaps we should note it on the lead that only arab and muslim media (such as....) call it "Jenin Massacre" and that other networks simply allowed this phrasing on their initial reports.
3. i would appreciate it if you help bring some evidence into the discussion (since you changed something that held for a long time) and suggest ways to resolve this conflict.

-- Jaakobou 19:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

previously referred to as the Jenin Massacre - round II

previous chatter found here.

since we seem to have quite a few versions on how to phrase the "jenin massacre" name i request people, rather than revert and change to their preferred version, list down the version they prefer 'and the reasoning. if you wish to ask questions or make commentary please do it on the comments and questions section. Jaakobou 15:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

preferred version

• 'previously referred to as the Jenin Massacre - i was a tad conflicted about "previously dubbed as" because "jenin massacre" was never an official name albeit the way the fighting was presented. i've decided to support the mellower and more encyclopedic version, to what i consider the previously more common way the "consensus" described the israeli battle inside the camp. Jaakobou 15:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

comments and questions

• comment - Can't we slow down on the conflict? The previous one is still smoldering. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1937048.stm The headline calls it a massacre. That's my quick and unfinished research for the moment. Jerseycam 01:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
• comment - The word "massacre" is part of some man's quote. You need reliable sources saying that the battle was indeed previously called "Jenin Massacre". Beit Or 19:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
  • reply comment - we have a number of sources in the article body, both mainstream and official sources, who clearly used the massacre terminology during the battle. p.s. one of them is right above your comment. Jaakobou 22:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
• elements of a massacre did occur. A UN report concluded that mass killings in the range of 500 did not occur but official Israeli source acknowledge that 52 were killed. A significant part of the public will probably remember it as a massacre. News sources quote it as a massacre. Blame them, not WP. Jerseycam 02:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Full text of Ha'aretz article, "Peres calls Jenin a massacre"

Ha'aretz has since removed the following article from their web site. There are many posts on usenet which reprint this article starting on April 9, 2002, and at the time no usenet responsers contested its contents.

Tuesday, April 09, 2002 Nisan 27, 5762 Israel Time: 11:17 (GMT+3) Peres calls Jenin a massacre By Aluf Benn and Amos Harel, Ha'aretz Correspondents

Foreign Minister Shimon Peres is very worried about the expected international reaction as soon as the world learns the details of the tough battle in the Jenin refugee camps, where more than 100 Palestinians have already been killed in fighting with IDF forces. In private, Peres is referring to the battle as a "massacre."

IDF officers also expressed grave reservations Monday over the operation in Jenin. "Because of the dangers," they said, "the soldiers are almost not advancing on foot. The bulldozers are simply 'shaving' the homes and causing terrible destruction. When the world sees the pictures of what we have done there, it will do us immense damage."

"However many wanted men we kill in the refugee camp, and however much of the terror infrastructure we expose and destroy there, there is still no justification for causing such great destruction." Blindjustice 05:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Blindjustice - with all due respect, 1 of your refs doesnt work, the 2nd one is a propaganda website and the third link looks like a post on a forum. it's quite possible that haaretz newspaper wrote this down, however, you have to find a normative source and also to write it down in a more newtral way such as stating that haaretz reports that in back rooms peres said... and used the term massacre .. and if you can give the hebrew he used, it would be even a more credible source but enlish would be fine if you just find a proper source. in short, please start out by finding what is considered a WP:RS and we will include the information. Jaakobou 07:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

verify credibility tags

i'm not sure exactly why this edit was made.

camera has already been established as WP:RS and we have no reason to add these tags when there is no reason to suspect their falsehood. i add to this that similar statements, such as the one made by abdel rahman, are cited in other sources and many of the camera notes have been easily directly referenced before. Jaakobou 09:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

According to the wikipedia page for CAMERA: "News media cite CAMERA as an advocate of Israel and discuss the organization's mobilisation for the support of Israel in the form of full-page ads in newspapers , organizing demonstrations, and encouraging sponsor boycotts. Critics of CAMERA call its "non-partisan" claims into question and define its alleged biases." On what basis do you assert that CAMERA has already been established as a reliable source? Eleland 12:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Jaakobou, please do not say that you are removing the tags "per talk" when I just objected on talk and you haven't responded. CAMERA is a partisan activist organization, not a reliable source. It may be appropriate to include CAMERA POV, properly attributed, in a section on media coverage & responses; however CAMERA must not be used to source highly contentious claims. Indeed, I would have been well within editing policy to totally remove all information sourced to CAMERA, however I did not wish to open that can of worms so I compromised with verify tags. Now you're telling me, in effect, that compromising with "pro-Israel" editors is futile. Very discouraging. Eleland 13:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

May I direct you two here: Why don't we get their advice on how to handle CAMERA? Kyaa the Catlord 13:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

If you or Jaakobou want to post, give it a whirl. I'm not going to, as I don't see any room for debate here; CAMERA is a nonreliable source. Eleland 13:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

As a non-involved party in this article, I have to say that Camera does not appear to be a reliable source. It claims it counters bias in media reports about the Middle East, but a browse through its articles show all of them to be "correcting" anti-Israel bias; I did not find one case where they "corrected" any pro-Israel bias. Number 57 13:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

You are confusing 'partisan' with 'non reliable'. The two are not same, or even similar. CAMERA meets every requirement WP has for reliable sources. Isarig 14:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Number 57, please stop misrepresenting the level of your involvement. Jaakobou 14:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Jaakobou, please stop misrepresenting other users. I have not contributed to the Battle of Jenin article; I have merely made a non-partisan suggestion on the talk page for solving the edit war which you are participating in. Number 57 14:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

no one forced you to make statements like As a non-involved party in this article which could be interpreted as a statement that you are an outside NPOV observer. you can always just start with I have to say that Camera.... Jaakobou 14:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Eleland - allow me to make a small correction to your statement about how i justified my edit. it was verifiability of camera (see talk). it doesn't matter what side a source is supporting as long as it's references and statements are reliable. for the same reason, i cannot remove The Guardian articles or the BBC for that matter despite their anti-israel bias. do you have anything beyond "they say they support israel" or "they only correct anti-israeli POV" to justify your claim that the source in unreliable? Jaakobou 14:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I have a very good reason for justifying its exclusion: they claim they counter bias in media reports about the Middle East, but a browse through its articles show all of them to be "correcting" anti-Israel bias and no cases of "correcting" any pro-Israel bias. If that isn't a strong argument for bias, what is? Number 57 14:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

That is not a good reason to exclude it. You are confusing 'partisan' with 'non reliable'. The two are not same, or even similar. CAMERA meets every requirement WP has for reliable sources. Isarig 14:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

we're not discussing bias, we're discussing reliability in report. to repeat myself: do you have anything beyond "they say they support israel" or "they only correct anti-israeli POV" to justify your claim that the source in unreliable? Jaakobou 14:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Since a newly involved editor now declares that "CAMERA meets every requirement WP has for reliable sources", which I find hugely dubious, I've taken the issue to WP:RS noticeboard per Kyaa's suggestion. Eleland 16:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - It should be glaringly obvious that articles entitled "A Study in Palestinian Duplicity and Media Indifference", containing such material as "despite copious evidence of their blatant lying ... refuting their fictitious 'massacre'" have no place in the reference list of an enyclopedia. This article already lets us down badly on a good number of counts - let's not drag it down even further with this kind of highly dubious and unpleasant nonsense. PalestineRemembered 10:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment OOC: I wish I could use this line of reasoning on Bill O'Reilly or Anne Coulter's articles. I'd wash away all those FAIR and Media Matters for America references in a heartbeat. Kyaa the Catlord 10:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Response - if you see links in the encyclopedia to anything as angry and partisan and unreliable as CAMERA, I promise you I'll support you getting them out. Have a look at this CAMERA article, laced with weasel words of denial over expulsions and massacres and eg trickery intended to defend Jonathan Pollard. PalestineRemembered 14:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
      • note, PR, you have full right to maintain your personal POVs, however, this article is signed by a person with a PhD and your treatment of this text is somewhere in the highly POV realm. it would be as though i would delete all finklstein sources from wikipedia because i feel he often lies to make his anti-israel points. Jaakobou 16:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
  • comment, I note that we also have a link in this article to "Jenin Camp Official Web Site" (currently ref no. 8) and also have a BBC article that is titled "Jenin 'massacre evidence growing'" (currently ref no. 30). i agree that if the originals are found, then the camera link can be replaced and i have no problem with people working to find the originals, however, the justiication to tag the source as unreliable like it's been done in this case is invalid considering that most of it's statements have already been easily referenced and also that most of the others are already repeated in similar fashion on other references. Jaakobou 12:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

To Kyaa re "OOC": Um, I just checked both articles and found no references to FAIR in O'Reilly and precisely one in Coulter, which was attributed inline as a POV commentary statement by the group. Coulter's bio has Media Matters cited once as well, on a completely non-contentious background point which is also sourced to the Washington Times. Media Matters was cited once on O'Reilly for a quote that can hardly be called "contentious". Oh, there we go, took me five minutes to find the YouTube clip and another 4 minutes, 4 seconds to watch up to the point where he says it. (Worst 4m 40s of my life.) Looks like your point is completely baseless - which I already knew, because I have fought losing battles to allow FAIR sourcing even with attribution as a POV commentary source! And, by the way, isn't OOC used to mean "out of character" on fantasy role-playing chats? I must say you seem confused here, "Catlord". Eleland 18:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

This is fascinating. Kyaa points out that media monitoring groups who are just as partisan as CAMERA (but in an opposite direction, of course) are used to bash figures in the American conservative movement. She names 2 such groups and 2 such articles, as non-exhaustive examples. You confirm that on both of the articles, those partisan groups are used, in one case not even as a secondary source for an uncontention claim (as is the case here for CAMERA), but as a POV commentary, yet have the audacity to call Kyaa's claims 'completely baseless'. And on top of that, you reveal that you have pushed to include more such sources in other articles as well and lost. Perhaps you should spend some time editing the Hypocricy article. Isarig —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 19:16, August 21, 2007 (UTC).

I find it hard to believe that you really don't understand what I meant by "attributed inline as a POV commentary." It is usual and normal to include POV statements from partisan groups, attributed as such. For example, "according to CAMERA, a pro-Israel media monitoring group, 'European media and particularily London newspapers were completely duped by the nefarious propaganda'", or, 'according to FAIR, a leftist media watch organization, Chavez was the victim of 'blatant distortions and misrepresentations based on contempt for socialism itself'". Those are POV statements that might well belong in an encyclopedia, because we include POVs as long as they are properly attributed. This article is using CAMERA to source matters of fact, which is completely different. Kyaa's claims were, indeed, completely baseless, to go by the examples he provided. No contentious claims of fact were sourced to FAIR or MMfA, only one harmless biographical point which had another source, and one extremely well-known quote which was played and replayed on national television. Your final claim, about hypocrisy, is incomprehensible and may constitute a personal attack. Please withdraw it. Eleland 19:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Let me be perfectly comprehensible then: when someone admits to pushing for one kind of partisan sourced to be included in WP articles, while at the same time calling for the exclusion of other partisan sources (of the opposite side of the political fence) on the grounds of their alleged partisanship, he is displaying a double standard called hypocricy. This is what you are doing. I have no intention of withdrawing this, unless you clarify your actions. The usage of CAMERA in this article is for the same kind of non-contentious claims of fact which have another source, namely the primariy one cited by CAMERA, and are well-known quotes which were played and replayed on national television or appeard in widley circulted newspapers. Isarig 19:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Excluding CAMERA is unfair, and accomplishes nothing. It is an established, viable credible group. the best response would be to provide balancing information from similar groups on the other side of the issue. That is the most beneficial course for articles on this set of issues. When dealing with controversial topics like this one, it is not helpful to try to create objectivity where none exists. A viable, useful alternative is to use balanced sources from both sides. Otherwise, we will continually edit-war over viable, credible groups which belong to one side or the other (like we're doing right now). --Steve, Sm8900 19:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

It might be worth stating that the encyclopedia has policies, one of which is "Reliable Sources". CAMERA is a source that distorts it's material, as I've demonstrated above over the Dayan article (and you can do the same for yourself over the Jonathan Pollard article).

