| Revision as of 08:39, 24 August 2007 editJaakobou (talk | contribs)15,880 edits →verify credibility tags← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 15:33, 3 July 2024 edit undoRzuwig (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers6,691 editsm Fixed LintErrors | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{talkarchivenav}} | |||
| {{WikiProjectNotice|Arab-Israeli conflict}} | |||
| == To deal with in a dispute mediation: Israeli/Palestinian casualties leading up to the events == | |||
| {{WikiProject Israel|importance=Mid|class=B}} | |||
| {{WikiProject Palestine|importance=Mid|class=B}} | |||
| {{controversial}} | |||
| Source for balancing the background to the operation with fair reference to Israeli and Palestinian civilian casualties leading up to the bombings in Israel and the Operation following. | |||
| {{talkheader}} | |||
| ::The UN report on Jenin notes: | |||
| {{Calm talk}} | |||
| <blockquote> | |||
| {{archivebox|auto=long}} | |||
| 18. From the beginning of March until 7 May, Israel endured approximately 16 bombings, the large majority of which were suicide attacks. More than 100 persons were killed and scores more wounded. Throughout this period, the Government of Israel, and the international community, reiterated previous calls on the Palestinian Authority to take steps to stop terrorist attacks and to arrest the perpetrators of such attacks.</blockquote> | |||
| <blockquote> | |||
| 19. During this same period, IDF conducted two waves of military incursions primarily in the West Bank, and air strikes against both the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. The first wave began on 27 February 2002 and ended on approximately 14 March. Those incursions, which Israel stated were in pursuit of Palestinians who had carried out attacks against Israelis, involved the use of ground troops, attack helicopters, tanks and F-16 fighter jets in civilian areas, including refugee camps, causing significant loss of life among civilians.</blockquote> | |||
| <blockquote> | |||
| 20. Over the course of two days, 8 and 9 March, 18 Israelis were killed in two separate Palestinian attacks and 48 Palestinians were killed in the Israeli raids that followed.</blockquote> | |||
| <blockquote> | |||
| 21. Israeli military retaliation for terrorist attacks was often carried out against Palestinian Authority security forces and installations. This had the effect of severely weakening the Authority's capacity to take effective action against militant groups that launched attacks on Israelis. Militant groups stepped into this growing vacuum and increased their attacks on Israeli civilians. In many cases, the perpetrators of these attacks left messages to the effect that their acts were explicitly in revenge for earlier Israeli acts of retaliation, thus perpetuating and intensifying the cycle of violence, retaliation and revenge.</blockquote> | |||
| <blockquote> | |||
| 22. It was against this backdrop that the most extensive Israeli military incursions in a decade, Operation Defensive Shield, were carried out. The proximate cause of the operation was a terrorist attack committed on 27 March in the Israeli city of Netanya...</blockquote> | |||
| '''2. Intro - Calling the events a battle while allowing reference to perceptions of a massacre.''' (the arguments around this issue are listed in prior discussions above) | |||
| Talk about your thoughts about the wikipedia article "Battle of Jenin". | |||
| ] (]) 22:38, 23 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Hi LamaLoLeshLa. I think Elonka has in mind brief pts, like #1 above, without going into the accompanying evidence. ] | ] 23:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Correct. Also, I'm noticing that there are several places in the article where tags have been placed, requesting sources or whatnot. Some of these tags have been on the article for a long time, so I recommend some cleanup. Specifically: Any statement that has been {{tl|fact}} tagged for over 30 days, should just be deleted. Also, rather than placing a "weasel" template at the top of the page, I recommend either changing text that is of concern, or using {{tl|weasel-inline}} templates at the specific locations of the words that are problematic. And again, anything that isn't addressed within a reasonable amount of time, let's just delete out of the article. Thanks, --]]] 23:11, 23 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Hi again. It might also help if bullet #1 more specific. As I recall, the archives will show much discussion of Palestinian casualty numbers and a table of sources. Does #1 reflect a dispute above about Israeli civilians and, if so, what reference are editors seeking in the article? Thanks. ] | ] 10:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::] - I think LamaLoLeshLa is attempting to point us to another very significant factor, well covered in the RS but not included in the points I've identified above. Viz, that all the time Israel was calling on the PA to control terrorists, it was destroying Arafat's security apparatus. Recent (anonymous) confessions by IDF soldiers collected demonstrate that Israel also set about the mass killing of Palestinian policemen on an exclusively ethnic basis. This is not OR on my part, the UN specifically links cause and effect with "''This had the effect of severely weakening the Authority's capacity to take effective action against militant groups that launched attacks on Israelis"''. Perhaps your good sense can decide if this is such a significant factor that it has to be prominently included alongside all mention of suicide and other terrorism. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 11:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I think this article neds to focus on the Battle of Jenin, not a whole range of factiors which might be impossible to reflect in one article. We can focus on each side's statements of their reasons for acting, withoput trying to describe the entire conflict here. --] (]) 13:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::To clarify, there was some talkpage controversy at a while ago regarding the fact that some people wanted to include detailed information on Israeli casualties leading up to the operation while omitting Palestinian casualties leading up to the operation. The same goes for this set of events. I agree with you Sm that we shouldn't go into too much detail. The truth is, at present, there is very detailed info here on Palestinian assaults on Israel as background to the Jenin incursions. There is nothing about the Israeli assaults on the West Bank as background to the Jenin incursions. Bo0th are relevant, as the violence went both ways, almost constantly in overlap during 2002 - there was no clea start and ending, cause and effect.] (]) 19:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::If you want to describe the so-called Israeli provocations which you feel serve as some sort of rationale for terrorist bombings and attacks, the place to do so is in the articles pertaining to palestinian actions. There is no reason to explain past Israeli actions in an article which itself focuses on an israeli action in Jenin. To do that would be to dilute the ''Palestinian'' side, since this article should focus on their concerns and grievances in regards to this attack. --] (]) 19:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::We have it on excellent authority that Israel's actions had the effect of making it (much?) more difficult for the PA to control militancy. If you think that this information is surplus to the requirements of this article (and I'm entirely prepared to meet you halfway on this as on the other factors), then the obvious solution is to leave out mention of group actions by Palestinians. They can and should be treated as criminal and individual/gang in nature, not as "political". ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 18:40, 27 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I did not say that Israeli offensives served as rationale for Palestinian attacks. Nor do I think there is any rationale for killing civilians. Violence begets violence, the circle - who knows where it begins? That is what I said. Please try to avoid putting words in people's mouths. Thanks ] (]) 19:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == To deal with in a dispute mediation, take 2: Working towards resolution == | |||
| :''(Well, I see there's an effort to reorganize. It's generally better to leave threads intact once there are comments. Also, please sign your posts or refactoring. Anyway, here's my comment on this item, copied from above:) Hi again. It might also help if bullet #1 more specific. As I recall, the archives will show much discussion of Palestinian casualty numbers and a table of sources. Does #1 reflect a dispute above about Israeli civilians and, if so, what reference are editors seeking in the article? Thanks.'' ] | ] 23:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Malam Report (Hebrew) == | |||
| ::There was indeed a "table of sources" (it was loaded into WP as a template, whether rightly or wrongly I don't know) including many "estimates of total casualties". Israeli estimates were up to 381% wrong according to their own official account - no similar calculation can be carried out on the Palestinian figure, since an official death-toll has never been released. (The UN figure covers a wider area and a longer period but is within 1% of early Palestinian estimates). | |||
| ::Unfortunately the template in question was deleted as being in the wrong place, nobody seems to know what's the right place. Perhaps you have a suggestion, because it makes interesting reading, and is far more significant than the Hasbara section on "Allegations of a massacre". ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 18:59, 27 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==No re-factoring== | |||
| 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. | |||
| Editors unfamiliar with the processes of the project have sometimes made discussions much more difficult with four obvious mistakes and breaches of process. | |||
| #Failure to indent their contributions. | |||
| #Insertion of comments into the middle of listings of others in a disruptive fashion. | |||
| #Denial on grounds of perceived "truth" of information firmly based on RS reports. | |||
| #Moving the comments of others. | |||
| For myself, any of these practices may be a breach of AGF requiring adjudication by the mediator. The same for personalising the discussion - if you have real allegations of cheating then make them carefully and in detail in a new section or another well-signposted page. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 12:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==Mediation Issues, please comment on the most important== | |||
| Please add in main points with relevant sources (not just rhetoric), below.] (]) 00:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| I am copying PR's suggestions from above, down here, slightly edited. Please sign all additions as it will be assumed that the rest are PR's suggestions. (PR, if you mind this copy-pasting, feel free to delete. Or, if you'd like to sign your suggestions, that could make things more navigable, too)] (]) 00:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| <span style="color:blue;">Background and aftermath:</span> | |||
| main article: | |||
| :1) <s>Fair and balanced reference to Israeli and Palestinian civilian casualties leading up to the bombings in Israel and the Operation following. ] (]) 02:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)</s> ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 12:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Attachments main: | |||
| :2) The action in Jenin refugee camp went on for months, curfews were still being applied (and people killed in and and out of curfew) for a long time. (The UN notes two further incursions by August, some observers imply that Israel was continuously present for months afterwards). Iain Hook (chief of the reconstruction project) shot dead while inside the UN compound by Israeli forces, on 22nd Nov 2002 and an ] shot and badly injured in the thigh at almost exactly the same time. 13 other UN workers said to have been shot dead that year. PR, 23 July 2008 | |||
| sample attachment: | |||
| :::Some mention of the aftermath needed - ex-Israeli academic tells us there was a popular television music-show concert staged in the middle of the bull-dozed section after the incident. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 12:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| <span style="color:blue;">Inclusion/framing of statements made by Sharon & his advisor:</span> | |||
| :1) Sharon was widely reported to have told representatives of the world's media on 5th March that a month before the incursions (and before the surge of suicide bombings that is already mentioned in the article). This statement by Sharon was linked even by the otherwise pro-Israel directly to the military action that followed: ''"He went on to do just that, unleashing a broader military offensive than anything seen so far in the past 17 months of fighting."'' (Colin Powell was another who criticized Sharon for what he said). PR, 23 July 2008 | |||
| :::This may be the single easiest and least controversial inclusion to make. Although we're not going to say it, the individual in question has been harshly criticised (even by the US and Israel) for attacking civilians over a period of almost 50 years. The words themselves are widely reported as if we're supposed to draw conclusions from them - and of course the RS's did exactly that. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 12:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :2) Sharons advisor told the UN special envoy, Terje Roed-Larsen that he to tell us what is right or wrong". PR, 23 July 2008 | |||
| <span style="color:blue;">Individual incidents within the entire operation:</span> | |||
| :1) reported that Israel was putting refrigerated trailers into the camp, many report they were seen there and quoted Army spokesman Brig. Gen. Ron Kitrey telling us the bodies would be buried at a special cemetery in the Jordan Valley. An told us there were 200 of these bodies to be disposed of - but an application to the stopped it. PR, 23 July 2008 | |||
| :::This is just insinuation and hearsay. etc etc --] (]) 15:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :2) Clips from by one of the bulldozer drivers to an Israeli newspaper provided a different perspective on the way that some parts of this operation were carried out. PR, 23 July 2008 | |||
| :::See my reply above. --] (]) 15:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :3) A single (small but) actual "up-against-the-wall-massacre" reported in careful detail, with the two perpetrators identified, and the . PR, 23 July 2008 | |||
| :::Allegations are already dealt with repeatedly in article. --] (]) 15:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :4) Allegations that the Israelis mined the refugee camp before they left. PR, 23 July 2008 | |||
| :5) Account of the third group that made a visit and presented a "Jenin Investigation", still finding complete bodies 3 months later. (We don't have a source and can't say what this might do to the death toll). PR, 23 July 2008 | |||
| :6) A new section on the overpowering smell in the camp once it was re-opened, as reported by almost every one of the international observers - eg the : ''The smell of decomposing bodies hung over at least six heaps of rubble today, and weeks of excavation may be needed before an accurate death toll can be made.'' PR, 23 July 2008 | |||
| :::A section on the smell.' This does not seem like an encyclopedic or credible approach to this highly important topic. To answer your point, concerns about the smell and any other allegations are already dealt with by inclusion of numerous sources like Amnesty intl, the UN, BBC and many other credible groups taking various positions on factual evidence. --] (]) 15:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ] 16:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| <span style="color:blue;">Massacre discussion:</span> | |||
| :1) Leave to a later date. Meaning of the word, use by both Israeli and Palestinian sources, western media use of and western sources unhappiness with word. "Jenin Massacre" widely used in English, use in other languages. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 12:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::I disagree with all of this, as massive ] and ]. --] (]) 13:42, 28 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| The proposal of commentary and providing undue weight to such topics is rejected by me. All of the above is opposed. I also concur with Steve's assessment of this attempt to break OR and SOAP. ] (]) 14:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I am waiting for some kind of substantive discussion, or addition of further points, beyond: "I disagree." This surprises no one. What we are trying? to do is to resolve our disagreements, not reiterate that we disagree, with the full understanding that it will probably be a long, but hopefully not unpleasant, process.] (]) 21:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Sorry, that's about all I have to say for now. thanks. --] (]) 15:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::'''Question:''' Have you looked into the material yourself to see if it holds water? What is it you are trying to accomplish with the article exactly? <b>]'']''</b> 13:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Some of our fellow editors might prefer we examine such issues later. After all, discovering such factual errors after going into the mediation process would perhaps cast some slight shadow of doubt over all 10 points raised. However, it would not have this effect on the "Kurdi Bear" interview, since . (As did another). After 14 months we could finally move forwards. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 20:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::PalestineRemembered, | |||
| ::::# Please review past discussions and make note of why these subjects were previously rejected by members of the community. It might be good to try to address these concerns. | |||
| ::::# Feel free to answer my question as well, it was not meant only for LamaLoLeshLa. | |||
| ::::With respect, <b>]'']''</b> 07:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::It's a very good idea of yours to look at past discussions - since they contain gems like this: ''"Jaakobou, you open up sections like the one on "war crimes," invite all to participate, and then when it's thoroughly established that there were no findings of Palestinian "war crimes," and strong "prima facie evidence of Israeli war crimes," you simply ignore what emerged from your own discussion, and go back to edit-warring. Then you open up a discussion on "Pallywood," and when faced with critiques you cannot answer - such as a detailed demonstration of the obscurity of both the "film" ''Pallywood'' (in actuality a Youtube video) and the conspiracy theory the film helped to disseminate through the right-wing pro-Israel blogosphere - you abandon the discussion and ignore it."'' What I don't find is any evidence that the subjects listed above were "rejected by members of the community". | |||
| :::::Over and above such sterile exchanges, there is much that is valuable, including statements from many sources and contributors (including yourself) that (I feel sure) will validate each of the 9 points remaining above. | |||
| :::::And I'll be pleased to answer the same question you posed to ] - I'm here to build an online encyclopedia in a collaborative venture with people interested and determined to do the same thing. Now I've answered your question, will you answer mine? ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 16:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::'''Answer''': What I am trying to accomplish is an article in which, as I mentioned earlier, we represent the debate around the events at Jenin, that we represent the Israeli official narrative and the Palestinian offical narrative, and the international official narrative, and point out the discrepancies between them, rather than trying to give one or another source a monopoly on establishing the facts of the matter. What I want to see is an article that does not just present this as a battle, but presents this as a flashpoint in worldwide awareness of the scale of Operation Defensive Shield, as well as flashpoint in the discussion within the Arab world. In order to represent the extent of the flurry of discussion around this horrible series of events, and the impact on Israeli-Palestinian relations at the time, we need to see the points raised by PR mentioned in some way or another. For instance, the smell following the events at Jenin is still referred to within Palestinian circles, has entered the Palestinian narrative, and should be represented thus, not omitted. I do not say this in order to argue for or against the accuracy or inaccuracy of the reports of the lingering odor of dead bodies, in itself, but to argue for inclusion of the allegations of 'the smell' and the debate for and against the legitimacy of the reports.] (]) 23:22, 1 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Hi LamaLoLeshLa, glad to see you explain your approach. It's admirable but I'm not sure entirely suitable. I have my doubts when you say "point out the discrepancies between them" -- which sounds like ] and when you want to present it not as a battle but as a flashpoint -- which sounds like a strong editorial POV. Regarding the flashpoint, though, I agree that the reactions to the battle are notable, but I believe they are covered in the article (though improvements most welcome). Thanks muchly. ] | ] 03:15, 3 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Re: "pointing out discrepancies": What I mean by this is that the reader of the article should come away understanding that this is a narrative rife with discrepancies on both sides, and that this is part of the story.] (]) 05:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::LamaLoLeshLa, | |||
| :::'''Points above:''' There are a few problems with the above points and I avoided responding to them since (a) a few others already have, and (b) I'm trying to avoid anything that will give rise to my old disputes/complaints against PalestineRemembered. In fact, I probably shouldn't have asked him to look up the history since he used it as an excuse to copy-paste an old uncivil comment ("gem") towards me. | |||
| :::'''Moving the article where you want to:''' If you are interested in adding a mention to the Palestinian discussion on the smell at the scene, you need to establish this as a notable issue (for an encyclopedia) with reliable sources. If you provide high quality sources such as BBC, CNN and similar who discuss the smell at the scene or better yet, an array of ''highly regarded'' (clarify: not barely known) Arabic sources, then there could be room for that material to have a niche in the page. It depends, as far as I am in concern, on establishing it as a valid point with proper sourcing. Which are the sources supporting this Palestinian narrative as a very notable issue? (suggest you start a new section here on the talk page and lets examine what the sources say) | |||
| :::Cordially, <b>]'']''</b> 11:59, 2 August 2008 (UTC) clarify 12:02, 2 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Briefly, I do not have the time to get into this at the moment, but I wanted to be clear - I don't believe it would need to be 'very notable', notable suffices. As far as Arabic sources - I am certain that Arabic sources deal with this matter, however, I do not read Arabic, alas. ] (]) 16:55, 2 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==Image copyright problem with Image:Fateh-logo.jpg== | |||
| == Needs more work == | |||
| The image ] is used in this article under a claim of ], but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the ] when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an ] linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check | |||
| :* That there is a ] on the image's description page for the use in this article. | |||
| There are several problematical parts in this article, including unsubstantiated statements right in the section I'm trying to improve (but in the interests of cooperation, I've not taken the completely unsourced material out). There are other problems too, such as the BBC quoting the UN report wrongly. | |||
| :* That this article is linked to from the image description page. | |||
| <!-- Additional 10c list header goes here --> | |||
| This is an automated notice by ]. For assistance on the image use policy, see ]. --04:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| But in the meantime, there are editors apparently claiming that Israelis systematically lie to us and cannot be trusted to translate newspaper articles correctly. No alternative translation has been offered, so given we have an excellent source for the English one we've got, please can we use it? ] 17:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :The problem, is that even if it is an accurate translation, it is being included in a way that makes the quotes say something other than what they are, and that is not acceptable (for example, only the bold was inluded, but the full quote says something quite different "'''When I was told to bring down a house, I took the opportunity to bring down some more houses'''; ''not because I wanted to - but because when you are asked to demolish a house, some other houses usually obscure it, so there is no other way. I would have to do it even if I didn't want to. They just stood in the way''." He then goes on to discuss the boobytraps in the buildings that necessitated this. I hope that you read through it before again inserting it. <font style="color:#22AA00;">''']'''</font><font style="color:#888888;"><sup>]</sup></font> 18:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::You've introduced a third possible objection - does that mean the previous two are dropped? | |||
| ::And this objection looks like nonsense too - some parts of that interview simply describe the way he had to work under the conditions, they're interesting but irrelevant. I've pulled out the sections where he makes it clear that he took no precautions to allow people to escape, and, although he didn't see it happen, he believes that people were killed by his actions. Israel claims to have taken precautions not to kill civilians - but it then handed 60 ton bulldozers to the totally unqualified (+ problematic + +) who used them with reckless abandon. All of that belongs in the article, with the English references. ] 19:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Peres and Haaretz == | |||
| This article is awful, indeed an embarrassment to Misplaced Pages. The unsourced assertions (e.g., "explosive charges in their schoolbags"), distortions of source material (including the UN report), flagrant POV like "Palestinian propaganda victory" in the summary box, the timeline that is not a timeline of the actual fighting at all but of the press coverage, the boldface epithets that pepper the lead: all this needs to be fixed. | |||
| :''Regarding the following diff: '' | |||
| Next to this, the Kurdi Bear dispute is minor, and I wouldn't want it to prevent improvement of the article. A revert war like what is going on now is just as bad as an article freeze, in my opinion, as any change to other parts of the article is likely to be tossed with the reverts. PalestineRemembered's critics have a point about relying on a translation provided by Gush Shalom. However, the alternative they have proposed, simply trusting Jaakobou to read the Hebrew for us and rely on his summary, is also bad. Jaakobou has proven that he cannot be trusted, as he has misused even Engligh-language sources in this article. As I have pointed out earlier in this talk page, he has put the word "genocide" in this article even though the source does not use the word, put in a highly inflammatory sentence about "incitement" based on a source that does not even mention Jenin, and even altered titles of news reports in citations. Unfortunately all these distortions are still in the article! | |||
| A) There's a few issues with this paragraph. For starters, some undo claims about the respectability of Haaretz - it is no more respected than all the other sources in the article and they don't have "respectability" mentions. Secondly, there's too much copy-pasting, leading to a ]. And thirdly, the text should be made into a short explanation of what Haaretz reported rather than a couple long quotes. Please rewrite the paragraph before reinsertion. | |||
| I think the best way to treat the Kurdi Bear material is to put it in its own paragraph, tell the reader that the translation is provided by Gush Shalom, a radical peace group, and then provide a few representative quotations. I don't think PalestineRemembered has misrepresented it, though he does make an important omission regarding boobytraps, which were explicitly mentioned by Kurdi Bear. I also doubt the Gush Shalom translation is really erroneous. Jaakobou has hinted that it is but he has never pointed out which passages are mistranslated and what the errors are. Furthermore, lengthy excerpts of the Gush Shalom translation have been published in ]'s book, ''Israel/Palestine: How to End the War of 1948'' (Seven Stories Press, 2002). Reinhart was a columnist for Yediot Aharonot as well as a professional linguist and it is unlikely she would give so much space in her book to an erroneous translation. Let's put an appropriate POV caveat on the source, quote it directly and move on. There is plenty of material from completely undisputed reliable sources that can be used to improve this article. ] 23:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| B) Best I'm aware, the paper retracted this article - i.e. printed out a retraction. Anyone else aware of this issue? | |||
| :there is no point in addressing the accuracy or inaccuracy of the gush shalom translation, as long as they insist that the page is not a translation page but rather a "bloggish battle assement" and unverifiable POV pushing. i disagree with the assessment that we should include this, as we could do the same with israeli right wing websites and mention that it is written by extremist right wingers... while we're at it, we can add the reports about the battle made by al-manar and mention it is an extremist shia militia run media... even better, let's use the iranian cartoon made on the battle, that would surely be a reliable source... all we need is to mention that it's an iranian report. | |||
| :btw, i agree that the children's schoolbags claim should be cited... i made a quick search for something but havn't found anything yet... i did find a number of sources who mentioned the 15000 explosives claim by kol ysrael and i've also found '''''''''', which is supposed to be the Alharam Weekly (cairo) issue 582, 18-24 April 2002. | |||
| :you can see a partial translation here '''''''''', and you can copy paste segments of the article ''''''''''. | |||
| :in the article there's quite an impressive testimony about "redoubling efforts in the preparation and processing exponentially" ... "some of the crews arrive at work day and night without rest, everyone tirelessly to accomplish the tasks entrusted to him what is required of him in his area of specialization." ... "As for the explosive materials necessary for the preparation of packages of different kinds, have focused our efforts in the preparation of a strong and huge quantities compared to the time factor and potential. This article urbanization of subgroups where articles were '''''purchased nearly three tons''''' of each article and the crew competent in this aspect, which was the hero on the head Mahmoud Tawalbeh" ... '''''"After the preparation and processing of this article the same crew worked on the preparation of the bombs sizes and different shapes''''', which manufactured large-sized packages of ad hoc mechanisms and armored vehicles, was also prepared packages of various sizes and the ad hoc against individuals. This is in addition to manufacture and prepare more than one thousand small packages that were hit by hand"... a few mistranslations but overall, google does a nice job. ] 08:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| btw, according to a hebrew article about this source, the source also says that everyone including the children knew where explosives were being hidden. ] 08:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Cheers, <b>]'']''</b> 06:28, 14 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| First of all, we can use al-Manar as a source in certain circumstances, when it is properly labeled and identified as POV, and is used in an area where the viewpoint of Hezbollah is notable. If there was a transcript of an al-Manar broadcast in 2002 that claimed 50,000 people died in Jenin you would be rushing to put it in this very article in order to prove the duplicity of Israel's enemies. You're ignoring two factors that make using the Gush Shalom translation different from a random political website, which is that Gush Shalom is itself a notable group (as PalestineRemebered has pointed out), and the authenticity of the Gush Shalom translation has been endorsed by Tanya Reinhart, a notable figure and a regular columnist in the Hebrew-language newspaper in which the original article appeared. The rest of your post I can't make sense of, you seem to be saying you found a source for the "explosive charges in schoolbags" claim but don't seem to grasp that to be used, ''such a source must explicitly mention explosive charges in schoolbags''. None of your sources mention schoolbags. And nobody should be copying and pasting Google translations into this or any other Misplaced Pages article. ] 02:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I'd never seen the original of this before. Perhaps now it's confirmed that Foreign Minister Shimon Peres used the word "massacre" (and in the general sense too, not the limited "up-against-the-wall" fashion) we can remove the entire blogosphere "Was there a massacre?" discussion and re-instate "also known as 'Jenin Massacre'". (Google tells us that the latter is more than twice as popular as the name we're currently using anyway, making it ridiculous not to have it mentioned). | |||
| :No. al-manar, a TV station banned in Europe for incitement of racism is not a ]. The only place it might be used is in an article about al-Manar itself. ] 02:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :And we can now say for certainty that the death toll amongst Palestinians was at least twice what Israel later tried to claim that it was. That would save us using the embarrassing, never-confirmed Washington Times figure for number of deaths, referenced only to Rense.com, PapillonsPalace and assorted blogs. | |||
| ::You are wrong, Isarig. Here are two Misplaced Pages articles that are not at all about al-Manar, but nonetheless use material from al-Manar to illustrate a POV: ], and ]. The posture of many Misplaced Pages editors seems to be: We can't use sources from radical Arab groups, ''except when useful to prove what wicked anti-Semites they are''. ] 02:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Shall I update the list of not yet in the article? ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 10:17, 14 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::No, I am 100% correct, and you need to read more carefully. In the 2 articles you referenced, Al-Manar is not used as a source for anything - it is mentioned as a station that ran antisemitic conspiracy theories. It is not forbidden to comment on Al-manar- but we can not use it as a source. Do you understand the difference? ] 02:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::I think this quote is definitely notable, and should be included, although perhaps rewritten (unless, of course, a retraction is found). However, I don't think it means that the incident is now known as a massacre. Peres is not a neutral, third-party source here. He is a savvy politician, and may very well have been trying to undermine Sharon. IMO, we should call it a massacre only if and when there's a consensus among historians that this is what the incident was. -- ] (]) 11:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I think it should be clear, since I only wrote about using al-Manar as a source in "certain circumstances, when it is properly labeled and identified as POV, and is used in an area where the viewpoint of Hezbollah is notable", that I am not arguing that al-Manar be used as a source for any thing other than what the views of al-Manar are, and then only in cases where the views of al-Manar (or its sponsor, Hezbollah) are notable. I regret the blunt tone of "Isarig, you are wrong": I simply wanted to make the point that the views of al-Manar are notable enough to be mentioned outside the al-Manar article itself. To get back to this article, I still think it would be acceptable to describe the contents of an al-Manar broadcast about the battle of Jenin, so long as it is attributed to that organization, and the reader is informed of its political orientation. ] 04:14, 7 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::The quote seems to be somewhat "private", but Haaretz's report is indeed notable - retraction or not. Still, the COPYVIO by PalestineRemembered is a problem and should be amended. As a side note it's pertinent to add that as soon as the camp was opened, Haaretz quickly and reliably reported that there was no massacre in Jenin during or after the fighting. <b>]'']''</b> 14:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::I've found Haaretz's . At least unlike several other news outlets they corrected this error the following day. Not bad. <b>]'']''</b> 16:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ], this is '''''not''''' a but a generic '''''bloggish''''' "translation+personal thoughts" '''''POV piece''''' about the palestinian-israeli conflict. ] 11:24, 7 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::That's not a retraction, it's simply a different article from different sources on a topic only vaguely related. The papers own reporters refer to "international reaction as soon as the world learns the details" the wire service says "feared Palestinian officials would distort". When were Palestinian officials ever quoted, other than with abuse over "high" death toll estimates, or (allegedly) by cult-owned newspapers with ridiculously low death-toll estimates? | |||
| ::::I have a second question for you, the answer to which is long overdue - when can we put all the other well referenced material on this incident into the article - or is that to be permanently rejected on the non-policy objections displayed ? ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 10:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::PalestineRemembered, I've been trying to improve our correspondence but it is a bit difficult when already discussed arguments are repeated -- such as the 'google test' and the 'cult-owned' samples. I'm also having difficulty understanding why you'd call the two Haaretz articles "only vaguely related" and I'm thinking it would be best if you run this content by your mentor first before reinserting it again into the article. | |||
| : The Gush Shalom page that you object to consists of two things: An English translation of the 7 Days article, and a few additional paragraphs which express the POV of Gush Shalom. | |||
| :::::With respect, <b>]'']''</b> 10:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :# There is reason to believe the translation itself is accurate, as it has been endorsed by a prominent Israeli linguist. Anyway, you have never told us where you believe there are inaccuracies in the translation. | |||
| :# As to the POV part, Gush Shalom is a significant organization. Significant enough, that their views are considered worth reporting on by the . We can certainly put in this article, for example, the statement that "The Israeli peace group Gush Shalom called Kurdi Bear's testimony 'sickening'." ] 02:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Jaakobou, stop removing RELIABLE SOURCES which contain important information about what happened in Jenin. Feel free to include the second Ha'aretz story, but is FALSE to call it a retraction. Peres does not deny that he was/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." Peres IS correct here, since there was a STRONG INTERNATIONAL REACTION. Also, in the second story, he does not deny his original (and probably accurate) description, when he privately said what happened in Jenin is "a massacre." What happened is that Peres CHANGED HIS MIND about how he is now referring to Jenin. This is very important evidence that there was a massacre, and is known politically as "damage control." The IDF repeatedly made statements which were probably accurate, then revised those statements to hide the fact that there was probably a massacre. Sharon has been associated with massacres of civilians throughout his career. Your repeated: 1) deletion of evidence of an Israeli massacre, 2) altering the published conclusions of the UN and human rights organizations when you delete the words "AT LEAST" when referring to the number of Palestinian dead, and 3) using CAMERA as if it were RS, when, in fact, it is a Zionist propaganda source is WP:NPOV. And stop your false accusations against PalestineRemembered WP:CIV. You should apologize to him. I've seen you do this before, and I imagine you are now going to make false accusations about sock puppets. I AM NOT PalestineRemembered, I never have communicated with PalestineRemembered, and unless you have conclusive proof, STOP your uncivil habit of making repeated reckless derogatory speculations.] (]) 19:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| gush shalom are a noisy bunch who are allowed to express their opinions and having friends at a few high places they can also get quoted.. does not make their statements more accurate than those of ahmed tibi or avigdor liberman. regardless, their unprofessional handling of the translation is the reason i cannot accept such a blatant backdoor introduction of POV... and the wiki protocols explain this. (pun intended) <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 02:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I have a book by Haaretz correspondents Avi Issacharoff and Amos Harel (the one who wrote the article in question) called in English "The Seventh War", published in 2004. (translated into French as "La septième guerre d'Israël". It's about the Second Intifada and discusses the battle and the massacre allegations. Can I use it? -- ] (]) 10:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::You'd be welcome - except the "massacre allegations" are Israel's Public Relations - a device for denial. | |||
| ::::::After 6 days in which to cover up the evidence (and mine the camp), Israel finally allowed very restricted access. On that first day (16th April) two US papers (Newsday, Washington Post) casually told us that they could see "no evidence of a massacre", apparently forgetting that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. | |||
| ::::::But other sources were brutal indeed, saying things like "The smell of decomposing bodies hung over at least six heaps of rubble today" (New York Times) and "A monstrous war crime that Israel has tried to cover up for a fortnight" (Independent) and "The refugees I had interviewed ... were not lying. If anything, they underestimated the carnage and the horror." (Guardian) and "permeated with the stench of rotting corpses and cordite" (different Independent story) and ""Rarely in more than a decade of war reporting ... such disrespect for human life" (Times) | |||
| ::::::On that day, even the Israeli Supreme Court was being told "IDF leaving dead to rot in Jenin". | |||
| ::::::If, after all that, you still think there is something relevant, it could go in a separate section - remember that it's unverifiable in English, so please provide a proper page or so of translation containing any clips you want to use (but I'll not raise any objection to you doing the translation yourself). ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 18:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Fair enough. I guess it's a question of how much weight is to be given to media impressions. After all, I'm sure there were some heaps of rubble and nasty smells during, say, the ], but that article doesn't detail all that, certainly not as evidence of the death toll. Anyway, considering the sensitivity of the subject, I'll wat a while for further input. -- ] (]) 18:24, 18 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Please don't stop! I'd be very interested to learn what these journalists made of the denialist propaganda spin put on this affair. Probably see a dramatically different angle on . However, it's near enough an irrelevant side-show to the actual story. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 22:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ===Removal of sources=== | |||
| Hi, I still have no strong opinion on the content of this article one way or the other, but I am concerned by edits like this, which appear to be removing reliably sourced information. Is there consensus for this, or what exactly is the concern? Are the sources unreliable in some way? Is the information from those sources not being properly interpreted? It would seem to me that if the citations are good, then it would be better to keep the citations in place, and just edit the information ''from'' those citations, rather than deleting everything at once. --]]] 17:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Hi, Elonka. I'm rather new to this article. As you probably know, this isn't an easy place to work. Jaakobou has reverted a couple of times and has given his reasons. He seems to come by only once a day or so, and meanwhile I'm trying to get a consensus per ]. The discussion has not been too constructive so far. I have made a suggestion and am waiting for a reply. The sources are reliable, but are somewhat contradictory, due to the nature of the incident and the media coverage of it. It may be possible to edit "from" the citations, but that might stretch ] - I think it's better to rely on later, more conclusive accounts, rather than synthesize real-time news reports. -- ] (]) 17:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::I don't wish to make a case against PR on a content talk page, but the content issue can be, I hope, fairly easily followed from the top of the section -- ]. A major point of concern right now is that old issues are being brought up again in a ] attempt to change the final reports of the event. For example, the final Palestinian report (April '''30''') said 56 casualties and now, based on a (later corrected) report from April '''9''' - there's a push to persuade us to inflate the death toll and rename the article "Jenin massacre". (See also ]) | |||
| == Source inadequate to support statement == | |||
| ::I'm still trying to figure out the best way to handle this clash of versions, but being that the initial April 9 report was retracted the following day, it cannot be posted as is without further thought and discussion. Personally, I feel PR is in breach of several ] but as I don't wish to enhance on our past disputes, I suggested he address the issues to his assigned mentor. | |||
| ::Let me know if there's anything else that needs clarification. <b>]'']''</b> 19:18, 18 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::1) It is not true that the April 9 report was retracted the following day, and Jaakobou does not provide a source for his assertion, since there is none. 2) The source of the assertion that "the final Palestinian report (April '''30''') said 56 casualties" is from the Washington Times, which is in not a reliable source (it is owned by the ], which is controlled by the convicted ]) and the best evidence is that NO OTHER AMERICAN NEWSPAPER RAN THE STORY. NOT ONE! Doing an internet search for a match reveals all of the other citations for this claim are either from Zionist blogs, or THE GOVERNMENT OF ISRAEL. 3) the false accusation that I am PR is being repeated. There is no evidence that I am PR, but that is the way of ]; you don't need any evidence to make a false accusation. 4) One example of ] tactics is working to delete inconvenient reliably sourced facts which are unfavorable to Israel. I see that an attempt is being made to delete the hasbara page, which details the dishonest and underhanded tactics the Zionists use, which again, is the removing of information that they do not like. Do we want a POV majority vote here, or the truth? Because right now, the truth loses. Also check out the unethical attempt by ] to secretly infiltrate Misplaced Pages. They got caught.] (]) 01:21, 19 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The disruptive reverts and other conduct at this article is highly reminiscent of the situation at the linked article ], where one editor (including an admin) for over 18 months. (The inclusions being so bitterly fought over there were ], so should not have lasted a minute). Look at the TalkPage there too, note the extensive time-wasting and non-policy arguments used to buttress the tendacious editing. | |||
| ::::Similarily in this case we have highly relevant elements () being excluded by arguments that don't even pretend to be policy. | |||
| ::::However, I would warn the IP editor that, while frustrating good editing has long been a well-established (but mysteriously tolerated) art, there is an increasingly powerful movement to make CIVIL the only enforceable policy of the project. As a result, Reliable Sources policy has been pretty nearly replaced by IDONTLIKEIT policy in 100s of articles relating to the I-P conflict. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 12:17, 19 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Well, a quick Google search has found two sources, which support the retraction theory. one is by the Haaretz correspondent in London, and one is by the director of the Palestinian American Research Center in Ramallah. I suggest we add the Haaretz reports with this evidence of retraction, as per Elonka's suggestion. Comments? --] (]) 06:31, 20 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::1) is NOT a retraction. Another newspaper, The Guardian, cannot retract something which appeared in Ha'aretz. Only Ha'aretz can retract something which appeared in Ha'aretz. The fact that there is no link from Ha'aretz making a retraction is proof that the information was NOT retracted. 2) does NOT support the contention that there even was a retraction. The relevent section says, "That atrocities which in scope and scale extend well beyond those committed elsewhere in the West Bank have taken place in Jenin is beyond question. On April 9, in fact, Ha’aretz quoted Peres as characterizing Israeli conduct toward the residents of Jenin refugee camp as 'a massacre'—albeit in the context of the Nobel Laureate’s concern over international reaction, rather than the massacre itself—while in the same article military officers were quoted as stating that 'when the world sees the pictures of what we have done there, it will do us immense damage.' The following day, Ha’aretz reported that the Israeli Foreign Ministry had established a PR committee to deal with the consequences, another indication that the world best prepare for the worst." Setting up a public relations committee is NOT a retraction. Since there continues to be NO evidence that Ha'aretz retracted its story, I am returning the original Ha'aretz story on the Battle of Jenin page.] (]) 10:41, 20 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Not sure I agree. I think the Haaretz correspondent is reliable enough to say the statement was retracted. The quote I was referring to in the second link is this :"Indeed, a statement several days earlier by military spokesperson Ron Kitri that “hundreds” had been killed in Jenin almost immediately was retracted by his superiors, who elaborated that “hundreds” referred to both dead and wounded, and that the actual death toll was in the dozens and almost exclusively limited to armed Palestinians." I used this source because I don't think it's likely that the author works for the "Hasbara". -- ] (]) 10:52, 20 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| I haven't been following this article for a while, but would like to add my 2 cents on this particular dispute (about April 9 'event'). I'm really not sure how many people here actually read the Haaretz article, but on careful inspection, it's clear that the (badly-written, I might add) version puts an unnecessary spin on this article, which is fairly ordinary. There are the following problems with this version: | |||
| "Rumors of massacres in Jenin swirled through Palestinian communities which were then echoed in the world press for several weeks, pitting world public opinion against Israel. 27" | |||
| * The section in the Misplaced Pages article (''Fluctuations in reported deaths'') is about reported deaths, not about reactions. Anything Peres supposedly said, if it's notable and verifiable, should go into a 'Reactions' section. | |||
| Ref 27 is a publication by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL). According to the ADL, "a massacre of hundreds of Palestinians by Israel was widely alleged, reported and condemned". | |||
| * The Haaretz article says that Peres "In private, Peres is referring to the battle as a 'massacre.'" Not sure how the Haaretz writers should know what Peres says in private, but this is clearly not the main idea behind the article (despite the provocative title), and the claim is exceptional, so it requires an ], and not a shoddy passage in an Haaretz article. For claims like this, if true, it's dodgy at best and inconceivable at worst, that there is only a single source with a brief mention. | |||
| * The current Misplaced Pages prose meshes together Peres's alleged comment with comments by IDF soldiers, a passage that is taken verbatim from the Haaretz article. This is highly confusing to the reader, and implies that Peres actually said those things about justification. Furthermore, it is not clear how 'IDF officers'{{who}} (might not represent even a tenth of all IDF officers in the battle - Haaretz doesn't elaborate) are notable in this case. The official IDF position is the responsibility of the IDF Spokesperson. | |||
| In light of all of the above problems, I can't see how the Haaretz source alone is sufficient to make the claims in the article, or why they should even be made in the context of fluctuating casualty reports. -- ] <sup>(])</sup> 12:34, 20 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| The word "massacre" appears 27 times in the document. Although quotations from the international press are sprinkled throughout this document, '''the ADL doesn't produce a single quotation of ANY media outlet using the word''' except in scare quotes or preceded by some variation on the word "alleged". | |||
| :These points are valid. Right now, I don't want to aggravate the edit war. I'll try and work on a draft for the article, using the book I mentioned above, but it'll take some time. Anyway, I've also found Haaretz article, a speech by its then-editor, Hanoch Marmari, in which he says there was no massacre, and that some of his correspondents "might have been obsessive in their determination to unearth a massacre in a refugee camp". -- ] (]) 12:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'm looking forwards to hearing about the contents of this book, but it's about presentation, not the event itself as we're trying to document. There is of course nothing to indicate in the that anything about Perez's language was "retracted". ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 07:20, 21 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==ArbCom restrictions== | |||
| In other words, we have only the ADL's word to rely on here. Is the Anti-Defamation League of the B'Nai Brith, a deeply partisan organization dedicated to advancing Israeli militarism under the cloak of anti-racism, a reliable source on this matter? | |||
| Hi all, as a reminder, this article falls within the scope of the ] arbitration case. As such, in January 2008 the ] authorized uninvolved administrators to place additional restrictions as needed: "''Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.''" | |||
| I recommend that everyone read the section under ], such as, "''Editors are reminded that when editing in subject areas of bitter and long-standing real-world conflict, it is all the more important to comply with Misplaced Pages policies such as assuming good faith of all editors including those on the other side of the real-world dispute, writing with a neutral point of view, remaining civil and avoiding personal attacks, utilizing reliable sources for contentious or disputed assertions, and resorting to dispute resolution where necessary. Misplaced Pages cannot solve the dispute between the Israeli and Palestinian people or any other real-world ethnic conflict. What Misplaced Pages can do is aspire to provide neutral, encyclopedic coverage about the areas of dispute and the peoples involved in it, which may lead to a broader understanding of the issues and the positions of all parties to the conflict. The contributions of all good-faith editors on these articles who contribute with this goal in mind are appreciated.''" | |||
| What the article should say is something like "Rumors of massacres in Jenin swirled through Palestinian communities, and the existence of these rumors was reported by international media outlets who could not confirm or deny them. Israeli authorities prevented the international press from entering the refugee camp for two weeks, which delayed the ability of the world community to assess the damage. After it became clear that no systematic massacre had taken place, supporters of Israel's actions condemned the international media for reporting on these rumors and allegations. According to The Independent, "Israel’s host of government spokesmen and its media have seized on such claims to mount an argument tantamount to saying that, as there is no proof of a massacre, there is no case to answer at all." | |||
| There are currently no additional restrictions on the editing of this ] article, but as an uninvolved administrator, I've been watching this article for awhile, and the recent edit-warring is of concern. If disruption continues or escalates, further restrictions may be placed on the article, or on the editors who are working on it. This does ''not'' mean that anyone needs to worry that they're a hair's breadth away from being blocked. Any blocks or bans are multiple steps down the road. For example, before an editor can be sanctioned under the ruling of the ArbCom case, there is a requirement that they must be warned via a specific message on their talkpage, along with instructions on what they can do to avoid restrictions. And though I can't speak for all administrators, my own style is to give multiple warnings, and I usally only impose bans or blocks when an editor keeps ignoring all other cautions. So we're ''not'' at that point yet. I am starting this thread though, to advise people that it's a possibility down the line. Also, other administrators have different styles than I do -- some are much quicker with the "ban hammer", as they say. | |||
| ] 19:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :The standard on WP is verifiability, no truth. I appreciate the effort you put into researching the validity of the ADL's claims, but this original research can't be part of the article. ] 21:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::So now reading the sources given to support a claim is "original research"? The ADL is too partisan to be a reliable source on its own. So I read the source material, looking to see if perhaps the ADL citation could be converted into citations of more trustworthy sources. Finding none, I believe that the cited information should be removed altogether, unless a better (ie, non-partisan) source can found. Failing that, the claim should at least be attributed within the text -- "According to the Anti-Defamation League, an American Zionist organization, rumors of massacres..." ] 21:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::The Anti-Defamation League is an American Human Rights organization, not an American Zionist organization. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 17:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::The ADL is both. However, their claims that world media were unfair to the Israeli military is clearly Zionist advocacy, not human rights advocacy. ] 19:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Reading the source is not original research. Reading the source and concluding that ''"the ADL doesn't produce a single quotation of ANY media outlet using the word"'' and subsequently that the article should say that "international media outlets ... could not confirm or deny" is. ] 22:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Well, the statement about "could not confirm or deny" was not based solely on the ADL link. But you're right, it is something of a synthesis of sources, so it shouldn't be included. The phrase "who could not confirm or deny them" shouldn't be included, just the other language. ] 18:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| So, please be careful, please stay calm, please avoid edit warring, and please try hard to find a compromise which keeps the article in adherence with Misplaced Pages policies. Our ultimate goal here is a high quality article, which well serves our readers, and reflects positively on Misplaced Pages and the editors who worked on it. Thanks, and let me know if you have any questions, --]]] 17:22, 21 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| We should handle the Anti-Defamation League the same as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and other organizations. That is, their views and conclusions should be presented, but not treated as undisputed fact. ] 10:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :There are huge problems at this article, with the most absurd non-policy arguments being made to keep out what the RS say and said about it. I'm not entirely sure how to treat the most recent finding, that an Israeli Cabinet Minister was calling the incident "a massacre" long before outside observers were talking about war-crimes - but it must be obvious to all that the report renders the current "No massacre" theme of the article either completely pointless - or blatant, full-bore Hasbara. | |||
| * lists lots of sources. . This is an interesting headline from '']'': Also, this '']'' article says: The ] reports Martin Sieff did an interesting 3 part report for UPI about the hysteria, titled "Why Europeans Bought the Myth", worth reading. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 17:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I've previously pointed out the 10 or more well-attested details that almost certainly belong in the article - what we need here is administrative action against editors refusing to abide by policy, raising IDONTLIKEIT objections, inserting laughably POV edits and disruptively removing excellent material. | |||
| ::As far sa I can tell, absolutely NONE of the media organizations you cite actually claimed there was a massacre. They only claimed that "reports", "rumours" or "allegations" of a massacre existed. So I think it's totally consistent with the language that I've proposed. ] 18:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : |
:Incidentally, the only reason I'm currently able to protest what has been going on here is that my hands are clean as regards edit-warring - <s>I backed off</s> I completely stopped editing the article and am waiting for administrative action to clear the road-blocks preventing us writing a good article. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 20:30, 21 September 2008 (UTC) | ||
| :::Also, the world press didn't report on "the existence of these rumors"; rather, they repeated them. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 18:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Jayjg, every link you gave me featured Palestinian allegations reported as: allegations! The current wording implies that international press credulously passed on rumours as if they were true, when in fact, they simply '''reported that these rumours existed'''. This is a major difference. Even the sources you provide take pains to downplay the credibility of the rumour, noting that it could not be verified, that burying victims in Jenin would not serve to hide a "massacre" at all, etc etc. ] 18:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::So what exactly is your point? The European press was filled with these stories - i.e. they echoed them, and they didn't, in fact, call the "rumors" as your edit claims. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 02:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I'm not sure how my edit implies that the world press specifically used the word "rumours". They were in fact called "rumours", "allegations", or sometimes "reports". Furthermore, can you tell me what "sourced information" your last edit restored, and what "original research" was deleted? ] 03:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I used direct quotes from the sources, rather than various unsourced POV statements. The different is quite easy to see. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 03:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::A direct quote from the Independent was removed, leaving the only source as the Anti-Defamation League, a highly partisan group with zero credibility on this issue. And an unsourced statement, tagged as unsourced, but which supported Israeli POV, was restored. Oops! I'll correct this apparent error. ] 12:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::There was no citation for the Independent quote, and its placement appeared to be ]. Please review ], which doesn't say at all what you seem to think it does. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 22:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::So, if I properly cited the Independent quote, you would be fine with it? And please explain how its inclusion is "original research". I've noticed in the past that some people use "original research" to mean "anything I don't like". ] 16:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Dear PalestineRemembered, | |||
| == big jenin lie == | |||
| ::In my previous note I mentioned a suggested solution for the dissonance between your statements and the ones made by fellow editors, myself included. If you believe the community is ignoring your valuable input on baseless/political grounds, it would be best if you approach your assigned mentor and discuss this with him. If Ryan is still your mentor, this would also help you regain his trust as well as give you a chance to re-examine your arguments at a less involved environment. When you avoid your mentorship and repeatedly exclaim exasperation towards the project and your fellow editors it is not going to magically solve the problem and, in fact, it only serves to increase sentiments of antagonism towards you. '''Content-wise''', you believe there was a massacre at the camp and wish that we write this down into the article as well as change the title. What other sources do you have to support the 'Jenin massacre' perspective other than the Peres quote from April 9 - which Haaretz published a ] version of, an , the following day? | |||
| ::Cordially, <b>]'']''</b> 03:17, 22 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| I think there's some good advice in the comments made above. Staying calm and civil, avoiding edit warring, and touching base with mentors (where applicable) is always a good plan. I hope sanctions don't prove necessary here and that consensus can be reached through analysis of the relevant sources. <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">] ]</strong> 03:38, 22 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| i'm not 100% certain this must be in bold, but it certainly feels like it considering it's one of the predominant terms used to describe this event - is fairly indicative. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 21:55, 14 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Even when consensus has been reached (in the I'm thinking of, one disruptive editor against eight others, including an admin, continuously for 19 months) the policy-trashing insertions will continue even after and . The problems at just that one article were only stopped by a under ArbCom enforcement. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 13:48, 22 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ===Note on user Blindjustice and IP 68.37.255.64=== | |||
| : But the relevant search would be "Big Jenin Lie", which returns 236 results, most of which seem to pull back to a single Weekly Standard editorial. It wouldn't seem that "Big Jenin Lie" is one of the predominant terms used to describe this event, after all. It's fine to have a line mentioning that some Western commentators called the media furore the "Big Jenin Lie", but pretty silly to have it listed in bold as if it's a significant name of the event. ] 22:27, 14 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ] has been blocked under the provisions of this arbcom restriction, as well as per our policy on disruptive editing, for using a logged out IP address ] to disruptively sockpuppet on this article. The shenanigans on this article won't be tolerated any longer. ]] ] 01:46, 25 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :: actually, the most used is "the big lie" while referring to jenin, however, as you stated, "the big jenin lie" does not appear on many sources but it's still easily interchangeable between "the big lie" and makes it difficult to narrow down when "the big lie" is about jenin and when it isn't... perhaps it should be changed into "the big (jenin) lie", what do you think? | |||
| :There has been massive disruption at this article - but I can see none of it from this editor. I find 17 edits from him, all of them either good or at least "arguably sound". They are . Meanwhile, there is a huge amount of other material that is definitely sound which has been edit-warred out, to the severe detriment of this article. Statements are still being made (such as the alleged retraction of an Israeli article on "Peres calling it a massacre") that appear totally unjustifiable. Attempts are being made to discredit sources normally considered to be second only to the Red Cross, while absurd "information" from blogs (about unverifiable articles in newspapers owned by cults) is edit-warred in. | |||
| ::'''note:''' the third link in the 13,000 find is "Jenin: The Big Lie" which is yet another interchangeable possibility. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 08:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Were we (or ] given any opportunity to challenge any allegations made against this editor? Judging by his UserPage, this action was carried out with no discussion whatsoever. I certainly didn't know any accusations were being made, and there is nothing on this page to indicate any suspicion. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 10:03, 1 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Draft proposal == | |||
| :::I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at. The specific phrase "Big Jenin Lie" is bolded, as if that phrase is a common name used to refer to the Battle of Jenin. This formatting is reserved for names used to refer to an event. It makes sense to mention that some Western commentators accused Palestinians of propagating a "Big Lie" for propaganda purposes, but not to put the name in boldface as if it's commonly used as a name of the event. ] 12:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Alright, sports fans. I have created a draft in my sandbox for this article, ]. Here are the major changes: | |||
| :::Boldface is for commonly used alternative names for the subject of the article, such as '''Tamil Tigers''' for '''Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam'''. It is not supposed to be used for every epitaph anyone has ever used in relation to the subject. I can find zillions of web pages that use '''Shrub''' or '''Worst President Ever''' to refer to the current U.S. president but nonetheless those terms should not listed in boldface in the lead of the ] article, and they aren't. Elelend was right to unbold "Big Jenin Lie". "Jeningrad" should just be removed; the fact that Arafat once used it doesn't justify giving it such prominence. ] 12:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *Content - mostly about the battle itself, based on Harel and Isacharoff's book. It is also used for establishing commanders and casualties. | |||
| you have a point, i'll give this naming issue a go later today to try and fix it to a version that will hopefully be agreed upon. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 14:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *Cleanup - removal of a lot of info that is about Operation Defensive Shield and/or the Second Intifada in general, but not this particular battle. I have also removed many "2nd degree criticisms". I don't think the allegations section should include all the people who don't think there was a massacre. Finally, I have formatted the refs and cropped the link farm at the bottom. In general, I have refrained from "cherry picking" quotes from reports. I only channeled them through secondary sources. The reports themselves are available as external links. | |||
| *Copyedit - I tried to arrange the article so as to separate the casualties reports, the massacre allegations and the various reports. I think it flows better this way. | |||
| *This draft may still have some problems, such as typos and syntax errors. I have removed the tags because of the bots, but of course it's possible to use it and keep the tags. | |||
| Anyway, comments would be appreciated. Cheers, -- ] (]) 18:26, 22 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==="Jeningrad"=== | |||
| :I like your changes, mostly because they make the article cleaner and easier to read, which has long since been lost as a goal in disputed articles. However, the lead section is IMO lacking, and the current one is better (although still not perfect). I don't wish to address the entire article point by point at the moment, in order not to get into minor unimportant content disputes, but will help with the article if need be in the future. -- ] <sup>(])</sup> 17:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| should we somehow insert the information about the term jeningrad and why it was used by very few people to describe the events? <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 00:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Is it the paragraph on the passover massacre? My rationale was that it belongs in the article on the operation, but I could just put it back. -- ] (]) 17:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::A couple points about the lead: | |||
| :::a) A bit too much input on the Israeli troops for the lead. If we go in that direction there should also be text about the militancy. I'm thinking it would be best to remove/shorten it. | |||
| :::b) Intro image seems more appropriate for inside the article where it currently is. | |||
| :::Haven't really taken the time to review more of your effort; I tend to think that edits are better made in sections than as a whole though I ] myself also. | |||
| :::Cheers, <b>]'']''</b> 17:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I've removed this paragraph. Tweaking the images should probably be done in mainspace, since the bots won't let them show on userspace. Let me know when you have further reviewed it. -- ] (]) 17:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I will start by admitting that I have not yet had a chance to take a look. However removal of "2nd degree criticisms" leaves only official army PR, so I can't imagine that your draft will be NPOV. It seems like people who believe in retaining and adding non-army source information (or what you refer to as "2nd degree criticisms") have been repelled from this page because of all the incivility issues. I know I have. But I'll be back to review the above.] (]) 04:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Actually, by "2nd degree criticisms" I meant criticisms of the UN/HRW/Amnesty reports, i.e., "criticisms of criticisms". I tried to avoid using "official army PR" as facts. Can you be more specific? -- ] (]) 04:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::'''General note:''' Secondary sources would be the final reports of the likes of BBC, CNN, Haaretz, JPost etc. Amnesti and other HR groups are simply echoing Palestinian claims and are far worse (blood-libel massacre blunders) as "the army's PR". In retrospect, it might be good to start looking up written sources on this issue (books). <b>]'']''</b> 19:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::You must be very skeptical when you read about human-rights violations in Saddam's Iraq, Sierra Leone, Rwanda, or the Balkans then. Half the stuff we know about those things came from such dubious, discredited, partisan sources as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch - you must be wondering if any of this stuff even happened! Well at least you have the dependable ADL to inform you there was no Armenian genocide. Or at least there was no Armenian genocide until last year when suddenly Abe Foxman announced: "Upon reflection, the consequences of those actions were indeed tantamount to genocide". Of course, the ADL doesn't get tangled up with historical data, or established facts, or the documentary record, or old-fashioned notions of maintaining political and financial independence, or sending experts to investigate and prepare reports on-site, or anything of the sort. Rather, Foxman sits and "reflects" in the relative solitude of conference calls with Israeli government figures, who then coordinate their own reflections and announcements in consultation with the Turkish president, who until that moment had veto power over historical truth for the ADL under Foxman, who in turn has veto power over historical truth in articles in WP. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 20:29, 24 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Jaakobou. You have just re-invented the term "secondary source" arbitrarily to suit a political- and ethnic-based conspiracy theory that you seem to have personally contrived. This is no basis for editing a Misplaced Pages article. Kindly take your bizarre and unsupported claims about HRW and "Amnesti" methodology somewhere else. <]/]]> 02:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::Without having any consideration to anything else, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch '''are''' a partisan source, and have been highly criticized for their accuracy and "spin" by sources like ], the ], NGO Monitor, ], Discover the Networks, ], The Conflict Analysis Resource Center, etc. ]] ] 03:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::HRW is on the front line fighting human rights abuses in despotic Arab countries, including Iran and Saudi Arabia, where religious minorities, homosexuals, and women often find themselves subject to the worst kinds of abuses. That they treat Israel and the United States exactly the same in this regard is a testament to their reliability. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 07:53, 25 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::How they treat Israel and the US similarly or differently is significantly less important as far as Misplaced Pages policies are concerned, than the fact that they've been highly criticized for their accuracy and spin by numerous highly-regarded sources. Interestingly enough, one of the more common criticisms is that both HRW and AI both grossly underreport, or fail to report human rights abuses in Syria and Iran, while reporting abuses of questionable veracity and value in Israel and the US. It may well be that they treat the US and Israel equally. But that's not the complaint: that they treat Israel and other countries disparately, something that is documented in the media. ]] ] 09:15, 25 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::You have made a variety of unsupported claims, and the fact that you would refer to "the New York Sun, NGO Monitor, Alan Dershowitz, Discover the Networks " in the context of '''opposing''' partisan spin makes me frankly question your seriousness here. There is a variety of low-level partisan dross which ''attempt to paint'' HRW and Amnesty as biased anti-American sources, sure. But, besides the fact "you're biased and anti-" is the absolutely ''standard'' reply to human rights criticism, these charges are quite easily shown to be outright lies. | |||
| :::::::::::::<SMALL>One of the arguments of those who are critical of Human Rights Watch's reporting on the Middle East is that the organization devotes too much attention to alleged abuses by Israelis. A corollary is that it pays insufficient attention to violations of human rights by Israel's antagonists in the region. Yet a glance at the back pages of the "World Report" published annually by Human Rights Watch where it lists all its publications suggests that these criticisms are not well founded. Typically, Human Rights Watch publishes more than a hundred reports each year. In all, it issued more than 350 reports in 2003, 2004, and 2005 on the seventy or so countries that it monitors. Of these, just five dealt with Israel and the Palestinian occupied territories while another sixty reports dealt with various Arab countries and Iran. The largest number of reports concerned abuses in Iraq, Sudan, and Egypt, but reports were also published on Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Algeria, Tunisia, Morocco, and Jordan.</SMALL> | |||
| :::::::::::::Or, you could simply read their websites. Currently, for example, the front page of HRW's "Middle East and North Africa" section has ''five'' articles about Saudi violations, four about Iran, three about Libya, and one each about Algeria, Syria, and Tunisia. And nothing about Israel. Is this ''really'' what you would expect from an organization which grossly under-reports abuses of Arab countries while constantly bashing Israel? Be serious, man. <]/]]> 01:58, 26 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::How are my claims unsupported? I said that these organizations have been highly criticized, and provided the names of the organizations who have proffered those criticisms. Whether you like the sources or not is irrelevant (I note that you only mentioned "some" of the sources as "opposing partisan", which while your claim of partisanship is certainly disputable, the other sources are clearly not so (unless the Economist and the University of London suddenly became "spin sources")). And please don't accuse me of not being serious. If you can't discuss civilly, without resorting to slights, you shouldn't discuss things at all.]] ] 09:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::::We are entitled to expect compliance with the principles of the project from an administrator. I'm not sure what serious criticisms of HRW there have been from responsible sources, but your mention of NGOM and Dershowitz in this context is worrying. The only serious criticism of HRW I've seen is that from Jonathan Cook (a Briton living in Israel), which strongly suggests that HRW (at least sometimes) falls over backwards giving Israel the maximum benefit of the doubt. | |||
| :::::::::::::::Incidentally, the discussion at the RS/N looks very much like overwhelming consensus, with nothing but a partisan trying to disrupt the work of the project with seriously frivolous objections. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 19:08, 29 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ===Regarding the Reliability of Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International=== | |||