It's entirely possible that there are opposing sources that do the same, they need to be identified and eliminated too. I've offered to help Kyaa deal with such material. PalestineRemembered 19:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Are all advocacy groups or media watchdog groups for specific political groups views considered distorted? What about FAIR? What about the ADL? What about Greenpeace? What about the Democratic PArty? Why should credible groups be excluded just because they have a political constituency? I disagree with that approach. --Steve, Sm8900 19:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

None of those groups would be suitable sources for factual claims. All of those groups would be suitable sources for POV commentary statements, properly attributed in the text. Claims of fact should be sourced to media or academic publications, not to partisan pressure groups. Eleland 20:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, but I think they can be sourced when commenting on others's partisan statements. --Steve, Sm8900 21:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

We're here to write an encyclopedia, we should not be retailing "comment on others partisan statements". We should be using what Reliable Sources claim about various events. There are cases when we could be forced to use sources that are highly partisan and appear to distort things for statements of facts that are not too "surprising". I'm not sure that that arises in this case, and we should certainly not be using organisations so blatantly partisan and provably misleading as CAMERA unless we really have to do so. (There may be Palestinian sources which are not worth inclusion too - but at the moment we're excluding the considered statements of the Palestinian Authority, ditto the UN and EU, which is another reason why this article is still such a disgrace).

If you're scouting round for areas in which this article urgently needs improvement, look at this section, where it becomes clear that "context" does not belong in the lead of the article. Despite this being something one of our fellow editors thought was worth checking, no effort has been made to fix it and I'm trying not to interfere. PalestineRemembered 21:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I see. So if Palestinian advocacy groups, or human rights groups, or protest groups are able to list and describe Israeli human rights violations in detail, then in your opinion those statements have no place anywhere in Misplaced Pages? I assume you would disagree with that statement. Then please don't deny the right to add statements of advocacy groups and other partisan groups.

Please remember that Misplaced Pages is the product of continual compromises and mutual understandings. i suggest we not make blanket statements dengirating the value of anyone's material or information. I respect the heartfelt concerns and opions held by the Palestinian side, even when i may disagree totally. So I ask that others respect my concerns and opinions as well. I think your statement itself was very respectful and judicious, but the result of excluding such sources totally on a blanket basis would be to exclude the concerns of one side or the other. --Steve, Sm8900 13:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, if I have to say this one more time, I'm going to explode. This isn't about quoting CAMERA for POV-advocacy statements! It's totally fine to include their comments and concerns, but I strongly oppose any use of CAMERA for factual claims. "The pro-Israeli group CAMERA condemned Palestinian Minister Abu's 'blatant libel and gross distortions'" is one thing. "Palestinian Minister Abu said 'They are burying children in mass graves'" is another. We need to do better than a partisan advocacy group which devotes itself to quote-farming the enemy and considers "context" equivalent to "pro-Israel apologism". Eleland 18:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Your hypocritical stance about using partisan sources for factual claims when the partisans are FAIR, Media Matters and the like, but excluding them when the partisans are pro-Israel was noted. That aside, there is no reason whatsoever not to use CAMERA as a secondary source for quotes made in well known nespapers, by international press agencies and on broadcast televsion, where the primary source is noted by CAMRERA and can be easily verified by anyone wishing to validate it. Isarig 18:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Well then, I've officially exploded. What I said was, "I have fought losing battles to allow FAIR sourcing even with attribution as a POV commentary source!" You know very well this isn't "hypocritical", when I have been making it clear in practically every post that I have no problem citing CAMERA... with attribution as a POV commentary source. Eleland 19:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

If you ever catch me using a source as bad as CAMERA, please tell me. If you ever see a source as bad as CAMERA used in any article, then tell me and I'll help you to get it back and try to get articles back on track.

In the meantime, there are people here much less experienced than you, and it would be nice to help them become even more productive editors with explanations of policy, examples of where it can be misunderstood and so forth. PalestineRemembered 18:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

You're kidding, right? The bulk of your contributions to WP's mainspace is based on the most extreme, most baised and partsian web sites around, from the website of a partisan group claiming Israel knowingly attacked a US ship, through the extreme left website of organizations calling for civil disobediance, to the blatantly one-sided organization which is your namesake. Isarig 19:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations, you must have trawled my entire editing history to find these cases, because two of them date from my very first days editing I-P. And yet ..... you've referenced three statements that are almost certainly correct (because they're highly specific and factual, and each would be extremely easy to "falsify" if they were wrong). Your anger is puzzling indeed - because more than the statements just being "100% true", the web-sites themselves are far better than the recklessly bad (and angry) articles of CAMERA. Let's just look at each of the diffs:

• Quoting a group of US servicemen (who have checked rather carefully) as saying: "Virtually every knowledgeable American official ..... is on public record calling the attack deliberate and the Israeli story untrue."
• Quoting a group of Israelis (who have checked rather carefully) as saying: "The "Black Flag Defense" has failed to protect any IDF serviceman from conviction for "refusing to obey orders" (in 50 years).
• And referencing photographs of pages from one of Benny Morris's books (of which I have a different edition).

Compare the sources I've used with CAMERA. The very article you insist on referencing is entitled "A Study in Palestinian Duplicity and Media Indifference" - and contains such gems as "despite copious evidence of their blatant lying ... refuting their fictitious 'massacre'". It might be time to stop using such very poor material in the encyclopedia, it's clearly not an acceptable RS. And you never know, switching to texts filled with civilised discourse and much better information might suit you. PalestineRemembered 21:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Your rationalizations for why your prefered partisan sources are 'almost certainly correct' are amusing, but do not change the fact that you are repeatedly using baised, partisan and extremist sources on WP articles you edit, so to hear you complain about CAMERA as a source is comical, and for you to self-righteously pretend you do not use such sources and ask to be alerted about it if you do, is disingenious, to say the least. Rest assured that those using CAMERA as a source feel about it just the way you feel about your partisan sources - they are convinced that what CAMERA says is 'almost certainly correct' , they argue convincingly that CAMERA quotes are 'highly specific and factual, and each would be extremely easy to "falsify" if they were wrong' etc... That you can't see the double standard you are using here is amazing. Isarig 22:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

All three of my uses of non-RS sources (which all look rather reasonable) were ruthlessly exised from the articles in question (quite likely by yourself). You've proved the opposite of what you set out to do. You insisted on the erasure of points from such non-RS sources (quoted/used in perfectly straightforward and non-controversial ways), now you insist on including these highly contentious/"surprising" claims from CAMERA PalestineRemembered 10:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Isarig, stop trying to make this into some kind of monkey-trial of PalestineRemembered's past edits; your distortions and evasions are looking increasingly unsustainable. The emerging consensus on AN/RS is clear: groups like CAMERA may be appropriate as POV commentary sources, but are generally not acceptable as factual sources. Since you claim that these quotations were widely reported in papers & TV stations, go ahead and find those sources. You may have some trouble, though, considering that many of the supposed "quotes" from CAMERA yield zero Google hits outside of CAMERA: Eleland 02:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

• comment - we've already found direct links to quite a lot of that article's references, i find your comment/google-search misleading and incorrect to a fault. p.s. i don't mind replacing camera with originals when they are found. Jaakobou 11:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
• p.s. your representation of "the concensus" (as presented by the uninvolved editors) on the WP/RS discussion is innaccurate as well. Jaakobou 11:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how those google searches could be misleading. I took what CAMERA had in quotes, and searched for it. And there's no such idiom in english as "incorrect to a fault". I'm glad that you've managed to confirm some of CAMERA's quotes and replace them with originals (something I started working on several days ago). That doesn't mean that we can just leave contentious and unconfirmed quotes sitting around untouched. Eleland 12:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and as for WP/RS, I have noticed only two uninvolved editors commenting (three if you count Nishidani) and they both said that CAMERA should be used with caution if at all. You responded to Hornplease, who said "Using only quotes available through a single article in an advocacy website leaves us open to the risk of unbalanced reporting," so I trust you read the full comment. DGG opined, "CAMERA is obviously not a generally reliable source for controversial material." Both suggested that the best remedy is finding the originals, of which I also approve. Eleland 12:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Eleland, you're misrepresenting both their words with selective reading/interpretation and also user:nishidani's level of involvement in ME articles. this behavior is unsuitable and should be avoided if you don't want other editors to escalate their reactions to you. Jaakobou 15:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

p.s. your google search really shows nothing about the factualness of the quote and the fact remains that similar quotes are already referenced, thus we have no reason to suspect these are false. Jaakobou 15:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Jaakobou - this question has been taken to the RS noticeboard for consideration, where it should have been discussed by non-involved editors from the community. It's difficult to understand why experienced editors from here immediately weighed in, expressing the exact same views they'd expressed on this page. But there was some outside comment, and it is clear that very great caution must be taken with referencing to CAMERA. Please abide by the consensus reached there and do not use CAMERA for material that cannot be verified (as we're informed is the case here).

In addition, you earlier raised the question of whether "context" should be in the lead of this article, and received an unequivocable answer, it does not belong. No equivalent articles have it. It is not the purpose of this TalkPage to have endless discussions about policy and then not apply it. Please make the corrections to the relevant section that the answers to your question indicated. PalestineRemembered 15:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

If I have misinterpreted those comments, go ahead and point out how and where, and tell me what you believe they said. In addition, please note that I said "two uninvolved editors commenting (three if you count Nishidani)", which clearly implies that there could be valid reasons for excluding Nishidani as an "uninvolved editor". It is very frustrating to laboriously explain these things - perhaps inexperience in English is causing communication problems?

My Google searches were certainly not intended as some kind of "proof of fabrication" on CAMERA's part. It's entirely possible that all those quotes were accurate and presented in context. My Google searches do show that quite probably none of these quotes appear anywhere on the public Internet except on CAMERA's site, which is significant if not conclusive.

In addition, please acknowledge that there is no "burden of proof" on editors to disprove contentious poorly sourced information. It doesn't matter whether 50 or 80 or 99% of these quotes turn out to be accurate. Imagine what a smear job one could do on Israel or Zionism if allowed 20% fabricated or dubious quotations. Even if we somehow knew that these words were quoted accurately, we don't know the context, we don't know whether the speaker immediately retracted, corrected, or amended his comment, etc, etc ad nauseum. Eleland 16:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

It is neither conclusive, nor significant, nor even correct. Of the 3 examples you cited as 'none of these quotes appear anywhere on the public Internet except on CAMERA's site" - one appears on CNN's web site, and is identical with the section quoted by CAMERA: . The other two are CAMERA translations of a French press release, and a German article, so it is not surprising that you are unable to find the exact English text. This article used CAMERA as a source for more than half a dozen quotes, and each and evrey one was found to be 100% accurate when compared with the original source. That in itself, is pretty conclusive evidence ethat CAMERA is a relaible source. Isarig 17:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

What I said was, "My Google searches do show that quite probably none of these quotes appear anywhere on the public Internet except on CAMERA's site", and now you've quoted me while omitting the "quite probably". Your point about the translated text is interesting, although Agence France Presse publishes extensively in English and CAMERA did not indicate that the quotation appeared in French or in a press release.

Your concept of what constitutes a reliable source is highly idiosyncratic and does not seem to be grounded in Misplaced Pages policies. I don't see where on WP:RS it says, "If a group is cited for more than six quotes, and these quotations are found to be accurate, then it's a reliable source." And in any case, there are still four quotes sourced to CAMERA which are not sourced elsewhere - so where do you get this "100% accurate" claim? If it's 100% accurate, replace the damn CAMERA citations and you can put a stop to this whole thing right now. All I have ever asked is that quotes sourced to CAMERA alone should be tagged with {{verify credibility}} and preferably replaced with their originals. The decision by "pro-Israel" editors to turn this into a protracted jihad is maddeningly childish. Eleland 17:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

My concept of what constitutes a reliable source is grounded in both WP policy , and in reality. Those asserting a source is unreliable or questionable should explain why, and prove it. With regards to the CAMERA quotes, those opposed to its use claimed it is partisan, and questioned whether or not the quotes are real. If they are unable to point to any quote which is fabricated, and when the quotes they do check turn out to be 100% accurate, that is a good indication of the reliability of the source. If you want to spend time finding the original sources - go for it. But please don't interject POV tags for those you haven't found or habven't searched for, when they are non-contentious and cite the original source. Isarig 17:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Once more: there is no "burden of disproof" when it comes to reliability. WP:V says that "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source..." which would seem to extend logically and naturally to the question of source reliability. In any case, I would refer you to the reasoned comments made at the RS noticeboard, which you have not addressed. As to finding the original sources, you know very well that this tiff started when I replaced some rather poor sources with more reliable ones, and noted that I couldn't find originals of some of CAMERA's quotes. Stop trying to turn this back on me, or PalestineRemembered, or whoever else you can find. We aren't here to do your work for you. Eleland 18:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The time is rapidly approaching where Isarig's understanding of policy will need to be verified by ArbCom. What he's said there bears no relation to policy, it's the inverse of the same. This matter has been taken to the RS noticeboard, where (despite the aggressive intrusion of already involved editors who should have known better), the consensus is that CAMERA is dubious. Other editors have tried and failed to verify the quotes from this source. Verifiability is a core policy of Misplaced Pages, and cannot be overturned in this fashion. PalestineRemembered 19:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

suggestions to take this discussion out of the current state and help advance the article. Eleland, please start a new subsection with 2 statements from the camera source that you feel are inaccurate and you are contesting their accuracy. i will do my best to alleviate your concerns. Jaakobou 22:54, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I do not exactly "contest" these quotes; I have no particular reason to believe they are false or out of context. I simply want to see them verified. That's why I tagged them . I contest their inclusion in the Misplaced Pages article. There are currently 3 quotes sourced to CAMERA alone and one to CAMERA plus a Washington Times piece by a freelancer who is mainly known for magically producing "scoop" quotations of Arab / Muslim groups in the Mideast, which nobody else can verify, from his desk in London, England.

For your convenience, the quotes and paraphrases are:

• April 6 - in an Arab League emergency meeting Nabil Shaath, at the time a Palestinian chief negotiator, delivers a speech in which he claims the IDF soldiers were commanded to completely destroy Jenin and compares Israeli actions in the West Bank towns of Jenin and Nablus to the Sabra and Shatila Massacre.

• April 7 - Saeb Erekat, a Palestinian minister and chief Palestinian negotiator is quoted in the Washington Times making the first allegation of a massacre made in a Western media publication.

In addition to the source's credibility problems (both CAMERA and the Washington Times), the "first allegation" claim does not appear in the cited source.

• NBC News hears from Secretary-General of the Palestinian Authority Abdel Rahman that "over 250 Palestinians killed".

In addition to the credibility problem, it is not clear that CAMERA meant this quote to be applied to Jenin or to "Defensive Shield" generally. Whether they do or not, we haven't the means to determine this because we don't have the original quote. Do you see what I'm getting at with the maintenance tags?

• April 30 - Qadoura Mousa, the director of Yasser Arafat's Fatah movement for the northern West Bank set the total dead at 56 after a team of four Palestinian-appointed investigators reported to him in his Jenin office.

In this case CAMERA is simply quoting and reproducing the Times piece, but I certainly am ready to question the credibility of Paul Martin (or "Sayed Anwar" when he's writing under his misleading pen-name) at least as much as CAMERA.

Anyway, I appreciate that finally a pro-Israel editor is willing to engage productively. I just wish it hadn't taken all this drama. The huge volume of text generated over a couple of maintenance tags should be an embarrassment to all involved. Eleland 00:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Eleland, if you wish to run an investigation about Paul Martin, it would be best to run it off the pages of wikipedia. for the actual text, i will start the subsection tomorrow and see what i can get to support and/or replace the reference, hopfully it will be satisfactory.
side note: some of the finest quotes about israeli "attrocities" came from these desks in london, england. Jaakobou 02:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Jaakobou - before we see another attempt at an end-run around established Misplaced Pages policy, lets get back to the discussion you started on "context" in the lead. Much of what is currently in there needs to come out, per the discussion - lets get that part right first. (Needless to say, the discussion on CAMERA was completed at the noticeboard, it's not suitable for very much atall, certainly not tertiary references for sources that nobody can find). PalestineRemembered 07:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

PR, i've already given you my points regarding your perspective on this issue and this is not the proper subsection for this discussion. to be frank, i don't think there is any proper subsection for this discussion unless you want to take it to 3rd Opinion/RfC. Jaakobou 08:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

April 6

in this section, we're trying to validate this part as much as possible, to alleviate concerns regarding it's factuality (two more sections will be opened in the future. Jaakobou 09:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

April 6 - in an Arab League emergency meeting Nabil Shaath, at the time a Palestinian chief negotiator, delivers a speech in which he claims the IDF soldiers were commanded to completely destroy Jenin and compares Israeli actions in the West Bank towns of Jenin and Nablus to the Sabra and Shatila Massacre.

article source: Deutsche Presse-Agentur, April 6 (on CAMERA)

Validation notes - result:source validated

article title: "Arabs set terms for meeting with Powell"
published by: Deutsche Presse-Agentur
Date of Publication: April 6
Quote Validation: checked.

source availability: only for purchase - cost: 25 euro.

validating editor - Jaakobou 09:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

discussions/notes

• question - Can you explain what this means? Did you pay for this report and are you personally verifying what it says (what does it say?). If this is the case, it would be useful if you provided a photograph of the relevant portion. When I was challenged over another case (in which, incidentally, the genuineness of my claim was well known - unlike this case), I sent a picture of myself with the reference in my hand to a neutral intermediary. PalestineRemembered 10:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  • reply - i did not pay for the article, but i did make the verification. please try to assume good faith. Jaakobou 10:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I asked you - What does this reference mean and what does it say? None of it is clear from what you're saying. It would be terrible if people simply inserted nonsense and thereby made all work on this article impossible, instead of merely excruiatingly difficult.

Secondly, when I added "After the November 1944 assassination of Lord Moyne, the Jewish Agency Executive publically condemned the act and declared a series of measures against what they called "terrorist organizations" in Palestine. In 1975, Israel recovered the bodies of Lord Moyne's 2 assassins in exchange for 20 Arab prisoners. The bodies "lay in Jerusalem's Hall of Heroism and were given a military burial on Mt Herzl" ." I was required to produce a photograph of myself with the book in which this was cited (and this despite the facts alluded to were very well known, having caused outrage in Parliament). I'm asking you to present some form of similar evidence (I can advise you of the neutral witness who carried out this verification for me).

Thirdly, let me remind you of WP policy of verification. I might start counting the number of occasions I've had to remind you of this, a core principle of the encyclopedia. PalestineRemembered 12:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

1) i don't have an answer to "what does it mean". 2) i have no intention to pay 25 euros to be able to notify you on what it says beyond the verified given quote. 3) when some people show up, we'll deal with it. please refrain from figurative speech, the implications are quite uncivil and you've been duly noted about these matters. 4) i don't see your old edits as source for example or discussion. 5) i suggest you discuss this verifiability issue with your mentor. Jaakobou 14:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Jaakobou what the heck are you doing. You don't have the article, you didn't read the article, and you didn't say so until prompted. This is borderline academic fraud — I'm not going to accuse you of that because I think you just don't know what you're doing, rather than being malicious. But I urge you to take down these silly "Validation: confirmed" type headers. Eleland 16:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Eleland, if you notice, i did get the full details of the article that are publicly available without purchase, including purchasing price. is it so hard to believe that getting the information is very easy, we've easily found all the others so what makes these quotes so special?

p.s. if you're "not" going to accuse me of something, you should maybe not write it down. Jaakobou 20:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

It would be nice if we could get those details too, and some way to confirm them. But anyway, it doesn't make a difference. We need to see the full quote in context or else we have only CAMERA's word to go on, and most editors are not prepared to go on their word for such issues. I said it was borderline academic fraud, fraud requires intent, you simply didn't understand that by saying you'd "validated" the quote you implied that you'd actually, you know, obtained the quote and read it. Again, please take the headers down. I hate editing comments but I'm willing to do it because you have designed it to look like some kind of official process and I don't want anyone to be mislead. Eleland 21:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Eleland, i wanted to see the full details also but i was denied the option. i did however make the full validation about this quote and source. i suggest you go over WP:AGF and/or that you dedicate 25 euros. i note you again that the article's full title is (not on the camera source) is given.

p.s. if you insist, you can open up a wiki discussion on WP/RSN, but to be frank, i consider these polemics disruptive after you've already noted that you don't believe the quotes "are false or out of context", and i'm validating them still. Jaakobou 22:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I said that "I have no particular reason to believe they are false or out of context." (em mine just now). I have no way of knowing. Apparently, nobody here has any way of knowing, because nobody here has seen the article. We need to see the full quote in context or else we have only CAMERA's word to go on, and most editors are not prepared to go on their word for such issues. Also, is it possible for you to link to the page which shows the article details, or to provide instructions for finding it if it's not linkable? Or did you take some other action like a phone call to verify that the publisher did have an article of that title on that date? Please elaborate. Eleland 18:45, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

phone call. Jaakobou 19:22, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

offtopic

Jaakobou - you called for a somewhat similar (but more important) exercise over what material belongs in the lead, should it have "context". It was proved that the lead should not "contain context". Now you've been informed of this fundamental way that the encyclopedia works (backed by a reading of WP:LEAD) can you please make the necessary corrections. Please do this before we waste still more time on relatively minor details such as this one. Incidentally, we still don't even have the total death-toll claimed by the PA and published by the UN in this article - it's absurd to be delving into this kind of rhetorical detail when such glaring factual omissions remain. PalestineRemembered 10:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

PR, i believe i've replied to this twice already. i'm only interested in promoting this article, not in polemics. if this issue is of great concern to you, i suggest (a second time) you request a 3rd opinion or an RfC. Jaakobou 10:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Jaakobou - you asked us all to consider how the lead of this article should be treated. You got your answer, you've not put it into effect (and I'm fairly sure you've never explained why you did not do this). Before we go through yet another long rambling discussion (this time on a fairly minor detail), please demonstrate your commitment to improving some of the major failings of this article.

And don't suggest going to RfC over it, because we just did that over the use of CAMERA as an RS. The community said "no it's not an RS", but the related sections have still not been brought into compliance with WP policy. Please do so before wasting all our time on another discussion. PalestineRemembered 12:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

PR, i believe i've replied to this three times already. Jaakobou 14:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

extras

• palestinian based international press center with media accounts on the Jenin battle. (offtopic)

April 7

in this section, we're trying to validate this part as much as possible, to alleviate concerns regarding it's factuality. Jaakobou 10:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

April 7 - Saeb Erekat, a Palestinian minister and chief Palestinian negotiator is quoted in the Washington Times making the first allegation of a massacre made in a Western media publication.

article source: Betsy Pisik of The Washington Times quoting Saeb Erekat (on Camera).

Validation notes - result:source validated

article title: "Israel warns Lebanon, Syria they risk a new border war"
published by: Betsy Pisik, THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Date of Publication: April 7
Quote Validation: checked.

full quote text:

´This is not fighting between armies, but a massacre in Jenin camp,´ chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat said yesterday on CNN, comparing the situation to the 1982 massacre of hundreds of Pakestinians in Lebanese refugee camps Sabra and Shatila.

source availability: first 3 paragraphs free, the rest for purchase - cost: 4.95 USD: - link.

validating editor - Jaakobou 00:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

discussions/notes

offtopic

User:Jaakobou - the problem you have is exactly what you've described - reports that "a massacre did not occur have received scant attention in the Western news media". In other words, most of the world still thinks of it as the "Jenin massacre", and that phrase should be prominently in the article (in fact, it should be the title of the article). Note - I've listed the really severe problems of this article, and I didn't even bother pointing out the serious POV of the current title! Are you now prepared to agree to this article being edited to WP policy? PalestineRemembered 20:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

PR, please stop using WP as a soapbox, i'm starting to lose my patience. Jaakobou 20:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment - this is the problem you're up against. The Western news media has indeed paid scant attention to reports that this was not a massacre. That's why this article should be entitled Jenin massacre and entire POV sections removed. I've made lists of really serious problems with this article, I've just never got round to pointing out the serious problem with the name of the article itself. PalestineRemembered 21:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

extras

• - Betsy Pisik, The Washington Times, 2002/05/04
  • Abu Ali, who has spent his entire life in the refugee camp. "I know that 500 people died here, and took the bodies away before they left,"
  • Jenin's anger and misery have been broadcast around the world, fanning hatred of Israel and support for the Palestinian Authority. But reports that a massacre did not occur have received scant attention in the Western news media. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaakobou (talk • contribs) 10:55, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

Happy Flowers Fun Time

Tell me, what basis could there be for changing "According to Palestinian sources, the European Union, and international human rights organizations, the camp and its dwellings were attacked indiscriminately..." to "Palestinians claimed that Israel indiscriminately and deliberately bombed all the houses...". Prima facie, this looks like an attempt to downplay the level of damage and, indirectly, to mock the Palestinian claims. in addition, "deliberately bombed all the houses" is sourced to a beta-version machine translation from Arabic which is barely intelligible. The full quote is: "Formed houses that residents believe it is safe, a direct target of Israeli forces deliberately bombed all the houses are, without exception, destroying hundreds of them have been leveled by bulldozers and missiles and land, while the majority of houses are uninhabitable because of the size of the massive destruction inflicted upon her." Eleland 21:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

1. i love the NPOV title of this subsection.
2. if you go over the sources and note who said what, talk about selectiveness could get really interesting.
3. if you think an edit with the guardian's obscene bias can last in the intro you're probably mistaken, i'm not going to change it yet, i'm giving you a cahnce to improve it first.
4. i'm reminding you that quotes about explosives in civillian areas are in existance, and when you rewrite you should keep thatinmind when mentioning damages to the camp.