| Both organizations have been discussed at the RS/N. Please refer to ]. Of note especially is the end of the discussion, where consensus is established rather emphatically that both organizations are indeed eminently reliable for information regarding human rights violations. The rest of the discussion consists mainly of two editors (myself included) trying to argue with a third that "accusations of bias" do not amount to unreliability.] (]) 17:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Exactly. Bias has nothing ''directly'' to do with reliability as a source. ]] ] 17:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yes but "accusations of bias" do not equate to proof of bias either. These organizations are accused of bias by pretty much every country they report on (surprise surprise) -- in the Middle East that includes pretty much every country. Also please note that you highlighted criticism of "accuracy" above, which would effect reliability were it true. The RS/N discussion would suggest a consensus there that there is no accuracy issue with these organizations, certainly not one subject to any national bias.] (]) 17:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I'm not sure the limited discussion on RS/N quite qualifies as consensus, but differentiating between accusations of bias and proof of bias is an academic task, because there's no clear line where such accusations become proof, and it will be disputed by partisans in any event, so there's not much point in the distinction in the first place. ]] ] 18:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Well consensus during one RS/N discussion isn't ''the'' last word on the subject matter. When I used "consensus" I was simply referring to that discussion. Perhaps you should start another discussion at the RS/N or at the NPOV/N or another location where uninvolved editors will respond. Regarding proof vs. accusation -- there is a fairly big distinction between partisan sources accusing some entity of bias and non-partisan sources making similar claims. There is also a fairly big distinction between accusations supported with a fair amount of evidence and those not so supported. The sources you name are mostly of the partisan variety, and of course we do not know the exact claims being made or the context of these claims since you have only enumerated critical sources. Are we talking investigative reportage? Editorializing? etc. I suggest, especially given the previous consensus at the RS/N that you start another discussion there if you wish to re-examine the issue in a forum that isn't as prone to partisanship as an entry talk page.] (]) 18:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Should you take this advice I will gladly stay out of the discussion as well.] (]) 18:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Err, I'm not an "involved editor." I have not edited the article. My only substantive edit to the talk page was a tangent related to the reliability of a source. So Please keep that in mind. Similarly, the statement that the sources I name are "mostly" of the partisan variety is simply not correct, when confronted with sources like The Economist, University of London, and major US newspaper. Some of the other support may have accusations itself of bias a specific direction, but none are explicitly partisan sources, and it's all disputable anyway. But as I said before, it's a tangent, and a deep argument has nothing really to do with the article itself, and in order to remain an uninvolved editor, I'm not intending to pursue it further. ]] ] 02:48, 3 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Well you and I are both "involved" on the talk page in question -- right here, right now -- whether or not we have any other edits to this entry or talk page. All I meant by uninvolved was someone not a party to the original conversation we are having ''or'' to editing this entry. I'm not sure ] ''was'' ever a "major US newspaper". But from the sources you enumerate as certainly non-partisan context is extremely important. You claim that none of the other sources are "explicitly partisan" in this area. Eh hem. Here is the first line of the lead of ]: ''NGO Monitor is an Israeli non-governmental organization with the stated aim of stopping "certain self-declared 'humanitarian NGOs'" from promoting agendas which are perceived as anti-Israel.'' I'm not sure you can get more partisan on this subject matter than that. ] is one of ]'s projects. Horowitz is also clearly "explicitly partisan" on this subject matter, and the same goes for ] who has a history of public commentary that is completely pro-Israeli. HRW and AI may in fact have a bias ... against human rights abuses. They have no nationalistic, ethnic or religious bias however, and that is what you, are alleging through these sources. Some of these sources themselves have a very clear nationalistic bias, which is in the public record and which by denying or attempting to downplay you make a very odd impression of your own understanding of the issues at stake.] (]) 12:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| It's very sad to me that on WP these two orgs are considered reliable sources of info and CAMERA is not. When it comes to HRW and AI, I find the work done at NGO Monitor to be solid: | |||
| == massacre 30-50 == | |||
| info. from NGO Monitor on HRW: | |||
| we deem the netanya bombing as masscre, because it is the indiscriminate killing of 30 people sitting at a dinner table while the perpetrator had the racist intention of killing as many jews as possible and the brainwashed mindset of thinking that this will get him into heaven. the jenin battle is not deemed a massacre, because it was fighting between two armed forces, one of which was victorious, yet with many casualties (that are not registered as massacred either). | |||
| * Website: | |||
| p.s. i agree that it was a palestinian propaganda victory, considering they got their "500 killed!" message out in prime time and the "ok, maybe it was 50" message was barely noticable due to the lack of media interest in letting the public know they were wrong/lying/spreading libel. to top things off, many arabs/muslims still use the term "jenin massacre" which shows this was successful propaganda. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 08:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| * Founded 1988 (originally Helsinki Watch, founded in 1978); claimed an annual budget of over $50 million in 2005. | |||
| * Based in New York, headed by Kenneth Roth. | |||
| * 1997 Nobel Peace Prize for Campaign to Ban Landmines. | |||
| * CLAIM: "The hallmark and pride of Human Rights Watch is the even-handedness and accuracy of our reporting. To maintain our independence, we do not accept financial support from any government or government-funded agency." | |||
| * In contrast, detailed NGO Monitor analyses demonstrate the | |||
| * HRW was an active participant in the 2001 Durban conference, and continues to against Israel. | |||
| info. from NGO Monitor on Amnesty International: | |||
| :: Fine. I know I'm stupid for even trying to make even the smallest amendments to articles on Israeli-Palestinian issues when there's a whole gang of editors who'll jump in and revert them (I assume you are also referring to this gang when you talk about the "we" who "deem" things). Good to know as well that we can describe it as a Palestinian propaganda victory on the basis that you personally "agree" that it was one. Terrible of course as well that the Palestinian authorities didn't know at first how many people had been killed and overstated the death toll (as in fact is common in situations of this sort, see September 11th). I do understand your point about motive - but I'm always reminded of a comment I saw at the time along the lines of "if a bunch of soldiers came into my town, flattened all the houses around me and killed 50 of my neghbours, I'd call that a massacre".--] 08:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :The infobox is hardly the place to discuss naming, but in this case the '50 neighbours' were mostly armed combatants killed in battle, while the 30 in Netanya were civilians killed by a suicide bomber with the stated aim of killing civilians. I'll grant you that there isn't currently an explicit source for the outcome listed, but I believe that can be easily remedied, and a {{tl|cn}} tag would be far more reasonable in such a situation. <font style="color:#22AA00;">''']'''</font><font style="color:#888888;"><sup>]</sup></font> 09:02, 22 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| * Website: www.amnesty.org | |||
| :: Of course it's easily remedied. All one of you needs to do is go through back issues of the New Republic or the Jerusalem Post, find a comment to this effect by one of their writers, and there you are - OR and personal opinion suddenly becomes reliably sourced Misplaced Pages fact.--] 09:20, 22 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| * Founded in 1961 by British lawyer, Peter Benenson. | |||
| * Amnesty describes itself as a "worldwide movement of people who campaign for internationally recognized human rights for all." | |||
| * Amnesty International claims to be "Independent of any government, political ideology, economic interest or religion… it does not support or oppose any government or political system." | |||
| * During the Second Lebanon War in 2006, Amnesty unjustifiably accused Israel of “war crimes” and “deliberate attacks on civilians,” and relied on Lebanese “eyewitnesses” to allege that Hezbollah did not operate in population centers. | |||
| * In 2007, Amnesty continued to disproportionately single out Israel for condemnation, focusing solely on the conflict with the Palestinians, misrepresenting the complexity of the conflict and ignoring more severe human rights violations in the region. | |||
| * Amnesty International distorts international law – misusing terms like “collective punishment,” “occupying power” and “disproportionate” – in its condemnations of Israel’s Gaza policy. | |||
| * In the fiscal year ending March 31, 2007, AI reported an operating budget of approximately £30 million. In prior years, this sum represented "approximately one quarter of the estimated income likely to be raised during the year by the movement´s national sections." The majority of the funds come from individual donors, and Amnesty International does not accept donations from governments or political parties. | |||
| It is my hope that anyone who is truly trying to be objective will look into the detailed reports found there. --] (]) 03:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :: One final thought from me on this point - regardless of the accuracy of the phrase, do you have any idea how offensive it is to describe the deaths of 50 people as being a "propaganda victory" for those people? Probably not I guess --] 09:52, 22 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::As to why CAMERA is not considered reliable you may wish to familiarize yourself with this: ]. Of course there are more substantive issues that transcend that little fiasco but after that happened I'm not sure Misplaced Pages can or will ever consider them as credible. ] is quite possibly the most partisan organization within the context of this discussion. They are basically an organization with the political goal of discrediting human rights organizations that come out with statements critical of Israel.] (]) 12:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::I'm very familiar with the case and I don't think CAMERA did anything wrong to try to get volunteers involved with WP to help in the extreme bias against Israel readily found here because of these very issues. There sanctions against those involved were completely unfair while the folks working with the Electronic Intifida seem to have gotten off with no problems. Typical "wiki justice." --] (]) 01:09, 4 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::(1) disagreement on the "propaganda victory" is something i don't mind and we surely can discuss this and work on some references. (2) i explained why the generic wikipedian who works on this article (and the general public) deems the netanya bombing a massacre while the 50 fighters (most of them fighters) who died at the jenin camp are not deemed as massacred. (3) your explanation about your "50 neighbours" fits the netanya bombing, not the situation at the camp that just launched '''28 successful suicide bombings''' and managed to place explosives everywhere including kitchen cupboards and under cushions of couches! - and according to one of the captured they were waiting in anticipation on such a battle their whole lives. to be honest, I found your comparison insulting but apparently you only care for dead militants, comparing them to your neighbors, and not for people who are unsuspectingly targeted while they eat their holiday meals. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 13:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::I think we don't need to go very far with the credibility issues. The problem with the Jenin 2002 incident is that non of these human rights organizations took measures to validate claims which were later found to be bogus blood-libels. This is really not about general reliability but about reliability towards the discussed event - which is clearly lacking. <b>]'']''</b> 14:08, 3 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The Palestinians killed in the camp were not all militants. Even Israel acknowledges that some innocent civilians were killed, even though they say it was by mistake. ] 14:20, 22 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::read my note again, notice the "'''most''' of them fighters". <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 16:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Good point, Jaakobou. I do think it's important to consider that HWR and AI have only helped to fuel a lot of the blood-libels. It would be helpful if more WP editors could pay more attention to legitimate sources like CAMERA, HonestReporting, and NGO Monitor when looking at these issues rather than slanted left-wing sources which only help fuel misinformation on complex situation in the Middle East for their own biased political reasons. I have found so much of these RS material is from the extreme fringe left. I would hope that more editors at least make an attempt for neutrality, but those who are honestly after it seem very few and far between (maybe b/c of the CAMERA case where WP sanction people for trying to get involved?) Pathetic. Trust me, there's quite a lot of evidence of organized pro-Palestinian campaigns behind the scenes as well. --] (]) 01:09, 4 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Please do not post untrue and offensive accusations about other editors on article talk pages. It's rude and it's irrelevant. I have responded to what you have said on your user talk page, although I'm not sure your comments deserve a reply. --] 14:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Can I assume that an editor who suggests that avowedly partisan and nationalist campaign groups like CAMERA, HonestReporting and NGO Monitor are "legitimate sources" but implies that mainstream human rights groups, and presumably certain mainstream media sources as well, are the "extreme fringe left" is having a little joke? Neutrality does not mean "agrees with my political viewpoint" you know. --] (]) 08:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :please don't compare terrorist militants to your neighbors and act as though people who are unsuspectingly targeted, while they eat their holiday meals, are not massacred just because "only" 30 people wound up dead; and we won't have this problem. i was the one insulted - and suddenly you get insulted in return when i note this insult to you?! <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 16:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Original introduction == | |||
| :: your posts also say "50 fighters" and that I compared my neighbours to militants (twice, now), the implication of the latter being that only "militants" were killed. That is not the case - civilians were killed too, and if I lived in Jenin they would have indeed been my neighbours. Hence the comparison. And where did I "act as though" people were not massacred at Netanya, or use the word "only" alongside the number killed? I simply queried why one event was called a massacre and one was not. We wouldn't have this problem if you didn't attribute opinions to me that I don't hold, or suggest I made statements that I never made --] 16:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| The current introduction is, to say the least, quite biased. Almost any news report or summary of the battle in Jenin first goes on to discuss Palestinian claims of a massacre. That was the most significant, most publicized, and most stressed part of this event. | |||
| :::you just selectively quoted my text. just try not to compare the martyr's capital populace (militants and human shields in a bomb filled batteground) with people who celebrate passover, as though they are on the same innocence level. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 16:59, 22 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::: I did not selectively quote your text. I quoted part of your text, and acknowledged, by my use of the words "your posts also say ..", that another part of it did say something different, ie that the victims weren't all fighters. However now you seem to be arguing anyway that the civilians who were killed in Jenin are on a different level of innocence from other victims of violence. I think you need to be very careful about what you are suggesting with that comment --] 17:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| For starters, my edit is entirely sourced, so one must have good reasons to remove those sources. The introduction that another user keeps reverting to is flawed in other ways besides what I just mentioned above. It says that subsequent "Israeli investigations" did not find evidence of a massacre. This is VERY misleading. ALL investigations did not find any evidence of a massacre. It further ''only'' mentions criticism of Israel from human rights groups, when both the UN and these interest groups criticized Palestinian militants for a number of things during the battle, including endangering Palestinian civilian life. That is not a fair representation, not to mention very inaccurate. To include all points and give an accurate representation of the reception of the battle and a basic representation of these investigations. --] (]) 18:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::: "Human shields"? Sir, the only documented evidence of human shields in Jenin relates to Israeli forces ordering Palestinians to walk in front of them, open potentially booby-trapped doors for them, etc. Jenin was "bomb-filled" in order to make its capture s as difficult and costly as possible for the invader. It was a "battleground" because Israel invaded it. You're talking as if Jenin was some kind of giant bomb factory where civilians flocked to become human shields, and not a densely populated town where some militant groups made bombs. Nicknh is right, this article is still littered with anti-Palestinian bias, and adopts the completely false accusation that the media were grossly unfair to Israel and reported a massacre that didn't exist. In fact, the media simply passed on what fragmentary reports they receieved, for a while, and then ignored the massive human rights violations by Israel in favour of this bogus question of "massacre". ] 13:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Thank you for your comments. Here's my reply: | |||
| *Misplaced Pages is not a newspaper. The history book I used, for one, does not start with the claims of massacre. IMO, the article should start with established facts, and only later move on to (ultimately unsubstantiated) claims. The lead does mention - in summary, of course - those claims. | |||
| *Just because it's sourced doesn't mean it should go in the lead, which should be a concise summary of the article. | |||
| *As for the "Israeli investigations", I don't mind dropping the word "Israeli". | |||
| *The lead doesn't mention criticism, only the aforementioned allegations of massacre. | |||
| Cheers. -- ] (]) 18:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Using one source, one history book, should not drop all other sources from contributing to the lead. I only included plain facts in the introduction, this was in fact, based on an introduction that was used for this article for a long time. The current introduction seems very biased for the reasons I pointed out about. The media controversy and claims of a massacre were the most stressed and yet it is barely mentioned here at all. The closing statement in the introduction: "Subsequent Israeli investigations found no evidence to substantiate these charges; however, international human rights organizations such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International alleged that war crimes had occurred." To "substantiate" these charges? Please tell me exactly what "history book' is this? To correctly reflect reality we would say that Palestinian claims of massacre were never corroborated and that several investigations found no evidence of a massacre at all. That sentence is filled with ]. | |||
| == proposed tidy up to intro == | |||
| ::Secondly, it only mentions criticism of Israel (from special interest groups/NGOs) in this case, when these same NGOs had a fair share of criticism of Palestinians in Jenin. If you add a short blurb about allegations raised against Israel from these groups, then give an accurate reflection of the report and add a blurb about alleged Palestinian misconduct. Much of the information here in the introduction is selective at best. --] (]) 23:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::If you prefer "corroborated" to "substantiate", that's fine. I'm not sure I understand your point about the criticism of the Palestinians. First you say that the allegations of massacre are the most important aspect of the incident, and then you say that the criticism of the Palestinians should be given as much weight as the allegations of massacre. As I said, the lead summarizes the article, which has a section on the allegations of massacre. The NGOs' accusations are brought within the general context of all of the reports and investigations. HRW and AI's reports are not by themselves are not important enough (and, according to some - see above - not reliable enough) to be given that much weight. Therefore, they are not in the article, and not in the lead. Which words in that sentence are weasel words? Also, this particular sentence is not mine, but a residue from the previous version.<br> | |||
| :::I'd like to take this opportunity to elaborate on my rationale for rewriting the article. I felt it had too much of what I would call "allegations of no-massacre". IMO, the article should describe what happened, not what didn't happen. If the description of the battle doesn't include a massacre, then that should be enough. No need to "spell it out" for the readers. That makes the article look partisan. -- ] (]) 06:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Agree with Nudve. The lead is not supposed to document rumors, but facts. ''']''' (]) 07:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::There is the issue that a big chunk of the battle's claim to notability came from the blood libels. I think there is room to mention it's claim to notability in the lead. <b>]'']''</b> 14:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| On a more constructive note, I'd like to make some changes to the intro. In particular some of the cited sources and the interpretation of them needs to go. However I'd like to suggest them here first, to avoid the usual revert war | |||
| ::::::Firstly, I think the battle would certainly have been notable even without the allegations of massacre. Secondly, about half the lead is pretty much dedicated to them. -- ] (]) 15:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Who here is documenting "rumors"? It is a '''fact''' that rumors were made up. That is mentioned in nearly every report, investigation, news story, or what have you on the battle in Jenin. When I said allegations of a massacre are important, I didnt say it is the ''only'' thing important, as you may suggest. The AI and HRW reports in the lead are in the version you are asking for; I dont know why youre acting as if I am fighting to put them in when they are there. What I am saying (and I was very clear about this), is that IF you add a blurb in the lead about allegations of Israeli military misconduct from these organizations (as you currently have it), then give a fair representation of these reports from the same investigations and add a blurb about allegations of Palestinian misconduct during the battle in Jenin. It is a matter of accuracy and proper reflection of the source.. And again, this one "history book", which I question, should not cancel out the contributions from so many other reputable Internet sources. --] (]) 22:04, 3 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ''1. These allegations were aired widely in the Arab world, inciting extreme antipathy toward Israel.''. This may be true, however a) the cited reference doesn't provide evidence for either of these points and doesn't mention Jenin at all; and b) I think it's fair to say there's quite a lot of antipathy towards Israel in the Arab world anyway - it's not solely dependent on what did or didn't happen in Jenin. | |||
| :Fine. I've just copyedited it and formatted the refs. -- ] (]) 07:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Neutrality and balance in lead and elsewhere == | |||
| ''2. Due to this activity, critics in the West name the events as the "Big Jenin Lie".''. All these sources show is that a couple of US opinion pieces had the phrase as a headline. Having this in the intro slightly overstates the significance of the criticism and the phrase - it's better off just staying in the media reaction section. | |||
| I've popped in and out of this article in the past (as pretty much a neutral and objective editor, even if I've not always been seen that way by some) and checked back on it just now. I'm sorry, but the problems in the lead are worse now than they were. As currently written it presents a seriously one-sided view of events here. For example - | |||
| ''3. Many Arabs and Palestinians still use the term "Jenin Massacre" (ar:مجزرة جنين) regardless of the results of the investigations.''. Sorry but second part here just strikes me as being a bit unnecessary, and being little more than a "but they're wrong of course" POV insert. If the phrase is still widely used (are there sources that suggest that?) then it should be noted as a standalone fact, to reflect the fact that some people in the region do use different words to describe what happened. There's also a slight contradiction as well with the recently-changed first sentence, which says "previously dubbed as .." --] 16:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| * The second paragraph is devoted purely to prior Israeli casualties and explaining the Israeli justification for the assault in considerable detail. This a) has nothing to do with the battle itself of course and is almost certainly undue weight in the lead, and b) ignores the fact that there are two sides in this conflict, each of whom was inflicting considerable damage on each other before the attacks on the West Bank. | |||
| # (a) this report is taken out of a CNN day dedicated to the Jenin fighting. (b) true, however, this was yet another factor to strengthen these racist feelings which are found for the most part on misinformation and lies. regardless, a "hate telethon" for the "massacre" is certainly something worth mentioning. | |||
| # you made an interesting point, however, if you ], you'll find that there's quite a lot of people who used this and similar phrasings, hence it was notable enough. | |||
| # i agree that we should add a citation to this, however, it was not added on a whim. | |||
| :-- <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 16:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| * The third paragraph also is based almost entirely on Israeli claims, eg about the number of militants/fighters killed, about the IDF's efforts to avoid civilian casualties. Even those claims not sourced to the Israeli side appear to be there to highlight negative claims about Palestinian conduct (eg re booby traps). This totally downplays the fact that civilians were killed as a result of direct IDF actions, with some allegedly buried with their houses, others shot in the street etc. That doesn't need to be flagged up as "evil IDF murderers", but equally it shouldn't be brushed over. | |||
| * The fourth paragraph talks pretty simplistically about "uncorroborated" Palestinian allegations of deliberate massacres, war crimes and extensive civilian casualties. In reality, Israeli officials were also talking about 100s of people possibly having been killed at the time, and journalists were barred from the camp leading to confusion and also suspicion in the media that the IDF "had something to hide". While it did become clear eventually that there had been no deliberate, widespread massacre in the camp, equally civilians were killed, much of the camp was flattened and individual cases of alleged war crimes were documented (as above). None of this is recorded in the lead as it is. | |||
| ::: Hmm. I kind of read all this as meaning you want it to stay as it is, but you will add one source to tighten it up. Maybe other editors will have a view (as they did when the Jenin Lie issue came up previously, in the section you referred me to). Oh and as usual you immediately reverted the one change I did make, where I had clarified that Israeli sources also initially referred to 100s of casualties. Working with the existing text did make it come out a bit clunky, but you were wrong to say in your revert summary that my wording suggests Israel admitted to a massacre - it says, as it did before, that some media began ''reporting'' a massacre .. but changed the following section so it said that those reports were based on the Israeli & Palestinians accounts.--] 17:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::That Israeli estimates were originally higher is noted, but your edit changes the meaning to say that Israeli reports claimed there was a massacre. <font style="color:#22AA00;">''']'''</font><font style="color:#888888;"><sup>]</sup></font> 17:59, 22 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| * The fifth paragraph purports to be a round up of later assessments, and again comes out as "move along, nothing to see here .. those Palestinians made it all up". As ever, the reality is more complex than that, both as to why the original massacre claims gained currency and as to what actually happened in the camp. In addition of course there is a still a body of opinion around the world - it doesn't matter whether you or I think they are right or wrong - that regards an attack on a residential area which kills around twenty civilians as a "massacre". | |||
| ::: As I explained above, my edit didn't say that if read carefully. But equally, as I admitted, it ended up being somewhat confusing. I'll add it to my list of things that I think need changing and see if anyone else has any views about how it should best be written up. Currently the intro suggests that the only reason for the high casualty figures (and use of the word massacre) is because the Palestinians tried to hoax the world and slander Israel, and that the western & Arab media fell for it. As ever the reality is a little more complicated than that - yes the Palestinian spokespeople and witnesses made exaggerated claims about the numbers killed, but I imagine that's as much because, at senior official level, they simply didn't know what was going on in the camp in the first days of the assault. The IDF, who probably had a better idea, were also talking about 100s of casualties. The media were therefore faced with both sides at times offering similar estimates (albeit each of them describing the situation in very different terms) - and as they were barred from sending reporters into the camp themselves, that was all they had to go on and report. In the early stages of events like this, there is always genuine confusion and contradictory or incorrect reporting about the detail of what is happening. --] 18:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Sources for all of the above points are already scattered throughout the main parts of the article, and nothing of what I've said is really disputed as far as I'm aware - it's simply about marshalling and summarising the existing known info in order to get a balanced lead. I'm tempted to tag the page for neutrality, but I'll lay off doing that. And can people stop using the phrase "blood libel" on talk pages? I don't see how it helps anything. Thanks. --] (]) 08:22, 4 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::], the reason i changed your phrasing was because international reports were based on the reports of the palestinians, not on a cross-check between israeli and palestinian reports. if a couple of israeli sources echoed the "palestinian narrative" (citation is needed), the source still remains palestinian and not israeli. the way you originally phrased it, allowed for the misinterpretation that the international media followed israeli reports - which is wholly inaccurate and misleading. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 22:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Would you support a revert to version? -- ] (]) 08:46, 4 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::It's definitely a better version in my view, as it covers the issue quite broadly (as a lead should, rather than going into intense detail that is better dealt with further down) and doesn't seem to make one-sided judgements about the background to the attack, the assault itself or the disputes that developed over what had occurred in the camp. I'd quibble with one or two of the points in it, but wouldn't everyone? For example, it duplicates the point about the stream of suicide bombers reportedly coming from Jenin, and probably does need a quick note on the final assessment of casualties and consequences, eg - | |||
| :::::What you'] 22:15, 22 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::''The Battle of Jenin took place from April 3 to April 11, 2002 in the refugee camp of Jenin, in the West Bank. It was fought between the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) and Palestinian forces as part of Operation Defensive Shield, during the Second Intifada.'' | |||
| :::::: Everyone: don't forget all the (pro-)Palestinian claims about the supposed secret burials in mass graves or what-not. --] 23:48, 22 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::''As part of the operation, which involved invasions of cities and towns all over the West Bank, Israel targeted Jenin's refugee camp, after it determined that the city had "served as a launch site for numerous terrorist attacks against both Israeli civilians and Israeli towns and villages in the area", <s>including the dispatch of 28 suicide bombers since the start of the Second Intifada.''</s> | |||
| Um, they're still there. In the intro. As for whether Israeli actions and comments affected the reporting, ''even one of the sources cited'', one of the CNN reports, includes an individual reporter querying whether the IDF has something to hide, and whether that's why they're not letting journalists into the camp. I watched a lot of media reporting at the time and this was in fact a common reaction - the Palestinians say 100s of civilians are being killed, some IDF spokespeople appear to be confirming a large number of deaths and they're not letting people in to see what's happening. That all helped feed the reporting frenzy. You might want to blame it all on deliberate Palestinian misinformation, but that's not even what the sources 10-13 cited here say. My edits clarified all this, without inserting any judgemental emphasis. --] 09:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::''The IDF denied entry to journalists and human rights organizations, leading to a rapid cycle of rumors that a massacre had occurred. Jenin remained sealed for days after the invasion. Stories of civilians being buried alive in their homes as they were demolished, and of smoldering buildings covering crushed bodies, spread throughout the Arab world. Various casualty figures circulated, reaching into the mid-hundreds. Palestinian sources described the events as "the Jenin massacre", and international media and human rights organizations expressed concerns that a massacre had taken place.'' | |||
| == More inadequate references == | |||
| ::''Subsequent <s>Israeli</s> investigations found no evidence to substantiate <s>these charges</s> claims that a widespread, deliberate massacre had taken place. '''However large areas of the camp were destroyed and of the xx Palestinians killed in the attack, up to yy were thought to be civilians. zz IDF soldiers were killed.''' International human rights organizations such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International alleged that war crimes had occurred '''and criticised the conduct of both sides'''.'' | |||
| The claim that Jenin was called "the martyrs' capital" is supported by "The Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center opened in 2001. It is part of the Israel Intelligence Heritage & Commemoration Center (IICC) , an NGO dedicated to the memory of the fallen of the Israeli Intelligence Community and it is located near Gelilot , north of Tel Aviv. It is headed by (Col. Ret.) Dr. Reuven Erlich ." | |||
| ::I don't want to get over-involved here again, but those are my brief thoughts FWIW. --] (]) 09:52, 4 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Please acknowledge that NGO's closely, and openly, linked to one side of the combat are not reliable sources on their enemies. This is equivalent to citing a Hamas-linked NGO for information on an Israeli city. If Jenin was, indeed, called "the martyts' capital", and this was, indeed, a reference to suicide bombings, then there ought to be more reliable sources which can back up the claim. In any case, this claim does NOT belong in the very first sentence of the article; that is a clear attempt to push the Israeli line that the refugee camp was somehow the essential keystone of the suicide bombing campaign and therefore a legitimate target. ] 22:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Actually on reflection, I think I am being a little overgenerous in aiming for balance by suggesting that HRW & AI criticised both sides, based on my memories of them having raised the whole houses-rigged-to-explode issue. In fact the main thrust of both reports, having just checked the HRW & AI websites and run over the headline coverage of the reports in the mainstream media at the time, was overwhelmingly that they were accusing the IDF of having committed war crimes and causing the deaths of civilians. --] (]) 10:45, 4 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :it is simply the current reference to a known fact/nickname, there are links with a scans of documents written in arabic and references - try inspecting them please. this is a fairly ] for referencing a known fact that has been noted on several other sources also.. '''i don't mind more citations being added''', however, there's no reason to feel the given source is unreliable in this matter. secondly, while there is no room to expand on this in the intro, i think it certainly merits a mention. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 23:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Small comment about "up to" and HRW and AI reliability for the lead. I think we're already giving undue credence to the unverified claims and we should add the initial claims of "thousands massacred" next to these assertions so that their true credence in regards to Jenin would be clear. Either that or we go by my original suggestion of leaving their "Human Rights" propaganda issue out for the body of the article. <b>]'']''</b> 10:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :: So provide these other sources that make it a known fact. ] 00:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::unless you have reason to believe this reference is a fraud, the duty of coming up with more references lies with you. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 00:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::So while other editors are discussing and agreeing specific edits in detail, you chip in briefly to say you are merely making a general "comment" .. and then suddenly dive in regardless and make without any discussion or agreement? Not good practice I'd have thought. Problems with what you've done - | |||
| ::::Um, no, statements which are not properly attributed to reliable sources may be remvoed at any time. No question of "duty" or "fraud" enters in to it. Read the relevant WP policies. ] 00:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::1) You've erased any mention of civilian casualties | |||
| :::::2) You've confused the issues by suggesting that because there was no (widespread, deliberate) massacre, that human rights groups are wrong in "holding on" to allegations about war crimes. That's just a logical non-sequiter, the points are totally different. Just because it turned out that 100s of civilians weren't killed, as was feared and suggested by many sources including Israeli ones, it doesn't mean that none were. I know that is the narrative favoured in some quarters, but it can't have prominence here. | |||
| :::::3) You've mangled the English (for example - rumours cannot "purport" a massacre, or indeed anything else) | |||
| :::::4) You've removed the undisputed fact that the IDF barred entry to the camp, so it now simply says the "camp remained sealed" as if it were due to an act of God | |||
| :::::5) You've inserted a reference into the lead which is not needed, and in any event appears to be a single example of particulary OTT comment from one Palestinian official, from which you've then created the most exaggerated text you can. This is undue weight of course, by any definition. Most Palestinian officials were talking about 100s not 1000s, and even then were frequently using this figure to refer to casualties of "Defensive Shield" in its entirety. | |||
| :::::6) You've also left it as suggesting that only (mendacious) Palestinians and (biased) human rights organisations were giving casualty stats that turned out to be wrong, or using the word massacre in some capacity (note as well I'm not sure even how many of these specifically used the phrase "the Jenin massacre"). You know full well of course that Israeli sources were also using similar figures and language. It was also a time of intense confusion - hence why the previous wording was, correctly, much looser while also being more accurate. | |||
| ::::I'm bored of listing them now. --] (]) 15:23, 4 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| (outdent)<br> | |||
| :::::the text is referenced to a ] source. did you inspect the scanned documents? <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 01:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Replies to the raised concerns:<br> | |||
| ::::::I take it you do not have a source both RS and verifiable by "any reader" of the encyclopedia. The reference should come out (especially from the lead!) ] 08:57, 4 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| 1) We don't know the number of civilian casualties. Writing the highest possible number is propaganda. I'm willing to add a note that the number of civilians is between X-Y as per 52-56 casualties.<br> | |||
| 2) I did not say they were wrong, that is your own assumption. A quote reasonable assumption considering that they hadn't fact-checked any of the claims and many of the reported claims were found to be baloney.<br> | |||
| 3) I'm open to suggestions where English is the problem. I never claimed to be an authority on the matter.<Br> | |||
| 4) What is wrong with "camp remained sealed"? I think it's a clear issue but I'm open to external opinion by uninvolved users to this issue.<br> | |||
| 5) There are obviously more sources repeating the 'thousands' claim, but mostly they are people repeating the Palestinian claim rather than a head official making it. Thousands is thousands and no one suggested high numbers regarding Nablus. His claims were about Jenin just as Erekat's Live-on-CNN promise of '''more than''' 500 "massacred" - ''in Jenin''. Please also note that the mentioned line does not say thousands 'in Jenin' but is written in a more generic tone as the Palestinian speaker used.<br> | |||
| 6) Gideon Levy is a "Israeli source" - and a couple misquotes on Haaretz were later retracted. Was there any Israeli using the term thousands or was it the Israelis saying that Palestinians are falsly trying to portray the situation as a massacre - I believe it's the latter. To further clarify, I'm quite certain that Israeli officials did no describe the event as a massacre in the international media (current phrasing of article).<br> | |||
| Hope I answered all your concerns. <b>]'']''</b> 16:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC) clarify 16:12, 4 October 2008 (UTC) further clarify. 16:16, 4 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :This is the precise reason why I chose not to go into detail in the lead in the first place. It worked fine until Shamir1 rewrote the lead unilaterally. I eventually went along with his changes because it seemed at the time like consensus was with him. Now that this is no longer the case, perhaps we can agree on the "minimalist" lead? -- ] (]) 18:52, 4 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::I don't know of any sources claiming there were thousands killed. The said it was 497 in total, and it was widely believed that an Israeli shot dead the head of reconstruction, in Nov 2002, along with 13 other UN workers and serious injury to the ]. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 19:49, 4 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::"Secretary-General of Palestinian Authority Cabinet Ahmed Abdel Rahman said, "They took hundreds of bodies to northern Israeli to hide their massacre they committed against our people. "This massacre is not less than the massacres committed against the Palestinian people in the refugee camps of Sabra and Shatila in Lebanon." He said thousands of Palestinians were either killed and buried in massive graveyards or smashed under houses destroyed in Jenin and Nablus." | |||
| :::"Palestinian minister Saeb Erekat said Israelis killed three thousand Palestinians, then lowered the number to five hundred." Donna Rosenthal. ''The Israelis: Ordinary People in an Extraordinary Land'', Free Press, 2003, p. 69. ]<sup>]</sup> 07:11, 5 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: leads me to believe it's no longer possible to discuss the reliability of sources (even mention of will lead to an immediate block!). | |||
| :::::So editors will have to judge for themselves whether the project should rely on sources that say ''Nazism ... still maintains a lethal grip on the minds and souls of many Arabs, particularly the ruling classes. As Israelis know all too well, Nazism was exported to and took root in the Arab world"''. | |||
| :::::Meanwhile, of course, we have lots and lots of excellent material on this event from even the most acceptable sources, and they cannot be used either in case we document this event accurately. Sadly, more and more of the media record is being cleansed from the archives as every kind of human rights observer and reporter and editor is smeared, sometimes with the openly avowed intention of breaking them personally. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 09:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC)\ | |||
| ::::::1) Newsmax is a news-source aggregator. The opinion piece you note is just one opinion piece from another source, and using search engines to cherry-pick what you imagine to be extremist is disingenuous at best. The source for the quote regarding Ahmed Abdel Rahman is a ] story, which is a reliable source. They made these claims of thousands killed. Accept it and move on. | |||
| ::::::2) Stop your ridiculous ]. I mean it. Stop now. When you comment, comment ''only'' and ''specifically'' on suggested article text changes, and bring material related ''only'' and ''specifically'' to that change alone. If you don't stop disrupting article Talk: pages, I am going to start taking more serious action. ]<sup>]</sup> 15:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::There were one or two instances of people talking about a death toll in the 1000s, but these were not the main claims (and as I've said it was not always clear whether they were talking about the whole range of attacks, or simply Jenin. Indeed the Rahman quote cited above is noted as including Nablus). As I have also pointed out many times - I remember the coverage from the time very well - it was a time of real confusion and chaos, as battlegrounds usually are, and no-one really knew what was going on. The IDF had closed the camp to the outside world, there were rumours floating around as well as official and semi-official briefings ''from both sides'' talking about 100s being killed. Palestinian spokesmen seemed to have a real fear of another Sabra and Shatila, whether that was justified or not. Anyway, the problem in respect of the article is that the more (as it turned out) inaccurate claims from Palestinians are being highlighted with undue weight in a bid, it would seem, to suggest that the reality of what happened was rather trivial by comparison. Some edits are trying to build a narrative that says "Palestinians and human rights groups deliberately exaggerated what was going on, those reports turned out to be wrong, ergo nothing bad happened in the camp at all and anyone who suggests it did is clinging to a refuted version of events". As ever the real world of events is more complicated and nuanced than that - hence the lead needs to record the basic facts (eg the incursions, the initial confusion about casualties, the final casualty count including the real concerns about civilian deaths) but also be fairly broad and minimalist in what it says, which is where myself & Nudve at least came to an agreement. Quite apart from all the above, leads should of course be concise and clear anyway. I'll remove the POV tag, but personally I'd like to see the lead go back more or less to the recently agreed version prior to . --] (]) 08:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Secretary-General of Palestinian Authority Cabinet Ahmed Abdel Rahman and Palestinian minister and spokesman ] are not just random inconsequential voices. ]<sup>]</sup> 15:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Regardless if the claims were deliberate of not, the lead is writing this as rumors without ascribing intentions - i.e. "Various casualty figures circulated" does not ascribe intentionality and it is explained that the camp was closed (please also see my reply to point no.5 above). The rumors, a ''mixture'' of true concern, elevation of martyrdom (read: experience dramatization), and a bit of a deplorable war-time tactic; are not being explored for their reasoning within the lead paragraph and we even justify them by adding the note that the camp was sealed (as if that's any type of justification for starting out a baseless global blood-libel). What is written is that the rumors were being reported/echoed/circulated as official claims by Palestinian officials as well as Human Rights activists in the international media. This is a very mild and neutral description of the events. <b>]'']''</b> 11:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| (move left) | |||
| First of all, those articles are behind a paywall, so I can't really evaluate their importance. Anyway, I'm not sure I share your concerns. There really was a fog of war in Jenin, and I doubt that the IDF spokesman was motivated by the ''mixture'' you mentioned above. It's a bit unfair to suggest that all the newspapers cited were involved in a global blood-libel. The allegations are already described as such, and stressing out the fact that they were unsubstantiated may give the reader a feeling that the article is slanted. -- ] (]) 12:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :The version of the lead suggested by Nickhh at 09:52, 4 October 2008 above looks good to me. I would replaced "after it determined" with "after it deemed", as I've just done in the article; or with "after it decided based on investigation" or "after it stated", etc.; since "after it determined" seems to me to imply that what they stated was necessarily true, and I don't think the term "terrorist" is NPOV, so Misplaced Pages can't assert the Israeli quote. | |||
| :Since apparently there is a POV according to which there may be large numbers of civilian casualties buried under the bulldozed ruins, I would change "of the xx Palestinians killed in the attack" in Nickhh's version to "of the 52–56 Palestinians estimated killed in the attack". I would change "up to yy were thought to be civilians" to "about 5–26 of whom were estimated to be civilians". source (<nowiki><ref name="israelinsider"></nowiki>) says that 23 IDF soldiers were killed, so I would change "zz IDF soldiers were killed" to "23 IDF soldiers were reported killed." <span style="color:Orangered; font-size:1.5em;">☺</span> ] (]) 13:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Comment by Jaakobou: | |||
| :::::::actually, this issue was fixed allready (see martyrs' capital on talk). <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 16:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::'''Status of discussion:''' I don't mean to be offensive, but I'm getting the feeling that misinformation has crept into this discussion while the new text hasn't been read with an external, uninvolved perspective. | |||
| ::'''Clarifying the issues:''' The 'fog of war' ''is already mentioned'' alongside the claims of "thousands massacred". I don't know what IDF spokesman is supposedly quoted here - but ''no IDF spokesperson'' went ahead on international media with an official statement alleging a massacre of thousands in Jenin. | |||
| ::'''Request of a second review:''' Please review the current version and make your points in accordance to cite-able material and the written text. Please avoid adding personal interpretations of the text which are not written in it. e.g. there is no assertion to a global blood-libel in the text. | |||
| ::'''Other versions:''' Coppertwig, I'd appreciate some explanation to the advantage in the version suggested by Nickhh. I note to you that he's made a few erroneous suggestions regarding the text and his personal interpretations of it and I've countered these misconceptions by clarifying the text and linking to 3 relevant sources. | |||
| ::With respect, <b>]'']''</b> 14:14, 5 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::The IDF spokesman in question is Ron Kitri, as is mentioned in the article. He indeed said hundreds, not thousands. The "global blood-libel" was quoted from your previous post on this talk page, not the article. -- ] (]) 14:42, 5 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::He said "hundreds" of casualties, meaning both killed and wounded, as was quickly clarified by the IDF. ]<sup>]</sup> 15:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::It seems he did say that hundreds were apparently killed, and yes, his statement was retracted. Again, I'm not trying to support the allegations. I'm just saying that at that time, one did not have to be a blood-libeler to suspect that the death toll was much higher than it actually was, that's all. -- ] (]) 15:26, 5 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::He was speaking in a foreign language, he accidentally used the word "killed" for "casualty", and in English, "casualty" means killed or wounded, but is popularly thought of as meaning "killed". The statement was very quickly clarified, as opposed to the grossly inflated Palestinian claims, which were abandoned only with great reluctance, and even then not abandoned at all by many, including some regular commenters on this Talk: page. ]<sup>]</sup> 15:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::It seems he did say "200 killed" in Hebrew, and then retracted. Again, I'm not saying there were hundreds killed, and it's quite possible that some Palestinians deliberately inflated the numbers. I was just saying that the lead shouldn't suggest that all inflated estimates were/are malicious. -- ] (]) 15:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::You make a good point, but I doubt Kitri's statement, and quick retraction, had any impact on the worldwide condemnation, demonstrations, etc. that targeted Israel. You can be sure that it was the Palestinian statements, combined with a general prejudice against Israel, that were responsible for that. ]<sup>]</sup> 16:15, 5 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::I'm puzzled, I thought it was statements like this from Time Magazine that did it: Even the US, Colin Powell criticised him for it. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 17:32, 5 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::No, you're not "puzzled", you're just soapboxing again. It's unlikely that an article in Time magazine, printed weeks before the events in Jenin, and discussing total deaths of just over 100 on the Palestinian side, and around 50 on the Israeli side, would cause people to imagine a massacre of hundreds or thousands had happened in Jenin. Please stop wasting everyone's time. ]<sup>]</sup> 20:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| (Edit conflict & reset indent). Agreed - I don't see anyone here maintaining that 100s or even 1000s of people were killed in Jenin, so I have no idea what you are talking about Jayjg. The point being made is that people on all sides did at one point or another - for whatever reason, and in whatever context - talk about elevated figures, which fed into a cycle of rumours. One or two Palestinians (yes I know Erekat & Rahman are signigicant figures) on occasion appeared to have gone as high as 1000s - although to make the point again, they appear to have been talking about more than just Jenin. This should not be twisted in the article to a suggested narrative of a deliberate, one-sided bid to defame the IDF and the Israeli nation. Equally the fact that most of these claims turned out to be inaccurate in terms of numbers, does not mean that the article should hint that any mainstream 3rd party reaction (eg from AI, HRW) that nonetheless criticised IDF conduct can be discounted. These are separate points. --] (]) 16:02, 5 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :You make some valid points, but there can be no question that the death tolls in Jenin, as well as the nature of the IDF activities, were deliberately distorted, by Palestinians from the top ranks to the man in the street, for purely propaganda purposes. I recall reading a contemporary account by Middle East correspondent Stewart Bell, who was actually in Jenin at the time. He was told by local residents that the IDF had murdered hundreds of Palestinians. When asked where the bodies were, he was told they were being kept in a refrigerated truck, at the top of a hill some distance away. Not content to take their word, he insisted on going to the truck and opening it. It was filled with apples. The propaganda war carried out in the name of Jenin is an important part of the entire Battle, and should not be ignored, downgraded, or whitewashed. ]<sup>]</sup> 16:15, 5 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Can you explain why Israeli spokesmen, with access to the camp, were saying in the camp? ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 16:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Can you explain why you state an unnamed "Israeli spokesman" had "access to the camp"? ]<sup>]</sup> 20:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The article he quotes does not even attribute the 250 to an "Israeli spokesman", but rather to unnamed 'military sources' - which could be Palestinian for all we know. ] (]) 21:20, 5 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ===Arbitrary break=== | |||
| Please quote to me where the text assigns malice to the estimations. I'm not aware that the text does this. <b>]'']''</b> 16:31, 5 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :It doesn't. I was referring to post. I have no objection to the current version if nobody else does. -- ] (]) 16:42, 5 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| (ec) Thank you for your comments, Jaakobou. I've taken a closer look, comparing the current version with Nickhh's proposal. | |||
| == Incorrect edit summary 24th July == | |||
| The first two paragraphs are the same in both versions (except for "deemed"). | |||
| Jaakobou you claimed you had tidied up some unreferenced claims & a few incorrect phrasings. This untrue for two reasons - in fact you more or less simply reverted several edits by good-faith editors to a previous version you approved of; also you actually removed sourced material and re-introduced OR and editorial speculation that does not belong in an introductory paragraph. To be more specific - | |||
| I agree that simply stating that the camp "remained sealed" fails to attribute this action to a particular party; on the other hand, Nickhh's version seems to me to give undue prominence to "The IDF denied entry" by placing it at the beginning of a paragraph; and asserting that it's the cause of the rumours seems to be ] or at least probably non-NPOV. Also, "reaching into the mid-hundreds" gives the reader more information. I therefore suggest the following for the 3rd paragraph: | |||
| 1) You re-inserted the statement that Palestinians had claimed "genocide" was taking place, which has a footnote referring to a CNN report/transcript. I had removed the word for the simple reason that it is not mentioned once in that article. Even if you can find a source for that, it'll have to be quite a bit better than one individual merely using the word once in a live TV interview if it's going to get into the introduction (which I have no doubt you can find, given the type of language people can use when discussing massive military invasions of densely populated towns). | |||
| :''During the fighting, a rapid cycle of rumors purported that a massacre of as many as thousands of Palestinians had occurred.<ref>, ], April 12, 2002<br>- Secretary-General of Palestinian Authority Cabinet Ahmed Abdel Rahman said, "They (Israeli solders) took hundreds of bodies to northern Israeli to hide their massacre they committed against our people.<br>"This massacre is not less than the massacres committed against the Palestinian people in the refugee camps of Sabra and Shatila in Lebanon."<br>He said thousands of Palestinians were either killed and buried in massive graveyards or smashed under houses destroyed in Jenin and Nablus.</ref> While the IDF denied entry to journalists and human rights organizations during the invasion, stories of civilians being buried alive in their homes as they were demolished, and of smoldering buildings covering crushed bodies, spread throughout the ]. Various casualty figures circulated, <s>reaching into the mid-hundreds</s><sup>(] (]) 22:59, 12 October 2008 (UTC))</sup>, as Palestinian sources, as well as human rights organizations, described the events as "the Jenin massacre" in the international media.'' | |||
| :'''Comment by Jaakobou regarding 2nd para suggestion:''' | |||
| 2) You reverted the quote from the allegedly authentic Fatah document so that it says Jenin is called the martyrs capital "by Palestinians". I can't see that in the source: quite aside from any - wholly valid - debate about its reliability, the document itself just says "is termed". It doesn't say by whom, and yet again you are also trying to suggest one (alleged) quote can be presumed to be the view of a siginificant part of a population. | |||
| :* If we're changing the number mid paragraph, then it makes little to no sense to the reader and the rumored numbers (not what the media was willing to report) were higher than "mid". | |||
| :* Israelis were going as high as between 100 and 200 (Kitrey was misquoted). and mostly focused on saying that the Palestinians are lying. I tend to believe that the 'no less than 500 massacred in Jenin' statements by Erekat on CNN as well as the Israeli "they are lying" responses are undue for the lead. | |||
| :With respect, <b>]'']''</b> 17:21, 5 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Re the last paragraph: To me, the first two sentences give the impression that no deaths occurred. "in the clashes" claims that all deaths were by people fighting, which is not universally accepted. "held on to allegations" seems to me to imply that the allegations are false. "52–56 Palestinians were killed" asserts too much certainty, ignoring Derrick Pounder's POV. I therefore suggest for the last paragraph: | |||
| 3) You re-inserted the word "vastly" to describe the extent to which Palestinian officials inflated the body count figures. This is a far too value-loaded phrase for an introduction, and is unnecessary. I'd even rather not use the word inflated. | |||
| :<s>Subsequent investigations found no evidence to substantiate claims that a massacre had taken place.</s><sup>(14:38, 9 October 2008 (UTC))</sup> Overall, 52-56 Palestinians were estimated killed — 5 to approximately 26 of whom estimated as civilians — while 23 IDF soldiers were reported killed as well, and a large area in the camp was destroyed as a result of the fighting. Human rights organizations alleged that ]s had been committed in the fighting and criticized the conduct of both sides. | |||
| In reply to Jayjg: it would be interesting to see reliable sources for such statements. <span style="color:Purple; font-size:1.5em;">☺</span> ] (]) 16:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| 4) You reverted changes that had tried to make clear journalists were NOT simply relying on the wrong figures given by Palestinian officials and witnesses when they reported on what was happening. However, as I have pointed out before, even the currently cited sources say that it was a combination of factors that led them to talk about a higher death toll. For example if you actually read the two CNN pieces cited from 11th & 12th April at notes 10 & 11, you will see the following - Ben Wedeman says "we have no way of confirming ", because journalists are not being allowed in the camp(ie he is not simply taking the claims at face value); he also says "international relief sources are saying possibly as much as 200 " and that because the IDF is barring access "the feeling is, is that they are hiding something .. that there's something they don't want the world to see". | |||
| :I don't like the separation between 5 and 26. Also, I believe that Human Rights organizations did not verify any of their statements not while the aforementioned Derrick Pounder was alleging a massacre not after wards - it's basically a repetition of the war crime claims made while they were claiming a massacre only that now they added some allegations that the Palestinians made some violations as well. I appreciate your efforts here, but I'm not a fan of these changes. <b>]'']''</b> 17:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| 5) On the same point, The Telegraph piece cited as footnote 13 says Israeli sources put the death toll at 200. The Sydney Morning Herald article cites two different Israeli quotes, one talking about "100s" of dead, another 250 dead. Other media sources also quoted similar Israeli estimates. However you removed the words from the introduction that had flagged this point up. | |||
| ::Re "mid-hundreds": good point, it already says "thousands" earlier in the paragraph – I hadn't noticed that – so the "mid-hundreds" bit can be left out. | |||
| I am sorry but it seems you have no interest in making the introduction a balanced piece of writing that sets out the very broad facts, with reference to the sources being cited in it. Instead you seem to want to highlight every point that makes the IDF look noble and victimised, while minimising any real reference to what did happen in the camp, and also highlighting every point that appears to make (to you at least, presumably) the Palestinians appear as vicious and mendacious people who probably deserved what they got. Some of your comments on this talk page corroborate that (ie talking about the different "levels of innocence" for Palestinian civilians as compared to that of Israeli civilian victims). Added to that you insert a false description of what you are actually doing in your edit summary. Whether I can be bothered to change any of this back is another matter. It all gets very tiresome. --] 20:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::How about "approximately 5–26"? I think it's misleading to just say "26", since the source is vague about this number. | |||
| ::I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Are you disputing whether Pounder's POV is worth taking into account? Well, Pounder is mentioned later in the article, so if the lead asserts that a certain number were killed, it's contradicting a POV reported later in the article, making the article self-contradictory or implying that Pounder's POV is necessarily wrong, which seems to me to violate NPOV. Do you see any problem with inserting the word "estimated"? I've given a reason to put it in (i.e. NPOV); I'm not aware of any reason to leave it out. It doesn't seem to me to be doing any harm. If you have problems with other parts of the changes I suggested, please specify them too. | |||
| ::By the way, I don't know what the usual practice is on this page, but I prefer not to have comments interspersed within other comments; and if you do, it may help to use the {{tl|interrupted}} template. <span style="color:Purple; font-size:1.5em;">☺</span> ] (]) 17:42, 5 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::I've taken up on the "approximately" suggestion - it was a fair suggestion. I'll be back for further discussions tomorrow or maybe later today. Cheers, <b>]'']''</b> 18:02, 5 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Derek Pounder (forensic expert, the only one known to have visited, examined 2 bodies) said to the BBC: I'm not aware that he retracted any of this, perhaps you can point me to the right places. | |||
| ::::David Holley (military expert with Amnesty) said to the BBC: ''"it just appears there was no wholesale killing"''. Then he says: Then he says: ''"some very credible witnesses have come forward who have told stories of how they have seen executions. 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."'' If we need to quote him saying "no massacre" (and I think he's the only independent visitor who said that) then we should balance it by quoting the other things he said, rather than giving undue weight to the words "no massacre", which are perhaps a minor element of what he said.. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 18:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::PalestineRemembered, | |||
| : You have now reverted again, claiming in your - as usual - fictional edit summary that you have included a proper reference for the genocide claim, and alleging that I vandalised the article | |||
| :::::I want to thank you for making my point for me about the credibility of the Human Rights organizations in regards to the Jenin allegations against Israel. | |||
| :::::Cheers, <b>]'']''</b> 18:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Except for the fact the accusations and propaganda were all about "wholesale killings" and "massacres". Remember? On the scale of Sabra and Shatila? As for Holley's "credible witnesses", were these the same ones that claimed a truck full of apples and supplies was actually a truck full of dead bodies? ]<sup>]</sup> 20:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Hmm, this seems to have spiralled a little off point into bickering about what's the supposed "truth" rather than focusing on attribution, reliable sourcing and verifiability, and also, more disturbingly, into apparent slurs against any cited witness who happens to be Palestinian. As for the article - the lead as it stands needs, if nothing else, a bit of copyediting. Plus I'm still a little unhappy personally with the substantive changes that Jaakobou made a while back, as per my post higher up. Having said that, I neither want to sit here and carp on the talk page, nor revert those changes and end up in a spat over minor edits, so I'm dropping out. I'm assuming others will tweak the wording, hopefully for the better. --] (]) 22:46, 5 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :1. The Telegraph piece, like the CNN piece also make no mention of "genocide". Can you actually read? | |||
| :::::::Well, honestly Nick, what do you think of someone who brings, as evidence, a "forensic expert" who found only two bodies, but was quite sure "there are large numbers of civilian dead underneath these bulldozed and bombed ruins that we see", and, in fact, believes him to be correct, despite the fact that the bodies of those alleged civilians have never been found in the six years since Jenin? These kinds of comments move beyond the realm of ridiculous and squarely into that of self-parody. If I didn't know better, I would think he was playing us all for fools for even bothering to respond. ]<sup>]</sup> 23:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::: was that of Wadah Shalabi, an unarmed man shot in the back in a narrow alleyway after he'd come out and given himself up. Major-General Giora Eiland, Head of the IDF Plans and Policy Directorate, confirms this incident. Israel was given the first names of two of the soldiers who carried out this double killing (a third man miraculously survived by feigning death for an hour). There has been no investigation - the UN team was blocked from Israel. | |||
| ::::::::Pounder travelled from the UK and was at the the Israeli High Court on the 14th trying to get access for medical organizations. He was finally able to reach the hospital on the 17th, by which time, all the bodies again according to Amnesty. | |||
| ::::::::There were a number of specific items found in the RS which were introduced for "mediation", above. Perhaps we could have administrator assistance to counter some of the objections raised - it is - especially not when the sources are the Telegraph, FOX news and Haaretz. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 17:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::PR, what does any of that have to do with the still undiscovered "large numbers of civilian dead underneath these bulldozed and bombed ruins that we see"? Nothing, of course. Stop ]. ]<sup>]</sup> 00:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::PalestineRememebred, | |||
| :::::::::I can't find the part of the Amnesti report that says Wadah Shalabi was shot "after he'd come out and given himself up". I did notice a mention of a suicide bomb belt however. Can you please clarify this part of your note? | |||
| :::::::::With respect, <b>]'']''</b> 18:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Wait a second: the says "at least 52 Palestinians, of whom up to half may have been civilians". We need to get the idea of "at least" into the article: otherwise we're misrepresenting the source. And I think we need to stop saying 26. "Up to half" of "at least 52" is not necessarily 26. It's going to be hard to word it concisely. Here's another try at the last paragraph: | |||
| :2. You presumably saw the VERY long post above in which I clearly explained what I did. Even if you do not agree with the reasoning (which is absurd, given that that most of my comments relate to whether certain words or events are mentioned in the references or not), my revert was clearly not vandalism. --] 12:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Subsequent investigations found no evidence to substantiate claims that a massacre had taken place. Official estimates of overall Palestinian deaths were variously 56 and "at least 52" — of whom up to approximately half may have been civilians — while 23 IDF soldiers were reported killed as well, and a large area in the camp was destroyed as a result of the fighting. Human rights organizations alleged that ]s had been committed in the fighting and criticized the conduct of both sides. | |||
| <span style="color:Red; font-size:1.5em;">☺</span> ] (]) 01:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Heyo Coppertwig, | |||
| : (forgot to log in for the above post due to lack of time - when i have more will consider how to pursue the blatant abuse being perpetrated here --] 12:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)) | |||
| :I'm sorry for the idiom and I'm sure this is not intentional, but it feels like when given a finger, you reach for the whole arm (allow me to exlain...). "Up to" is based on the 'most credible' witnesses who were mostly busy fabricating stories of dead bodies under the rubble or in Army food supply containers and claiming fighters were unarmed civilians (please review the references from above for some examples). Still, I've agreed to a pro-Palestinian presentation of the civillian toll without any criticism to the bogus accounts and I cannot understand on why you refuse to accept this good will gesture and push further for total elimination of the actual civilian casualty tolls. Please clarify your position and why you now suggest we should be writing ''more than'' 26 civilian casualties. <b>]'']''</b> 01:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Hi. I just wanted to state my opposition to some of the recent changes. I believe that some of these attempts at restoring "neutrality" have gone in excess of neutrality into overt bias in favor of the opposite side. While this article can and should present Israeli and Palestinian narratives of the event in question, it is important that this article distinguish between externally verified fact and unverified one-sided narratives. Moreover, while the article may discuss these unverified narratives, it should not give them undue weight; rumors promulgated by one-side or the other should certainly not be given more prominence in the article than the actual externally verified events which took place. ← <span style="font-family: serif;"><b>]</b></span><sup> (])</sup> 07:21, 6 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| # if you keep your objections short and to the point, i might be able to actually address them properly. | |||
| :Can you be more specific? What undue weight was given to the rumors in the previous lead? Also, a long discussion was held yesterday, and a relative consensus was pretty much agreed on. I respect your objection, but it's not nice to simply revert so far back just because you disagree. Also, you have removed some good later edits and a copyvio tag (which I hope Coppertwig will be willing to retract now, although he has not posted since I changed the text). I don't want to get into an edit war, but I would appreciate some cooperation. Thanks. -- ] (]) 16:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| # some of your objections are argumentative beyond response as though you insist of "proove it!" polemics once a statment has been proven well enough. | |||
| # feel free to start a separate subsection here on talk for each objection and i will answer them as best as possible. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 15:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Heyo Nudve, | |||
| :: My objections were to the point - I numbered them, explained clearly what the issues were, and yet you did not respond to any of them, you just reverted the article. It is still open to you to respond to them one-by-one. There are quite a few of them because there are so many problems with the current wording of the introduction. First time round my objections were not short, unfortunately, because it seems to be a struggle to explain to you the concept of "this source does not use the word you say it does .. therefore I have removed it from the main text". If I point out that a source simply doesn't say what you say it does, or says something that you choose to ignore, of course you have to "prove" that my specific changes are wrong before reverting them, rather than making a vague assertion that everything you say is "well proven". And don't forget we are not talking about complex interpretation of these sources, it is a simple point of checking whether certain words and phrases are in them or not. I find this process rather easy. You clearly prefer to rely on filibustering on a talk page. --] 15:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I personally thought we were making some progress until Coppertwig clarified to me that he's unhappy with a slightly pro-Palestinian version and he wants the article written to the Palestinian narrative. It's a shame that some progress has been reverted - I do agree that some major clear-cut issues were removed but I saw some good in the clean version as well. I'm hoping we can get the discussion back on track, but that this time editors will not try to push the "allegations as truth" perspective since it's already been established that this is not only false for the massacre claims but under serious contention for everything else as well. <b>]'']''</b> 18:18, 6 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Jaakobou, as I already said, I support a "minimalist" lead, since going into detail is bound raise allegations of bias. I could go with either your version or Nickhh's. I also agree with your recent objection to Coppertwig's suggestion to emphasize the "at least" part. However, as I said to Michael Safyan above, I don't like the current - Shamir1's - lead. -- ] (]) 18:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| In response to the request for details... the problem with is that it minimizes the rationale for Israeli operations in Jenin while going into major detail (and providing a very sensationalist presentation) of the massacre rumors. If that much detail of the massacre rumors are going to be provided, then a similar amount of detail about the Israeli rationale for Defensive Shield should also be provided. Furthermore, this sensationalist presentation of the rumors leaves the reader wondering how we know that they are rumors and not truths, since the newer version simply says that the claims are unsubstantiated whereas the older version cites the various agencies and individuals who have stated that a massacre did not take place. Additionally, the change completely elides any information about the ], which was "the straw that broke the camel's back", so-to-speak, and which was a major motivation -- if not the key motivation -- for the IDF entering Jenin. Also: it is dismissive of the Israeli footage showing a faked funeral, it emphasizes Palestinian suffering and Israeli war crimes while having elided any mention of the ], it emphasizes Palestinian rejection of the UN report and continuing claims that a massacre took place while removing almost all of the material refuting the claim that a massacre took place. There are other problems (e.g. it uses the nonsensical phrase "risking civilians"), but those are the main ones. ← <span style="font-family: serif;"><b>]</b></span><sup> (])</sup> 23:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| i'll address the first one: plasetinians made numerous versions of genocide claims, some used the word genocide, and most just used boundless exaggerations that amount to genocide, it you are displeased with the references, note it with the {{cn}} tag, not by reverting information which is both factual and also fairly well cited. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 16:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :First of all, the Passover massacre has its own article. Second, it is important as a rationale for launching Operation Defensive Shield in general, not for this particular battle. Excessive information about it here would be undue, and stating it in the lead would sound "apologetic", when there's no reason for apologetics. Just like not every battle in the ] should detail the ]. IMO, the fact that the Palestinian leadership rejected the UN report and stuck to the claims of massacre is very notable. Again, the article says, as fact, that there was no massacre, and that the allegations are just allegations, which is why I think adding "refutations" on top of them would be "pushing it". I don't think the article is dismissive of the footage of a fake funeral, but you can rewrite that paragraph if you want. Ditto for specific phrases like "risking civilians" (which was itself a rephrase because Coppertwig suspected copyvio). Anyway, the main issue, as can be seen from this discussion is the lead, and I really don't think there's consensus for the current one. Cheers. -- ] (]) 07:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm thinking there is room to add a little more detail into the minimalist version for the reasoning to attack (add the 28 suicide bombers bit and the nickname of the city) and to reduce the rumors section a little as well with a touch more volume to the "no massacre" bit. I remind everyone that this is supposed to be a hint for the article and not the entire detailing of the article. That said, there is no way that the rumors should be told as truthful. I thought we had a reasonable version, though personally, I felt the 'civilians' bonus is what got us into trouble to begin with. Should I make a rewrite suggestion or are there objections to my compromise suggestion? <b>]'']''</b> 08:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :If I'd put in a cn tag, you'd presumably just have done what you did previously anyway, and added another reference which also doesn't use the word. And I think you should be able to work out that including the claim in the article because some Palestinians used "boundless exaggerations that amount to genocide" is what we call Original Research round here. For the tenth time, the information about the genocide claims may or may not be "factual" - it is certainly not currently "fairly well cited" in this article. | |||