-- Jaakobou 23:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Titles of sections on talk pages are not required to be NPOV. Your accusation of selectiveness is worthless without elaboration. I cited the Guardian for an extremely widely reported incident; or just do the damn Google search yourself: there are 165 hits for "Ron Kitrey" + "apparently hundreds". If you can find reliable published sources which assert that Palestinian explosives were responsible for any significant portion of the destruction to the camp, include it, otherwise it's original research by synthesis. Do note that the line "causing extensive damage", referring to the Israeli bulldozers, is a direct quote from IDF Brigadier Eival Giladi speaking in an official capacity. You appear to be arguing with your own side here. Eleland 03:19, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

all this is polemics. i noted to you to consider fixing up your version before i get around to examining it fully, i think you already know some of the issues which will be contested but i don't see the point of running such discussions on this ridiculously titled subsection. Jaakobou 04:11, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I do not see how anything I've said remotely approaches meeting the definition of a polemic. I have altered the title to dodge your lame, lame excuse for not engaging in discussion. Happy now? Eleland 04:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

i'm on Happy Flowers Fun Time. Jaakobou 07:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

ill help you out with a couple things i'm requesting you to re-examine and fix: (1) comparing the palestinian massacre claimes with one IDF person with a generic estimate (which was reverted(!)) close to the end of fighting (give a good look at the dates of each statement), meanning that it came much after the news were already stating bogus numbers ad not the other way around. (2) placeing the blame of the damages squarly on the IDF (checkup the UN source and the term "widely"). (3) placing the statements by palestinian officials with their repetitions by other sources on the same level. Jaakobou 15:30, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

1: No such comparison is made, although IDF publicist Capt. Jacob Dallal, whom I cite, does make it very clearly. I'm not sure what you mean by a "generic" estimate, and both the Sydney Morning Herald and the IDF Captain describe numerous inflated Israeli estimates. Please read the "references" section and explain why you think you know better. 2: Again, the phrase "extensive damage" is explicitly used by an IDF general with intimate knowledge of the events, referring to armoured bulldozers. The word "widely" does not appear in the material I rewrote. I checked up the EU submission to the UN source and I can't make out a reading which suggests that the blame for the damages does not lie on the IDF. The idea that the Palestinians blew up their own camp is not only unsupportable by sources, it's a vile libel, in many ways as contemptible as certain infamous historical libels with which we're both familiar. 3: I do not comprehend this objection; I simply don't understand what you're trying to say. 4: A general comment; it is rarely helpful to raise disputes about points which are apparently well sourced without offering other sources which seem to contradict them. This type of discussion wastes time and effort and interferes with the development of the article. Because I know that you and other editors may disagree with some of the points raised, and because I expect that mainstream international media reports would be challenged as anti-Israel, I made a successful effort to source all contentious claims to Israeli or clearly pro-Israeli sources. Unfortunately, it seems that this has made little difference. Eleland 18:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

very well, i assume we'll get around to each of the three issues (and others maybe) when i find a little extra time for it. meantime i suggest you at least reinspect how you edited the paragraph and reconsider making some of the fixes. Jaakobou 20:12, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Eleland's latest efforts have markedly improved the lead, I think. nadav (talk) 22:28, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

it is an improvement to some extent, but a selective reading of sources on the other. i've raised three main points but i feel we will have to discuss them individually as we are doing with other contenteous issues. btw, since when do we write down whole paragraphs for each reference in the article's body? Jaakobou 23:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I find your recent edits to the lede unhelpful.
"Israel attacked the camp using infantry, tanks, combat helicopters, and armored bulldozers" -> "Israel initially entered the densely populated urban battlefield with infantry and tanks, supported by combat helicopters, and after 13 soldiers died at a deadly ambush, utilized armored bulldozers".
I do not see the rationale for changing "attacked" to "initially entered"; we might as well say that multiple Arab armies "initially entered" Israel in 1948. An attack is an attack, the word does not imply that Israel deliberately targeted civilians, or indeed imply much of anything beyond the fact that Israel initiated a military operation to seize the camp. Furthermore, it is not clear that tanks "initially entered" the camp, or entered at any point — the sources seem to indicate that they were used for fire-support only. The term "densely populated urban battlefield" is highly prejudicial as well as OR#SYN; and the camp was obviously not an "urban battlefield" until the IDF attacked "initially entered" it. "Densely populated" is irrelevant and probably untrue based on reports that most residents evacuated prior to the assault. Finally, this edit is just bad prose. It's been made into a run-on sentence, it utilizes the word "utilize" which is just a pretentious version of "use", and it describes "die in a deadly ambush" — can one die in a non-deadly ambush? Do we describe "deadly infantry and deadly tanks, supported by deadly combat helicopters?"
"ultimately razing around 10% of the camp" -> "resulting in the destruction of around 10% of the widely rigged with explosives camp area."
Prejudicial OR#SYN, sources all say "camp" without any qualifiers about explosives or a specific area. Misleading, because it seems to imply 10% of some specific area rather than 10% of the entire camp. Again, this is an attempt to introduce Israeli POV into a previously neutral sentence. It would be inappropriate to say "10% of the homes of Palestinian families driven out of Israel by Zionist terror in 1947-48", and it is inappropriate to make this claim about explosives.

"Journalists and International groups were banned by the IDF from entering the camp during the fighting, yet many of them reported" has been modified with the word "continuously" which I do not understand at all. The word desired is probably "continually" but again, this is prejudicial OR#SYN designed to emphasize Israeli POV. I realize that the term is used in the Azure magazine source, but this is an editorial opinion piece, and its POV statements should not be introduced directly into the article without attribution. There is also a grave problem with the use of "yet" which predates this edit; this in fact directly contradicts the given IDF sources which describe the reports as a natural consequence of the restrictions.
"These allegations were aired widely in the Arab world, British and European media," -> "These allegations were aired widely in the Arab world and European media (most prominently in the British media)"
No real reason for this edit; it's common in many contexts to exclude Britain from Europe. In any case, simply changing "and European" to "and other European" would do the job without scrambling up the readability and flow.

So I'm reverting it, which is unfortunate; I don't like to revert good faith edits. Eleland 12:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad to see that all differences have been bridged in the past days, and that discussion is now limited to flowers and such:

• I don't believe the analogy holds, as those armies made war on the state itself, not merely on certain elements within it. That said, if we all agree that the "attack" was not aimed at the entire camp, but only at the militants, then why say anything else? I'll try my hand at an alternative wording, but agree with the basic objection to saying 'the camp was attacked'.
• I agree that the sources point to the use of tanks being limited, so perhaps we can come up with another wording that reflects that. Likewise, the use of attack helicopters was also limited, seemingly concurrent with the bulldozers and change of tactics.
• I agree that we can find better phrasing than "urban battlefield", and should ease up on the 'deadly's
• I'm not quite sure what the issue with "continually" is, but we can phrase that differently as well, though regarding the role of the reports, we previously discussed how we must avoid creating a causality in the clause
• While I recall at least one of the references explicitly blaming part of the destruction on the Palestinian bombs, I've used a milder phrasing while I search for the exact wording, as the bulldozers uncontroversially played a significant role.

The lead has generally grown far to large in the last week, and so I've tried to integrate some of the more succinct phrasing present previously, while moving some of the new detail and referencing to the appropriate sections. We must all keep in mind that the lead should be short summary of the rest of the entry, and not engage in extensive details, or of course introduce new information or sourcing not found in the body. Tewfik 06:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

reply by jaakobou due to Eleland full revert:

(1) "Israel attacked the camp using..." -> "Israel initially entered the densely populated urban battlefield with..." : (1.1) the change does not imply anything, same as with "attacked", it is an NPOV statement on how the IDF approached the battle. (1.2) i do believe many of the sources on the article cite that tanks were imobilized to the came and some moved through the streets... anyways, i don't mind if we replaced the word "entered" with "approached" however, i'm sure you would have found it as POV as some other options that i would contest also. (1.3) i used the "azure" ref for the notation that it was indeed a densly populated battle field even before the IDF went in - what part of "hundreds of armed Palestinians who had taken up positions there" and "densely populated urban area filled with hidden explosives." and "few places are less hospitable to an invading army than a densely populated urban battlefield" did you miss in the source you added to the article's intro?

(2) i disagree with how you read into the 10% issue, and i note you that it's 10% of the camp, but only about 1% (or less) of the entire city.

(3) are you really reverting because i used the word 'utilize' instead of 'use' or is it maybe because you havn't read the sources fully ?

- Jaakobou 13:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Jaakobou, you must be aware that there was no battleground until Israel surrounded and attacked the camp. Furthermore, "attack" is the word that RS use to describe what happened. The article has been filled with quite blatant POV - and you've still failed to correct the problems in the lead that your very own new section so elegantly exposed. How about editing this article to policy now you better understand what's intended? PalestineRemembered 20:40, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

i'm well aware of your personal POV and that you haven't bothered to inspect the edit. considering our history on this article, you've been issued a notice regarding the problems of your recent revert. Jaakobou 21:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Jaakobou, please do not describe content dispute edits as "vandalism", as you did in your edit summary. Editors with "personal POVs" are not discouraged from editing Misplaced Pages. Furthermore, you have not addressed these issues substantively. I realize that Azure magazine article used terms substantially equivalent to "densely populated urban battleground"; however we do not cherry-pick POV terms and use them unattributed in this manner. Nobody is disputing that Jenin camp was densely populated (though perhaps not at the time of the incursion) or that it became an urban battleground; we are contesting the use and placement of these terms as prejudicial and POV. If an analogy helps, at least one eminently reliable observer described the destruction in Jenin as "horrific beyond belief", but it would be inappropriate to use such a statement unattributed in Misplaced Pages-voice, since it is not NPOV. Eleland 21:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Eleland, i've explained my notation on this edit to PR and to frank, i don't think you should continue encouraging him. to the issue, i find your rational of "we do not cherry-pick POV terms and use them unattributed" inconsistent with your recent activity of insisting on material when it fits your POV and request it's removal when it does not... should i remind you of the 10% debate? in short, the sources clearly back the edit and i feel your reason for removing the fact that it was a battleground from the intro on the count that stating this fact (which you don't contest and is backed up by the sources) is POV, disturbing. Jaakobou 22:23, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Your example is confusing, since I sourced the 10% claim to Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Gideon Meier and a right-wing pro-Israel American newspaper. That's virtually the direct opposite of my own POV. And I don't know why you believe that "reminding" me about that debate should somehow shame me; I do not believe that I made any editorial errors. Moving on to the current issue, it is often the case that reliable sources use a variety of terms to describe an event, and Misplaced Pages editors must rely on judgement and consensus to decide where and how to use which terms. From "Fairness of Tone" section of WP:NPOV, "Even when a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinion, an article can still radiate an implied stance through either selection of which facts to present, or more subtly their organization." I believe that is the most salient problem, both with the narrow issue in question and with the entire article. Describing a community in which people live, work, raise their children, etc as a "densely populated urban battleground" in such a prominent fashion is a very clear example. If it helps, try and imagine how you would feel about an article opening with, "The 2009 Jaffa martyrdom operation was a successful attack on a city once occupied by Palestinians who were forced into the sea by Zionist terrorists." That would be verifiably true but oh-so-NPOV. The same standards apply here. Eleland 13:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

i'll explain:

if you phrase the sentence in conflict with the sources (who say there was 10% damage without placing direct blame) to say that the IDF razed 10 percent, and ignore this issue when i note you about it. you cannot claim impunity when you later revert my changes that are all based on the words used by references that you added to the intro.

note: if you want to discuss the issues properly, i suggest you start proper subsections, but to be frank, an area is clearly a battle field from the moment militants embed it with explosives and i'm surprised you're trying to make it seem otherwise. Jaakobou 21:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Washington Times: The destruction, pictured graphically on television, appeared linked to Israeli bulldozing of the houses from which the remnant of the resistance

forces were firing. In fact, it covers the size of a large football field and constitutes only about 10 percent of the housing in the camp, and a far smaller proportion of the housing in the city, which was largely left untouched by the Israeli incursion.