| ::I'll repeat as well that while the background is of course relevant to a point, there is indeed a real risk of overloading it. No other WP article does or should go into huge detail in a lead about this sort of thing. In my view the lead itself doesn't need to say much more than "during the second intifada", in the same way - to continue Nudve's point - that the assault on is said to have taken place simply "during the Second World War". People can link to the second intifada article, and of course more detail can go in a background section in the main part here (and I would add should not merely focus on Israeli casualties, but that's another debate). As for the massacre point - it is I think relevant that very high figures and fears of a Sabra/Shatila were being floated. This was a significant feature of the media coverage at the time, although there is a key separate dispute about the extent to which these claims were some kind of blood libel as opposed to the result for the most part of general confusion; and also I think we still need to bear in mind the distinction between a deliberate, widescale massacre (which did not happen) and an assault on a populated area which nonetheless kills several civilians, some in questionable circumstances (which ''is'' what happened). All in all that's why I favoured a lead which, broadly and concisely, says - a) an assault took place during a period of widespread violence and as part of a wider operation; b) there were fears at the time of a serious massacre and a death toll in the 100s (as suggested at one point or another by ALL sides, and given momentum by the closure of the camp), most of which proved incorrect; c) nonetheless once the fog had cleared the evidence suggests that some pretty bad things happened, even if not on the scale originally feared. I know I said I'd drop out, but I hope I'm merely restating my position rather than carping. --] (]) 08:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| : In turn, and by your own reasoning, you should not remove the part of the text that talks about the impact of the IDF barring entry to the camp, or the IDF's own initial casualty assessments - you should tag them cn. Except of course they ARE ALREADY included in the directly cited references, and also noted further down in the article itself. I quoted some of the relevant parts above. Do you want another one just to make it clear? "The greatest impediment to establishing the truth of what happened in Jenin is the Israeli insistence, on safety grounds, on keeping the camp closed" from the Sydney Morning Herald piece. --] 17:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Sure, I'd love to see Jaakobou's suggestion. -- ] (]) 09:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I have a few obligations but will get around to a rewrite suggestion in a few days. <b>]'']''</b> 08:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| I apologize for a sentence in my proposed draft above, which I am striking out. I had copied the sentence from the article and included it without critical analysis. The ''Palestinian report submitted to the Secretary-General attached to the''<sup>(22:59, 12 October 2008 (UTC))</sup> says ''"In addition, it is probable that a massacre and a crime against humanity might have been committed in the Jenin refugee camp ..."'' There may be other errors in my proposed draft. <span style="color:Green; font-size:1.5em;">☺</span> ] (]) 14:38, 9 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::], you really need to start reading more carefully. The sentence you quote above is '''NOT''' part of the UN report, but rather the '''claims''' of the Palestinian delegation to the UN, attached to the UN report and is clearly labeled as such in the document you are citing, under the heading "Palestinian report submitted to the Secretary-General". The UN report itself says the opposite. ] (]) 17:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :: A final clarification before I give up and leave you to perfect your Likudipedia. The media sources cited refer, several times each to a) Palestinian claims of 100s dead, allegations of a massacre (although not specifically genocide) etc; b) Israeli statements about 100s killed; c) the IDF's sealing off of the camp. "My" version of the intro references all three, with much more weight still being given to the Palestinian quotes, and use of the word ''sub''sequently rather than consequently, in order to avoid inferring direct causation (as I'm sure you'd prefer on both counts - although my own POV is that all three factors contributed to the massacre claims gaining some currency). Your preferred version removed any references to Israeli statements or actions. If you don't see the gaps and lack of neutrality in that, I'm afraid I'm a little lost. I am not trying to make this "pro-Palestinian" instead of "pro-Israeli", since that is not where I am coming from - I am just trying to present what the cited sources say --] 18:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Thankyou for doing that, the UN report mentions "massacre" as a given a number of times. Are you aware there's another clear (indeed ridiculous) error in there? The UN report does not say 52-56 dead, it says ''"55. Press reports ... and subsequent interviews ... suggest that an average of five Palestinians per day died in the first three days of the incursion and that there was a sharp increase in deaths on 6 April. 56. Fifty-two Palestinian deaths had been confirmed by the hospital in Jenin by the end of May 2002. IDF also place the death toll at approximately 52. A senior Palestinian Authority official alleged in mid-April that some 500 were killed, a figure that has not been substantiated in the light of the evidence that has emerged."'' Similarly, the EU assumes that the 55 bodies are not the final death toll, since there are bodies under the rubble. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 15:36, 9 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::PR, I'm sure you've read the , since you've quoted from it several times. This report, written in November 2002, more than 6 months after the event, states very clearly that <blockquote>'After the IDF temporarily withdrew from Jenin refugee camp on 17 April, UNRWA set up teams to use the census lists to account for all the Palestinians (some 14,000) believed to be resident of the camp on 3 April 2002. '''Within five weeks all but one of the residents was accounted for.''' '</blockquote>. So, if AI says 54 were killed, and all but 1 camp resident is accounted for, whose bodies are supposedly still under the rubble, 6 years afterward? ] (]) 17:06, 9 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::When the blizzard of accusations about soap-boxing (aimed just at edits bringing documented information, not speculating on anything) has died down a bit, I'll get back to you on this one. But I won't be able to tell you why Amnesty write "''According to hospital lists reviewed by Amnesty International there were 54 Palestinian deaths"'', when we know, from the same source, that "''not a single corpse was brought into the hospital from 5 until 15 April"'' (and only 10 wounded made it through the blockade in the same period, with similar very small numbers to the Al-Shifa and Al-Razi hospital). | |||
| :::What we can say with certainty is that the conclusions of the report could be written into the article with far less difficulty: "''In Jenin and Nablus the IDF carried out actions which ... are war crimes."'' | |||
| :::Or we could sample the conclusions of some of the many observers - even the very few who said "No massacre" leave us in no doubt there were many, many more bodies. is one in the UK Telegraph "''in a reconstruction of the campaign, Philip Jacobson on the West Bank finds that this was no indiscriminate massacre ... The sickening stench of decomposing corpses that hangs over the camp signals that while the final death toll may never be precisely established, there will be more, perhaps many more, names to add to the civilian casualty list."'' ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 20:40, 9 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::No, please get back to me on this '''NOW''', and stop dodging and soapboxing: if AI says 54 were killed, and all but 1 camp resident is accounted for, whose bodies are supposedly still under the rubble, 6 years afterward? ] (]) 21:08, 9 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I'm puzzled by this apparent demand that I accept every word of the Amnesty report as true, and I'm sure it's some form of personal failing on my part that I have difficulty with this. But I'll grant you the Amnesty people have a high degree of integrity and most of their report is indeed accurate. The Amnesty report's biggest weakness is probably where it's re-publishing the work of some other body, and in those cases we avoid error by going to the source. The BBC makes just this mistake later, telling us that the UN report says "No Massacre", when it clearly does not. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 23:02, 9 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I see, you'd rather only accept as true those words which support your POV, but disregard the rest, is that it? Once again: if AI says 54 were killed, and all but 1 camp resident is accounted for, whose bodies are supposedly still under the rubble, 6 years afterward? Will an answer to this be forthcoming anytime soon? ] (]) 23:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I'll accept what Amnesty say for themselves, I'll accept what UNWRA say for themselves. Well, I'll accept what UNWRA say when their staff are no longer - or indeed shot dead, like Iain Hook, head of reconstruction and some 13 other UN workers in 2002 alone. | |||
| :::::::Until that time, we'll just have to write this article to accurately reflect how most journalists and experienced international observers actually reported it, won't we? That's only what policy says we should be doing. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 18:51, 10 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::What Amnesty say for themselves is that 54 were killed, and all but one resident of the camp were accounted for by November 02. So, going by what experienced international observers actually report, we can safely state in the article that AT MOST, 55 Palestinians were killed in Jenin, and dispense with the persistent insinuations, that you and other POV-Pushers are attempting to include, that there is some unknown number of civilians still buried beneath the rubble. Let's move on. ] (]) 20:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Why don't we edit the article as if it were part of the Great Soviet Encyclopedia? Then we could cherry-pick sources for the 1% that fits what we want it to say, and ignore the 99% that says something different (and that none of the readers would want to hear anyway). ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 21:04, 10 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::This indeed seems to be what you are after - seeing as you constantly cherry-pick some nearly random AI quote (when it suits your POV), and yet insist that this very clear statement from AI regarding the number of people killed be ignored. But, no, we are not going to edit the article as if it were part of the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, and we are not going to cherry-pick sources for the 1% that fits what we want it to say. AI says, very clearly, that 54 were killed, and all but one resident of the camp were accounted for by November 02. So, we can safely state in the article that AT MOST, 55 Palestinians were killed in Jenin, and dispense with the persistent insinuations, that you and other POV-Pushers are attempting to include, that there is some unknown number of civilians still buried beneath the rubble. ] (]) 21:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::Amnesties report is called . Just one tiny part of it matches the Hasbara version of this story, and it's a quote from people with guns held to their heads, who've never told us the same thing ourselves. Let's write the article according to the people who are able to speak freely - here's an Israeli who took part: ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 17:04, 11 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::We will write this article according to what reliable sources say. We will not ignore information that runs contrary to the POV you wish to push. You are advised, once again, to stop claiming that there are still an unknown number of bodies under the rubble, when reliable sources have said the opposite. There is a limit to the amount of ] that the community will tolerate, before it sees such soapboxing as ]. You are pushing that limit. ] (]) 18:28, 11 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| The possiblity that there are as yet undiscovered dead is something of a red herring PR - the final death toll is, six years after the events, pretty definitive according to any reliable source. Higher tolls were feared both during the fighting and in the immediate aftermath, but those fears proved unfounded. The point is though that this certainly does not mean a) those fears were unjustified or motivated by malice at the time when they were expressed; or b) that all the 50-plus who ''were'' killed were necessarily nasty terrorists who deserved it and were shot in a fair fight. It is even legitimate - whether you or I agree with that subjective description or not - to describe the smaller death toll as constituting a massacre, if a high proportion of those killed were in fact civilians. Hence why I'm opposed to text in the article which definitively says, without qualification, that "there was no massacre", based simply on the reports which pointed out (correctly) that the death toll was much lower than initially thought. "No widespread massacre" or "no massacre in the hundreds", fine - but not simply "no massacre". There are plenty of WP articles whose ''actual title'' is "The XXX Massacre" where a relatively small number of people were killed. And NoCal, I don't see lots of "POV pushers" attempting to have a "still buried under the rubble" thesis included. --] (]) 11:42, 11 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :There was no massacre and it would be nice if the disinformation advocacy stops. Simply put, secondary sources agree on that it was a baseless blood-libel (reasoning explained here:) regardless of the number of casualties during what the media now describes as a ''battle''. Allow me to quote the BBC for you: "". I have no objection, however, to Saeb Erekat being noted in the body of the article for his criticism of the UN report though. In fact, I believe we should have a "Palestinian reaction " section. <b>]'']''</b> 12:38, 11 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::thank you for that redundant personal attack on how i phrase myself (on the talk page) to describe a phenomenon of exaggerations and lies that included claims of mass graves, bodies being repeatedly mangled by tanks, and more than 3000 dead by some "eye witnesses". <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 20:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::What "disinformation advocacy"? I am merely pointing out - without necessarily endorsing the claim - the fact that some do view what happened as a massacre, despite the ultimately reduced death toll. The fact that a sub-editor posted a that said "no massacre" on a news organisation's website does not settle the matter, or mean that any source or organisation saying something different is therefore wrong (I have no idea what the other links are meant to be showing me). On top of that, the actual text of that BBC story does not actually come to that specific and explicit conclusion, nor does the actual UN report which it is referring to. And for the 50th time, deciding what constitutes a "massacre" involves a ''subjective judgement'' based on some combination of the numbers involved, who they were, how they were killed, in what context etc. People will differ in their interpretations of this. You simply are not getting this point, and instead insisting that one interpretation is "right" and the other "wrong" as if it were a simple matter of deductive logic, based on your view and backed up by a cherry-picking of sources that happen to appear to agree with that view. Added to all that you are now making a far more contentious claim than anything I've ever raised, ie that secondary sources "agree" that it was a "baseless blood libel". Any sentence in the lead or elsewhere which simply asserts "there was no massacre", without any qualification or any reference to a different interpretation, is misleading as to what the broader range of opinions and sources actually say. Whether you like that fact or not. --] (]) 14:38, 11 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == genocide == | |||
| :::Nickhh, | |||
| i figure, since people are perhaps naive to the claims made in the global media, that we should start digging up a few of the references for the word genocide that's reverted out so many times even though it was used on many occasions, sometimes with the word itself and sometimes bluntly implied with "figuratively descriptive eye witnessing". | |||
| :::Your assertions were not conditioned to a "some" and you repeat the suggestion that the "massacre" claim is a viable possibility when it's been thoroughly rejected. Basically you want Misplaced Pages to assert the text in a manner that suggests a massacre could have occurred when there is no one saying this, best I'm aware, other than Saeb Erekat. Do you have any reliable sources to support your extraordinary claim? | |||
| :::Cordially, <b>]'']''</b> 23:23, 11 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::My assertions have ''always'' been limited to "some". Nor have I ever said there ''was'' a massacre - indeed my whole point has always been that you can't be definitive about such a term, and, more importantly, most potential sources aren't either. Arguably the whole debate is a slightly academic distraction anyway. But you asked for sources that, with some distance from the actual events and once the final death toll was clear, do not simply use your preferred, simple "no massacre" text. So here's a quick sample - | |||
| i present this source as a starting point: | |||
| http://www.honestreporting.com/articles/45884734/reports/Jeningrad_What_the_British_Media_Said.asp | |||
| :::::1) Left wing/partisan sources (yes, not necessarily reliable as sources for fact, but we are talking about interpretation and opinion here, not facts. In addition these are the basic mirror image to the right wing forums and op-eds where the "massacre hoax/myth" line prevails. I am quoting them here to prove something about the spread of opinion on a talk page, not to suggest that all of them would be suitable as references in a WP article itself) | |||
| feel free to explain why you consider the use of the word genocide in this paragraph not usable. | |||
| ::::: - "Some of the best-known massacres in history involved similar numbers of people killed, or even fewer, than the number that Human Rights Watch attributed to Jenin" | |||
| ::::: - "you don't have to spend much time reading the Human Rights Watch report on the events at Jenin to figure out a massacre, as the word is understood colloquially, did happen" | |||
| ::::: - "Israel has only itself to blame for it being labelled a massacre" | |||
| ::::: - "in the dictionary, massacre is defined as "savage and indiscriminate killing" clearly an apt description of what took place. Some of the most well-known, historic massacres had fewer or similar numbers killed" | |||
| :::::2) Palestinian officials: | |||
| <blockquote>The battle attracted widespread international attention due to Palestinian claims of ] and ] and also due to vastly inflated reports on body counts by Palestinian officials.</blockquote> | |||
| ::::: - "a massacre in Jenin's refugee camp clearly happened... and crimes against humanity also took place .. How many civilians must be killed to speak of a massacre?" | |||
| ::::: - "how many people do you need to kill in order to call it a massacre? Israel calls the killing of 27 people a massacre, and they are right. I call the killing of 20 Palestinians a massacre also. And I am right…The problem is not the number. I am talking here about the methods." | |||
| :::::3) Mainstream media: | |||
| --<b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 20:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: - "Was there a massacre in Jenin? Well, yes there was. The Macquarie Dictionary and the OED define a massacre as the unnecessary indiscriminate killing or slaughter of human beings. The UN's report, flawed though it is by being forced to rely on second-hand and often deeply partisan accounts, claims that 75 human beings died, 23 Israeli soldiers and 52 Palestinians, half of them civilians. Were the deaths necessary or discriminate? Not by any measure" | |||
| ::::: - "there was no ''wanton'' massacre in Jenin, no ''deliberate slaughter'' of Palestinians by Israeli soldiers" | |||
| ::::Despite some of the headlines and the Israeli reaction that spun it that way, the itself does not in fact use the simple phrase "there was no massacre". Nor does the November 2002 - which does however talk about "unlawful killings". The does say they found "no evidence to sustain claims of massacres or large-scale extrajudicial executions by the IDF in Jenin refugee camp", but again this is a qualified statement, and is then immediately further qualified by the remark that "many of the civilian deaths documented by Human Rights Watch amounted to unlawful or willful killings by the IDF". The simple point is that no single independent primary source actually says "there was no massacre", and the secondary sources - both WP:RS and others - take a mixed view. Jaakobou, you may not agree with what a lot of these sources say and think, but please don't pretend that those views and opinions don't exist out there in the world beyond your head. And - eventually to the point after yet another long essay - don't insist on inserting definitive assertions into pages here based on that denialism. --] (]) 14:28, 12 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :: I am trying to stay away but it gets very hard. I certainly won't bother trying to edit some accuracy or balance into the introduction any more, let alone the rest of the piece. Whether there were significant contemporaneous Palestinian claims of genocide or not is the least of the problems with this article, and there are far more important issues over what happened in Jenin (like the verified killings of civilians and the physical destruction of large parts of the camp); however I can't let your latest bit of research pass without comment - the only reference to "genocide" claims in the above link is a second-hand one to an AN Wilson column in the Evening Standard. Here is a link to the original piece - http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-446185-details/A+demo+we+can%27t+afford+to+ignore/article.do | |||
| :I (also) apologize for the error in my message of 14:38, 9 October 2008, and I thank NoCal100 for pointing it out; I've inserted some words in italics into that message which I hope suffice to correct it. | |||
| :], thank you for your reply of 01:55, 6 October 2008. I would appreciate it if you would tell me where "most credible witnesses" is quoted from, and which parts of which references contain the information you wish to draw my attention to. Re agreeing to pro-Palestinian presentation of the death toll: I'm new to editing this article, so I'm not aware of past compromises. Clearly, a lot of work has gone into the article and I congratulate those who participated for producing an article that supplies a lot of information in a concise and well-organized way. '''The article should present all points of view''', including pro-Palestinian and pro-Israeli, without asserting or implying that those points of view are correct. I'm sorry but before I can appreciate any compromises that may have taken place, I would have to see the arguments (based on reliable sources and Misplaced Pages policy) for the positions from which compromises were made. Also, I'm sorry but I may not have fully absorbed all the comments in this discussion; feel free to give me pointers to individual comments in this thread or from previous discussions that might have bearing on what we're discussing. You said, ''"I cannot understand on why you refuse to accept this good will gesture"'': I'm trying to make the article what I would see as NPOV, so I'm not likely to appreciate any offer to make the article into what I would see as pro-Palestinian (though the pro-Palestinian POV and all other significant POVs need to be described in the article). I wasn't aware of any good-will gesture having been made, I'm sorry (and I'm still not clear on what it was,) and I didn't refuse to accept it. I simply offered a draft version of the lead for discussion. I'm sorry for not fully incorporating all progress from the preceding discussion in my draft; I didn't have time to absorb everything. | |||
| :Jaakobou, you said, ''"and push further for total elimination of the actual civilian casualty tolls."'' I'm not doing that. I don't know what tolls you mean. You're welcome to suggest changes to the draft lead I posted. I don't think there's any such thing as "actual" tolls; all we have is tolls reported by various sources, sources which may vary in reliability and about whose reliability opinions may vary. | |||
| :Jaakobou, you said ''"Please clarify your position and why you now suggest we should be writing more than 26 civilian casualties."'' To clarify: I did not suggest that we should be writing more than 26 civilian casualties; my suggested draft version is given in paragraphs in italics above. Please feel free to ask me other specific questions about my position. | |||
| :Jaakobou, you said, ''"I personally thought we were making some progress until Coppertwig clarified to me that he's unhappy with a slightly pro-Palestinian version and he wants the article written to the Palestinian narrative."'' I did not clarify that to you and that is not my position. When representing what I've said, if in doubt, quoting entire sentences of mine word-for-word will usually avoid misunderstandings. What I've actually said can be seen in my own posts above. | |||
| :], you said, "So, going by what experienced international observers actually report, we can safely state in the article that AT MOST, 55 Palestinians were killed in Jenin..." I disagree; I think that would be original research: or is there a source stating that at most 55 Palestinians were killed? It would also violate NPOV. If there is such a source, we can present that as one of a number of points of view. Again, we must present all significant points of view: the Misplaced Pages article should not assert one position as being true. | |||
| :NoCal100, you said, "You are advised, once again, to stop claiming that there are still an unknown number of bodies under the rubble, when reliable sources have said the opposite." In the message by ] of 17:04, 11 October 2008 (UTC) which you were apparently responding to, I don't see any such claim. Instead, I see comments about the level of reliability of various sources, and two quotes. Discussing the level of reliability of various sources is a normal and necessary part of article talk page discussions. We should not be claiming or trying to convince each other that there are or are not bodies beneath the rubble or that there was or was not a massacre, and as far as I can see PR was not doing that in that comment. Instead, we should be discussing reliability of sources, what the sources say, how the statements by various sources can be presented with ], etc.; PR's comment seems to me to fall in that category. | |||
| :I agree with ] that we should not say simply "no massacre"; I would add that we also should not say that there was a massacre, and we <s>probably</s><sup>(14:04, 13 October 2008 (UTC))</sup> shouldn't say that there may have been a massacre. I agree that "massacre" is a subjective term and could possibly be applied to a situation where about 50 people were killed, therefore a source that states that there were about 50 people killed cannot necessarily be interpreted as stating that there was no massacre. We can report established facts in terms with more specific definitions than "massacre"; we can also quote various sources saying various things using the words "massacre" or "no massacre". We must present a variety of points of view, not assert that one interpretation is true. <span style="color:Purple; font-size:1.5em;">☺</span> ] (]) 22:59, 12 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::We have a highly credible source that says, 6 months after the fact, that a total of 54 bodies were identified, and that all but one resident of the camp has been accounted for. So, no, it is neither original research nor a violation of NPOV to rephrase this as "55 killed, at most". I'm not opposed, however, to stating this exactly as AI has reported it, and attributing it to AI. I was not responding directly to PR's message of 17:04, 11 October 2008, but rather to his "body of work" on this page, which is full of insinuations that the total body count is still today, 6 years after the fact, in some doubt, and that it might be in the hundreds. (See for example his message of 23 July 2008: "a "Jenin Investigation", still finding complete bodies 3 months later. (We don't have a source and can't say what this might do to the death toll).", or 14 September "we can now say for certainty that the death toll amongst Palestinians was at least twice what Israel later tried to claim that it") ] (]) 17:51, 13 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Copyright violation == | |||
| ::Please note - 1) He is not a Palestinian, hence it does not justify an assertion of "Palestinian claims"; 2) he is clearly referring to the combined effect of the overall IDF operation at the time in the West Bank & Gaza, presumably including - but not limited to - the assault on Jenin. Feel free to say he's talking nonsense, but it doesn't support the statement that you want to put in this introduction. I even started to do some more of your work for you, and did a Google search for "Jenin genocide" .. I didn't spend too long trawling through the results, but it actually bought up zero sources showing Palestinians - ANY Palestinians - claiming at the time that what happened in Jenin was genocide, let alone any that showed that they had done so in a wicked bid to defame the IDF. It did, however, bring up quite a few US or Israeli sources alleging that the Palestinians had alleged genocide, but without offering any actual examples. That is a very different thing. --] 20:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I consider the current version of the "Report" section to be a copyright violation. It contains many sentences taken word-for-word from the source, without quotation marks; so many that I think even if we were to put them in quotation marks it would still be a copyright violation. | |||
| ::::please note, you disregarded the 3000 deaths first claimed combined with the mass graves claim which lead to a single concept - genocide. i'm not saying we have enough sitations at this moment, i'm saying the word is most fitting and we simply should work for finding the sources for it because i wouldn't be pushing this issue had i felt it was not a major part of the way israel was presented in the international media. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 21:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I'm not trying to suppress any information. The most important parts of the source can be summarized, paraphrased, even quoted to some extent. And the reader is of course free to look at the source itself if they want to get the full story. | |||
| :Contentious claims must not be cited with "starting points"; they must be fully cited or not <s>cited</s> included at all. What we have is a rightist commentary site alleging a quote from a British newspaper that "we are talking of ... genocide", it's completely inadequate for the charges you mean it to support. At most, it could support the charge that "pro-Israel websites quoted a British Weekly Standard columnist discussing genocide in the context of Jenin", but that kind of statement is pretty much useless. You should find the original Weekly Standard piece, or not include this information at all. And in any case, whether a Weekly Standard columnist used the word genocide is not the same as whether Palestinians made claims of genocide. ] 22:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Maybe we can find some other sources to flesh out the section without quoting too much from any one source. | |||
| :: In addition Jaakabou you seem to misunderstand what the point of an encyclopedia is - the idea is not that editors flag up their highly personal and speculative interpretations of events, and then declare an intent to trawl around for sources, any sources, that will even vaguely back them up. Nor did I disregard the "3,000 deaths" claim. As I keep saying, I know several Palestinian witnesses and officials made what turned out to be incorrect claims about the death toll. These claims remain in the introduction, and I have never suggested they should be removed. What is in dispute beyond that is a) why they made those claims (confusion? ignorance? panic? a bid to slander the Israelis with some kind of vicious blood libel?); and b) whether any of them specifically made the highly-loaded claim of genocide | |||
| I paraphrased, reworked and shortened the section to a version which in my opinion is not a copyright violation. However, my edit was . | |||
| :: ps Eleland, the piece is in the Evening Standard, the main London regional newspaper, in a column by a writer who usually covers a broad range of social & cultural topics, and is not particularly known as a "heavyweight" political columnist. The link to the original is above. Of course, not only does it not provide any evidence for Palestinian claims of genocide, but it is hardly evidence either for any suggestion that genocide claims took over the UK press (there are ten national newspapers here ] 07:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)] - as I said, this is one opinion piece in one regional newspaper) --] 07:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Please discuss. We need to arrive at a version that is not a copyright violation. | |||
| agreed, i will take a deeper look into sources/origins of this issue before/if i make another suggestion to insert the term genocide again. i will start a new subsection on talk about the other issues soon. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 10:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I'm listing this at the ] noticeboard, and I've blanked the section and displayed a copyright template. Please leave the section blanked until an admin handles it (normally in about a week). Meanwhile, we can discuss and negotiate a new version of the section (without actually displaying it). The text is still there, it's just not visible due to the template, so it can still be edited. <span style="color:Red; font-size:1.5em;">☺</span> ] (]) 19:08, 5 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| They always cry about genocide and compare 6 million deaths (which they deny btw) to their "we lost the war and you're evil" casualties which don't even amount to 20K, maybe you and a couple others got confused. i don't think you can add genocide here. ] 11:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I've done some rewriting to this section. Tell me what you think. -- ] (]) 19:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Sorry I didn't have time to look at it yet. However, I may have told you the wrong procedure: maybe the copyrighted text is supposed to stay under the blanking template, and new text developed elsewhere e.g. ]. See instructions on the template itself and at ]. <span style="color:Green; font-size:1.5em;">☺</span> ] (]) 12:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yeah, the procedure isn't very clear. I'm not sure whether a report can be retracted or not. I really with you had asked me before doing that. Now it's going to take at least a week before an admin looks at it, and the section may not be touched until then. This really sucks. -- ] (]) 13:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ===Temporary page=== | |||
| :i will give it a deeper look and won't force the issue if it does seem like it's only an exaggeration by the british media. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 16:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I have reviewed the temporary page and addressed a few phrases of minor ongoing concern. I have suggested that ] copy that material to the article, overwriting the copyright problem, as he or she is the only substantial contributor other than my few words and I am waiving my right to attribution to my contribution there. I believe that the changes made eliminate copyright concerns as relate to . Thanks. --] <sup>]</sup> 22:11, 11 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == |
== POV and lead, ongoing == | ||
| Due to the fact that no progress has been made with this, and the lead has simply been stuck since being reverted to an old one-sided version, I am re-adding the POV tag. I was hoping other editors would at least start to sort this out - I am quite sure if I try to make any changes, they will be reverted. The discussion about this was started in the section above, but to run through some of the specific problems again - | |||
| i first became aware of the number of succesful suicide attacks from jenin and the term "martyrs' capital" while watching a '''''pro-'''''palestinian documentry on the israeli channel 8, in this documentry, it was deemed that palestinians in general called the place "martyrs' capital" and not only fatah members. currently we only have a citation from a fatah source and therefore it's written as "called ... by fatah", which is minimizing what we are supposed to report on only to the citation provided. i believe we should perhaps find a second source so we can expand this to "called... by palestinians", which is a more complete/accurate phrasing. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 10:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Para 1 - broadly OK, although it should probably say the battle "took place ''after an IDF incursion'' into Jenin refugee camp". They weren't invited in, after all. | |||
| :It's not more accurate of course unless those sources actually exist. And "martyr" of course is a phrase used to describe anyone killed in the fighting - it may well be that many Palestinians do indeed refer to Jenin as the "Martyrs' Capital", quite possibly not because of the numbers of alleged suicide bombers that came from there before the battle, but because of the numbers killed by the IDF incursion. Which would put quite a different meaning on it --] 11:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Para 2 - the lead does not need a whole paragraph about the attacks in Israel that preceded it. This detail can be covered in a background section (which should also include attacks against Palestinians) and through a simple wikilink to the Second Intifada article in the lead itself, as there is currently | |||
| ::the term was not mentioned to allege "suicide bombers" but rather noted right after some text about the militants operating at the camp in recent years, to note the high stature of the city among the palestinian "resistance jihad" movement... take a look at . <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 15:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Para 3 - more or less says "most of those killed were militants, and any that weren't were probably killed by their own side's boby-traps, and of course the IDF tries not to kill civilians". I don't think this brief account could be more one-sided | |||
| :::is there any objection to reinserting this material under "called... by palestinians" with a note that more refrences should be used along with the fatah one? <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 10:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Para 4 - looking through the shoddy grammar, it seems to be suggesting that Palestinians "persistently" accused the IDF of genocide (source please?), ''deliberately'' made up death tolls (that's what "inflated" means) etc etc, and that these evil lies made people turn against Israel. There is no mention of the IDF closing the camp (which helped feed into the rumour cycle) or announcing death tolls in the 100s themselves. The relevance of these facts is covered in the UN report and in various journalists' reports, all of which are already cited in the article. Again this is jaw-droppingly one-sided. It also can be covered much more concisely, rather than listing every single accusation about Palestinian accusations, as it were. | |||
| :::nevermind, i found a source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3015814.stm <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 10:58, 28 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Para 5 - we repeat about four times that "there was no massacre", just in case we weren't clear about this interpretation of what happened. Following on from the para above, this has the effect of ramming home the claim above - that the Palestinians, lefty human rights groups and anti-Israel journalists were all in on a plot to make up a whole bunch of lies, but have now been caught out. There is too much detail and repetition for a lead here, and also the claim that the UN said there was "no massacre ", sourced to a BBC report is simple misrepresentation. I don't see why all the UN, human rights and media reports can't be summarised in the simple - and uncontroversially accurate - phrase "various investigations found that there had been no deliberate massacre of large numbers of Palestinians". The qualification of the word massacre is however crucial. | |||
| :::: Here we go again - you freely admit you want to "find a second source so we can expand .. to a more accurate phrasing". As ever, you know what you want to say and then trawl for something, anything to back it up. And has it not also occurred to you that maybe the magic new source that you have found is actually, in effect, the same source as the one you are already subtly misrepresenting? That is, this BBC journalist is just relying on the disputed IDF-supplied document for his (very brief) comment? That is the way the modern media works you know, with stories and claims going round in circles from one outlet to the next (see the pre-Iraq WMD reporting farce for an obvious example of this). This reference doesn't offer any genuine independent verification for the claim that "the Palestinians" refer to Jenin this way, let alone what they mean by it --] 14:38, 28 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Still carping, but with good reason. --] (]) 15:10, 11 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: I don't believe Jaakobou's motives are relevant, or at issue. While you may well be correct about BBC getting the information from the same partisan sources, making this call on our own is original research. In the absence of sources which specifically dispute the martyrs' capital claim, a BBC citation is enough. This being said, mentioning the "martyrs' capital" information so prominently early on seems a little POV for me. I'm going to rephrase it slightly. ] 19:38, 28 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::That was long. In a nutshell: Can we now revert to the previous lead? -- ] (]) 15:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Sorry! I could have saved 10 minutes of my life doing something more productive as well of course. Anyway, as noted about week ago I'm fine (or as OK as I'm ever likely to be with any exact wording) with the lead you and I discussed back then. I recommend we use that, and then others can of course tweak it or add bits and pieces, so long as - hopefully - they don't just try to rebuild this one in its entirety. --] (]) 16:45, 11 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::no offense, but your change in this matter made the paragraph broken. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 14:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Good :) -- ] (]) 16:55, 11 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Oh well, I see someone is already trying precisely to the old bloated narrative .... --] (]) 14:31, 12 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == IDF reporting 250 == | |||
| ::::::Are you suggesting that a note about the casus beli for Operation Defensive Shield is undue? Personally, I figured it is a basic note that explains to the reader what sparked the operation so I'm not really following why you're calling it an ''"old bloated narrative"''. <b>]'']''</b> 16:12, 12 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| i request a citation for this text that the IDF at some point reported 250 killed in the jenin attack... otherwise, it seems incorrect. | |||
| :::::::Yes I am suggesting precisely that, especially to the level of detail you are insisting on. I have explained why on several occasions, and at great length, above. --] (]) 16:20, 12 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| the current text: | |||
| :::::::Let's try and get consensus before making changes. Jaakobou, a few days ago you suggested writing a draft, do you still intend to do that? -- ] (]) 16:53, 12 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::"The IDF barred journalists from entering the camp during the fighting on safety grounds and at one point reported casualties as high as 250, yet many journalists''...." | |||
| I've just made a couple (not huge). Please can they not just be reverted? I know not everyone will be 100% happy, but some of them involve fairly uncontroversial improvements to the language and grammar. The material Jaakobou added is still there, I just moved it down from the lead.--] (]) 17:15, 12 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| -- <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 11:10, 28 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm going to keep most of your edits, but modify a few. As currently written, the lead suggest that perhaps a "small" massacre did occur, which is not supported by th evidence. It also unduly calls out the IDF for alleged unlawful killings, without similarly calling out Palestinian forces for allegedly mingling with civilians or using children to carry booby traps. I'm also changing the "Large" part of the camp, because that is a subjective quantifier, and replacing it with the actual percentage. ] (]) 18:33, 12 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::There are credible allegations of at least one small massacre in the RS - so if we're going to mention massacre (which isn't really necessary anyway, except to the degree the incident is mostly known as "The Jenin Massacre") then we cannot use the Hasbara version of the story by which there wasn't one. To do so would be blatant cherry-picking. | |||
| ::More significantly the criticisms from investigations (to a lesser extent the UN as well) related to the incident itself is overwhelmingly of the IDF (in particular, blocking access to humanitarian assistance, but a number of other things, many of them really serious). Criticism of "the Palestinians" is mostly of the militants amongst them, since, as the UN report says ''"Israeli military retaliation .... had the effect of severely weakening the Authority's capacity to take effective action against militant"''. Implying that both parties are equally criticized would be extremely POV (the nearest thing to "equal criticism" I can find is #32 in the UN report). ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 19:47, 12 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::'''Comment by Jaakobou:''' | |||
| :It's cited in the body text to an Australian newspaper . ] 11:43, 28 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::# PalestineRemembered. There are no "credible allegations" for either a small scale massacre or a large scale massacre. "Eye-witnesses" in Jenin were noted by various media for being untruthful and I request that you stop ommitting information that you are already aware of to pursue an unproven point. It is disruptive. | |||
| :::# Nickhh. Best I'm aware, military operations generally have the casus beli written within their lead. I don't know what you refer to when you say you've explained why this is an ''"old bloated narrative"'' but perhaps I've missed this explanation somehow among the other issues. Can you please repeat the reasoning on why we should censor the casus beli so that we can open this up for community discourse? (]) | |||
| :::# A couple recent edits have been in violation of ] as they misrepresented sources and equated between two opposing POVs to give credibility where there is non. , has (for starters) used the word ], removed the "massacre" description and ] between the Palestinain massacre charges and the Israeli "not massacre" rebuttals. It also ] the suggestion that a non deliberate, non large scale massacre could have occurred when it barely even qualifies as a ] perspective amoung mainstream media or other. Please make note of these policies and do not repeat the violations. | |||
| :::# Nudve. My suggested version was which was mildly amended to that is acceptable to me. I'd appreciate collaborative opinions/suggestions/criticism about it (no advocacy of fringe views please). | |||
| :::Cordially, <b>]'']''</b> 22:29, 12 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::First of all, as I said, I'm fine with the current version, so I'm glad you reverted. The Passover massacre was the casus belli for Operation Defensive Shield, not for this particular battle. To continue an earlier example, the Americans did not target Iwo Jima because of Pearl Harbor but because they were at war with Japan and considered Iwo Jima tactically important. "Refreshing the reader's memory" on something the Palestinians did before Defensive Shield began on this article only serves to create a narrative that makes Israel the good guys, so I think it should be avoided. -- ] (]) 06:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Heyo Nudve, | |||
| ::seems like a "3rd person" report that doesn't quite meet WP verifiability standards. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 13:16, 28 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::The American–Japanese battle at Iwo Jima occurred close to the end of WW2, a war which lasted for 6 years and had a plethora of smaller battles, campaigns and maneuvers. The "Battle of Jenin" was a 10 day skirmish during a 10 day operation and the purpose of the battle was to catch the people who were sending suicide bombers. This is not "Refreshing the reader's memory" of something which occurred months or years earlier, but rather what occurred a mere 3 days earlier - a suicide bombing. No one wrote down "the good guys went after evil people" but instead, what was written was "". This is not a pushy/fringe narrative. | |||
| ::::::Cordially, <b>]'']''</b> 15:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Well it would have been better perhaps if Jaakobou had followed NoCal and just made any small changes again on top of the changes I had made, rather than just rolling them all back in one go and absurdly accusing me of tendentious editing and promoting fringe views (the definition of which appears to be anything that disagrees with the analysis to be found in ] and ], or ] if we dare to head off to the extreme radical left). As I said, several of them were pretty basic ones to improve the flow of the language and the grammar. Others in may view added more balance, although I appreciate not everyone will accept that. On the specific "massacre or no massacre" point, in response to NoCal & Jaakobou I would point out that I made a pretty extensive , with links, in a section above here. Plenty of reliable (and not so reliable) sources make definitive assertions one way or the other. Equally plenty of sources (eg the UN, Amnesty) are not so unequivocal, and in fact do not even address the issue directly. Ultimately therefore it is simple misrepresentation to push one view or the other into this article as a definitive statement, just because it's the view you happen to take. Using slightly more open language along the lines of "there was no widespread/wanton/deliberate massacre" is a) accurate across all viewpoints; & b) does not by implication suggest that there was therefore a massacre of some sort. | |||
| :::The source, a major Australian newspaper, clearly and unambiguously states that an IDF spokesperson reported 250 dead. Your objections are unfounded and, frankly, nonsensical (all newspaper stories are written in "3rd person" and this has no bearing on verifiability.) ] 15:32, 28 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I have no baggage here or stake in this issue, and for example have no personal view about whether this was a "massacre" or not. In fact I think the debate around the word is pretty unhelpful in most cases. I am just coming at it as an outsider who nonetheless happens to be pretty well read on the subject and is trying to agree some text which accords with a more worldwide, broader view of what happened and how it has been reported and written up. Sometimes trying to insert spurious balance for the sake of it is a silly game, eg "Mussolini helped drag Europe into a catastrophic war which caused the deaths of millions .. however he brought back national pride to Italy and made the trains run on time etc etc" - however there are real issues in this case, which to be honest for a long time have been trampled down on this page in favour of a one-sided narrative. Not everything is in this world is black and white. --] (]) 08:34, 13 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::ps: on some specific points Jaakobou ... | |||
| ::: And why do you insist on inserting text that is not justified by the cited sources, yet query text that is? Is it simply because what it says doesn't accord with your POV. I think most of the contemporaneous media sources cited claim IDF casualty estimates in the 100s - this is presumably because the journalists asked the IDF for their estimates, and various spokespeople gave them those estimates, either in individual or official briefings, or in media interviews. Those figures were wrong, as were the Palestinian claims. The other depressing thing about all this is that, going back up the talk page, it seems another editor had very similar debates with you back in May/June this year, for example about the inclusion of the word genocide in the intro, and other examples of your general misuse/misreading of sources and references. --] 14:48, 28 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::'''Casus Belli''': the lead of course should say that the assault took place during the Second Intifada, and that Jenin was targeted after the IDF said suicide attacks were being launched from the city. I have always said this. Any edits I have made have always retained this information. The simple point is that the lead doesn't need to repeat the same point, in great detail, across two or three sentences. | |||
| :::::'''Initial massacre claims''': I did not remove the first reference to it (eg the phrase "rumours developed that a massacre of hundreds or even thousands .. might have occurred" is there in the first sentence), again I just removed ''duplication'' further on in that paragraph. Go back at look at the diffs, and please read things more carefully in future before making sweeping accusations. | |||
| :::::"'''NPOV'''": in fact I do equate the official Israeli interpretation that there was no massacre with official Palestinian claims that there was one, even with the lower death tolls. I'd be interested to hear on what basis you think they are not equivalent (the Barak defence not included) | |||
| :::::"'''Fringe'''": I have pointed you to links showing that views which do not follow the simplistic "no massacre" view are no more fringe than those pushing that interpretation. | |||
| :::::'''English language''': rumours cannot "purport" anything; organisations rarely "hold on to" allegations (and if they do, it is being suggested they are doing it in vain); also the "while"s and "however"s are all over the place. --] (]) 09:15, 13 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| '''Comments''' by Ynhockey: | |||
| ::::(1) i don't think that an australia news source should vouch for IDF spokepersons. (2) i have a pretty strong recollections of the events in question and i see documentaries relating every week on our channel 8. (3) please refrain from POV accusations as they testify to your own POV also. | |||
| * Originally I wanted to just follow the goings-on of the article itself, but recently so many quick edits and reverts happenned that it's becoming nearly-impossible. Therefore, I'll relate only to the current version of the article vs. the version I remember from way back, and comments on the talk page so far. | |||
| * ''Casus belli'': It appears that all sides agree that information about the reasoning for this operation should indeed be in the lead section. So why isn't it there? We can argue later about the necessity of citing the Passover Massacre in particular, but some info needs to be inserted ASAP. | |||
| * Jenin Refugee Camp: I noticed that all information about the Jenin Refugee Camp has been removed from the article. Was this intentional, or part of the comprehensive rewrite? I think this information is very important, especially because the camp doesn't have its own article. It needs to be outlined what the Jenin refugee camp is (essentially a poor neighborhood of Jenin), who was in charge of it (UNRWA/PA), and why it was targeted specifically (the last point seems to exist in the current version). | |||
| * I will comment on the other points raised here once I have carefully analyzed the evidence, sources, and the actual prose of the article. | |||
| -- ] <sup>(])</sup> 13:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks for the comments. Let's see: | |||
| :::::These objections are nonsensical. Furthermore, they seem to hinge on whether you personally like the claim at issue. You sourced the "martyrs' capital" claim to the BBC (after a laborious explanation of why Israeli propaganda websites are not WP:RS). If a British TV station reporting claims about what Palestinians say (without specific attribution) is perfectly reliable, is not an Australian newspaper reporting claims about what Israelis say (with attribution) also reliable? Whether you remember seeing it on a Channel 8 (whatever that is) documentary that you think was "pro-Palestinian", or whether you have ''a pretty strong recollection'', is completely irrelevant. Provide sources for your claims or stop making them. | |||
| :*The second paragraph of the lead says: ''Israel targeted Jenin's refugee camp, after it deemed that the city had "served as a launch site for numerous terrorist attacks against both Israeli civilians and Israeli towns and villages in the area"''. I think that covers it. The source lists the suicide bombers that came from Jenin, but doesn't mention the Passover massacre. For this reason, as well as the ones I mentioned above, I think it doesn't belong in the lead. | |||
| :*It was part of the rewrite. I think this stuff belongs in the ] article. Why is it very important here? | |||
| : -- ] (]) 14:16, 14 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::*The text indeed exists, but it is not clear from the paragraph what the situation really was at the time. Instead, it is written as a fringe claim (especially with the use of quotation marks around the Israeli statement). It also uses wording from the first paragraph ("as part of"), so at the very least a re-wording is warranted. The paragraph is also too short for WP:LEAD, so for GA/FA it would need to be merged into another paragraph, further burying the ''casus belli'', probably the most important part of the lead after the definition, in irrelevant info. I suggest expanding the paragraph, but most importantly, defining the ''casus belli'' clearly, without any quotation marks or side-implications, at the start of the second paragraph. I'll write a draft if you wish, although an example of how I think the lead should work can be seen in my recent rewrite of the IDF article lead. | |||
| :::::On a personal note, you would do best to leave this issue to one of Misplaced Pages's many ''competent'' Israeli hasbara-pushers. Your broken English, and your manifest ignorance of Misplaced Pages policy, make you look really silly. ] 03:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::*Some points are more important than others, but at this time specifically, we have to take into account that the Jenin article is sub-par and doesn't provide the reader with the info that this article should convey in regards to the refugee camp. In case the Jenin article is expanded however (and I believe the refugee camp also deserves its own article), there are still some points which need to be stated here—as a summary of the relevant points from the refugee camp article. For one, there needs to be mention of the fact that it is/was a PA-administrated camp, clarifying who the "Palestinian forces" were in the lead. Also it's worth mentioning that the UNRWA also ran the camp, which is directly relevant to the battle (UNRWA's involvement should be talked about somewhere in the article, if it hasn't been mentioned already). And finally, as I said before, why the camp was attacked specifically (rather than other parts of Jenin) also needs to be clarified in the article body (other than the simplistic "Israel deemed it a terrorist hotbed"). Of course, the latter requires the best of sources, which I hope someone else will be able to find. | |||
| ::Finally, it's good to see that an editor generally uninvolved in conflict articles such as yourself also contributes to the article! Cheers, ] <sup>(])</sup> 15:02, 14 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::A slight rewording is always possible, and I would like to see your draft. I think we pretty much have consensus on a relatively short lead, to avoid a narrative, so keep that in mind. About the camp: There could be some information added. I'll see what I can find. -- ] (]) 15:28, 14 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Update: added background paragraph. -- ] (]) 16:25, 14 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ===Draft by Ynhockey=== | |||
| :::::::(1) ], i think you should take a good hard look at ], ] and ]. | |||
| Below is my proposed draft (sans sources). I mainly focused on structure and language, and giving due weight in the lead to each section of the article (per WP:LEAD). | |||
| :::::::(2) please note that when a reasonable explanation to an objection is given. | |||
| :::::::(3) please address this issue properly - either we find a reliable reference to give this this alleged spokesperson some credibility or the hearsay statement should be removed. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 14:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Misplaced Pages is about verifiability, not truth - the Australian article gives us an estimate of 250 dead from an IDF source, and that is perfectly adequate to be included. However this article is not written to the WP standard of verifiability, since English-language sources of the Kurdi Bear interview were removed - I believe you can explain how this happened. And this article is laced with other inaccuracies, including a BBC report ("52 dead") which clearly conflicts with the source they're quoting ("at least 52 dead"). Perhaps it would be better if you edited the Hebrew WP rather than the English one, since it's clear you're having some difficulty with the language in use here. ] 22:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Just to clarify the point - one way governments feed a lot of information to the public is via anonymous briefings to the media (either officially via a press office, whose staff in the UK at least do not give out their names, or unofficially in off-the-record briefings by other staff). This happens either because the journalist has contacted a press office for a comment, or because the government is trying to pro-actively push a point out. That journalist, and other media, may then report what they have been told. That is the way the system works, and it happens in addition to more direct and public methods such as government press conferences, officially released statements etc. We cannot just exclude any information that comes out this way on the basis that it is "3rd hand" - it is still attributed by the journalist to the government collectively, and is certainly not hearsay. What matters is whether the media organisation in question is considered to be a reliable or professional one (which of course is a separate point from whether it is considered biased or not). Any mainstream media outlet saying "the IDF said last night that ..." should be a reliable source for the content of that IDF statement. --] 07:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| The '''Battle of Jenin''' took place between April 3 and April 11, 2002 in the ] in the ]. It was fought between the ] (IDF) and ] militants{{ref|1}} during the ], as part of the ]i ] launched four days earlier. | |||
| ::that assessment may become valid once we get a couple hebrew sources (or some valid english ones) that repeat this information. we cannot base this information on a single 3rd party source from another country who's giving this information almost indirectly to it's own article. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 09:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| The Israeli government decided to target the refugee camp after intelligence indicated that it served as a launch site for numerous terrorist attacks against Jewish localities in the area and Israeli civilians in general, including .{{ref|2}} The attack commenced after the city of ] had been captured, while Palestinians dug in in the refugee camp, seeing the Israeli soldiers advance on foot. After an Israeli detachment walked into an ambush, the force changed tactics and subdued the camp with armored vehicles, and the Palestinian forces surrendered on April 11. 23 Israeli soldiers were killed in the battle. | |||
| :::And yet, we can, when the information is something you want known ("martyrs' capital"). Here is Ha'aretz approvingly quoting an Arab-Israeli filmmaker on the IDF estimate of 250, without printing any kind of correction or retraction. Here and is a soul-searching "why does the world hate us" editorial of an IDF Captain published by The National Review Online ("Worse still, the IDF was releasing what turned out to be erroneous, highly inflated estimates of Palestinian casualties ... 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.") | |||
| Because many buildings in the camp were bulldozed, and the area was closed by the IDF following the battle, a rapid cycled of rumors began circulating that a massacre of as many as thousands of Palestinians had taken place, supported by statements from the ] and human rights organizations. Subsequent investigations found no evidence of a massacre, and the total Palestinian death toll was determined to be between 52 and 56, including 5-26 civilians. Even so, human rights organizations held on to the allegations of ]s. | |||
| :::Do you realize that you are, concurrently, arguing that a single report in a free Jewish-community weekly in San Fransisco be treated as received wisdom without even attributing the claim to its sources, arguing that a single background line on the BBC is enough to label an entire city as the suicide bombers' capital, and arguing that a single 3rd party source from another country isn't adequate to report on Israel? How can you sustain this apparent contradiction? Do you even recognize that the contradiction exists? ] 12:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| '''Notes''': | |||
| ] I've never heard about an IDF official stating we killed 250 people, a rumors on a semi-paragraph in Australia is not a good source. ] 10:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| * {{note|1}} 'Palestinian forces', like in the current version, should be used if sources can be provided that the Palestinian side in the battle was officially operating under the PNA, because 'Palestinian forces' generally refers to the PNA police. | |||
| * {{note|2}} If the government decided that it was a launch pad for attacks, there must be examples of some attacks. This isn't bloat, as Nickhh claims, but necessary to understand how the refugee camp was different from other Palestinian towns in terms of militant activity. Terrorist acts not linked with Jenin probably shouldn't be included, no matter how terrible. | |||
| ====Comments by Nudve==== | |||
| :These aren't "rumors on a semi-paragraph", but a report in a major Australian daily. Their correspondent was undoubtedly in Israel which obviates any question of Australia somehow being too far away to report on Israel. Explain why they are not a good source. ] 12:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| A few issues with this draft: | |||
| *Using the word "terrorist" unattributed right in the lead is going to be a problem. | |||
| ::that sounds like a lot of OR to support this statement and i really don't understand why you ask for an explanation when one has been given. just find some proper source for it so we can get rid of this discussion or get rid of this rumor. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 16:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *"" is ]. The debate here is on how much weight should those attacks get in the lead. | |||
| *"Even so" is ], and the absence of a massacre does not necessarily negate the possibility of war crimes. | |||
| *This is not an issue with the draft, but now that I think of it, the lead should say something about the UN commission, since it is given significant weight in the article. | |||
| -- ] (]) 19:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| '''seems to me''' that the current phrasing of: | |||
| ::Reply: | |||
| ::* The particular word is not important, it can be removed. ''... it served as a launch pad for numerous attacks again ...'' | |||
| ::* In case the note I left was not clear, what I meant to say is that we should list several notable attacks that specifically emerged from Jenin—without giving any details for them. The general term 'Black March' (מרץ השחור) can also be mentioned if there's a source linking it to Jenin. This seems to me as an acceptable middle-ground compromise between the position that no attacks should be mentioned (Nickhh) and the position that there should be a detailed examination of several attacks (Jaakobou). Perhaps I read the arguments wrong. | |||
| ::* How about: ''... the total Palestinian death toll was determined to be 52–56, including 5–26 civilians, although human rights organizations held on to the allegations of war crimes.'' ? | |||
| ::* I agree. IMO it should go into the last paragraph which is reasonably short for an expantion, and already talks about "subsequent investigation", which would include the UN commission. | |||
| ::-- ] <sup>(])</sup> 20:25, 14 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::I suppose that's better. However, it might not be relevant anymore, since the entire article's neutrality and reliability are now in question (see below). Earlier, you said: "I will comment on the other points raised here once I have carefully analyzed the evidence, sources, and the actual prose of the article". I'd be happy if you did that and joined the discussion. Cheers, -- ] (]) 08:13, 15 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I don't wish to discourage someone who (I think) has done rather a lot of good work. However, the objections I've made are substantive (and not exhaustive). There is an template which avoids the problem of whether there is an on-going editing disagreement or not. | |||
| ::::How would you feel about me writing-up the UN report? If it leans in either "direction", it's probably towards Israel (judging by who complained, crude though that is as a measure!). It's certainly the nearest thing we have to an account written by people who are both "uninvolved specialists" and "professionals". It got extensive publicity when it came out in August and more or less capped off most discussion. I have taken advice on what I have planned and can only see editing-type corrections to what I've done. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 09:04, 15 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ===Still problems=== | |||
| The battle attracted widespread international attention due to Palestinian claims that ] were committed (these claims were repeated in the HRW report), and as a result of inflated reports on body counts by '''''all parties'''. | |||
| The errors in punctuation, grammar and language which I tried to sort out as part of are still in the lead, since of course my changes were subject to blanket reversion, despite my pointing out what I had done. As it happens, unsurprisingly I didn't see what was wrong with the minor content changes either, which were intended to create a bit more balance - none of them were hugely significant and none of them said anything that isn't already known and sourced. Anyway, I thought I'd point it out since no-one has even attempted to deal with the grammar and phrasing problems since, which I could make a cynical comment about (but I won't, I'll merely hint at it. As I just have). --] (]) 15:56, 24 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| simply avoids the issue of the 500+ claims by palestinian officials on international broadcasts (saeb erekat on CNN for example) and tries to equate it with one australian report about an unknown israeli source who supposedly claimed up to 250 were injured. i believe this issue needs to be addressed properly so we can phrase it in better accordance to validated facts. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 11:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :here's a suggestion: Instead of making cynical comments, or complaining that no one has fixed punctuation and grammar issues, why don't ''you'' fix those punctuation and grammar issues, without trying to mix in various changes related to "balance" or other content? ] (]) 18:39, 24 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Please don't try to patronise me again or start another fight, it's very tedious. I'm not under any obligation to edit this or any other article, and certainly not just because you've told me to. Especially when my first attempt to deal with the problem was simply reverted straightaway in its entirety. Why should I bother again? If other editors want it to read as it does currently, that's up to them, if that's where their priorities are. It's perfectly legitimate for me to simply flag up the issue on a talk page and leave it at that. --] (]) 13:35, 25 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==Explaining my revert== | |||
| :::Your first attempt involved making numerous content changes which I (and other editors) found to be POV, along with fixing the punctuation and grammar issues of which you complain now. I made a simple suggestion that would address your complaint - simply fix the punctuation and grammar issues, without getting into the content issues. You are free to ignore that suggestion, but then don't be surprised if your alleged concerns are viewed rather skeptically. 14:32, 25 October 2008 (UTC) <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| ::::Thanks, but funnily enough the possibility that I could do the copyediting all over again, without the '''N'''POV changes I also made in the first instance, had occurred to me before you suggested it above. --] (]) 14:45, 25 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| (i) The claims made by Dr. Zangen and the IDF officials are contentious, and should not be presented as undisputed fact, (ii) we should provide information on the ''actual'' damage done to the Jenin camp, as well as the subsequently refuted claims of a massacre. ] 08:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I'm sure it occurred to you. Yet instead of making those edits, you chose to make a lengthy post here about the fact that they need to be made, and followed it up with 2 additional responses to my posts. I'd imagine it would take far less time to restore the previous copyedits to the main article, thereby improving the encyclopedia, than it took you to type these three complaints and responses, which is why I say that these alleged concerns of yours can be viewed with considerable skepticism - you do not appear to be genuinely interested in fixing the punctuation or the grammar (or you have have done so, rather than complain about it), but rather seem to be agitating for someone to reinsert the other elements of your edit which was reverted. ] (]) 14:57, 25 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Please stop impugning my motives, it amounts to a personal attack, something I know you are concerned about on WP. I'm not agitating for anything, nor is my reluctance to make any more changes anything to do with the amount of time it would take. And I'm only responding to your comments here because, as previously, you dive in to make inaccurate and off-topic attacks on me, which I then feel obliged to rebut. I'm going to stop doing that now. I've pointed out the problem with the phrasing, which is all I intended to do. --] (]) 15:14, 25 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::<s>agreed</s> on this one, i don't mind the phrasing "said" anymore. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 09:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I'm sure you've read ], which tells us that we are not obliged to assume good faith when there is evidence to the contrary. I believe there is ample evidence to the contrary in this case, as spelled out above. You may easily prove me wrong on this by simply making the punctuation and grammar edits that supposedly bother you so much. ] (]) 15:19, 25 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :actually, i changed my mind - this is not a civilian being interviewed, but an actual report by an official medic on the scene. the word reported is far more valid than "said". <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 09:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I'm seeing people re-introducing errors of punctuation, grammar and language into an article after they've been corrected - it's difficult to call that anything but vandalism. | |||
| ::::::::I'm then seeing personal attacks on the person (previously people) trying to improve this article. This article still awaits administrative taken against editors who will clearly not abide by policy. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 16:42, 25 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| (outdent) I made all the changes to the lead that I noticed in Nickhh's edit of October 12 that seemed to me to be pretty much just grammatical changes. Some changes could be considered either primarily grammatical or primarily adjusting the meaning. | |||
| Re some parts of Nickhh's edit that I didn't implement at this moment: | |||
| ]: I agree with Jaakobu | |||
| Rather than changing "after it deemed" to "claiming", I suggest changing it to the neutral "stating". As I've stated previously, I support changing ''"while Jenin remained sealed"'' to something that mentions who did the sealing. (See my comment of 16:47, 5 October 2008.) Again for reasons I've expressed previously, (22:59, 12 October 2008) I prefer ''"no evidence to substantiate claims that a large scale or deliberate massacre had taken place"'' rather than ''"no evidence to substantiate claims that a massacre had taken place."'' | |||
| ''"Human rights organizations reported cases"'' sounds more neutral than ''"human rights organizations held on to allegations"''. I think Nickhh's addition ''"and of unlawful killings by the IDF"'' is unnecessary and may veer away from NPOV. I don't think we should mention the number 26 unless we have a source specifically mentioning that number. (OR).<span style="color:Orange; font-size:1.5em;">☺</span> ] (]) 16:16, 25 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :As I wrote before, I object to the phrase ''"no evidence to substantiate claims that a large scale or deliberate massacre had taken place"'', because this implies that there is evidence for a "small scale" massacre, which is simply not the case. ] (]) 17:03, 25 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::How about ''"no evidence to substantiate claims that hundreds had been killed"'' or ''"no evidence to substantiate claims that large numbers of people had been killed"'' or ''"no evidence to substantiate claims that more than 50-odd people had been killed"''? (suggested as a substitute for the current phrasing) <span style="color:Purple; font-size:1.5em;">☺</span> ] (]) 17:15, 25 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::This is better than your previous suggestion, but I still prefer the current phrasing in the lead, for two reasons: (1) the previous paragraph in the lead twice refers to allegations of a "massacre" , so when those turn out to be unsubstantiated, we should say so. (2) We have a couple of reliable sources that explicitly say "no massacre", so there's no reason not to use the same terminology. ] (]) 17:58, 25 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The reason not to assert "no massacre" is that it isn't NPOV, since it's reported by some sources but we have at least one source (the Palestinian appendix to the UN report) which contradicts it. However, we can assert something along the lines that "sources X and Y reported that there was no massacre" or "sources X and Y reported that they found no evidence of a massacre". Perhaps you could suggest specific wording for a sentence along those lines? <span style="color:Purple; font-size:1.5em;">☺</span> ] (]) 18:09, 25 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Here's my suggestion. Instead of the current ''While a large area in the camp was destroyed as a result of the fighting, subsequent investigations found no evidence to substantiate claims that a massacre had taken place.'', how about: ''"About 10% of the camp was destroyed as a result of the fighting. According to a ] report, there is no evidence of a massacre, but official Palestinian sources continue to maintain that a massacre had taken place".'' ] (]) 18:16, 25 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::That sounds good to me. However, do we have a source to verify that the Palestinian sources "continue" to maintain that a massacre had taken place? How recently did they say that? It may be better (and will not go out of date) to say ''"official Palestinian sources have stated that there was probably a massacre."'' (based on the appendix to the UN report, which states ''"In addition, it is probable that a massacre and a crime against humanity might have been committed in the Jenin refugee camp..."'') If we have another source we may be able to word it differently. <span style="color:Red; font-size:1.5em;">☺</span> ] (]) 19:01, 25 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::We can drop the "continue". ] (]) 19:04, 25 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::The second part sounds OK. But now I'm wondering about "as a result of the fighting"; that makes it sound as if the destruction was accidental and caused by both sides. The source says ''"by a dozen armoured Israeli bulldozers."'' I suggest, ''"About 10% of the camp was destroyed by Israeli bulldozers. According to a ] report, there is no evidence of a massacre, but official Palestinian sources maintain that a massacre had taken place".'' <span style="color:Purple; font-size:1.5em;">☺</span> ] (]) 19:14, 25 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::Is there a source that says the destruction was caused exclusively by bulldozers? I don't think so. At least part of the destruction is attributed to Palestinian booby traps. ] (]) 21:11, 25 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::The entire "massacre yes or no" business is a PR invention of one party. It bears no relevance to the actual reporting of the event - which concerned (<small>in this order, I think</small>): '''1)''' mass destruction '''2)''' obstruction of humanitarian relief '''3)''' obstruction of investigation and '''4)''' various specifics particularly "human shields" (the last being a criticism, by the UN only, of both parties). | |||
| :::::::::Reporting the event mostly didn't even mention "massacre". The owner (landlord?) of the camp was the Commissioner of the UNRWA, who said (in translation): ''“This is pure hell. It is no exaggeration to call it a massacre. I have previously refrained from using the word massacre, but now, when I have seen it, I cannot call it otherwise.”'' But nobody can tell us that his statement is "true" or "false" - we should simply report what this important player said about it. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 19:28, 25 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::I particularly ] with your last sentence, PR. <span style="color:Orange; font-size:1.5em;">☺</span> ] (]) 21:48, 25 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Two points - | |||
| **I don't particularly care if the wording is resolved as "said" or "reported". I'm more concerned about presenting IDF claims as uncontested fact, as the current wording still does. ] 21:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *Language/copyediting - edit has reinserted the clunky "rumors purported" phrasing. Constant reversion of this sort of thing is kind of why I didn't actually try to change it again myself, and it appears that decision has been vindicated. You'd have thought we could at least avoid edit-warring and disputes over simple English language issues - there's plenty else to disagree about after all. At worst it suggests that some editors are more interested in point-scoring and and blind reverting rather than improving content here, even at the most basic level. | |||
| *"Massacre" - actually I'd happily have the phrasing "there was no large scale massacre", rather than having it as "no evidence", which kind of suggests that some might still be found. It is an uncontroversial fact that 100s of people were not deliberately killed. However the "large scale" or "widespread" qualifier is crucial, since plenty of sources do still assert there was a massacre of some sort, even with the final, lower death toll (I listed some a while ago, including from Palestinian officials and the mainstream media ). Some sources do say simply "no massacre", but there is no agreement or unanimity here, and it's therefore misleading to use that phrasing in the lead. The lead has to reflect the fact that many sources do maintain there was a massacre, albeit not one with 100s of victims, rather than take sides either way. --] (]) 11:27, 26 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::I disagree with the statement ''"It is an uncontroversial fact that 100s of people were not deliberately killed."'' That seems to me to contradict Pounder's POV. We can perhaps give weight (prominence) to the idea that 100s were not killed, but we can't assert it as if it's ''"a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute"'' (]).<span style="color:Green; font-size:1.5em;">☺</span> ] (]) 13:38, 26 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::I disagree. Today, 6 years after the event, and after an AI report said all but one of the camp's residents were accounted for, it is a fact that 100s were not killed. It is true that some people (e.g. Pounder, or certain members of the PA) are so prejudiced that they refuse to acknowledge the facts even when those stare them in the face, but that does not change the facts. I think the formulation you and I agreed on prior to Nickhh's recent comments is fine. ] (]) 14:44, 26 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I'm not sure if we had quite agreed on both sentences. How about this version: ''"About 10% of the camp was destroyed. According to a ] report, there is no evidence of a massacre, but official Palestinian sources maintain that a massacre had taken place."'' This leaves out the bulldozers. Another alternative for the first sentence is ''"About 10% of the camp was destroyed during the incident."'' "Flattened" might be more informative than "destroyed". <span style="color:Red; font-size:1.5em;">☺</span> ] (]) 14:53, 26 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Either one of these is fine with me. ] (]) 15:30, 26 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Note/clarification: Pounder's comments were from around 18th April, based on an early visit to the camp. Nor in the BBC did he appear to talk about hundreds dead, he merely suggests that there "could be large numbers of civilian dead" under the ruins. I'm certainly not aware of Pounder or any significant source suggesting now that more than 50-60 people were killed, or whether that would be due to prejudice if they were saying that. Where the "massacre/no massacre" dispute arises is over how to ''describe or interpret'' what happened, with that number as given. There are legitimate sources that continue to use the description "massacre", on account of the civilians killed. This needs to be recorded, and without it being couched in terms to suggest they are in denial of some sort (I kind of read the above proposal as doing that, even if not intentionally). The later sources I linked to up above do all use the massacre description, while explicitly acknowledging the lower death toll. Even the HRW report is more nuanced than in the suggested para above, with the full sentence reading - "Human Rights Watch found no evidence to sustain claims of massacres or large-scale extrajudicial executions by the IDF in Jenin refugee camp. However, many of the civilian deaths documented by Human Rights Watch amounted to unlawful or willful killings by the IDF". --] (]) 12:36, 27 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :: Part (ii) is the more serious point. It is equivocation bordering on fraud to describe the devastation to Jenin as a "Palestinian claim" rather than an objective fact. The camp was bombarded heavily by tanks and helicopters, and subsequently some 10% of its area was deliberately razed to the ground by Israeli bulldozers. These are not merely allegations, but widely reported facts. The bulldozing, indeed, was proudly confirmed by official Israeli sources, who were eager to point out that they'd "merely" flattened a tenth of the camp, not the entire camp. Can we address this serious problem? ] 01:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| The neutrality of this article is most certainly contested. There is a heavy pro-Israel bias which has gotten worse. The list Israeli war crimes documented by Amnesty International has been cut from a list of 9 to a list of 2. The alleged citation from the Washington Times is not from the Washington Times web site. Does the policy of allowing citations from blogs which cite alleged news articles only apply to stories which are pro-Israel? When I did that, my edit was reverted and the explaination was that if the web site of the original story is not available, then it cannot be used. Just what is the policy here? ] (]) 14:37, 20 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::It is equivocation bordering on fraud to describe the devastation to Jenin as the result of the IDF "deliberate bulldozing" leaving out that everything was deliberately rigged with explosives, in order to kill as many IDF soldiers as possible. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 15:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I've added some info from ] on the Amnesty report. Highbeam, which hosts the Washington Times article, is not a blog. I believe it is a reliable database. If you insist, we can look for other hosts or ask at ]. -- ] (]) 15:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I think it is time this article was edited to WP policy. The devastation was carried out by the IDF - actually, much of it by an untrained "problematical" volunteer whom they let free on IDF equipment. Kurdi Bear told us exactly how he did it, with reckless disregard for the safety of civilians, and believing he killed people in the rubble. It's also high time the "verifiable" reference was put back so that "all readers" can verify what he said. ] 09:30, 4 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == 54 dead not 53 == | |||
| :::::], statements like - ''The devastation was carried out by the IDF'', would be OR. WP policy is not to base articles on such OR, if you read the actual article, you'll notice there's nothing there about IDF being the sole body responsible. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 16:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| the time article number 2 http://www.time.com/time/2002/jenin/story.html says 54 Palestinians died, not 53, so I corrected it. | |||
| ] (]) 18:38, 13 October 2008 (UTC)russell j @ 10/13/08 2:63 pm | |||
| :Why does the article already cite this one Time Magazine article twelve 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"'' - and uses direct Israeli POV ''"the Palestinian defenders retreated to ... where their defenses were strongest"'' and ''"It was time to hit harder"''? | |||
| :Is it because the piece differs substantially from the contemporaneous reports of every European journalist on the scene? And differs greatly from the reports of every investigation by independent human rights groups? ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> | |||
| ::We cite this article because TIME magazine is a reliable source, and this specific article is directly related to the topic of this article. In other words, we are doing this because we are editing this article according to Misplaced Pages policies. ] (]) 17:09, 25 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::We're plainly not writing this article to regular WP policy, since we've applied massive ] to a single source that uses the POV language of one party. There's a great deal of other RS available, all of it fairly startling, but none of it is written in a POV fashion as if the reporter were on board with a "Palestinian perspective". While I'm about it, I don't much care for the way you're suddenly appearing at articles (such as ], ], ], ]) to confront or revert my edits, in many cases in articles you've previously had nothing to do with. This smacks of the same thing I'm seeing on this page, a decidedly uncollegiate attitude to what should be regular TalkPage discussion. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 20:04, 25 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::You asked why TIME is being used, and I explained the relevant wikipedia policy to you. Now stop soapboxing and start editing to this policy. I don't believe I've edited ], and I was editing ] before you, so perhaps it is you who is following me around. ] (]) 21:17, 25 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==so which ones are pertinent to Jenin?== | |||
| == The BBC reports... in the fighting == | |||
| Hamas was attributed attacks from September 9, 2001 (a suicide attack in Nahariya), March 19, 2002 (a shooting attack in Hamam Al Maliach), and March 31, 2002 (a suicide attack in Haifa that left, 15 casualties). | |||
| Palestinian Islamic Jihad was attributed attacks from July 16, 2001 (a suicide attack at the Binyamina Railway Station), October 28, 2001 (a shooting attack in Hadera), November 29, 2001 (a suicide attack near Pardes Hanna), January 25, 2002 (a suicide attack at the old central bus station in Tel Aviv—in cooperation with Fatah), January 5, 2002 (a suicide attack in Afula), March 20, 2002 (a suicide attack in Wadi Ara), April 10, 2002 (a suicide attack at the Yagur junction). | |||
| Two problems with this line. Firstly, the destruction was an objective fact rather than a "report". Everyone involves agrees that about 1/10 of the camp was bulldozed to the ground. Israel proudly reported this to the world! Their spokesmen went on TV to tell us about it! | |||
| Fatah was attributed attacks from February 1, 2001 (a shooting of an Israeli civilian visiting Jenin), April 28, 2001 (a shooting at near Umm al-Fahm), June 28, 2001 (a shooting near Ganim), September 11, 2001 (a shooting at "Bezeq" workers near Shaked and detonation of a charge at an IDF force in the area), March 9, 2001 (a shooting near Yabed), October 4, 2001 (a shooting in Afula), October 27, 2001 (Infiltration to Me Ammi and laying of an explosives charge), November 27, 2001 (a joint PIJ and Fatah suicide attack in Afula), February 8, 2002 (a joint PIJ and Fatah suicide attack aimed at Tel Aviv, intercepted), March 12, 2002 (a shooting on the road to Katsir), March 21, 2002 (a suicide attack in Jerusalem), March 30, 2002 (a suicide attack in Tel Aviv). | |||
| Secondly, the houses were indeed "systematically razed to the ground" not "destroyed in the fighting". Destroyed in the fighting is, frankly, a lie. Most of the bulldozing was done ''after'' the fighting . The current wording falsely implies some kind of "crossfire" or "collateral damage", and misrepresents what the sources actually say. | |||
| ] 03:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :i reverted because information from the intro was removed, and the "facts phrasing" was based on inappropriate references. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 06:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :btw, i saw images of the destruction, and to me "the facts" looked much closer to 3% destruction of the camp and not 10%. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 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. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 08:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :: I provided two sources, the BBC and the UN report, for the fact that tanks and helicopters shelled the camp. These are manifestly reliable published sources. Yes, I know that many people, yourself included, believe that the BBC and the UN are out to get Israel. This is irrelevant. Unless reliable, published sources not constituting a tiny minority dispute the fact that tanks and helicopters shelled the camp, this fact should not be removed or changed to a "claim". | |||
| :: On the percentages: GlobalSecurity.org may not be a reliable published source by our standards. I don't know. In any case, the percentage they gave referred to the "stadium", the large demolished area in the centre of the camp. The 10 percent figure given by the BBC, the EU report on Palestine, and the "pro-Israeli" group CAMERA, includes other areas of demolition. | |||
| ::"Mixing" one's own bias and the perceived bias of reliable published sources is not a recognized procedure on Misplaced Pages. Vague references to half-remembered television programs you saw personally are not useful in resolving content disputes. Please accept this. ] 20:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| all to go unless you can find the 6 or 23 for Jenin....so far you haven't shown that these belong in an article about Jenin unless of course you are thinking of adding in all the IDF and settler activity in the area?....Otherwise you are just trying for demonisation.....] (]) 20:54, 25 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::], please don't make claims about me beyond what i state, if you have better sources than BBC, feel free to share with us. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 07:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| all of these are Israeli MFA claims, which is not made clear in the body of the text....] (]) 21:10, 25 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::You might be interested to read the English-language version of the "Kurdi Bear" interview, it's . That reference was deleted and replaced by the Hebrew version of the same thing (and all the wrong clips from it put into ). We were told that verifiability (supposedly one of the core principles of the encyclopaedia) now only meant that "all readers" were expected to understand Hebrew. | |||
| :::You might also note that both the UN and HRW state that "at least 52" were killed, not "52 in total". The UN weren't allowed in atall - but one group of International observers discovered that ''"bodies were still being recovered from under the rubble as late as early August"'', over 3 months later. ] 20:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : |
:It's not a "demonisation" issue since the activities were linked to the Israeli assault on the Jenin infrastructure for these activities. <b>]'']''</b> 21:11, 25 October 2008 (UTC) | ||
| :::::No, it is time this article was edited to WP policy, whereby we reference or quote what was actually reported. It's a bit late to tell us you have problems with the observations of International volunteers, when you've previously told me you reject what Israeli observers say. The IDF told the UN that they would not be allowed to visit Jenin unless Israeli soldiers were indemnified for war-crimes (UN and HRW reports say that these were committed). It's the IDF that is rendered a totally unreliable source for everything about this incident, because they prevented investigation, and told us why they were doing so. ] 09:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Israeli MFA has been known to be rather inaccurate in its dealings with the rest of the world on many occasions....it needs to be made clear that this is a Israeli government claim and not necessarily fact...] (]) 21:35, 25 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::# why "No"? quite a lot of words have been made about this. | |||
| ::::::# please don't use wiki as a ] blog; anyone can come up with their "figurative speech" version and write them on the talk pages claiming WP is no good. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 16:24, 4 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Propangada== | |||
| For those editors who are unaware of it, propaganda generally frowned upon by Misplaced Pages, even if it consists of true statements. Both sides in any conflict commit atrocities, even the Palestinians and the Israelis, imagine that. On Misplaced Pages, however, history is ''not'' written by the winners. Pro-Israeli editors; innocent civilians tend to die in battles, and nothing can be gained from whitewashing that fact. Pro-Palestinian editors; it is not necessary to wring every last drop of propaganda value from the deaths of your innocent civilians. <sub>unsigned by IP 129.252.87.183</sub> | |||
| :innocence is easy to claim when you do guerrilla warfare using civilian support to provide human shields, try watching "death in gaza" sometime (it's slightly anti-israeli film because israelis don't explain their perspective, but in general a fair film). <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 06:42, 4 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::That's right, erode your own soul by devaluing your enemy. All people are more or less innocent. You've tied yourself in a knot over this, a pathetic dry patch of land that an old book says God gave to you. ] 09:04, 4 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Israel was founded to be "A Light unto the Nations", this from Ha'aretz. ] 16:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| sorry jaakobou I did not see the IDF spokesperson mainly as all the first 3 sections have the same info in a POV demonisation repetition and quite frankly I stopped paying much attention to what was written...the structural layout of the article has ensured a pro Israel POV....There is no chronological order and information is repeated. The section for massacre theorists is at the bottom yet the massacre theorists are placed front and centre. The IDF failures which led to the massacre allegations isn't even noted in the lead with the allegations.....] (]) 22:12, 25 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :i remind you both to keep it ], there's obviously many ways to look at things, but i don't think that i should use the talk page as a blog or an ideological discussion forum. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 18:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Is it civil to vandalise my TalkPage, as you've now done at least three times? ] 20:10, 4 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::I agree with the argument against propaganda completely. You all (meaning ''both'' sides) need to stop your warring. Stop tossing conflicting allegations around and conflicting sources. Simply state the allegations held by each side, and stop this wasteful bickering and arguing. --] 16:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == |
== NPOV Tag == | ||
| i question the validity of , in particular the blanketing of information from the kurdi bear paragraph and the diminishing of the title of the referenced link. considering my history with editor, i am no longer assuming good faith and unless a good explanation is given for this censorship, i am considering this edit as ] vandalism. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 17:11, 5 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| The documentation at {{tl|NPOV}} says ''"Do not use this template unless there is an ongoing dispute."'' | |||
| :The Kurdi Bear quote from an Israeli newspaper is an RS source that claims made about "loudspeaker warnings" is false in many cases. If you have alternative sources that prove your contention, by all means insert them. In the meantime, do not remove verifiable information, and in particular don't remove English-language references and replace them with the non-verifiable. ] 18:15, 5 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| It's my understanding that a POV tag is normally supposed to contain a link to a particular section of the talk page, which should list particular problems with the article, so that when those items have been adequately addressed then the tag can be removed. I would appreciate it if that is done here: PR, would you please specify what the issue or issues are that the tag is intended to refer to. To specify the section of the talk page, use <code><nowiki>{{POV|talk page section name}}</nowiki></code>. (The NPOV template is a redirect to the POV template.) <span style="color:Orangered; font-size:1.5em;">☺</span> ] (]) 21:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::], you did not address the issue of content blanketing and only justified the content you allowed to stay on the article (and added an unsourced accusation). <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 18:24, 5 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I don't know where to start - but an obvious place is the sudden inclusion (just since ) of 30 references to a foreign language book "''# Harel, Amos; Avi Isacharoff (2004). The Seventh War. Tel-Aviv: Yedioth Aharonoth Books and Chemed Books, 431. {{ISBN|9655117677}}. (Hebrew)"'' What's the point of having encylopedia policies such as verifiability if we're going to do that? It's clear that they're highly POV ''"Harel and Isacharoff wrote that the IDF's misconduct with the media, including Kitri's statement, contributed to the allegations of massacre"''. Every genuine source points the finger at the IDF for keeping medical assistance out of the camp for 10 days as the single most serious problem. | |||
| :::] I'm not aware of having blanked any content. However, I am a little bit keen to delete material that is provably false. The UN and HRW said only that a minimum of 52 were killed, it is clearly false to say "52 in total". If you continue to behave in this deceitful fashion I will have to escalate the matter. ] 18:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :On top of the trampling of a core policy ] of the project, we have the usual culprits, in spades: | |||
| :1) '''Trivial material from non-RS sources inserted''' (eg the first three entries to the reference list are #1 = Harel and Isacharoff (mentioned above, completely unverifiable), #2 Time Magazine (12 cites), #3 Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs). A much lauded reference to "56 dead" comes from - even if it's genuine, it's still 2nd-hand from a source that, like the UNRWA quoted by Amnesty, is speaking with a gun held to his head. | |||
| :2) '''Blatant POV cherry-picking''' eg the only substantive mention of helicopters we have is: "''On April 4, The Observer reported that Palestinians have called the incident a 'massacre', alleging that ... helicopters fired indiscriminately on a civilian area"''. What does this same source actually say? . Many other sources call the shooting "like rain" - what's so difficult? | |||
| :3) '''So many major elements from the RS left out that "most of the article is missing"'''. I have a list of <s>16</s> 13 distinct elements that I think probably need including if the article is to give a representative view of the incident as reported in the RS. But I've been prevented from getting a single one in, I can't even list them for consideration without a barrage of non-policy objections - the Telegraph, Fox News and an Israeli newspaper dismissed with . ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 19:12, 14 October 2008 (UTC) rewritten by PalestineRemembered on . <small><b>]'']''</b> 10:33, 8 November 2008 (UTC)</small> | |||
| ::A few replies: | |||
| ::Regarding the book. It would indeed be preferable if it was available in English, but ] allows foreign language sources in such cases. You could question the book's reliability, of course. However, we did welcome Amos Harel as a correspondent for Haaretz, including favorite. I don't know about "genuine" sources, but Harel and Isacharoff do say that. I simply preferred to cite other sources for this fact, again per WP:NONENG. | |||
| ::1) I've seen Time Magazine cited many times on Misplaced Pages. Was it ever deemed unreliable?<span style="color:blue;"> PR - see below.</span> The Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs is only used once to quote an Israeli claim.<span style="color:blue;"> PR - then it should not be in the lead.</span> I'll be willing to negotiate the "56" if no other source can be found. Is acceptable? <span style="color:blue;"> PR - it's still a newspaper owned by the Moonies, by a reporter who (I'm told) was accused of fabricating Arabic quotations by Canada's national broadcaster.</span> | |||
| ::2) Read the source again. I've cited it quite meticulously in the context of the massacre claims. "Like rain" is a metaphor. We don't use those per ].<span style="color:blue;"> PR - the use of the helicopters was widespread, likely very deadly and widely remarked - we mention them as an "allegation" by Palestinians.</span> | |||
| ::3) Most of the issues "dismissed" in the diff you gave, particularly the burial of the bodies, are detailed in the article.<span style="color:blue;">PR - I don't see Sharon, I don't see his advisor, I don't see the UN special envoy or the 12 days, I see slighting remarks about the Red Cross, I don't see the bulldozer driver or the bomb-disposal or the killing of UN staff or a whole lot of other things.</span> -- ] (]) 19:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::First of all let me say that the article has improved considerably. The layout is better, the readability is better - and it's even closer to NPOV than it's been all the time I've known it. If a lot of it was your work, then I commend you - I'll even support locking it down now before damage is done to it. But only a cursory examination tells me there are substantial POV issues remaining and it should remain tagged. | |||
| :::I can see the temptation to use sources that English-language editors cannot check, but this practice cannot give confidence to other editors, nor to readers. It's not as if there isn't lots and lots of material from regular accessible sources. And policy asks for RS translations - here we are, using a non-English source more than any other, with no translation whatsoever. Verifiability is a core policy, not to be cast aside lightly. | |||
| :::Time Magazine is 2nd in our reference list (ie we're using it for references in the lead). Now, Time Magazine actually published a very hard-hitting article on the run-up to Jenin - not just quoting the well-known it said that Sharon's words were linked directly to the military action that followed ''"He went on to do just that, unleashing a broader military offensive than anything seen so far in the past 17 months of fighting."''. Oh, but that Time article has been repeatedly edit-warred out of our article .... I wonder why. Even the famous Sharon quote without the commentary is missing! Instead of this main-stream article, the one we've referenced is an insulting white-wash - starts "''The street is a new one, carved by a huge bulldozer out of what was once a narrow alley"'' - is it too much to ask we think of the victims before before we use anything so insensitive? | |||
| :::Moreover, Time Magazines claim to have carried out an investigation is worthless - so what's it doing ahead of real investigations from the UN, HRW and Amnesty? Amnesty is quoted (relatively well) but is not referenced once in the text. HRW is not referenced once it the text, it gets only ''"The report said there was no massacre, but did accuse the IDF of committing war crimes"'', which has been filtered through the BBC and most certainly doesn't give a flavour of what they actually say. The UN report isn't directly referenced either! No mention of the Jordanian, Qatar and EU contributions, that cannot be right. If you want input from me, I'd offer to write the UN report section. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 21:45, 14 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::About Sharon's quote: I don't know who "edit-warred" it out and why, but I think it's undue, just like the Passover massacre. As I said, it belongs in Operation Defensive Shield, not here. The destruction is detailed in the article, but this is ] and we are not here to "think of the victims" of anything. | |||
| ::::The reliability of the NGOs has been questioned on this page recently. A serious discussion on their reliability probably belongs elsewhere. However, they are definitely not information sources the way newspapers and books are. As I said in my draft proposal above, I preferred to treat them as primary sources and filter them through mainstream secondary sources, such as the BBC. If no mainstream source thought it right to mention the Jordanian, Qatar and EU contributions, for example, then maybe it's not that historically notable. The BBC's filter may be imperfect, but I still think its preferable to our ] of it. Besides, we've already seen where this road leads: One user adds his favorite quote from the report, then another one adds his for "balance", and pretty soon the entire section is a quote farm. I think it's better to leave the reports as external links so that the readers can read them and decide for themselves which parts are important and whether it is pro-Israeli, pro-Palestinian, or whatever. Anyway, that's my opinion, and perhaps we should wait for other users' opinions on this. -- ] (]) 11:15, 15 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Re NGOs. A lot of the criticism and questioning of genuinely non-partisan organisations is unfounded and seems to be politically motivated (and please, if it's coming from ] or even worse individual WP editors can be pretty much brushed aside). Reports by Amnesty and HRW etc are professional, properly researched papers, which the groups involved will have put a lot of work into and will have checked over pretty thoroughly before being published. Having said that, I accept that they are arguably primary sources and as per ] we should for the most part rely on reliable secondary sources for interpretation of what they say; also that we run the risk of quote-farming otherwise. However - | |||
| ::::the issue is the removed information from the kurdi bear paragrah. i would think you would know since you've already mentioned the kurdi bear quote (see above) when you made your unsourced accusation. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 19:54, 5 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::*One could see the site investigations, witness statements and submissions that go into these reports as being the relevant primary sources, with the finished, published reports acting as a genuine secondary source. | |||
| :::::*Either way, policy does permit reference to primary sources for straightforward facts or text. | |||
| :::::*The above is doubly safe if done with a clear "according to Amnesty/HRW etc" attribution | |||
| :::::*When using secondary sources, we have to remember that they will differ among themselves and we would have to look at a broad range of them (sorry, but this goes back to the simplistic "it was determined that there was no massacre" line that I have remarked on endlessly above - finding a BBC headline that happens to interpret one of the reports as saying "no massacre" does not mean the issue is settled once and for all, as there are other reliable secondary sources that interpret it differently) | |||
| :::::*Using the media generally as the main secondary source for interpretation of those reports (as opposed to verifiable facts per se) also carries risks, as media outlets of course often have a considerable partisan bias. | |||
| :::::*Also prioritising secondary media sources - as PR points out - leads to the slightly odd result that a self-styled "investigation" by a Time magazine journalist could be seen as ranking above a more formal investigation by a specialist organisation. | |||
| :::::Anyway that's my latest piece of waffle. --] (]) 11:58, 15 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==POV sectional issues== | |||
| I just made a number of edits to the page, most of them expanding the sourced content to cover the combat etc. (I intentionally spread it out over several edits so as to make it easy for everyone to see exactly what I did). The major change I made was to remove what was left of the ''Kurdi'' passage, as it suffered from the same distorted context as its previous iterations (in this case, especially if one reads the Hebrew, it is obvious that he is only saying that he didn't give a warning shake of the house and says the loudspeaker announcements were made before he even got there, very different from how it is currently represented). I expanded upon the same points from less problematic sources to ensure that any gap was addressed. I also made some more minor content changes like changing "sections of the city" levelled by bulldozers to "numerous buildings", which seems more factual to me. I also rephrased the "BBC wrongly reported" bit, which is quite unencyclopaedic, and removed "Israel's alleged part in" from the ], since he was not specifically alluding to those allegations, and it is best not to have discussions of other controversial topics here that are fleshed out on their own linked entries. I preserved CJCurrie's edit, but moved it to the discussion of the casualties, leaving a more concise wording in the lead. That should cover everything, but if not, please raise it here. <font style="color:#22AA00;">''']'''</font><font style="color:#888888;"><sup>]</sup></font> 06:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| POV starts from the introduction, It must be the only article that describes the reactions to a massacre allegations before even saying there was a incident.....The section on the Israeli reasons for going in is named yet the information about those reasons is interspersed throughout the article....that or start a section on why there were bombs being set off in Israel something on the lines of ...''"Israeli Oppression causes Backlash"''...] (]) 10:05, 26 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :There was nothing distorted about the "Kurdi Bear" passage, it was just a very small sample of a detailed (and horrific) RS account by the guy who probably did the largest amount of the destruction. ''"They were warned by loudspeaker to get out of the house before I come, but I gave no one a chance. ........ Many people were inside houses we started to demolish. ....... I am sure people died inside these houses."'' | |||
| ::That is almost funny. That headliner is the rationale for virtually every attack on Israel and Israelis by Palestinians, as well as Israeli attacks on Palestinians. Why did the Intifada start? "''"Israeli Oppression causes Backlash"'' Why was there a suicide bombing? ''"Israeli Oppression causes Backlash"'' Why was there a Battle of Jenin? ''"Israeli Oppression causes Backlash"'' AK et al would be happy if Wiki were one big article that says ''"Israeli Oppression causes Backlash"''-- ''that is all Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.''' Right? ] (]) 04:54, 27 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Whether it's unencyclopedic to say "BBC wrongly reported" I'm not sure, but that particular article is clearly wrong. The UN report they're talking about clearly does not say "total 52", it says "at least 52 Palestinians". We should not be putting information into the encyclopedia that we know to be false. ] 15:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :One of the problems that would be easiest to fix is the trivial summary we have of the UN report. It's the "official report", compiled after agreement and promises of cooperation from all parties, and it includes the considered responses of the EU, the PA and Jordan (along with mention of material from Qatar). ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 10:53, 26 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| It is exactly that kind of selective quoting that is the problem, in addition to the inadequate translation provided by Gush Shalom. He actually says:<blockquote> | |||
| They were warned by loudspeaker to get out of the house ''before I come'',<br> | |||
| But I gave no one a chance. I didn't wait. I didn't give one blow, and wait for them to come out. | |||
| </blockquote> | |||
| The "but I gave no one a chance" is in reference to not giving a "warning blow/ramming"; the loudspeaker warning takes place before he comes. Thus, while the 'interview' is played up and sensationalised, there is no revelation of war crimes, and certainly not an admission that innocent people were intentionally killed. Even this line is discussing houses from which gunfire was emanating. We are all better off if RS and context are preserved for this entry. As for the "inquiry" from , it is hardly an RS, and there is no reason to believe that any further bodies recovered were not documented by the UN, AI, HRW etc., especially when they were allegedly found ''before'' those organisations' reports were published. Also, selecting to highlight some "damning" phrases from external links is not neutral, and not encyclopaedic. I do hope that any further issues can be worked out. <font style="color:#22AA00;">''']'''</font><font style="color:#888888;"><sup>]</sup></font> 19:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I'll assume that the continued reversions to text discussed above while ignoring my explanation was accidental, but as I've pointed this out in my edit summary, I do hope it won't be repeated... <font style="color:#22AA00;">''']'''</font><font style="color:#888888;"><sup>]</sup></font> 04:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::I thought I'd invited you to do a "writing for the enemy" on the "Kurdi Bear" clip somewhere? If not, can I extend the invitation to you here? It's a highly significant and unimpeachable account of one small (but very famous) part of this affair, and clearly belongs in the article. Jaakobou did something similar of his own accord, it was pretty poor and objectionable on a number of grounds, but at least he made an effort. ] 10:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::You did extend that invitiation already, and I replied below to it: ''I've already explained above what the passage does and doesn't say. There is no 'admission' that the Israelis were really lying. <font style="color:#22AA00;">''']'''</font><font style="color:#888888;"><sup>]</sup></font> 19:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)'' <font style="color:#22AA00;">''']'''</font><font style="color:#888888;"><sup>]</sup></font> 18:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == |
== Fact checking == | ||
| In the '''Background''' section I came upon this sentence: ''"Several hundred armed men from the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, Tanzim, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and Hamas had been using the Jenin refugee camp as a base, known as "the martyrs' capital", and of the 100 suicide bombers who had launched terrorist attacks since the Second Intifada began in October 28, 2000 attacks had been launched from there."'' Note 6 says 28 'martyrs' came from Jenin. The way this was written it sounds like 100 suicide bombers launched 2000 attacks, all from Jenin. So the reference is pretty well screwed up, and no source is given at all for the 2000 attacks. Will whoever wrote this, please clarify or I will place a {{fact}} label here in a couple days if someone else doesn't beat me to it. ] (]) 05:07, 27 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| This has been bothering me for some time. The "Evil Zionist POV Version" is written in atrociously broken English. So I made a '''completely content-neutral''' edit which only shuffled clauses around. Due to an edit conflict, I then self-reverted. O Tendentious Editors, if you must revert, consider reverting to the version that does not make my head hurt just to scan it. ] 18:55, 5 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ok, I get it now. I can fix it. ] (]) 16:09, 27 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :''']''', these type of pharsings, even when encapsulated with parenthesis, are simply unhelpful to the project, putting it mildly. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 19:56, 5 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == D9 Operator Moshe Nissim Interview == | |||
| ::I wanted to put the trademark symbol after it, but it's not in the box at the bottom. It was indeed farcing and not pharsing, let alone phrasing. ] 20:20, 5 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| There is a ] translation based on Hebrew original of the Newspaper ] with D9 operator Moshe Nissim over Jenin Battle. The interview with Moshe Nissim is made by Tsadok Yeheskeli, published in Israeli Newspaper Yediot Aharonot on 31 May 2002 and translated by word by word. The original Hebrew is | |||
| :::that would not make it less offensive. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 20:35, 5 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| <blockquote> | |||
| ::::But it would be funnier. ] 20:58, 5 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| "What is documented in this portion, though shocking, is on record in the Israeli Newspaper ]'s, May 31, 2002 by Tsadok Yeheskeli. The link will take you to the English translation of the original Hebrew article. We also cleaned it up to make it easier to read. That version can be accessed . The sentiments are not made up. They were expressed by D-9 bulldozer operator Moshe (Kurdi Bear) Nissim elaborating on his participation in the Jenin Massacre earlier that year)." | |||
| <ref></ref></blockquote> | |||
| <blockquote> | |||
| == "Massacre" == | |||
| "It is the first absolutely sincere Israeli eyewitness testimony on what actually happened in the Jenin Refugee Camp, by one of the soldiers who did it. He is quite proud of his mission. Apart from the shocking revelations, this is also a startling human document. After publication - and in spite of it - the unit to which the man belongs received from the army command an official citation for outstanding service."<ref></ref> and | |||
| <ref></ref> | |||
| </blockquote> | |||
| Is there anyone can read Hebrew that can help checking the translations integrity. ] (]) 19:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| There is no hard and fast definition of this term. Would editors please stop adding things like "claims of a massacre were debunked". | |||
| :You can run it through Google Translate and compare. By the way, Gush Shalom is not a reliable source (except to describe itself), nor is it a particularly significant POV. ] (]) 21:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| To take an extreme example, ] involved in combat, in one case in American history, is called a "massacre". To take a more pertinent example, the killing of 17 people, at least 13 of which were soldiers riding a civillian bus to their military base to take part in military operations, is listed as a "massacre" over at ]. | |||
| :I haven't read the whole thing, but the key points are correct translations except the first one, which actually says "I entered Jenin like crazy/mad", etc. However, as Jalapenos do exist noted, Gush Shalom is not a reliable sources, and would almost always constitute as WP:FRINGE (not unlike Arutz Sheva for example). We can't be sure if this was really published in Yediot Aharonot, but even if it was, the newspaper's weekend edition prints several insets full of personal stories like this, which should not be cited unless there's something extremely significant there, like an important quote by an important politician or something. -- ] <sup>(])</sup> 22:56, 27 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Reliable published sources report that people who are not an extreme minority viewpoint (ie, the entire Arab world) regard what happened in Jenin as a massacre. Claims of a systematic house-to-house campaign of deliberate mass killings of noncombatants were debunked. Claims of a systematic house-to-house search in which civilians were forced to serve as human shields, and some were arbitrarily and randomly murdered, were confirmed. Claims of a massacre were made, rejected by some, and accepted by others. Whether you reject or accept them is irrelevant; they were made, and not by an extreme minority. Stop contradicting them, or sneeringly mocking them, in the text because you personally disagree. ] 01:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| '''Note:''' While your source calls it in that title, there was no massacre in Jenin; Only a blood libel which ended up being rejected by the absolute majority of mainstream sources. <b>]'']''</b> 23:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Just noted this conversation as a link to the Buffalo Grove article linked above. I came upon the article as ]. Massacre is a term which can imply POV, and in the case of the aforementioned article I was concerned with its title from the beginning, pertinent discussion can be found ] and ]. In the end I moved that page to ]. | |||
| :As a note Merriam-Webster's defines a massacre as: ''the act or an instance of killing a number of usually helpless or unresisting human beings under circumstances of atrocity or cruelty'' or ''a cruel or wanton murder'' so depending on how that is applied I guess the Buffalo Grove incident can be called a massacre, maybe, but it seemed a bit much to me in that case. I settled with following whatever reliable sources say, if they don't say anything about nomenclature of the event go with the most accurate NPOV description (which can be "massacre" sometimes). Hope that helps, sorry to butt in. : ) ] 07:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::I appreciate your comment as a non-involved editor. The definition you provided sums up the problem perfectly. It's not agreed whether these were "circumstances of atrocity or cruelty" - some POVs say yes, some say no. That's why we should not contradict or mock those claims, although we should contradict claims of a systematic house-to-house execution squad massacre. ] 12:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :IvoShander, well done for making that change. "The Boston massacre" was 5 killed in a threatening crowd, so the number of deaths can be quite small - but it was absurd to use the word for one! | |||
| :We can be satisfied that there was indeed a "killing of helpless/unresisting people under conditions of atrocity", because we have the verifiable words of one of (even Jaakabou accepts those words are genuine). Under such circumstances (and given there are 100s of millions, if not billions of people who believe there was a massacre), then this article should be so entitled - it's insulting to call it anything else. The fact that parts of it were "a battle between 2 forces" should not conceal the fact that it's most memorable as a massacre. ] 12:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| blood libel is a "false story spread in order to create hatred for a certain group of people" well massacre definition depends where you stand, if you enter a refugee camp destroy dozens of shatters where the people you exiled from their own home and land trying to live, then kill civillians by use of excessive and indiscriminate force by fighting among them, some people Israeli people can call it massacre and claiming it otherwise will not bring back the dead people. A Jewish peace organisations definition might differ from what you refer mainstream which is highly under Israel influence anyway. | |||
| ::''']''', | |||
| ::# i believe . '''don't do it yet again.''' | |||
| ::# the name "massacre" is no longer mainstream for this article and only stands as a past name or as a reference to how some pro-palestinians still call it. | |||
| ::-- <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 12:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::After edit-warring to keep the "Kurdi Bear" story out of this article, you then told us you accepted that the story was genuine. | |||
| ::::I don't know what you mean by "mainstream", but "massacre" is clearly the word used by large sections of opinion. Even the IDF admit to killing 20 or so civilians, and the ways that they died (shot at or crushed) clearly match the meaning of "atrocity". ] 15:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::], could you try to reference your claims? <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 18:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::] when you learn how to behave on other people's TalkPages (you've already been taken to AN/I and blocked for harrassing people on them), then we can start having sensible discussions. ] 19:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Wait, are you saying that the main title should be "Jenin massacre"? I don't agree. While you are correct that Kurdi Bear's actions met the Merriam-Webster definition of a massacre by any logical standard, making this association ourselves is ], I have learned this elsewhere the hard way. Virtually the entire English-language professional media denies that a massacre occurred, so we should not contradict them outright. Sadly, the fact that their denial was transparently a pernicious, propagandaistic device designed to obscure war crimes — doesn't matter. We should just report the various viewpoints, and the readers can figure it out for themselves. ] 17:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC) (belatedly) | |||
| :::It is interesting that you bring that up Eleland because while I have been researching the ] I have come across a number of historical discrepancies (granted it is because of how long ago this was not because it involves controversial issues) but it still has some applicability here. I am often stuck between one source saying one thing and another saying something completely different. I took Eleland's suggested approach and just noted the discrepancies to be fair, people who look up individual battles and wars on Misplaced Pages are smart enough to figure out what something ought be identified as. ] 18:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Eleland - I've googled Jenin + massacre and I get at least 20% saying "massacre". On the first page, there's one from the very early period (so I'm not counting it), and one is our article. So it's 2 from 8 say "massacre", or 25%/75%. That's quite substantial enough to be given credence in our article. and . And some of the 75% dispute "massacre" but speak of "crimes". I think the balance is 30%/70% on the second page of Google. | |||
| ::Furthermore, despite asking for the reference, I can only find the Washington Post (rather unconvincingly) claiming that the PA has announced only 56 killed. The actual story says "PA official list of 50 named + 6 bodies" (and this is on 1st May, long before there's time for a proper accounting). ] 19:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == The neutrality and factual accuracy of this article are disputed. == | |||
| article was by '''''anon. user''''' who did not open a talk page section. | |||
| Then (same date aug. 3, much later in the day - 19:44) was ''']''', who also did not open a talk page subsection explaining this dispute. | |||
| this info was reinstated in this order: | |||
| '''''', '''''', , , '''''', then it was removed by but and reinserted by ''''''. | |||
| 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? <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 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. ] 12:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::''']''', 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. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 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. 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! ] 13:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *And ], 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 ]? 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 ]. 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. ] 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. <font style="color:#22AA00;">''']'''</font><font style="color:#888888;"><sup>]</sup></font> 19:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::warning issued. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 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 ]? This event was at least as controversial in the United States as the Battle of Jenin was in the Arab-Israeli conflict. --] 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 ]. ] 17:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::he only made an accusation and demanded things based on that accusation. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 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. ] 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. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 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? <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 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 ], 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. ] 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 ]. 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 ] in mind when replying. | |||
| *I'm not sure what you mean by calling it ], 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 '']''s 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, <font style="color:#22AA00;">''']'''</font><font style="color:#888888;"><sup>]</sup></font> 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. ] 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. <font style="color:#22AA00;">''']'''</font><font style="color:#888888;"><sup>]</sup></font> 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 ]; 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. ] 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 ] 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 ] 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 ]. | |||
| *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. <font style="color:#22AA00;">''']'''</font><font style="color:#888888;"><sup>]</sup></font> 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 "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 , 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. ] 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 ] so as to avoid such a waste of both our time, and I hope that this discussion can return to a productive vein. <font style="color:#22AA00;">''']'''</font><font style="color:#888888;"><sup>]</sup></font> 06:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Time quote== | |||
| I took out this Time Magazine quote because I thought it was unreferenced (I was wrong). ''] 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"'' ] 09:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Copyvio Section== | |||
| The amnesty international report subsection <strike>is</strike> was pure copyvio. ] 15:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :So is the UN report.... ] 15:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::The UN report subsection has been rewritten to avoid copyvio concerns. ] 15:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| '''REMINDER''' "Content that violates any copyright will be deleted". Its on every edit page. ] 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 . Regards. ] 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. ] 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 ] . ] 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. ] 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. ] | |||
| :::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. ] 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. ] 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 <s>quote</s> 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 <s>which of those quotes</s> 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. --] 14:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC). (amended to reflect that not all info sourced is from direct quotes --] 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. ] 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. ] 08:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Dear Kyaa - I don't understand your explanations above. This of yours: | |||
| :#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). | |||
| :#Removes the Palestinian and Jordanian investigatory reports (which are of far more significance than the "Floor Statement" to Congress). | |||
| :#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. | |||
| :#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). | |||
| :#Re-inserts the unencyclopedic (and out of place) statement "Massacres refer not only to the numbers killed, but also to the method used." | |||
| :#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. ] 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. ] 10:02, 8 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::There are several key principles of WP. Verifiability is certainly one of them, but it doesn't permit ]. 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). ] 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. ] 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. <font style="color:#22AA00;">''']'''</font><font style="color:#888888;"><sup>]</sup></font> 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. ] 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.--] 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. ] 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. ] 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?") --] 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. <font style="color:#22AA00;">''']'''</font><font style="color:#888888;"><sup>]</sup></font> 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. ] 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. <font style="color:#22AA00;">''']'''</font><font style="color:#888888;"><sup>]</sup></font> 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. ] 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. ] 07:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Copyright infringing text has been removed. ] 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. ] 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. ] 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, ] 10:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Yeah, I rewrote what you rewrote for POV and some grammar problems. :P ] 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, ] 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.... ] 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. ] 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 ] 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. ] 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. ] 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 | |||
| ::<nowiki>"The EU's report said ''"at least 4,000 remained inside and did not evacuate the camp."''<ref name=UN>"</nowiki> | |||
| :to | |||
| ::<nowiki>"The EU believes ''"at least 4,000 remained inside and did not evacuate the camp."''</nowiki> | |||
| *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 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, ] 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 ] and maybe look a little deeper next time. ] 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.... ] 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 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 ]. 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, ] 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? ] 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, ] 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. ] 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, ] 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. ] 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. ] 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. ] 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? ] 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. ] 22:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::And you broke it again. ] 12:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Where? Regards, ] 12:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::You subsequently fixed it. :P ] 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 ], especially for using multiple references. Regards, ] 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.) ] 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 ] 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. ] 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. ] 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 ] and ], we should have no problem continuing to raise the quality of this article. <font style="color:#22AA00;">''']'''</font><font style="color:#888888;"><sup>]</sup></font> 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. ] 18:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == sharon == | |||
| is there ''ANY'' source for ? (as opposed to the ) | |||
| :What exactly is the CNN rush transcript supposed to prove? ] 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? <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 05:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::I don't believe you've provided a validated source for your preferred version. ] 05:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::are you planning on providing a reference? <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 06:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::btw, since when is CNN not a valid source? <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 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) --] 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. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 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. --] 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") <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 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? ] 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. ] 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. ] 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. ] 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. ] 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! ] 19:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::please ], 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). <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 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. ] 19:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::PR, what on earth are you talking about and how is it relevant to the totaly disputed tag? <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 20:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::'''please User:Eleland''', find me a quote in the article that "positively dripping with contempt for Palestinian resistance". <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 22:47, 11 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == ''"Palestinian <s>and International</s> 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:<blockquote>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. | |||
| </blockquote> | |||
| 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.--] 18:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I've discussed these topics at length ]. The 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 ] and other conduct protocol are avoided in the future. <font style="color:#22AA00;">''']'''</font><font style="color:#888888;"><sup>]</sup></font> 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. ] 19:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::], please give a visit to ]. this type of language most certainly falls under personal attacks. | |||
| ::], 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. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 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. ] 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. <s>Only twice is it in quotes, and only once</s> Three times it is attributed to Palestinians. Here are the six instances: | |||
| <blockquote> | <blockquote> | ||
| "The D-9s rumbled farther into the heart of the camp, flattening an area 200 yds. square; Human Rights Watch reports that 140 buildings were leveled, and more than 200 were severely damaged. ... Throughout the operation, Palestinian officials had said that as many as 800 had been killed. ... Charles Kapes, the deputy chief of the U.N. office in the camp, says 54 dead have been pulled from the wreckage and 49 Palestinians are missing, of whom 18 are residents of the camp. Human Rights Watch says 52 were killed, of whom only 27 were thought to be armed Palestinians. The Israelis say they found 46 dead in the rubble, including a pile of five bodies that had been booby-trapped. Of these 46, say the Israelis, all but three were "fighters," men ages 18 to 40. The Jenin Hospital, meanwhile, says 52 camp residents died, including five women and four children under the age of 15. Of the 43 dead men, eight were 55 or older and therefore probably not involved in the fighting. '''No matter whose figures one accepts, "there was no massacre," concludes Amnesty's Holley.'''" | |||
| #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. | |||
| </blockquote> | |||
| #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. | |||
| #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)'' | |||
| # 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)'' | |||
| #"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)'' | |||
| #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.")'' | |||
| </blockquote> | |||
| 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<s>, the UN</s> uses "indiscriminate" twice <s>''in its own voice''</s> ] below], 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.--] 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. <font style="color:#22AA00;">''']'''</font><font style="color:#888888;"><sup>]</sup></font> 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.--] 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. <font style="color:#22AA00;">''']'''</font><font style="color:#888888;"><sup>]</sup></font> 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. ] 19:49, 11 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yes, you're quite right about that. I've emended my text above.--] 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. ] 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. ] 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. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 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. ] 20:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :PR, let's not ] about the arabs either. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 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? ] 22:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::#i've issued a notice about this issue to an admin inspecting my AV/I complaint. | |||
| ::#we did pass a reference to the "intention of the troops" . we made notice to ]'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. | |||
| ::-- <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 15:04, 11 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::I fear that asking if you have a ] is hardly sufficient to ask that I be blocked for 7 days, as happened ] 19:42, 11 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::You accused him of being a war criminal, PR. That's... not cool. Very not cool. ] 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? --] 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. | |||
| : --] 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"''.<sup></sup> | |||
| ::2) both sides have been accused of violence within' civilian areas, i think my latest edit was fairly clear on this, however, ], '''you've''' decided to . | |||
| ::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 ] article has been renamed into ], so please reconsider such insertions which could result in a backlash of people changing it's name into ]. | |||
| ::-- <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 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". --] 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. ] 12:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::'''' -- ]. ] 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." ] 14:06, 12 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ===Third-party comment=== | |||
| #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 ]. To the extent people are insisting on a cite, a better cite is needed; Google turned up , but one would prefer a source other than the ADL for the claim. | |||
| #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. | |||
| #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. | |||
| #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 ]. | |||
| #"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. | |||
| #"West Bank" is the accepted neutral phrasing. Israel calls the terrorities "disputed," so "occupied" violates NPOV. | |||
| Hope this helps to resolve a dispute. ] 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: ], 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 (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. | |||
| :-- <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 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 ]. 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 ]: 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"--] 18:34, 12 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| The allegations of war crimes were levelled against both sides. <font style="color:#22AA00;">''']'''</font><font style="color:#888888;"><sup>]</sup></font> 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. | |||
| #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: | |||
| #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 ]. ] 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.'' | |||
| :] 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. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 15:31, 12 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::I've tweaked the edit per the two notes. ] 15:34, 12 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::The two sources for the 10% figure are the Washington Times and an Israeli foreign ministry spokesman. See ]. 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 ] and not a reliable source. ] 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 ], ], ], and ], and other core content policies.--] 16:27, 12 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :], 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. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 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. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 16:44, 12 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Jaakabou, this is all I can find here on the discussion page: | |||
| ::<blockquote>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)<br /><br />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. | |||
| </blockquote> | |||
| ::The "math game" appears to be yours. What am I missing here? Where does 6% come from?--] 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. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 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.] 16:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| === current status estimate === | |||
| the following is my current moment concerns about . | |||
| 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.<sup></sup> | |||
| 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. | |||
| -- <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 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. --] 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. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 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.] 17:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :: Check Palestinian eye witness, they too admit that the armored D9 bulldozers forced them to surrender. ] 18:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC | |||
| :::That's not the point.] 15:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ===antipathy=== | |||
| the "inciting extreme antipathy toward"->"eliciting strong criticism of" change<sup></sup> 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". <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 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. ] 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". ] 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. ] 15:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| === Revision === | |||
| Israel attacked the camp using infantry, tanks, combat helicopters, and armored bulldozers,<ref> "the army deployed tanks, infantry, and attack helicopters" ... ", the IDF began using D-9 armored bulldozers"</ref><ref name="Crucible">: "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"</ref> causing extensive damage,<ref>:"The deployment of armored bulldozers. Because of the extensive damage they | |||
| caused and their threatening appearance..."</ref> and ultimately raz<s>ed</s> <strike>at least</strike> roughly 10% of the camp.<ref> 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."</ref><ref> "The destruction, pictured graphically on television ... constitutes only about 10 percent of the housing in the camp" <br><small>Archived from Washington Times site; as retrieved from </small></ref> Palestinian and international sources <s>called</s> described the assault indiscriminate<ref name=UNEU>: "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."</ref><ref name="Crucible"/> and alleged war crimes and massacres,<ref>: "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."</ref><ref name=CNNPowell>: "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"</ref> drawing extensive international media coverage. Both Palestinian and Israeli sources initially gave very high Palestinian casualty estimates,<ref name=CNNPowell/><ref>: "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."</ref><ref>: "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."<br><small>Archived from The New Republic: as retrieved from </small></ref><ref>: "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'."</ref> which were subsequently revised downward <s>markedly</s>.{{specify}} 23 Israeli soldiers were <s>also</s> killed in the fighting. Subsequent investigations by major human rights organizations found ] evidence of Israeli war crimes<ref name="HRWJeninIDF">: "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."<br><br>"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." <br> <br>"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."</ref><ref name="AmnestyShielded">: "In Jenin and Nablus the IDF carried out ... grave breaches of the Fourth Geneva Convention ... are war crimes."<br>"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."</ref>, <s>although</s> 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.<ref name="HRWJeninIDF"/><ref name="AmnestyShielded"/> | |||
| <div class="references-small"><references /></div> | |||
| :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.--] 21:51, 12 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Very good work. I see only trivial objections, I suggest you put it in as it is. ] 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. ] 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. ] 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. <font style="color:#22AA00;">''']'''</font><font style="color:#888888;"><sup>]</sup></font> 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. ] 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. <font style="color:#22AA00;">''']'''</font><font style="color:#888888;"><sup>]</sup></font> 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. ] 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. <font style="color:#22AA00;">''']'''</font><font style="color:#888888;"><sup>]</sup></font> 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'''! ] 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. ] 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 ] and ] 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. <font style="color:#22AA00;">''']'''</font><font style="color:#888888;"><sup>]</sup></font> 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. --] 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. --] 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. --] 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. --] 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. --] 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. ] 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. ] 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. ] 13:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Interesting. I'm now getting a different response from google than I did earlier. That is just bizarre. ] 14:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I'm still going to have to call ] 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. ] 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. ] 15:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::Precisely my point, we require verifiability which per ] 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. ] 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. ] 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. <font style="color:#22AA00;">''']'''</font><font style="color:#888888;"><sup>]</sup></font> 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 . Jaakobou says ''"looks close to ok, please find the YNET source"'' so it's clearly genuine - and then there's . 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. ] 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. --] 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 ]. 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. ] 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. <font style="color:#22AA00;">''']'''</font><font style="color:#888888;"><sup>]</sup></font> 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. ] 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. --] 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.--] 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. --] 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 in English and 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 . There is also . ] 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. --] 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. ] 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. --] 06:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : An average suicide bomber explosive is 10 kg and ranges from 5 kg to 20 kg. An ] of 100 kg can destroy a ] tank (however, Israeli armored ] bulldozers withstood much larger IEDs). ] 11:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::How about, "fifteen times larger than a ]". (Without the wikilink.) ] 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 "]". <font style="color:#22AA00;">''']'''</font><font style="color:#888888;"><sup>]</sup></font> 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. | |||
| --] 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. ] 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 ] ] 19:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Burgas00's rationale was ], not ]. 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.--] 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 ] referred to Jenin in the way that he wishes removed from the article is covered in ] and his removal of this sourced data is considered vandalism per ]. Thanks! ] 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 ] 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 ], 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 ], 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.--] 22:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I'm not certain why you are defending the recently blocked ]. 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. ] 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.--] 19:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Sorry for erasing your edits G Dett. As you can see I have restored them! | |||
| --] 19:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :At the very least repair the broken references you just spawned. Thanks. ] 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.] 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. ] 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.) ] 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. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 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. <font style="color:#22AA00;">''']'''</font><font style="color:#888888;"><sup>]</sup></font> 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 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 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, ]. On grounds that it violates ]. 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.--] 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 , 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.--] 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 ] and ], 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: | |||
| ::#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. | |||
| ::#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. | |||
| ::#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. <font style="color:#22AA00;">''']'''</font><font style="color:#888888;"><sup>]</sup></font> 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.--] 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. <font style="color:#22AA00;">''']'''</font><font style="color:#888888;"><sup>]</sup></font> 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. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 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.--] 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. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 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. ] 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 ]'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.--] 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.<b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 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.--] 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". <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 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.--] 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. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 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.--] 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 ]. ''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: | |||
| ::::<small>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.</small> | |||
| :::::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 ] or wherever, but that doesn't make it true. ] 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''.) ] 16:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Actually, Tewfik has indeed "questioned the inclusion of information from the HRW"; he deleted it 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 ]. 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.--] 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: | |||
| #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. | |||
| #Ask that editor to rewrite it from the start. | |||
| #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 ] 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? ] ]] 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. ] 14:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::i'd like to note that ] gave a few 3rd party comments also if you scroll up. <s>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.</s> | |||
| ::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. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 14:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ===off topic babble by Jaakobou and Number57=== | |||
| i'd like to note that ] 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. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 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 ] article to justify your accusations of POV? ] ]] 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. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 15:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Ariel is obviously not in Israel, or it would not be called an ]. 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! ] ]] 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. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 15:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I'm not talking about Arab parties in the Knesset. The of Ezer Weizman describes how he was "in confrontation with Arik Sharon, the Agriculture Minister, regarding settlements in the occupied territories". ] ]] 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? <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 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. ] ]] 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. ] 16:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I totally agree and find this to be unhelpful in the least. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 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 ]<ref name=CAMERA/>.'' | |||