ZAHN: And no doubt, you know that when people look at these pictures of the destruction in Jenin, there are some who believe clearly, they say, that the Israelis went too far. Justify this morning what people are looking at here. When they hear reports that offices were systematically destroyed and homes bulldozed over.

MEIR: Look, Paula, I myself went to Jenin. A week ago I was in Jenin and I saw that the devastation out of this first battle was only at 10 percent of the camp.

Note that Meir does not contradict the bulldozer claim, or make any counter-claim that explosives destroyed the houses.

HRW (see refs) says that "More than one hundred of the 140 completely destroyed buildings were in Hawashin district. In contrast to other parts of the camp where bulldozers were used to widen streets, the IDF razed the entire Hawashin district." Amnesty (whose website is experiencing hiccups right now, use Google cache) says "The IDF demolished Palestinian homes in Jenin refugee camp from the beginning of their offensive though, as testimonies and aerial photos show, the razing of the Hawashin quarter took place mostly after 11 April ... the evidence strongly suggests that the fighting had already stopped when most of the demolition of houses took place.

Saying bulldozers "contributed to the destruction of around 10% of the camp" is pretty lame; I recently saw "Jenin Jenin" and I guess we could say that Mohammed Bakri "contributed to the destruction of around 10% of the camp" in the scene where he knocks some glass out of a window. I devoted considerable effort to an impeccably referenced lede, and yet some have shown little compunction in making major factual alterations while using the same citations. For instance, the lede says "The Israeli force consisted primarily of infantry supported by armoured vehicles and ultimately employed attack helicopters and armoured bulldozers as their casualties mounted," but NONE of the references say that; editors have not explained where they got these statements, if indeed they got them anywhere.

Furthermore, I realize that my previous inclusion of selected quotations in the "references" section was slightly non-standard, however, the sources are so large and complex, and the need for rigorous factual accuracy is so clearly not met here, that I believe the quotations vastly improve verifiability. All of this article's manifold problems lead back to the introduction of unattributed statements, and vaguely attributed statements for reasons of POV. Eleland 22:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

looks to me like you're still doing 1+1=2 and only looking at the sources that please your statements and rejecting the ones that don't. p.s. appeared linked to Israeli bulldozing is not a n investigation that says israel is responsible to all the destruction, it's a mere note by a reporter. btw, if you've already seen the "Jenin, Jenin" pseudo documentary... you HAVE to watch the pierre rehov counter film "the road to jenin". Jaakobou 23:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

This article continues to be a disgrace, with huge amounts of relevant information from excellent sources edit-warred out of it. Quibbling over whether the IDF was or was not responsible for the destruction of large areas of the Jenin camp is just another blatant example of this behaviour.

I am astounded to see User:Jaakobou announce to everyone at the CSN discussion on proven sockmaster and (generally agreed) determined edit-warrior User:Isarig that he (Jaakobou) was "trying to promote the article". He tells people that Isarig's edits "were on the same level" as those of myself and User:Eleland, apparently oblivious to the problems that the edit-warring have caused. PalestineRemembered 11:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Eleland, I didn't understand your first comment at all; I'm not sure where I was trying to "shame" you, but a good portion of the comment is arguing against something that I explicitly agreed with you about on Talk, and which I changed based on your previous objection... As far as your second comment, the passage saying "linked" seems to me to confirm my choice of words. I haven't had a chance to search out the reference that discusses the role of Palestinian munitions in the destruction, but the interview that you present is hardly an Israeli declaration that the bulldozers were the only significant factor. Regarding the rest, as you say above, the tanks were only used for fire-support, as made clear in the sources which you have presented: Moreover, the tanks that were finally introduced into the battle were primarily used as armed bases for machine guns, as the tanks “were not allowed to use their main gun for fear of uncontrolled damage.” Perhaps we can find some other method of expressing this nuance, but I think you would agree that an unqualified statement in the lead that "tanks" were used has a great potential to mislead. While I tried to preserve many of the references you used, if you feel that more of them should be included, by all means reinstate them. My primary concern was that the lead had again become far too large and detailed. Tewfik 08:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether tanks fired their main gun or not in this case, but even if they were only used as mobile pill-boxes, it's correct (and easily understood) to say "tanks were used". In the meantime, we have the RS's saying helicopters were "swarming" and their bullets "falling like" rain. That's what belong in the article, along with clips from the bulldozer driver who described how he carried out the destruction. Jaakobou even wrote that last bit up (if very badly) and put it in - it's absurd it's not in there. PalestineRemembered 18:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

POV changes to Amnesty International report

The citation for the Amnesty International report at http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMDE151432002?open&of=ENG-PSE has been changed from the correct title:

"Israel and the Occupied Territories Shielded from scrutiny: IDF violations in Jenin and Nablus"

to the more innocuous:

"Amnesty International report on Jenin & Nablus"

The correct list of AI's conclusions was altered by removing or changing the following:

• Unlawful killings (removed entirely)
• Failure to ensure medical or humanitarian relief (changed to 'inconsistent access to external relief and medical agencies')
• Demolition of houses and property (removed entirely)
• Cutting water and electricity supplies (changed to 'damage to electric and water grids')
• Torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment in arbitrary detention (removed entirely)
• The use of Palestinians for military operations or as "human shields" (changed to 'use of human shields')

In addition, the following text in the first paragraph:

"research included reviewing Israeli High Court cases and examining medical records, statements, and video documentation. Delegates conducted numerous interviews. Testimony and other evidence were cross-checked for accuracy"

is exactly repeated in the third paragraph for no apparent reason.

The full text of AI's conclusions, located at http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMDE151432002?open&of=ENG-PSE is as follows: Blindjustice 17:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

that's a pretty long statement you've made there. instead of such a long copy-pasting, could you please keep your points short about the changes you're interested in achieving? Jaakobou 20:08, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

My point is that the correct title for Amnesty International's report is omitted, and that a number of AI's conclusions are omitted or altered to make the report seem more favorable to the Israeli point of view. Also omitted is the fact that AI concluded that war crimes were committed.

Also, the exact same wording in part of paragraph 1 for this section is repeated in paragraph 3. Is there some reason for this? Blindjustice 01:19, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

The correct title should be used, but I suggest we do so using a citation template. Also, isn't that particular source also cited in the lead? nadav (talk) 01:26, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

We've had just this kind of discussion several times already. Most notably (to my mind), we discussed what should and should not be in the lead. The changes necessary there to bring the article back into line with policy have still not been made. A succession of thoughtful, careful contributors have disappeared from this article as it's been brought home to them that policy may not apply in this area, and in this article in particular. Perhaps ArbCom can be involved and decide whether there are red-lines in the project or not. PalestineRemembered 07:50, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Unless somebody objects, I intend to change the AI section to:

1) remove redundant wording present in paragraph 1 which is repeated paragraph 3,

2) as per nadav, I will include the correct title of AI's report in a citation template. nadav, I could not find AI specifically cited in the lead, maybe it was there once but subsequently removed. There is mention of generic human rights organizationsDoes anybody think it should be cited there?

3) include the full list of AI's conclusions:

• Unlawful killings (currently omitted)
• Failure to ensure medical or humanitarian relief (currently modified)
• Demolition of houses and property (currently omitted)
• Cutting water and electricity supplies (currently modified)
• Torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment in arbitrary detention (currently omitted)
• The use of Palestinians for military operations or as "human shields" (currently modified)

4) include the fact that AI believes war crimes were committed during the battle, which is currently omitted from the AI section. Blindjustice 07:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

comment - i don't mind these changes as long as it's written in a paragraph and not as a shopping list and as long as it's written properly (citations and NPOV). while you're at it though, i request you also insert the proper name of the Camera article. Jaakobou 07:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Looks good. PalestineRemembered 19:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Genocide II

as i've stated before, i intended to leave this issue out until i make a deeper inspection. i present some sources and hope to hear some perspectives and opinions on these sources. Jaakobou 04:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

the previous talk about this can be found here: .

sources

1) (translated) , (original)

"The cry of distress : Israeli army committed genocide in the Jenin refugee"

2) (translated), (original)

"often to the point of genocide, the deliberate, as in "Gaza" recently In the Jenin refugee camp"

3) (translated), (original)

"What happened in Jenin was genocide undoubtedly"

4) Jeningrad: what the british media said

- "we are talking here of massacre, and a cover-up, of genocide."

g-comments

(struck my comment, I didn't notice the Google translations - will comment again shortly) Eleland 11:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

0) Thanks for the effort to find sources.

1) Google machine translations are unreliable, although in at least one case the author is clearly discussing genocide, this is not clear in all 3.

2) We need to know who these sources are; are they reprints of print media or just some websites? If they're print, what kind of circulation and influence do they have? If they're websites, is there any exceptional reason to believe they are significant? Eleland 12:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Western media accept "massacre"

I've found proof in a very pro-Israel source of something rather obvious - most of the world knows it as "The Jenin massacre". Quoted here are one Israeli reporter (but in a British newspaper), 2 US papers, 1 blog and 3 UPI stories.

Note the dates - the fighting stopped around 10th/11th April, siege ended 16th or 18th April, each of these reports are several weeks later. So this is not a case of the world's press being misled while Israel kept them away, this is their considered response after the event.

You need to visit that link on the "windsofchange.net" site to get the full flavour, but here are parts of it:

"Back to Jenin" (Ze'ev Schiff, Haaretz, 2002/07/17) - "None has since retracted the mendacious claims nor tried to find out how they were misled."

"How Europe's media lost out" (Martin Sieff, UPI, 2002/05/22) - ... The most hysterical and inaccurate accounts and the wildest, unsubstantiated claims came not while the international media was barred from Jenin but after it was allowed in. (not a single documented fact in here - the nearest is the unreferenced "even the PA itself revised its own official figure for Palestinans killed in the fierce fighting down to only 56.", which contradicts the named Palestinian minister above).

Ummm, not sure how to break this to you, buit all your quotes are pointing out how "massacre" stories are wildly distored and inaccurate. Is anyone else here noticing this? --Steve, Sm8900 15:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

"Analysis: Why Europeans bought Jenin myth" (Martin Sieff, UPI, 2002/05/21) - "Most of the major press and broadcasting outlets in Western Europe uncritically gobbled up the Jenin Massacre Myth with self-indulgent abandon. ... entire echelons of editors and executives in these organizations were willing to accept uncritically the fierce unsubstantiated and hysterical reports coming out of their correspondents in Jenin.

"Part One: Documenting the Myth" (Martin Sieff, UPI, 2002/05/20) - ... the Western European media fell for the "Massacre Myth" in Jenin in a big way. ... What made these unreliable and misleading reports all the more remarkable was that many of the worst of them emerged in the most respected and influential organizations in the British media. The British Broadcasting Corporation and three of the four so-called "quality" daily newspapers - The Times, The Independent and The Guardian - fell for the "Massacre Myth" hook, line and sinker.

"Jeningrad - What the British media said" (Tom Gross, National Review, 2002/05/13) - "The British media was particularly emotive in its reporting. They devoted page upon page, day after day, to tales of mass murders, common graves, summary executions, and war crimes. Israel was invariably compared to the Nazis, to al Qaeda, and to the Taliban.