| 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. ] 18:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I addressed most of these issues, mistakenly attributing the corrections to G-Dett. <font style="color:#22AA00;">''']'''</font><font style="color:#888888;"><sup>]</sup></font> 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: | |||
| ::#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. | |||
| ::#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. | |||
| ::#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. | |||
| ::#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. | |||
| ::#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.--] 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: | |||
| :#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? | |||
| :#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. | |||
| :#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. | |||
| :#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 ]. | |||
| :#I dealt with this in ]. | |||
| :I again remind everyone to please abide by ] and ]; descriptions like "lardy" would be great in an Opinion column, but are not conducive to dispassionate communication here. <font style="color:#22AA00;">''']'''</font><font style="color:#888888;"><sup>]</sup></font> 20:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::#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. | |||
| ::#The gerrymander I'm referring to is limiting the scope of "post-fighting investigations" to the charge of "massacre." | |||
| ::#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. | |||
| ::#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.--] 21:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::#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).--] 21:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :#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". | |||
| :#~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. | |||
| :#You made reference to ''a la carte'' in , 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. | |||
| :#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. | |||
| :#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 ] environment in my comments above. <font style="color:#22AA00;">''']'''</font><font style="color:#888888;"><sup>]</sup></font> 23:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::#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 ]. It is possible that you simply have a much more flexible, anything-goes approach to ] than I do, but somehow I doubt that. That is to say, if I went to ] 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 ] grounds. Please correct me if I'm wrong on that last score. | |||
| ::#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 ], 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. | |||
| ::#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. | |||
| ::#Again, you and I may radically differ in our sense of the strictness of the ] 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 ] grounds. I feel confident, that is, that you know generally what ] means, and are merely involved at the moment in some ''very'' ]. | |||
| ::#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.--] 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 ] than I do''; ''the findings you keep erasing from the article citing things like ], even as you shoehorn in lobby statements and a journalist's helpful explanation of just how heavy 113 kilograms is''; etc). | |||
| :#Maybe I wasn't clear: what ''specific'' alternative reasoning do mainstream sources attribute to the Israelis on behalf of the Palestinians? | |||
| :#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. | |||
| :#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. 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 to reflect that the charge was mutual. AI does not make the allegation AFAIK. | |||
| :#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. | |||
| :#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 ] and ] violating phrasing - I can appreciate your wit without the hostility, but I can't collaborate with it. <font style="color:#22AA00;">''']'''</font><font style="color:#888888;"><sup>]</sup></font> 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. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 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!) ] 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. | |||
| ] 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 ] or ] 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 ]. | |||
| '''p.s. try to keep it short and to the point.''' <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 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?) <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 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. ] 21:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ***'''reply comment''' - my stand is based on ], meaning that the massacre allegations are the only reason this battle was notable. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 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.--] 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. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 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. ] 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. ] 22:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *** '''reply comment''' - is that your "vote" or just a comment? <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 22:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ****Just a comment, for now. ] 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. ] 18:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| **'''comment''' - ] seems to have quite a lot of pretext/context/etc. and two out of the other 3 are very much incomplete articles. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 20:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ***'''reply comment''' - ] has a lot of ''detail'', but I don't see pretexts, justifications, casus belli, etc.--] 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. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 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. ] 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. <font style="color:#22AA00;">''']'''</font><font style="color:#888888;"><sup>]</sup></font> 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 <s>and also consider moving it to this AB comments section.</s> (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. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 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.) ] 21:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''questions to Jerseycam''' - (1) what is your opinion about ]? (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. ] 07:50, 19 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *** '''reply''' - thank you for clarifying. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 15:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Right there was no massacre while you took a fight in the center of a refugee camp, so that is mainstream definition. ] (]) 09:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == war crimes == | |||
| :Please do everyone a favour, and draw people's attention to the still bemoaning the fact that the "''The myth of the massacre endures to this day''" 2 years after the incident. earlier high-lighted some of the bitter out-rage and teeth-gnashing of the pro-Israeli blogosphere because eg ''"None has since retracted the mendacious claims nor tried to find out how they were misled."'' - (Haaretz, 17th July 2002 - 3 months later). | |||
| :Note, I don't personally much care for the word "massacre", but there's no question that "Jenin Massacre" is what the event is known as all around the world. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 11:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Link collections ] (]) 09:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| About the ] might not be reliable issue, they might not be reliable but they provide the Hebrew original with translation, therefore if the Hebrew original fits their translation, we can further search Yediot Aharonot archives from their page, to the date they provided. I don't know Hebrew so I cannot research on the matter. And yes there is important things in the article to be mentioned, for example he claims with only a couple of hours training he operated a D9 which is a deadly machine under the hand of untrained operators. He got medal award from Israel army after the publication of the interview, these are notable things to mention. By the way Moshe is full of hatred in any way which is also brings another question how an army arm him instead mentally traiting him. ] (]) 09:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| 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. | |||
| :The interview was cited by several sources other than Gush Shalom. The question here is reliability and weight. I tend to agree with Ynhockey that Gush Shalom is probably not the best source. Perhaps it should be mentioned, but not cited ''in toto''. -- ] (]) 10:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::What this interview shows most clearly is that there WAS NO MASSACRE. It actually sheds more light on this guy's psyche than anything else. He comes across as a simple fellow, totally uneducated, with an idiosyncratic way of describing things, an inferiority complex, and a very strong craving for attention. He is being milked by the media, and is more than happy to share his "insights" to prove he is "worth something." He may be interesting as a case study for sociologists, but I would be very careful about treating his words as historical truth. Actually, he would make a good character in the Israeli film industry's next self-hating movie.--] (]) 11:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Your posting must have edit-conflicted with the clear evidence a few lines further up that even (in fact, especially) the teeth-gnashing pro-Israel blogosphere bemoans the fact that their "No Massacre" insistence never gained any traction. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 11:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::] - thank you for confirming that Gush Shalom is not seriously suspected of either inciting hatred nor falsification in this case (or indeed, any other). | |||
| ::But I must challenge you over the significance of a participant admitting to reckless disregard for the safety of Palestinians, with deaths amongst them a virtual certainty. This can only throw serious doubt on all the repeated claims from the IDF that it attempted to protect civilians. Since, in addition, there are detailed and widespread claims of war-crimes from neutral sources, this puts a whole new perspective on this incident. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 11:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Well testimonies always should be taken precautously, yet if IDF makes a pyscho into a D9 operator, it is their crime not ours. The interview is notable somehow, therefore should be mentioned more or less, we can always place credibility warning. But I will try to locate exact article link from original newspaper. ] (]) 11:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I suppose it does have some notability. I'll see how I can add this. -- ] (]) 13:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::. I suppose it could still be tweaked, but I believe this is pretty much due weight. -- ] (]) 13:49, 28 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| please add all sources relating to who did what either to ], ], or ], make your comments on the ]. | |||
| == Sources and Citation for Moshe Nissim Interview == | |||
| '''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. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 10:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Most of the sources on internet for the interview based on ] therefore I am searching other sources. | |||
| === 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. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 10:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| '''Sources Using of as a reference''' | |||
| === 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. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 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. ] 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."''--] 16:27, 18 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ***'''reply comment''' - ], 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. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 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?--] 18:10, 18 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *****'''reply''' - please go over ]. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 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. ] 21:25, 18 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| * ''"Tsadok Yehezkeli, “I Made Them a Stadium in the Middle of the Camp,” Yediot Aharonot, 31 May 2002, translated from Hebrew by Gush Shalom, available from http://www.gush-shalom.org/archives/kurdi_eng.html; Internet, accessed April 8, 2005."'' | |||
| * Durham University Department of Geography | |||
| *'''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. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 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.--] 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. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 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. ] 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. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 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. ] 21:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| * | |||
| == previously referred to as the Jenin Massacre == | |||
| *Quoted in the Book Derek Gregory's The Colonial Present: Afghanistan, Palestine, and Iraq pgs. 114 and 115 | |||
| considering that changed: | |||
| *Quoted in from the Book Israel/Palestine: How to End the War of 1948, 2nd ed. (Open Media) (Paperback) by Tanya Reinhart professor of linguistics and cultural studies at Tel Aviv University and at the University of Utrecht | |||
| :''previously referred to as the Jenin Massacre'' -> ''referred to by some as the Jenin Massacre''. | |||
| * Pakistan Newspaper | |||
| 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). | |||
| '''Reference to Moshe Nissim interview''' | |||
| 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. | |||
| '''Medal of Honour Moshe Nissim Receive After Publication of the Interview''' | |||
| if there is any evidence about these some{{who}} 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. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 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. ] 18:22, 18 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| * | |||
| ::# 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. | |||
| ::# 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. | |||
| ::# 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. | |||
| ::-- <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 19:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| * | |||
| == previously referred to as the Jenin Massacre - round II == | |||
| * | |||
| previous chatter found ]. | |||
| * | |||
| 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 ] section. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 15:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| '''Partly Translations of the Interview by Other Parties''' | |||
| === 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. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 15:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| * OR OR his book "An Israeli in Palestine: Resisting Dispossession, Redeeming Israel (Paperback) by Jeff Halper (Author)" | |||
| === 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. ] 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". ] ] 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. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 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. ] 02:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| * | |||
| == Full text of Ha'aretz article, "Peres calls Jenin a massacre" == | |||
| '''Jenin''' | |||
| 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 | |||
| I will add the sources I can find, you can help too, if you can search in Hebrew. ] (]) 14:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| 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." | |||
| == References == | |||
| 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." | |||
| {{reflist}} | |||
| "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." ] 05:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Recent additions == | |||
| :''']''' - 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 ] and we will include the information. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 07:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I'm referring to . The 2009 conflict, as Nocal100 agreed, is irrelevant. I'm not the ones who added Cremonesi's quote in the first place, and I'm willing to discuss adjusting it. | |||
| == verify credibility tags == | |||
| Amnesty's accusations of "human shields" are already mentioned in the Massacre allegations section (which could perhaps be renamed). Nobody says this is how "the Israelis dealt with this problem". This is a violation of ]. If at all, this belongs in the Battle section. | |||
| i'm not sure exactly why was made. | |||
| The quotations from the Haaretz article don't discuss massacre allegations, which makes them completely ] in this section. We have already agreed to cut down on the massive quote farm this article had become. | |||
| camera has already been established as ] 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. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 09:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I'm going to revert it, and I ask that consensus be reached before this is introduced. Thanks, ] (]) 08:00, 13 February 2009 (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? ] 12:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Jaakobou, please do not 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. ] 13:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| May I direct you two here: Why don't we get their advice on how to handle CAMERA? ] 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. ] 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. ] ]] 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. ] 14:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::], please stop misrepresenting the level of your involvement.<sup></sup> <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 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. ] ]] 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...''. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 14:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Retractions == | |||
| ::''']''' - allow me to make a small correction to your statement about how i justified my edit. it was ''verifiability of camera ('''see''' talk)''<sup></sup>. 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? <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 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? ] ]] 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. ] 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 <s>your</s>'' ''claim that the source in unreliable?'' <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 14:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| An Israeli officer made an errorneous statement during an interview on Israeli radio and his statement was clarified/retracted later that same day. In another incident, Peres was misquoted by Haaretz (on the 9th) who took notice to publish his true opinion the following day. The Foreign news source (The Guardian) is an expanded op-ed that talks in general on how they think the myth became to be. They confused the information given in regards to the Haaretz related error and merged it with the real clarification (mentioned as a retraction) of the IDF officer. Cheers, <b>]'']''</b> 10:27, 14 February 2009 (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 ] per Kyaa's suggestion. ] 16:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :First of all, the Guardian article was written by Sharon Sadeh, who is "London correspondent of the Israeli liberal newspaper Ha'aretz", not exactly a foreign source. Sadeh refers to a statement made by Peres (published by Reuters) regarding massacre allegations. Which statement do you think Sadeh is referring to? -- ] (]) 10:43, 14 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' - It should be glaringly obvious that articles entitled , 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. ] 10:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::What we need is a properly balanced section with competing commentaries. Ther is a significant critical commentary/narrative, put forth by The Weekly Standard, the Anti-Defamation League, CAMERA, and others and it goes as follows: Palestinians exaggerated and fabricated, as part of a general pattern of deceiving the international media, and the media bought in hook line and sinker into the idea of a "Jenin massacre," which subsequent investigations disproved. The second significant narrative, from mainstream media and international human-rights organizations, is as follows: because Jenin was under 24-hour curfew and sealed from journalists, international observers, and even medical aid for the duration of a devastating siege, rumors arose of massacres and body counts in the hundreds; when those people got in they mostly described the scene as even worse than they'd imagined and made multiple accusations of war-crimes. ] (]) 15:46, 14 February 2009 (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. ] 10:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::There's already some attempt at this but you're free to try and contribute further to the article. <b>]'']''</b> 15:51, 14 February 2009 (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 , laced with weasel words of denial over expulsions and massacres and eg trickery intended to defend Jonathan Pollard. ] 14:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I'm not sure exactly what you are suggesting. The human-rights organizations are cited, as are reliable sources that disagree. I don't think promoting CAMERA's narrative is a good idea. -- ] (]) 18:07, 14 February 2009 (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. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 16:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Heyo Nudve, | |||
| **'''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. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 12:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Even if Sadeh is an Haaretz affiliate (taking your word on it), they are still writing a month later for a foreign paper, an op-ed about how they think the massacre myth came to be. The paragraph we're talking about here is a shallow combination of two events, and clearly, an Haaretz representative wouldn't point the finger at themselves when on the 9th they published a "private" thing and on the 10th they "retracted" with a completely opposite and official version. Haaretz editor has pointed fingers towards his staff (as well as other journalists) so there was an error at The Guardian with the writer suggesting the official version was retracted which did not happen. <b>]'']''</b> 16:04, 14 February 2009 (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". ] 18:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::First, don't take my word on it. It's written at the bottom of the article. I'm not sure I follow the rest of the argument: Are you saying that the "Statement" that was retracted was the "private reference", which says something different from the one Sadeh is describing, or that it was retracted by Haaretz and not by Peres? -- ] (]) 18:07, 14 February 2009 (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 ] article. ] <small>—The preceding {{#ifeq:{{{Date|{{{Time|19:16, August 21, 2007}}}}}} | | comment was }} ]{{#ifeq:{{{Date|{{{Time|19:16, August 21, 2007}}}}}} | | |  comment was added at {{{Date|{{{Time|19:16, August 21, 2007}}}}}} (UTC{{{Zone|{{{3|{{{2|}}}}}}}}}) }}.</small><!-- {{undated}} --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| ::::I'm saying that, considering we have the official statement which is a "retraction" of the first Haaretz claim, that it would be a truely exceptional double tracking from Peres to change statements to complete opposites twice within such a shot time span. The Guardian op-ed clearly has an error here and unless we have an Haaretz retraction of the the official statement or something that validates this truely exceptional (read: impossible) double back tracking, then this paragraph from a foreign news source cannot be taken as fact. Op-ed's do make errors, and this is a pretty obvious one. <b>]'']''</b> 00:04, 15 February 2009 (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. ] 19:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::So the official statement is the retraction of the "private" statement? Could be. source, of questionable reliability, seems to support this. one is more reliable, but not quite helpful. Have you found anything else? -- ] (]) 06:26, 15 February 2009 (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. ] 19:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Comment: Opinion editorials should not be used as sources anyway, other than possibly to quote the author of the editorial. In some cases, they may be used after 'according to ...' or '... claims that ...', but definitely not for ]. -- ] <sup>(])</sup> 09:57, 15 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::First one is clearly a propaganda piece, but the second one is good enough to show the error of the one I removed. Chalk another one for the 'Jenin massacre syndrome'. <b>]'']''</b> 10:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::The Barghouti article at Zmag is presumably refering to a different incident, wherein Peres was more explicit. When last I looked, the allegation that "In private, Peres is referring to the battle as a 'massacre'" which appeared in Haaretz had never even been refuted, let alone retracted. This later doesn't suggest that the earlier Haaretz article had mis-reported what Peres was saying in private (in most people's minds, it would confirm it!), or say there'd been a retraction. | |||
| :::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). --] 19:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::However, given the huge amount of highly relevant other information that's been edit-warred from this article, and given the imprecise and abused nature of the word "massacre", I can't see it belongs anywhere other than as an "also known as Jenin Massacre" in the lead. That being the title by which it is, rightly or wrongly, known around the world. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 11:07, 15 February 2009 (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). | |||
| :::::::Well, if we can't use Sadeh's article, then I suppose the current revision is OK. -- ] (]) 13:31, 15 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::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 ] deal with such material. ] 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. --] 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. ] 20:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Ok, but I think they can be sourced when commenting on others's partisan statements. --] 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 , 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. ] 21:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Jeningrad == | |||
| :::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. | |||
| Heyo Nudve,<br> | |||
| :::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. --] 13:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Actually, the 'Jeningrad' term was used as one of the attempts to portray Israel as killing hundreds of thousands. 800,000 Russians died during the 900-day siege of Leningrad; 1.3 million died in Stalingrad.<br> | |||
| Warm regards, <b>]'']''</b> 10:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Maybe. What are you suggesting? -- ] (]) 12:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::I need to think about it a little. Meantime, do you mind restoring the invisible note I've added at the end of the paragraph? | |||
| ::Warm regards, <b>]'']''</b> 17:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::OK, I . -- ] (]) 05:47, 18 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Ok Nudve. I've decided to bring up a few sources and see if you have any suggestions:<br> | |||
| ::::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'<sup></sup>" is one thing. "Palestinian Minister Abu said 'They are burying children in mass graves'<sup></sup>" 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". ] 18:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| '''Post-Event reactions by Israelis/Jews, Palestinians, Media members:''' | |||
| :::::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. ] 18:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| * - you've come under some widespread criticism here in the United States... Perhaps 500 Palestinians murdered... you suggested." (Erekat also comments) | |||
| ::::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. ] 19:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| * (), , - Israeli and Jewish criticism articles. | |||
| ::::::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. | |||
| * - Criticism at Erekat (e.v. Erekat spoke with CNN from Jericho, massacre claims were regarding Jenin). | |||
| ::::::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. ] 18:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| * - "the whole notion of a fact-finding group was born out of a fundamental lie, that Israel had committed a massacre in Jenin. Originally you had Palestinian spokesmen like Saeb Erakat stating on CNN that upwards of 500 Palestinians were killed in Jenin. We now know that the figure is even around a 10th of that. And that's now verified not only by Israeli sources, but also by Palestinian sources. So the entire motivation for conducting this operation basically doesn't exist any longer." | |||
| :::::::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 , through the , to the . ] 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). | |||
| * , , - Erekat rejected the UN report. | |||
| :::::::::*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 - 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. ] 21:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| That's what I got for now... still missing some sources where Palestinians describe the events as a great victory. Just recently (a month ago) Zacharia Zbeidi was on TV repeating the same 'victory' perspective so I'm hoping to find a few soon.<br>Cheers, <b>]'']''</b> 06:59, 22 February 2009 (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. ] 22:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm not sure I understand what you are trying to do here with those sources. The massacre allegations are already well represented in the article and the lead. What you asked for in the invisible comment was a mention that the battle is also perceived as a heroic, Stalingrad-like stand, and this is what "Jeningrad" is about. Am I missing something here? -- ] (]) 07:48, 22 February 2009 (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: ] 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. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 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. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 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. ] 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. ] 12:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::], 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. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 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. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 15:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::] - 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. ] 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 ''dis''prove 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 ] or ] 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. ] 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. ] 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 <nowiki>{{verify credibility}}</nowiki> and preferably replaced with their originals. The decision by "pro-Israel" editors to turn this into a protracted ''jihad'' is maddeningly childish. ] 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. ] 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. ] 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. ] is a core policy of Misplaced Pages, and cannot be overturned in this fashion. ] 19:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::What's missing in the lead is a mini-paragrah about notable post-battle reactions - Israeli/Jewish anger over the way it were reported, global media reaction to Palestinians, and the two opposing perspectives taken by the Palestinians (i.e. (A) 'it was a massacre' and (B) 'great/heroic victory'). I thought my comment clarified this but maybe I mis-worded it. Anyways, I'm thinking us two have opposing perspectives on what happened in stalingrad and the intentions of Arafat when he used the term 'Jeningrad'... I don't think he was talking heroics at the time. <b>]'']''</b> 08:10, 22 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| '''suggestions to take this discussion out of the current state and help advance the article.''' | |||
| :::If you think the "notable post-battle reactions" are that important, you can add them, or suggest them here first. About Jeningrad: The two sources used in the article are and . -- ] (]) 08:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| 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. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 22:54, 23 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Addendum: I just found NY Times article. Maybe it should be used in the article. -- ] (]) 08:39, 22 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == "Massacre allegations" == | |||
| 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 {{verify source}}. 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''. | |||
| Does some bright spark want to explain to me why the reports of Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, one of which didn't even discuss "massacres" and the other used the word "massacre" just once, to say there was no evidence for deliberate massacres, should be in a section called "Massacre allegations?" It has the definite effect of obscuring and downplaying the very serious evidence these reports found for "grave breaches" of international humanitarian law by Israel. Seems to be intentional. <]/]]> 20:49, 21 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| For your convenience, the quotes and paraphrases are: | |||
| :Dear Eleland, | |||
| * 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. | |||
| :There might be a couple things in your comment that perhaps you would like to rephrase. I'd suggest you start by reviewing the sources you mention and looking up the word 'militant' as well as re-reading the mission statement of the ]. | |||
| :Warm regards, <b>]'']''</b> 06:27, 22 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::One option could be renaming the section: "Allegations of massacre and of war crimes". Any thoughts? -- ] (]) 07:02, 22 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Dearest Jaakobou, | |||
| :::Please avoid using talk pages for irrelevant and vaguely threatening statements of this kind. | |||
| :::Your Humble and Obedient Servant, | |||
| :::<]/]]> 09:29, 22 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::But seriously, I'd suggest that we have a section "Investigations" which would summarize the Amnesty, HRW, UN, and B'Tselem reports, followed by a section called "Massacre" controversy which would gather the semantic arguments about "massacres." Again, none of these reports was written to deal with "massacres," and at least one of the investigators, HRW, took the trouble to specifically discount the relevance of the word "massacre" to their investigation. Also, we ought to remove unsourced and prejudicial claims like "The battle attracted widespread international attention due to Palestinian allegations that a massacre had been committed" - that's demonstrably false, there was intense international focus on Jenin before the word "massacre" had become an issue, and there continued to be intense focus after the charges of systematic house-to-house "massacres" were largely debunked. And, for that matter, the "massacre" allegations came famously from Israeli gov't minister Shimon Peres (hastily retracted,) and a lot of confused reports about hundreds of casualties, refrigerator trucks to whisk away bodies, etc, came from the IDF Spokesperson's Office. <]/]]> 09:29, 22 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::There seems to be a number of errors within your comment. I'd appreciate a reference to your statement that, "there was intense international focus on Jenin before the word "massacre" had become an issue". | |||
| ::::p.s. massacre claims came since the earliest days of the fighting (Sample: ''"On April 4, The Observer reported that Palestinians called the incident a 'massacre'"''), the Haaretz error came on the 9th and was corrected on the 10th. Please avoid the rehashing of mis-information. | |||
| ::::Warm regards, <b>]'']''</b> 12:10, 22 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Recent anon. contribution == | |||
| * 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. | |||
| I've noticed and it fitted how I rememebred the source. Checing it word for word, I see a couple gaps in the text so I'm thinking the editor missed one or two '...' with his quotation of the source. Anyways, the input seems acurrate and just needs a little fixup. | |||
| :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. | |||
| Historical notes: To be frank, a while back I've discussed this source considerably with PalestineRememebered and rejected its use duo to the non factual opinon layden additions to this translation by an unknown member of ], which are an extremist left-wing activisim group. I have made out a text version which was acceptable to me basing it on the Hebrew version of Gush-Shalom, which at least (assuming it was correct) did not include the opinions of an unknown activist. | |||
| * NBC News hears from Secretary-General of the Palestinian Authority Abdel Rahman that "over 250 Palestinians killed". | |||
| Here's my old text... | |||
| :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? | |||
| <blockquote>]'s "7 Days" editorial released a personal interview with Moshe Nissim (nicknamed "Kurdi Bear", Hebrew: "דובי כורדי"), a problematic army ] soldier who insisted on becoming a D-9 driver, as stating that regardless of the speaker calls, he personally gave no one a chance and demolished the homes as quickly as possible while thinking about all the ] hidden in the camp and the Israeli soldiers being in a death trap situation. Nissim added his disregard for the possibility that he could be killed and that despite not witnessing any deaths, he did not care and he believes that people died inside the houses.<ref> {{In lang|he}}</ref></blockquote> | |||
| Whether this is important enough to be included, I'm uncertain. It's just a first-person account/story from a mentally unstable army reserve. No one correoberates their story and it's just as 'true' as those made by various Palestinian eye-witnesses such as the store-keeper who 'saw' dead bodies in an army truck that when the reporter checked, the truck had vegetables and food for the soldiers... no bodies. | |||
| * 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. | |||
| Warm regards, <b>]'']''</b> 07:59, 22 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :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. | |||
| :I was trying to avoid giving Nissim's interview undue weight, for the reasons you mentioned. Its main claim to notability comes not from its credibility, but from the fact that it was much talked-about, and several secondary sources, including the book I cited, decided to reproduce it. -- ] (]) 08:29, 22 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::The gush-shalom English page (and it's personal opinions) should be removed, for starters. I'd apprecaite it if you re-mention all the sources that mention this story so I can give it's notability extra consideration. <b>]'']''</b> 11:57, 22 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| 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. ] 00:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Most English sources seem to rely on Gush Shalom's translation, so it might be useful. Mentioning all the sources would be difficult, but is a Google search for "Kurdi Bear", so you can take your pick. -- ] (]) 13:12, 22 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| : |
::::The majority of those are either blogs or unrelated to the Jenin issue. There doesn't seem to be any notable report other than the Yediot Akhronot '7 Days' weekly (which can't be reproduced online) -- unless you consider 'Pakistan Dawn' or the 'Khaleej Times' to be reliable and notable sources for reproducing Israeli reports without messing it up completely. The google search has, for now, gotten me more convliced that this story should be left out. <b>]'']''</b> 13:39, 22 February 2009 (UTC) | ||
| :::::I know they are not reliable. That's why I looked for a book that is. The fact that it was quoted by many does show some notability. Personally, I don't have any strong sentiment toward this quote, and did not add it in my first draft. I only included it after the discussion earlier on this talk page. -- ] (]) 13:58, 22 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::] - before we see another attempt at an end-run around established Misplaced Pages policy, lets get back to the discussion you started . 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). ] 07:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Sorry if I missed this input somewhere, but which book was it? <b>]'']''</b> 15:34, 22 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::This one: {{Cite book | |||
| | edition = | |||
| | publisher = Beacon Press | |||
| | isbn = 0807069078 | |||
| | last = Winslow | |||
| | first = Philip C. | |||
| | title = Victory for Us Is to See You Suffer: In the West Bank with the Palestinians and the Israelis | |||
| | date = 2008-09-01 | |||
| }} I found it on Google Books. -- ] (]) 15:47, 22 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::If my checkup is accurate, it's a memoir by an unkonwn UN relief worker which doesn't exactly make a strong case for notability. Heck, an article on electronicintifada would be just as notable as this guy's book mention of the Yediot article. | |||
| ::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. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 08:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::p.s. the title of that book is borderline antisemitic, portraying self-defense that uses checkpoints instead of cannons as "sadism". | |||
| ::::::With respect, <b>]'']''</b> 17:15, 22 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::: is a Google Books search. If you insist that all those sources do not confer notability, and nobody disagrees, go ahead and remove it. -- ] (]) 17:26, 22 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Jaakobou, please keep your paranoia to yourself. "Borderline antisemitic?" It's not even clear who "us" is in the title; I read it as referring to both sides, mutually. | |||
| ::::::::Oh, actually, according to a review, "intolerance such that as in the title quote, an Israeli relates a conversation with a Palestinian friend, during the height of a bout of very destructive fighting the Palestinian reports they are just happy at this point not to be the only people suffering here." Just the kind of thing you love to add to articles about Palestinians, although when you suspect that Israelis might be getting the same treatment, it's suddenly antisemitic. Please. <]/]]> 13:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 15:33, 3 July 2024
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Battle of Jenin (2002). Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 |
To deal with in a dispute mediation: Israeli/Palestinian casualties leading up to the events
Source for balancing the background to the operation with fair reference to Israeli and Palestinian civilian casualties leading up to the bombings in Israel and the Operation following.
- The UN report on Jenin notes:
18. From the beginning of March until 7 May, Israel endured approximately 16 bombings, the large majority of which were suicide attacks. More than 100 persons were killed and scores more wounded. Throughout this period, the Government of Israel, and the international community, reiterated previous calls on the Palestinian Authority to take steps to stop terrorist attacks and to arrest the perpetrators of such attacks.
19. During this same period, IDF conducted two waves of military incursions primarily in the West Bank, and air strikes against both the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. The first wave began on 27 February 2002 and ended on approximately 14 March. Those incursions, which Israel stated were in pursuit of Palestinians who had carried out attacks against Israelis, involved the use of ground troops, attack helicopters, tanks and F-16 fighter jets in civilian areas, including refugee camps, causing significant loss of life among civilians.
20. Over the course of two days, 8 and 9 March, 18 Israelis were killed in two separate Palestinian attacks and 48 Palestinians were killed in the Israeli raids that followed.
21. Israeli military retaliation for terrorist attacks was often carried out against Palestinian Authority security forces and installations. This had the effect of severely weakening the Authority's capacity to take effective action against militant groups that launched attacks on Israelis. Militant groups stepped into this growing vacuum and increased their attacks on Israeli civilians. In many cases, the perpetrators of these attacks left messages to the effect that their acts were explicitly in revenge for earlier Israeli acts of retaliation, thus perpetuating and intensifying the cycle of violence, retaliation and revenge.
22. It was against this backdrop that the most extensive Israeli military incursions in a decade, Operation Defensive Shield, were carried out. The proximate cause of the operation was a terrorist attack committed on 27 March in the Israeli city of Netanya...
2. Intro - Calling the events a battle while allowing reference to perceptions of a massacre. (the arguments around this issue are listed in prior discussions above) LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 22:38, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- Hi LamaLoLeshLa. I think Elonka has in mind brief pts, like #1 above, without going into the accompanying evidence. HG | Talk 23:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- Correct. Also, I'm noticing that there are several places in the article where tags have been placed, requesting sources or whatnot. Some of these tags have been on the article for a long time, so I recommend some cleanup. Specifically: Any statement that has been {{fact}} tagged for over 30 days, should just be deleted. Also, rather than placing a "weasel" template at the top of the page, I recommend either changing text that is of concern, or using {{weasel-inline}} templates at the specific locations of the words that are problematic. And again, anything that isn't addressed within a reasonable amount of time, let's just delete out of the article. Thanks, --Elonka 23:11, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- Hi again. It might also help if bullet #1 more specific. As I recall, the archives will show much discussion of Palestinian casualty numbers and a table of sources. Does #1 reflect a dispute above about Israeli civilians and, if so, what reference are editors seeking in the article? Thanks. HG | Talk 10:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
- User talk:HG - I think LamaLoLeshLa is attempting to point us to another very significant factor, well covered in the RS but not included in the points I've identified above. Viz, that all the time Israel was calling on the PA to control terrorists, it was destroying Arafat's security apparatus. Recent (anonymous) confessions by IDF soldiers collected here demonstrate that Israel also set about the mass killing of Palestinian policemen on an exclusively ethnic basis. This is not OR on my part, the UN specifically links cause and effect with "This had the effect of severely weakening the Authority's capacity to take effective action against militant groups that launched attacks on Israelis". Perhaps your good sense can decide if this is such a significant factor that it has to be prominently included alongside all mention of suicide and other terrorism. PR 11:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
- I think this article neds to focus on the Battle of Jenin, not a whole range of factiors which might be impossible to reflect in one article. We can focus on each side's statements of their reasons for acting, withoput trying to describe the entire conflict here. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 13:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
- To clarify, there was some talkpage controversy at Operation Defensive Shield a while ago regarding the fact that some people wanted to include detailed information on Israeli casualties leading up to the operation while omitting Palestinian casualties leading up to the operation. The same goes for this set of events. I agree with you Sm that we shouldn't go into too much detail. The truth is, at present, there is very detailed info here on Palestinian assaults on Israel as background to the Jenin incursions. There is nothing about the Israeli assaults on the West Bank as background to the Jenin incursions. Bo0th are relevant, as the violence went both ways, almost constantly in overlap during 2002 - there was no clea start and ending, cause and effect.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 19:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
- User talk:HG - I think LamaLoLeshLa is attempting to point us to another very significant factor, well covered in the RS but not included in the points I've identified above. Viz, that all the time Israel was calling on the PA to control terrorists, it was destroying Arafat's security apparatus. Recent (anonymous) confessions by IDF soldiers collected here demonstrate that Israel also set about the mass killing of Palestinian policemen on an exclusively ethnic basis. This is not OR on my part, the UN specifically links cause and effect with "This had the effect of severely weakening the Authority's capacity to take effective action against militant groups that launched attacks on Israelis". Perhaps your good sense can decide if this is such a significant factor that it has to be prominently included alongside all mention of suicide and other terrorism. PR 11:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
- Hi LamaLoLeshLa. I think Elonka has in mind brief pts, like #1 above, without going into the accompanying evidence. HG | Talk 23:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- If you want to describe the so-called Israeli provocations which you feel serve as some sort of rationale for terrorist bombings and attacks, the place to do so is in the articles pertaining to palestinian actions. There is no reason to explain past Israeli actions in an article which itself focuses on an israeli action in Jenin. To do that would be to dilute the Palestinian side, since this article should focus on their concerns and grievances in regards to this attack. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 19:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
- We have it on excellent authority that Israel's actions had the effect of making it (much?) more difficult for the PA to control militancy. If you think that this information is surplus to the requirements of this article (and I'm entirely prepared to meet you halfway on this as on the other factors), then the obvious solution is to leave out mention of group actions by Palestinians. They can and should be treated as criminal and individual/gang in nature, not as "political". PR 18:40, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
- I did not say that Israeli offensives served as rationale for Palestinian attacks. Nor do I think there is any rationale for killing civilians. Violence begets violence, the circle - who knows where it begins? That is what I said. Please try to avoid putting words in people's mouths. Thanks LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 19:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
- If you want to describe the so-called Israeli provocations which you feel serve as some sort of rationale for terrorist bombings and attacks, the place to do so is in the articles pertaining to palestinian actions. There is no reason to explain past Israeli actions in an article which itself focuses on an israeli action in Jenin. To do that would be to dilute the Palestinian side, since this article should focus on their concerns and grievances in regards to this attack. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 19:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
To deal with in a dispute mediation, take 2: Working towards resolution
- (Well, I see there's an effort to reorganize. It's generally better to leave threads intact once there are comments. Also, please sign your posts or refactoring. Anyway, here's my comment on this item, copied from above:) Hi again. It might also help if bullet #1 more specific. As I recall, the archives will show much discussion of Palestinian casualty numbers and a table of sources. Does #1 reflect a dispute above about Israeli civilians and, if so, what reference are editors seeking in the article? Thanks. HG | Talk 23:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
- There was indeed a "table of sources" (it was loaded into WP as a template, whether rightly or wrongly I don't know) including many "estimates of total casualties". Israeli estimates were up to 381% wrong according to their own official account - no similar calculation can be carried out on the Palestinian figure, since an official death-toll has never been released. (The UN figure covers a wider area and a longer period but is within 1% of early Palestinian estimates).
- Unfortunately the template in question was deleted as being in the wrong place, nobody seems to know what's the right place. Perhaps you have a suggestion, because it makes interesting reading, and is far more significant than the Hasbara section on "Allegations of a massacre". PR 18:59, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
No re-factoring
Editors unfamiliar with the processes of the project have sometimes made discussions much more difficult with four obvious mistakes and breaches of process.
- Failure to indent their contributions.
- Insertion of comments into the middle of listings of others in a disruptive fashion.
- Denial on grounds of perceived "truth" of information firmly based on RS reports.
- Moving the comments of others.
For myself, any of these practices may be a breach of AGF requiring adjudication by the mediator. The same for personalising the discussion - if you have real allegations of cheating then make them carefully and in detail in a new section or another well-signposted page. PR 12:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Mediation Issues, please comment on the most important
Please add in main points with relevant sources (not just rhetoric), below.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 00:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC) I am copying PR's suggestions from above, down here, slightly edited. Please sign all additions as it will be assumed that the rest are PR's suggestions. (PR, if you mind this copy-pasting, feel free to delete. Or, if you'd like to sign your suggestions, that could make things more navigable, too)LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 00:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Background and aftermath:
- 1)
Fair and balanced reference to Israeli and Palestinian civilian casualties leading up to the bombings in Israel and the Operation following. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 02:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)PR 12:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC) - 2) The action in Jenin refugee camp went on for months, curfews were still being applied (and people killed in and and out of curfew) for a long time. (The UN notes two further incursions by August, some observers imply that Israel was continuously present for months afterwards). Iain Hook (chief of the reconstruction project) shot dead while inside the UN compound by Israeli forces, on 22nd Nov 2002 and an Irish woman shot and badly injured in the thigh at almost exactly the same time. 13 other UN workers said to have been shot dead that year. PR, 23 July 2008
- Some mention of the aftermath needed - ex-Israeli academic Ilan Pappe tells us there was a popular television music-show concert staged in the middle of the bull-dozed section after the incident. PR 12:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Inclusion/framing of statements made by Sharon & his advisor:
- 1) Sharon was widely reported to have told representatives of the world's media on 5th March that "Palestinians must be hit ... must cause them losses, victims a month before the incursions (and before the surge of suicide bombings that is already mentioned in the article). This statement by Sharon was linked even by the otherwise pro-Israel Time Magazine directly to the military action that followed: "He went on to do just that, unleashing a broader military offensive than anything seen so far in the past 17 months of fighting." (Colin Powell was another who criticized Sharon for what he said). PR, 23 July 2008
- This may be the single easiest and least controversial inclusion to make. Although we're not going to say it, the individual in question has been harshly criticised (even by the US and Israel) for attacking civilians over a period of almost 50 years. The words themselves are widely reported as if we're supposed to draw conclusions from them - and of course the RS's did exactly that. PR 12:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
- 2) Sharons advisor told the UN special envoy, Terje Roed-Larsen that he "has no business whatsoever" to tell us what is right or wrong". PR, 23 July 2008
Individual incidents within the entire operation:
- 1) The
BBCTelegraph reported that Israel was putting refrigerated trailers into the camp, many report they were seen there and FOX News quoted Army spokesman Brig. Gen. Ron Kitrey telling us the bodies would be buried at a special cemetery in the Jordan Valley. An Israeli newspaper told us there were 200 of these bodies to be disposed of - but an application to the Israeli Supreme Court stopped it. PR, 23 July 2008- This is just insinuation and hearsay. etc etc --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
- 2) Clips from an interview given by one of the bulldozer drivers to an Israeli newspaper provided a different perspective on the way that some parts of this operation were carried out. PR, 23 July 2008
- See my reply above. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
- 3) A single (small but) actual "up-against-the-wall-massacre" reported in careful detail, with the two perpetrators identified, Amnesty and the Independent newspaper. PR, 23 July 2008
- Allegations are already dealt with repeatedly in article. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
- 4) Allegations included in the UN report that the Israelis mined the refugee camp before they left. PR, 23 July 2008
- 5) Account of the third "international observer/human rights" group that made a visit and presented a "Jenin Investigation", still finding complete bodies 3 months later. (We don't have a source and can't say what this might do to the death toll). PR, 23 July 2008
- 6) A new section on the overpowering smell in the camp once it was re-opened, as reported by almost every one of the international observers - eg the New York Times: The smell of decomposing bodies hung over at least six heaps of rubble today, and weeks of excavation may be needed before an accurate death toll can be made. PR, 23 July 2008
- A section on the smell.' This does not seem like an encyclopedic or credible approach to this highly important topic. To answer your point, concerns about the smell and any other allegations are already dealt with by inclusion of numerous sources like Amnesty intl, the UN, BBC and many other credible groups taking various positions on factual evidence. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Massacre discussion:
- 1) Leave to a later date. Meaning of the word, use by both Israeli and Palestinian sources, western media use of and western sources unhappiness with word. "Jenin Massacre" widely used in English, use in other languages. PR 12:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
- I disagree with all of this, as massive WP:SOAP and WP:OR. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 13:42, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
The proposal of commentary and providing undue weight to such topics is rejected by me. All of the above is opposed. I also concur with Steve's assessment of this attempt to break OR and SOAP. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 14:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
- I am waiting for some kind of substantive discussion, or addition of further points, beyond: "I disagree." This surprises no one. What we are trying? to do is to resolve our disagreements, not reiterate that we disagree, with the full understanding that it will probably be a long, but hopefully not unpleasant, process.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 21:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, that's about all I have to say for now. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
- Question: Have you looked into the material yourself to see if it holds water? What is it you are trying to accomplish with the article exactly? Jaakobou 13:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
- Some of our fellow editors might prefer we examine such issues later. After all, discovering such factual errors after going into the mediation process would perhaps cast some slight shadow of doubt over all 10 points raised. However, it would not have this effect on the "Kurdi Bear" interview, since you confirmed it's genuine. (As did another). After 14 months we could finally move forwards. PR 20:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
- PalestineRemembered,
- Please review past discussions and make note of why these subjects were previously rejected by members of the community. It might be good to try to address these concerns.
- Feel free to answer my question as well, it was not meant only for LamaLoLeshLa.
- With respect, Jaakobou 07:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
- It's a very good idea of yours to look at past discussions - since they contain gems like this: "Jaakobou, you open up sections like the one on "war crimes," invite all to participate, and then when it's thoroughly established that there were no findings of Palestinian "war crimes," and strong "prima facie evidence of Israeli war crimes," you simply ignore what emerged from your own discussion, and go back to edit-warring. Then you open up a discussion on "Pallywood," and when faced with critiques you cannot answer - such as a detailed demonstration of the obscurity of both the "film" Pallywood (in actuality a Youtube video) and the conspiracy theory the film helped to disseminate through the right-wing pro-Israel blogosphere - you abandon the discussion and ignore it." What I don't find is any evidence that the subjects listed above were "rejected by members of the community".
- Over and above such sterile exchanges, there is much that is valuable, including statements from many sources and contributors (including yourself) that (I feel sure) will validate each of the 9 points remaining above.
- And I'll be pleased to answer the same question you posed to User:LamaLoLeshLa - I'm here to build an online encyclopedia in a collaborative venture with people interested and determined to do the same thing. Now I've answered your question, will you answer mine? PR 16:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
- PalestineRemembered,
- Some of our fellow editors might prefer we examine such issues later. After all, discovering such factual errors after going into the mediation process would perhaps cast some slight shadow of doubt over all 10 points raised. However, it would not have this effect on the "Kurdi Bear" interview, since you confirmed it's genuine. (As did another). After 14 months we could finally move forwards. PR 20:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
- Answer: What I am trying to accomplish is an article in which, as I mentioned earlier, we represent the debate around the events at Jenin, that we represent the Israeli official narrative and the Palestinian offical narrative, and the international official narrative, and point out the discrepancies between them, rather than trying to give one or another source a monopoly on establishing the facts of the matter. What I want to see is an article that does not just present this as a battle, but presents this as a flashpoint in worldwide awareness of the scale of Operation Defensive Shield, as well as flashpoint in the discussion within the Arab world. In order to represent the extent of the flurry of discussion around this horrible series of events, and the impact on Israeli-Palestinian relations at the time, we need to see the points raised by PR mentioned in some way or another. For instance, the smell following the events at Jenin is still referred to within Palestinian circles, has entered the Palestinian narrative, and should be represented thus, not omitted. I do not say this in order to argue for or against the accuracy or inaccuracy of the reports of the lingering odor of dead bodies, in itself, but to argue for inclusion of the allegations of 'the smell' and the debate for and against the legitimacy of the reports.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 23:22, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
- Hi LamaLoLeshLa, glad to see you explain your approach. It's admirable but I'm not sure entirely suitable. I have my doubts when you say "point out the discrepancies between them" -- which sounds like original research and when you want to present it not as a battle but as a flashpoint -- which sounds like a strong editorial POV. Regarding the flashpoint, though, I agree that the reactions to the battle are notable, but I believe they are covered in the article (though improvements most welcome). Thanks muchly. HG | Talk 03:15, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- Re: "pointing out discrepancies": What I mean by this is that the reader of the article should come away understanding that this is a narrative rife with discrepancies on both sides, and that this is part of the story.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 05:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- Hi LamaLoLeshLa, glad to see you explain your approach. It's admirable but I'm not sure entirely suitable. I have my doubts when you say "point out the discrepancies between them" -- which sounds like original research and when you want to present it not as a battle but as a flashpoint -- which sounds like a strong editorial POV. Regarding the flashpoint, though, I agree that the reactions to the battle are notable, but I believe they are covered in the article (though improvements most welcome). Thanks muchly. HG | Talk 03:15, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- LamaLoLeshLa,
- Points above: There are a few problems with the above points and I avoided responding to them since (a) a few others already have, and (b) I'm trying to avoid anything that will give rise to my old disputes/complaints against PalestineRemembered. In fact, I probably shouldn't have asked him to look up the history since he used it as an excuse to copy-paste an old uncivil comment ("gem") towards me.
- Moving the article where you want to: If you are interested in adding a mention to the Palestinian discussion on the smell at the scene, you need to establish this as a notable issue (for an encyclopedia) with reliable sources. If you provide high quality sources such as BBC, CNN and similar who discuss the smell at the scene or better yet, an array of highly regarded (clarify: not barely known) Arabic sources, then there could be room for that material to have a niche in the page. It depends, as far as I am in concern, on establishing it as a valid point with proper sourcing. Which are the sources supporting this Palestinian narrative as a very notable issue? (suggest you start a new section here on the talk page and lets examine what the sources say)
- Cordially, Jaakobou 11:59, 2 August 2008 (UTC) clarify 12:02, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
- Briefly, I do not have the time to get into this at the moment, but I wanted to be clear - I don't believe it would need to be 'very notable', notable suffices. As far as Arabic sources - I am certain that Arabic sources deal with this matter, however, I do not read Arabic, alas. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 16:55, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Image copyright problem with Image:Fateh-logo.jpg
The image Image:Fateh-logo.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
- That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
- That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. --04:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
/Archive_9#c-FairuseBot-2008-09-11T04:02:00.000Z-Image_copyright_problem_with_Image:Fateh-logo.jpg){kind=link}
Peres and Haaretz
A) There's a few issues with this paragraph. For starters, some undo claims about the respectability of Haaretz - it is no more respected than all the other sources in the article and they don't have "respectability" mentions. Secondly, there's too much copy-pasting, leading to a WP:COPYVIO. And thirdly, the text should be made into a short explanation of what Haaretz reported rather than a couple long quotes. Please rewrite the paragraph before reinsertion.
B) Best I'm aware, the paper retracted this article - i.e. printed out a retraction. Anyone else aware of this issue?
Cheers, Jaakobou 06:28, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
- I'd never seen the original of this Haaretz article before. Perhaps now it's confirmed that Foreign Minister Shimon Peres used the word "massacre" (and in the general sense too, not the limited "up-against-the-wall" fashion) we can remove the entire blogosphere "Was there a massacre?" discussion and re-instate "also known as 'Jenin Massacre'". (Google tells us that the latter is more than twice as popular as the name we're currently using anyway, making it ridiculous not to have it mentioned).
- And we can now say for certainty that the death toll amongst Palestinians was at least twice what Israel later tried to claim that it was. That would save us using the embarrassing, never-confirmed Washington Times figure for number of deaths, referenced only to "Abductions – Life in the Vivarium" Rense.com, "Back to the Moslem Terrorist's Page" PapillonsPalace and assorted blogs.
- Shall I update the list of well-referenced, significant reports not yet in the article? PR 10:17, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
- I think this quote is definitely notable, and should be included, although perhaps rewritten (unless, of course, a retraction is found). However, I don't think it means that the incident is now known as a massacre. Peres is not a neutral, third-party source here. He is a savvy politician, and may very well have been trying to undermine Sharon. IMO, we should call it a massacre only if and when there's a consensus among historians that this is what the incident was. -- Nudve (talk) 11:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
- The quote seems to be somewhat "private", but Haaretz's report is indeed notable - retraction or not. Still, the COPYVIO by PalestineRemembered is a problem and should be amended. As a side note it's pertinent to add that as soon as the camp was opened, Haaretz quickly and reliably reported that there was no massacre in Jenin during or after the fighting. Jaakobou 14:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
- I think this quote is definitely notable, and should be included, although perhaps rewritten (unless, of course, a retraction is found). However, I don't think it means that the incident is now known as a massacre. Peres is not a neutral, third-party source here. He is a savvy politician, and may very well have been trying to undermine Sharon. IMO, we should call it a massacre only if and when there's a consensus among historians that this is what the incident was. -- Nudve (talk) 11:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
- I've found Haaretz's retraction. At least unlike several other news outlets they corrected this error the following day. Not bad. Jaakobou 16:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
- That's not a retraction, it's simply a different article from different sources on a topic only vaguely related. The papers own reporters refer to "international reaction as soon as the world learns the details" the wire service says "feared Palestinian officials would distort". When were Palestinian officials ever quoted, other than with abuse over "high" death toll estimates, or (allegedly) by cult-owned newspapers with ridiculously low death-toll estimates?
- I have a second question for you, the answer to which is long overdue - when can we put all the other well referenced material on this incident into the article - or is that to be permanently rejected on the non-policy objections displayed here? PR 10:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
- I've found Haaretz's retraction. At least unlike several other news outlets they corrected this error the following day. Not bad. Jaakobou 16:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
- PalestineRemembered, I've been trying to improve our correspondence but it is a bit difficult when already discussed arguments are repeated -- such as the 'google test' and the 'cult-owned' samples. I'm also having difficulty understanding why you'd call the two Haaretz articles "only vaguely related" and I'm thinking it would be best if you run this content by your mentor first before reinserting it again into the article.
- With respect, Jaakobou 10:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
- Jaakobou, stop removing RELIABLE SOURCES which contain important information about what happened in Jenin. Feel free to include the second Ha'aretz story, but is FALSE to call it a retraction. Peres does not deny that he was/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." Peres IS correct here, since there was a STRONG INTERNATIONAL REACTION. Also, in the second story, he does not deny his original (and probably accurate) description, when he privately said what happened in Jenin is "a massacre." What happened is that Peres CHANGED HIS MIND about how he is now referring to Jenin. This is very important evidence that there was a massacre, and is known politically as "damage control." The IDF repeatedly made statements which were probably accurate, then revised those statements to hide the fact that there was probably a massacre. Sharon has been associated with massacres of civilians throughout his career. Your repeated: 1) deletion of evidence of an Israeli massacre, 2) altering the published conclusions of the UN and human rights organizations when you delete the words "AT LEAST" when referring to the number of Palestinian dead, and 3) using CAMERA as if it were RS, when, in fact, it is a Zionist propaganda source is WP:NPOV. And stop your false accusations against PalestineRemembered WP:CIV. You should apologize to him. I've seen you do this before, and I imagine you are now going to make false accusations about sock puppets. I AM NOT PalestineRemembered, I never have communicated with PalestineRemembered, and unless you have conclusive proof, STOP your uncivil habit of making repeated reckless derogatory speculations.68.37.255.64 (talk) 19:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
- I have a book by Haaretz correspondents Avi Issacharoff and Amos Harel (the one who wrote the article in question) called in English "The Seventh War", published in 2004. (translated into French as "La septième guerre d'Israël". It's about the Second Intifada and discusses the battle and the massacre allegations. Can I use it? -- Nudve (talk) 10:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- You'd be welcome - except the "massacre allegations" are Israel's Public Relations - a device for denial.
- After 6 days in which to cover up the evidence (and mine the camp), Israel finally allowed very restricted access. On that first day (16th April) two US papers (Newsday, Washington Post) casually told us that they could see "no evidence of a massacre", apparently forgetting that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
- But other sources were brutal indeed, saying things like "The smell of decomposing bodies hung over at least six heaps of rubble today" (New York Times) and "A monstrous war crime that Israel has tried to cover up for a fortnight" (Independent) and "The refugees I had interviewed ... were not lying. If anything, they underestimated the carnage and the horror." (Guardian) and "permeated with the stench of rotting corpses and cordite" (different Independent story) and ""Rarely in more than a decade of war reporting ... such disrespect for human life" (Times)
- On that day, even the Israeli Supreme Court was being told "IDF leaving dead to rot in Jenin".
- If, after all that, you still think there is something relevant, it could go in a separate section - remember that it's unverifiable in English, so please provide a proper page or so of translation containing any clips you want to use (but I'll not raise any objection to you doing the translation yourself). PR 18:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- Fair enough. I guess it's a question of how much weight is to be given to media impressions. After all, I'm sure there were some heaps of rubble and nasty smells during, say, the Battle of Stalingrad, but that article doesn't detail all that, certainly not as evidence of the death toll. Anyway, considering the sensitivity of the subject, I'll wat a while for further input. -- Nudve (talk) 18:24, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- Please don't stop! I'd be very interested to learn what these journalists made of the denialist propaganda spin put on this affair. Probably see a dramatically different angle on "The Battle of Jenin: A Case Study in Israel's Communications Strategy". However, it's near enough an irrelevant side-show to the actual story. PR 22:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- Fair enough. I guess it's a question of how much weight is to be given to media impressions. After all, I'm sure there were some heaps of rubble and nasty smells during, say, the Battle of Stalingrad, but that article doesn't detail all that, certainly not as evidence of the death toll. Anyway, considering the sensitivity of the subject, I'll wat a while for further input. -- Nudve (talk) 18:24, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Removal of sources
Hi, I still have no strong opinion on the content of this article one way or the other, but I am concerned by edits like this, which appear to be removing reliably sourced information. Is there consensus for this, or what exactly is the concern? Are the sources unreliable in some way? Is the information from those sources not being properly interpreted? It would seem to me that if the citations are good, then it would be better to keep the citations in place, and just edit the information from those citations, rather than deleting everything at once. --Elonka 17:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- Hi, Elonka. I'm rather new to this article. As you probably know, this isn't an easy place to work. Jaakobou has reverted a couple of times and has given his reasons. He seems to come by only once a day or so, and meanwhile I'm trying to get a consensus per WP:BRD. The discussion has not been too constructive so far. I have made a suggestion and am waiting for a reply. The sources are reliable, but are somewhat contradictory, due to the nature of the incident and the media coverage of it. It may be possible to edit "from" the citations, but that might stretch WP:NOTNEWS - I think it's better to rely on later, more conclusive accounts, rather than synthesize real-time news reports. -- Nudve (talk) 17:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- I don't wish to make a case against PR on a content talk page, but the content issue can be, I hope, fairly easily followed from the top of the section -- Talk:Battle_of_Jenin#Peres_and_Haaretz. A major point of concern right now is that old issues are being brought up again in a WP:FRINGE attempt to change the final reports of the event. For example, the final Palestinian report (April 30) said 56 casualties and now, based on a (later corrected) report from April 9 - there's a push to persuade us to inflate the death toll and rename the article "Jenin massacre". (See also Hated Google Test)
- I'm still trying to figure out the best way to handle this clash of versions, but being that the initial April 9 report was retracted the following day, it cannot be posted as is without further thought and discussion. Personally, I feel PR is in breach of several Arbcom descisions but as I don't wish to enhance on our past disputes, I suggested he address the issues to his assigned mentor.
- Let me know if there's anything else that needs clarification. Jaakobou 19:18, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- 1) It is not true that the April 9 report was retracted the following day, and Jaakobou does not provide a source for his assertion, since there is none. 2) The source of the assertion that "the final Palestinian report (April 30) said 56 casualties" is from the Washington Times, which is in not a reliable source (it is owned by the Unification Church, which is controlled by the convicted Sun Myung Moon) and the best evidence is that NO OTHER AMERICAN NEWSPAPER RAN THE STORY. NOT ONE! Doing an internet search for a match reveals all of the other citations for this claim are either from Zionist blogs, or THE GOVERNMENT OF ISRAEL. 3) the false accusation that I am PR is being repeated. There is no evidence that I am PR, but that is the way of hasbara; you don't need any evidence to make a false accusation. 4) One example of hasbara tactics is working to delete inconvenient reliably sourced facts which are unfavorable to Israel. I see that an attempt is being made to delete the hasbara page, which details the dishonest and underhanded tactics the Zionists use, which again, is the removing of information that they do not like. Do we want a POV majority vote here, or the truth? Because right now, the truth loses. Also check out the unethical attempt by CAMERA to secretly infiltrate Misplaced Pages. They got caught.68.37.255.64 (talk) 01:21, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
- The disruptive reverts and other conduct at this article is highly reminiscent of the situation at the linked article Saeb Erekat, where one editor defied the consensus of 8 other editors (including an admin) for over 18 months. (The inclusions being so bitterly fought over there were WP:BLP, so should not have lasted a minute). Look at the TalkPage there too, note the extensive time-wasting and non-policy arguments used to buttress the tendacious editing.
- Similarily in this case we have highly relevant elements (I count at least 10) being excluded by arguments that don't even pretend to be policy.
- However, I would warn the IP editor that, while frustrating good editing has long been a well-established (but mysteriously tolerated) art, there is an increasingly powerful movement to make CIVIL the only enforceable policy of the project. As a result, Reliable Sources policy has been pretty nearly replaced by IDONTLIKEIT policy in 100s of articles relating to the I-P conflict. PR 12:17, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
- Well, a quick Google search has found two sources, which support the retraction theory. This one is by the Haaretz correspondent in London, and this one is by the director of the Palestinian American Research Center in Ramallah. I suggest we add the Haaretz reports with this evidence of retraction, as per Elonka's suggestion. Comments? --Nudve (talk) 06:31, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
- 1) This is NOT a retraction. Another newspaper, The Guardian, cannot retract something which appeared in Ha'aretz. Only Ha'aretz can retract something which appeared in Ha'aretz. The fact that there is no link from Ha'aretz making a retraction is proof that the information was NOT retracted. 2) This does NOT support the contention that there even was a retraction. The relevent section says, "That atrocities which in scope and scale extend well beyond those committed elsewhere in the West Bank have taken place in Jenin is beyond question. On April 9, in fact, Ha’aretz quoted Peres as characterizing Israeli conduct toward the residents of Jenin refugee camp as 'a massacre'—albeit in the context of the Nobel Laureate’s concern over international reaction, rather than the massacre itself—while in the same article military officers were quoted as stating that 'when the world sees the pictures of what we have done there, it will do us immense damage.' The following day, Ha’aretz reported that the Israeli Foreign Ministry had established a PR committee to deal with the consequences, another indication that the world best prepare for the worst." Setting up a public relations committee is NOT a retraction. Since there continues to be NO evidence that Ha'aretz retracted its story, I am returning the original Ha'aretz story on the Battle of Jenin page.68.37.255.64 (talk) 10:41, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
- Not sure I agree. I think the Haaretz correspondent is reliable enough to say the statement was retracted. The quote I was referring to in the second link is this :"Indeed, a statement several days earlier by military spokesperson Ron Kitri that “hundreds” had been killed in Jenin almost immediately was retracted by his superiors, who elaborated that “hundreds” referred to both dead and wounded, and that the actual death toll was in the dozens and almost exclusively limited to armed Palestinians." I used this source because I don't think it's likely that the author works for the "Hasbara". -- Nudve (talk) 10:52, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
- 1) This is NOT a retraction. Another newspaper, The Guardian, cannot retract something which appeared in Ha'aretz. Only Ha'aretz can retract something which appeared in Ha'aretz. The fact that there is no link from Ha'aretz making a retraction is proof that the information was NOT retracted. 2) This does NOT support the contention that there even was a retraction. The relevent section says, "That atrocities which in scope and scale extend well beyond those committed elsewhere in the West Bank have taken place in Jenin is beyond question. On April 9, in fact, Ha’aretz quoted Peres as characterizing Israeli conduct toward the residents of Jenin refugee camp as 'a massacre'—albeit in the context of the Nobel Laureate’s concern over international reaction, rather than the massacre itself—while in the same article military officers were quoted as stating that 'when the world sees the pictures of what we have done there, it will do us immense damage.' The following day, Ha’aretz reported that the Israeli Foreign Ministry had established a PR committee to deal with the consequences, another indication that the world best prepare for the worst." Setting up a public relations committee is NOT a retraction. Since there continues to be NO evidence that Ha'aretz retracted its story, I am returning the original Ha'aretz story on the Battle of Jenin page.68.37.255.64 (talk) 10:41, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
- 1) It is not true that the April 9 report was retracted the following day, and Jaakobou does not provide a source for his assertion, since there is none. 2) The source of the assertion that "the final Palestinian report (April 30) said 56 casualties" is from the Washington Times, which is in not a reliable source (it is owned by the Unification Church, which is controlled by the convicted Sun Myung Moon) and the best evidence is that NO OTHER AMERICAN NEWSPAPER RAN THE STORY. NOT ONE! Doing an internet search for a match reveals all of the other citations for this claim are either from Zionist blogs, or THE GOVERNMENT OF ISRAEL. 3) the false accusation that I am PR is being repeated. There is no evidence that I am PR, but that is the way of hasbara; you don't need any evidence to make a false accusation. 4) One example of hasbara tactics is working to delete inconvenient reliably sourced facts which are unfavorable to Israel. I see that an attempt is being made to delete the hasbara page, which details the dishonest and underhanded tactics the Zionists use, which again, is the removing of information that they do not like. Do we want a POV majority vote here, or the truth? Because right now, the truth loses. Also check out the unethical attempt by CAMERA to secretly infiltrate Misplaced Pages. They got caught.68.37.255.64 (talk) 01:21, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
I haven't been following this article for a while, but would like to add my 2 cents on this particular dispute (about April 9 'event'). I'm really not sure how many people here actually read the Haaretz article, but on careful inspection, it's clear that the current (badly-written, I might add) version puts an unnecessary spin on this article, which is fairly ordinary. There are the following problems with this version:
- The section in the Misplaced Pages article (Fluctuations in reported deaths) is about reported deaths, not about reactions. Anything Peres supposedly said, if it's notable and verifiable, should go into a 'Reactions' section.
- The Haaretz article says that Peres "In private, Peres is referring to the battle as a 'massacre.'" Not sure how the Haaretz writers should know what Peres says in private, but this is clearly not the main idea behind the article (despite the provocative title), and the claim is exceptional, so it requires an exceptional source, and not a shoddy passage in an Haaretz article. For claims like this, if true, it's dodgy at best and inconceivable at worst, that there is only a single source with a brief mention.
- The current Misplaced Pages prose meshes together Peres's alleged comment with comments by IDF soldiers, a passage that is taken verbatim from the Haaretz article. This is highly confusing to the reader, and implies that Peres actually said those things about justification. Furthermore, it is not clear how 'IDF officers' (might not represent even a tenth of all IDF officers in the battle - Haaretz doesn't elaborate) are notable in this case. The official IDF position is the responsibility of the IDF Spokesperson.
In light of all of the above problems, I can't see how the Haaretz source alone is sufficient to make the claims in the article, or why they should even be made in the context of fluctuating casualty reports. -- Ynhockey 12:34, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
- These points are valid. Right now, I don't want to aggravate the edit war. I'll try and work on a draft for the article, using the book I mentioned above, but it'll take some time. Anyway, I've also found this Haaretz article, a speech by its then-editor, Hanoch Marmari, in which he says there was no massacre, and that some of his correspondents "might have been obsessive in their determination to unearth a massacre in a refugee camp". -- Nudve (talk) 12:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
- I'm looking forwards to hearing about the contents of this book, but it's about presentation, not the event itself as we're trying to document. There is of course nothing to indicate in the Israeli newspapers report that anything about Perez's language was "retracted". PR 07:20, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
ArbCom restrictions
Hi all, as a reminder, this article falls within the scope of the Palestine-Israel articles arbitration case. As such, in January 2008 the arbitration committee authorized uninvolved administrators to place additional restrictions as needed: "Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project."
I recommend that everyone read the section under Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Remedies, such as, "Editors are reminded that when editing in subject areas of bitter and long-standing real-world conflict, it is all the more important to comply with Misplaced Pages policies such as assuming good faith of all editors including those on the other side of the real-world dispute, writing with a neutral point of view, remaining civil and avoiding personal attacks, utilizing reliable sources for contentious or disputed assertions, and resorting to dispute resolution where necessary. Misplaced Pages cannot solve the dispute between the Israeli and Palestinian people or any other real-world ethnic conflict. What Misplaced Pages can do is aspire to provide neutral, encyclopedic coverage about the areas of dispute and the peoples involved in it, which may lead to a broader understanding of the issues and the positions of all parties to the conflict. The contributions of all good-faith editors on these articles who contribute with this goal in mind are appreciated."
There are currently no additional restrictions on the editing of this Battle of Jenin article, but as an uninvolved administrator, I've been watching this article for awhile, and the recent edit-warring is of concern. If disruption continues or escalates, further restrictions may be placed on the article, or on the editors who are working on it. This does not mean that anyone needs to worry that they're a hair's breadth away from being blocked. Any blocks or bans are multiple steps down the road. For example, before an editor can be sanctioned under the ruling of the ArbCom case, there is a requirement that they must be warned via a specific message on their talkpage, along with instructions on what they can do to avoid restrictions. And though I can't speak for all administrators, my own style is to give multiple warnings, and I usally only impose bans or blocks when an editor keeps ignoring all other cautions. So we're not at that point yet. I am starting this thread though, to advise people that it's a possibility down the line. Also, other administrators have different styles than I do -- some are much quicker with the "ban hammer", as they say.
So, please be careful, please stay calm, please avoid edit warring, and please try hard to find a compromise which keeps the article in adherence with Misplaced Pages policies. Our ultimate goal here is a high quality article, which well serves our readers, and reflects positively on Misplaced Pages and the editors who worked on it. Thanks, and let me know if you have any questions, --Elonka 17:22, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- There are huge problems at this article, with the most absurd non-policy arguments being made to keep out what the RS say and said about it. I'm not entirely sure how to treat the most recent finding, that an Israeli Cabinet Minister was calling the incident "a massacre" long before outside observers were talking about war-crimes - but it must be obvious to all that the report renders the current "No massacre" theme of the article either completely pointless - or blatant, full-bore Hasbara.
- I've previously pointed out the 10 or more well-attested details that almost certainly belong in the article - what we need here is administrative action against editors refusing to abide by policy, raising IDONTLIKEIT objections, inserting laughably POV edits and disruptively removing excellent material.
- Incidentally, the only reason I'm currently able to protest what has been going on here is that my hands are clean as regards edit-warring -
I backed offI completely stopped editing the article and am waiting for administrative action to clear the road-blocks preventing us writing a good article. PR 20:30, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- Dear PalestineRemembered,
- In my previous note I mentioned a suggested solution for the dissonance between your statements and the ones made by fellow editors, myself included. If you believe the community is ignoring your valuable input on baseless/political grounds, it would be best if you approach your assigned mentor and discuss this with him. If Ryan is still your mentor, this would also help you regain his trust as well as give you a chance to re-examine your arguments at a less involved environment. When you avoid your mentorship and repeatedly exclaim exasperation towards the project and your fellow editors it is not going to magically solve the problem and, in fact, it only serves to increase sentiments of antagonism towards you. Content-wise, you believe there was a massacre at the camp and wish that we write this down into the article as well as change the title. What other sources do you have to support the 'Jenin massacre' perspective other than the private Peres quote from April 9 - which Haaretz published a 180degrees version of, an official public statement, the following day?
- Cordially, Jaakobou 03:17, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
I think there's some good advice in the comments made above. Staying calm and civil, avoiding edit warring, and touching base with mentors (where applicable) is always a good plan. I hope sanctions don't prove necessary here and that consensus can be reached through analysis of the relevant sources. WJBscribe (talk) 03:38, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- Even when consensus has been reached (in the particular case I'm thinking of, one disruptive editor against eight others, including an admin, continuously for 19 months) the policy-trashing insertions will continue even after an ANI and an ArbCom. The problems at just that one article were only stopped by a further one week block under ArbCom enforcement. PR 13:48, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Note on user Blindjustice and IP 68.37.255.64
User:Blindjustice has been blocked under the provisions of this arbcom restriction, as well as per our policy on disruptive editing, for using a logged out IP address User talk:68.37.255.64 to disruptively sockpuppet on this article. The shenanigans on this article won't be tolerated any longer. ⇒SWATJester 01:46, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- There has been massive disruption at this article - but I can see none of it from this editor. I find 17 edits from him, all of them either good or at least "arguably sound". They are . Meanwhile, there is a huge amount of other material that is definitely sound which has been edit-warred out, to the severe detriment of this article. Statements are still being made (such as the alleged retraction of an Israeli article on "Peres calling it a massacre") that appear totally unjustifiable. Attempts are being made to discredit sources normally considered to be second only to the Red Cross, while absurd "information" from blogs (about unverifiable articles in newspapers owned by cults) is edit-warred in.
- Were we (or User:Blindjustice given any opportunity to challenge any allegations made against this editor? Judging by his UserPage, this action was carried out with no discussion whatsoever. I certainly didn't know any accusations were being made, and there is nothing on this page to indicate any suspicion. PR 10:03, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Draft proposal
Alright, sports fans. I have created a draft in my sandbox for this article, here. Here are the major changes:
- Content - mostly about the battle itself, based on Harel and Isacharoff's book. It is also used for establishing commanders and casualties.
- Cleanup - removal of a lot of info that is about Operation Defensive Shield and/or the Second Intifada in general, but not this particular battle. I have also removed many "2nd degree criticisms". I don't think the allegations section should include all the people who don't think there was a massacre. Finally, I have formatted the refs and cropped the link farm at the bottom. In general, I have refrained from "cherry picking" quotes from reports. I only channeled them through secondary sources. The reports themselves are available as external links.
- Copyedit - I tried to arrange the article so as to separate the casualties reports, the massacre allegations and the various reports. I think it flows better this way.
- This draft may still have some problems, such as typos and syntax errors. I have removed the tags because of the bots, but of course it's possible to use it and keep the tags.
Anyway, comments would be appreciated. Cheers, -- Nudve (talk) 18:26, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- I like your changes, mostly because they make the article cleaner and easier to read, which has long since been lost as a goal in disputed articles. However, the lead section is IMO lacking, and the current one is better (although still not perfect). I don't wish to address the entire article point by point at the moment, in order not to get into minor unimportant content disputes, but will help with the article if need be in the future. -- Ynhockey 17:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- Is it the paragraph on the passover massacre? My rationale was that it belongs in the article on the operation, but I could just put it back. -- Nudve (talk) 17:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- A couple points about the lead:
- a) A bit too much input on the Israeli troops for the lead. If we go in that direction there should also be text about the militancy. I'm thinking it would be best to remove/shorten it.
- b) Intro image seems more appropriate for inside the article where it currently is.
- Haven't really taken the time to review more of your effort; I tend to think that edits are better made in sections than as a whole though I was working on a version of the page myself also.
- Cheers, Jaakobou 17:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- I've removed this paragraph. Tweaking the images should probably be done in mainspace, since the bots won't let them show on userspace. Let me know when you have further reviewed it. -- Nudve (talk) 17:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- I will start by admitting that I have not yet had a chance to take a look. However removal of "2nd degree criticisms" leaves only official army PR, so I can't imagine that your draft will be NPOV. It seems like people who believe in retaining and adding non-army source information (or what you refer to as "2nd degree criticisms") have been repelled from this page because of all the incivility issues. I know I have. But I'll be back to review the above.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 04:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, by "2nd degree criticisms" I meant criticisms of the UN/HRW/Amnesty reports, i.e., "criticisms of criticisms". I tried to avoid using "official army PR" as facts. Can you be more specific? -- Nudve (talk) 04:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
- General note: Secondary sources would be the final reports of the likes of BBC, CNN, Haaretz, JPost etc. Amnesti and other HR groups are simply echoing Palestinian claims and are far worse (blood-libel massacre blunders) as "the army's PR". In retrospect, it might be good to start looking up written sources on this issue (books). Jaakobou 19:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
- You must be very skeptical when you read about human-rights violations in Saddam's Iraq, Sierra Leone, Rwanda, or the Balkans then. Half the stuff we know about those things came from such dubious, discredited, partisan sources as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch - you must be wondering if any of this stuff even happened! Well at least you have the dependable ADL to inform you there was no Armenian genocide. Or at least there was no Armenian genocide until last year when suddenly Abe Foxman announced: "Upon reflection, the consequences of those actions were indeed tantamount to genocide". Of course, the ADL doesn't get tangled up with historical data, or established facts, or the documentary record, or old-fashioned notions of maintaining political and financial independence, or sending experts to investigate and prepare reports on-site, or anything of the sort. Rather, Foxman sits and "reflects" in the relative solitude of conference calls with Israeli government figures, who then coordinate their own reflections and announcements in consultation with the Turkish president, who until that moment had veto power over historical truth for the ADL under Foxman, who in turn has veto power over historical truth in articles in WP. PR 20:29, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
- Jaakobou. You have just re-invented the term "secondary source" arbitrarily to suit a political- and ethnic-based conspiracy theory that you seem to have personally contrived. This is no basis for editing a Misplaced Pages article. Kindly take your bizarre and unsupported claims about HRW and "Amnesti" methodology somewhere else. <eleland/talkedits> 02:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- Without having any consideration to anything else, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch are a partisan source, and have been highly criticized for their accuracy and "spin" by sources like The Economist, the New York Sun, NGO Monitor, Alan Dershowitz, Discover the Networks, University of London, The Conflict Analysis Resource Center, etc. ⇒SWATJester 03:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- HRW is on the front line fighting human rights abuses in despotic Arab countries, including Iran and Saudi Arabia, where religious minorities, homosexuals, and women often find themselves subject to the worst kinds of abuses. That they treat Israel and the United States exactly the same in this regard is a testament to their reliability. PR 07:53, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- How they treat Israel and the US similarly or differently is significantly less important as far as Misplaced Pages policies are concerned, than the fact that they've been highly criticized for their accuracy and spin by numerous highly-regarded sources. Interestingly enough, one of the more common criticisms is that both HRW and AI both grossly underreport, or fail to report human rights abuses in Syria and Iran, while reporting abuses of questionable veracity and value in Israel and the US. It may well be that they treat the US and Israel equally. But that's not the complaint: that they treat Israel and other countries disparately, something that is documented in the media. ⇒SWATJester 09:15, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- You have made a variety of unsupported claims, and the fact that you would refer to "the New York Sun, NGO Monitor, Alan Dershowitz, Discover the Networks " in the context of opposing partisan spin makes me frankly question your seriousness here. There is a variety of low-level partisan dross which attempt to paint HRW and Amnesty as biased anti-American sources, sure. But, besides the fact "you're biased and anti-" is the absolutely standard reply to human rights criticism, these charges are quite easily shown to be outright lies.
- One of the arguments of those who are critical of Human Rights Watch's reporting on the Middle East is that the organization devotes too much attention to alleged abuses by Israelis. A corollary is that it pays insufficient attention to violations of human rights by Israel's antagonists in the region. Yet a glance at the back pages of the "World Report" published annually by Human Rights Watch where it lists all its publications suggests that these criticisms are not well founded. Typically, Human Rights Watch publishes more than a hundred reports each year. In all, it issued more than 350 reports in 2003, 2004, and 2005 on the seventy or so countries that it monitors. Of these, just five dealt with Israel and the Palestinian occupied territories while another sixty reports dealt with various Arab countries and Iran. The largest number of reports concerned abuses in Iraq, Sudan, and Egypt, but reports were also published on Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Algeria, Tunisia, Morocco, and Jordan.
- Or, you could simply read their websites. Currently, for example, the front page of HRW's "Middle East and North Africa" section has five articles about Saudi violations, four about Iran, three about Libya, and one each about Algeria, Syria, and Tunisia. And nothing about Israel. Is this really what you would expect from an organization which grossly under-reports abuses of Arab countries while constantly bashing Israel? Be serious, man. <eleland/talkedits> 01:58, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- How are my claims unsupported? I said that these organizations have been highly criticized, and provided the names of the organizations who have proffered those criticisms. Whether you like the sources or not is irrelevant (I note that you only mentioned "some" of the sources as "opposing partisan", which while your claim of partisanship is certainly disputable, the other sources are clearly not so (unless the Economist and the University of London suddenly became "spin sources")). And please don't accuse me of not being serious. If you can't discuss civilly, without resorting to slights, you shouldn't discuss things at all.⇒SWATJester 09:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- We are entitled to expect compliance with the principles of the project from an administrator. I'm not sure what serious criticisms of HRW there have been from responsible sources, but your mention of NGOM and Dershowitz in this context is worrying. The only serious criticism of HRW I've seen is that from Jonathan Cook (a Briton living in Israel), which strongly suggests that HRW (at least sometimes) falls over backwards giving Israel the maximum benefit of the doubt.
- Incidentally, the discussion at the RS/N looks very much like overwhelming consensus, with nothing but a partisan trying to disrupt the work of the project with seriously frivolous objections. PR 19:08, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- How are my claims unsupported? I said that these organizations have been highly criticized, and provided the names of the organizations who have proffered those criticisms. Whether you like the sources or not is irrelevant (I note that you only mentioned "some" of the sources as "opposing partisan", which while your claim of partisanship is certainly disputable, the other sources are clearly not so (unless the Economist and the University of London suddenly became "spin sources")). And please don't accuse me of not being serious. If you can't discuss civilly, without resorting to slights, you shouldn't discuss things at all.⇒SWATJester 09:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- How they treat Israel and the US similarly or differently is significantly less important as far as Misplaced Pages policies are concerned, than the fact that they've been highly criticized for their accuracy and spin by numerous highly-regarded sources. Interestingly enough, one of the more common criticisms is that both HRW and AI both grossly underreport, or fail to report human rights abuses in Syria and Iran, while reporting abuses of questionable veracity and value in Israel and the US. It may well be that they treat the US and Israel equally. But that's not the complaint: that they treat Israel and other countries disparately, something that is documented in the media. ⇒SWATJester 09:15, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- HRW is on the front line fighting human rights abuses in despotic Arab countries, including Iran and Saudi Arabia, where religious minorities, homosexuals, and women often find themselves subject to the worst kinds of abuses. That they treat Israel and the United States exactly the same in this regard is a testament to their reliability. PR 07:53, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- Without having any consideration to anything else, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch are a partisan source, and have been highly criticized for their accuracy and "spin" by sources like The Economist, the New York Sun, NGO Monitor, Alan Dershowitz, Discover the Networks, University of London, The Conflict Analysis Resource Center, etc. ⇒SWATJester 03:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- Jaakobou. You have just re-invented the term "secondary source" arbitrarily to suit a political- and ethnic-based conspiracy theory that you seem to have personally contrived. This is no basis for editing a Misplaced Pages article. Kindly take your bizarre and unsupported claims about HRW and "Amnesti" methodology somewhere else. <eleland/talkedits> 02:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- You must be very skeptical when you read about human-rights violations in Saddam's Iraq, Sierra Leone, Rwanda, or the Balkans then. Half the stuff we know about those things came from such dubious, discredited, partisan sources as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch - you must be wondering if any of this stuff even happened! Well at least you have the dependable ADL to inform you there was no Armenian genocide. Or at least there was no Armenian genocide until last year when suddenly Abe Foxman announced: "Upon reflection, the consequences of those actions were indeed tantamount to genocide". Of course, the ADL doesn't get tangled up with historical data, or established facts, or the documentary record, or old-fashioned notions of maintaining political and financial independence, or sending experts to investigate and prepare reports on-site, or anything of the sort. Rather, Foxman sits and "reflects" in the relative solitude of conference calls with Israeli government figures, who then coordinate their own reflections and announcements in consultation with the Turkish president, who until that moment had veto power over historical truth for the ADL under Foxman, who in turn has veto power over historical truth in articles in WP. PR 20:29, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
- General note: Secondary sources would be the final reports of the likes of BBC, CNN, Haaretz, JPost etc. Amnesti and other HR groups are simply echoing Palestinian claims and are far worse (blood-libel massacre blunders) as "the army's PR". In retrospect, it might be good to start looking up written sources on this issue (books). Jaakobou 19:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, by "2nd degree criticisms" I meant criticisms of the UN/HRW/Amnesty reports, i.e., "criticisms of criticisms". I tried to avoid using "official army PR" as facts. Can you be more specific? -- Nudve (talk) 04:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
- I will start by admitting that I have not yet had a chance to take a look. However removal of "2nd degree criticisms" leaves only official army PR, so I can't imagine that your draft will be NPOV. It seems like people who believe in retaining and adding non-army source information (or what you refer to as "2nd degree criticisms") have been repelled from this page because of all the incivility issues. I know I have. But I'll be back to review the above.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 04:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
- I've removed this paragraph. Tweaking the images should probably be done in mainspace, since the bots won't let them show on userspace. Let me know when you have further reviewed it. -- Nudve (talk) 17:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- Is it the paragraph on the passover massacre? My rationale was that it belongs in the article on the operation, but I could just put it back. -- Nudve (talk) 17:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Regarding the Reliability of Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International
Both organizations have been discussed at the RS/N. Please refer to Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_15#Human_Rights_Watch. Of note especially is the end of the discussion, where consensus is established rather emphatically that both organizations are indeed eminently reliable for information regarding human rights violations. The rest of the discussion consists mainly of two editors (myself included) trying to argue with a third that "accusations of bias" do not amount to unreliability.PelleSmith (talk) 17:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Exactly. Bias has nothing directly to do with reliability as a source. ⇒SWATJester 17:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Yes but "accusations of bias" do not equate to proof of bias either. These organizations are accused of bias by pretty much every country they report on (surprise surprise) -- in the Middle East that includes pretty much every country. Also please note that you highlighted criticism of "accuracy" above, which would effect reliability were it true. The RS/N discussion would suggest a consensus there that there is no accuracy issue with these organizations, certainly not one subject to any national bias.PelleSmith (talk) 17:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not sure the limited discussion on RS/N quite qualifies as consensus, but differentiating between accusations of bias and proof of bias is an academic task, because there's no clear line where such accusations become proof, and it will be disputed by partisans in any event, so there's not much point in the distinction in the first place. ⇒SWATJester 18:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Well consensus during one RS/N discussion isn't the last word on the subject matter. When I used "consensus" I was simply referring to that discussion. Perhaps you should start another discussion at the RS/N or at the NPOV/N or another location where uninvolved editors will respond. Regarding proof vs. accusation -- there is a fairly big distinction between partisan sources accusing some entity of bias and non-partisan sources making similar claims. There is also a fairly big distinction between accusations supported with a fair amount of evidence and those not so supported. The sources you name are mostly of the partisan variety, and of course we do not know the exact claims being made or the context of these claims since you have only enumerated critical sources. Are we talking investigative reportage? Editorializing? etc. I suggest, especially given the previous consensus at the RS/N that you start another discussion there if you wish to re-examine the issue in a forum that isn't as prone to partisanship as an entry talk page.PelleSmith (talk) 18:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Should you take this advice I will gladly stay out of the discussion as well.PelleSmith (talk) 18:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Err, I'm not an "involved editor." I have not edited the article. My only substantive edit to the talk page was a tangent related to the reliability of a source. So Please keep that in mind. Similarly, the statement that the sources I name are "mostly" of the partisan variety is simply not correct, when confronted with sources like The Economist, University of London, and major US newspaper. Some of the other support may have accusations itself of bias a specific direction, but none are explicitly partisan sources, and it's all disputable anyway. But as I said before, it's a tangent, and a deep argument has nothing really to do with the article itself, and in order to remain an uninvolved editor, I'm not intending to pursue it further. ⇒SWATJester 02:48, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- Well you and I are both "involved" on the talk page in question -- right here, right now -- whether or not we have any other edits to this entry or talk page. All I meant by uninvolved was someone not a party to the original conversation we are having or to editing this entry. I'm not sure The New York Sun was ever a "major US newspaper". But from the sources you enumerate as certainly non-partisan context is extremely important. You claim that none of the other sources are "explicitly partisan" in this area. Eh hem. Here is the first line of the lead of NGO Monitor: NGO Monitor is an Israeli non-governmental organization with the stated aim of stopping "certain self-declared 'humanitarian NGOs'" from promoting agendas which are perceived as anti-Israel. I'm not sure you can get more partisan on this subject matter than that. Discover the Networks is one of David Horowitz's projects. Horowitz is also clearly "explicitly partisan" on this subject matter, and the same goes for Alan Dershowitz who has a history of public commentary that is completely pro-Israeli. HRW and AI may in fact have a bias ... against human rights abuses. They have no nationalistic, ethnic or religious bias however, and that is what you, are alleging through these sources. Some of these sources themselves have a very clear nationalistic bias, which is in the public record and which by denying or attempting to downplay you make a very odd impression of your own understanding of the issues at stake.PelleSmith (talk) 12:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- Err, I'm not an "involved editor." I have not edited the article. My only substantive edit to the talk page was a tangent related to the reliability of a source. So Please keep that in mind. Similarly, the statement that the sources I name are "mostly" of the partisan variety is simply not correct, when confronted with sources like The Economist, University of London, and major US newspaper. Some of the other support may have accusations itself of bias a specific direction, but none are explicitly partisan sources, and it's all disputable anyway. But as I said before, it's a tangent, and a deep argument has nothing really to do with the article itself, and in order to remain an uninvolved editor, I'm not intending to pursue it further. ⇒SWATJester 02:48, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not sure the limited discussion on RS/N quite qualifies as consensus, but differentiating between accusations of bias and proof of bias is an academic task, because there's no clear line where such accusations become proof, and it will be disputed by partisans in any event, so there's not much point in the distinction in the first place. ⇒SWATJester 18:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Yes but "accusations of bias" do not equate to proof of bias either. These organizations are accused of bias by pretty much every country they report on (surprise surprise) -- in the Middle East that includes pretty much every country. Also please note that you highlighted criticism of "accuracy" above, which would effect reliability were it true. The RS/N discussion would suggest a consensus there that there is no accuracy issue with these organizations, certainly not one subject to any national bias.PelleSmith (talk) 17:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Exactly. Bias has nothing directly to do with reliability as a source. ⇒SWATJester 17:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
It's very sad to me that on WP these two orgs are considered reliable sources of info and CAMERA is not. When it comes to HRW and AI, I find the work done at NGO Monitor to be solid:
Here's info. from NGO Monitor on HRW:
- Website: www.hrw.org
- Founded 1988 (originally Helsinki Watch, founded in 1978); claimed an annual budget of over $50 million in 2005.
- Based in New York, headed by Kenneth Roth.
- 1997 Nobel Peace Prize for Campaign to Ban Landmines.
- CLAIM: "The hallmark and pride of Human Rights Watch is the even-handedness and accuracy of our reporting. To maintain our independence, we do not accept financial support from any government or government-funded agency."
- In contrast, detailed NGO Monitor analyses demonstrate the disproportionate condemnations of Israeli security policy.
- HRW was an active participant in the 2001 Durban conference, and continues to campaign in favor of boycotts and other measures against Israel.
Here's info. from NGO Monitor on Amnesty International:
- Website: www.amnesty.org
- Founded in 1961 by British lawyer, Peter Benenson.
- Amnesty describes itself as a "worldwide movement of people who campaign for internationally recognized human rights for all."
- Amnesty International claims to be "Independent of any government, political ideology, economic interest or religion… it does not support or oppose any government or political system."
- During the Second Lebanon War in 2006, Amnesty unjustifiably accused Israel of “war crimes” and “deliberate attacks on civilians,” and relied on Lebanese “eyewitnesses” to allege that Hezbollah did not operate in population centers.
- In 2007, Amnesty continued to disproportionately single out Israel for condemnation, focusing solely on the conflict with the Palestinians, misrepresenting the complexity of the conflict and ignoring more severe human rights violations in the region.
- Amnesty International distorts international law – misusing terms like “collective punishment,” “occupying power” and “disproportionate” – in its condemnations of Israel’s Gaza policy.
- In the fiscal year ending March 31, 2007, AI reported an operating budget of approximately £30 million. In prior years, this sum represented "approximately one quarter of the estimated income likely to be raised during the year by the movement´s national sections." The majority of the funds come from individual donors, and Amnesty International does not accept donations from governments or political parties.
It is my hope that anyone who is truly trying to be objective will look into the detailed reports found there. --Einsteindonut (talk) 03:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- As to why CAMERA is not considered reliable you may wish to familiarize yourself with this: Committee_for_Accuracy_in_Middle_East_Reporting_in_America#Misplaced Pages. Of course there are more substantive issues that transcend that little fiasco but after that happened I'm not sure Misplaced Pages can or will ever consider them as credible. NGO Monitor is quite possibly the most partisan organization within the context of this discussion. They are basically an organization with the political goal of discrediting human rights organizations that come out with statements critical of Israel.PelleSmith (talk) 12:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- I'm very familiar with the case and I don't think CAMERA did anything wrong to try to get volunteers involved with WP to help in the extreme bias against Israel readily found here because of these very issues. There sanctions against those involved were completely unfair while the folks working with the Electronic Intifida seem to have gotten off with no problems. Typical "wiki justice." --Einsteindonut (talk) 01:09, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- I think we don't need to go very far with the credibility issues. The problem with the Jenin 2002 incident is that non of these human rights organizations took measures to validate claims which were later found to be bogus blood-libels. This is really not about general reliability but about reliability towards the discussed event - which is clearly lacking. Jaakobou 14:08, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- Good point, Jaakobou. I do think it's important to consider that HWR and AI have only helped to fuel a lot of the blood-libels. It would be helpful if more WP editors could pay more attention to legitimate sources like CAMERA, HonestReporting, and NGO Monitor when looking at these issues rather than slanted left-wing sources which only help fuel misinformation on complex situation in the Middle East for their own biased political reasons. I have found so much of these RS material is from the extreme fringe left. I would hope that more editors at least make an attempt for neutrality, but those who are honestly after it seem very few and far between (maybe b/c of the CAMERA case where WP sanction people for trying to get involved?) Pathetic. Trust me, there's quite a lot of evidence of organized pro-Palestinian campaigns behind the scenes as well. --Einsteindonut (talk) 01:09, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Can I assume that an editor who suggests that avowedly partisan and nationalist campaign groups like CAMERA, HonestReporting and NGO Monitor are "legitimate sources" but implies that mainstream human rights groups, and presumably certain mainstream media sources as well, are the "extreme fringe left" is having a little joke? Neutrality does not mean "agrees with my political viewpoint" you know. --Nickhh (talk) 08:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Original introduction
The current introduction is, to say the least, quite biased. Almost any news report or summary of the battle in Jenin first goes on to discuss Palestinian claims of a massacre. That was the most significant, most publicized, and most stressed part of this event.
For starters, my edit is entirely sourced, so one must have good reasons to remove those sources. The introduction that another user keeps reverting to is flawed in other ways besides what I just mentioned above. It says that subsequent "Israeli investigations" did not find evidence of a massacre. This is VERY misleading. ALL investigations did not find any evidence of a massacre. It further only mentions criticism of Israel from human rights groups, when both the UN and these interest groups criticized Palestinian militants for a number of things during the battle, including endangering Palestinian civilian life. That is not a fair representation, not to mention very inaccurate. To include all points and give an accurate representation of the reception of the battle and a basic representation of these investigations. --Shamir1 (talk) 18:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for your comments. Here's my reply:
- Misplaced Pages is not a newspaper. The history book I used, for one, does not start with the claims of massacre. IMO, the article should start with established facts, and only later move on to (ultimately unsubstantiated) claims. The lead does mention - in summary, of course - those claims.
- Just because it's sourced doesn't mean it should go in the lead, which should be a concise summary of the article.
- As for the "Israeli investigations", I don't mind dropping the word "Israeli".
- The lead doesn't mention criticism, only the aforementioned allegations of massacre.
Cheers. -- Nudve (talk) 18:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- Using one source, one history book, should not drop all other sources from contributing to the lead. I only included plain facts in the introduction, this was in fact, based on an introduction that was used for this article for a long time. The current introduction seems very biased for the reasons I pointed out about. The media controversy and claims of a massacre were the most stressed and yet it is barely mentioned here at all. The closing statement in the introduction: "Subsequent Israeli investigations found no evidence to substantiate these charges; however, international human rights organizations such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International alleged that war crimes had occurred." To "substantiate" these charges? Please tell me exactly what "history book' is this? To correctly reflect reality we would say that Palestinian claims of massacre were never corroborated and that several investigations found no evidence of a massacre at all. That sentence is filled with weasel words.
- Secondly, it only mentions criticism of Israel (from special interest groups/NGOs) in this case, when these same NGOs had a fair share of criticism of Palestinians in Jenin. If you add a short blurb about allegations raised against Israel from these groups, then give an accurate reflection of the report and add a blurb about alleged Palestinian misconduct. Much of the information here in the introduction is selective at best. --Shamir1 (talk) 23:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- If you prefer "corroborated" to "substantiate", that's fine. I'm not sure I understand your point about the criticism of the Palestinians. First you say that the allegations of massacre are the most important aspect of the incident, and then you say that the criticism of the Palestinians should be given as much weight as the allegations of massacre. As I said, the lead summarizes the article, which has a section on the allegations of massacre. The NGOs' accusations are brought within the general context of all of the reports and investigations. HRW and AI's reports are not by themselves are not important enough (and, according to some - see above - not reliable enough) to be given that much weight. Therefore, they are not in the article, and not in the lead. Which words in that sentence are weasel words? Also, this particular sentence is not mine, but a residue from the previous version.
- I'd like to take this opportunity to elaborate on my rationale for rewriting the article. I felt it had too much of what I would call "allegations of no-massacre". IMO, the article should describe what happened, not what didn't happen. If the description of the battle doesn't include a massacre, then that should be enough. No need to "spell it out" for the readers. That makes the article look partisan. -- Nudve (talk) 06:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- Agree with Nudve. The lead is not supposed to document rumors, but facts. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 07:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- If you prefer "corroborated" to "substantiate", that's fine. I'm not sure I understand your point about the criticism of the Palestinians. First you say that the allegations of massacre are the most important aspect of the incident, and then you say that the criticism of the Palestinians should be given as much weight as the allegations of massacre. As I said, the lead summarizes the article, which has a section on the allegations of massacre. The NGOs' accusations are brought within the general context of all of the reports and investigations. HRW and AI's reports are not by themselves are not important enough (and, according to some - see above - not reliable enough) to be given that much weight. Therefore, they are not in the article, and not in the lead. Which words in that sentence are weasel words? Also, this particular sentence is not mine, but a residue from the previous version.
- There is the issue that a big chunk of the battle's claim to notability came from the blood libels. I think there is room to mention it's claim to notability in the lead. Jaakobou 14:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- Firstly, I think the battle would certainly have been notable even without the allegations of massacre. Secondly, about half the lead is pretty much dedicated to them. -- Nudve (talk) 15:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- There is the issue that a big chunk of the battle's claim to notability came from the blood libels. I think there is room to mention it's claim to notability in the lead. Jaakobou 14:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Who here is documenting "rumors"? It is a fact that rumors were made up. That is mentioned in nearly every report, investigation, news story, or what have you on the battle in Jenin. When I said allegations of a massacre are important, I didnt say it is the only thing important, as you may suggest. The AI and HRW reports in the lead are in the version you are asking for; I dont know why youre acting as if I am fighting to put them in when they are there. What I am saying (and I was very clear about this), is that IF you add a blurb in the lead about allegations of Israeli military misconduct from these organizations (as you currently have it), then give a fair representation of these reports from the same investigations and add a blurb about allegations of Palestinian misconduct during the battle in Jenin. It is a matter of accuracy and proper reflection of the source.. And again, this one "history book", which I question, should not cancel out the contributions from so many other reputable Internet sources. --Shamir1 (talk) 22:04, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- Fine. I've just copyedited it and formatted the refs. -- Nudve (talk) 07:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Neutrality and balance in lead and elsewhere
I've popped in and out of this article in the past (as pretty much a neutral and objective editor, even if I've not always been seen that way by some) and checked back on it just now. I'm sorry, but the problems in the lead are worse now than they were. As currently written it presents a seriously one-sided view of events here. For example -
- The second paragraph is devoted purely to prior Israeli casualties and explaining the Israeli justification for the assault in considerable detail. This a) has nothing to do with the battle itself of course and is almost certainly undue weight in the lead, and b) ignores the fact that there are two sides in this conflict, each of whom was inflicting considerable damage on each other before the attacks on the West Bank.
- The third paragraph also is based almost entirely on Israeli claims, eg about the number of militants/fighters killed, about the IDF's efforts to avoid civilian casualties. Even those claims not sourced to the Israeli side appear to be there to highlight negative claims about Palestinian conduct (eg re booby traps). This totally downplays the fact that civilians were killed as a result of direct IDF actions, with some allegedly buried with their houses, others shot in the street etc. That doesn't need to be flagged up as "evil IDF murderers", but equally it shouldn't be brushed over.
- The fourth paragraph talks pretty simplistically about "uncorroborated" Palestinian allegations of deliberate massacres, war crimes and extensive civilian casualties. In reality, Israeli officials were also talking about 100s of people possibly having been killed at the time, and journalists were barred from the camp leading to confusion and also suspicion in the media that the IDF "had something to hide". While it did become clear eventually that there had been no deliberate, widespread massacre in the camp, equally civilians were killed, much of the camp was flattened and individual cases of alleged war crimes were documented (as above). None of this is recorded in the lead as it is.
- The fifth paragraph purports to be a round up of later assessments, and again comes out as "move along, nothing to see here .. those Palestinians made it all up". As ever, the reality is more complex than that, both as to why the original massacre claims gained currency and as to what actually happened in the camp. In addition of course there is a still a body of opinion around the world - it doesn't matter whether you or I think they are right or wrong - that regards an attack on a residential area which kills around twenty civilians as a "massacre".
Sources for all of the above points are already scattered throughout the main parts of the article, and nothing of what I've said is really disputed as far as I'm aware - it's simply about marshalling and summarising the existing known info in order to get a balanced lead. I'm tempted to tag the page for neutrality, but I'll lay off doing that. And can people stop using the phrase "blood libel" on talk pages? I don't see how it helps anything. Thanks. --Nickhh (talk) 08:22, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Would you support a revert to this version? -- Nudve (talk) 08:46, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- It's definitely a better version in my view, as it covers the issue quite broadly (as a lead should, rather than going into intense detail that is better dealt with further down) and doesn't seem to make one-sided judgements about the background to the attack, the assault itself or the disputes that developed over what had occurred in the camp. I'd quibble with one or two of the points in it, but wouldn't everyone? For example, it duplicates the point about the stream of suicide bombers reportedly coming from Jenin, and probably does need a quick note on the final assessment of casualties and consequences, eg -
- The Battle of Jenin took place from April 3 to April 11, 2002 in the refugee camp of Jenin, in the West Bank. It was fought between the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) and Palestinian forces as part of Operation Defensive Shield, during the Second Intifada.
- As part of the operation, which involved invasions of cities and towns all over the West Bank, Israel targeted Jenin's refugee camp, after it determined that the city had "served as a launch site for numerous terrorist attacks against both Israeli civilians and Israeli towns and villages in the area",
including the dispatch of 28 suicide bombers since the start of the Second Intifada.
- As part of the operation, which involved invasions of cities and towns all over the West Bank, Israel targeted Jenin's refugee camp, after it determined that the city had "served as a launch site for numerous terrorist attacks against both Israeli civilians and Israeli towns and villages in the area",
- The IDF denied entry to journalists and human rights organizations, leading to a rapid cycle of rumors that a massacre had occurred. Jenin remained sealed for days after the invasion. Stories of civilians being buried alive in their homes as they were demolished, and of smoldering buildings covering crushed bodies, spread throughout the Arab world. Various casualty figures circulated, reaching into the mid-hundreds. Palestinian sources described the events as "the Jenin massacre", and international media and human rights organizations expressed concerns that a massacre had taken place.
- Subsequent
Israeliinvestigations found no evidence to substantiatethese chargesclaims that a widespread, deliberate massacre had taken place. However large areas of the camp were destroyed and of the xx Palestinians killed in the attack, up to yy were thought to be civilians. zz IDF soldiers were killed. International human rights organizations such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International alleged that war crimes had occurred and criticised the conduct of both sides.
- Subsequent
- I don't want to get over-involved here again, but those are my brief thoughts FWIW. --Nickhh (talk) 09:52, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Actually on reflection, I think I am being a little overgenerous in aiming for balance by suggesting that HRW & AI criticised both sides, based on my memories of them having raised the whole houses-rigged-to-explode issue. In fact the main thrust of both reports, having just checked the HRW & AI websites and run over the headline coverage of the reports in the mainstream media at the time, was overwhelmingly that they were accusing the IDF of having committed war crimes and causing the deaths of civilians. --Nickhh (talk) 10:45, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Small comment about "up to" and HRW and AI reliability for the lead. I think we're already giving undue credence to the unverified claims and we should add the initial claims of "thousands massacred" next to these assertions so that their true credence in regards to Jenin would be clear. Either that or we go by my original suggestion of leaving their "Human Rights" propaganda issue out for the body of the article. Jaakobou 10:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- So while other editors are discussing and agreeing specific edits in detail, you chip in briefly to say you are merely making a general "comment" .. and then suddenly dive in regardless and make major changes without any discussion or agreement? Not good practice I'd have thought. Problems with what you've done -
- 1) You've erased any mention of civilian casualties
- 2) You've confused the issues by suggesting that because there was no (widespread, deliberate) massacre, that human rights groups are wrong in "holding on" to allegations about war crimes. That's just a logical non-sequiter, the points are totally different. Just because it turned out that 100s of civilians weren't killed, as was feared and suggested by many sources including Israeli ones, it doesn't mean that none were. I know that is the narrative favoured in some quarters, but it can't have prominence here.
- 3) You've mangled the English (for example - rumours cannot "purport" a massacre, or indeed anything else)
- 4) You've removed the undisputed fact that the IDF barred entry to the camp, so it now simply says the "camp remained sealed" as if it were due to an act of God
- 5) You've inserted a reference into the lead which is not needed, and in any event appears to be a single example of particulary OTT comment from one Palestinian official, from which you've then created the most exaggerated text you can. This is undue weight of course, by any definition. Most Palestinian officials were talking about 100s not 1000s, and even then were frequently using this figure to refer to casualties of "Defensive Shield" in its entirety.
- 6) You've also left it as suggesting that only (mendacious) Palestinians and (biased) human rights organisations were giving casualty stats that turned out to be wrong, or using the word massacre in some capacity (note as well I'm not sure even how many of these specifically used the phrase "the Jenin massacre"). You know full well of course that Israeli sources were also using similar figures and language. It was also a time of intense confusion - hence why the previous wording was, correctly, much looser while also being more accurate.
- I'm bored of listing them now. --Nickhh (talk) 15:23, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- So while other editors are discussing and agreeing specific edits in detail, you chip in briefly to say you are merely making a general "comment" .. and then suddenly dive in regardless and make major changes without any discussion or agreement? Not good practice I'd have thought. Problems with what you've done -
(outdent)
Replies to the raised concerns:
1) We don't know the number of civilian casualties. Writing the highest possible number is propaganda. I'm willing to add a note that the number of civilians is between X-Y as per 52-56 casualties.
2) I did not say they were wrong, that is your own assumption. A quote reasonable assumption considering that they hadn't fact-checked any of the claims and many of the reported claims were found to be baloney.
3) I'm open to suggestions where English is the problem. I never claimed to be an authority on the matter.
4) What is wrong with "camp remained sealed"? I think it's a clear issue but I'm open to external opinion by uninvolved users to this issue.
5) There are obviously more sources repeating the 'thousands' claim, but mostly they are people repeating the Palestinian claim rather than a head official making it. Thousands is thousands and no one suggested high numbers regarding Nablus. His claims were about Jenin just as Erekat's Live-on-CNN promise of more than 500 "massacred" - in Jenin. Please also note that the mentioned line does not say thousands 'in Jenin' but is written in a more generic tone as the Palestinian speaker used.
6) Gideon Levy is a "Israeli source" - and a couple misquotes on Haaretz were later retracted. Was there any Israeli using the term thousands or was it the Israelis saying that Palestinians are falsly trying to portray the situation as a massacre - I believe sources show it's the latter. To further clarify, I'm quite certain that Israeli officials did no describe the event as a massacre in the international media (current phrasing of article).
Hope I answered all your concerns. Jaakobou 16:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC) clarify 16:12, 4 October 2008 (UTC) further clarify. 16:16, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- This is the precise reason why I chose not to go into detail in the lead in the first place. It worked fine until Shamir1 rewrote the lead unilaterally. I eventually went along with his changes because it seemed at the time like consensus was with him. Now that this is no longer the case, perhaps we can agree on the "minimalist" lead? -- Nudve (talk) 18:52, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- I don't know of any sources claiming there were thousands killed. The UN report said it was 497 in total, and it was widely believed that an Israeli shot dead the head of reconstruction, Iain Hook in Nov 2002, along with 13 other UN workers and serious injury to the Irish woman. PR 19:49, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- "Secretary-General of Palestinian Authority Cabinet Ahmed Abdel Rahman said, "They took hundreds of bodies to northern Israeli to hide their massacre they committed against our people. "This massacre is not less than the massacres committed against the Palestinian people in the refugee camps of Sabra and Shatila in Lebanon." He said thousands of Palestinians were either killed and buried in massive graveyards or smashed under houses destroyed in Jenin and Nablus."
- "Palestinian minister Saeb Erekat said Israelis killed three thousand Palestinians, then lowered the number to five hundred." Donna Rosenthal. The Israelis: Ordinary People in an Extraordinary Land, Free Press, 2003, p. 69. Jayjg 07:11, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- This leads me to believe it's no longer possible to discuss the reliability of sources (even mention of a conviction for denial will lead to an immediate block!).
- So editors will have to judge for themselves whether the project should rely on sources that say "The Nazism of Abu Mazen" Nazism ... still maintains a lethal grip on the minds and souls of many Arabs, particularly the ruling classes. As Israelis know all too well, Nazism was exported to and took root in the Arab world".
- Meanwhile, of course, we have lots and lots of excellent material on this event from even the most acceptable sources, and they cannot be used either in case we document this event accurately. Sadly, more and more of the media record is being cleansed from the archives as every kind of human rights observer and reporter and editor is smeared, sometimes with the openly avowed intention of breaking them personally. PR 09:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC)\
- 1) Newsmax is a news-source aggregator. The opinion piece you note is just one opinion piece from another source, and using search engines to cherry-pick what you imagine to be extremist is disingenuous at best. The source for the quote regarding Ahmed Abdel Rahman is a United Press International story, which is a reliable source. They made these claims of thousands killed. Accept it and move on.
- 2) Stop your ridiculous soap-boxing. I mean it. Stop now. When you comment, comment only and specifically on suggested article text changes, and bring material related only and specifically to that change alone. If you don't stop disrupting article Talk: pages, I am going to start taking more serious action. Jayjg 15:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- There were one or two instances of people talking about a death toll in the 1000s, but these were not the main claims (and as I've said it was not always clear whether they were talking about the whole range of attacks, or simply Jenin. Indeed the Rahman quote cited above is noted as including Nablus). As I have also pointed out many times - I remember the coverage from the time very well - it was a time of real confusion and chaos, as battlegrounds usually are, and no-one really knew what was going on. The IDF had closed the camp to the outside world, there were rumours floating around as well as official and semi-official briefings from both sides talking about 100s being killed. Palestinian spokesmen seemed to have a real fear of another Sabra and Shatila, whether that was justified or not. Anyway, the problem in respect of the article is that the more (as it turned out) inaccurate claims from Palestinians are being highlighted with undue weight in a bid, it would seem, to suggest that the reality of what happened was rather trivial by comparison. Some edits are trying to build a narrative that says "Palestinians and human rights groups deliberately exaggerated what was going on, those reports turned out to be wrong, ergo nothing bad happened in the camp at all and anyone who suggests it did is clinging to a refuted version of events". As ever the real world of events is more complicated and nuanced than that - hence the lead needs to record the basic facts (eg the incursions, the initial confusion about casualties, the final casualty count including the real concerns about civilian deaths) but also be fairly broad and minimalist in what it says, which is where myself & Nudve at least came to an agreement. Quite apart from all the above, leads should of course be concise and clear anyway. I'll remove the POV tag, but personally I'd like to see the lead go back more or less to the recently agreed version prior to these changes. --Nickhh (talk) 08:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Secretary-General of Palestinian Authority Cabinet Ahmed Abdel Rahman and Palestinian minister and spokesman Saeb Erekat are not just random inconsequential voices. Jayjg 15:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Regardless if the claims were deliberate of not, the lead is writing this as rumors without ascribing intentions - i.e. "Various casualty figures circulated" does not ascribe intentionality and it is explained that the camp was closed (please also see my reply to point no.5 above). The rumors, a mixture of true concern, elevation of martyrdom (read: experience dramatization), and a bit of a deplorable war-time tactic; are not being explored for their reasoning within the lead paragraph and we even justify them by adding the note that the camp was sealed (as if that's any type of justification for starting out a baseless global blood-libel). What is written is that the rumors were being reported/echoed/circulated as official claims by Palestinian officials as well as Human Rights activists in the international media. This is a very mild and neutral description of the events. Jaakobou 11:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- I don't know of any sources claiming there were thousands killed. The UN report said it was 497 in total, and it was widely believed that an Israeli shot dead the head of reconstruction, Iain Hook in Nov 2002, along with 13 other UN workers and serious injury to the Irish woman. PR 19:49, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
(move left) First of all, those articles are behind a paywall, so I can't really evaluate their importance. Anyway, I'm not sure I share your concerns. There really was a fog of war in Jenin, and I doubt that the IDF spokesman was motivated by the mixture you mentioned above. It's a bit unfair to suggest that all the newspapers cited were involved in a global blood-libel. The allegations are already described as such, and stressing out the fact that they were unsubstantiated may give the reader a feeling that the article is slanted. -- Nudve (talk) 12:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- The version of the lead suggested by Nickhh at 09:52, 4 October 2008 above looks good to me. I would replaced "after it determined" with "after it deemed", as I've just done in the article; or with "after it decided based on investigation" or "after it stated", etc.; since "after it determined" seems to me to imply that what they stated was necessarily true, and I don't think the term "terrorist" is NPOV, so Misplaced Pages can't assert the Israeli quote.
- Since apparently there is a POV according to which there may be large numbers of civilian casualties buried under the bulldozed ruins, I would change "of the xx Palestinians killed in the attack" in Nickhh's version to "of the 52–56 Palestinians estimated killed in the attack". I would change "up to yy were thought to be civilians" to "about 5–26 of whom were estimated to be civilians". This source (<ref name="israelinsider">) says that 23 IDF soldiers were killed, so I would change "zz IDF soldiers were killed" to "23 IDF soldiers were reported killed." ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 13:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Comment by Jaakobou:
- Status of discussion: I don't mean to be offensive, but I'm getting the feeling that misinformation has crept into this discussion while the new text hasn't been read with an external, uninvolved perspective.
- Clarifying the issues: The 'fog of war' is already mentioned alongside the claims of "thousands massacred". I don't know what IDF spokesman is supposedly quoted here - but no IDF spokesperson went ahead on international media with an official statement alleging a massacre of thousands in Jenin.
- Request of a second review: Please review the current version and make your points in accordance to cite-able material and the written text. Please avoid adding personal interpretations of the text which are not written in it. e.g. there is no assertion to a global blood-libel in the text.
- Other versions: Coppertwig, I'd appreciate some explanation to the advantage in the version suggested by Nickhh. I note to you that he's made a few erroneous suggestions regarding the text and his personal interpretations of it and I've countered these misconceptions by clarifying the text and linking to 3 relevant sources.
- With respect, Jaakobou 14:14, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- The IDF spokesman in question is Ron Kitri, as is mentioned in the article. He indeed said hundreds, not thousands. The "global blood-libel" was quoted from your previous post on this talk page, not the article. -- Nudve (talk) 14:42, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- He said "hundreds" of casualties, meaning both killed and wounded, as was quickly clarified by the IDF. Jayjg 15:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- It seems he did say that hundreds were apparently killed, and yes, his statement was retracted. Again, I'm not trying to support the allegations. I'm just saying that at that time, one did not have to be a blood-libeler to suspect that the death toll was much higher than it actually was, that's all. -- Nudve (talk) 15:26, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- He was speaking in a foreign language, he accidentally used the word "killed" for "casualty", and in English, "casualty" means killed or wounded, but is popularly thought of as meaning "killed". The statement was very quickly clarified, as opposed to the grossly inflated Palestinian claims, which were abandoned only with great reluctance, and even then not abandoned at all by many, including some regular commenters on this Talk: page. Jayjg 15:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- It seems he did say "200 killed" in Hebrew, and then retracted. Again, I'm not saying there were hundreds killed, and it's quite possible that some Palestinians deliberately inflated the numbers. I was just saying that the lead shouldn't suggest that all inflated estimates were/are malicious. -- Nudve (talk) 15:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- You make a good point, but I doubt Kitri's statement, and quick retraction, had any impact on the worldwide condemnation, demonstrations, etc. that targeted Israel. You can be sure that it was the Palestinian statements, combined with a general prejudice against Israel, that were responsible for that. Jayjg 16:15, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- I'm puzzled, I thought it was statements like this from Time Magazine that did it: "The bumptious Prime Minister of Israel outdid himself ... used language that was unusually bald. "The Palestinians must be hit, and it must be very painful," he said. "We must cause them losses, victims, so that they feel a heavy price." He went on to do just that, unleashing a broader military offensive than anything seen so far in the past 17 months of fighting." Even the US, Colin Powell criticised him for it. PR 17:32, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- No, you're not "puzzled", you're just soapboxing again. It's unlikely that an article in Time magazine, printed weeks before the events in Jenin, and discussing total deaths of just over 100 on the Palestinian side, and around 50 on the Israeli side, would cause people to imagine a massacre of hundreds or thousands had happened in Jenin. Please stop wasting everyone's time. Jayjg 20:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- I'm puzzled, I thought it was statements like this from Time Magazine that did it: "The bumptious Prime Minister of Israel outdid himself ... used language that was unusually bald. "The Palestinians must be hit, and it must be very painful," he said. "We must cause them losses, victims, so that they feel a heavy price." He went on to do just that, unleashing a broader military offensive than anything seen so far in the past 17 months of fighting." Even the US, Colin Powell criticised him for it. PR 17:32, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- You make a good point, but I doubt Kitri's statement, and quick retraction, had any impact on the worldwide condemnation, demonstrations, etc. that targeted Israel. You can be sure that it was the Palestinian statements, combined with a general prejudice against Israel, that were responsible for that. Jayjg 16:15, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- It seems he did say "200 killed" in Hebrew, and then retracted. Again, I'm not saying there were hundreds killed, and it's quite possible that some Palestinians deliberately inflated the numbers. I was just saying that the lead shouldn't suggest that all inflated estimates were/are malicious. -- Nudve (talk) 15:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- He was speaking in a foreign language, he accidentally used the word "killed" for "casualty", and in English, "casualty" means killed or wounded, but is popularly thought of as meaning "killed". The statement was very quickly clarified, as opposed to the grossly inflated Palestinian claims, which were abandoned only with great reluctance, and even then not abandoned at all by many, including some regular commenters on this Talk: page. Jayjg 15:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- It seems he did say that hundreds were apparently killed, and yes, his statement was retracted. Again, I'm not trying to support the allegations. I'm just saying that at that time, one did not have to be a blood-libeler to suspect that the death toll was much higher than it actually was, that's all. -- Nudve (talk) 15:26, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- He said "hundreds" of casualties, meaning both killed and wounded, as was quickly clarified by the IDF. Jayjg 15:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- The IDF spokesman in question is Ron Kitri, as is mentioned in the article. He indeed said hundreds, not thousands. The "global blood-libel" was quoted from your previous post on this talk page, not the article. -- Nudve (talk) 14:42, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
(Edit conflict & reset indent). Agreed - I don't see anyone here maintaining that 100s or even 1000s of people were killed in Jenin, so I have no idea what you are talking about Jayjg. The point being made is that people on all sides did at one point or another - for whatever reason, and in whatever context - talk about elevated figures, which fed into a cycle of rumours. One or two Palestinians (yes I know Erekat & Rahman are signigicant figures) on occasion appeared to have gone as high as 1000s - although to make the point again, they appear to have been talking about more than just Jenin. This should not be twisted in the article to a suggested narrative of a deliberate, one-sided bid to defame the IDF and the Israeli nation. Equally the fact that most of these claims turned out to be inaccurate in terms of numbers, does not mean that the article should hint that any mainstream 3rd party reaction (eg from AI, HRW) that nonetheless criticised IDF conduct can be discounted. These are separate points. --Nickhh (talk) 16:02, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- You make some valid points, but there can be no question that the death tolls in Jenin, as well as the nature of the IDF activities, were deliberately distorted, by Palestinians from the top ranks to the man in the street, for purely propaganda purposes. I recall reading a contemporary account by Middle East correspondent Stewart Bell, who was actually in Jenin at the time. He was told by local residents that the IDF had murdered hundreds of Palestinians. When asked where the bodies were, he was told they were being kept in a refrigerated truck, at the top of a hill some distance away. Not content to take their word, he insisted on going to the truck and opening it. It was filled with apples. The propaganda war carried out in the name of Jenin is an important part of the entire Battle, and should not be ignored, downgraded, or whitewashed. Jayjg 16:15, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Can you explain why Israeli spokesmen, with access to the camp, were saying there were 250 dead in the camp? PR 16:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Can you explain why you state an unnamed "Israeli spokesman" had "access to the camp"? Jayjg 20:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- The article he quotes does not even attribute the 250 to an "Israeli spokesman", but rather to unnamed 'military sources' - which could be Palestinian for all we know. NoCal100 (talk) 21:20, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Can you explain why you state an unnamed "Israeli spokesman" had "access to the camp"? Jayjg 20:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Can you explain why Israeli spokesmen, with access to the camp, were saying there were 250 dead in the camp? PR 16:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Arbitrary break
Please quote to me where the text assigns malice to the estimations. I'm not aware that the text does this. Jaakobou 16:31, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- It doesn't. I was referring to this post. I have no objection to the current version if nobody else does. -- Nudve (talk) 16:42, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
(ec) Thank you for your comments, Jaakobou. I've taken a closer look, comparing the current version with Nickhh's proposal.