"How Jenin battle became a 'massacre'" (Sharon Sadeh, The Guardian, 2002/05/08) - ... the British papers, almost unanimously, presented it from the outset as a "massacre" or at least as an intentional "war crime" of the worst kind ... The Independent, the Guardian and the Times, in particular, were quick to denounce Israel ... Selective use of details or information and occasional reliance on unsubstantiated accounts inflict considerable damage on the reputation of the entire British press, and more importantly, do a disservice to its readers." (ie gets right of reply in the Guardian and uses it to grumble that consensus is against him).

this is baloney. PalestineRemembered, are you not noticing that most of your articles use the word "massacre" in an ironic or disputive way? Have you read your own quotes? What about the following quote, above? "The British Broadcasting Corporation and three of the four so-called "quality" daily newspapers - The Times, The Independent and The Guardian - fell for the "Massacre Myth" hook, line and sinker.--Steve, Sm8900 15:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

"The Independent's 'reporting'" (Andrew Sullivan, andrewsullivan.com, 2002/05/06) - the Independent made matters even still worse by uncritically reprinting such stories as news." (See also: "Amid the ruins of Jenin, the grisly evidence of a war crime" (Phil Reeves, Independent, 2002/04/16) and as "Once upon a time in Jenin" (Phil Reeves, Independent, 2002/04/25))

(Betsy Pisik, The Washington Times, 2002/05/04) "reports that a massacre did not occur have received scant attention in the Western news media." PalestineRemembered 14:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Supporters of Israel cannot have it both ways.

1) Verifiable sources say Jenin was not a massacre (though with the most vestigial evidence possible, contradicted by everything else, and from highly partisan sources, so we probably shouldn't use them).

2) Simultaneously, the same sources tell us that "everybody else ignored these denials".

We could cooperate on this if you were agreeable - would you choose to do a section on the Israeli newspaper (interview with the bulldozer driver) or include the rest of the world's newspapers (who never doubted that this was an atrocity)? PalestineRemembered 18:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

i'm afraid i don't follow how the kurdi bear story fits in with whatever you're trying to present here. i also don't understand why your point needs the support of a phrasing such as "supporters of israel...".

to the subject matter, i suggest you pay attention to the difference between all the reports during and imediately after the battle (note the date of publication) which basically repeated the allegations without proper validation of sources (some allowed their own imaginations to run wild, eps. in the british media) and how the media treated this story once UN and qadoura mousa gave the death toll of 52-56. because of this change of descriptions we have both the current title and the "previously known as" title in the intro. Jaakobou 18:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The UN gave the figure of deaths as "at least 52", but likely not as much as 500. The PA gave the number of deaths as 375 (for incursions all over the West Bank, but Jenin by far the worst affected).

If you read those reports (we have the British ones in full, but only small sections of the US ones ... strange, huh?) you'd realise they tell us that the British media were even more convinced there'd been atrocities and mass deaths once they'd got into the camp. PalestineRemembered 19:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Help! Can someone please explain to PalestineRemmebered that all of these quotes are saying that the newspapers's accounts of a "massacre" were totally unfounded? We seem to be hitting a block here.

So PalestineRemembered, you think these quotes are referring to the denials as being without credibility, rather than the accounts of a "massacre"? Isuggest you re-read these quotes several times. i think you're missing the basic point with all of them. At this point, i dont'want you to rely only on my word. Can someone PLEASE add their comments on what these quotes mean?--Steve, Sm8900 19:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not disputing that sections of the US and Israeli press claim that there was no massacre.

But the same sources tell us, in detail, that the rest of the world never reported their denials (in fact, in at least some cases, the claims of atrocity and "large numbers of deaths" became more vociferous once the observers got in).

In line with NPOV, that makes "Massacre" the major view, and "No massacre" a minority view. PalestineRemembered 19:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

PR, i think you're missing the point i was making. these articles are talking about the totally cynical way, preferring hype to facts, the press treated the event before qadoura mousa released his statement. if you follow the general reporting after the number was released, they were taking a step back from the initial figurative speech massacre reports. pay notice to how differently news sources reported the event in retrospect (sample - BBC: The battle of Jenin sparked international outcry.) compared to how they reported it before. Jaakobou 00:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Read the references again. The Western media goes into detail on what they saw and what witnesses reported, and they called it an atrocity. (I suspect 90% of the US media did the same).

Nothing has ever been produced to suggest that the Western media withdrew the charges of atrocity (and only limited evidence they withdrew on the word "massacre", which unfortunately has two meanings). All the evidence I've seen suggests they carried on saying "war-crimes".

Now we discover, right from the sources quoted to support "No Massacre", that pro-Israeli denial never had any currency anywhere other than in (likely small) portions of the US press. Furthermore, the accusations against Israel became still more strident once the observers had gone in.

In other words, "major view" is "Massacre, atrocity, war-crimes", and "No massacre" is a minor view. Likely so minor it should be reduced to a foot-note. PalestineRemembered 11:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Um, you're basing that statement that the "major view"(sic) can be supported using these references? These references are debunking the massacre claims; they are NOT supporting them. You're trying to use evidence that says "there was false reporting of a massacre in Jenin" to say "there was a massacre in Jenin". I'm not sure if english is your first language, but honestly, you quoted them stating that the massacre did not happen in your initial post. Kyaa the Catlord 11:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. Thanks for your great comment, Kyaa. --Steve, Sm8900 13:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Defenders of Israel cannot have it both ways.

1) Verifiable sources say Jenin "was not a massacre" (though their evidence is paltry and unconvincing - and it comes from angry, partisan sources as almost certainly don't belong in our references).

2) Simultaneously, the same sources tell us that "all the other Western media ignored these denials and carried on calling it an atrocity/massacre" (especially once they'd really had a chance to look).

So we have it from the horse's mouth - the Western media ignored the denials, and "Atrocity/massacre" is the "major view".

(Presently I might delve a bit deeper - I'll probably find that the US media never withdrew the allegations of atrocity either - but they were bullied into silence rather quickly, unlike the media everywhere else). PalestineRemembered 16:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

dude, you;re exhausting me. try reading your own quotes and then we can talk. at this point, just ton respond seriously, i don't feel we can act on your suggestion, unless some more editors speak up that they would like to uphold it. And if you guys post in support without addressing the obvious and glaring problem in the meaning of these quotes vs. what PR says they are, I'll know this duscssion cannot accomplish anything with clarity. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 17:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Steve asked me to comment. Unfortunately, I don't have time to enter much into this discussion now. I did look at this Talk section and, briefly, the article. I can toss out some quick suggestions to you here but no guarantee it'll be helpful.

• (#1) Steve, can you dispassionately & concisely reflect back PalestineRemembered's (PR) understanding of the sources? (He had to repeat himself presumably because you didn't seem to acknowledge his points.) If so, run it by him, to check if you understand his perspective adequately. Perhaps PR can do the same for you, if he's willing, and then you can both clarify more specific points of agreement and disagreement about how to utilize the sources.
• (#2) I wasn't clear about how PR proposes to use his understanding of the sources to edit the article. Is PR trying to modify the section on body counts? Or does PR accept the body counts section, and he is focusing on the "allegations of massacre" section? Perhaps you could both focus (on the Talk page) on PR's proposed edits based on his reading of the sources.
• (#3) From a theoretical standpoint (mine), PR seems to be pursuing an interesting line of reasoning. Can the verified absence of something -- i.e., no retraction or ignoring a denial (did I get this right PR?) -- itself be considered a source? Specifically, can a verified absence determine what is the mainstream point-of-view? Personally, I don't quite see how this could alter the body count data, but I'm not so sure about what this tells us about the usage of the term "massacre" in media discourse on Jenin. After all, who's to say whether "massacre" can refer to the killing of 5 or 50 or 500?
• (#4) On the other hand, an encyclopedia needs to make judgment calls about the relative merits and reliability of competing sources. Doesn't the verified absence of a retraction, or of ignoring a denial, strongly undermine the reliability of a source? If so, then the cited sources (British, US, UPI) seem more reliable. Conversely, the remaining media that ignore new data would seem quite flawed. If so, we need to keep in mind that Misplaced Pages gauges the major/mainstream NPOV view based on the most reliable sources, even if there are larger number of less reliable sources offering a different view. Right?

Hope this is helpful, Steve (or others). Anyway, please accept it as well-intentioned. Thanks! HG | Talk 18:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

PS Since drafting the above comment, PalestineRemembered, you expressed concern about my being drawn into the discussion. If you feel the same way after reading this, please let me know. I would like to avoid being an involved party to any arbitration of this article. HG | Talk 18:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi. thanks. errr, actually though, I hadn't quite expected all that. thanks though for all your hard work and heartlfelt efforts, as usual. i think i'd prefer to leave things alone for now. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 19:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok. An afterthought. PR states: "Nothing has ever been produced to suggest that the Western media withdrew the charges of atrocity (and only limited evidence they withdrew on the word "massacre", which unfortunately has two meanings). All the evidence I've seen suggests they carried on saying "war-crimes"." This seems to be a key point for PR and subject to further source verification, regardless of how PR's argument-by-absence (#3) unfolds. HG | Talk 19:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello, User:HG, welcome along. The discussion about this article is very different from what we discussed before because this article itself is so terrible. (I think the name of this article is desperately misleading too, much worse than AoIA, but that's near the bottom of my concerns).

(#1) Question is to Steve.

(#2) HG says -> I wasn't clear about how PR proposes to use his understanding of the sources to edit the article. PR says -> I'm not very clear how to improve this article either, because the layout is so awful, and my one attempt to correct it was summararily reverted weeks ago. I'd scrap the "body-count" section, and scrap "the allegations of massacre" section. I'd completely re-write the lead (to match how other battles are treated), then have the "story of the event" in some kind of NPOV fashion (matching other battles), follow it with the investigations (UN with EU & PA, Amnesty, HRW, IDF, Jenin Investigation, Time Magazine - in that order).

(#2b) I am extremely dubious about the body-count, the alleged "PA admits 56" story comes from angry sources and doesn't match what the PA told the UN 3 weeks afterwards (c. 375 for the whole of the West Bank). However, I can see this is one of the cases I'd likely be forced to let in material that I believe does not add up.

(#3) HG -> Can the verified absence of something -- i.e., no retraction or ignoring a denial (did I get this right PR?). PR -> No - the sources collected by "windsofchange.com" tell us that "all" other sources (they concentrate on the British media, but they refer to "the Western media", everyone outside the US and Israel) ignored the "No massacre" thesis and continued to say there had been a massacre (or at least, major atrocities). Which makes the "Massacre/atrocity" theme the "Major View". It's a slam-dunk case, this pro-Israeli source tells us, in some fair detail, that the "No massacre thesis" is very widely rejected.

You say, "No" as if I didn't hear you right when I talked about an absence or an ignoring. But then you again point out how the windsofchange sources report how Western media "ignored the 'No massacre' thesis." So I'm still confused, since it still sounds like your inference hinges on windsofchange telling us what was ignored, which I consider (my #3) an interesting but speculative approach on your part. .... Maybe this will help clarify. The encyclopedia aims to gather knowledge, focusing on the major view of what is verifiably known. You want to infer from windsofchange that we know that "the massacre thesis" is the major view. However, instead, one may infer from windsofchange sources that much of the Western media is not reporting what is known, but rather reporting "the uninformed massacre thesis." I realize you don't want to add 'uninformed' as a qualifier, but isn't that the point of the sources you've quoted? HG | Talk 01:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

(#3b) Massacre is irrelevant, it's a red-herring thrown up by the sources that wish to persuade us "There was no massacre". The Boston massacre was 5 people dead, Kent State was 4. There is a secondary meaning of massacre which means "a group of people machine-gunned to death", and it's universally agreed that that didn't happen in Jenin - but that doesn't mean that it wasn't a massacre, or considered a massacre (the last being what matters in this case - our article has to be written around the "Major View").

(#4) HG -> Doesn't the verified absence of a retraction, or of ignoring a denial, strongly undermine the reliability of a source? PR -> You're starting to lose me. The Guardian gave "right of reply" to an Israeli journalist in London to write a column and tell us there was "No massacre". But our source states that the rest of the media were insistent there was "Atrocity/war-crime", and they became still more insistent once their journalists got into the came. Slam-dunk, these sources are teling us that "No massacre" has very little currency.

(#4b) HG-> If so, then the cited sources (British, US, UPI) seem more reliable. PR -> Not sure which sources you're talking about. Most of the sources from "windsofchange.com" are fundamentally quite unreliable. Only one of the UPI reports is available in full, and it's almost a complete polemic (the only "fact" in there is the highly dubious claim that the PA admit only 56 dead). There is the British paper, the Guardian, giving right of reply to the Haaretz journalist, then there are the cited Independent reports which are loud in their condemnation of Israel - and more so after they've got into the camp.