The first two paragraphs are the same in both versions (except for "deemed").
I agree that simply stating that the camp "remained sealed" fails to attribute this action to a particular party; on the other hand, Nickhh's version seems to me to give undue prominence to "The IDF denied entry" by placing it at the beginning of a paragraph; and asserting that it's the cause of the rumours seems to be OR or at least probably non-NPOV. Also, "reaching into the mid-hundreds" gives the reader more information. I therefore suggest the following for the 3rd paragraph:
- During the fighting, a rapid cycle of rumors purported that a massacre of as many as thousands of Palestinians had occurred. While the IDF denied entry to journalists and human rights organizations during the invasion, stories of civilians being buried alive in their homes as they were demolished, and of smoldering buildings covering crushed bodies, spread throughout the Arab world. Various casualty figures circulated,
reaching into the mid-hundreds, as Palestinian sources, as well as human rights organizations, described the events as "the Jenin massacre" in the international media.
- Comment by Jaakobou regarding 2nd para suggestion:
- If we're changing the number mid paragraph, then it makes little to no sense to the reader and the rumored numbers (not what the media was willing to report) were higher than "mid".
- Israelis were going as high as between 100 and 200 (Kitrey was misquoted). and mostly focused on saying that the Palestinians are lying. I tend to believe that the 'no less than 500 massacred in Jenin' statements by Erekat on CNN as well as the Israeli "they are lying" responses are undue for the lead.
- With respect, Jaakobou 17:21, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Re the last paragraph: To me, the first two sentences give the impression that no deaths occurred. "in the clashes" claims that all deaths were by people fighting, which is not universally accepted. "held on to allegations" seems to me to imply that the allegations are false. "52–56 Palestinians were killed" asserts too much certainty, ignoring Derrick Pounder's POV. I therefore suggest for the last paragraph:
Subsequent investigations found no evidence to substantiate claims that a massacre had taken place.Overall, 52-56 Palestinians were estimated killed — 5 to approximately 26 of whom estimated as civilians — while 23 IDF soldiers were reported killed as well, and a large area in the camp was destroyed as a result of the fighting. Human rights organizations alleged that war crimes had been committed in the fighting and criticized the conduct of both sides.
In reply to Jayjg: it would be interesting to see reliable sources for such statements. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 16:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- I don't like the separation between 5 and 26. Also, I believe that Human Rights organizations did not verify any of their statements not while the aforementioned Derrick Pounder was alleging a massacre not after wards - it's basically a repetition of the war crime claims made while they were claiming a massacre only that now they added some allegations that the Palestinians made some violations as well. I appreciate your efforts here, but I'm not a fan of these changes. Jaakobou 17:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Re "mid-hundreds": good point, it already says "thousands" earlier in the paragraph – I hadn't noticed that – so the "mid-hundreds" bit can be left out.
- How about "approximately 5–26"? I think it's misleading to just say "26", since the source is vague about this number.
- I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Are you disputing whether Pounder's POV is worth taking into account? Well, Pounder is mentioned later in the article, so if the lead asserts that a certain number were killed, it's contradicting a POV reported later in the article, making the article self-contradictory or implying that Pounder's POV is necessarily wrong, which seems to me to violate NPOV. Do you see any problem with inserting the word "estimated"? I've given a reason to put it in (i.e. NPOV); I'm not aware of any reason to leave it out. It doesn't seem to me to be doing any harm. If you have problems with other parts of the changes I suggested, please specify them too.
- By the way, I don't know what the usual practice is on this page, but I prefer not to have comments interspersed within other comments; and if you do, it may help to use the {{interrupted}} template. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 17:42, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- I've taken up on the "approximately" suggestion - it was a fair suggestion. I'll be back for further discussions tomorrow or maybe later today. Cheers, Jaakobou 18:02, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Derek Pounder (forensic expert, the only one known to have visited, examined 2 bodies) said to the BBC: "I must say that the evidence before us at the moment doesn't lead us to believe that the allegations are anything other than truthful and that therefore there are large numbers of civilian dead underneath these bulldozed and bombed ruins that we see." I'm not aware that he retracted any of this, perhaps you can point me to the right places.
- David Holley (military expert with Amnesty) said to the BBC: "it just appears there was no wholesale killing". Then he says: "That is a fact, that is a war crime. You cannot stop medical services from administering to the wounded. These are facts we have at the moment that cannot be disputed and need to be investigated." Then he says: "some very credible witnesses have come forward who have told stories of how they have seen executions. 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." If we need to quote him saying "no massacre" (and I think he's the only independent visitor who said that) then we should balance it by quoting the other things he said, rather than giving undue weight to the words "no massacre", which are perhaps a minor element of what he said.. PR 18:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- I've taken up on the "approximately" suggestion - it was a fair suggestion. I'll be back for further discussions tomorrow or maybe later today. Cheers, Jaakobou 18:02, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- PalestineRemembered,
- I want to thank you for making my point for me about the credibility of the Human Rights organizations in regards to the Jenin allegations against Israel.
- Cheers, Jaakobou 18:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Except for the fact the accusations and propaganda were all about "wholesale killings" and "massacres". Remember? On the scale of Sabra and Shatila? As for Holley's "credible witnesses", were these the same ones that claimed a truck full of apples and supplies was actually a truck full of dead bodies? Jayjg 20:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Hmm, this seems to have spiralled a little off point into bickering about what's the supposed "truth" rather than focusing on attribution, reliable sourcing and verifiability, and also, more disturbingly, into apparent slurs against any cited witness who happens to be Palestinian. As for the article - the lead as it stands needs, if nothing else, a bit of copyediting. Plus I'm still a little unhappy personally with the substantive changes that Jaakobou made a while back, as per my post higher up. Having said that, I neither want to sit here and carp on the talk page, nor revert those changes and end up in a spat over minor edits, so I'm dropping out. I'm assuming others will tweak the wording, hopefully for the better. --Nickhh (talk) 22:46, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Well, honestly Nick, what do you think of someone who brings, as evidence, a "forensic expert" who found only two bodies, but was quite sure "there are large numbers of civilian dead underneath these bulldozed and bombed ruins that we see", and, in fact, believes him to be correct, despite the fact that the bodies of those alleged civilians have never been found in the six years since Jenin? These kinds of comments move beyond the realm of ridiculous and squarely into that of self-parody. If I didn't know better, I would think he was playing us all for fools for even bothering to respond. Jayjg 23:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- One of the autopsies carried out by Professor Pounder was that of Wadah Shalabi, an unarmed man shot in the back in a narrow alleyway after he'd come out and given himself up. Major-General Giora Eiland, Head of the IDF Plans and Policy Directorate, confirms this incident. Israel was given the first names of two of the soldiers who carried out this double killing (a third man miraculously survived by feigning death for an hour). There has been no investigation - the UN team was blocked from Israel.
- Pounder travelled from the UK and was at the the Israeli High Court on the 14th trying to get access for medical organizations. He was finally able to reach the hospital on the 17th, by which time, all the bodies "lay in piles of earth in the hospital grounds, but Professor Pounder was not allowed to enter to carry out forensic examinations" again according to Amnesty.
- There were a number of specific items found in the RS which were introduced for "mediation", above. Perhaps we could have administrator assistance to counter some of the objections raised - it is difficult to credit that "This is just insinuation and hearsay" is an objection based on policy - especially not when the sources are the Telegraph, FOX news and Haaretz. PR 17:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- PR, what does any of that have to do with the still undiscovered "large numbers of civilian dead underneath these bulldozed and bombed ruins that we see"? Nothing, of course. Stop ]. Jayjg 00:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- PalestineRememebred,
- I can't find the part of the Amnesti report that says Wadah Shalabi was shot "after he'd come out and given himself up". I did notice a mention of a suicide bomb belt however. Can you please clarify this part of your note?
- With respect, Jaakobou 18:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- Well, honestly Nick, what do you think of someone who brings, as evidence, a "forensic expert" who found only two bodies, but was quite sure "there are large numbers of civilian dead underneath these bulldozed and bombed ruins that we see", and, in fact, believes him to be correct, despite the fact that the bodies of those alleged civilians have never been found in the six years since Jenin? These kinds of comments move beyond the realm of ridiculous and squarely into that of self-parody. If I didn't know better, I would think he was playing us all for fools for even bothering to respond. Jayjg 23:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Hmm, this seems to have spiralled a little off point into bickering about what's the supposed "truth" rather than focusing on attribution, reliable sourcing and verifiability, and also, more disturbingly, into apparent slurs against any cited witness who happens to be Palestinian. As for the article - the lead as it stands needs, if nothing else, a bit of copyediting. Plus I'm still a little unhappy personally with the substantive changes that Jaakobou made a while back, as per my post higher up. Having said that, I neither want to sit here and carp on the talk page, nor revert those changes and end up in a spat over minor edits, so I'm dropping out. I'm assuming others will tweak the wording, hopefully for the better. --Nickhh (talk) 22:46, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Wait a second: the UN report says "at least 52 Palestinians, of whom up to half may have been civilians". We need to get the idea of "at least" into the article: otherwise we're misrepresenting the source. And I think we need to stop saying 26. "Up to half" of "at least 52" is not necessarily 26. It's going to be hard to word it concisely. Here's another try at the last paragraph:
- Subsequent investigations found no evidence to substantiate claims that a massacre had taken place. Official estimates of overall Palestinian deaths were variously 56 and "at least 52" — of whom up to approximately half may have been civilians — while 23 IDF soldiers were reported killed as well, and a large area in the camp was destroyed as a result of the fighting. Human rights organizations alleged that war crimes had been committed in the fighting and criticized the conduct of both sides.
☺ Coppertwig (talk) 01:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- Heyo Coppertwig,
- I'm sorry for the idiom and I'm sure this is not intentional, but it feels like when given a finger, you reach for the whole arm (allow me to exlain...). "Up to" is based on the 'most credible' witnesses who were mostly busy fabricating stories of dead bodies under the rubble or in Army food supply containers and claiming fighters were unarmed civilians (please review the references from above for some examples). Still, I've agreed to a pro-Palestinian presentation of the civillian toll without any criticism to the bogus accounts and I cannot understand on why you refuse to accept this good will gesture and push further for total elimination of the actual civilian casualty tolls. Please clarify your position and why you now suggest we should be writing more than 26 civilian casualties. Jaakobou 01:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I just wanted to state my opposition to some of the recent changes. I believe that some of these attempts at restoring "neutrality" have gone in excess of neutrality into overt bias in favor of the opposite side. While this article can and should present Israeli and Palestinian narratives of the event in question, it is important that this article distinguish between externally verified fact and unverified one-sided narratives. Moreover, while the article may discuss these unverified narratives, it should not give them undue weight; rumors promulgated by one-side or the other should certainly not be given more prominence in the article than the actual externally verified events which took place. ← Michael Safyan 07:21, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- Can you be more specific? What undue weight was given to the rumors in the previous lead? Also, a long discussion was held yesterday, and a relative consensus was pretty much agreed on. I respect your objection, but it's not nice to simply revert so far back just because you disagree. Also, you have removed some good later edits and a copyvio tag (which I hope Coppertwig will be willing to retract now, although he has not posted since I changed the text). I don't want to get into an edit war, but I would appreciate some cooperation. Thanks. -- Nudve (talk) 16:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- Heyo Nudve,
- I personally thought we were making some progress until Coppertwig clarified to me that he's unhappy with a slightly pro-Palestinian version and he wants the article written to the Palestinian narrative. It's a shame that some progress has been reverted - I do agree that some major clear-cut issues were removed but I saw some good in the clean version as well. I'm hoping we can get the discussion back on track, but that this time editors will not try to push the "allegations as truth" perspective since it's already been established that this is not only false for the massacre claims but under serious contention for everything else as well. Jaakobou 18:18, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- Jaakobou, as I already said, I support a "minimalist" lead, since going into detail is bound raise allegations of bias. I could go with either your version or Nickhh's. I also agree with your recent objection to Coppertwig's suggestion to emphasize the "at least" part. However, as I said to Michael Safyan above, I don't like the current - Shamir1's - lead. -- Nudve (talk) 18:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
In response to the request for details... the problem with this diff is that it minimizes the rationale for Israeli operations in Jenin while going into major detail (and providing a very sensationalist presentation) of the massacre rumors. If that much detail of the massacre rumors are going to be provided, then a similar amount of detail about the Israeli rationale for Defensive Shield should also be provided. Furthermore, this sensationalist presentation of the rumors leaves the reader wondering how we know that they are rumors and not truths, since the newer version simply says that the claims are unsubstantiated whereas the older version cites the various agencies and individuals who have stated that a massacre did not take place. Additionally, the change completely elides any information about the Passover massacre, which was "the straw that broke the camel's back", so-to-speak, and which was a major motivation -- if not the key motivation -- for the IDF entering Jenin. Also: it is dismissive of the Israeli footage showing a faked funeral, it emphasizes Palestinian suffering and Israeli war crimes while having elided any mention of the Passover massacre, it emphasizes Palestinian rejection of the UN report and continuing claims that a massacre took place while removing almost all of the material refuting the claim that a massacre took place. There are other problems (e.g. it uses the nonsensical phrase "risking civilians"), but those are the main ones. ← Michael Safyan 23:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- First of all, the Passover massacre has its own article. Second, it is important as a rationale for launching Operation Defensive Shield in general, not for this particular battle. Excessive information about it here would be undue, and stating it in the lead would sound "apologetic", when there's no reason for apologetics. Just like not every battle in the Pacific War should detail the Attack on Pearl Harbor. IMO, the fact that the Palestinian leadership rejected the UN report and stuck to the claims of massacre is very notable. Again, the article says, as fact, that there was no massacre, and that the allegations are just allegations, which is why I think adding "refutations" on top of them would be "pushing it". I don't think the article is dismissive of the footage of a fake funeral, but you can rewrite that paragraph if you want. Ditto for specific phrases like "risking civilians" (which was itself a rephrase because Coppertwig suspected copyvio). Anyway, the main issue, as can be seen from this discussion is the lead, and I really don't think there's consensus for the current one. Cheers. -- Nudve (talk) 07:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- I'm thinking there is room to add a little more detail into the minimalist version for the reasoning to attack (add the 28 suicide bombers bit and the nickname of the city) and to reduce the rumors section a little as well with a touch more volume to the "no massacre" bit. I remind everyone that this is supposed to be a hint for the article and not the entire detailing of the article. That said, there is no way that the rumors should be told as truthful. I thought we had a reasonable version, though personally, I felt the 'civilians' bonus is what got us into trouble to begin with. Should I make a rewrite suggestion or are there objections to my compromise suggestion? Jaakobou 08:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- I'll repeat as well that while the background is of course relevant to a point, there is indeed a real risk of overloading it. No other WP article does or should go into huge detail in a lead about this sort of thing. In my view the lead itself doesn't need to say much more than "during the second intifada", in the same way - to continue Nudve's point - that the assault on Iwo Jima is said to have taken place simply "during the Second World War". People can link to the second intifada article, and of course more detail can go in a background section in the main part here (and I would add should not merely focus on Israeli casualties, but that's another debate). As for the massacre point - it is I think relevant that very high figures and fears of a Sabra/Shatila were being floated. This was a significant feature of the media coverage at the time, although there is a key separate dispute about the extent to which these claims were some kind of blood libel as opposed to the result for the most part of general confusion; and also I think we still need to bear in mind the distinction between a deliberate, widescale massacre (which did not happen) and an assault on a populated area which nonetheless kills several civilians, some in questionable circumstances (which is what happened). All in all that's why I favoured a lead which, broadly and concisely, says - a) an assault took place during a period of widespread violence and as part of a wider operation; b) there were fears at the time of a serious massacre and a death toll in the 100s (as suggested at one point or another by ALL sides, and given momentum by the closure of the camp), most of which proved incorrect; c) nonetheless once the fog had cleared the evidence suggests that some pretty bad things happened, even if not on the scale originally feared. I know I said I'd drop out, but I hope I'm merely restating my position rather than carping. --Nickhh (talk) 08:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- Sure, I'd love to see Jaakobou's suggestion. -- Nudve (talk) 09:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- I have a few obligations but will get around to a rewrite suggestion in a few days. Jaakobou 08:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- Sure, I'd love to see Jaakobou's suggestion. -- Nudve (talk) 09:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- I'll repeat as well that while the background is of course relevant to a point, there is indeed a real risk of overloading it. No other WP article does or should go into huge detail in a lead about this sort of thing. In my view the lead itself doesn't need to say much more than "during the second intifada", in the same way - to continue Nudve's point - that the assault on Iwo Jima is said to have taken place simply "during the Second World War". People can link to the second intifada article, and of course more detail can go in a background section in the main part here (and I would add should not merely focus on Israeli casualties, but that's another debate). As for the massacre point - it is I think relevant that very high figures and fears of a Sabra/Shatila were being floated. This was a significant feature of the media coverage at the time, although there is a key separate dispute about the extent to which these claims were some kind of blood libel as opposed to the result for the most part of general confusion; and also I think we still need to bear in mind the distinction between a deliberate, widescale massacre (which did not happen) and an assault on a populated area which nonetheless kills several civilians, some in questionable circumstances (which is what happened). All in all that's why I favoured a lead which, broadly and concisely, says - a) an assault took place during a period of widespread violence and as part of a wider operation; b) there were fears at the time of a serious massacre and a death toll in the 100s (as suggested at one point or another by ALL sides, and given momentum by the closure of the camp), most of which proved incorrect; c) nonetheless once the fog had cleared the evidence suggests that some pretty bad things happened, even if not on the scale originally feared. I know I said I'd drop out, but I hope I'm merely restating my position rather than carping. --Nickhh (talk) 08:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
I apologize for a sentence in my proposed draft above, which I am striking out. I had copied the sentence from the article and included it without critical analysis. The Palestinian report submitted to the Secretary-General attached to the UN report says "In addition, it is probable that a massacre and a crime against humanity might have been committed in the Jenin refugee camp ..." There may be other errors in my proposed draft. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 14:38, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- Coppertwig, you really need to start reading more carefully. The sentence you quote above is NOT part of the UN report, but rather the claims of the Palestinian delegation to the UN, attached to the UN report and is clearly labeled as such in the document you are citing, under the heading "Palestinian report submitted to the Secretary-General". The UN report itself says the opposite. NoCal100 (talk) 17:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- Thankyou for doing that, the UN report mentions "massacre" as a given a number of times. Are you aware there's another clear (indeed ridiculous) error in there? The UN report does not say 52-56 dead, it says "55. Press reports ... and subsequent interviews ... suggest that an average of five Palestinians per day died in the first three days of the incursion and that there was a sharp increase in deaths on 6 April. 56. Fifty-two Palestinian deaths had been confirmed by the hospital in Jenin by the end of May 2002. IDF also place the death toll at approximately 52. A senior Palestinian Authority official alleged in mid-April that some 500 were killed, a figure that has not been substantiated in the light of the evidence that has emerged." Similarly, the EU assumes that the 55 bodies are not the final death toll, since there are bodies under the rubble. PR 15:36, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- PR, I'm sure you've read the Amnesty International report, since you've quoted from it several times. This report, written in November 2002, more than 6 months after the event, states very clearly that
. So, if AI says 54 were killed, and all but 1 camp resident is accounted for, whose bodies are supposedly still under the rubble, 6 years afterward? NoCal100 (talk) 17:06, 9 October 2008 (UTC)'After the IDF temporarily withdrew from Jenin refugee camp on 17 April, UNRWA set up teams to use the census lists to account for all the Palestinians (some 14,000) believed to be resident of the camp on 3 April 2002. Within five weeks all but one of the residents was accounted for. '
- When the blizzard of accusations about soap-boxing (aimed just at edits bringing documented information, not speculating on anything) has died down a bit, I'll get back to you on this one. But I won't be able to tell you why Amnesty write "According to hospital lists reviewed by Amnesty International there were 54 Palestinian deaths", when we know, from the same source, that "not a single corpse was brought into the hospital from 5 until 15 April" (and only 10 wounded made it through the blockade in the same period, with similar very small numbers to the Al-Shifa and Al-Razi hospital).
- What we can say with certainty is that the conclusions of the report could be written into the article with far less difficulty: "In Jenin and Nablus the IDF carried out actions which ... are war crimes."
- Or we could sample the conclusions of some of the many observers - even the very few who said "No massacre" leave us in no doubt there were many, many more bodies. 'Bad things did happen - we had no choice' is one in the UK Telegraph "in a reconstruction of the campaign, Philip Jacobson on the West Bank finds that this was no indiscriminate massacre ... The sickening stench of decomposing corpses that hangs over the camp signals that while the final death toll may never be precisely established, there will be more, perhaps many more, names to add to the civilian casualty list." PR 20:40, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- No, please get back to me on this NOW, and stop dodging and soapboxing: if AI says 54 were killed, and all but 1 camp resident is accounted for, whose bodies are supposedly still under the rubble, 6 years afterward? NoCal100 (talk) 21:08, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- I'm puzzled by this apparent demand that I accept every word of the Amnesty report as true, and I'm sure it's some form of personal failing on my part that I have difficulty with this. But I'll grant you the Amnesty people have a high degree of integrity and most of their report is indeed accurate. The Amnesty report's biggest weakness is probably where it's re-publishing the work of some other body, and in those cases we avoid error by going to the source. The BBC makes just this mistake later, telling us that the UN report says "No Massacre", when it clearly does not. PR 23:02, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- I see, you'd rather only accept as true those words which support your POV, but disregard the rest, is that it? Once again: if AI says 54 were killed, and all but 1 camp resident is accounted for, whose bodies are supposedly still under the rubble, 6 years afterward? Will an answer to this be forthcoming anytime soon? NoCal100 (talk) 23:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- I'll accept what Amnesty say for themselves, I'll accept what UNWRA say for themselves. Well, I'll accept what UNWRA say when their staff are no longer shot at, threatened and detained - or indeed shot dead, like Iain Hook, head of reconstruction and some 13 other UN workers in 2002 alone.
- Until that time, we'll just have to write this article to accurately reflect how most journalists and experienced international observers actually reported it, won't we? That's only what policy says we should be doing. PR 18:51, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- What Amnesty say for themselves is that 54 were killed, and all but one resident of the camp were accounted for by November 02. So, going by what experienced international observers actually report, we can safely state in the article that AT MOST, 55 Palestinians were killed in Jenin, and dispense with the persistent insinuations, that you and other POV-Pushers are attempting to include, that there is some unknown number of civilians still buried beneath the rubble. Let's move on. NoCal100 (talk) 20:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- Why don't we edit the article as if it were part of the Great Soviet Encyclopedia? Then we could cherry-pick sources for the 1% that fits what we want it to say, and ignore the 99% that says something different (and that none of the readers would want to hear anyway). PR 21:04, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- This indeed seems to be what you are after - seeing as you constantly cherry-pick some nearly random AI quote (when it suits your POV), and yet insist that this very clear statement from AI regarding the number of people killed be ignored. But, no, we are not going to edit the article as if it were part of the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, and we are not going to cherry-pick sources for the 1% that fits what we want it to say. AI says, very clearly, that 54 were killed, and all but one resident of the camp were accounted for by November 02. So, we can safely state in the article that AT MOST, 55 Palestinians were killed in Jenin, and dispense with the persistent insinuations, that you and other POV-Pushers are attempting to include, that there is some unknown number of civilians still buried beneath the rubble. NoCal100 (talk) 21:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- Amnesties report is called "Shielded from scrutiny: IDF violations in Jenin and Nablus". Just one tiny part of it matches the Hasbara version of this story, and it's a quote from people with guns held to their heads, who've never told us the same thing ourselves. Let's write the article according to the people who are able to speak freely - here's an Israeli who took part: "Many people were inside houses we started to demolish. They would come out of the houses we where working on. I didn't see, with my own eyes, people dying under the blade of the D-9. and I didn't see house falling down on live people. But if there were any, I wouldn't care at all. ... I am sure people died inside these houses." PR 17:04, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- We will write this article according to what reliable sources say. We will not ignore information that runs contrary to the POV you wish to push. You are advised, once again, to stop claiming that there are still an unknown number of bodies under the rubble, when reliable sources have said the opposite. There is a limit to the amount of sopaboxing that the community will tolerate, before it sees such soapboxing as disruptive. You are pushing that limit. NoCal100 (talk) 18:28, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- Amnesties report is called "Shielded from scrutiny: IDF violations in Jenin and Nablus". Just one tiny part of it matches the Hasbara version of this story, and it's a quote from people with guns held to their heads, who've never told us the same thing ourselves. Let's write the article according to the people who are able to speak freely - here's an Israeli who took part: "Many people were inside houses we started to demolish. They would come out of the houses we where working on. I didn't see, with my own eyes, people dying under the blade of the D-9. and I didn't see house falling down on live people. But if there were any, I wouldn't care at all. ... I am sure people died inside these houses." PR 17:04, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- This indeed seems to be what you are after - seeing as you constantly cherry-pick some nearly random AI quote (when it suits your POV), and yet insist that this very clear statement from AI regarding the number of people killed be ignored. But, no, we are not going to edit the article as if it were part of the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, and we are not going to cherry-pick sources for the 1% that fits what we want it to say. AI says, very clearly, that 54 were killed, and all but one resident of the camp were accounted for by November 02. So, we can safely state in the article that AT MOST, 55 Palestinians were killed in Jenin, and dispense with the persistent insinuations, that you and other POV-Pushers are attempting to include, that there is some unknown number of civilians still buried beneath the rubble. NoCal100 (talk) 21:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- Why don't we edit the article as if it were part of the Great Soviet Encyclopedia? Then we could cherry-pick sources for the 1% that fits what we want it to say, and ignore the 99% that says something different (and that none of the readers would want to hear anyway). PR 21:04, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- What Amnesty say for themselves is that 54 were killed, and all but one resident of the camp were accounted for by November 02. So, going by what experienced international observers actually report, we can safely state in the article that AT MOST, 55 Palestinians were killed in Jenin, and dispense with the persistent insinuations, that you and other POV-Pushers are attempting to include, that there is some unknown number of civilians still buried beneath the rubble. Let's move on. NoCal100 (talk) 20:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- I see, you'd rather only accept as true those words which support your POV, but disregard the rest, is that it? Once again: if AI says 54 were killed, and all but 1 camp resident is accounted for, whose bodies are supposedly still under the rubble, 6 years afterward? Will an answer to this be forthcoming anytime soon? NoCal100 (talk) 23:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- I'm puzzled by this apparent demand that I accept every word of the Amnesty report as true, and I'm sure it's some form of personal failing on my part that I have difficulty with this. But I'll grant you the Amnesty people have a high degree of integrity and most of their report is indeed accurate. The Amnesty report's biggest weakness is probably where it's re-publishing the work of some other body, and in those cases we avoid error by going to the source. The BBC makes just this mistake later, telling us that the UN report says "No Massacre", when it clearly does not. PR 23:02, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- No, please get back to me on this NOW, and stop dodging and soapboxing: if AI says 54 were killed, and all but 1 camp resident is accounted for, whose bodies are supposedly still under the rubble, 6 years afterward? NoCal100 (talk) 21:08, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- PR, I'm sure you've read the Amnesty International report, since you've quoted from it several times. This report, written in November 2002, more than 6 months after the event, states very clearly that
The possiblity that there are as yet undiscovered dead is something of a red herring PR - the final death toll is, six years after the events, pretty definitive according to any reliable source. Higher tolls were feared both during the fighting and in the immediate aftermath, but those fears proved unfounded. The point is though that this certainly does not mean a) those fears were unjustified or motivated by malice at the time when they were expressed; or b) that all the 50-plus who were killed were necessarily nasty terrorists who deserved it and were shot in a fair fight. It is even legitimate - whether you or I agree with that subjective description or not - to describe the smaller death toll as constituting a massacre, if a high proportion of those killed were in fact civilians. Hence why I'm opposed to text in the article which definitively says, without qualification, that "there was no massacre", based simply on the reports which pointed out (correctly) that the death toll was much lower than initially thought. "No widespread massacre" or "no massacre in the hundreds", fine - but not simply "no massacre". There are plenty of WP articles whose actual title is "The XXX Massacre" where a relatively small number of people were killed. And NoCal, I don't see lots of "POV pushers" attempting to have a "still buried under the rubble" thesis included. --Nickhh (talk) 11:42, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- There was no massacre and it would be nice if the disinformation advocacy stops. Simply put, secondary sources agree on that it was a baseless blood-libel (reasoning explained here:) regardless of the number of casualties during what the media now describes as a battle. Allow me to quote the BBC for you: "UN says no massacre in Jenin". I have no objection, however, to Saeb Erekat being noted in the body of the article for his criticism of the UN report though. In fact, I believe we should have a "Palestinian reaction " section. Jaakobou 12:38, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- What "disinformation advocacy"? I am merely pointing out - without necessarily endorsing the claim - the fact that some do view what happened as a massacre, despite the ultimately reduced death toll. The fact that a sub-editor posted a headline that said "no massacre" on a news organisation's website does not settle the matter, or mean that any source or organisation saying something different is therefore wrong (I have no idea what the other links are meant to be showing me). On top of that, the actual text of that BBC story does not actually come to that specific and explicit conclusion, nor does the actual UN report which it is referring to. And for the 50th time, deciding what constitutes a "massacre" involves a subjective judgement based on some combination of the numbers involved, who they were, how they were killed, in what context etc. People will differ in their interpretations of this. You simply are not getting this point, and instead insisting that one interpretation is "right" and the other "wrong" as if it were a simple matter of deductive logic, based on your view and backed up by a cherry-picking of sources that happen to appear to agree with that view. Added to all that you are now making a far more contentious claim than anything I've ever raised, ie that secondary sources "agree" that it was a "baseless blood libel". Any sentence in the lead or elsewhere which simply asserts "there was no massacre", without any qualification or any reference to a different interpretation, is misleading as to what the broader range of opinions and sources actually say. Whether you like that fact or not. --Nickhh (talk) 14:38, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- Nickhh,
- Your assertions were not conditioned to a "some" and you repeat the suggestion that the "massacre" claim is a viable possibility when it's been thoroughly rejected. Basically you want Misplaced Pages to assert the text in a manner that suggests a massacre could have occurred when there is no one saying this, best I'm aware, other than Saeb Erekat. Do you have any reliable sources to support your extraordinary claim?
- Cordially, Jaakobou 23:23, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- My assertions have always been limited to "some". Nor have I ever said there was a massacre - indeed my whole point has always been that you can't be definitive about such a term, and, more importantly, most potential sources aren't either. Arguably the whole debate is a slightly academic distraction anyway. But you asked for sources that, with some distance from the actual events and once the final death toll was clear, do not simply use your preferred, simple "no massacre" text. So here's a quick sample -
- 1) Left wing/partisan sources (yes, not necessarily reliable as sources for fact, but we are talking about interpretation and opinion here, not facts. In addition these are the basic mirror image to the right wing forums and op-eds where the "massacre hoax/myth" line prevails. I am quoting them here to prove something about the spread of opinion on a talk page, not to suggest that all of them would be suitable as references in a WP article itself)
- Workers World - "Some of the best-known massacres in history involved similar numbers of people killed, or even fewer, than the number that Human Rights Watch attributed to Jenin"
- A Counterpuch contributor - "you don't have to spend much time reading the Human Rights Watch report on the events at Jenin to figure out a massacre, as the word is understood colloquially, did happen"
- The Council for Arab-British Understanding - "Israel has only itself to blame for it being labelled a massacre"
- ANSWER Coalition - "in the dictionary, massacre is defined as "savage and indiscriminate killing" clearly an apt description of what took place. Some of the most well-known, historic massacres had fewer or similar numbers killed"
- 2) Palestinian officials:
- Saeb Erekat - "a massacre in Jenin's refugee camp clearly happened... and crimes against humanity also took place .. How many civilians must be killed to speak of a massacre?"
- Ahmed Abdel Rahman - "how many people do you need to kill in order to call it a massacre? Israel calls the killing of 27 people a massacre, and they are right. I call the killing of 20 Palestinians a massacre also. And I am right…The problem is not the number. I am talking here about the methods."
- 3) Mainstream media:
- Australia's ABC - "Was there a massacre in Jenin? Well, yes there was. The Macquarie Dictionary and the OED define a massacre as the unnecessary indiscriminate killing or slaughter of human beings. The UN's report, flawed though it is by being forced to rely on second-hand and often deeply partisan accounts, claims that 75 human beings died, 23 Israeli soldiers and 52 Palestinians, half of them civilians. Were the deaths necessary or discriminate? Not by any measure"
- TIME - "there was no wanton massacre in Jenin, no deliberate slaughter of Palestinians by Israeli soldiers"
- Despite some of the headlines and the Israeli reaction that spun it that way, the UN report itself does not in fact use the simple phrase "there was no massacre". Nor does the November 2002 Amnesty report - which does however talk about "unlawful killings". The HRW report does say they found "no evidence to sustain claims of massacres or large-scale extrajudicial executions by the IDF in Jenin refugee camp", but again this is a qualified statement, and is then immediately further qualified by the remark that "many of the civilian deaths documented by Human Rights Watch amounted to unlawful or willful killings by the IDF". The simple point is that no single independent primary source actually says "there was no massacre", and the secondary sources - both WP:RS and others - take a mixed view. Jaakobou, you may not agree with what a lot of these sources say and think, but please don't pretend that those views and opinions don't exist out there in the world beyond your head. And - eventually to the point after yet another long essay - don't insist on inserting definitive assertions into pages here based on that denialism. --Nickhh (talk) 14:28, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
- I (also) apologize for the error in my message of 14:38, 9 October 2008, and I thank NoCal100 for pointing it out; I've inserted some words in italics into that message which I hope suffice to correct it.
- Jaakobou, thank you for your reply of 01:55, 6 October 2008. I would appreciate it if you would tell me where "most credible witnesses" is quoted from, and which parts of which references contain the information you wish to draw my attention to. Re agreeing to pro-Palestinian presentation of the death toll: I'm new to editing this article, so I'm not aware of past compromises. Clearly, a lot of work has gone into the article and I congratulate those who participated for producing an article that supplies a lot of information in a concise and well-organized way. The article should present all points of view, including pro-Palestinian and pro-Israeli, without asserting or implying that those points of view are correct. I'm sorry but before I can appreciate any compromises that may have taken place, I would have to see the arguments (based on reliable sources and Misplaced Pages policy) for the positions from which compromises were made. Also, I'm sorry but I may not have fully absorbed all the comments in this discussion; feel free to give me pointers to individual comments in this thread or from previous discussions that might have bearing on what we're discussing. You said, "I cannot understand on why you refuse to accept this good will gesture": I'm trying to make the article what I would see as NPOV, so I'm not likely to appreciate any offer to make the article into what I would see as pro-Palestinian (though the pro-Palestinian POV and all other significant POVs need to be described in the article). I wasn't aware of any good-will gesture having been made, I'm sorry (and I'm still not clear on what it was,) and I didn't refuse to accept it. I simply offered a draft version of the lead for discussion. I'm sorry for not fully incorporating all progress from the preceding discussion in my draft; I didn't have time to absorb everything.
- Jaakobou, you said, "and push further for total elimination of the actual civilian casualty tolls." I'm not doing that. I don't know what tolls you mean. You're welcome to suggest changes to the draft lead I posted. I don't think there's any such thing as "actual" tolls; all we have is tolls reported by various sources, sources which may vary in reliability and about whose reliability opinions may vary.
- Jaakobou, you said "Please clarify your position and why you now suggest we should be writing more than 26 civilian casualties." To clarify: I did not suggest that we should be writing more than 26 civilian casualties; my suggested draft version is given in paragraphs in italics above. Please feel free to ask me other specific questions about my position.
- Jaakobou, you said, "I personally thought we were making some progress until Coppertwig clarified to me that he's unhappy with a slightly pro-Palestinian version and he wants the article written to the Palestinian narrative." I did not clarify that to you and that is not my position. When representing what I've said, if in doubt, quoting entire sentences of mine word-for-word will usually avoid misunderstandings. What I've actually said can be seen in my own posts above.
- NoCal100, you said, "So, going by what experienced international observers actually report, we can safely state in the article that AT MOST, 55 Palestinians were killed in Jenin..." I disagree; I think that would be original research: or is there a source stating that at most 55 Palestinians were killed? It would also violate NPOV. If there is such a source, we can present that as one of a number of points of view. Again, we must present all significant points of view: the Misplaced Pages article should not assert one position as being true.
- NoCal100, you said, "You are advised, once again, to stop claiming that there are still an unknown number of bodies under the rubble, when reliable sources have said the opposite." In the message by PR of 17:04, 11 October 2008 (UTC) which you were apparently responding to, I don't see any such claim. Instead, I see comments about the level of reliability of various sources, and two quotes. Discussing the level of reliability of various sources is a normal and necessary part of article talk page discussions. We should not be claiming or trying to convince each other that there are or are not bodies beneath the rubble or that there was or was not a massacre, and as far as I can see PR was not doing that in that comment. Instead, we should be discussing reliability of sources, what the sources say, how the statements by various sources can be presented with due weight, etc.; PR's comment seems to me to fall in that category.
- I agree with Nickhh that we should not say simply "no massacre"; I would add that we also should not say that there was a massacre, and we
probablyshouldn't say that there may have been a massacre. I agree that "massacre" is a subjective term and could possibly be applied to a situation where about 50 people were killed, therefore a source that states that there were about 50 people killed cannot necessarily be interpreted as stating that there was no massacre. We can report established facts in terms with more specific definitions than "massacre"; we can also quote various sources saying various things using the words "massacre" or "no massacre". We must present a variety of points of view, not assert that one interpretation is true. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 22:59, 12 October 2008 (UTC)- We have a highly credible source that says, 6 months after the fact, that a total of 54 bodies were identified, and that all but one resident of the camp has been accounted for. So, no, it is neither original research nor a violation of NPOV to rephrase this as "55 killed, at most". I'm not opposed, however, to stating this exactly as AI has reported it, and attributing it to AI. I was not responding directly to PR's message of 17:04, 11 October 2008, but rather to his "body of work" on this page, which is full of insinuations that the total body count is still today, 6 years after the fact, in some doubt, and that it might be in the hundreds. (See for example his message of 23 July 2008: "a "Jenin Investigation", still finding complete bodies 3 months later. (We don't have a source and can't say what this might do to the death toll).", or 14 September "we can now say for certainty that the death toll amongst Palestinians was at least twice what Israel later tried to claim that it") NoCal100 (talk) 17:51, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Copyright violation
I consider the current version of the "Report" section to be a copyright violation. It contains many sentences taken word-for-word from the source, without quotation marks; so many that I think even if we were to put them in quotation marks it would still be a copyright violation.
I'm not trying to suppress any information. The most important parts of the source can be summarized, paraphrased, even quoted to some extent. And the reader is of course free to look at the source itself if they want to get the full story.
Maybe we can find some other sources to flesh out the section without quoting too much from any one source.
I paraphrased, reworked and shortened the section to a version which in my opinion is not a copyright violation. However, my edit was reverted.
Please discuss. We need to arrive at a version that is not a copyright violation.
I'm listing this at the WP:Copyright problems noticeboard, and I've blanked the section and displayed a copyright template. Please leave the section blanked until an admin handles it (normally in about a week). Meanwhile, we can discuss and negotiate a new version of the section (without actually displaying it). The text is still there, it's just not visible due to the template, so it can still be edited. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 19:08, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- I've done some rewriting to this section. Tell me what you think. -- Nudve (talk) 19:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry I didn't have time to look at it yet. However, I may have told you the wrong procedure: maybe the copyrighted text is supposed to stay under the blanking template, and new text developed elsewhere e.g. Talk:Battle of Jenin/Temp. See instructions on the template itself and at WP:CP. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 12:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, the procedure isn't very clear. I'm not sure whether a report can be retracted or not. I really with you had asked me before doing that. Now it's going to take at least a week before an admin looks at it, and the section may not be touched until then. This really sucks. -- Nudve (talk) 13:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry I didn't have time to look at it yet. However, I may have told you the wrong procedure: maybe the copyrighted text is supposed to stay under the blanking template, and new text developed elsewhere e.g. Talk:Battle of Jenin/Temp. See instructions on the template itself and at WP:CP. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 12:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Temporary page
I have reviewed the temporary page and addressed a few phrases of minor ongoing concern. I have suggested that Nudve copy that material to the article, overwriting the copyright problem, as he or she is the only substantial contributor other than my few words and I am waiving my right to attribution to my contribution there. I believe that the changes made eliminate copyright concerns as relate to the identified source. Thanks. --Moonriddengirl 22:11, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
POV and lead, ongoing
Due to the fact that no progress has been made with this, and the lead has simply been stuck since being reverted to an old one-sided version, I am re-adding the POV tag. I was hoping other editors would at least start to sort this out - I am quite sure if I try to make any changes, they will be reverted. The discussion about this was started in the section above, but to run through some of the specific problems again -
- Para 1 - broadly OK, although it should probably say the battle "took place after an IDF incursion into Jenin refugee camp". They weren't invited in, after all.
- Para 2 - the lead does not need a whole paragraph about the attacks in Israel that preceded it. This detail can be covered in a background section (which should also include attacks against Palestinians) and through a simple wikilink to the Second Intifada article in the lead itself, as there is currently
- Para 3 - more or less says "most of those killed were militants, and any that weren't were probably killed by their own side's boby-traps, and of course the IDF tries not to kill civilians". I don't think this brief account could be more one-sided
- Para 4 - looking through the shoddy grammar, it seems to be suggesting that Palestinians "persistently" accused the IDF of genocide (source please?), deliberately made up death tolls (that's what "inflated" means) etc etc, and that these evil lies made people turn against Israel. There is no mention of the IDF closing the camp (which helped feed into the rumour cycle) or announcing death tolls in the 100s themselves. The relevance of these facts is covered in the UN report and in various journalists' reports, all of which are already cited in the article. Again this is jaw-droppingly one-sided. It also can be covered much more concisely, rather than listing every single accusation about Palestinian accusations, as it were.
- Para 5 - we repeat about four times that "there was no massacre", just in case we weren't clear about this interpretation of what happened. Following on from the para above, this has the effect of ramming home the claim above - that the Palestinians, lefty human rights groups and anti-Israel journalists were all in on a plot to make up a whole bunch of lies, but have now been caught out. There is too much detail and repetition for a lead here, and also the claim that the UN said there was "no massacre ", sourced to a BBC report is simple misrepresentation. I don't see why all the UN, human rights and media reports can't be summarised in the simple - and uncontroversially accurate - phrase "various investigations found that there had been no deliberate massacre of large numbers of Palestinians". The qualification of the word massacre is however crucial.
Still carping, but with good reason. --Nickhh (talk) 15:10, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- That was long. In a nutshell: Can we now revert to the previous lead? -- Nudve (talk) 15:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry! I could have saved 10 minutes of my life doing something more productive as well of course. Anyway, as noted about week ago I'm fine (or as OK as I'm ever likely to be with any exact wording) with the lead you and I discussed back then. I recommend we use that, and then others can of course tweak it or add bits and pieces, so long as - hopefully - they don't just try to rebuild this one in its entirety. --Nickhh (talk) 16:45, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- Good :) -- Nudve (talk) 16:55, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry! I could have saved 10 minutes of my life doing something more productive as well of course. Anyway, as noted about week ago I'm fine (or as OK as I'm ever likely to be with any exact wording) with the lead you and I discussed back then. I recommend we use that, and then others can of course tweak it or add bits and pieces, so long as - hopefully - they don't just try to rebuild this one in its entirety. --Nickhh (talk) 16:45, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oh well, I see someone is already trying precisely to rebuild the old bloated narrative .... --Nickhh (talk) 14:31, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
- Are you suggesting that a note about the casus beli for Operation Defensive Shield is undue? Personally, I figured it is a basic note that explains to the reader what sparked the operation so I'm not really following why you're calling it an "old bloated narrative". Jaakobou 16:12, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
- Yes I am suggesting precisely that, especially to the level of detail you are insisting on. I have explained why on several occasions, and at great length, above. --Nickhh (talk) 16:20, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
- Let's try and get consensus before making changes. Jaakobou, a few days ago you suggested writing a draft, do you still intend to do that? -- Nudve (talk) 16:53, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
I've just made a couple (not huge). Please can they not just be reverted? I know not everyone will be 100% happy, but some of them involve fairly uncontroversial improvements to the language and grammar. The material Jaakobou added is still there, I just moved it down from the lead.--Nickhh (talk) 17:15, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
- I'm going to keep most of your edits, but modify a few. As currently written, the lead suggest that perhaps a "small" massacre did occur, which is not supported by th evidence. It also unduly calls out the IDF for alleged unlawful killings, without similarly calling out Palestinian forces for allegedly mingling with civilians or using children to carry booby traps. I'm also changing the "Large" part of the camp, because that is a subjective quantifier, and replacing it with the actual percentage. NoCal100 (talk) 18:33, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
- There are credible allegations of at least one small massacre in the RS - so if we're going to mention massacre (which isn't really necessary anyway, except to the degree the incident is mostly known as "The Jenin Massacre") then we cannot use the Hasbara version of the story by which there wasn't one. To do so would be blatant cherry-picking.
- More significantly the criticisms from investigations (to a lesser extent the UN as well) related to the incident itself is overwhelmingly of the IDF (in particular, blocking access to humanitarian assistance, but a number of other things, many of them really serious). Criticism of "the Palestinians" is mostly of the militants amongst them, since, as the UN report says "Israeli military retaliation .... had the effect of severely weakening the Authority's capacity to take effective action against militant". Implying that both parties are equally criticized would be extremely POV (the nearest thing to "equal criticism" I can find is #32 in the UN report). PR 19:47, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
- Comment by Jaakobou:
- PalestineRemembered. There are no "credible allegations" for either a small scale massacre or a large scale massacre. "Eye-witnesses" in Jenin were noted by various media for being untruthful and I request that you stop ommitting information that you are already aware of to pursue an unproven point. It is disruptive.
- Nickhh. Best I'm aware, military operations generally have the casus beli written within their lead. I don't know what you refer to when you say you've explained why this is an "old bloated narrative" but perhaps I've missed this explanation somehow among the other issues. Can you please repeat the reasoning on why we should censor the casus beli so that we can open this up for community discourse? (WP:DR)
- A couple recent edits have been in violation of WP:TE as they misrepresented sources and equated between two opposing POVs to give credibility where there is non. This edit, has (for starters) used the word 'claimed' instead of 'deemed', removed the "massacre" description and equated between the Palestinain massacre charges and the Israeli "not massacre" rebuttals. It also promoted the suggestion that a non deliberate, non large scale massacre could have occurred when it barely even qualifies as a fringe perspective amoung mainstream media or other. Please make note of these policies and do not repeat the violations.
- Nudve. My suggested version was this recent edit which was mildly amended to this version that is acceptable to me. I'd appreciate collaborative opinions/suggestions/criticism about it (no advocacy of fringe views please).
- Cordially, Jaakobou 22:29, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
- First of all, as I said, I'm fine with the current version, so I'm glad you reverted. The Passover massacre was the casus belli for Operation Defensive Shield, not for this particular battle. To continue an earlier example, the Americans did not target Iwo Jima because of Pearl Harbor but because they were at war with Japan and considered Iwo Jima tactically important. "Refreshing the reader's memory" on something the Palestinians did before Defensive Shield began on this article only serves to create a narrative that makes Israel the good guys, so I think it should be avoided. -- Nudve (talk) 06:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- Comment by Jaakobou:
- Heyo Nudve,
- The American–Japanese battle at Iwo Jima occurred close to the end of WW2, a war which lasted for 6 years and had a plethora of smaller battles, campaigns and maneuvers. The "Battle of Jenin" was a 10 day skirmish during a 10 day operation and the purpose of the battle was to catch the people who were sending suicide bombers. This is not "Refreshing the reader's memory" of something which occurred months or years earlier, but rather what occurred a mere 3 days earlier - a suicide bombing. No one wrote down "the good guys went after evil people" but instead, what was written was "Israel declared a counter-terrorist offensive, dubbed Operation Defensive Shield, after the attacks culminated with the killing of 30 Israelis". This is not a pushy/fringe narrative.
- Cordially, Jaakobou 15:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- Well it would have been better perhaps if Jaakobou had followed NoCal and just made any small changes again on top of the changes I had made, rather than just rolling them all back in one go and absurdly accusing me of tendentious editing and promoting fringe views (the definition of which appears to be anything that disagrees with the analysis to be found in CAMERA and Little Green Footballs, or The Jerusalem Post if we dare to head off to the extreme radical left). As I said, several of them were pretty basic ones to improve the flow of the language and the grammar. Others in may view added more balance, although I appreciate not everyone will accept that. On the specific "massacre or no massacre" point, in response to NoCal & Jaakobou I would point out that I made a pretty extensive post, with links, in a section above here. Plenty of reliable (and not so reliable) sources make definitive assertions one way or the other. Equally plenty of sources (eg the UN, Amnesty) are not so unequivocal, and in fact do not even address the issue directly. Ultimately therefore it is simple misrepresentation to push one view or the other into this article as a definitive statement, just because it's the view you happen to take. Using slightly more open language along the lines of "there was no widespread/wanton/deliberate massacre" is a) accurate across all viewpoints; & b) does not by implication suggest that there was therefore a massacre of some sort.
- I have no baggage here or stake in this issue, and for example have no personal view about whether this was a "massacre" or not. In fact I think the debate around the word is pretty unhelpful in most cases. I am just coming at it as an outsider who nonetheless happens to be pretty well read on the subject and is trying to agree some text which accords with a more worldwide, broader view of what happened and how it has been reported and written up. Sometimes trying to insert spurious balance for the sake of it is a silly game, eg "Mussolini helped drag Europe into a catastrophic war which caused the deaths of millions .. however he brought back national pride to Italy and made the trains run on time etc etc" - however there are real issues in this case, which to be honest for a long time have been trampled down on this page in favour of a one-sided narrative. Not everything is in this world is black and white. --Nickhh (talk) 08:34, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- ps: on some specific points Jaakobou ...
- Casus Belli: the lead of course should say that the assault took place during the Second Intifada, and that Jenin was targeted after the IDF said suicide attacks were being launched from the city. I have always said this. Any edits I have made have always retained this information. The simple point is that the lead doesn't need to repeat the same point, in great detail, across two or three sentences.
- Initial massacre claims: I did not remove the first reference to it (eg the phrase "rumours developed that a massacre of hundreds or even thousands .. might have occurred" is there in the first sentence), again I just removed duplication further on in that paragraph. Go back at look at the diffs, and please read things more carefully in future before making sweeping accusations.
- "NPOV": in fact I do equate the official Israeli interpretation that there was no massacre with official Palestinian claims that there was one, even with the lower death tolls. I'd be interested to hear on what basis you think they are not equivalent (the Barak defence not included)
- "Fringe": I have pointed you to links showing that views which do not follow the simplistic "no massacre" view are no more fringe than those pushing that interpretation.
- English language: rumours cannot "purport" anything; organisations rarely "hold on to" allegations (and if they do, it is being suggested they are doing it in vain); also the "while"s and "however"s are all over the place. --Nickhh (talk) 09:15, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Comments by Ynhockey:
- Originally I wanted to just follow the goings-on of the article itself, but recently so many quick edits and reverts happenned that it's becoming nearly-impossible. Therefore, I'll relate only to the current version of the article vs. the version I remember from way back, and comments on the talk page so far.
- Casus belli: It appears that all sides agree that information about the reasoning for this operation should indeed be in the lead section. So why isn't it there? We can argue later about the necessity of citing the Passover Massacre in particular, but some info needs to be inserted ASAP.
- Jenin Refugee Camp: I noticed that all information about the Jenin Refugee Camp has been removed from the article. Was this intentional, or part of the comprehensive rewrite? I think this information is very important, especially because the camp doesn't have its own article. It needs to be outlined what the Jenin refugee camp is (essentially a poor neighborhood of Jenin), who was in charge of it (UNRWA/PA), and why it was targeted specifically (the last point seems to exist in the current version).
- I will comment on the other points raised here once I have carefully analyzed the evidence, sources, and the actual prose of the article.
-- Ynhockey 13:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the comments. Let's see:
- The second paragraph of the lead says: Israel targeted Jenin's refugee camp, after it deemed that the city had "served as a launch site for numerous terrorist attacks against both Israeli civilians and Israeli towns and villages in the area". I think that covers it. The source lists the suicide bombers that came from Jenin, but doesn't mention the Passover massacre. For this reason, as well as the ones I mentioned above, I think it doesn't belong in the lead.
- It was part of the rewrite. I think this stuff belongs in the Jenin article. Why is it very important here?
- -- Nudve (talk) 14:16, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- The text indeed exists, but it is not clear from the paragraph what the situation really was at the time. Instead, it is written as a fringe claim (especially with the use of quotation marks around the Israeli statement). It also uses wording from the first paragraph ("as part of"), so at the very least a re-wording is warranted. The paragraph is also too short for WP:LEAD, so for GA/FA it would need to be merged into another paragraph, further burying the casus belli, probably the most important part of the lead after the definition, in irrelevant info. I suggest expanding the paragraph, but most importantly, defining the casus belli clearly, without any quotation marks or side-implications, at the start of the second paragraph. I'll write a draft if you wish, although an example of how I think the lead should work can be seen in my recent rewrite of the IDF article lead.
- Some points are more important than others, but at this time specifically, we have to take into account that the Jenin article is sub-par and doesn't provide the reader with the info that this article should convey in regards to the refugee camp. In case the Jenin article is expanded however (and I believe the refugee camp also deserves its own article), there are still some points which need to be stated here—as a summary of the relevant points from the refugee camp article. For one, there needs to be mention of the fact that it is/was a PA-administrated camp, clarifying who the "Palestinian forces" were in the lead. Also it's worth mentioning that the UNRWA also ran the camp, which is directly relevant to the battle (UNRWA's involvement should be talked about somewhere in the article, if it hasn't been mentioned already). And finally, as I said before, why the camp was attacked specifically (rather than other parts of Jenin) also needs to be clarified in the article body (other than the simplistic "Israel deemed it a terrorist hotbed"). Of course, the latter requires the best of sources, which I hope someone else will be able to find.
- Finally, it's good to see that an editor generally uninvolved in conflict articles such as yourself also contributes to the article! Cheers, Ynhockey 15:02, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- A slight rewording is always possible, and I would like to see your draft. I think we pretty much have consensus on a relatively short lead, to avoid a narrative, so keep that in mind. About the camp: There could be some information added. I'll see what I can find. -- Nudve (talk) 15:28, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- Update: added background paragraph. -- Nudve (talk) 16:25, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Draft by Ynhockey
Below is my proposed draft (sans sources). I mainly focused on structure and language, and giving due weight in the lead to each section of the article (per WP:LEAD).
The Battle of Jenin took place between April 3 and April 11, 2002 in the Jenin Refugee Camp in the West Bank. It was fought between the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) and Palestinian militants during the Second Intifada, as part of the Israeli Operation Defensive Shield launched four days earlier.
The Israeli government decided to target the refugee camp after intelligence indicated that it served as a launch site for numerous terrorist attacks against Jewish localities in the area and Israeli civilians in general, including . The attack commenced after the city of Jenin had been captured, while Palestinians dug in in the refugee camp, seeing the Israeli soldiers advance on foot. After an Israeli detachment walked into an ambush, the force changed tactics and subdued the camp with armored vehicles, and the Palestinian forces surrendered on April 11. 23 Israeli soldiers were killed in the battle.
Because many buildings in the camp were bulldozed, and the area was closed by the IDF following the battle, a rapid cycled of rumors began circulating that a massacre of as many as thousands of Palestinians had taken place, supported by statements from the Palestinian Authority and human rights organizations. Subsequent investigations found no evidence of a massacre, and the total Palestinian death toll was determined to be between 52 and 56, including 5-26 civilians. Even so, human rights organizations held on to the allegations of war crimes.
Notes:
- 'Palestinian forces', like in the current version, should be used if sources can be provided that the Palestinian side in the battle was officially operating under the PNA, because 'Palestinian forces' generally refers to the PNA police.
- If the government decided that it was a launch pad for attacks, there must be examples of some attacks. This isn't bloat, as Nickhh claims, but necessary to understand how the refugee camp was different from other Palestinian towns in terms of militant activity. Terrorist acts not linked with Jenin probably shouldn't be included, no matter how terrible.
Comments by Nudve
A few issues with this draft:
- Using the word "terrorist" unattributed right in the lead is going to be a problem.
- "" is yada yada. The debate here is on how much weight should those attacks get in the lead.
- "Even so" is weaselly, and the absence of a massacre does not necessarily negate the possibility of war crimes.
- This is not an issue with the draft, but now that I think of it, the lead should say something about the UN commission, since it is given significant weight in the article.
-- Nudve (talk) 19:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- Reply:
- The particular word is not important, it can be removed. ... it served as a launch pad for numerous attacks again ...
- In case the note I left was not clear, what I meant to say is that we should list several notable attacks that specifically emerged from Jenin—without giving any details for them. The general term 'Black March' (מרץ השחור) can also be mentioned if there's a source linking it to Jenin. This seems to me as an acceptable middle-ground compromise between the position that no attacks should be mentioned (Nickhh) and the position that there should be a detailed examination of several attacks (Jaakobou). Perhaps I read the arguments wrong.
- How about: ... the total Palestinian death toll was determined to be 52–56, including 5–26 civilians, although human rights organizations held on to the allegations of war crimes. ?
- I agree. IMO it should go into the last paragraph which is reasonably short for an expantion, and already talks about "subsequent investigation", which would include the UN commission.
- -- Ynhockey 20:25, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- I suppose that's better. However, it might not be relevant anymore, since the entire article's neutrality and reliability are now in question (see below). Earlier, you said: "I will comment on the other points raised here once I have carefully analyzed the evidence, sources, and the actual prose of the article". I'd be happy if you did that and joined the discussion. Cheers, -- Nudve (talk) 08:13, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- I don't wish to discourage someone who (I think) has done rather a lot of good work. However, the objections I've made are substantive (and not exhaustive). There is an "Unbalanced" template which avoids the problem of whether there is an on-going editing disagreement or not.
- How would you feel about me writing-up the UN report? If it leans in either "direction", it's probably towards Israel (judging by who complained, crude though that is as a measure!). It's certainly the nearest thing we have to an account written by people who are both "uninvolved specialists" and "professionals". It got extensive publicity when it came out in August and more or less capped off most discussion. I have taken advice on what I have planned and can only see editing-type corrections to what I've done. PR 09:04, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- I suppose that's better. However, it might not be relevant anymore, since the entire article's neutrality and reliability are now in question (see below). Earlier, you said: "I will comment on the other points raised here once I have carefully analyzed the evidence, sources, and the actual prose of the article". I'd be happy if you did that and joined the discussion. Cheers, -- Nudve (talk) 08:13, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- Reply:
Still problems
The errors in punctuation, grammar and language which I tried to sort out as part of this edit are still in the lead, since of course my changes were subject to blanket reversion, despite my politely pointing out what I had done. As it happens, unsurprisingly I didn't see what was wrong with the minor content changes either, which were intended to create a bit more balance - none of them were hugely significant and none of them said anything that isn't already known and sourced. Anyway, I thought I'd point it out since no-one has even attempted to deal with the grammar and phrasing problems since, which I could make a cynical comment about (but I won't, I'll merely hint at it. As I just have). --Nickhh (talk) 15:56, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- here's a suggestion: Instead of making cynical comments, or complaining that no one has fixed punctuation and grammar issues, why don't you fix those punctuation and grammar issues, without trying to mix in various changes related to "balance" or other content? NoCal100 (talk) 18:39, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- Please don't try to patronise me again or start another fight, it's very tedious. I'm not under any obligation to edit this or any other article, and certainly not just because you've told me to. Especially when my first attempt to deal with the problem was simply reverted straightaway in its entirety. Why should I bother again? If other editors want it to read as it does currently, that's up to them, if that's where their priorities are. It's perfectly legitimate for me to simply flag up the issue on a talk page and leave it at that. --Nickhh (talk) 13:35, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- Your first attempt involved making numerous content changes which I (and other editors) found to be POV, along with fixing the punctuation and grammar issues of which you complain now. I made a simple suggestion that would address your complaint - simply fix the punctuation and grammar issues, without getting into the content issues. You are free to ignore that suggestion, but then don't be surprised if your alleged concerns are viewed rather skeptically. 14:32, 25 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by NoCal100 (talk • contribs)
- Please don't try to patronise me again or start another fight, it's very tedious. I'm not under any obligation to edit this or any other article, and certainly not just because you've told me to. Especially when my first attempt to deal with the problem was simply reverted straightaway in its entirety. Why should I bother again? If other editors want it to read as it does currently, that's up to them, if that's where their priorities are. It's perfectly legitimate for me to simply flag up the issue on a talk page and leave it at that. --Nickhh (talk) 13:35, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks, but funnily enough the possibility that I could do the copyediting all over again, without the NPOV changes I also made in the first instance, had occurred to me before you suggested it above. --Nickhh (talk) 14:45, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- I'm sure it occurred to you. Yet instead of making those edits, you chose to make a lengthy post here about the fact that they need to be made, and followed it up with 2 additional responses to my posts. I'd imagine it would take far less time to restore the previous copyedits to the main article, thereby improving the encyclopedia, than it took you to type these three complaints and responses, which is why I say that these alleged concerns of yours can be viewed with considerable skepticism - you do not appear to be genuinely interested in fixing the punctuation or the grammar (or you have have done so, rather than complain about it), but rather seem to be agitating for someone to reinsert the other elements of your edit which was reverted. NoCal100 (talk) 14:57, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks, but funnily enough the possibility that I could do the copyediting all over again, without the NPOV changes I also made in the first instance, had occurred to me before you suggested it above. --Nickhh (talk) 14:45, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- Please stop impugning my motives, it amounts to a personal attack, something I know you are concerned about on WP. I'm not agitating for anything, nor is my reluctance to make any more changes anything to do with the amount of time it would take. And I'm only responding to your comments here because, as previously, you dive in to make inaccurate and off-topic attacks on me, which I then feel obliged to rebut. I'm going to stop doing that now. I've pointed out the problem with the phrasing, which is all I intended to do. --Nickhh (talk) 15:14, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- I'm sure you've read WP:AGF, which tells us that we are not obliged to assume good faith when there is evidence to the contrary. I believe there is ample evidence to the contrary in this case, as spelled out above. You may easily prove me wrong on this by simply making the punctuation and grammar edits that supposedly bother you so much. NoCal100 (talk) 15:19, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- I'm seeing people re-introducing errors of punctuation, grammar and language into an article after they've been corrected - it's difficult to call that anything but vandalism.
- I'm then seeing personal attacks on the person (previously people) trying to improve this article. This article still awaits administrative taken against editors who will clearly not abide by policy. PR 16:42, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- I'm sure you've read WP:AGF, which tells us that we are not obliged to assume good faith when there is evidence to the contrary. I believe there is ample evidence to the contrary in this case, as spelled out above. You may easily prove me wrong on this by simply making the punctuation and grammar edits that supposedly bother you so much. NoCal100 (talk) 15:19, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- Please stop impugning my motives, it amounts to a personal attack, something I know you are concerned about on WP. I'm not agitating for anything, nor is my reluctance to make any more changes anything to do with the amount of time it would take. And I'm only responding to your comments here because, as previously, you dive in to make inaccurate and off-topic attacks on me, which I then feel obliged to rebut. I'm going to stop doing that now. I've pointed out the problem with the phrasing, which is all I intended to do. --Nickhh (talk) 15:14, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) I made all the changes to the lead that I noticed in Nickhh's edit of October 12 that seemed to me to be pretty much just grammatical changes. Some changes could be considered either primarily grammatical or primarily adjusting the meaning.
Re some parts of Nickhh's edit that I didn't implement at this moment: Rather than changing "after it deemed" to "claiming", I suggest changing it to the neutral "stating". As I've stated previously, I support changing "while Jenin remained sealed" to something that mentions who did the sealing. (See my comment of 16:47, 5 October 2008.) Again for reasons I've expressed previously, (22:59, 12 October 2008) I prefer "no evidence to substantiate claims that a large scale or deliberate massacre had taken place" rather than "no evidence to substantiate claims that a massacre had taken place." "Human rights organizations reported cases" sounds more neutral than "human rights organizations held on to allegations". I think Nickhh's addition "and of unlawful killings by the IDF" is unnecessary and may veer away from NPOV. I don't think we should mention the number 26 unless we have a source specifically mentioning that number. (OR).☺ Coppertwig (talk) 16:16, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- As I wrote before, I object to the phrase "no evidence to substantiate claims that a large scale or deliberate massacre had taken place", because this implies that there is evidence for a "small scale" massacre, which is simply not the case. NoCal100 (talk) 17:03, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- How about "no evidence to substantiate claims that hundreds had been killed" or "no evidence to substantiate claims that large numbers of people had been killed" or "no evidence to substantiate claims that more than 50-odd people had been killed"? (suggested as a substitute for the current phrasing) ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 17:15, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- This is better than your previous suggestion, but I still prefer the current phrasing in the lead, for two reasons: (1) the previous paragraph in the lead twice refers to allegations of a "massacre" , so when those turn out to be unsubstantiated, we should say so. (2) We have a couple of reliable sources that explicitly say "no massacre", so there's no reason not to use the same terminology. NoCal100 (talk) 17:58, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- The reason not to assert "no massacre" is that it isn't NPOV, since it's reported by some sources but we have at least one source (the Palestinian appendix to the UN report) which contradicts it. However, we can assert something along the lines that "sources X and Y reported that there was no massacre" or "sources X and Y reported that they found no evidence of a massacre". Perhaps you could suggest specific wording for a sentence along those lines? ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 18:09, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- Here's my suggestion. Instead of the current While a large area in the camp was destroyed as a result of the fighting, subsequent investigations found no evidence to substantiate claims that a massacre had taken place., how about: "About 10% of the camp was destroyed as a result of the fighting. According to a Human Rights Watch report, there is no evidence of a massacre, but official Palestinian sources continue to maintain that a massacre had taken place". NoCal100 (talk) 18:16, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- That sounds good to me. However, do we have a source to verify that the Palestinian sources "continue" to maintain that a massacre had taken place? How recently did they say that? It may be better (and will not go out of date) to say "official Palestinian sources have stated that there was probably a massacre." (based on the appendix to the UN report, which states "In addition, it is probable that a massacre and a crime against humanity might have been committed in the Jenin refugee camp...") If we have another source we may be able to word it differently. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 19:01, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- We can drop the "continue". NoCal100 (talk) 19:04, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- The second part sounds OK. But now I'm wondering about "as a result of the fighting"; that makes it sound as if the destruction was accidental and caused by both sides. The source says "by a dozen armoured Israeli bulldozers." I suggest, "About 10% of the camp was destroyed by Israeli bulldozers. According to a Human Rights Watch report, there is no evidence of a massacre, but official Palestinian sources maintain that a massacre had taken place". ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 19:14, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- Is there a source that says the destruction was caused exclusively by bulldozers? I don't think so. At least part of the destruction is attributed to Palestinian booby traps. NoCal100 (talk) 21:11, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- The entire "massacre yes or no" business is a PR invention of one party. It bears no relevance to the actual reporting of the event - which concerned (in this order, I think): 1) mass destruction 2) obstruction of humanitarian relief 3) obstruction of investigation and 4) various specifics particularly "human shields" (the last being a criticism, by the UN only, of both parties).
- Reporting the event mostly didn't even mention "massacre". The owner (landlord?) of the camp was the Commissioner of the UNRWA, who said (in translation): “This is pure hell. It is no exaggeration to call it a massacre. I have previously refrained from using the word massacre, but now, when I have seen it, I cannot call it otherwise.” But nobody can tell us that his statement is "true" or "false" - we should simply report what this important player said about it. PR 19:28, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- I particularly agree with your last sentence, PR. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 21:48, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- The second part sounds OK. But now I'm wondering about "as a result of the fighting"; that makes it sound as if the destruction was accidental and caused by both sides. The source says "by a dozen armoured Israeli bulldozers." I suggest, "About 10% of the camp was destroyed by Israeli bulldozers. According to a Human Rights Watch report, there is no evidence of a massacre, but official Palestinian sources maintain that a massacre had taken place". ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 19:14, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- We can drop the "continue". NoCal100 (talk) 19:04, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- That sounds good to me. However, do we have a source to verify that the Palestinian sources "continue" to maintain that a massacre had taken place? How recently did they say that? It may be better (and will not go out of date) to say "official Palestinian sources have stated that there was probably a massacre." (based on the appendix to the UN report, which states "In addition, it is probable that a massacre and a crime against humanity might have been committed in the Jenin refugee camp...") If we have another source we may be able to word it differently. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 19:01, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- Here's my suggestion. Instead of the current While a large area in the camp was destroyed as a result of the fighting, subsequent investigations found no evidence to substantiate claims that a massacre had taken place., how about: "About 10% of the camp was destroyed as a result of the fighting. According to a Human Rights Watch report, there is no evidence of a massacre, but official Palestinian sources continue to maintain that a massacre had taken place". NoCal100 (talk) 18:16, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- The reason not to assert "no massacre" is that it isn't NPOV, since it's reported by some sources but we have at least one source (the Palestinian appendix to the UN report) which contradicts it. However, we can assert something along the lines that "sources X and Y reported that there was no massacre" or "sources X and Y reported that they found no evidence of a massacre". Perhaps you could suggest specific wording for a sentence along those lines? ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 18:09, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- This is better than your previous suggestion, but I still prefer the current phrasing in the lead, for two reasons: (1) the previous paragraph in the lead twice refers to allegations of a "massacre" , so when those turn out to be unsubstantiated, we should say so. (2) We have a couple of reliable sources that explicitly say "no massacre", so there's no reason not to use the same terminology. NoCal100 (talk) 17:58, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- How about "no evidence to substantiate claims that hundreds had been killed" or "no evidence to substantiate claims that large numbers of people had been killed" or "no evidence to substantiate claims that more than 50-odd people had been killed"? (suggested as a substitute for the current phrasing) ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 17:15, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Two points -
- Language/copyediting - this edit has reinserted the clunky "rumors purported" phrasing. Constant reversion of this sort of thing is kind of why I didn't actually try to change it again myself, and it appears that decision has been vindicated. You'd have thought we could at least avoid edit-warring and disputes over simple English language issues - there's plenty else to disagree about after all. At worst it suggests that some editors are more interested in point-scoring and and blind reverting rather than improving content here, even at the most basic level.
- "Massacre" - actually I'd happily have the phrasing "there was no large scale massacre", rather than having it as "no evidence", which kind of suggests that some might still be found. It is an uncontroversial fact that 100s of people were not deliberately killed. However the "large scale" or "widespread" qualifier is crucial, since plenty of sources do still assert there was a massacre of some sort, even with the final, lower death toll (I listed some a while ago, including from Palestinian officials and the mainstream media here). Some sources do say simply "no massacre", but there is no agreement or unanimity here, and it's therefore misleading to use that phrasing in the lead. The lead has to reflect the fact that many sources do maintain there was a massacre, albeit not one with 100s of victims, rather than take sides either way. --Nickhh (talk) 11:27, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- I disagree with the statement "It is an uncontroversial fact that 100s of people were not deliberately killed." That seems to me to contradict Pounder's POV. We can perhaps give weight (prominence) to the idea that 100s were not killed, but we can't assert it as if it's "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute" (NPOV).☺ Coppertwig (talk) 13:38, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- I disagree. Today, 6 years after the event, and after an AI report said all but one of the camp's residents were accounted for, it is a fact that 100s were not killed. It is true that some people (e.g. Pounder, or certain members of the PA) are so prejudiced that they refuse to acknowledge the facts even when those stare them in the face, but that does not change the facts. I think the formulation you and I agreed on prior to Nickhh's recent comments is fine. NoCal100 (talk) 14:44, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if we had quite agreed on both sentences. How about this version: "About 10% of the camp was destroyed. According to a Human Rights Watch report, there is no evidence of a massacre, but official Palestinian sources maintain that a massacre had taken place." This leaves out the bulldozers. Another alternative for the first sentence is "About 10% of the camp was destroyed during the incident." "Flattened" might be more informative than "destroyed". ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 14:53, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- Either one of these is fine with me. NoCal100 (talk) 15:30, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if we had quite agreed on both sentences. How about this version: "About 10% of the camp was destroyed. According to a Human Rights Watch report, there is no evidence of a massacre, but official Palestinian sources maintain that a massacre had taken place." This leaves out the bulldozers. Another alternative for the first sentence is "About 10% of the camp was destroyed during the incident." "Flattened" might be more informative than "destroyed". ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 14:53, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- I disagree. Today, 6 years after the event, and after an AI report said all but one of the camp's residents were accounted for, it is a fact that 100s were not killed. It is true that some people (e.g. Pounder, or certain members of the PA) are so prejudiced that they refuse to acknowledge the facts even when those stare them in the face, but that does not change the facts. I think the formulation you and I agreed on prior to Nickhh's recent comments is fine. NoCal100 (talk) 14:44, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- I disagree with the statement "It is an uncontroversial fact that 100s of people were not deliberately killed." That seems to me to contradict Pounder's POV. We can perhaps give weight (prominence) to the idea that 100s were not killed, but we can't assert it as if it's "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute" (NPOV).☺ Coppertwig (talk) 13:38, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- Note/clarification: Pounder's comments were from around 18th April, based on an early visit to the camp. Nor in the BBC report did he appear to talk about hundreds dead, he merely suggests that there "could be large numbers of civilian dead" under the ruins. I'm certainly not aware of Pounder or any significant source suggesting now that more than 50-60 people were killed, or whether that would be due to prejudice if they were saying that. Where the "massacre/no massacre" dispute arises is over how to describe or interpret what happened, with that number as given. There are legitimate sources that continue to use the description "massacre", on account of the civilians killed. This needs to be recorded, and without it being couched in terms to suggest they are in denial of some sort (I kind of read the above proposal as doing that, even if not intentionally). The later sources I linked to up above do all use the massacre description, while explicitly acknowledging the lower death toll. Even the HRW report is more nuanced than in the suggested para above, with the full sentence reading - "Human Rights Watch found no evidence to sustain claims of massacres or large-scale extrajudicial executions by the IDF in Jenin refugee camp. However, many of the civilian deaths documented by Human Rights Watch amounted to unlawful or willful killings by the IDF". --Nickhh (talk) 12:36, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
The neutrality of this article is most certainly contested. There is a heavy pro-Israel bias which has gotten worse. The list Israeli war crimes documented by Amnesty International has been cut from a list of 9 to a list of 2. The alleged citation from the Washington Times is not from the Washington Times web site. Does the policy of allowing citations from blogs which cite alleged news articles only apply to stories which are pro-Israel? When I did that, my edit was reverted and the explaination was that if the web site of the original story is not available, then it cannot be used. Just what is the policy here? Blindjustice (talk) 14:37, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
- I've added some info from secondary sources on the Amnesty report. Highbeam, which hosts the Washington Times article, is not a blog. I believe it is a reliable database. If you insist, we can look for other hosts or ask at WP:RSN. -- Nudve (talk) 15:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
54 dead not 53
the time article number 2 http://www.time.com/time/2002/jenin/story.html says 54 Palestinians died, not 53, so I corrected it. 192.246.224.74 (talk) 18:38, 13 October 2008 (UTC)russell j @ 10/13/08 2:63 pm
- Why does the article already cite this one Time Magazine article twelve 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" - and uses direct Israeli POV "the Palestinian defenders retreated to ... where their defenses were strongest" and "It was time to hit harder"?
- Is it because the piece differs substantially from the contemporaneous reports of every European journalist on the scene? And differs greatly from the reports of every investigation by independent human rights groups? PR
- We cite this article because TIME magazine is a reliable source, and this specific article is directly related to the topic of this article. In other words, we are doing this because we are editing this article according to Misplaced Pages policies. NoCal100 (talk) 17:09, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- We're plainly not writing this article to regular WP policy, since we've applied massive WP:UNDUE to a single source that uses the POV language of one party. There's a great deal of other RS available, all of it fairly startling, but none of it is written in a POV fashion as if the reporter were on board with a "Palestinian perspective". While I'm about it, I don't much care for the way you're suddenly appearing at articles (such as Shuafat, Mohammed Omer, Western Wall, USS Liberty incident) to confront or revert my edits, in many cases in articles you've previously had nothing to do with. This smacks of the same thing I'm seeing on this page, a decidedly uncollegiate attitude to what should be regular TalkPage discussion. PR 20:04, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- You asked why TIME is being used, and I explained the relevant wikipedia policy to you. Now stop soapboxing and start editing to this policy. I don't believe I've edited USS Liberty incident, and I was editing Western Wall before you, so perhaps it is you who is following me around. NoCal100 (talk) 21:17, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- We're plainly not writing this article to regular WP policy, since we've applied massive WP:UNDUE to a single source that uses the POV language of one party. There's a great deal of other RS available, all of it fairly startling, but none of it is written in a POV fashion as if the reporter were on board with a "Palestinian perspective". While I'm about it, I don't much care for the way you're suddenly appearing at articles (such as Shuafat, Mohammed Omer, Western Wall, USS Liberty incident) to confront or revert my edits, in many cases in articles you've previously had nothing to do with. This smacks of the same thing I'm seeing on this page, a decidedly uncollegiate attitude to what should be regular TalkPage discussion. PR 20:04, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- We cite this article because TIME magazine is a reliable source, and this specific article is directly related to the topic of this article. In other words, we are doing this because we are editing this article according to Misplaced Pages policies. NoCal100 (talk) 17:09, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
so which ones are pertinent to Jenin?
Hamas was attributed attacks from September 9, 2001 (a suicide attack in Nahariya), March 19, 2002 (a shooting attack in Hamam Al Maliach), and March 31, 2002 (a suicide attack in Haifa that left, 15 casualties).
Palestinian Islamic Jihad was attributed attacks from July 16, 2001 (a suicide attack at the Binyamina Railway Station), October 28, 2001 (a shooting attack in Hadera), November 29, 2001 (a suicide attack near Pardes Hanna), January 25, 2002 (a suicide attack at the old central bus station in Tel Aviv—in cooperation with Fatah), January 5, 2002 (a suicide attack in Afula), March 20, 2002 (a suicide attack in Wadi Ara), April 10, 2002 (a suicide attack at the Yagur junction).
Fatah was attributed attacks from February 1, 2001 (a shooting of an Israeli civilian visiting Jenin), April 28, 2001 (a shooting at near Umm al-Fahm), June 28, 2001 (a shooting near Ganim), September 11, 2001 (a shooting at "Bezeq" workers near Shaked and detonation of a charge at an IDF force in the area), March 9, 2001 (a shooting near Yabed), October 4, 2001 (a shooting in Afula), October 27, 2001 (Infiltration to Me Ammi and laying of an explosives charge), November 27, 2001 (a joint PIJ and Fatah suicide attack in Afula), February 8, 2002 (a joint PIJ and Fatah suicide attack aimed at Tel Aviv, intercepted), March 12, 2002 (a shooting on the road to Katsir), March 21, 2002 (a suicide attack in Jerusalem), March 30, 2002 (a suicide attack in Tel Aviv).
all to go unless you can find the 6 or 23 for Jenin....so far you haven't shown that these belong in an article about Jenin unless of course you are thinking of adding in all the IDF and settler activity in the area?....Otherwise you are just trying for demonisation.....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 20:54, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
all of these are Israeli MFA claims, which is not made clear in the body of the text....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 21:10, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- It's not a "demonisation" issue since the activities were linked to the Israeli assault on the Jenin infrastructure for these activities. Jaakobou 21:11, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Israeli MFA has been known to be rather inaccurate in its dealings with the rest of the world on many occasions....it needs to be made clear that this is a Israeli government claim and not necessarily fact...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 21:35, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
sorry jaakobou I did not see the IDF spokesperson mainly as all the first 3 sections have the same info in a POV demonisation repetition and quite frankly I stopped paying much attention to what was written...the structural layout of the article has ensured a pro Israel POV....There is no chronological order and information is repeated. The section for massacre theorists is at the bottom yet the massacre theorists are placed front and centre. The IDF failures which led to the massacre allegations isn't even noted in the lead with the allegations.....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 22:12, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
NPOV Tag
The documentation at {{NPOV}} says "Do not use this template unless there is an ongoing dispute."
It's my understanding that a POV tag is normally supposed to contain a link to a particular section of the talk page, which should list particular problems with the article, so that when those items have been adequately addressed then the tag can be removed. I would appreciate it if that is done here: PR, would you please specify what the issue or issues are that the tag is intended to refer to. To specify the section of the talk page, use {{POV|talk page section name}}. (The NPOV template is a redirect to the POV template.) ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 21:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- I don't know where to start - but an obvious place is the sudden inclusion (just since 30th Sept, 14 days ago) of 30 references to a foreign language book "# Harel, Amos; Avi Isacharoff (2004). The Seventh War. Tel-Aviv: Yedioth Aharonoth Books and Chemed Books, 431. ISBN 9655117677. (Hebrew)" What's the point of having encylopedia policies such as verifiability if we're going to do that? It's clear that they're highly POV "Harel and Isacharoff wrote that the IDF's misconduct with the media, including Kitri's statement, contributed to the allegations of massacre". Every genuine source points the finger at the IDF for keeping medical assistance out of the camp for 10 days as the single most serious problem.
- On top of the trampling of a core policy verifiability of the project, we have the usual culprits, in spades:
- 1) Trivial material from non-RS sources inserted (eg the first three entries to the reference list are #1 = Harel and Isacharoff (mentioned above, completely unverifiable), #2 Time Magazine (12 cites), #3 Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs). A much lauded reference to "56 dead" comes from "Back to the Moslem Terrorist's Page" - even if it's genuine, it's still 2nd-hand from a source that, like the UNRWA quoted by Amnesty, is speaking with a gun held to his head.
- 2) Blatant POV cherry-picking eg the only substantive mention of helicopters we have is: "On April 4, The Observer reported that Palestinians have called the incident a 'massacre', alleging that ... helicopters fired indiscriminately on a civilian area". What does this same source actually say? "helicopters that swarmed angrily above the city's roofs, firing indiscriminately into the city's crowded refugee camp". Many other sources call the shooting "like rain" - what's so difficult?
- 3) So many major elements from the RS left out that "most of the article is missing". I have a list of
1613 distinct elements that I think probably need including if the article is to give a representative view of the incident as reported in the RS. But I've been prevented from getting a single one in, I can't even list them for consideration without a barrage of non-policy objections - the Telegraph, Fox News and an Israeli newspaper dismissed with "This is just insinuation and hearsay. etc etc". PR 19:12, 14 October 2008 (UTC) rewritten by PalestineRemembered on 10:13, 8 November 2008. Jaakobou 10:33, 8 November 2008 (UTC)- A few replies:
- Regarding the book. It would indeed be preferable if it was available in English, but WP:NONENG allows foreign language sources in such cases. You could question the book's reliability, of course. However, we did welcome Amos Harel as a correspondent for Haaretz, including this favorite. I don't know about "genuine" sources, but Harel and Isacharoff do say that. I simply preferred to cite other sources for this fact, again per WP:NONENG.
- 1) I've seen Time Magazine cited many times on Misplaced Pages. Was it ever deemed unreliable? PR - see below. The Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs is only used once to quote an Israeli claim. PR - then it should not be in the lead. I'll be willing to negotiate the "56" if no other source can be found. Is this acceptable? PR - it's still a newspaper owned by the Moonies, by a reporter who (I'm told) was accused of fabricating Arabic quotations by Canada's national broadcaster.
- 2) Read the source again. I've cited it quite meticulously in the context of the massacre claims. "Like rain" is a metaphor. We don't use those per WP:NPOV. PR - the use of the helicopters was widespread, likely very deadly and widely remarked - we mention them as an "allegation" by Palestinians.
- 3) Most of the issues "dismissed" in the diff you gave, particularly the burial of the bodies, are detailed in the article.PR - I don't see Sharon, I don't see his advisor, I don't see the UN special envoy or the 12 days, I see slighting remarks about the Red Cross, I don't see the bulldozer driver or the bomb-disposal or the killing of UN staff or a whole lot of other things. -- Nudve (talk) 19:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- First of all let me say that the article has improved considerably. The layout is better, the readability is better - and it's even closer to NPOV than it's been all the time I've known it. If a lot of it was your work, then I commend you - I'll even support locking it down now before damage is done to it. But only a cursory examination tells me there are substantial POV issues remaining and it should remain tagged.
- I can see the temptation to use sources that English-language editors cannot check, but this practice cannot give confidence to other editors, nor to readers. It's not as if there isn't lots and lots of material from regular accessible sources. And policy asks for RS translations - here we are, using a non-English source more than any other, with no translation whatsoever. Verifiability is a core policy, not to be cast aside lightly.
- Time Magazine is 2nd in our reference list (ie we're using it for references in the lead). Now, Time Magazine actually published a very hard-hitting article on the run-up to Jenin - not just quoting the well-known "Palestinians must be hit ... must cause them losses, victims it said that Sharon's words were linked directly to the military action that followed "He went on to do just that, unleashing a broader military offensive than anything seen so far in the past 17 months of fighting.". Oh, but that Time article has been repeatedly edit-warred out of our article .... I wonder why. Even the famous Sharon quote without the commentary is missing! Instead of this main-stream article, the one we've referenced is an insulting white-wash - starts "The street is a new one, carved by a huge bulldozer out of what was once a narrow alley" - is it too much to ask we think of the victims before before we use anything so insensitive?
- Moreover, Time Magazines claim to have carried out an investigation is worthless - so what's it doing ahead of real investigations from the UN, HRW and Amnesty? Amnesty is quoted (relatively well) but is not referenced once in the text. HRW is not referenced once it the text, it gets only "The report said there was no massacre, but did accuse the IDF of committing war crimes", which has been filtered through the BBC and most certainly doesn't give a flavour of what they actually say. The UN report isn't directly referenced either! No mention of the Jordanian, Qatar and EU contributions, that cannot be right. If you want input from me, I'd offer to write the UN report section. PR 21:45, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- About Sharon's quote: I don't know who "edit-warred" it out and why, but I think it's undue, just like the Passover massacre. As I said, it belongs in Operation Defensive Shield, not here. The destruction is detailed in the article, but this is not a memorial site and we are not here to "think of the victims" of anything.
- The reliability of the NGOs has been questioned on this page recently. A serious discussion on their reliability probably belongs elsewhere. However, they are definitely not information sources the way newspapers and books are. As I said in my draft proposal above, I preferred to treat them as primary sources and filter them through mainstream secondary sources, such as the BBC. If no mainstream source thought it right to mention the Jordanian, Qatar and EU contributions, for example, then maybe it's not that historically notable. The BBC's filter may be imperfect, but I still think its preferable to our synthesis of it. Besides, we've already seen where this road leads: One user adds his favorite quote from the report, then another one adds his for "balance", and pretty soon the entire section is a quote farm. I think it's better to leave the reports as external links so that the readers can read them and decide for themselves which parts are important and whether it is pro-Israeli, pro-Palestinian, or whatever. Anyway, that's my opinion, and perhaps we should wait for other users' opinions on this. -- Nudve (talk) 11:15, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- Re NGOs. A lot of the criticism and questioning of genuinely non-partisan organisations is unfounded and seems to be politically motivated (and please, if it's coming from NGO Monitor or even worse individual WP editors can be pretty much brushed aside). Reports by Amnesty and HRW etc are professional, properly researched papers, which the groups involved will have put a lot of work into and will have checked over pretty thoroughly before being published. Having said that, I accept that they are arguably primary sources and as per policy we should for the most part rely on reliable secondary sources for interpretation of what they say; also that we run the risk of quote-farming otherwise. However -
- One could see the site investigations, witness statements and submissions that go into these reports as being the relevant primary sources, with the finished, published reports acting as a genuine secondary source.
- Either way, policy does permit reference to primary sources for straightforward facts or text.
- The above is doubly safe if done with a clear "according to Amnesty/HRW etc" attribution
- When using secondary sources, we have to remember that they will differ among themselves and we would have to look at a broad range of them (sorry, but this goes back to the simplistic "it was determined that there was no massacre" line that I have remarked on endlessly above - finding a BBC headline that happens to interpret one of the reports as saying "no massacre" does not mean the issue is settled once and for all, as there are other reliable secondary sources that interpret it differently)
- Using the media generally as the main secondary source for interpretation of those reports (as opposed to verifiable facts per se) also carries risks, as media outlets of course often have a considerable partisan bias.
- Also prioritising secondary media sources - as PR points out - leads to the slightly odd result that a self-styled "investigation" by a Time magazine journalist could be seen as ranking above a more formal investigation by a specialist organisation.
- Anyway that's my latest piece of waffle. --Nickhh (talk) 11:58, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- Re NGOs. A lot of the criticism and questioning of genuinely non-partisan organisations is unfounded and seems to be politically motivated (and please, if it's coming from NGO Monitor or even worse individual WP editors can be pretty much brushed aside). Reports by Amnesty and HRW etc are professional, properly researched papers, which the groups involved will have put a lot of work into and will have checked over pretty thoroughly before being published. Having said that, I accept that they are arguably primary sources and as per policy we should for the most part rely on reliable secondary sources for interpretation of what they say; also that we run the risk of quote-farming otherwise. However -
POV sectional issues
POV starts from the introduction, It must be the only article that describes the reactions to a massacre allegations before even saying there was a incident.....The section on the Israeli reasons for going in is named yet the information about those reasons is interspersed throughout the article....that or start a section on why there were bombs being set off in Israel something on the lines of ..."Israeli Oppression causes Backlash"...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 10:05, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- That is almost funny. That headliner is the rationale for virtually every attack on Israel and Israelis by Palestinians, as well as Israeli attacks on Palestinians. Why did the Intifada start? ""Israeli Oppression causes Backlash" Why was there a suicide bombing? "Israeli Oppression causes Backlash" Why was there a Battle of Jenin? "Israeli Oppression causes Backlash" AK et al would be happy if Wiki were one big article that says "Israeli Oppression causes Backlash"-- that is all Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.' Right? Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:54, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- One of the problems that would be easiest to fix is the trivial summary we have of the UN report. It's the "official report", compiled after agreement and promises of cooperation from all parties, and it includes the considered responses of the EU, the PA and Jordan (along with mention of material from Qatar). PR 10:53, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Fact checking
In the Background section I came upon this sentence: "Several hundred armed men from the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, Tanzim, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and Hamas had been using the Jenin refugee camp as a base, known as "the martyrs' capital", and of the 100 suicide bombers who had launched terrorist attacks since the Second Intifada began in October 28, 2000 attacks had been launched from there." Note 6 says 28 'martyrs' came from Jenin. The way this was written it sounds like 100 suicide bombers launched 2000 attacks, all from Jenin. So the reference is pretty well screwed up, and no source is given at all for the 2000 attacks. Will whoever wrote this, please clarify or I will place a label here in a couple days if someone else doesn't beat me to it. Tundrabuggy (talk) 05:07, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
ok, I get it now. I can fix it. Tundrabuggy (talk) 16:09, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
D9 Operator Moshe Nissim Interview
There is a Gush Shalom translation based on Hebrew original of the Newspaper Yediot Aharonot with D9 operator Moshe Nissim over Jenin Battle. The interview with Moshe Nissim is made by Tsadok Yeheskeli, published in Israeli Newspaper Yediot Aharonot on 31 May 2002 and translated by Gush-Shalom word by word. The original Hebrew is here
"What is documented in this portion, though shocking, is on record in the Israeli Newspaper Yediot Aharonot's, May 31, 2002 articleJenin, A Soldiers Story by Tsadok Yeheskeli. The link will take you to the English translation of the original Hebrew article. We also cleaned it up to make it easier to read. That version can be accessed HERE. The sentiments are not made up. They were expressed by D-9 bulldozer operator Moshe (Kurdi Bear) Nissim elaborating on his participation in the Jenin Massacre earlier that year)."
"It is the first absolutely sincere Israeli eyewitness testimony on what actually happened in the Jenin Refugee Camp, by one of the soldiers who did it. He is quite proud of his mission. Apart from the shocking revelations, this is also a startling human document. After publication - and in spite of it - the unit to which the man belongs received from the army command an official citation for outstanding service." and
Is there anyone can read Hebrew that can help checking the translations integrity. Kasaalan (talk) 19:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- You can run it through Google Translate and compare. By the way, Gush Shalom is not a reliable source (except to describe itself), nor is it a particularly significant POV. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 21:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- I haven't read the whole thing, but the key points are correct translations except the first one, which actually says "I entered Jenin like crazy/mad", etc. However, as Jalapenos do exist noted, Gush Shalom is not a reliable sources, and would almost always constitute as WP:FRINGE (not unlike Arutz Sheva for example). We can't be sure if this was really published in Yediot Aharonot, but even if it was, the newspaper's weekend edition prints several insets full of personal stories like this, which should not be cited unless there's something extremely significant there, like an important quote by an important politician or something. -- Ynhockey 22:56, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Note: While your source calls it in that title, there was no massacre in Jenin; Only a blood libel which ended up being rejected by the absolute majority of mainstream sources. Jaakobou 23:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
blood libel is a "false story spread in order to create hatred for a certain group of people" well massacre definition depends where you stand, if you enter a refugee camp destroy dozens of shatters where the people you exiled from their own home and land trying to live, then kill civillians by use of excessive and indiscriminate force by fighting among them, some people Israeli people can call it massacre and claiming it otherwise will not bring back the dead people. A Jewish peace organisations definition might differ from what you refer mainstream which is highly under Israel influence anyway.
"The D-9s rumbled farther into the heart of the camp, flattening an area 200 yds. square; Human Rights Watch reports that 140 buildings were leveled, and more than 200 were severely damaged. ... Throughout the operation, Palestinian officials had said that as many as 800 had been killed. ... Charles Kapes, the deputy chief of the U.N. office in the camp, says 54 dead have been pulled from the wreckage and 49 Palestinians are missing, of whom 18 are residents of the camp. Human Rights Watch says 52 were killed, of whom only 27 were thought to be armed Palestinians. The Israelis say they found 46 dead in the rubble, including a pile of five bodies that had been booby-trapped. Of these 46, say the Israelis, all but three were "fighters," men ages 18 to 40. The Jenin Hospital, meanwhile, says 52 camp residents died, including five women and four children under the age of 15. Of the 43 dead men, eight were 55 or older and therefore probably not involved in the fighting. No matter whose figures one accepts, "there was no massacre," concludes Amnesty's Holley."Time Jenin
Right there was no massacre while you took a fight in the center of a refugee camp, so that is mainstream definition. Kasaalan (talk) 09:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
- Please do everyone a favour, and draw people's attention to the pro-Israel group, AISH still bemoaning the fact that the "The myth of the massacre endures to this day" 2 years after the incident. This TalkPage discussion earlier high-lighted some of the bitter out-rage and teeth-gnashing of the pro-Israeli blogosphere because eg "None has since retracted the mendacious claims nor tried to find out how they were misled." - (Haaretz, 17th July 2002 - 3 months later).
- Note, I don't personally much care for the word "massacre", but there's no question that "Jenin Massacre" is what the event is known as all around the world. PR 11:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Link collections The Jenin Massacre of April 2002 Battle of Jenin 2002 (battle) - History Research Guide Kasaalan (talk) 09:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
About the Gush Shalom might not be reliable issue, they might not be reliable but they provide the Hebrew original with translation, therefore if the Hebrew original fits their translation, we can further search Yediot Aharonot archives from their page, to the date they provided. I don't know Hebrew so I cannot research on the matter. And yes there is important things in the article to be mentioned, for example he claims with only a couple of hours training he operated a D9 which is a deadly machine under the hand of untrained operators. He got medal award from Israel army after the publication of the interview, these are notable things to mention. By the way Moshe is full of hatred in any way which is also brings another question how an army arm him instead mentally traiting him. Kasaalan (talk) 09:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
- The interview was cited by several sources other than Gush Shalom. The question here is reliability and weight. I tend to agree with Ynhockey that Gush Shalom is probably not the best source. Perhaps it should be mentioned, but not cited in toto. -- Nudve (talk) 10:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
- What this interview shows most clearly is that there WAS NO MASSACRE. It actually sheds more light on this guy's psyche than anything else. He comes across as a simple fellow, totally uneducated, with an idiosyncratic way of describing things, an inferiority complex, and a very strong craving for attention. He is being milked by the media, and is more than happy to share his "insights" to prove he is "worth something." He may be interesting as a case study for sociologists, but I would be very careful about treating his words as historical truth. Actually, he would make a good character in the Israeli film industry's next self-hating movie.--Gilabrand (talk) 11:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
- Your posting must have edit-conflicted with the clear evidence a few lines further up that even (in fact, especially) the teeth-gnashing pro-Israel blogosphere bemoans the fact that their "No Massacre" insistence never gained any traction. PR 11:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
- What this interview shows most clearly is that there WAS NO MASSACRE. It actually sheds more light on this guy's psyche than anything else. He comes across as a simple fellow, totally uneducated, with an idiosyncratic way of describing things, an inferiority complex, and a very strong craving for attention. He is being milked by the media, and is more than happy to share his "insights" to prove he is "worth something." He may be interesting as a case study for sociologists, but I would be very careful about treating his words as historical truth. Actually, he would make a good character in the Israeli film industry's next self-hating movie.--Gilabrand (talk) 11:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
- @Nudve - thank you for confirming that Gush Shalom is not seriously suspected of either inciting hatred nor falsification in this case (or indeed, any other).
- But I must challenge you over the significance of a participant admitting to reckless disregard for the safety of Palestinians, with deaths amongst them a virtual certainty. This can only throw serious doubt on all the repeated claims from the IDF that it attempted to protect civilians. Since, in addition, there are detailed and widespread claims of war-crimes from neutral sources, this puts a whole new perspective on this incident. PR 11:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
- Well testimonies always should be taken precautously, yet if IDF makes a pyscho into a D9 operator, it is their crime not ours. The interview is notable somehow, therefore should be mentioned more or less, we can always place credibility warning. But I will try to locate exact article link from original newspaper. Kasaalan (talk) 11:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
- I suppose it does have some notability. I'll see how I can add this. -- Nudve (talk) 13:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
- Done. I suppose it could still be tweaked, but I believe this is pretty much due weight. -- Nudve (talk) 13:49, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
- Well testimonies always should be taken precautously, yet if IDF makes a pyscho into a D9 operator, it is their crime not ours. The interview is notable somehow, therefore should be mentioned more or less, we can always place credibility warning. But I will try to locate exact article link from original newspaper. Kasaalan (talk) 11:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Sources and Citation for Moshe Nissim Interview
Most of the sources on internet for the interview based on therefore I am searching other sources.
Sources Using Gush Shalom English translation of Gush Shalom Hebrew Text as a reference
- CENTRAL CONNECTICUT STATE UNIVERSITY BLINDED BY TERROR UNITED STATES POLICY TOWARDS THE USE OF TERROR IN THE ISRAELI - PALESTINIAN CONFLICT THESIS by Steven B. Kramer "Tsadok Yehezkeli, “I Made Them a Stadium in the Middle of the Camp,” Yediot Aharonot, 31 May 2002, translated from Hebrew by Gush Shalom, available from http://www.gush-shalom.org/archives/kurdi_eng.html; Internet, accessed April 8, 2005."
- Lessons in Urbicide Stephen Graham Durham University Department of Geography
- Quoted in the Book Derek Gregory's The Colonial Present: Afghanistan, Palestine, and Iraq pgs. 114 and 115 forum not reliable source
- Quoted in Surin, Kenneth, 1948- "The Night Can Sweat with Terror As Before": Afterthoughts The South Atlantic Quarterly - Volume 102, Number 4, Fall 2003, pp. 895-913 Duke University Press from the Book Israel/Palestine: How to End the War of 1948, 2nd ed. (Open Media) (Paperback) by Tanya Reinhart professor of linguistics and cultural studies at Tel Aviv University and at the University of Utrecht
- How they bulldozed Jenin By Asma Rashid Pakistan Newspaper
Reference to Moshe Nissim interview
Medal of Honour Moshe Nissim Receive After Publication of the Interview
Partly Translations of the Interview by Other Parties
- Israel’s Policy of Displacement: PA Interviews Jeff Halper the coordinator of the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions (ICAHD) OR Israel’s Policy of Displacement: Political Affairs Interviews Jeff Halper OR his book "An Israeli in Palestine: Resisting Dispossession, Redeeming Israel (Paperback) by Jeff Halper (Author)"
Jenin
I will add the sources I can find, you can help too, if you can search in Hebrew. Kasaalan (talk) 14:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
References
- Palestinians: Thousands in mass graves, United Press International, April 12, 2002
- Secretary-General of Palestinian Authority Cabinet Ahmed Abdel Rahman said, "They (Israeli solders) took hundreds of bodies to northern Israeli to hide their massacre they committed against our people.
"This massacre is not less than the massacres committed against the Palestinian people in the refugee camps of Sabra and Shatila in Lebanon."
He said thousands of Palestinians were either killed and buried in massive graveyards or smashed under houses destroyed in Jenin and Nablus. - In The CrossHearts The Persecution of an American Musician by Laura Dawn Lewis
- Jenin: A Soldier's Triumph in his own Words
- I made them a stadium in the middle of the camp The original translation By Yediot Aharnonot into English is available with Gush Shalom Comments
Recent additions
I'm referring to this. The 2009 conflict, as Nocal100 agreed, is irrelevant. I'm not the ones who added Cremonesi's quote in the first place, and I'm willing to discuss adjusting it.
Amnesty's accusations of "human shields" are already mentioned in the Massacre allegations section (which could perhaps be renamed). Nobody says this is how "the Israelis dealt with this problem". This is a violation of WP:SYNTH. If at all, this belongs in the Battle section.
The quotations from the Haaretz article don't discuss massacre allegations, which makes them completely WP:UNDUE in this section. We have already agreed to cut down on the massive quote farm this article had become.
I'm going to revert it, and I ask that consensus be reached before this is introduced. Thanks, Nudve (talk) 08:00, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Retractions
An Israeli officer made an errorneous statement during an interview on Israeli radio and his statement was clarified/retracted later that same day. In another incident, Peres was misquoted by Haaretz (on the 9th) who took notice to publish his true opinion the following day. The Foreign news source (The Guardian) is an expanded op-ed that talks in general on how they think the myth became to be. They confused the information given in regards to the Haaretz related error and merged it with the real clarification (mentioned as a retraction) of the IDF officer. Cheers, Jaakobou 10:27, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
- First of all, the Guardian article was written by Sharon Sadeh, who is "London correspondent of the Israeli liberal newspaper Ha'aretz", not exactly a foreign source. Sadeh refers to a statement made by Peres (published by Reuters) regarding massacre allegations. Which statement do you think Sadeh is referring to? -- Nudve (talk) 10:43, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
- What we need is a properly balanced section with competing commentaries. Ther is a significant critical commentary/narrative, put forth by The Weekly Standard, the Anti-Defamation League, CAMERA, and others and it goes as follows: Palestinians exaggerated and fabricated, as part of a general pattern of deceiving the international media, and the media bought in hook line and sinker into the idea of a "Jenin massacre," which subsequent investigations disproved. The second significant narrative, from mainstream media and international human-rights organizations, is as follows: because Jenin was under 24-hour curfew and sealed from journalists, international observers, and even medical aid for the duration of a devastating siege, rumors arose of massacres and body counts in the hundreds; when those people got in they mostly described the scene as even worse than they'd imagined and made multiple accusations of war-crimes. 80.40.225.228 (talk) 15:46, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
- There's already some attempt at this but you're free to try and contribute further to the article. Jaakobou 15:51, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not sure exactly what you are suggesting. The human-rights organizations are cited, as are reliable sources that disagree. I don't think promoting CAMERA's narrative is a good idea. -- Nudve (talk) 18:07, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
- There's already some attempt at this but you're free to try and contribute further to the article. Jaakobou 15:51, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
- Heyo Nudve,
- Even if Sadeh is an Haaretz affiliate (taking your word on it), they are still writing a month later for a foreign paper, an op-ed about how they think the massacre myth came to be. The paragraph we're talking about here is a shallow combination of two events, and clearly, an Haaretz representative wouldn't point the finger at themselves when on the 9th they published a "private" thing and on the 10th they "retracted" with a completely opposite and official version. Haaretz editor has pointed fingers towards his staff (as well as other journalists) so there was an error at The Guardian with the writer suggesting the official version was retracted which did not happen. Jaakobou 16:04, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
- First, don't take my word on it. It's written at the bottom of the article. I'm not sure I follow the rest of the argument: Are you saying that the "Statement" that was retracted was the "private reference", which says something different from the one Sadeh is describing, or that it was retracted by Haaretz and not by Peres? -- Nudve (talk) 18:07, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
- I'm saying that, considering we have the official statement which is a "retraction" of the first Haaretz claim, that it would be a truely exceptional double tracking from Peres to change statements to complete opposites twice within such a shot time span. The Guardian op-ed clearly has an error here and unless we have an Haaretz retraction of the the official statement or something that validates this truely exceptional (read: impossible) double back tracking, then this paragraph from a foreign news source cannot be taken as fact. Op-ed's do make errors, and this is a pretty obvious one. Jaakobou 00:04, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
- So the official statement is the retraction of the "private" statement? Could be. This source, of questionable reliability, seems to support this. This one is more reliable, but not quite helpful. Have you found anything else? -- Nudve (talk) 06:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
- I'm saying that, considering we have the official statement which is a "retraction" of the first Haaretz claim, that it would be a truely exceptional double tracking from Peres to change statements to complete opposites twice within such a shot time span. The Guardian op-ed clearly has an error here and unless we have an Haaretz retraction of the the official statement or something that validates this truely exceptional (read: impossible) double back tracking, then this paragraph from a foreign news source cannot be taken as fact. Op-ed's do make errors, and this is a pretty obvious one. Jaakobou 00:04, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
- First, don't take my word on it. It's written at the bottom of the article. I'm not sure I follow the rest of the argument: Are you saying that the "Statement" that was retracted was the "private reference", which says something different from the one Sadeh is describing, or that it was retracted by Haaretz and not by Peres? -- Nudve (talk) 18:07, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
- What we need is a properly balanced section with competing commentaries. Ther is a significant critical commentary/narrative, put forth by The Weekly Standard, the Anti-Defamation League, CAMERA, and others and it goes as follows: Palestinians exaggerated and fabricated, as part of a general pattern of deceiving the international media, and the media bought in hook line and sinker into the idea of a "Jenin massacre," which subsequent investigations disproved. The second significant narrative, from mainstream media and international human-rights organizations, is as follows: because Jenin was under 24-hour curfew and sealed from journalists, international observers, and even medical aid for the duration of a devastating siege, rumors arose of massacres and body counts in the hundreds; when those people got in they mostly described the scene as even worse than they'd imagined and made multiple accusations of war-crimes. 80.40.225.228 (talk) 15:46, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Comment: Opinion editorials should not be used as sources anyway, other than possibly to quote the author of the editorial. In some cases, they may be used after 'according to ...' or '... claims that ...', but definitely not for exceptional claims. -- Ynhockey 09:57, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
- First one is clearly a propaganda piece, but the second one is good enough to show the error of the one I removed. Chalk another one for the 'Jenin massacre syndrome'. Jaakobou 10:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
- The Barghouti article at Zmag is presumably refering to a different incident, wherein Peres was more explicit. When last I looked, the allegation that "In private, Peres is referring to the battle as a 'massacre'" which appeared in Haaretz had never even been refuted, let alone retracted. This later article in Haaretz doesn't suggest that the earlier Haaretz article had mis-reported what Peres was saying in private (in most people's minds, it would confirm it!), or say there'd been a retraction.
- However, given the huge amount of highly relevant other information that's been edit-warred from this article, and given the imprecise and abused nature of the word "massacre", I can't see it belongs anywhere other than as an "also known as Jenin Massacre" in the lead. That being the title by which it is, rightly or wrongly, known around the world. PR 11:07, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
- Well, if we can't use Sadeh's article, then I suppose the current revision is OK. -- Nudve (talk) 13:31, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Jeningrad
Heyo Nudve,
Actually, the 'Jeningrad' term was used as one of the attempts to portray Israel as killing hundreds of thousands. 800,000 Russians died during the 900-day siege of Leningrad; 1.3 million died in Stalingrad.
Warm regards, Jaakobou 10:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
- Maybe. What are you suggesting? -- Nudve (talk) 12:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
- I need to think about it a little. Meantime, do you mind restoring the invisible note I've added at the end of the paragraph?
- Warm regards, Jaakobou 17:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
- OK, I self-reverted. -- Nudve (talk) 05:47, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Ok Nudve. I've decided to bring up a few sources and see if you have any suggestions:
Post-Event reactions by Israelis/Jews, Palestinians, Media members:
- CNN Transcript - you've come under some widespread criticism here in the United States... Perhaps 500 Palestinians murdered... you suggested." (Erekat also comments)
- Jerusalem Post hosted on take-a-pen.org (source), jcpa article, Camera article - Israeli and Jewish criticism articles.
- CNN Transcript - Criticism at Erekat (e.v. Erekat spoke with CNN from Jericho, massacre claims were regarding Jenin).
- CNN Transcript - "the whole notion of a fact-finding group was born out of a fundamental lie, that Israel had committed a massacre in Jenin. Originally you had Palestinian spokesmen like Saeb Erakat stating on CNN that upwards of 500 Palestinians were killed in Jenin. We now know that the figure is even around a 10th of that. And that's now verified not only by Israeli sources, but also by Palestinian sources. So the entire motivation for conducting this operation basically doesn't exist any longer."
- "Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat rejected the UN report, saying an "Israeli massacre in Jenin's refugee camp clearly happened... and crimes against humanity also took place"."
- "Charges of war crimes committed by Israel were made, while Palestinian authorities made unsubstantiated claims of a wide-scale massacre."
- "yesterday I was in Jenin, and it is perfectly clear that the allegations of massacre in Jenin have caused anti- semitism because it's Israel, the Jewish state and the Jews. It's equally clear from having been there, talked to the UNHRA (ph) U.N. people that the allegations are totally untrue and without foundation."
- , , - Erekat rejected the UN report.
- 'Jenin massacre syndrome'
That's what I got for now... still missing some sources where Palestinians describe the events as a great victory. Just recently (a month ago) Zacharia Zbeidi was on TV repeating the same 'victory' perspective so I'm hoping to find a few soon.
Cheers, Jaakobou 06:59, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I understand what you are trying to do here with those sources. The massacre allegations are already well represented in the article and the lead. What you asked for in the invisible comment was a mention that the battle is also perceived as a heroic, Stalingrad-like stand, and this is what "Jeningrad" is about. Am I missing something here? -- Nudve (talk) 07:48, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- What's missing in the lead is a mini-paragrah about notable post-battle reactions - Israeli/Jewish anger over the way it were reported, global media reaction to Palestinians, and the two opposing perspectives taken by the Palestinians (i.e. (A) 'it was a massacre' and (B) 'great/heroic victory'). I thought my comment clarified this but maybe I mis-worded it. Anyways, I'm thinking us two have opposing perspectives on what happened in stalingrad and the intentions of Arafat when he used the term 'Jeningrad'... I don't think he was talking heroics at the time. Jaakobou 08:10, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- If you think the "notable post-battle reactions" are that important, you can add them, or suggest them here first. About Jeningrad: The two sources used in the article are this and this. -- Nudve (talk) 08:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- Addendum: I just found this NY Times article. Maybe it should be used in the article. -- Nudve (talk) 08:39, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- What's missing in the lead is a mini-paragrah about notable post-battle reactions - Israeli/Jewish anger over the way it were reported, global media reaction to Palestinians, and the two opposing perspectives taken by the Palestinians (i.e. (A) 'it was a massacre' and (B) 'great/heroic victory'). I thought my comment clarified this but maybe I mis-worded it. Anyways, I'm thinking us two have opposing perspectives on what happened in stalingrad and the intentions of Arafat when he used the term 'Jeningrad'... I don't think he was talking heroics at the time. Jaakobou 08:10, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
"Massacre allegations"
Does some bright spark want to explain to me why the reports of Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, one of which didn't even discuss "massacres" and the other used the word "massacre" just once, to say there was no evidence for deliberate massacres, should be in a section called "Massacre allegations?" It has the definite effect of obscuring and downplaying the very serious evidence these reports found for "grave breaches" of international humanitarian law by Israel. Seems to be intentional. <eleland/talkedits> 20:49, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- Dear Eleland,
- There might be a couple things in your comment that perhaps you would like to rephrase. I'd suggest you start by reviewing the sources you mention and looking up the word 'militant' as well as re-reading the mission statement of the WP:IPCOLL.
- Warm regards, Jaakobou 06:27, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- One option could be renaming the section: "Allegations of massacre and of war crimes". Any thoughts? -- Nudve (talk) 07:02, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- Dearest Jaakobou,
- Please avoid using talk pages for irrelevant and vaguely threatening statements of this kind.
- Your Humble and Obedient Servant,
- <eleland/talkedits> 09:29, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- But seriously, I'd suggest that we have a section "Investigations" which would summarize the Amnesty, HRW, UN, and B'Tselem reports, followed by a section called "Massacre" controversy which would gather the semantic arguments about "massacres." Again, none of these reports was written to deal with "massacres," and at least one of the investigators, HRW, took the trouble to specifically discount the relevance of the word "massacre" to their investigation. Also, we ought to remove unsourced and prejudicial claims like "The battle attracted widespread international attention due to Palestinian allegations that a massacre had been committed" - that's demonstrably false, there was intense international focus on Jenin before the word "massacre" had become an issue, and there continued to be intense focus after the charges of systematic house-to-house "massacres" were largely debunked. And, for that matter, the "massacre" allegations came famously from Israeli gov't minister Shimon Peres (hastily retracted,) and a lot of confused reports about hundreds of casualties, refrigerator trucks to whisk away bodies, etc, came from the IDF Spokesperson's Office. <eleland/talkedits> 09:29, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- There seems to be a number of errors within your comment. I'd appreciate a reference to your statement that, "there was intense international focus on Jenin before the word "massacre" had become an issue".
- p.s. massacre claims came since the earliest days of the fighting (Sample: "On April 4, The Observer reported that Palestinians called the incident a 'massacre'"), the Haaretz error came on the 9th and was corrected on the 10th. Please avoid the rehashing of mis-information.
- Warm regards, Jaakobou 12:10, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- One option could be renaming the section: "Allegations of massacre and of war crimes". Any thoughts? -- Nudve (talk) 07:02, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Recent anon. contribution
I've noticed this edit and it fitted how I rememebred the source. Checing it word for word, I see a couple gaps in the text so I'm thinking the editor missed one or two '...' with his quotation of the source. Anyways, the input seems acurrate and just needs a little fixup.
Historical notes: To be frank, a while back I've discussed this source considerably with PalestineRememebered and rejected its use duo to the non factual opinon layden additions to this translation by an unknown member of Gush Shalom, which are an extremist left-wing activisim group. I have made out a text version which was acceptable to me basing it on the Hebrew version of Gush-Shalom, which at least (assuming it was correct) did not include the opinions of an unknown activist.
Here's my old text...
Yediot Aharonot's "7 Days" editorial released a personal interview with Moshe Nissim (nicknamed "Kurdi Bear", Hebrew: "דובי כורדי"), a problematic army reserve soldier who insisted on becoming a D-9 driver, as stating that regardless of the speaker calls, he personally gave no one a chance and demolished the homes as quickly as possible while thinking about all the explosives hidden in the camp and the Israeli soldiers being in a death trap situation. Nissim added his disregard for the possibility that he could be killed and that despite not witnessing any deaths, he did not care and he believes that people died inside the houses.
Whether this is important enough to be included, I'm uncertain. It's just a first-person account/story from a mentally unstable army reserve. No one correoberates their story and it's just as 'true' as those made by various Palestinian eye-witnesses such as the store-keeper who 'saw' dead bodies in an army truck that when the reporter checked, the truck had vegetables and food for the soldiers... no bodies.
Warm regards, Jaakobou 07:59, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- I was trying to avoid giving Nissim's interview undue weight, for the reasons you mentioned. Its main claim to notability comes not from its credibility, but from the fact that it was much talked-about, and several secondary sources, including the book I cited, decided to reproduce it. -- Nudve (talk) 08:29, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- The gush-shalom English page (and it's personal opinions) should be removed, for starters. I'd apprecaite it if you re-mention all the sources that mention this story so I can give it's notability extra consideration. Jaakobou 11:57, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- Most English sources seem to rely on Gush Shalom's translation, so it might be useful. Mentioning all the sources would be difficult, but here is a Google search for "Kurdi Bear", so you can take your pick. -- Nudve (talk) 13:12, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- The gush-shalom English page (and it's personal opinions) should be removed, for starters. I'd apprecaite it if you re-mention all the sources that mention this story so I can give it's notability extra consideration. Jaakobou 11:57, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- The majority of those are either blogs or unrelated to the Jenin issue. There doesn't seem to be any notable report other than the Yediot Akhronot '7 Days' weekly (which can't be reproduced online) -- unless you consider 'Pakistan Dawn' or the 'Khaleej Times' to be reliable and notable sources for reproducing Israeli reports without messing it up completely. The google search has, for now, gotten me more convliced that this story should be left out. Jaakobou 13:39, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- I know they are not reliable. That's why I looked for a book that is. The fact that it was quoted by many does show some notability. Personally, I don't have any strong sentiment toward this quote, and did not add it in my first draft. I only included it after the discussion earlier on this talk page. -- Nudve (talk) 13:58, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry if I missed this input somewhere, but which book was it? Jaakobou 15:34, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- This one: Winslow, Philip C. (2008-09-01). Victory for Us Is to See You Suffer: In the West Bank with the Palestinians and the Israelis. Beacon Press. ISBN 0807069078. I found it on Google Books. -- Nudve (talk) 15:47, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry if I missed this input somewhere, but which book was it? Jaakobou 15:34, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- I know they are not reliable. That's why I looked for a book that is. The fact that it was quoted by many does show some notability. Personally, I don't have any strong sentiment toward this quote, and did not add it in my first draft. I only included it after the discussion earlier on this talk page. -- Nudve (talk) 13:58, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- The majority of those are either blogs or unrelated to the Jenin issue. There doesn't seem to be any notable report other than the Yediot Akhronot '7 Days' weekly (which can't be reproduced online) -- unless you consider 'Pakistan Dawn' or the 'Khaleej Times' to be reliable and notable sources for reproducing Israeli reports without messing it up completely. The google search has, for now, gotten me more convliced that this story should be left out. Jaakobou 13:39, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- If my checkup is accurate, it's a memoir by an unkonwn UN relief worker which doesn't exactly make a strong case for notability. Heck, an article on electronicintifada would be just as notable as this guy's book mention of the Yediot article.
- p.s. the title of that book is borderline antisemitic, portraying self-defense that uses checkpoints instead of cannons as "sadism".
- With respect, Jaakobou 17:15, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- Here is a Google Books search. If you insist that all those sources do not confer notability, and nobody disagrees, go ahead and remove it. -- Nudve (talk) 17:26, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- Jaakobou, please keep your paranoia to yourself. "Borderline antisemitic?" It's not even clear who "us" is in the title; I read it as referring to both sides, mutually.
- Oh, actually, according to a review, "intolerance such that as in the title quote, an Israeli relates a conversation with a Palestinian friend, during the height of a bout of very destructive fighting the Palestinian reports they are just happy at this point not to be the only people suffering here." Just the kind of thing you love to add to articles about Palestinians, although when you suspect that Israelis might be getting the same treatment, it's suddenly antisemitic. Please. <eleland/talkedits> 13:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- Here is a Google Books search. If you insist that all those sources do not confer notability, and nobody disagrees, go ahead and remove it. -- Nudve (talk) 17:26, 22 February 2009 (UTC)