PR, I'm having trouble following you. On what grounds are you considering US and British newspapers or news services as "fundamentally quite unreliable"? So much of Misplaced Pages relies on these sources, I don't think you're assessment is going to find favor among wikipedians. Furthermore, if the sources aren't reliable, how can you justify using them for any kind of inference? HG | Talk 01:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

(#4c) HG -> Conversely, the remaining media that ignore new data would seem quite flawed. PR -> Verifiability not truth. There is no "new data" from any of the sources in "windsofchange.com". But there is new data from other souces, bodies continued to be found in the bulldozed rubble for almost 4 months (until early August). There were further intrusions by the IDF, in one of which Amnesty graphically describes 2 children killed by a tank shell (the body of one of them run over and over by a tank) - this when the curfew had supposedly been lifted for 2 hours. With conditions this unpleasant, we know why there was no careful count. One of the accounts (EU to the UN?) says that the bomb-disposal weren't allowed in for weeks, at least two more Palestinians were killed by accidental explosions.

By new data, I meant the quotes from which you inferred support for the "massacre thesis" as a major view.HG | Talk

(#4d) HG -> If so, we need to keep in mind that Misplaced Pages gauges the major/mainstream NPOV view based on the most reliable sources, even if there are larger number of less reliable sources offering a different view. Right? PR -> Correct. The Times magazine called their article "an investigation", but there's no evidence they did more than tour the camp and get everything from the IDF, it should come near to the end. We have good RS accounts from Western journalists who went in and provide detailed, graphic accounts of atrocities from eye-witnesses, as did Amnesty and HRW. "windsofchange.com"s sources jeer at these accounts, but then we've familiar with denial after all these years.

There's a lot, lot more I can add about material that ought to be in this case - eg the Kurdi Bear account. That's the most easy-reading snapshot of just what the "Battle of Jenin" was really about - and Jaakobou has specifically told us his only objection was that the English translation comes top-and-tailed with partisan statements. There's no question it was published in Hebrew by a major Israeli newspaper. So why's it not included in the article? Answer - it's been edit-warred out! As I said, really, really serious problems with this article. PalestineRemembered 21:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your detailed reply, PalestineRemembered! Looks like my #1 and #2 suggestions might be useful. Following up on #2: Given your experience in trying to rewrite this disputed article, you might want to consider just writing a few sentences that you feel are merited by the windsofchange sources and see how it's received here in Talk. Less ambitious, more feasible. Your replies to my #3 and #4 indicate that I didn't understand you reasoning and, well, I still don't. I interspersed some feedback above w/your nicely outlined replies. Meanwhile, if you don't mind my saying so PR, you might want to consider that, if somebody like me (i.e., academically trained) is having trouble following your line of thought, you may need to articulate it more clearly for it to work in the encyclopedia. Anyway, it's good working with you albeit briefly on this topic. Thanks again, HG | Talk 01:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

This whole discussion seems somewhat unnecessary to me, as it all comes down to a single point. Do current, mainstream RS characterise this event as a massacre or not? If yes, then great, if not, also great. Tewfik 02:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Here's what I might diagnose at the heart of the dispute. An underlying premise (P1) of PalestineRemembered's analysis is that there is a systematic bias against Palestinians interests in U.S. and British news media. (Let's skip how one might deduce P1 from PR's words and reasoning.) Is there such a bias? Maybe. But here's where the rubber hits the road. Even if such media bias exists (= True), Misplaced Pages does not generally analyze sources based on such a bias. On the contrary, we presuppose (P2) that US and British newspapers and wire services as reliable for NPOV writing. There's a good reason for this -- our readers accept such mainstream sources as reliable for verifying knowledge. We are not in the business (yet) of trying to convince our readers otherwise. Perhaps it's a a paradoxical catch-22, but the premise of systematic media bias (P1) is a point-of-view (POV) that is not verifiable with mainstream sources. This dynamic is surely a bitter pill to swallow for those who feel P1 is true, since P1 implies that systematic bias unavoidably seeps into Misplaced Pages. Anyway, what's the result? In general, as I saw with Tiamut regarding Talk:Palestinian people, pro-Palestinian Users need to bear the burden of editing with the assumption (P2) that US and British media (etc) are reliably neutral sources. Specifically here, PR, I think you need to take the US/British sources as reliable overall, not just where they talk about what other Western media is ignoring. In other words, windsofchange sources are saying that the other Western media are not reliably reporting on Jenin. This doesn't turn other Western media into a major view in favor of the "massacre thesis" -- instead, windsofchange sources can merely verify that there are unsubstantiated (in the eyes of US/Brit sources) allegations of massacre that persistent elsewhere. I'm sorry that my reasoning doesn't happen to be more supportive of you position in this situation, PR, but please take it as a good faith effort to discern your view. Thanks for hearing me out. HG | Talk 11:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Removal of {{TotallyDisputed}}

No, Jaakobou, it doesn't work like that. The tags indicate the presence of a dispute. They don't indicate that the dispute is "valid" or "invalid" in the judgement of a heavily involved, highly partisan editor. You want a point of inaccuracy and POV? Here's one example, based on one paragraph which is roughly representative of the entire piece.

• Palestinian militants had expected an air strike since their security forces' barracks in the Gaza Strip and West Bank had been repeatedly bombed by an Israeli military that didn't want to risk the casualties of Close Quarters Combat. However in Jenin, the IDF chose not to bomb the spots of resistance using aircraft in order to minimize civilian losses, even with the risk of increased losses to infantry, although there was limited use of helicopters.

Source 13 doesn't seem to exist; but I'm assuming from the name that it's supposed to be the UN report (of which HRW and Amnesty, which did actual investigations instead of summarizing press reports, were harshly critical). What does the report say on the "no aircraft to minimize casualties"? It says, "According to Israeli sources, in their incursion into the camp IDF relied primarily on infantry rather than airpower and artillery in an effort to minimize civilian casualties, but other accounts of the battle suggest that as many as 60 tanks may have been used even in the first days." What does it say about "limited use of helicopters"? It says, "IDF is reported to have used bulldozers, tank shelling and rocket firing, at times from helicopters, in populated areas.", it says "Much of the destruction appears to have occurred in the fighting as a result of the use by IDF of tanks, helicopter gunships and bulldozers.", it says, "Interviews with witnesses conducted by human rights organizations suggest that tanks, helicopters and ground troops using small arms predominated in the first two days, after which armoured bulldozers were used to demolish houses and other structures so as to widen alleys in the camp. ", it says, "The heaviest fighting reportedly occurred between 5 and 9 April, resulting in the largest death tolls on both sides. There are reports that during this period IDF increased missile strikes from helicopters", and that's all it says about helicopters (excluding Israeli and Palestinian submissions to the report.) It uses the word "limited" exactly twice - once to say that the usefulness of a report without on-the-scene investigation is "limited", and once to say that Israeli access to the camp in the aftermath of fighting was "limited". The EU submission says, "IDF systematically used bulldozers, tanks, armoured personnel carriers and infantry, also armoured helicopters. The operations took a broader scope after the death of 13 Israeli soldiers in an ambush inside the refugee camp." It never says anything about limited helicopter use, limited use of force - this is all a fairy-tale that pro-Israeli editors have cavalierly attributed to people who never said it. What does TIME say about helicopters? It has, "Cobra attack helicopters began to pound rooftop Palestinian positions." It uses the word "limited" only in reference to a previous incursion in February, never in reference to the events of April. More fairy tales.

"the IDF chose not to bomb the spots of resistance using aircraft in order to minimize civilian losses, even with the risk of increased losses to infantry" is sourced to a CNN piece, which in fact says, "Israel Defense Forces spokesmen have said that the decision to use infantry to spearhead the attack – rather than using air power and artillery – stemmed from a desire to limit civilian casualties, even at the risk of higher IDF casualties. The decision to take the crowded refugee camp – with its narrow streets and alleyways – block by block did prove costly to the Israeli forces."

So in other words, we are again taking the word of Israeli "spokesmen" as received wisdom. The source in fact says that "the decision to take the crowded refugee camp ... block by block" caused increased casualties, not any suspension of aerial bombing. The aerial bombing claim is an IDF claim which is fine attributed as such, but should absolutely not be treated as factual, WP-voice information!

Note that I haven't even begun to talk about what other sources say, source which I've repeatedly drawn from and which have been repeatedly expunged. What do Amnesty and HRW say about helicopters? What did Peter Beaumont say that he saw with his own eyes? He described "helicopters that swarmed angrily above the city's roofs, firing indiscriminately into the city's crowded refugee camp", "We could see the tanks manoeuvering and shelling ... Most shocking, however, were the Apache helicopter gunships". HRW says, "Civilian residents of the camp described days of sustained missile fire from helicopters hitting their houses...Firing was particularly indiscriminate on the morning of April 6, when missiles were launched from helicopters, catching many sleeping civilians unaware." Amnesty quotes one of their officials describing, "Houses pierced from wall to wall by tank or helicopter gun ships." They say, "Houses were intensively attacked by missiles from Apache helicopters...the fighting Palestinian residents and Palestinian and foreign journalists and others outside the camp saw hundreds of missiles being fired into the houses of the camp from Apache helicopters flying sortie after sortie. The sight of the firepower being thrown at Jenin refugee camp led those who witnessed the air raids, including military experts and the media, to believe that scores, at least, of Palestinians had been killed." HRW and Amnesty are by far the most credible sources we have; they are neutral, they are experts, they conducted on-the-scene invesigations - and we completely contradict them!

The neutrality and factual accuracy aren't really "disputed" here - they're despicable. Eleland 13:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

if you have a problem with this tiny snippet, why not fix the problem? i don't see how this over-sized paragraph justifies the tag. p.s. keeping it short and to the point might help you achieve your desired changes faster, assuming you want to improve the article rather than just keep the tag. Jaakobou 13:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Jaakobou, I apologize for beating a dead horse here, but I wanted to make it clear that the article is suffering from massive NPOV and factual problems; this is one example of one paragraph. The lies and distortions are laced throughout this article. Don't implicitly impugn my motives ("Assuming you want improve the article.") We've been trying to improve it for weeks; you and some others have been trenchantly opposed to such improvements. Eleland 16:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

indeed, We've been trying to improve it for weeks; you and some others have been trenchantly opposed to such improvements. indeed. Jaakobou 21:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

please focus on the material which bothers you and make subsections to each single problem. i don't believe the tag is needed, but i'm willing to let it slip for a while longer as long as we are taking steps forward to resolve the issues. Jaakobou 21:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with Jaakobou above. Please mention some specific points that editors can act upon. As things are now, with no specifics being mentioned, there is no reason for the disputed tag to be included in the article. -- Karl Meier 22:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

No, it doesn't work like that. You don't decide whether our dispute is valid, or "specific" enough to mention (wtf are you talking about, anyway? there are specifics all over the place!). The dispute exists. The tag stays. This constant tag-removal is verging on disruptive editing. Eleland 22:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a whole lot of specifics above, but if they are so plentiful then why don't you just make the list that I requested, so that Jaakoobu, I and other editors can act upon them? Reading through the article and the recent reverts, the tag seems to unjustified. Another issue is that I will have to ask you to please remain WP:Civil. Cursing and accusing other editors of being disruptive is not acceptable. -- Karl Meier 22:18, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to be drawn into an argument about whether "wtf" is "cursing". Nor will I argue about whether removal of maintenance tags because you don't personally agree with them is "disruptive editing". I'll simply quote WP:NPOV:

:Sometimes people have edit wars over the NPOV dispute tag, or have an extended debate about whether there is a NPOV dispute or not. In general, if you find yourself having an ongoing dispute about whether a dispute exists, there's a good chance one does, and you should therefore leave the NPOV tag up until there is a consensus that it should be removed.'

This extensive, exhaustive discussion going on since early July has led nowhere, and I have no reason to believe that re-capitulating it would accomplish anything. Briefly, the article devotes vastly undue weight to IDF and allied sources, and passes their claims on without attribution as truth. It downplays and misrepresents the findings of credible international observers and of journalists. It ignores vivid and shocking descriptions by eyewitnesses, including military experts, humanitarian workers, journalists, and senior representatives of the EU, UNRWA, and others, in favour of vague, nebulous statements which are unattributed, or attributed to sources that do not say them. It relies extremely heavily on a single TIME magazine piece, to which entire paragraphs of key information is sourced - yet it ghettoizes and downplays, or worse misrepresents, the findings of Human Rights Watch and Amnesty which conducted extensive investigations. And then it devotes space for the Anti-Defamation League to kick dirt on them - as if the ADL has a sliver of credibility here!

Let me end with one fact which sums it up. There isn't a single Palestinian quote in the article which describes their suffering here. Not one. Out of all the eyewitness testimony compiled by HRW, Amnesty, the P.A. submission to the UN report - not a single one. Eleland 22:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

There isn't a single quote describing Israeli emotions either, since this is an encyclopaedia article. We aren't interested in helicopters "swarming angrily", just facts. If there are any facts that you think aren't being included, then by all means point them out. Tewfik 02:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Which facts? Facts that have been fabricated? Facts that are attributed to sources that didn't say them? Facts that are actually POV opinions from involved groups? For example, I referenced the "fact" that "the IDF chose not to bomb the spots of resistance using aircraft in order to minimize civilian losses", and we've been debating the "fact" that "major human rights organizations maintained had taken place on both sides". The first "fact" is an official statement offered by the IDF and passed on as "fact", the second "fact" is an original-research misreading of sources which nobody has actually shown to use "war crimes" or "grave breaches of humanitarian law" when referring to the Palestinians in this battle. Why not address any of the points made here or above, instead of posturing. Eleland 18:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikiquette alert

I have reported this "stressful situation" in order "to seek perspective, advice, informal mediation, or a referral to a more appropriate forum." See the relevant section.

I realize I've posted a rather long summary, and that many editors will want to jump in with at least as much information. I suggest that you hold off for now and just post it here, or to your own talk page, I don't want the Wikiquette people to get swamped. I strongly suspect this issue is heading towards formal mediation; your extensive submissions will be very welcome there. Eleland 13:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

i'm happy to see you've taken a civilized approach to this. Jaakobou 13:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Well done, User:Eleland. There is a ridiculous amount of good material been edit-warred out of this article (I've listed 10 or so items somewhere), while very, very poor material has been shoveled in. The whole layout is wrong, with "Body Count Estimations" as a complete section with sub-section "Post-fighting investigations" - but it's been edit-warred back in like that.

Here's something I've never shared with you before - the lead we're using is fundamentally wrong. It contains "context" of a form that's never normally included. I checked the following: Siege of Antwerp, Siege of Florence (1529-1530), Siege of Gaeta (2 of them), Battle of Jerusalem (1917), Siege of Jerusalem (1187), Siege of Jerusalem (1099), Siege of Jerusalem (637), Siege of Jerusalem (70), First Siege of Krujë, Second Siege of Krujë, Third Siege of Krujë, Fourth Siege of Krujë, Siege of Kirrha, Siege of Paris, Siege of Rhodes (1480), Siege of Rhodes (1522), Battle of Seringapatam, Battle of Sevastopol, Siege of Sevastopol (1854-1855) and Siege of Warsaw. There are only two places I've found "context" of the form this article has, one is Siege of Jerusalem (1948) (I wonder why that should be?). The other is the historical Siege of Rhodes - perhaps because the only accounts we have are used as "texts" in language teaching, so this POV "context" is all we've really got. PalestineRemembered 17:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

PS - there was a previous attempt to put part of this matter to the community (over the CAMERA reference). That discussion was immediately overwhelmed by people from the discussion here, led by one of the very most experienced editors of all, who should most certainly have known better. I trust that will not happen again. PalestineRemembered 17:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

PalestineRemembered even pro-Israel sources tell us that "Majority View" is "Atrocity/Massacre".

My position on this is very simple - we have a limited number of sources that would normally be considered RS putting forwards the "There was no massacre" thesis and the article is written entirely to reflect this "View" as if it were the "Majority View".

These reports (compiled and presented by the "windsofchange.com web-site) themselves tell us that the view they take is the "Minority View", they're not the Majority view.

1. Haaretz - "None has since retracted the mendacious claims"
2. UPI - "The most hysterical and inaccurate accounts ... not while the international media was barred from Jenin but after it was allowed in.
3. UPI - "willing to accept uncritically the fierce unsubstantiated and hysterical reports coming out of their correspondents in Jenin.
4. UPI - "British Broadcasting Corporation and three of the four so-called "quality" daily newspapers ... fell for the "Massacre Myth" hook, line and sinker". (Just one paragraph of this available to us).
5. UPI - "devoted page upon page, day after day, to tales of mass murders, common graves, summary executions, and war crimes". (Just one paragraph of this report available to us).
6. British Guardian (but in a commentary by Israeli) - "use of details or information and occasional reliance on unsubstantiated accounts - do a disservice to its readers."
7. British Independent - "uncritically reprinting such stories as news". (Emphasises that this is *after* entering the camp and doing the regular journalism thing, talking to witnesses etc)

Lastly, and perhaps most damagingly, the Washington Times states - "reports that a massacre did not occur have received scant attention in the Western news media."

There are a number of other serious problems with these reports, and we have no indication that even mainstream US sources accept what they claim. I will have to come back on this point when I have more time.

All in all, there's no need to look any further, the "Majority View" is clearly stated (by these "pro-Israel sources") to be "Atrocity/massacre". This is what the article should be written to say, not the way it's currently written. There are huge problems of both fact and NPOV in the current article, and, at a minimum, it must be tagged as such.

This article and the associated Talk have been disfigured by nonsense of all kinds - my argument here exposes (I think) just the one that should be the very easiest for people to understand. PalestineRemembered 08:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

comment/explanation - "retraction" is a very dirty word in the world of journalism. they usually just change the titles and the subtext of the next articles about the same subject - haaretz and BBC have sinned in this many times before... and i've given you earlier a link to the BBC, which could not be mistaken as a pro-israeli source, article as an example... btw, haaretz isn't considered pro-israel either, but that's another story. i think you should put an emphasize on understanding the difference between reporting things on the back pages (i.e. "receive scant attention") and between holding a position that a massacre occurred. if you notice, there is no retraction in this report ("not a massacre/witnesses told stories of executions/Israel has valid point against UN mission") or in this one ("Palestinian militants put up fierce resistance/grocer Adnan Hassan, says his home rocketed by Apache gunship/Martyrs' capital") either but it is clear that the word massacre is not the message of the article anymore. the next reports are this ("UN condemns Israel's military action in Jenin/complex vote reflects concerns at failure to condemn suicide bombings") and this ("UN says no massacre in Jenin/Saeb Erekat rejects the UN report/Daniel Taub: report shows Palestinian claims, atrocity propaganda")... no retractions... just a different story. Jaakobou 11:27, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

1. Do you know what mendacious means? It means "false or untrue." In other words the source is calling the "massacre" a lie.
2. UPI is saying that the press printed innaccurate accounts of a massacre. In other words, there was no massacre.
3. UPI again states that the reports from Jenin were exaggerated and even goes as far as to claim "hysterical".
4. UPI says everyone was buying the lies again.
5. This one could go both ways, but again, its the UPI which has been repeatedly reporting on the inaccurate reporting of a massacre at Jenin.
6. UPI is chastising the british press for, omg, printing false, unverified stories.
7. Again, this time the Independent is saying that there was no massacre.

And finally, the Washington Post comments on the fact that noone is correcting themselves and that they SHOULD BE. What are you trying to accomplish PR? Have you switched sides and are now claiming there was no massacre? Cause that's what your "evidence" is saying. Kyaa the Catlord 11:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

The Washington Times, Kyaa, not the Washington Post. Dear me. The Washington Post is one of the great independent family-owned newspapers that, along with the New York Times (and the Los Angeles Times and the Wall Street Journal before their respective corporate buy-outs) set the gold standard of serious journalism in the United States. The Washington Times, on the other hand, is a controversial and very conservative broadsheet with a circulation one-seventh that of the Post. It was established by the Reverend Sun Myung Moon, the Korean businessman who describes himself as "humanity's Savior, Messiah, Returning Lord and True Parent," and who explained his journalistic brainchild as follows:

Fifteen years ago, when the world was adrift on the stormy waves of the Cold War, I established The Washington Times to fulfill God's desperate desire to save this world. Since that time, I have devoted myself to raising up The Washington Times, hoping that this blessed land of America would fulfill its world-wide mission to build a Heavenly nation. Meanwhile, I waged a lonely struggle, facing enormous obstacles and scorn as I dedicated my whole heart and energy to enable The Washington Times to grow as a righteous and responsible journalistic institution.

Ronald Reagan plugged the Washington Times saying it was his favorite newspaper, much as Dick Cheney would later plug Fox News and praise its unbiased reporting. The Columbia Journalism Review, on the other hand, drolly notes that "because of its history of a seemingly ideological approach to the news, the paper has always faced questions about its credibility."

We've seen this confusion once here already. The fact that editors on this page continue to confuse the Times for the Post, or refer to them interchangeably, is very unsettling, especially when the very thing we're discussing is the range, balance, and above all the quality of our sourcing.

Now, PR's post also contains a misattribution, though a less serious or grotesque one than Kyaa and Isarig's. The quote allegedly from the Independent regarding "uncritically reprinting such stories as news" is actually a quote from the blog of (then) neoconservative blogger and fierce Independent-critic Andrew Sullivan. The Independent 's Middle-East correspondent Phil Reeves, on the other hand, talks about Israeli and pro-Israeli propaganda exploiting Palestinian propaganda for its own purposes – i.e., continued exaggeration of body counts and massacre allegations by Palestinian officials provided the perfect rhetorical opening for Israeli propagandists to wave off the whole "Jenin lie," to throw the baby out with the bathwater, to pretend that the whole story of Jenin is the story of massacre allegations that turned out to be false or exaggerated, rather than war crimes allegations that turned out to be true.

The POV problem with our article is that we've taken this same propagandistic angle as our starting point, as if it were a self-evident foundation on which to build a neutral and encyclopedic account of the siege of Jenin. It is not. And the point of PR's post, which has been misunderstood, is that the major, prestigious, reliable-source news outlets by and large did not treat the massacre allegations and their subsequent discrediting as the major story about Jenin. The various pundits he quotes (the Sullivan blog, a Haaretz journalist writing a guest op-ed for the Guardian, a Washington Times op-ed, and so on) are wringing their hands precisely because the main respectable news outlets did not frame and contextualize the siege of Jenin the way those pundits would have liked. Those pundits would be pleased with our Misplaced Pages article. But that doesn't, unfortunately, make it NPOV; quite the contrary.--G-Dett 17:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

pallywood

i'm starting up a section regarding this dispute over the "see also" inclusion/exclusion of the Pallywood article.

feel free to give your commentary regarding your position on this issue in the following subsections, try to keep it short and to the point. for generic commentary/questions leave your comment on the proper subsection. Jaakobou 23:49, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

include pallywood

• i'm surprised someone is contesting that "the big jenin lie" is not referred to as events (allegedly) staged by Palestinians to portray Israel in an unfavorable light. Jaakobou 23:49, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  • comment - See WP:UNDUE. If you want to include a section on how both Israelis and Palestinians (and their respective supporters) have exploited Jenin for propaganda purposes, that could be done. Let's do it cooperatively, and with an eye to WP:NPOV. In the meantime, let's not insert an insinuating link to a decidedly marginal term that many consider offensive if not downright racist. "Pallywood" is used by a handful of right-wing bloggers, and to most educated ears sounds like "Jew York Times."--G-Dett 00:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

exclude pallywood

p - comments / questions

• comment by Eleland 1 - Please learn to use Google. The search "brutal+Israeli+terrorism" returns 1.52 million GHits; "brutal Israeli terrorism" as a phrase returns 289. Similarily, the search "big jenin lie" as a phrase return 245 GHits, almost all of which trace back to a single opinion editorial in an extremely partisan magazine. It is difficult to see how "Pallywood", the supposed phenomenon of Palestinians staging events in front of world cameras, could apply to an event which became subject of great consternation specifically because no international press were there to record it. Eleland 01:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• comment by Eleland 2 - Please stop attempting to structure the conversation with these headers. As you must know, it is not on editors to provide reasons to exclude material; rather the burden of proof is on those who want to include it. Eleland 01:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

1. Cite error: The named reference CAMERA was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
2. Evening Star of Auckland, New Zealand of July 2, 1975

• NA-Class Israel-related pages
• NA-importance Israel-related pages
• WikiProject Israel articles
• WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
• NA-Class Palestine-related pages
• NA-importance Palestine-related pages
• WikiProject Palestine articles
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics