Misplaced Pages

Talk:Battle of Jenin (2002)/Archive 9: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Talk:Battle of Jenin (2002) Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 13:40, 16 November 2007 editPalestineRemembered (talk | contribs)5,038 edits →Body Count Table← 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 
(670 intermediate revisions by 56 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talkheader}} {{talkarchivenav}}
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WikiProjectNotice|Arab-Israeli conflict|nested=yes}}
{{WikiProject Israel|importance=Mid|class=B|nested=yes}}
{{WikiProject Palestine|importance=Mid|class=B|nested=yes}}
}}
{{controversial}}
{{Calm talk}}
{{archivebox|auto=long}}


== 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.
== Body Count Table ==
''N.B. Only add a source if you consider it ] to use in body count estimate(s) for the article, or for the article's narrative about reporting of the body count (assuming notability of such a narrative, for now).'' Thanks to all contributors and to Eleland for starting us off! ] | ] 14:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


::The UN report on Jenin notes:
<!--
PLEASE NOTE!


<blockquote>
Read your sources carefully and describe their results accurately here. There is a major difference between "37" and "at least 37 recovered at Hospital X"; be sure of which is being reported. If there are ambiguities or questions, use the notes. Please keep in chronological order. -- Eleland
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)
{| style="width:80%; border="1"
] (]) 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)
| '''Date'''<br> (dd mon yyyy) || '''Count'''<br> & type of count || '''Attributed''' source || '''Reporting''' source(s) || '''Notes'''
::: 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)
| 09 Apr 2002 || perhaps > 120 || Reports from inside camp || || Reporter in Rummana near Jenin talks to non-combatants arrested and taken from camp.
:::] - 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)
| 09 Apr 2002 || a massacre || Foreign Minister Shimon Peres "a massacre" || Ha'aretz '' || Peres also quoted saying ''"When the world sees the pictures of what we have done there, it will do us immense damage." ''
::::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)
|-
| c. 10 Apr 2002 || up to 200 || 'very senior generals' || Sept 2005 || ''"the press quoted Defence officials with numbers ranging as high as 250. These figures made the Palestinian claims of 500 dead seem within the bounds of plausibility."''
|-
| 10 Apr 2002 || 'could reach 500' || || 17.00pm || ''"the numbers I am receiving today is that the numbers of killed could reach 500 since the Israeli offensive began"'' (hence, throughout West Bank.)
|-
| 10 Apr 2002 || 'more than 500' || , Saeb Erekat repeats || 20.00pm || UNIDENTIFIED MALE: They have committed a major crime today in the old city of Nablus and the (UNINTELLIGIBLE). The number killed, more than 500 people there. SAEB EREKAT: ''"number of Palestinian dead in the Israeli attacks have reached more than 500 now. ... number may increase ... massacres committed in ... Jenin refugee camp and ... Nablus."''
|-
| 11 Apr 2002 || 500 || Palestinians || || ''"The Palestinians are reporting 500 dead."''
|-
| 11 Apr 2002 || possibly as much as 200 || International relief sources || || ''"International relief sources are saying possibly as much as 200."''
|-
| 12 Apr 2002 || about 100 estimated || IDF || || ''"According to the Haaretz newspaper, military sources said two IDF infantry companies were scheduled to enter the camp on Friday to collect the dead"''
|-
| 12 Apr 2002 || 100 to 150 || Israeli Foreign Ministry || || between 100 and 150, 95% being Palestinian gunmen
|-
| 12 Apr 2002 || 200 - 500 || Israel, Palestinians and Red Cross || || ''"Israeli officials .... say around 200. Palestinians say 500. The Red Cross is somewhere in between."''
|-
| 12 Apr 2002 || around 200 || IDF || || "IDF intends to bury ... Around 200 Palestinians are believed to have been killed ... those identified as terrorists will be buried at a special cemetery in the Jordan Valley." { blocks then allows this.)
|-
| 13 Apr 2002 || some 250 killed || Israeli military sources || || ''"The Israeli army says it lost nearly two dozen of its own and military sources have estimated some 250 Palestinians were killed."''
|-
| 13 Apr 2002 || 100s, Israel preparing to bury 900 || Yasser Abed Rabbo, Palestinian information minister || || ''"The Palestinians say hundreds more were killed and Yasser Abed Rabbo, the Palestinians' information minister, yesterday accused Israel of digging mass graves for 900 Palestinians in the camp."''
|-
| 14 Apr 2002 || "had estimated 150-200" || Israeli army || Capt Dallal in New Republic || Captain Jacob Dallal is former Deputy Director of the International Press Office of the IDF Spokesperson’s Unit.
|-
| 14 Apr 2002 || dozens not hundreds || Defence Minister Ben Eliezer || || ''"Sunday morning when then-Defence Minister Binyamin Ben Eliezer reported to the cabinet that "dozens not hundreds" were killed."''
|-
| 17 Apr 2002 || not less than 500 || Saeb Erakat || || ''"to have an international commission of inquiry to get the results (ph) and to decide how many people were massacred. And we say the number will not be less than 500."''
|-
| 17 Apr 2002 || No more than 45 || Ben-Eliezer || || ''"No more than 45, sir. That's what we have counted. And, you know, the amazing thing that we have found among them, more so than, by the way, were uniformed. And two of them, just recently we found them, with -- as a suicide bomber."''
|-
| 18 Apr 2002 || c. 65 bodies recovered || Zalmon Shoval, aide to Ariel Sharon || || Zalmon Shoval, adviser to Sharon ''"defended Israel's actions, saying it was fighting for its life ... only about 65 bodies had been recovered, of which five were civilians. "''
|-
| 18 Apr 2002 || at least 52 || HRW || || ''"This figure may rise as rescue and investigative work proceeds...Due to the low number of people reported missing, Human Rights Watch does not expect this figure to increase substantially."''
|-
| 18 Apr 2002 || 54 || Palestinian hospital lists || || ''"According to hospital lists ... there were 54 Palestinian deaths between 3 and 17 April 2002 ... not a single corpse was brought into the hospital from 5 until 15 April"''
|-
| 23 Apr 2002 || 40 + 120 || Derek Pounder, Forensic Scientist || || ''"Even if one accepts the Israeli claim that "only" 40 Palestinians died, there ought to be another 120 lying badly wounded, in hospital. But they are nowhere to be found. We draw the conclusion that they were allowed to die where they were"''
|-
| 3 May 2002 || 53 + 22 || Palestinian medics, UN officials || || ''"Palestinian medics in Jenin have so far recorded 53 corpses, including 21 civilians, and UN officials have estimated 22 others are missing."''
|-
| 7 May 2002 || c. 375 in all West Bank || PA || || ''" While the exact number of Palestinians killed is still not final ... as of now reports indicate that 375 Palestinians were killed from 29 March to 7 May 2002"'' (Nablus included, thought to have 80 Palestinians and 3 soldiers dead).
|-
| 7 May 2002 || 497 Palestinians in West Bank || UN || || ''"A total of 497 Palestinians were killed in the course of the IDF reoccupation of Palestinian area A from 1 March to 7 May 2002 and in the immediate aftermath"''
|}
Additional deaths and bodies not in the original counts:
{| style="width:80%; border="1"
|-
| '''Date'''<br> (dd mon yyyy) || '''Additional'''<br> deaths & bodies found || '''Attributed''' source || '''Reporting''' source(s) || '''Notes'''
|-
| Early May 2002 || at least 2 more || Witnesses || || Bomb-disposal teams refused entry for 'several weeks' in which time at least two Palestinians were accidentally killed in explosions from remaining Palestinian ordnance and according to Jordan in UN report.
|-
| 4/8 Aug 2002 || 4 bodies found || 12 Internationals || || 12 from the US, UK, Ireland, Canada, Norway, including an international lawyer. 3 bodies 4th August, 1 body 8th August from under rubble.
|}


:::::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)
(rm'd table of Jenin killings in July, after Battle of Jenin and unrelated) <tt>&lt; ] // ]]</b> &gt;</tt> 12:44, 21 September 2007 (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 ==
Lastly, estimates and sources who either made mistakes in conflict with their sources, or started rumours identified as such by the reporting sources given:
{| style="width:80%; border="1"
|-
| '''Date'''<br> (dd mon yyyy) || Rumour || '''Attributed''' source || '''Source''' reporting rumour || '''Notes'''
|-
| 11 Apr 2002 || 500 || ''"Saeb Erekat has told CNN"'' || Ali Abunimah on () claims misquote || Jpost allegedly misreported Saeb Erekat saying ''"told CNN that Israel had 'massacred' 500 people in the Jenin camp"'' not ''"the numbers I am receiving today is that the numbers of killed could reach 500 since the Israeli offensive began"'' (ie West Bank generally).
|-
| 12 Apr 2002 || no estimate || ''"IDF general staff meeting"'' || on AIJAC || ''"talk at the IDF general staff meeting on Friday of removing the bodies of Palestinian gunmen and burying them elsewhere proved to be the nail in the coffin of Israel’s PR effort."''
|-
| ?? Apr 2002 || 52 in UN report || misquote of the UN report || on AIJAC || Captain Jacob Dallal, former Deputy Director of International Press Office ''"I gathered the press together and went over the Palestinian body count. According to the final UN Report on Jenin, 52 Palestinians were killed in the fighting, a figure Israel accepts as definitive"''
|}


:''(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)
Please expand the above table; also please document properly and read your sources carefully. Be sure to distinguish between (say) "37" and "at least 37 recovered at Hospital X"; if there are ambiguities document them in the notes. ] 13:34, 17 September 2007 (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).
:I have taken the liberty of transfering the contents of these 2 tables to , for linking from the article. I have made some further small changes, please check the template I've created. What I've not succeeded in doing is making the two tables line up! ] 16:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
::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)
::Hi. I appreciate the work you're putting into this PR. Don't think we need a template, just maybe this table (or moved to a Talk/subpage), as background documentation and to help us finish up the discussion. Thanks! ] | ] 17:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
:::<s>] seems to have an aversion to one of the entries in the "subsequent deaths" table - do you think we should humour him and take it out? ] 22:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)</s>
:::I have further divided the table into deaths outside the siege period and/or outside the camp. I think we need a record of these deaths because they appear in the same references, in relation to the same incident (even though they're not part of it). We might choose not to include this last part in the final table. I have updated so that it reads the same as this table, but I propose that, temporarily, we treat the copy here as "the master". ] 09:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
:::Please check my links and quotes. Some links not provided, since I've picked up details from sources that may be dangerously Palestinian-sympathetic - some may have to come out. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup>(New Sig for ]) 23:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
:::Add a 4th table, estimates and sources that apparently made mistakes, or started rumours identified as such by the reporting sources given. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup>(New Sig for ]) 08:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


==No re-factoring==
== The fat lady sings about facts, structure, and tone ==
Editors unfamiliar with the processes of the project have sometimes made discussions much more difficult with four obvious mistakes and breaches of process.
The revised-casualty-statistics narrative as presented by the top-tier journalistic sources and human rights groups is roughly as follows: Jenin was completely sealed from the outside world – both from the media and from relief organizations – for the duration of the siege. During this time, human rights groups were constantly telephoning residents of the camp, and what they could glean – killing of defenseless civilians, the flattening of large sections of the camp, bodies piling up in the streets, people being used as human shields – was more or less the only eye-witness information the media had to go on. These accounts were very grim, and the international community – including even the US government – voiced grave concerns. There were rumors of massacre; the media reported these rumors, but largely described them as such and put the word "massacre" in quotes. When outsiders were finally admitted to the camp, they described the devastation as appalling. Israel's refusal to cooperate with the UN and other investigations heightened suspicions. When the reports from the international investigations were completed, they found strong evidence of war crimes – including willful killing of civilians, "indiscriminate and disproportionate" use of force, and the blocking of medical aid and other emergency necessities – but no evidence of massacres, and significantly lower casualty numbers than had initially been estimated. The mainstream international discussion shifted from one invoking Sabra and Shatila to one invoking the ethical dilemmas of urban warfare, asymmetrical warfare, counter-insurgency and collective punishment.
#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>
Here, however, partisans on each side go in different directions, picking different cherries and cropping their pictures in different ways. Pro-Palestinian partisans of course emphasize the destruction, the war crimes, etc., but they also emphasize the atmosphere of suspicion, fear, and outrage in the early days – the shock of the first outside observers to enter the camp, for example, or the demands from the international community to end the siege, rebuffed by Israel; meanwhile they tend to gloss over the significant contrast between what was feared to have transpired and what did in fact transpire. If they're ''very'' pro-Palestinian, and not terribly scrupulous, they'll insinuate a coverup and emphasize rumors of refrigerated trucks bearing off hundreds of corpses, etc., and try to give them credibility without overtly endorsing them. Pro-Israel partisans, by contrast, emphasize the revised body count and the finding of "no evidence of massacres," present these as an acquittal of sorts, and tend to present the other findings as if they were miscellaneous addenda to a not-guilty verdict – addenda moreover hesitant, qualified, inconclusive, not terribly significant and probably biased anyway. If they're ''very'' pro-Israel, and not terribly scrupulous, they'll insinuate a hoax and emphasize state-sponsored rumors of staged atrocities, humanitarian aid rebuffed because of "Jews' blood," and snicker about "pallywood" and fake funerals and deliberate exaggeration and the complicity of the international media in same.
: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)
: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
:::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)
The NPOV problem with this article is that we've adopted this second propaganda version as the structural, factual, and tonal basis for our overall presentation of source material.--] 23:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
:'''P.S.''' My edit summary, which was cut short when a chubby pinky chubbily hit "Shift" and "Enter" together, was meant to apologize to Steve for the brusqueness and arrogance with which I asked him not to reformat my comments. HG is in the process of breaking me; give him time.--] 13:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


<span style="color:blue;">Massacre discussion:</span>
::Sounds good. thanks for your comment to me. I'm being broken of some habits of my own too, by various people in various ways! :-) that's fine. thanks a lot. --] 14:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
: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,
::Well, G-Dett, your synopsis makes some sense (though straying from our topic, eh?!). But I'm not sure characterizing Wikipedians as partisans is so helpful since we need to encourage everybody to see themselves as neutral editors. (The new you could strike your 2nd para, ;-> ) Anyways, I did notice some structural similarity betw the Camera approach and our "Body count estimates" section, which isn't necessarily wrong ''per se'' except that the section is mislabeled. Ideally, the section would start off with a simple statement of the body counts as known today. (Or a range, if disputed or unknown.) Later, there can be a section like what we have now, which shows the chronological development of the ''controversy'' over the 'massacre' designation and the death toll. Personally, I think the ups and downs of the reporting is of less general interest, and arguably less notable in the long run, but anyways it should be labeled differently. See what I mean? Thanks. ] | ] 01:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
:::'''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.
:::Whoa whoa whoa, HG, the pro-Palestinian and pro-Israel "partisans" I'm referring to aren't Wikipedians! I'm talking about opinion-oriented source material, that has produced two competing meta-accounts: one for which no-massacre was a whitewash, the other for which no-massacre is the narrative climax and the central significance of the siege of Jenin. Neither of these meta-accounts is the mainstream account, but our article is weirdly in thrall to the second of them, and that's the main POV problem.
:::'''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)
:::I note that SM8900 has adopted Jaakobou's disconcerting habit of reformating and subheading the comments of other editors. I think this is a problematic practice in general, but I have to ask both of you to refrain altogether from doing it in my case. This is not a "colloquy on tone," and your mislabeling it as such is a good illustration of why it isn't wise to presume to divine the essence of other editors' contributions to the talk page.--] 03:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
:::Cordially, <b>]'']''</b> 11:59, 2 August 2008 (UTC) clarify 12:02, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
:::::Point taken. I may still do so in the future, but I will try to always respect your concerns, and use very neutral headings, to avoid any appearance of intrusion. By the way, any sub-headings which I add are almost always only for convenience, and not for any other reason. I respect your point of view, and would not wish to misrepresent your comments, or to distort or slant your viewpoint or contributions in any way. thanks, --] 13:41, 17 September 2007 (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==
:::::Ok I'm reined in. Just delete 'Here' at the outset of your soliloquy <smile>. But really, your point is that the q of the Wash Times sources is moot. So you are off-topic and maybe ''you'' should put in a subheading. ] | ] 04:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
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
::::::I see the validity of the points from both of you. however, the only way to handle this is to list the allegations of both sides, and then to label them as that--''allegations.'' I know you probably think we can attain some understanding or conception of what should be the objective tone or content of the article. however, i feel that really, we will simply go in circles on this, since the two sides are more or less irreconcialable. I am opening to listing Palestinian allegations if they are well-sourced. i am rather tolerant of some sources which some might seek to call fringe, as the partisan sources of either side might always seem somewhat fringe to some other people or to some other editors. --] 02:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


:* That there is a ] on the image's description page for the use in this article.
== page move ==
:* 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)
It appears the article was recently moved from it's previous title at "Battle of Jenin," to "Massacre of Jenin,"<sup>,</sup> without discussion, and by an editor who has previously not edited this article. Could we hear what the arguments are for this name change, or if (as I suspect,) most others agree with me that the name change was not a good idea, can we move it back soon? <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 08:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


== Peres and Haaretz ==
note: it appears someone also blanked out the redirect page.<sup></sup>. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 08:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


:''Regarding the following diff: ''
:I have ] of the page move. I hope that an admin will look into this matter soon. &mdash; ] (]) &mdash; 08:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


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.
== Staying focused with an agenda ==


B) Best I'm aware, the paper retracted this article - i.e. printed out a retraction. Anyone else aware of this issue?
Hi. I know that folks here care about a number of disputed issues, including the use of 'massacre' to describe the events. I suggest that we stay focused for now on the good progress being made on the body counts dispute. Let's try to reach some small mutual agreement (aka consensus) on body counts, build confidence in the efficacy of our Talk discussions, and then move on to 'massacre' and other topics. Would folks like things to unfold in such a step-by-step fashion?


Cheers, <b>]'']''</b> 06:28, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
If so, it might be easier to stay focused if you all are confident that other issues will be addressed. Let me toss out an idea. You can shoot it down, but please recommend a constructive alternative, ok? What if we think about breaking the existing "Body count estimates" section into three or four pieces? You all could then work on them in this order:
: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).
* 1st, an ''intro'' about the importance of body counts to understanding the impact of Jenin as a battle and as a controversy within the broader Israeli-Palestinian conflict. (Actually, intros I tend to write last.)
: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.
* 2nd, a piece on the best, up-to-date data on body count estimates. I suspect this will emphasize ''confirmed'' counts, e.g. UN source. But it could also take note of differences of opinion, such as current Palestinian concerns with deaths before or after the battle, as well as ''suspected'' deaths that may not have been accounted for. (Please forgive me if this isn't POV-balanced enough.) ''So keep working on the documentation table, ok?''
:Shall I update the list of not yet in the article? ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 10:17, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
* 3rd, a subsection about the ''Reporting of Casualties'' -- this would aim to describe the chronology, the ups and downs, of body count reports and the consequent investigations and media coverage. Much of the current section lays out the sources/quotes/facts. If you don't mind my saying so, the current section reads a bit too staccato and might be condensed into more of a narrative. (Are there any fairly neutral secondary sources that already give this narrative about competing PA-IDf reports, the media scramble, the investigations?) It would conclude, of course, by arriving at our up-to-date data (in the 2nd piece).
::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)
* 4th, tied to the ''Reporting of Casualties'' narrative, we need to deal with controversial Reporting of such descriptors as "massacre" and "war crimes" etc. I'd recommend that we write about this reporting in stages. Later, maybe with the help of uninvolved editors, we might weave the ''Reporting of XXX'' units together.
:::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)
Well, please let me know if you understand what I'm suggesting and if you think it has legs to stand on. Thanks for hearing me out. ] | ] 12:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
:I think even a rough idea of the death toll isn't known and never will be known. For reasons that are basically very clear to anyone who examines the sources (and as should be clear to anyone who reads our account).
:The best we can say is something along the lines of ''"The bodies of around 50 Palestinians are known to have passed through the hospital during the attack, only the briefest examination being possible by observers and the forensic scientist. Remarkably few (if any) badly injured people were presented for treatment when the siege was lifted, and there was no organised (let alone mechanised) search made in the rubble. It is impossible to say how many were killed and Palestinian sources seem to have only quite sketchy estimates. However, a figure between 200 and 300 seems reasonable according to . The early estimate of 500 is not supported, and the eye-witness accounts of mass shootings presented by at least one major British newspaper<ref>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=OGI2LNTNLTABFQFIQMGSFFOAVCBQWIV0?xml=/news/2002/04/09/wmid309.xml Telegraph 9th April] 120 dead, massacre of 10</ref> were never corroborated."''
:I'm prepared to compromise and leave out the "massacre of 3, 1 survivor" allegation, firm though it is, in order not to make waves. It should really be amongst the "other allegations" section somewhere. ] 16:07, 18 September 2007 (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)
'''comment''' - with all due respect to the honest attempt at getting some concensus, i think the currect usage of the chart has become a sad display of inability to stay NPOV. when deaths that occur 2 months after the battle are listed, i honestly don't know what is the point of participating in this chart. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 18:20, 18 September 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?
:All we are doing at this stage is putting all the cards on the table, so to speak. Let's not fold our hand yet. We'll clarify what data we have, then we'll discuss where we agree and where we disagree (both about the sources and their use in the article). Hopefully, we can narrow down the points of disagreement. (E.g., as you comment, what time period should be used for the article's subject matter?) Then we're editing the article to fairly present the disputed points in an appropriate way. Make sense? ] | ] 19:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
::::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.
== MEMRI etc. sources ==
:::::With respect, <b>]'']''</b> 10:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
::i know you're trying your best to keep things going, but if i were to play with the same hand, we'd be getting videos that memri collected from the arab and iranian world about 9-11... sometimes people have no sense of the basic rules, and this is the reason for my comment above. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 13:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
:::MEMRI is credibly accused of cheating, eg Now, I don't know what Barakat actually wrote - but MEMRI's translation is . They've made no reference to the fact that the author contests the translation. That last factor, just on it's own, makes them dishonest. If the article is indeed mis-translated then the intention was presumably to incite race-hatred. It should be obvious that we don't use such sources, even if some of the less careful do use them. (Incidentally, MEMRI is also credibly accused of mass copyright violation - western media would not take kindly to their words being translated and distributed for free). ]<sup><small>]</small></sup>(New Sig for ]) 18:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
::::since when is the muslim brotherhood a credible source for anything? <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 18:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
:::::I appreciate you have real problems with these people, but then you've previously told us you have real problems with practising Jews and secular Israelis when I've quoted those people. For the moment, the Muslim Brotherhood claim that a writer of Arabic has been badly misquoted to make him appear anti-semitic. I've no way of knowing who is right - but I know that, if an author objects to a translation of his work, it is dishonest to continue to publish it without some kind of explanation. (And I suspect it's dishonest to publish a translation of his work without paying him). There are other accusations of serious misconduct aimed at MEMRI, including a report commissioned by the Greater London Council.
:::::You've told us before you can make allegations against any RS - I don't think you can make a credible case against any of them as good as the one just made against MEMRI. (Or the ones made earlier against CAMERA and the Washington Times, since I don't recall you ever challenging the case made against them. Nor have I seen a justification for ''"International media initially reported the fighting as the Jenin Massacre."'' being in the article). ]<sup><small>]</small></sup>(New Sig for ]) 19:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
::::::::''Seems like folks on a different topic here, so I added a guess of a section heading.'' ] | ] 20:08, 20 September 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)
== Extremely frustrating ==
:::::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 ])
We've been showing for months how international media did not, in fact, report that a massacre took place in Jenin. They reported that ''reports'' of a massacre existed, and gave them varying degrees of credibility and emphasis depending on the outlet and the phase of events. And yet ''still'' I'm seeing flat falsehoods editing into the article; it currently reads "International media initially reported the fighting as the '''Jenin Massacre'''." At this point I'm of half a mind to just give up, <strike>and leave this article to the Likudniks.</strike> ] 21:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
::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:
:seeing that no one is suggesting ] are trying to take over the article with weasel tags, i wonder what you are expecting to achieve with this ] hyperbole.
* 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 ], 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)
:i disagree with your content point, i very much think that the massacre claims were the frontward of how this issue was reported, and as a perfect example we just had a drive by editor who renamed the article to "massacre of jenin".<sup></sup> another perfect example is a quick run through on the titles of articles. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 21:48, 18 September 2007 (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 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)
::]'s objection sounds as if it is spot-on. By the Hated Google Test, there are far more references to "Jenin Massacre" (34,000) than there are to "Battle of Jenin" (13,000). But calling it the "Jenin Massacre" is (I'm fairly certain) only something that came about after the reporters had been into the camp, seen the destruction and smelt the decomposition.
::Still, if we're both wrong, then you'll be able to prove to us that "International media initially reported the fighting as the ''Jenin Massacre''". I don't think you'll be able to do that, in fact, I strongly suspect it's a terminological inexactitude that's been inserted into the article and needs to come out again. ] 22:26, 18 September 2007 (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==
::Fine, rather than get into an argument about whether you're a Likudnik and whether I'm a Hamasnik, let's just ignore that last. And yes, I already saw the move, Jaakobou. My point is that nobody has been able to provide a ''single'' mainstream source "reporting the fighting as the Jenin Massacre"; all we have is a bunch of articles saying things like "Jenin 'Massacre Evidence Growing'", a headline properly read as, "In Jenin, somebody who we find reasonably credible says that evidence of a massacre is growing." I have not seen in major Western media a ''single'' straight report of a Jenin Massacre, as distinct from a report of allegations, rumours, reports or statements of a Jenin massacre, and I don't believe one was ever made. ] 22:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
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.''"
:::(Dropping in with: ] here. I suggested above that we focus on 4 stages, beginning with Body counts and only later move to the reporting with 'massacre' terminology. Should I take the argument above as a sign that you guys don't like my suggested order? Or that you'd like an agenda to keep from butting heads? <friendly tone of voice> Anyway, let me know if I can be useful here. Thanks. ] | ] 00:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC) )
::::I've worked hard on the Body Counts, and I want something like the table we've created above to be permanently accessible to readers of the article (eg via ). However, it's a detail, and the way w're handing this part of the discussion is a major part of the unbalanced problem we have with this article. We need a time-line of events, not the weirdly prominent "Body Count Estimates" section we have now, funnelling down to "Allegations of a massacre" and "Post-fighting investigations".
::::In the meantime, we need an answer to the question - "Which parts of the International media initially reported the fighting as the ''Jenin Massacre''?". If terminological inexactitudes are being deliberately edited into this article, then we have an bigger problem than we thought we had. ] 08:32, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


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.''"
== Colin Powell a massacre denier? ==


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.
the latest edits on this article have crossed ]<sup></sup> to the point where it's verging on ].<sup></sup> please consider that such editing will most probably be contested and consider discussing the changes first on talk. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 01:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
:It would seem pretty obvious that evidence from a sources with a known propensity to deny massacres should come with a "health warning". The following might also bear some small relation to this discussion. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup>(New Sig for PalestineRemembered) 10:28, 20 September 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)
::you already know that is inappropriate.<sup></sup>
: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.
::please avoid such playful adjustments in the future as they are not contributing to the conversation.
: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 - <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)


::Dear PalestineRemembered,
::to the issue, we can do quite a lot of research and smear all the sources in the article, however, that is not common practice on wikipedia unless you have a direct article criticizing his statements regarding the event. for example, i'm sure it would be objected to if i were to add a list of terror organizations and regimes (including one you took upon yourself to represent) that they condemn and we chalk them down next to the amnesti international report. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 11:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
::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?
:::I've provided rather good evidence that CAMERA distorts things and it's certainly angry with it, as we'd not expect to use in a work of reference. I've provided evidence that MEMRI's reputation is decidedly tainted, in some cases amounting to acting dishonestly.
::Cordially, <b>]'']''</b> 03:17, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
:::Now we discover that Colin Powell was guilty of at least one blatant case of denial (though perhaps not exactly the one we were told).
:::If you see me or others quoting unreliable sources in this article, by all means call us for it. Meanwhile, there is another question urgently to be answered - which ''"International media initially reported the fighting as the Jenin Massacre"'' as it says in the lead? Why does the lead state ''"subsequent investigations found no evidence of one (massacre)"'' when we know at least one is definitely alleged, and the specific incident has been confirmed by Israel? ]<sup><small>]</small></sup>(New Sig for ]) 16:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
:I don't know whether it violates NPOV, but it's a case of original synthesis. It would be more appropriate to simply state what Powell did and said at the time, and then ''possibly'' add opinions from various sources. If any notable points of view brought up Powell's past history, then we can attribute that information to them rather than presenting it ourselves. I do wish that the hugely POV language and presentation of facts sprinkled throughout this article could be addressed, rather than only the POVs that impugn Israel / America. ] 14:27, 20 September 2007 (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)
:Oh, and by the way, poorly thought out, POV, or original research-ey edits are not vandalism, and I ask that they not be . ] 14:29, 20 September 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===
:: It is a fact that Powell was assigned by his superior to investigate My Lai, and it is a fact that he reported that he found no evidence that a massacre took place. How is this POV? How is this not applicable to Powell's ability to investigate massacres? ] 08:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
:::Unfortunately, the sources I'm seeing don't seem to say that. Glen was reporting atrocities (massacres?) that had occured in the same period as My Lai, but he'd only heard of it, he didn't know the details. Colin Powell denied the accusations but not My Lai specifically. Well, unless you can show me differently, of course. I'm on a learning curve, I didn't realise quite how much of this denial went on - if Colin Powell was really guilty of what you claim, then we should know about it and it is bound to colour our impressions of him and will affect how we use his testimony. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup>(New Sig for ]) 16:22, 21 September 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)
:::I hear you, BlindJustice, and I personally have nothing but contempt for the man. But it comes down to whether sources have made this connection from Powell's past role in Vietnam investigations / coverups, and in the Iraq WMD fraud, to his role in the Jenin events. If this argument is as important as you think, then I'm sure some acceptable source has made it. ] is pretty clear on this matter, and represents an established consensus. <tt>&lt; ] // ]]</b> &gt;</tt> 16:55, 21 September 2007 (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.
::::Ahem - established policy may operate on this principle, but if it does, then I've never noticed it. Here's what ] says: ''"Sources with a poor reputation for fact-checking or with no editorial oversight should only be used in articles about the sources themselves. Articles about such sources should not repeat any contentious claims the source has made about third parties, unless those claims have also been published by reliable sources."'' As best I know, it's down to editors to pick their sources and other editors to object if they're flakey. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup>(New Sig for ]) 17:29, 21 September 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)
:::::Colin Powell is not really being used as a source here. I think we're reporting his statements as part of the story, rather than as a viewpoint on it. In any case, the choice is to leave him in, or take him out - but not to make original arguments about his reliability which are not found in sources. <tt>&lt; ] // ]]</b> &gt;</tt> 17:58, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


== Draft proposal ==
== Proposed partial rewrite and outline ==


Alright, sports fans. I have created a draft in my sandbox for this article, ]. Here are the major changes:
Greetings. Regarding ''body count estimates'', let me try something. I've looked at the article text/data and the table, above, you all have done on body count estimates. I've read much relevant discussion of body counts. For Palestinian deaths, it seems that the U.N., followed by HRW (and others), is a highly regarded source for confirmed deaths, though some divergences may need to be footnoted. In addition, Palestinian/PA sources are talking about higher suspected deaths (but I'm not sure how to nail down the latest or most reliable sources on this). I also see there are some deaths that may be relevant, though perhaps tangential, to which the article can allude (and detail in footnotes). The Israeli death count does not seem to be disputed. So I'm proposing a redraft of a key paragraph. Now, where to put it?


*Content - mostly about the battle itself, based on Harel and Isacharoff's book. It is also used for establishing commanders and casualties.
Let me suggest a somewhat ''restructured outline'' with subheadings. Here's what I'd do. Put the key paragraph on body counts at the end of the "Aftermath" section. Then place a subheading for "Reporting" about the battle, including much of the bullet points about PA/IDF/media reports of the body count, and then a subheading for "Investigations" of the battle. Here's roughly what the whole thing would look like:
*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)
:3. '''Aftermath''' ... ''ending with the following paragraph (revised from current article):''
: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)
::According to the ] , "at least 52" Palestinian deaths were confirmed.<ref name=UN/> ] "confirmed that at least fifty-two Palestinians were killed ... This figure may rise".<ref> Similarly, the IDF estimate the number at 52. </ref> No other Palestinian deaths from the battle have been confirmed since this time. The HRW and IDF differ over combatant deaths, with the IDF counting 38 "armed men" and the HRW counting 30 "militants." In general, Palestinian officials have spoken of significantly higher suspected (unconfirmed) deaths,{{fact}} though one Palestinian ] official reportedly put the death toll at 56.<ref name="Qadoura56"/> A few Palestinian deaths were reported subsequent or ancillary to the main battle.{{fact}}* The IDF reported that 23 Israeli soldiers were killed.<ref></ref> In sum, roughly 75 persons were killed during the battle. However, during and immediately after the battle the reporting of casualties was quite varied, as discussed in the following section. ''(*) detailed footnote''
::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. &lt;]/]]&gt; 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. &lt;]/]]&gt; 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:
:4. '''Reporting battle casualties'''
:5.1 Fluctuations in reported deaths //based on current bullet items
:5.2 Was the battle of Jenin a massacre?
:6. '''Investigations of the Battle of Jenin'''
:6.1 United Nations //various UN subsections
:6.2 Human Rights Watch
:6.3 Amnesty International


info. from NGO Monitor on HRW:
Ok, if you're not too annoyed and want to see more how I might implement this, here's a somewhat ] idea. I am certain that most everybody will have complaints about the redrafted paragraph above and the outline subheadings. Well, I'm not trying to please everybody. Instead, I'd aim to navigate a course that, in my attempt to be neutral, would likely disappoint both "sides" in the dispute here. I welcome you feedback -- but besides being critical, please tell me where I might be on the right track and ''where you might be able to live with'' the wording or outline, even if it's not your first choice. Thanks for giving this some patient and calm consideration. ] | ] 21:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
:You'll never succeed in pleasing everyone .... but it is important that rumours spread (eg that the UN said the total death toll was 52) are not repeated (and preferably rebutted). Saeb Erekat suffers massive personal attacks, yet according to one source he only ever claims "up to 500 deaths throughout West Bank" on CNN on the 10th April and didn't then use the word massacre (though he does it later, Israeli ministers having done the same). We're not in the business of ], but this is an easily falsifiable statement, and if it's true he never used the figure 500 again, some gentle reminder of this is in order. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup>(New Sig for ]) 08:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


* Website:
:HG, I'm afraid that the UN is almost useless as a source for Palestinian deaths. Their New York-based "investigation" did in fact only repeat the conclusions of on-the-scene investigations like HRW and Amnesty, and various & sundry press reports. Nor can I tell where you get "no other Palestinian deaths confirmed". Amnesty reported 54, and the UN reported 2 more killed by UXO during the period Israel was blocking demining access to the camp. 56 sounds like the most credible number to me. We should state HRW found "at least 52", Amnesty reported 54, and the UN based on press reports stated 2 more killed by UXO. The "battle box" at the top should say "52-56", maybe with an asterix to the effect that some Arab sources continue to put the toll in the hundreds. <tt>&lt; ] // ]]</b> &gt;</tt> 12:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
* Founded 1988 (originally Helsinki Watch, founded in 1978); claimed an annual budget of over $50 million in 2005.
::Thanks for both comments. Really, I don't have a stake in 52, 54, 56 or "52-56". I wrote the UN and "at least 52" because it's in the article, and your previous discussion accepted the data as long as we don't leave out "at least." I know there's been some debate here about the credibility of HRW and AI, too. Eleland, if you don't mind my nudging you a bit, the question over the UN source isn't what we personally think is "almost useless" or "like the most credible" but rather how the UN source is treated by other (or more) reliable sources. So, if you accept the "2 more killed by UXO" from the UN, it would seem consistent to add that to the previous 52 from the UN and maybe arrive at 54? In other words, stick w/the UN and not mix & match different sources (e.g., AI + UN). I've quoted both the 52 and +2 in the next Talk section. What did you think of the outline and subheadings I've suggested? thanks! ] | ] 14:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
* Based in New York, headed by Kenneth Roth.
:::I don't wish to make a nuisance of myself, but I'm here because I'm moderately interested in accurate reporting. I've checked the UN report carefully and I've exactly what it says on this subject. Unless we have reasons for rejecting them entirely, we should be stating that the death toll was in "several hundreds" - though probably well short of 500.
* 1997 Nobel Peace Prize for Campaign to Ban Landmines.
:::There hasn't been much discussion about the reliability of HRW and AI, what has been noted is the enthusiasm of some people to accept as definitive some of what they say, while ignoring the other things they say. (eg "indiscriminate", the International sources really do say this, it's not just the Palestinian ones). The only substantive discussion we've had about RS/notRS concerns CAMERA and the Washington Times, where all the evidence produced suggests we should never use them. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup>(New Sig for ]) 17:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
* 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:
::FYI here's the UN report at item #43: <''moved from below, to fit better in thread''> ] | ] 19:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
<blockquote>In the early hours of 3 April 2002, as part of Operation Defensive Shield, the Israeli Defence Forces entered the city of Jenin and the refugee camp adjacent to it, declared them a closed military area, prevented all access, and imposed a round-the-clock curfew. By the time of the IDF withdrawal and the lifting of the curfew on 18 April, '''at least 52 Palestinians''', of whom up to half may have been civilians, and 23 Israeli soldiers were dead. Many more were injured. Approximately 150 buildings had been destroyed and many others were rendered structurally unsound. Four hundred and fifty families were rendered homeless. The cost of the destruction of property is estimated at approximately $27 million.</blockquote>
I've added emphasis to highlight their body count estimate. I also found the following at item #69, which I believe Eleland refers to, above. "Negotiations carried out by United Nations and international agencies with IDF to allow appropriate equipment and personnel into the camp to remove the unexploded ordnance continued for several weeks, during which time '''at least two Palestinians''' were accidentally killed in explosions." This supports Eleland on 2 more deaths, though I can see that we might write these up as ancillary or subsequent deaths, as proposed in redraft above. Thanks for reading this. ] | ] 14:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


* Website: www.amnesty.org
:::As long as we agree that the mainstream view places the death toll in the mid fifties, I think the exact phrasing can be ironed out (and I don't have a particular stake in "at least 52" vs 54 vs 56 either). We ''have'' seen debate over the credibility of HRW and AI, but the debate lacked substance or evidence. Even HRW & Amnesty's critics seem to ignore the ''factual content'' of their reports, and focus instead on the ''relative proportion'' given to various human rights abusers. You do raise a good point (or nudge) about how the UN report was treated by the media at large. This being said, I don't think it's original research to treat the UN report on its own terms - it described its own "very limited findings of fact". I think it is self-evident that the main portion of the UN report is a ], a compilation of others' findings, like an encyclopedia. As such, it should not be used to source contentious factual claims about the main issues. It's fine for background information, or for actually discussing the UN report itself. On the last point, I think that the broad outline of your proposed version is a definite improvement, although I have problems with some of the temporary statements you've made. I'll discuss on the workshop page. <tt>&lt; ] // ]]</b> &gt;</tt> 17:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
* Founded in 1961 by British lawyer, Peter Benenson.
::::Sounds like we have converging views on sources with a few exceptions. Even if you feel a debate lacks substance, if AI/HRW are critiqued by reliable sources (I don't know) then that could be mentioned. You make a good point -- we should note the UN's qualifications of its own data (in a concise way, like your quote). However, I don't think it's correct to view UN as a tertiary source. We can raise that specific question elsewhere, if need be, but the UN is serving at least implicitly as an ''authoritative'' negotiator of facts & reports, so it is quite different than Brittanica. Press and academic coverage of the UN vs Brittanica, among other things, shows that the U.N. is quite different. In my judgment, the UN report is a secondary source, to be distinguished from, say, interview transcripts, hospital records, etc. ] | ] 19:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
* 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)
== HRW estimate of Palestinian dead being misrepresented ==
::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)
The citation for HRW estimate of the Palestinian death toll from the following link:


:::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)
http://hrw.org/reports/2002/israel3/israel0502-01.htm#P49_1774


::::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)
reads: "Human Rights Watch has confirmed that at least fifty-two Palestinians were killed as a result of IDF operations in Jenin." These are the words HRW uses.


:::::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)
Yet, someone is removing the words "at least," in the box, "Battle of Jenin", "Part of the al-Aqsa Intifada, Operation Defensive Shield" (located at the top of the page).


== Original introduction ==
This unjustified modification changes HRW's meaning significantly. Why are HRW's words being misrepresented in the "Battle of Jenin" box?] 08:27, 21 September 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.
:where is the link to the ref for "someone who's removing this info" so we know where on the article this issue is occurring? <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 10:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
::The part of the statement "at least" has been repeatedly reintroduced and editors have been repeatedly reminded that the HRW report says "at least 52" not "52 in total".
::This particular fault is the most serious of the actual errors in this article. The other serious weaknesses of the article are because of the important material that has simply been removed (or in some cases, never introduced for fear of an edit-war). See this partial list of . ]<sup><small>]</small></sup>(New Sig for ]) 12:44, 21 September 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)
:::sorry for the bold question, but are you two meat puppeting for each other (or some type of variation of sock puppetry)?
:Thank you for your comments. Here's my reply:
:::p.s. you've not answered the asked question. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 13:58, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
*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.
::::Jaakobou, pls pursue such concerns, if at all, elsewhere, not on this page. ] | ] 14:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
*Just because it's sourced doesn't mean it should go in the lead, which should be a concise summary of the article.
::<snip>''moved response, that wasn't on thread, to previous section''] | ] 19:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
*As for the "Israeli investigations", I don't mind dropping the word "Israeli".
::::this is not an answer to the question i asked. i asked for the ref on the article for removal of information. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 16:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
*The lead doesn't mention criticism, only the aforementioned allegations of massacre.
:::::I'me sure a man with your proven investigative skills can examine the record and find out for himself who it is who is removing material in a way apparently in danger of misleading the casual reader. I'll help you if you get stuck. (But please don't tell HG I've made this offer, because he doesn't think we should discuss such potentially explosive malpractise on this page). ]<sup><small>]</small></sup>(New Sig for ]) 17:18, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Cheers. -- ] (]) 18:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
::::::let Blindjustice do the work unless you want to be asked that question again... btw, there was a point to both questions. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 18:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
:::::::I'm not sure it improves the article or discussion on the article to imply that editors are meat-puppets of each other. In the meantime, ] deserves an answer to his question ''"Why are HRW's words being misrepresented in the "Battle of Jenin" box?"''. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup>(New Sig for ]) 20:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
The person who misrepresented the correct wording by removing the words 'at least' was Tewfik at 07:22 on 10 September 2007; the comment made by Tewfik was, "the year is 2007, not 2002; lets not revise history." How is correctly stating HRW's actual words 'revising history?'] 23:49, 28 September 2007 (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 ].
:and do you feel that he was incorrect when he said he believed that "at least" has pretty much stayed the final death toll or do you believe there are dozens more? please revert the introductory numbers, you may leave the "at least" on the article body. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 02:25, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
::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)
I am having trouble following you. Why is misrepresenting HRW's report OK in the introduction but not in the body? Shouldn't the goal be no misrepresentation at all? Are you condoning the misrepresentation of HRW's report in the introduction? ] 05:57, 30 September 2007 (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. -- ] (]) 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)
:the problem is that the HRW's document implies that there could be more casualties and deaths. the introduction to the article is supposed to be a final death toll summary and not a midway estimation. considering that HRW haven't come out with any new reports claiming their previous number was false, i believe that the "at least" statement has room in the article's body, but not in the intros final summary. also on that same note, i saw you removed the number of arrested,<sup></sup> i agree that placing them under "casualties" is a bit inaccurate, however, the removal blanks out information and we should come up with a replacement location rather than just delete it. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 11:05, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
:Fine. I've just copyedited it and formatted the refs. -- ] (]) 07:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
::We don't seem to have a "final death toll", but it's almost certainly in the hundreds. We're hardly going to accept the word of the people who blocked entry to the camp to prevent investigation, and to kill more civilians (as stated in the UN report) now are we? ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 13:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


== Neutrality and balance in lead and elsewhere ==
Blindjustice, I didn't misrepresent anything. HRW's section says explicitly what HRW reported. As an ''estimate'', the number in the lead inherently is not exclusively based on HRW. Moreover, it would be inappropriate to imply that there were more casualties than there were by using 2002 language when five years later none have surfaced. I'd also like to kindly request that you not make edits like ; ] does not mean say bad things about both sides. <font style="color:#22AA00;">''']'''</font><font style="color:#888888;"><sup>]</sup></font> 21:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


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 -
*Because of Israeli obstruction of investigators, we do not know the final death total. Ha'aretz reported that Foreign Minister Peres called what was happening in Jenin "a massacre." Ha'aretz also reported that Jenin dead were being buried in unmarked graves, according to the IDF. The real death toll probably was what was initially reported in Ha'aretz, that is between 100 and 200.
*If you state the number of arrests, you should say that there was a mass round up of all males of military age, only male children and elderly men were not arrested. It should also be stated that Israel permits torture of anybody arrested, including those who are never charged.
*With respect to the 'background' of the battle at Jenin, both sides should be able to state what their 'background' is. It is true that the residents of the Jenin refugee camp are refugees from the 1948 war, who were illegally prevented from returning to their homes after the fighting stopped. Israel promised the UN prior to its admission that it would permit the return of the refugees. Not only has Israel prevented the return of the refugees, it has confiscated their homes and property without compensation. Almost 50 years without justice may possibly be a reason for the terrorist violence. It is a fact that Irgun, the Stern Gang and Haganah all used terrorism during 1948. Benny Morris estimates that there were over 20 Deir Yassin type massacres.
*Tewfik, you most certainly did misrepresent what HRW's report stated. If you don't like it, take HRW out of the introduction, or truthfully state that HRW's report includes the words 'AT LEAST.'] 23:20, 1 October 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.
:I'm not really sure what you mean, as HRW is ''not'' in the introduction. Neither is the ] immediately relevant to the Israeli operation in Jenin in 2002, but if it were, it wouldn't be limited to just those points dealing with Palestinians.
:G-Dett, I don't know what changed just now, but removing those passages is still not okay. If you find the presentation "grossly POV", then fix it. <font style="color:#22AA00;">''']'''</font><font style="color:#888888;"><sup>]</sup></font> 00:10, 2 October 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.
::Tewfik is saying that only the Israeli point of view is entitled to be told, and what the Palestinians consider as their "background" is to be censored. Readers of this article are not entitled to know that many of the refugees living in Jenin were "ethnically cleansed" during 1948, and ALL of the refugees had their homes and property confiscated without compensation by Israel. Bengurion once said of the refugees, "the old will die, and the young will forget." This has obviously not happened.] 00:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


* 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.
:::], wikipedia is not a ]. please try to remember that when you quote ben gurion (?!). <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 08:39, 2 October 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".
== Three ==
:''the following section is a continuation to . ''


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)
This is getting silly. Please stop re-weaseling this sentence in the lead by obscuring the number of attacks in the reference, which being words from the PM of Israel himself, is basically the most accurate reference we could have on what prompted his decision to launch this attack. See ] and cut it out. -- ] 02:26, 23 September 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 -
:can anyone explain to me why the intro is being repeatedly changed and then the number three keeps popping up? <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 02:30, 23 September 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.''
::Perhaps it's because nobody has ever provided a citation to back their "series of suicide bombings" version, preferring instead to cite a source which ''very specifically and unequivocally'' references ''three'' bombings. I am getting quite exasperated with this persistent use of inappropriate citations which do not verify the text, despite all efforts to explain the problem. <tt>&lt; ] // ]]</b> &gt;</tt> 03:28, 23 September 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>
::Because that is the number per the reference? Did you even ''try'' reading ]? I would be happy with removing this even this partial back history from the lead, as it's only presenting one side. But as it stands now, I will continue revealing the correct number (3) here until I am on my deathbed, and then I will have my children carry this on. So save us all time and stop removing this. Thanks. -- ] 03:36, 23 September 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.''
==Synthesis vs. Weasel - About the number three==
:''the following is in continuation to ].


::''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'''.''
::-- leave your comments ]. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 19:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


::I don't want to get over-involved here again, but those are my brief thoughts FWIW. --] (]) 09:52, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
===warred out version===
::''the following is a :''


::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)
A series of suicide attacks by ] on ]i civilians, which culminated in the ], ] ] in which 30 Israelis were killed,<ref></ref> followed by six other ]s in a span of two weeks,<ref></ref> prompted the ] (IDF) to conduct what it considered a large-scale ] offensive.<ref></ref>


:::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)
{{reflist}}


::::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 -
===extra notes and sources===
:::::1) You've erased any mention of civilian casualties
1) :
:::::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>
:UN Secretary-General Annan (Mar 28): The Secretary-General condemned suicide bombing'''s''' against Israeli civilians as "morally repugnant": "Last night's heartless and indiscriminate attack in Netanya was an especially appalling example of '''this phenomenon'''. This is terrorism, and it greatly damages the Palestinian cause."
Replies to the raised concerns:<br>
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&ndash;56 Palestinians estimated killed in the attack". I would change "up to yy were thought to be civilians" to "about 5&ndash;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:
2) [http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/04/12/mideast/index.html
::'''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.
Israel enters West Bank villages]:
::'''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.
:Friday's terror attack was the '''sixth suicide bombing''' targeting Israeli civilians since a Passover bombing in the Israeli coastal town of Netanya that killed 28 people. The following day, a militant wing of Hamas claimed responsibility for a shooting in a Jewish settlement near Nablus that killed four Israeli settlers. In response, Sharon's ordered Israeli troops into Palestinian-controlled cities across the West Bank, and Israeli troops have kept Arafat confined to an office building in his Ramallah compound.


The first two paragraphs are the same in both versions (except for "deemed").
3) :


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:
:The Hamas Izzadin al Kassam terrorist faction has reportedly claimed responsibility for the attack. It should be recalled that convicted terrorists of the same faction have recently been released from Palestinian Authority jails, in violation of signed Israeli-Palestinian agreements and despite repeated Israeli warnings that terrorist attacks would imminently result. The Palestinian Authority cynically justified the attack, placing the responsibility for it on Israel. The crime which was committed today is '''merely the latest in a series of Palestinian terrorist attacks''' against Israel and Israeli citizens. I have detailed these incident'''s''', the number of which has sharply increased in recent weeks, in a number of letters addressed to you, most recently in my letter dated 13 February 2001 (A/55/781-S/2001/132) and in my letters dated 2 February 2001 (A/55/762-S/2001/103), 25 January 2001 (A/55/748-S/2001/81), 23 January 2001 (A/55/742-S/2001/71), 28 December 2000 (A/55/719-S/2000/1252), 22 November 2000 (A/55/641-S/2000/1114), 20 November 2000 (A/55/634-S/2000/1108) and 2 November 2000 (A/55/540-S/2000/1065). Israel now finds itself in a '''daily reality of ongoing Palestinian violence and terrorism''' directed against its citizens and security forces.
:''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:'''
4)
:* 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&ndash;56 Palestinians were killed" asserts too much certainty, ignoring Derrick Pounder's POV. I therefore suggest for the last paragraph:
5)
:<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 &mdash; 5 to approximately 26 of whom estimated as civilians &mdash; 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)
6) :


: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)
:#The actions taken by Israel today are '''a result of''' its loss of faith in Arafat. The Palestinian Authority and its leader bear full responsibility for the murderous terrorism, which, due to the PA's approval and guidance, continues to claim the lives of innocent Israeli victims.
:#The suicide bomber who perpetrated the Passover Massacre was on the list of wanted terrorists, a person Israel repeatedly requested that the PA arrest. '''He was previously released from a Palestinian jail, despite Israel's warnings.''' His release by the PA is tantamount to his being sent on his horrific suicide mission by the PA itself.
:#'''Numerous fatal terrorist attacks''' have been carried out by members of the mainstream PLO Fatah faction and its subsidiary organs. All of these individuals and groups are directly subordinate to Yasser Arafat. Arafat has done nothing to prevent his subordinates from carrying out terrorist attacks against Israel. The leader of organizations that carry out terrorist attacks against Israel can only be described as Israel's enemy.


::Re "mid-hundreds": good point, it already says "thousands" earlier in the paragraph &ndash; I hadn't noticed that &ndash; so the "mid-hundreds" bit can be left out.
7) [http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/03/28/mideast/index.html
::How about "approximately 5&ndash;26"? I think it's misleading to just say "26", since the source is vague about this number.
Israel declares Arafat 'enemy']:
::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,
:"We're quite fed up with those declarations that Arafat makes every time he feels the pressure is mounting on him," said Gissin. "He has to take real action. Declarations won't do. They won't get him off the hook." ... A source at the Israeli Foreign Ministry in Jerusalem said Thursday that Israel had not responded to Wednesday's terror attack because the government continued to support U.S. Mideast envoy Anthony Zinni's efforts to reach a cease-fire. He is still in the region, and U.S. officials said Zinni will remain there to try to negotiate a cease-fire. "Israel will do the most it can," said the source, adding that Israel has followed a policy of retaliatory restraint '''for the last 10 days. During that period, the source said, Israeli authorities have intercepted 11 would-be suicide bombers.'''
:::::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)
8) :
:::::::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:
:Israel has experienced an '''unprecedented wave of terrorism during the month of March 2002, claiming the lives of 120 Israelis.''' Israel is now fighting for its survival. No democratic nation can acquiesce in the face of the ongoing massacre of its own citizens. Every nation has the right and responsibility to defend its people.
: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" &mdash; of whom up to approximately half may have been civilians &mdash; 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,
=== comments on syn vs. weasel ===
: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)
* considering theses sources, i request ] to please revert back to the more accurate version that doesn't use ''"A series of '''three''' suicide bombing attacks by Palestinian militants on Israeli civilians..."''.<sup></sup> <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 19:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
**'''comment''' - Let's see. Extra sources (1), (3), (4), (5), (6) and (8) are all Israeli government sites, while (7) is quoting a anonymous Israeli government source. Source (2) is from ], and includes attacks well after the start of the operation. I've given as much ground as I care to here. We're leaving out the last round of Israeli attacks from the lead, after the start of which these first three bombings occurred. We're linking to the ''entire list'' of every attack by Palestinians against Israeli during the entire 2nd intifada. So this is already presenting a somewhat one sided POV, so least we can say is what the highest leaders of the Israeli government actually said, in a "spontaneous declaration," as to what prompted the attack, succinctly as possible. Let's take another civil war for an example: would you think an article on the ] should link to a list of every attack by the Confederacy on the Union, and insist those attacks were what "prompted" the ]. Of course not; this would be obviously biased and ignore all the history of attacks by both sided in the war up to that point. It's perfectly fair, though, to say that this was the Union's immediate response to Lee's incursion into the North after the ]. Exactly same problem with how you want the lead here. Even if I might agree the the terrorists/slave-holders are the bad guys in each case, it's simply not our job to take sides. -- ] 20:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
***'''reply''' - i thought we were discussing the '''israeli''' reasoning for operation defensive shield. this is not taking sides, but merely reporting the proper justification for the operation. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 21:53, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
****'''reply''' - Of course terrorist attacks were the justification for Operation Defensive Shield, just as slavery was, ultimately, the Union's justification for the Gettysburg campaign. Though, to be balanced ''if'' we brought up slavery there, we'd have to bring up ] -- the Confederate's justification for fighting -- too. However, we don't rehash these justifications, especially not only one side's, within the articles of every single battle of the ], nor should we, even though these justifications are, in an ultimate way, perfectly true; ] doesn't mean stating a falsehood, so much as a half-truth. There's simply no better source than what the Prime and Defense ministers of Israel said ''at the time'' prompted ''this particular'' operation and this subsequent battle, within the larger ]. Some statement by some minor Israeli diplomats (whose job it is, after all, to present Israel in the most favorable light possible), whether a year prior to these events or weeks afterward, simply don't bear the same weight. -- ] 23:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
*****'''comment by Sm8900''' - to respond to your exact analogy. when dealing with the Union attacks on border states, such as ], ], and ], the justification '''is''' repeated, every time it is necessary to indicate why the Union Army was justified in attacking that city or state and considering it enemy territory. So when the allegiance of a particular geographical area or political area is in doubt, it is totally appropriate to lay out the justifications. Your analogy is more useful than you know. --] 00:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
******'''reply''' - The ] took place in Maryland in part. I see nothing about State's rights in the lead there. In anycase, we do know exactly what Israel's justification was for Operation Defensive Shield, and we have it from the two of the highest people in the Israeli government. -- ] 00:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
*****'''comment''' - ''at the time'' = '''March 29, 2002''' -- i.e. same day as most of my references.
*****I believe that your arguments, ultimately come down to the issue of what should the intro/background/article include rather than the '''"three" vs. "series"''' issue. if i am correct with this, then by all means, we should open a subsection, but i really don't see how, if the topic of why the IDF went into Jenin to begin with (most certainly a part of the article) should be written in, we base the reasoning for "three" on '''false''' synthesis of a single press conference. If this reasoning was the one stated in all the sources, you'd have a valid point, however, this is clearly not the case and '''clearly not the reason''' israel went on the operation in jenin (it does fit the "'']''" though). <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 23:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
******'''reply''' - No, your belief is incorrect. It's not a false synthesis to look at the source and see exactly three attacks prompted this. The conflicting justifications (''causus belli'') of the Israel-Palestinian conflict are usually considered security versus occupation by most sources, however I have no reason to doubt the words of Israel's leaders as to the cause of this particular operation. -- ] 00:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
*******'''note''' - please go over the , it would appear that you may have missed it. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 01:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
********'''reply''' - None of these sources are superior to the source we already are using, as I've repeatedly stated. -- ] 01:06, 24 September 2007 (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>&nbsp;(])</sup> 07:21, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:::Stating the reasons for the operation does not mean we are restating the causes of the conflict. This is not a normal type of war. Israel is not free to attack palestinian communities just because it feels like, as there is not a general official war. Israel is justified in undertaking actions againsts specific terrorist threats. That is why the entry needs to state the evidence and/or allegations which form the basis and justification for israel's attacks on a particular location. --] 13:05, 24 September 2007 (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. -- ] (]) 16:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
::::If you have a source that claims that the attack on Jenin was the result of all the suicide bombings, then reference it to the passage in the article.
::::In the meantime, we're using a reference that refers to just three suicide bombings, and that's what the article should say.
::::Here it is again: ''": Good morning, In the past few days we have witnessed horrific terrorist attacks - the attack during the Pesach Seder in Netanya, where 21 people were killed, tonight's events in Elon Moreh, resulting in 4 deaths, and the incident which is currently taking place in Netzarim where so far two people have been killed. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup>(New Sig for ]) 20:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
::Those three attacks are quite sufficient as justification. thanks. --] 20:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
:::Jaakobu, don't bother trying to reason with them. It's hopeless. Just accept that they think that somehow there is no basis for believing there was onoing incitement and supprot for terrorist attacks. if they want to make a big deal over this three attack thing, let them. the key to successfully editing these articles is realizing that to soem degree, we must take some note of the prevailing views of the conflict within the media, and try to work within that context to spread the facts. --] 20:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
::::This has nothing to do with "what editors believe", it has to do with what the sources say. It's not our business to say what is justified ... do we now agree that "three" is what belongs in the article? Can we move on without reverts based on POV, which is what has been happening here? ]<sup><small>]</small></sup>(New Sig for ]) 20:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
::Well, actually I agree with you here. I don't see why it is such an isue to say "three attacks." of course, I also think it's insane to write the entry that way, but I am willing to accept it as a compromise. --] 20:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


:Heyo Nudve,
:It is really remarkable how little attention has been paid to the sources here. Jaakobou & Steve's preferred version cites a CNN article from April 13th which notes that "Friday 's terror attack was the sixth suicide bombing targeting Israeli civilians since ". Defensive Shield started on the night of the 29th. In other words, the current article states that '''Defensive Shield was "prompted by" events which occured after it started.''' <tt>&lt; ] // ]]</b> &gt;</tt> 21:17, 24 September 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)
::At this point, I'd prefer to let some other editors take a try at adding further comments. thanks. --] 02:48, 25 September 2007 (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>&nbsp;(])</sup> 23:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:::Yes, I can see why you would. <tt>&lt; ] // ]]</b> &gt;</tt> 03:59, 25 September 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)
that was really uncalled for. try reading ] and try to actually understand it this time. --] 13:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
:The matter seems to be settled (after the most enormous amount of fuss), we now agree that the justification for the attack on the camp was (at least according to the source we're using) three suicide bombings. Thankyou everyone, I trust we've all learned something useful about the use of references and not inserting OR. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 07:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
::A series can be three. There was no OR or SYN involved here. Gaming the system, yes, but SYN and OR, no.... ] 07:36, 27 September 2007 (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)
===second para again===
It is important to describe as exactly as posible what the sources say and who is saying it thus I would suggest something along the following lines


::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)
On ] Israel began ]. In giving his reasons for the action Ariel Sharon listed 3 suicide bombings. A briefing released by the Israeli embassy in Washington claimed the scale of attacks by the palatines combined with the lack of cooperation on the part of Yasser Arafat made the operation necessary. ] 01:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
:::Sure, I'd love to see Jaakobou's suggestion. -- ] (]) 09:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:Congratulations, you drew together the two sources and accurately reported what they said. It is depressing that so much time has been wasted by involved editors who have failed to grasp some of the most basic policies of the project. It would be nice if we could get on and fix the other (likely serious) problems I've . ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 10:36, 26 September 2007 (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 support the wording above, as a useful and acceptable compromise. not sure why there is still an issue here. Sorry. thanks. --] 13:37, 1 October 2007 (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)
: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)
it's a very nice attempt, but i believe it to be a mistake for the following reasons:
#Early 29.3.2002, Ariel Sharon starts the public statement regarding the cabinet's meeting and descision with a usual preface condolences to both the victims and families of the casus belli (i.e. ] - March 27) and also happens to mentions two extra events with few casualties (2-4), one of which has not yet resolved. it is customary to start public statements by giving out a word of solace to victims and then proceed with the actual body of the statement. (, 2 days later after another attack that killed 15 more people)
#these two new events were in progress '''after''' the emergency 28.3, 23:00pm meeting was announced,<sup></sup> - first one among the two started at the end of the holiday<sup></sup> in elon moreh (i.e. only 2-3 hours before 23:00) and the other was going on even later than that.
#in the statement body, there are clearly two points:
##that israel has been repeatedly trying to strive for peace.
##the response has repeatedly been terror activity.
##these two points are also mentioned (and slightly expanded) in (mentioned also above) where sharon retorts the following: <blockquote>"we cooperated with the american embassador anthony zinni - and we received in terror response. we worked together with US vice-president dick chany - and we received in terror response. i've decided, in order to promote the possibility for a truce, to relinquish my claim for the seven days of quite and we received in terror response. we took the IDF out of the cities - and we received in terror response. everything we received in response to our efforts was terror, terror and more terror."..."the israeli government have decided in it's meeting last thursday to go out on a wide campaign to uproot the infrastructures of terror within the territories of the palestinian authority."</blockquote>
# Hebrew wikipedia lists down an article by the title '''''', which lists down 18(!) terror attacks before the netanya bombing (not including).
# as a result, this operation was already in serious consideration in the event that the violence won't stop ()


::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)
inferring by to have us believe that 3 events, mentioned as a preface or ] to the defense cabinet meeting's media statement, caused the operation is mistreatment to the topic and represents a coarse mis-connection between an introduction condolences notice and between the operation defensive shield, prompted by the events of "Black March" which culminated with the netanya bombing - using three would be a serious stretch (]). <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 00:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


:::Nickhh,
:Your 1 through 3 don't seem to have any relevance to the discussion. Yes, Sharon et al made reference to terror, and to dismantling the "terror infrastructure" in the West Bank. We already note that Israel considered the operation to be counter-terrorist. Your 4 is a nonreliable source which, even if were is reliable and says what you say, would be completely irrelevant. We know there were lots of attacks. The question is which attacks were officially cited as the cause of Defensive Shield. Your 5 is apparently a Hebrew translation of an English text (unhelpful, that). Again even if it says what you say, that's not relevant to the line at issue, which relates to the publicly announced reason for the incursion. <tt>&lt;]/]]</b>&gt;</tt> 18:02, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
:::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 was about to completely disagree with your statement until you stated what you are looking for, i.e. ''"The question is which attacks were officially cited as the cause of Defensive Shield."''. the response to that one of the main contributors to the decision was , the "number three" however has nothing to do with it.
::p.s. please explain why no. 1-4 have nothing to do with the discussion about the public statement and it's relation to the number three. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 09:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
:::Consensus amongst editors is that we quote what the source says, which is "Three". This is what ] states we should be doing. Consensus amongst editors is that this article should be based on English language sources and that we abide by ] of WP. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 14:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


:::::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)
::::the sources don't say "three", they say that the casus belli is the netanya bombing and Palestinian terror attack responses to Israeli attempts for peace... have you read my comment? <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 14:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
::::: - "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:
* Can anyone explain to me why the number three is mentioned considering this information? I took the liberty to revert sice this section clearly does not support it's usage. ] 22:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
::::: - "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:
::Three is the number of attacks the Prime and Defense ministers cited as prompting their launch of Defensive Shield, in their own words. This has been extensively discussed, and User:Jaakobou has been unable to come up with a better source (I would suggest none exists). Though he has made some valiant attempts, he mostly just sources low level Israel officials who weren't involved in the decision to start the operation of which this battle is a part. We need to adhere to ] in the lead here; it's barely justifiable to link out to a list of every attack of one side of the Second Intifada against the other as it is. We need to be accurate as this is just one in a series of battles/massacres or whatever you want to call all the attacks on both sides. -- ] 23:20, 3 October 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)
:::Let's see:
: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.
::::''Three is the number of attacks the Prime and Defense ministers cited as prompting their launch of Defensive Shield, in their own words.''
:], 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.
:::No, three is the number of atacks the Prime Minister cites when he sends his condolences to the victims of the last hours. ] 02:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
: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.
::::Sharon told the world's press on 5th March that ''and it must be very painful ... We must cause them losses, victims, so that they feel a heavy price."'' The fact that these incursions were intended to be punitive on the whole population should probably be in the lead - particularily since it might suggest that the incursions were planned *before* the alleged surge of suicide-bombings in March and April. Small-minded people might even think the Israelis carried out bombings on wedding-parties themselves (they have a long record of carrying out such "false flag" operations, including the bombing of Jews) in order to justify the attack on Nablus and Jenin they wanted to do. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 19:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
: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 ==
::::You're interepretation of Sharon's words are a stretch, Sleeper. Eliezer's words are definitive, however. <blockquote>DM Ben-Eliezer: At the outset I would like to extend my condolences to the families of the recent victims. The sheer number of people, and a massacre of this nature is something that no nation can live with. On the eve of Passover we witnessed the Passover massacre. Yesterday evening, an entire family was slaughtered. This morning, a laborer, who usually works in Netzarim, went in and killed two people.</blockquote>


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.
::::<blockquote>'''Consequently''', the security forces decided to initiate extensive operational activity aimed at a conducting an all-out war against terrorism</blockquote>
::::That makes perfectly clear the operation was a consequence of those three attacks. -- ] 10:23, 8 October 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.
:::::I will open an RfC regarding this issue sometime soon. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 10:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


Maybe we can find some other sources to flesh out the section without quoting too much from any one source.
== prompted... ==


I paraphrased, reworked and shortened the section to a version which in my opinion is not a copyright violation. However, my edit was .
Hi, Eleland,


Please discuss. We need to arrive at a version that is not a copyright violation.
# you stated in your edit summary for that the word "promted by" was "roundly rejected" can you please point me to the section where it was. If not, lets discuss the matter here and refrain from making false claims.
# could you please explain why you decided that a single mention of the full name of the IDF is too much for the intro?


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)
-- <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 23:37, 29 September 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===
== NPOV title ==
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 ==
Hi, PalestineRemembered,


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 -
in your you've mentioned that you believe the name of the battle to be "also Jenin Massacre" based on a google search.


: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.
considering you are insisting on this version.<sup></sup> i request you make a <u>serious case</u> to why the battle is "also (still) called" jenin massacre (in the mainstream media), rather than just a basic count of the number of times the phrase "jenin massacre" is listed (which includes articles that attack the press for using the terminology). <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 00:14, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
:This article continues to suffer really serious problems, which will not cease until ] are operated. There is *no* requirement on me to "make a case", I'm using what the secondary sources say, as editors are required to do. The use of "also known as" is standard practice throughout the project, as all editors know. It's sometimes been seen when the name in question is - it's absurd to carry on an edit-war here when "Jenin massacre" is 3 times more popular than "Battle of Jenin" and should be the title of the article.
:And we know all about this, since it's all been discussed in Talk (though our contributions are aggressively archived out of sight).
:Further severe problems that have been edit-warred into this article include this sentence in the lead, laced with falsehoods: ''"Palestinian sources described the Israeli actions as indiscriminate"'' - False - it's international sources that speak of "indistrictimate". ''"International media initially reported the fighting as the Jenin Massacre"'' - False, Israeli Foreign Minister described it as a massacre, it appears that international media did not do so until much later. ''"subsequent investigations found no evidence of "'' - False - the Telegraph and Amnesty document a massacre, 3 unarmed guys lined up and shot to death in an alleyway. It's possible (perhaps even likely) that observers have evidence of other massacres, they've only released details of the one which Israel admitted and for which they know the first names of the culprits (Gaby and David).
:What will it take to get this article edited to ]? ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 12:16, 1 October 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 problem with your statement regarding the number of appearances is clear if you just observe the articles - :


: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
::out of the first 10 -
::1) wiki - excluded.
::2) The Big Jenin Lie - Jenin "massacre" (surely, not the version you're promoting)
::3) BBC: Jenin 'massacre evidence growing' (18 April, 2002) - .
::4) BBC: Jenin 'massacre' (it's somewhere between no. 2 and no. 3)
::5) Jeningrad: What the British Media Said
::6) Jenin 'Massacre' Reduced To Death Toll Of 56 (same as no. 2)
::7) Jenin massacre syndrome (same as no. 2)
::8) TIME: Battle of Jenin - quote: ''"no wanton massacre in Jenin, no deliberate slaughter of Palestinians by Israeli soldiers."''
::9) PETER CAVE on ABC radio: Was there a massacre in Jenin? Well, yes there was. (4 August , 2002) - ()
::10) Israel is exonerated on the Jenin "massacre".


: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.
::following this list, i'm afraid i'm changing my position regarding the - also known as the '''Jenin Massacre''' - to now have the text: also known as the '''Jenin "Massacre"'''. i will await your reply before making the change. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 13:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
:::More nonsense from you - the Hated Google Test isn't hated for no reason, it's a pretty blunt instrument. However, even if you write off 80% of the references, that would still leave "Jenin Massacre" 60% as popular as "Battle of Jenin", ample to be included.
:::And you're shoveling us more of the same stuff - because your reference #3 refers to "unsubstantiated claims of a wide-scale massacre", which doesn't mean it didn't happen (as any native English speaker would know). It just means that the bodies weren't found and no Palestinian testified to seeing it happen. Oh, wait a moment, Palestinians did testify to journalists that something along these lines happened - the Telegraph and Amnesty even described a small massacre, they named the victims and named the perpetrators. Israel confirmed the incident and killings.
:::So give up what you're trying to do, and don't try to pretend that "scare quotes" would be acceptable either. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 16:13, 1 October 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.
== RfC - NPOV title ==


Still carping, but with good reason. --] (]) 15:10, 11 October 2008 (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)
::::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)
'''Request:''' ] requests<sup></sup> that the title of the article will include what he believes to be the more common name for the topic. and his assertion for this is based on results of a google search - ''"Jenin massacre" is 3 times more popular than "Battle of Jenin" and should be the title of the article.''


::::::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)
'''response (by Jaakobou):'''
i thought that i reached some type of possibly acceptable version when i simply registered the names given to the event both in hebrew and in arabic,<sup></sup> to portray the obvious contrast among the two.


:::::::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)
i submit the following previous discussions that i find relevant (this is my own personal linkage to this issue and others may feel it appropriate to link to other previous talks):<br>
:::::::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)
1) - 'previously referred to as the Jenin Massacre - round III', one (old) suggestion and commentary by a number of editors.<br>
2)
- PalestineRemembered statement/evidence and responses by other editors.<br>


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)
in any regard, my response to the google search (as seen above) was that the problem with it is that it does not observe the usage within' the articles -
: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:'''
:
:::# 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.
::out of the first 10 -
:::# 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? (])
::1) wiki - excluded.
:::# 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.
::2) The Big Jenin Lie - Jenin "massacre" (surely, not the version you're promoting)
:::# 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).
::3) BBC: Jenin 'massacre evidence growing' (18 April, 2002) - .
:::Cordially, <b>]'']''</b> 22:29, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
::4) BBC: Jenin 'massacre' (it's somewhere between no. 2 and no. 3)
::::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)
::5) Jeningrad: What the British Media Said
::6) Jenin 'Massacre' Reduced To Death Toll Of 56 (same as no. 2)
::7) Jenin massacre syndrome (same as no. 2)
::8) TIME: Battle of Jenin - quote: ''"no wanton massacre in Jenin, no deliberate slaughter of Palestinians by Israeli soldiers."''
::9) PETER CAVE on ABC radio: Was there a massacre in Jenin? Well, yes there was. (4 August , 2002) - ()
::10) Israel is exonerated on the Jenin "massacre".


::::::Heyo Nudve,
following that inspection, i was more leanning towards changing my position regarding the - also known as the '''Jenin Massacre''' - to not remove the text but to change it to: also known as the '''Jenin "Massacre"'''. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 19:05, 1 October 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)
====Rebuttal:====
*I should warn everyone now, this RfC has been structured in ways that makes any kind of conclusion or even sensible discussion impossible - nonsensical "pseudo-information" has been shovelled in to lead the discussion in a dozen different ways. And this way of operating has scarred this article as long as I've known it by the aggressive ] going on.
*However, the nub of this particular "friendly difference of opinion" is very easily sorted, as must be obvious to anyone reading this far. In cases where there is an "alternative name" having "significant use", we include the alternative name in the lead in the form (also known as "XXXX"). In this case, the alternative name of "Jenin Massacre" is likely the most common name - as the Hated Google Test suggests. (Though does not prove - I really should congratulate ] for, just this once, pointing out something genuine).
*There has been a long-standing refusal to include what sources actually say - and this serious failing is immediately apparent even in this Rfc eg - the comment at #3 above is plainly a misreading - the source says ''"Palestinian authorities made unsubstantiated claims of a wide-scale massacre."'' It is impossible to legitimately parse that phrase (or anything else in the source) as . (This laughable error was pointed out earlier, it's difficult to understand why it's been repeated, unless the author has problems with English). ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 11:10, 2 October 2007 (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.
===Comments by others:===
:::::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)
*'''Involved editor''' - This entire mess comes about because we're not using what the sources actually say, and this serious failing is immediately apparent. Where shall I start - how about the (later moved elsewhere)? and the <s>Daily Telegraph</s> tell us there was at least one small massacre, notable because Israel confirmed the incident and we have the first names of two of the soldiers involved. Eye witnesses say there were mass shootings (though the bodies were never found) - only ethnic warriors would dream of jeering at their credibility. Israel (this is the Telegraph, it's hardly Israel-hating) that it was going to bury the bodies of the "terrorists" (90% of the 200 bodies they had) in a closed military area, and they sent three refrigerated trucks into the camp. Here's confirming the Jordan Valley story, and other Israel sources confirm the trucks. Israel blocked entry to the camp for 4/5/6/7 days after the shooting stopped - then deny the massacre. Which, of course, is what perpetrators do. Other editors reading this are not too stupid to be aware of that - even if they're understandably nervous of standing on roof-tops and yelling it out. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 11:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
**Please clarify your claims above to ... "RfC has been structured in ways that makes any kind of conclusion or even sensible discussion impossible - nonsensical "pseudo-information"" ... Making such accusations without saying what is false is not productive to actually discussing this issue. Making the claim is ok, but please make it very clear what you are calling that. Thank you. —— ''']'''</font><sup>]</sup> 14:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' - while I'm not a frequent editor of this article and look at it only sometimes (on the other hand, I'm also not a 100% neutral editor because of my involvement with the article), I will offer a couple of opinions (as well as reiterating what others have said) which may help future commenters look at this from a different perspective:
**1) To expand on what Bigglove said, and to combine this with the claims of WP:COMMONNAME, it's important to mention that we're an encyclopedia and the fact should come before the opinion. The well-sourced fact is that there was no massacre in Jenin, therefore calling it Massacre of Jenin per WP:COMMONNAME is completely irrelevant and an insult to the reader's intelligence.
**2) The article isn't, or at least shouldn't be, about the alleged massacre in Jenin, but about the battle - like ] or ]. The battle itself, even without the massacre allegations, is notable enough to have an article, which should be named... Battle of Jenin. If some users are so intent on turning this into another Allegations of Israeli Apartheid-like article, they should feel free to create an article called Allegations of a massacre in Jenin, or something along those lines... and then they should be prepared for a plethora of rebuttals in the relevant section of such an article. In short, 'Battle of Jenin' and 'Jenin Massacre' (assuming for a second that it happenned) don't even talk about the same event, and both events could be notable enough for Misplaced Pages. Since the idea of a massacre is disputed, you cannot name the article simple 'Jenin massacre', similarly to how you cannot name one 'Israeli Apartheid'.
:-- ] <sup>(])</sup> 17:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


:::::ps: on some specific points Jaakobou ...
::::Just a note, a paste from the page ] which defines a massacre as referring to '''incidents in which at least 10 civilians or disarmed soldiers were killed deliberately. '''
:::::'''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:
::::The operational words here are 'civilians' and ''deliberately''. As an occupied territory, the West Bank evinces a classic case of an occupying army opposed to guerrilla irregulars. Both sides targeted civilians ] 20:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
* 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)
* '''Comment/question'''. Regardless of my own opinion of whether or not some/all of the Jenin conflict should be interpreted as a massacre, I am inclined to keep the current title. My reasoning would be similar to Ynhockey's, based on our naming guidelines and neutrality. That said, I'm wondering how we might bring closure to this question. At least for the title, I'm wondering what ] would acknowledge, in terms of a response from other Wikipedians, as sufficient consensus for keeping the title. I would think it's in PR and everybody's best interest to settle this ongoing dispute over 'massacre' terminology -- beginning with the title and later with the article text. Thanks. ] | ] 00:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
**'''Response''' - it is disturbing to discover this RfC drifting even further off-track - I've made no attempt to change the title of this article (not least, because I recognise the fact that the Hated Google Test making "Jenin Massacre" 3 times more popular than "Battle of Jenin" does not translate directly into the real world). I have been inserting a reference to the alternative title "(also known as '''Jenin Massacre''')" because it is undoubtedly the title used by many people and needs to appear in the lead. It's hardly "controversial" to do this - we do the same for 1,000s of articles - quite often apparently unnecessarily and even confusingly.
** The repeated elimination of this important alternative title is only one part of an enormous customer-facing problem - which is that mountains of good material is missing (and it's place often taken with muddled and badly-written denial). Not all the needed material has been edit-warred out, important items further down the list of urgency have never appeared. See needed at this article. There has been such aggressive ] that real progress has been impossible. Other good-faith editors have tried to concentrate on the abuse of sources (and I'm regularily attempting to do the same). But as a productive editor I'm also interested in adding good new material. This "(also known as '''Xxxxxxxx''')" addition is just one more example where necessary elements of the article are being excluded - I personally think it's the single most transparent case of abuse.
** Lastly, at the danger of repeating myself, let me remind everyone that we have highly credible evidence for at least one "mass-shooting" style massacre. We have highly credible evidence (a freely offered admission amounting to cast-iron proof) of the intention of Israel to conceal up to 200 bodies. We appear to have numerous eye-witness accounts of mass-shootings - the alleged perpetrators behaved disgracefully, forcibly preventing investigation. All that material belongs in this article, it's current state is a disgrace.
** However, I'm also aware that I'm being goaded. When I was (rather bizarrely) accused of "making a legal threat", my protestations that I had no reason to do so, had not intended to do so (and would have had absolutely no means of carrying it out) were met with a demand "Did you make a legal threat?". When I pleaded "Not guilty", this was treated by my questioner as proof that I was incorrigible, with no regard for the facts of the case, which proceeded without discussion of any form of evidence. I fear that ignoring evidence will make the truth of Jenin 2002 and the good of an encyclopedia article two more victims in this case. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 08:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
:::PR, I think you've clarified things. You said you are not trying to change the "title of this article." It did seem to me and others that the RfC is dealing with the article's title (or Article Name). You would like an upfront reference to "Jenin massacre" as describing the same subject matter. For instance, you would like to restore the "also known as" phrasing. (Perhaps it would be less confusing if we call this the "alternate description" or something, rather than alternative "title.") Thanks. ] | ] 14:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


:Thanks for the comments. Let's see:
::::HG, thanks for that note. In that case, I agree with PR's request to include that phrase somewhere. I am sure that some Palestinians do refer to this as a massacre. So I understand about reflecting that phrasing to some degree. thanks. --] 15:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
:*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.
:::::]'s AGF is appreciated and I will do my utmost to return the favour. When I first saw him edit in this article I took some of his edits to be disruptive and posted as much to the ArbCom, I wish to further retract those implications. Thankyou. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 13:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
:*It was part of the rewrite. I think this stuff belongs in the ] article. Why is it very important here?
::::Briefly, I am fine with the current title. I think the alternate description should read something like "also known as the Siege of Jenin, or sometimes, especially in the Arabic press, the Jenin Massacre." Incidentally, I think "Siege of Jenin" would be far and away the best title, since the sealing off of the camp was so central to the overall notability of the episode (indeed giving rise to the conflicting reports and ensuing controversies that have given Jenin its iconic status in the first place); and since – while pro-Israel voices and pro-Palestinian voices debate whether what took place during the siege was a "battle" or a "massacre" – no one debates that the siege itself took place. If there were general support to move this to ], that would be great, but I'm not otherwise inclined to fight the point.
: -- ] (]) 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.
::::I share PR's grave concerns about NPOV problems in this article, but I am not as concerned as he is about the title and first sentence. The real problem seems to me one he correctly identified earlier – our extraordinary emphasis on the "massacre/no massacre" narrative, and our strong insinuation that this narrative reveals Palestinian duplicity and media gullibility. This presentation is not a neutral one, and it is not the one presented by either mainstream journalists and scholars.--] 16:22, 3 October 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.
====Support current name====
::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===
*'''Support.'''I think this discussion is getting a bit hard to read. I am voting in favor of the current name. i think the difficulty in reading this is due to the lack of separate sections for comments for and against. I will add those now. thanks. --] 13:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
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 ] in the ]. It was fought between the ] (IDF) and ] militants{{ref|1}} during the ], as part of the ]i ] launched four days earlier.
* Misplaced Pages is not a propaganda tool. There was no massacre in Jenin. Misplaced Pages should not be used to create one (or ''re-create'' a already debunked reports of one) after the fact. ]<sup>]</sup> 21:09, 1 October 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.
*'''support.''' - considering about '''6 out of the first 9''' (2, 3+4 currently, 5, 6, 7, and 10) are using the "massacre" (quote on quote) terminology, i would either support keeping the:
::The '''Battle of Jenin''' ({{lang-ar|مجزرة جنين}} lit. ''Jenin Massacre''; ({{lang-he|הקרב בג'נין}} lit. ''Battle in Jenin'') took place ...
:or replace it with the what seems to be even more notable:
::The '''Battle of Jenin''' ({{lang-ar|مجزرة جنين}} lit. ''Jenin Massacre''; ({{lang-he|הקרב בג'נין}}), also known as the '''Jenin "massacre"''', took place ...
:and i'm leaning towards stronger support for the latter. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 16:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


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.
*'''Support'''. '''The title should remain "Battle of Jenin"; the proposed change violates ]'''. The title "Jenin Massacre" implies that a massacre took place -- a claim refuted by the UN and Human Rights Watch. The title "Jenin Massacre" violates ]. That a battle did take place, unlike the massacre claim, is undisputed. Furthermore, if we are to rely on Google....
::There are '''39''' results on ] for .
::There are '''33''' results on ] for (many of which argue that a massacre did not take place).
:← ] 23:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


'''Notes''':
====Oppose current name (i.e., favor proposed name)====
* {{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.


====Note==== ====Comments by Nudve====
A few issues with this draft:
* Just a note, see ]. Doing this is fine, but do not consider this a final measurement. Everyone should be attempting to find agreement somewhere. —— ''']'''</font><sup>]</sup> 15:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
::You've no idea what a relief it is to discover we're actually going to try and operate to ] after all. Could we please, please have a definitive ruling that this is the English Misplaced Pages and where it says "references can be verified by any reader" it means "references can be verified by any reader"? Failing which, I don't mind designing a cute template to be added to all these articles saying "Monoglots not welcome". ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 21:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
:::You still have to be willing to discuss with these people, and focus on content rather then editors. Frankly I really don't care the result of this, I'm just noting that you all need to work to agree on something, this poll is a decent start, but its not the be all end all. —— ''']'''</font><sup>]</sup> 23:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
::::How about a template that says "References in English depreciated in this article"? Or "Ignoramuses only speaking English please don't waste your time"? This problem is becoming steadily more serious, I see other editors on other articles (with prejudice!) today to get their own translations done. If it's not our intention to write good articles, or this one crosses a red-line, then you only need to say so and we can all stop wasting our time. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 15:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
:::::I would suggest you make a new section and start discussing it. I am not the judge jury and executor here, you guys have got to figure out how to put aside your differences and write an encyclopedia article. If you feel that sources in foreign languages are hard to read, then make a new RFC on it. I do not think we have a specific policy against foreign language sources, though I could be wrong, and if thats the case, raise that policy up when you start your discussion. —— ''']'''</font><sup>]</sup> 16:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
::::::Ultimately, we depend on you guys to deal with idiocy and stop Bad editing driving out Good. You may think I'm about on the same level as some of the most blatant offenders, but there have been many (and still are a few) highly skilled editors around, and they've all been/being driven off the project by the utter crap that is being shovelled at them. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 22:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


*Using the word "terrorist" unattributed right in the lead is going to be a problem.
== Archive everything older then 2 weeks ==
*"" 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)
I have archived everything older then ~2 weeks. If I have archived something that should not be archived, just pull that section back out. Congratulations to all for discussing the matters on the talk page, I will continue to monitor this article. —— ''']'''</font><sup>]</sup> 21:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
::Reply:
:Personally, I'm always a big fan of bot archiving. I don't mind setting it up, but only if no one disagrees. While bot archiving usually does result in discussion threads getting order of order which can sometimes make the archives confusing if someone references the previous thread or whatever, it's a lot easier then requiring someone to manually archive and it avoids any possibility that there is any legitimate impression of selective archiving. While there may still be disputes in how long before archiving, it's a much easier issue to deal with IMHO ] 11:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
::* The particular word is not important, it can be removed. ''... it served as a launch pad for numerous attacks again ...''
::If you guys want a bot thats fine. I think I'm about as uninvolved in this dispute (aside from monitoring it) as you can get. I really don't care what the outcome is anyway. :P I quite literally removed everything from the top of the page up to the part about blocks. All of that was ~2 weeks old. :) —— ''']'''</font><sup>]</sup> 15:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
::* 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.
:::Thanks for your good ideas and efforts. For my part, I disagree with bot archiving. thanks. --] 15:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
::* 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.'' ?
::::This article suffers terribly from ] and it's even been apparent in the archiving. We suffered a deeply involved editor disappearing other people's comments only 4.5 days old, while leaving his own (idiotic and orphaned) links to non-English sources for over 90 days. (He may have stopped, but his attitude was still brazen and gave no confidence atall). Clearly a bot would be better and cut out this particular opportunity for mischief. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 20:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
::* 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.
:::::PR, for now I'll be archiving unless someone beats me to it ;) I really doubt you can get anything more neutral, short of bot archiving, which if everyone can't agree to, its not worth the fight. —— ''']'''</font><sup>]</sup> 23:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
::-- ] <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===
== Intro "martyr's capital" ==


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)
hi burgass00,
: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)
1) if we agreed on something and i've missed it, i apologize, however - i'd appreciate a link to the proper location on where we agreed on this change you wish to achieve.<sup></sup>
:::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)
2) regardless, i reverted your change (and the ) because it broke 2 references in the article.<sup></sup>
:::::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)
-- <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 18:56, 3 October 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)
::::::::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:
Hi Jaakobou, aren't those references already repeated when the martyrs capital is sourced once more in the main body of the article?--] 16:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
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 -
:],
*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.
:# i'd appreciate a link to where we agreed on this, if we have not, then it is unhelpful to make false claims when editing.
*"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)
:# if you make edits, it's always preferable to not break the reference list - and i'm not a clerk who has to clean up after people's edit mistakes.
::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)
:-- <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 17:56, 4 October 2007 (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)
== "Other controversies" ==
This section will have to either '''(i)''' go; or '''(ii)''' be expanded to include a more representative sampling of unverified and largely unreported rumors. From refrigerator trucks to concealed mass graves, there is no shortage of this kind of material. I prefer '''(i)''', obviously, because I want this to be a quality article.--] 19:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
:'''added note''' I wrote in edit summary that one of the two rumors was mentioned "by a guest on a CNN talk show." This was a reference to the claim that the IDF – contrary to the overwhelming consensus among mainstream sources that they had blocked medical aid for the duration of the siege – had in fact "worked to keep the local Palestinian hospital open and that Israeli doctors had offered the Palestinians blood for their wounded, who then refused to be given 'Jewish blood'". ] made this claim on ]'s morning show; it has never been verified or to my knowledge repeated anywhere else in the mainstream media. CNN mentioned the other rumor (about a "fake funeral" near Jenin) in a brief article, indicated that it was being claimed on an IDF website, but pointedly did not verify or endorse it. The rumor has since been circulated by conspiracy theorists in the blogosphere, and is presented as fact (!) by Jaakobou in the material he's edit-warring over, but remains otherwise ignored by the mainstream media.--] 19:54, 3 October 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)
::'''i agree with no. ii.'''
: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)
::'''comment''' - wikipedia is not a censorship and you cannot simply delete well referenced material and first state that the media ignored it (<u>both cases</u> are cited by CNN for cryin' out loud) and then accuse me of edit warring.
::p.s. do i really need to bring back your "uninformed innocent" disruptive behavior from the pallywood talks to prove that you won't even list the first 5 finds of a google search when you're pushing POV? <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 11:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
:::Please be careful with your accusations, focus on content, not editors. —— ''']'''</font><sup>]</sup> 15:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
::::point taken. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 17:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


== 54 dead not 53 ==
:One of the two rumors you want to include claims that ''"Dr. David Zangen, chief medical officer of the Israeli paratroop unit that was fighting in Jenin, reported that the IDF had worked to keep the local Palestinian hospital open and that Israeli doctors had offered the Palestinians blood for their wounded, who then refused to be given 'Jewish blood' "''. Your source is a government website and a remark by Gideon Meir on Paula Zahn's morning show. Do you know the origins of that story? A Hollywood screenwriter called Dan Gordon (''Murder in the First'', ''Wyatt Earp''), having traveled to Jenin, claimed in a piece for the ''Jewish Journal'' of Los Angeles that he heard that story from Zangen. In a subsequent piece for the ''Jewish Journal'', another writer noted that Zangen was questioned about Gordon's claims at a State Zionist Council meeting in Australia, where Zangen was the guest lecturer: ''"Zangen categorically denied ever having said anything like that to Gordon, and denied being aware of any incident in which Palestinians had refused blood from the Israelis."''
the time article number 2 http://www.time.com/time/2002/jenin/story.html says 54 Palestinians died, not 53, so I corrected it.
:Gordon's response? ''"I spoke with some 50 Israeli soldiers, officers and enlisted men, reservists, conscripts and career army personnel on site in Jenin, Bethlehem, Beit Jallah, at military headquarters (the Kirya) in Tel Aviv and in Jerusalem. I did not write the article in question until almost a month after my return from Jenin. Could I have misattributed a story told by one Israeli officer to another Israeli officer; in this case, Zangen? Yes."'' Well done, Gordon. Gordon then claims that the story has been "confirmed" anyway by someone at the Israeli Military Spokesman's office, even though the source disavowed it. Whatever. Gordon is back to his Hollywood screenplays, as I understand it, and the major media – who employ, you know, fact checkers – have stayed the hell away from his bullshit. Put it in ] if you like, Jaakobou, or whatever the article is now called that deals with gross fabrications, real or alleged, but don't put it in here.
] (]) 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?==
:Your second rumor relates to a grainy, blurry video taken by an Israeli military drone in which some sort of mock funeral procession appears to be taking place. The Israeli government says the video "speaks for itself," by which they mean it shows that Palestinians fake casualties to prove fake massacres. Again, yeah whatever. The Palestinian Society for the Protection of Human Rights and the Environment (LAW) noted that (a) the drone's footage matched footage shot for a fiction film by a Palestinian filmmaker at the time, and (b) in a "real" funeral the corpse is wrapped in a flag, which the actor in this case was not. Again, ''whatever''. Neither side's claims were ever confirmed, and other than a couple of tabloids the major media had the good sense to stay away from such a flimsy story. The source you keep swooning over, CNN, goes out of its way to present this as an IDF claim; they do not verify or endorse it, and they certainly do not believe the video "speaks for itself." Let's face it, this ain't no ]. CNN mentions the claim once, never again, and the rest of the media stay away. But you want this crap in Misplaced Pages, and your version doesn't even follow the CNN version you're swooning over; where they present this as an unverified government claim, you present it as fact. This itself is enough to convince me you aren't serious. But even were you to rewrite this so that it followed the source, it would still be a gross violation of ], as well as a gross editorial misjudgment about what is well-sourced, quality material, and what on the other hand is inert propaganda – ignored by the mainstream media and well past its sell-by date.--] 12:05, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
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).
::G-Dett, can you please find links for a few of the points you've noted? <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 17:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
:::G-Dett has provided a full and complete and satisfactory explanation of why these two claims have been treated with gross ] in the article (leaving aside the RS and other problems). The claims they make are far less significant than a whole raft of good information we have on this incident - lets start with published in Yediot Aharonot, Israel's most widely circulated tabloid paper, on May 31, 2002, and highly pertinent to the article. ''"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."'' Let's put real information into the article and not this crap that's been going in up until now. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 22:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


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).
::::# the explanation is not satisfactory without any links to support the case.
::::# please refrain from injecting non related issues into the discussion.
::::-- <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 22:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
:::::Here is Hollywood screenwriter Dan Gordon's , "A Question of Blood," published in the ''Jewish Journal'' and planting the seed of the rumor. is the letter published by the same ''Jewish Journal'' citing Zangen's denial and refutation of the op-ed's claims, accompanied by the response from Gordon that I referred to above. The LAW statement regarding the "fake funeral" footage and the Palestinian filmmaker is . Mohammad Bakri, the director of ''Jenin, Jenin'', is the filmmaker referred to. I trust that the mainstream media's silence, wide berth, and/or latex gloves regarding these rumors speaks for itself. Let me know if there are other links you want or information you need.--] 23:36, 4 October 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)
=== "fake" funeral ("Other controversies" cont'd) ===


all of these are Israeli MFA claims, which is not made clear in the body of the text....] (]) 21:10, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
seems to me we can report both the israeli report, and the denial from "LAW", i disagree with the undue claim.<br>p.s. the film ] is an impressive case of propaganda/pallywood. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 01:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
:] - there is masses of material much better referenced and much more significant than this which has been aggressively edit-warred out of the article.
:In fact, any comparison between them is insulting, because we have nothing to indicate (and good reason to reject) it was a fake funeral that was filmed by an Israeli drone.
:By comparison, for instance, we have lots to indicate that Israel "indiscriminately" attacked the camp. The easily checkable fact that many international sources used the word "indiscriminately" has been edit-warred out of the article, just as (also known as '''Jenin Massacre''') and Kurdi Bear and near-cast-iron proof of a massacre and cast-iron-proof of Israel planning to hid bodies and so much else has been edit-warred out. Only when this outrageous behaviour has been stamped out (as we look to administrators to do) can there be any progress with this article. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 11:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
:::i consider this irrelevant to the discussion regarding the fake funeral. we have proper sources and your justification reeks of ]. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 14:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
::::The evidence for a "fake funeral" was very weak, which is why it was all but completely ignored by scholars and the mainstream media. Even at the time, its propaganda value for Israel was very short-lived and negligible outside the blogosphere. Stop using Misplaced Pages to keep silly rumors and propaganda stunts on life-support; it violates ], and undermines the credibility of the encyclopedia.--] 15:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
:::::it is not your place to judge what evidence is very weak. most of the input in this article is based on reports by BBC, CNN, etc. that were later changed - your claim that this video was supposed to get more covrage (than a public statement by the IDF, noted on CNN and a good number of other places - admitted to by 'LAW' the pro-palestinian advocacy group) to be allowed inclusion into the article under "other controvercies" seems false to me. i suggest we open this up for 3O - should i list my proposed version here or on a new subsection? <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 16:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
::::::I think you should list it here. LAW did not "admit" to it; you've read that piece wrong. CNN – in a single stub-like article they never expanded or followed up on – mentioned the videotape and the IDF's claims about it, and underscored that these were IDF claims. A ] also mentioned the IDF claim. The IDF maintained at the time that the videotape "speaks for itself"; the mainstream media obviously did not agree, and with the two brief exceptions noted above completely ignored it. Your version for Misplaced Pages does not even follow the CNN article stub you're so impressed by; what CNN presented as an unverified IDF ''claim'' you present inexplicably as ''fact''. This suggests to me that your editorial judgment on this subject has been seriously clouded by your passions. I don't know what a "3O" is; is it like an RfC? If so, I think here would be a good place for it. I don't want to have to recapitulate all this in a new section.--] 16:43, 5 October 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)
====Videotaped funeral ("Other controversies" cont'd from above)====
:''the following, title included, is a suggested text for inclusion under the subsection of 'other controvercies''. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 21:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
A popular video footage of a fake burial procession, occurring between the destroyed area in the Jenin refugee camp and the nearby cemetery and shot by an aerial drone on April 28, showed Palestinians acting as pallbearers carrying a green blanket-wrapped "corpse" who repeatedly falls and then stands up and places himself back in the blanket. At some point they are joined by a crowd who runs away as the man falls, according to Richard Landes, ''perhaps startled when the "corpse" comes to life.'',<ref>http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/05/03/jenin.tape/</ref><ref>http://www.israelinsider.com/channels/diplomacy/articles/dip_0204.htm#</ref><ref name=video> ()</ref><sup>(VIDEO)</sup> On Sunday, May 5, a Palestinian advocacy group called ']' denied the story and compared the evidence with images shot by ]'s, (Palestinian actor and film producer) latest project who was filming at the same location, they pertained that what was perceived as a staged 'burial' was actually a group of children playing "funeral" near the cemetery in Jenin. They add that the footage shows no flags which are usually seen at many Palestinian funerals, and the children were running, which is not common for an actual funeral. According to them, the Israeli and foreign media quoted the Israeli army representative, Colonel Miri Eisen stating, ''"the film speaks for itself,"'' adding ''"they tried to fabricate evidence of funerals to inflate the number of their dead."'' without criticism or investigating to what the footage actually shows.<ref> by ] (hosted on freerepublic.com)<ref></ref>


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)
====comments regarding suggested videotaped funeral text ("Other controversies" cont'd from above) ====
* i believe both sides gets to have their fair say regarding this footage. i disagree with any UNDUE claims and i do believe the sources given are enough to maintain notability. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 21:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
:*How do you respond to the ]WEIGHT issue, other than to say you disagree? If the story of the drone tape and the IDF's claims about it was notable, why did the CNN never expand their stub-article or follow up on it? Why did the ''New York Times'', the ''Washington Post'', the ''Los Angeles Times'', the ''Chicago Tribune'', the BBC, the ''Guardian'', ''Haaretz'', and every other major world newspaper ignore it?


:*Secondly, can you tell me – in terms as specific as possible – your criteria for notability and your standards for inclusion for material in this article? Can you sketch the objective standard, for example, by which this story would be included, but stories about Kurdi Bear, or Brian Avery , and so on, would be excluded?


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)
:*Thanks in advance for your very specific policy-based answer, Jaakobou.--] 22:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


== NPOV Tag ==
::**(1) perhaps they had no way to further validate this story. and (2) perhaps they feared injuring their credibility after to saeb erekat and his friends. (3) perhaps we have simply not looked for more references. (4) regardless, we are inserting this as an outside "other controversy" at the end of the article and we are noting exactly who said what - so it fits the ''"should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject"'' from ]. i also believe that ] and lastly ] apply in this case - the footage has been viewed by enough people and reported on a global news agency and other international ones (according to LAW). <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 22:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
::::*Thanks Jaakobou. Do you have a response to my second set of questions (beginning "Secondly..." above)? Or is it your position that anything about Jenin noted by at least one reliable source, however marginally, is worthy of inclusion in this article?--] 00:56, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
:::::it has just dawned on me that every source you mentioned lacked a link to the reference. could you please rectify this issue? <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 01:32, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
::::::Sorry, what? What links do you need?--] 02:04, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
:::::::every source you mentioned/found in regards to the fake funeral. you wouldn't be holding out on us would you? <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 03:11, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
::::::::Is this some sort of half-assed ]? I haven't found ''any'' good sources for this "fake funeral" of yours – my point is that sources are lacking, remember? If you mean the Chicago tabloid I mentioned, that article is . Really, Jaakobou, you baffle me sometimes.--] 03:22, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


The documentation at {{tl|NPOV}} says ''"Do not use this template unless there is an ongoing dispute."''
outdent outdent...
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)
thank you for that link - so now our source list for the event includes:
: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.
CNN, IsraeliInsider, Chicago Sun-Times, richard landes (seconddraft.org), LAW, the new editor, and the IDF website - 7 sources by my count - how many would you require to allow for this material - if i come up with a haaretz article would you back down? <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 04:47, 6 October 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 source doesn't say it's a fake funeral, it says "Palestinians accused of holding fake funeral". And the explanation of the perpetrators of this attack is obvious rubbish - since when have Palestinian funerals (or any one elses) been carried out with the "dead bodies" on open display, not wrapped up? Why have they dropped him if it's a "practice" funeral - why are they experimenting with a completely new and hopelessly unsatisfactory way of carrying a body? It's only kids would allow themselves to be dropped to the ground and then carry on with the "game". No fair-minded person would ever mistake this for a funeral - how much longer do we have to put up with crap shovelled into this article? ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 06:58, 6 October 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.
::regardless if it is made with the intention of fooling the media or just kids playing, it's still a videotaped fake funeral, please try to not be disruptive and inject unrelated issues and topics into the subsection. each of your questions is matter for personal interpretation, and we don't really do that here... both sides will have their stance presented, and it's up for the fairl minded people to decide on their own. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 15:42, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
:::::*Either way, policy does permit reference to primary sources for straightforward facts or text.
:::Jaakobou, do you understand the connotations, in English, of "fake funeral"? And do you understand the meaning, in English, of Misplaced Pages's NPOV policy?--] 15:46, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
:::::*The above is doubly safe if done with a clear "according to Amnesty/HRW etc" attribution
::::this is not a core issue of our dispute at the moment. btw, i'm well aware and the title i had used was a different one. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 15:54, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
:::::*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)
:You're welcome Jaakobou. I'm unimpressed by your source list. It's not just that it's padded out with things like ''Israeli Insider'' ("Israel's Online Daily News Magazine"), the "New Editor" (''"straight outta the Lone Star moonbat asylum of Austin, comes this erudite conservative group blog. Think Powerline with a little Tex-Mex flava"''), and the self-published blogposts of a medieval history professor and amateur Youtuber. No, the real problem is that there's no depth there; all the citations simply report the IDF claim, which was never verified or followed up on. The IDF thought they had a propaganda coup with this stupid blurry incomprehensible tape, but for international media that saw it there was just ], so they quite appropriately ignored it. Those few that even bothered to note the release of the tape and the IDF's "theorizing" about it did so very briefly and non-committally, and then dropped the story for good. There's just no evidence that the IDF's story was taken seriously by anyone except the right-wing bloggers upon whom you rely so distressingly for your understanding of this conflict.
:::::*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==
:If you have a ''Haaretz'' reference, I'd like to see it. If it's the same thing as the CNN and Chicago tabloid pieces – i.e. just briefly notes that the IDF held a press conference, released a blurry videotape, and made some theoretical claims about it – then it will change nothing. If it takes the story further or deeper in some way, then that will be worth discussing.
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)
::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)
: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)


== Fact checking ==
:There is plenty of propaganda on both sides of this, Jaakobou, much of it from "official" spokespeople. Before you insist upon including this sort of material, you should consider the implications of the precedent you'd be setting for future editing of this article. The "Other Controversies" section you'd be creating will be open to every last unverified rumor or "official" speculation or allegation ''made by either side'', provided that someone, somewhere reported that this or that person alleged it. The article will be seriously damaged, Jaakobou; Misplaced Pages will be slumming it precisely where the overwhelming majority of reliable sources choose to take the high ground.--] 15:42, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


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)
::from my perspective, this is a well notable enough declaration by the IDF that the palestinians were asked for response and they have provided. CNN is a major news source, and haaretz is a notably serious one, richard landes, despite your reservations (btw, where does it say "middle ages" on his record?), is considered an authority researcher on this subject. if a story is reported on by CNN and other international news sources, regardless if they cannot fully verify it, that makes it valid for this article.. i'm willing to go your way by finding another article or two, but clearly, a story about a fake corpse (true or false) is notable enough for an encyclopedia.
::p.s. suicide bombings in israel, are also usually mentioned by only one short report appearing about them. try to let go of the "hey it's freekin' blurry" and "only the 'stupid IOF' declared it" statements. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 16:15, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
:::Some clarifications. Of course ''Haaretz'' is "notably serious"; it's one of the world's top newspapers, but you still haven't cited it. Richard Landes is a historian of medieval Europe, an amateur Youtuber and a partisan blogger. He is not "considered an authority researcher on this subject" by anyone except other partisan bloggers, and his self-published blog is not a reliable source by Misplaced Pages standards. You are now saying that any unverified allegation attributed by a reliable source such as CNN to an Israeli or Palestinian official is "valid for this article." Be aware of the implications.


ok, I get it now. I can fix it. ] (]) 16:09, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
:::To your parting shots. (i) Suicide bombings in Israel are ''not'' "usually mentioned by only one short report appearing about them." I do not know where you got this erroneous idea, but it's really off the wall. (ii) The IDF is not "stupid." Like every army (or militant group) in the modern world, they have a public relations/propaganda arm. Sometimes the propaganda arm is successful, sometimes not. In the case of the "fake funeral" videotape, they were not successful in convincing the mainstream international media (much less scholars) that their blurry footage showed anything significant or meaningful. The overwhelming majority of reliable sources ignored the IDF theory entirely, and the few (very few indeed) who did bother to mention it mentioned it only as an IDF theory and then dropped the story for good. There are times when a videotape "speaks for itself": the ] tape, obviously, or (apparently) the Blackwater tape, or the Saddam execution. The IDF's blurry footage came nowhere near that threshold of self-evidence, and the mainstream media obviously did not find the IDF's theories and PR-announcements compelling enough to pursue. There is no "controversy" there, except in those benighted regions of the blogosphere where you spend far too much time. Misplaced Pages is not an internet tabloid, or a partisan blog, or a venue for conspiracy theories, or part of an IDF information-dissemination network.--] 16:56, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


== D9 Operator Moshe Nissim Interview ==
::::I disagree compltely with G-Dett. This is a conflict which we are documenting. Sometimes the only way to get balance points of view is to quote partisan souyrces from one side or the other. Sometimes major media outlets won't provide balancing argumnents at all. In this case, it is disingenuous to omit partisan or community opinionated sources completely. --] 17:01, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
:::::''There should not be continuing onoging discussion of which side committed "massacres" or war crimes. That is insane, irrational, and the road to continuing edit wars. the only thing we should actually discuss here is what actually happened, based on verifiable, neutral sources ... Here at Misplaced Pages, we do not collect, accumulate or document evidence against one side or the other. the only thing which belongs in this article is a clear retelling of events. if you want to discuss evidence of Israel war crimes, or any finding by an international body, advoacy group, or wahtchdog organizations,then I would suggest going over to Human rights in Israel. --Steve, Sm8900 19:56, 5 September 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
:::::Pending clarification, Steve's position is that: we ''should not'' quote the findings of major international human-rights organizations that resulted from thorough onsite investigations and were reported by every major media outlet in the world, as well as most scholarly accounts of the matter; but we ''should'' quote an unverified theoretical claim made at an IDF press briefing and widely disseminated in the right-wing blogosphere but almost completely ignored by every major media outlet in the world. The reason we should not quote the former is because to do so would be insane and irrational, and lead to edit wars, and we are here to report what actually happened, not to document evidence against one side or the other. The reason we should quote the latter is because sometimes the major media won't provide balancing arguments, so we need to. Or something.--] 20:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
::::::G-Dett, here's my clarification. I never said the article shouldn't ''mention'' allegations of massacres or war crimes. What I said is that we editors here should not attempt to resolve the ''question'' of whether there were masscres or war crimes. If you want to quote any reputable organizations or groups and their allegations of war crimes, by all means, I feel you should do so. However it sometimes appears that some editors here are trying to ''convince'' us that a massacre ''did'' take place, and that the article itself should present that as an established fact, That is what I was trying to express my disagreement with. In fact, it is simply an open issue, with various differing allegations and reputable statements on both sides of the issue. --] 13:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
::::::Upon further thought, what i was also saying is that an article on a historical event or military operation, should simpl describe the events themselves. You can certainly include any statements or allegations by human right groups about what happened during the operation, no matter how critical or castigating. However, the debate on war crimes should not be the heart oif this article; describing the events themselves should be. Descripotions of the resulting debate should be in a separate section, at the very least. however, again, any allegations pertaining to the actual events can be included, as long as it is clear they are allegations by one side. You can certainly indicate which allegations are made by a number of groups, if that is the case as well.


<blockquote>
::::::the point here is that any claim by any side, no matter how well-documented, will still be the claim of one side or the pther. We can achieve balnce if we start trying to reflect that simple factm in a mutually respctful way, instead of always bludgeoning each other, and shouting "no, ''my'' version is the objective reality!!!" --] 13:50, 9 October 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>
:::::::], i'm afraid this subsection is getting a bit confusing to follow, i will make a rewrite adding more sources and start a new subsections, perhaps in RfC form when i have it finished. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 09:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
"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>
=== blood controversy ("Other controversies" cont'd from above) ===
</blockquote>

seems from the seems to corroborate the story, not refute it. considering the story by the reader is hearsay (and that the writer is not agreeing with it but only keeps an opening to the possibility that it might be true), i'm not sure it's worth much of a mention. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 01:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
:Yet again, passers-by have no means to understand what's going on here, because a new section, bearing no relation to anything else, has been promiscuously opened. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 12:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

:What is not worth a mention is an unverified, badly sourced rumor appearing in an op-ed written by a Hollywood screenwriter for a small Los Angeles weekly, and totally ignored by the mainstream media; a rumor the authenticity of which was subsequently challenged in that same small weekly newsletter. Give it a rest, Jaakobou; everyone else has, even the esteemed author of ''Train Ride to Hollywood'', '']'', '']'', '']'', and "A Question of Blood."

:] has a section on alleged distortions and fabrications; consider adding this material there, if you are devoted to it.--] 15:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

::i do believe that the IDF made an official statement regarding this issue so perhaps there is room to find more citations but i really don't consider your "give it a rest" justifications as worthy for building an encyclopedia.
::p.s. in regards to your last statement, note the date, location and context of the event. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 16:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
:::"Give it a rest" is an idiomatic phrase meaning something like, "stop plugging away at a lost cause." The "Jewish blood" rumor went belly up the moment it came out of the fish hatchery; like all dead rotting things, it stank for a while and then crumbled away. I'm not surprised they're still serving it up on various propaganda feedlots of the internet, but quality sources avoided it from the start, and so should we. --] 17:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

== Protection ==

Ok, I've seen the editwarring that went on, I"m going to protect this page for 1 day. Please sort out your differences here. Also a warning to all participants, restrict yourself to one revert per day on this article. Any more will be viewed as disruptive. Being disruptive means being blockable. Consider this a warning and friendly reminder that revert wars don't solve anything. —— ''']'''</font><sup>]</sup> 15:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
:A suggestion for tomorrow, someone can have a look at the ] section of this article, and note the cite.php errors. (Error No 8: no text found). This means there are some blank tags laying about. Just an idea :) —— ''']'''</font><sup>]</sup> 15:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
::I thought I'd cleared this up one time, it was simply reverted. I did part of it again , this time it was reverted with a "rvv Vandalism" and a complaint logged against me. I'd accidentally deleted one of the "Time Magazine" links (there were still an astounding 20 references to the same rubbish article left in, parroting the denial of the perpetrators!).
::But in any case, we have to re-invent WP Policy first, starting with an agreement on which language we wish to operate in. Would you care to make the first nomination? ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 21:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

== Various issues ==

You may remember that some time ago there was an attempt to summarize issues previous to mediation; this more or less fell apart after it became clear that Jaakobou, Kyaa, and others did not wish to seek mediation, and preferred to attack the credibility and neutrality of the mediator (who, if I'm not mistaken, is a fairly pro-Israel Conservative or Orthodox Jew...) Anyway, the point is that I got pretty far along on a submission to ], and it occurred to me lately that it might be useful to post it anyway. Do note that the specific references made are to the ; although specific quotes may have changed, my intention all along was to "discuss broad issues with reference to specific narrow examples", and all of these broad issues are still at play in this article, to its severe detriment.

See ]. Thanks, <tt>&lt;]/]]</b>&gt;</tt> 16:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

:# who are you adressing here?
:# i don't recall ever attacking HG, so mind the .
:# i have tried to open up subsections for issues mentioned so i find what is clear to you a bit murky from where i'm standing.<sup>, </sup>
:-- <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 17:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
::I distinctly recall doing quite a bit of work presenting the most glaring errors and omissions in this article, on a page set-aside by a self-appointed mediator - only for the page to be effectively vandalised by contributors who appeared to have diametrically opposed views on methods to produce a good article. I've not suggested our dear new "friend" use this tactic to try and bring order to the chaos, but it was, IMHO, a very good way to go. I wish the new attempt at writing good article/s all success. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 19:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
::# I'm addressing whoever reads the post.
::# I didn't mean to imply that you attacked HG. I stated that you and your cohorts preferred attacks over mediation, which is my impression of the case. Feel free to clutter up my user talk page with more irrelevant warnings; perhaps I'll even create a special sandbox for you. This focus on real or imagined incivility really is a marvelous way to avoid discussing reasoned and supported arguments, but I don't appreciate it in the slightest.
::# Huh? I don't understand what you're saying. <tt>&lt;]/]]</b>&gt;</tt> 20:16, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

::::(belated fyi) Well, not sure you need me to chime in here. I didn't take the hesitancies expressed about me (or mediation) as very problematic. While I have tried to play a facilitating role here, I haven't characterized myself as a "mediator" here in the Misplaced Pages sense (i.e., wherein both sides consent to the role) though I'm honored by the term in its common usage (per Eleland, above). ] | ] 14:28, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

], each warning i've listed on your page, you've more than earned and anyone going over them can verify this statement.
], your mentor has noted me to stop working to resolve the issues raised on that page.
-- <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 21:13, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
:] - my "mentor" had nothing to do with , which well predates my choosing him. The efforts of ] to get an agreement on the facts at the root of this article were cynically torpedoed after I'd made an excellent start with a whole bunch of work. HG's goodwill and my efforts were greeted with statements that people would not take part there, they'd open up a new section in the Talk here instead. A contributor I could have mistaken for opened up with a new section , an idiotic mis-reading of the situation.
:] - you might (perhaps?) be unaware that ] has a long history of harrassment of people on their TalkPages, including the harrassment of two admins. He was taken to the and blocked for it. Two more admins took up the case, letting ] off with these warnings ''"If Jaakobou is promising to mend his ways and only crap in the litter box in future (metaphorically speaking...) I think he should be given the chance to prove his sincerity."'' and ''"The important thing is to see a change in behaviour and it is clear now that Jaakoubou is apologizing, explaining and promising not to do so in the future"''.
:That particular case of harrassment on TalkPages only exploded because he was simultaneously harrassing two other editors, including publishing the personal details of one of them, see and . It would be bizarre indeed if he is still behaving in a fashion almost guaranteed to poison the atmosphere. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 07:32, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
:::thank you for that notice, why don't you just try asking your mentor about it instead of wasting so much time and effort on this drama? p.s. since you've been mentioning this story so many times, i have to ask - are you carrying a text file on your computer with this "history of harrasment on talk pages" text? <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 15:50, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

'''comment''' - while we're on the subject of various issues, i intend to readmit the notes regarding the netanya bombing, the stated casus belli, to the intro of the article. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 21:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
*Do I have your permission to enter the statement made by Sharon to the world's press on 5th March (ie a month before the incursions, in fact before the surge of suicide bombings) ''and it must be very painful ... We must cause them losses, victims, so that they feel a heavy price."'' I'd like this statement to go in the lead, if that's alright by you, because it's the simplest and most succint explanation for what the Israeli forces actually set out to achieve, before "damage limitation" and denial set in. We can balance it with the story of the Netanya bombing, and then we'll both be happy. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 06:40, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
**i saw the source, you are misrepresenting it. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 06:58, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
***My sincere apologies, if you don't wish that quote to appear in the article, then of course I won't put it in. However, I'm puzzled by your claim that I'm mis-representing it - have I added my own ] and accused Sharon of the International crime of "communal punishment"? His words were not some kind of mis-reported aberration, other came from his office eg CNN Gissin, senior adviser: ''"The continuing use of terrorism is going to destroy Palestinian society, not just hurt us."'' The article should make clear that the policy of Israel was to attack civilians, even if, in deference to your feelings, we gloss it over a bit.
***I'm just a little bit puzzled that Sharon made clear what he was going to do *before* the surge of suicide bombings in March and April. The deadliest such attack was on 27th March, when a Palestinian suicide bomber, at the height of a security scare, somehow got into the dining hall of a Passover celebration in Netanya. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 08:39, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
****please try to stay focused and avoid soapboxing up the place, it's becoming a neusance and to be frank, i'm loosing my patience again. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 15:50, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

:::Agree completely with Jaakobou in the above exchange. --] 16:58, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

::::Let's review: Jaakobou declares his intention to place summary of a stated reason for the attack into the lede. PR points out that another stated reason was reported, and suggests that both reasons be listed for balance. He even provides a direct quote. Jaakobou declares that he is misrepresenting the source. He provides no evidence for this assertion and offers no alternative reading of the source. PR responds that he's puzzled, and provides ''another'' good source making similar assertions, as well as reviewing the standard, accepted timeline of events. Jaakobou then makes more personal accusations, which he does not support with evidence. Steve jumps in with a useless "IAWTP".
::::Now, is anyone going to actually address the legitimate point PR is making here? <tt>&lt;]/]]</b>&gt;</tt> 17:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

:::::it was addressed that he's misrepresenting the source - it is done so when he claims it was a "statement made by Sharon to the world's press" (this cafeteria conversation), and also when he declares he wants this in the intro when it obviously not part of the intro to the battle (unless you want to go all the way back to the attacks of february 27, march 2, 3 and 5 and add them also into the intro. btw, what is exactly valid about not wanting the netanyah bombing in the intro? <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 09:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
::::::::Uh, Jaakobou, the source says that Sharon was "speaking to reporters in an impromptu session at the parliament cafeteria early last week. Explaining the decision of his inner Cabinet to intensify the military campaign..." which seems pretty open-and-shut to me. I'm not aware of any standard which holds that statements to reporters aren't statements to reporters if they're made in a cafeteria.
::::::::You say that it is "obviously not part of the intro to the battle", although , and the Palestinians based in no small part on this kind of rhetoric. Tbe Sharon quote reflects a POV on the Jenin attack, namely that it was a collective punishment aimed at Palestinian civil society (POV of Palestinians, most Arab states, Israeli far-left, Western left, human rights groups). The "martyrs' capital" narriatve reflects a POV on the attack, namely that it was a security operation designed to root out a nest of terrorists (POV of Israeli gov, Western right, US and British governments). I can't think of any more appropriate and balanced way than to include both in the lede. <tt>&lt;]/]]</b>&gt;</tt> 23:10, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::Thank you for the civility. I will gladly reply, but this subsection is getting a bit confusing, would you mind reopning a subsection dedicated to this issue? <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 23:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
::::::::::Is it so confusing, Jaakobou? You objected to the inclusion of the ''ad hoc'' Sharon press conference on the grounds that it took place in a cafeteria; Eleland pointed out that the location of a press conference is neither here nor there. Can we move on without opening up yet another "subsection"?--] 00:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::::no. i objected it for more than just one reason, but i'm willing to reconsider and discuss this issue - i think it would be far easier to follow, not only for now, but for future reference if we start it on a clean slate - i don't suppose you consider this thread to be a clean slate that could be used for future reference? <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 01:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
::::::] - you and others have edit-warred to include in all the suicide-bombings as reason for the attack on the camp. Turns out that the intention to attack the camp came about much earlier, well before the surge in suicide bombings. But even more significantly, Sharon did not intend his attack to root out the sources of the terrorism - but to attack the Palestinians generally. He started at Nablus, killing 80 Palestinians - which contradicts your insistence that Jenin was the seat of the suicide bombers, and makes nonsense of the Jenin death toll you've fought to defend (52 in total). No wonder this article is so bad with the ludicrous ] it's under! ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 12:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
:::::::],
:::::::Disregarding the ], you make ] based on figurative speech interpretation of a couple sources - try to follow the time-line and sources more accurately without inflation. (1) this is a cafeteria quote, not a public statement. (2) there were 24 Israelis (16 civilians - 3 children, 2 babies) killed on march 2+3 (not counting wounded) and on March 5 there were three separate attacks. Israel responded to this without a full scale operation - and then Anthony Zinni was launched to the region. The attacks continued, and only then the decision to deploy 30000 troops was made. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 12:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Eleland, wow, I really commend you on your sandbox page to clarify your concerns. (To be honest, I didn't read it carefully enough to comment on the substance, but it's a serious analysis.) If you're up to it, I'm wondering if you might want to put a short list at top of a few discrete items that either could be addressed singly, or one or two procedural/policy items that require discussion and consensus-building. Thanks. ] | ] 14:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

:Thanks for the kind words, HG. I'll have to take some time to compare my sandbox page (almost a month old) with the current article to see what's most germane, but I'll certainly post something here.
:On a more general note, how do you feel about the prospects for moving into mediation? It seems that your offer of "pre-mediation-mediation" has been declined, which casts doubt on the prospects of ever getting an RfM accepted by all parties (by my count, that would include you, me, Tewfik, Jaakobou, PR, and G-Dett at the least). But (achingly slow) progress has been made over the last two months here, and it might be worth further exploration. <tt>&lt;]/]]</b>&gt;</tt> 02:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

== Moving forward with restructuring ==
===Specific proposals and ideas on article===
Greetings. I thought that, before it gets archived, this might be a suitable time to implement some of the ]. Granted, it doesn't resolve the various nuances discussed in meantime. However, the rewrite effort on the didn't get much comment, so perhaps it will be more constructive here.

I'll try some of the edits in stages, so people can discuss <s>and/or revert</s> in orderly fashion. (I may edit this entry to clarify what I've tried. This may take 1-4 days.) Thanks. ] | ] 16:15, 7 October 2007 (UTC) Rather than revert, I would prefer that folks first try editing specific little pieces to find more neutral or factual wording, where necessary, or raise specific points in this section. I especially encourage people to improve the wording and factual basis for the footnotes in the summation paragraph now in Aftermath. Thanks again! ] | ] 17:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

:Tewfik kindly wrote to me about why he deleted a I had added for the casualties section. He considers it unencyclopedic and says "I don't have see any major content problems with your edits, however I think that while your "introduction" language makes for a smoother read, it is generally a bad idea to stray from strictly factual citation-laden paragraphs, no matter how dense the prose, especially in an area as controversial as this. I also slightly restructured in order to keep the casualty summary paragraph together with the list of casualty counts, and altered language implying that that there were more than 60 Palestinian casualties, which no RS reported AFAIK." Rather than defend my prose, I just wanted to encourage folks to explain their edits on this rather contested article. Thanks to Tewfik for contributing. ] | ] 03:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
To be clear, there are some problems in the recent edits preceding yours:
# Despite the charges of "indiscriminate" and "disproportionate" being only made by ''some'' international organisations, edits are continually being made that imply that this was the consensus among such organisations, which is inappropriate considering the lengths that some like the UN go to to not make such charges themselves, and the length of ].
# The first "martys' capital" reference might be a bit repetitive, however the prominence of Jenin as a base for many suicide attacks should not appear to be a disputed or only Israeli claim.
# Reference to the numerous attacks preceding the Israeli operation is continually limited to "three", ] from the Israeli press conference's explicit mention of the three latest attacks.
Perhaps, HG, you might suggest some method of dealing with these issues. <font style="color:#22AA00;">''']'''</font><font style="color:#888888;"><sup>]</sup></font> 11:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

'''Questions about disputed issues.''' Well, Tewfik, thanks for asking! Perhaps we can all put our head together and think about your question -- that is, focus on what ''method'' might help folks deal with such editing disputes. Unfortunately, I don't have an easy answer to your 3 specific issues because my intuition would be to first agree on which issues to tackle. Giving my training, of course, I simply want to ask you back some related questions:
#Quite a few folks worked on a recent structured process to (i) tabulate the reliable sources on the (final) body count figures, (ii) observe and comment on a proposed redraft of a key paragraph, which I started on a user page, (iii) placement of the revised paragraph, within the context of some restructuring of related section headings and intros, (iv) some mild-mannered editing of the new paragraph etc. Sure, some more revising may be needed. Nonetheless, frankly, I'm surprised at how smoothly this went. Did you guys also think this worked out pretty well? Or are you tacitly dissatisfied? What feedback to you have regarding my own involvement? '''Would you like to see this kind of process applied to other disputed items?''' (Per my proposed agenda above, we would next work on the "Fluctuations in reported deaths" section.) What could be done in the future to improve this approach?
#There's been some discussion of mediation. Mediation can take several forms, e.g. use of a mediation cabal page,a structured process here, more forceful moderation of the Talk page, third opinion and RfC efforts, and so on. '''Who feels that they would NOT want to proceed with more deliberate mediation?''' What objections do folks have to any specific forms of mediation? (''Please note: These questions are not about me, or my role, but about forms of mediation.'')
#Some folks have begun to clarify their disagreements, presumably to pave the way for a more mediated resolution. (PR and Eleland also made lists. Perhaps Jaakabou did so at various pts here, I'm not sure.) Who would -- or not -- like to compare the lists, '''agree on a few disagreements worth tackling''', and focus on your jointly-narrowed list for some type of (mediated?) effort?
#'''How can you collaborate on content during intense user-conduct disputes?''' If you don't mind me being blunt, you all seem to have a tendency to be a bit contentious, and diverge into inter-personal (or old, unresolved) disputes. I don't say this to ], but to help us reflect on the situation here. Charitably and ], a few active editors are so passionate and dedicated that they seem to find it hard to stay mellow. To collaborate well, shouldn't we all try to display an eagerness for creative compromise and/or flexibility? Honestly, I think it would be hard to mediate on content when a few editors (e.g., PR and Jaakabou) are engaged in active and personal battles elsewhere. I don't know who, if anyone, is "right" -- but don't you think content mediation would benefit from a truce or resolution to the user conduct battle(s)? Do you think we might need to either exclude the battling parties or, since that sounds so drastic, keep them within a fairly structured and facilitated discussion?

My thoughts for now. Tewfik, sorry if this isn't the response you wanted. Still, I'd appreciate your giving serious consideration to at least some of my questions. Thanks for hearing me out. ] | ] 15:14, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

:I'm very keen to stay within a structured discussion (as I think I proved over your first attempt at "mediation"). I'm not sure how much "personalised" venom I've injected, I'd suggest it only concerned quite serious, detailed allegations of disruptive behaviour and outright cheating. If any of those allegations are proven (or even suggested) to be improper, I'm entirely happy to withdraw them (as I think I've proved over quite rare mistakes I've made elsewhere).
:<s>Meanwhile, I'm very concerned that it's impossible for even the most scholarly amongst us to aspire to reasonable levels of writing in the face of the idiocy with which we've so often been confronted. Inserting hate-sites, seriously at AN and sources and Talk should get people topic-banned - otherwise, this is not a serious project, it's a plaything. We need active protection of articles by administrators from this behaviour - it's lunacy to force people like me to wrestle in the mud and then claim I'm dirty. There's been a huge amount that is not some kind of unmanageable "content dispute" - it's straightforward disruption, and there's no possible good going to come from allowing it to continue.</s> ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 09:53, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
:::PR, thanks for responding. Your 1st sentence is helpful because it indicates how you'd be willing to proceed and contribute, as you did so cooperatively before. However, after that you are talking again about user conduct, which basically ''doesn't belong on this Talk page''. I think you need to stop discussing your allegations here. You/we need to rely on mechanisms -- mostly outside this Talk page -- to prevent or manage disruption, etc. by anybody. If we let disruptions divert us, then we can't explore consensus on the content. That's part of my point #4. Thanks! ] | ] 18:21, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

:# The process suggested worked fairly well on the narrow issue involved. Although I have concerns about its ability to resolve broader issues, it's certainly worth pursuing.
:# This dispute has been lengthy, heated, circular, involved numerous editors, caused fallout on every Wiki process page you can think of, and been generally a stone bitch. I don't think anything less than formal mediation is likely to end it. I'm willing to proceed with a limited and informal process in the meantime, but this doesn't change my position that it behooves the various pro-Israel editors here to participate in a more formal process.
:# ].
:# The persistent references to user-conduct disputes, often disputes which are unrelated or tangentally related, has gravely injured the prospects for productive dialogue here. It appears that both Jaakobou and PR have sunk to copy-pasting summaries of their charges against each other into almost every discussion in which they are involved. A cease-fire s most assuredly in order. I would ask that each editor agrees ''not'' to discuss user conduct claims on each other and to scrupulously ensure that their talk page comments here are ''always'' phrased as discussion of ''contribu'''tions''''' rather than ''contribo'''tors'''''. In other words, "the proposed phrasing 'XYZ' is a misreading of the cited source which actually says 'ZYX'", rather than "your constant insistence on misinterpreting sources is preventing us from moving forward to improve the article". I have probably been guilty of this kind of thing too, and will endeavour to stop.
:# Just an idea. If PalestineRemembered is willing, I'll set up a sock - call it PalestineRefactored - by which he can send me comments related to user conduct issues, and I'll try and rephrase them as productive, polite, soothing, dharmic, etc. <tt>&lt;]/]]</b>&gt;</tt> 01:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
:::Thanks for your replies and interesting ideas. Among other pts, I note that you'd prefer formal mediation. Ciao. ] | ] 14:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

==== Discussion of article approach ====
::HG, I understand and agree with your concerns, as follows:"If you don't mind me being blunt, you all seem to have a tendency to be a bit contentious, and diverge into inter-personal (or old, unresolved) disputes. I don't say this to cast blame, but to help us reflect on the situation here. Charitably and AGF, a few active editors are so passionate and dedicated that they seem to find it hard to stay mellow". please look at my comments below, which i posted at ]. I feel this indicates one possible method to address your concerns.

::Let's simply start accepting others' sources, and they'll accept ours. Is there any doubt that there are many Palestians who condemn everything which Israel does? And are fullly convinced that all logic, all facts, and all history is one their side? then why do you act surprised when they say so? I don't get mad when palestinians use sources which completely negate any Israeli justifications. I expect them to do so. Then i find my own sources which add the pro-Israel viewpoint.

::Screenstalker, your points are valid. i'm not saying to not have any standards. I'm saying that if someone did publish a book legitimately, we should be able to use material from it, and then simply find other sources to balance it with.

::By the way, <s>most</s> many palestinian sources deny or somewhat revise the Holocaust. there are many of them who believe the Jewish Temple never stood in Jerusalem. Do you think Palestine Remembered's group feels there is a single ISraeli police or military action which was ever justified? Do you think PR considers Israel's action in any sphere justified? Then why do you feel surprised when Palestinians are so harsh on Israel, or Western society, or Jewish history? That is how their side feels. <s>And they do not have much diversity of opinion</s> these opinions are extremely common among many Palestinian sources and commentators. If we're going to reflect both sides here, we will need to use some sources which are rather harsh towards Israel, the West and tolerant approaches to history. --Steve, Sm8900 13:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

::: "most Palestinian sources will deny or somewhat revise the holocaust" .. " that is how their side feels, and they do not have much diversity of opinion". Yes dear, and please keep on taking the tablets. Does generalising, racist bigotry count for much where you come from, or is it merely automatic and assumed? --] 21:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
::::I apolgize if you felt I was insulting Palestinians in any way. let me withdraw that, and revise my comments, as follows: "Most Palestinians believe that Israel's actions have been one long string of disposessions of Palestinians, and denials of their rights. Most of them believe that israel's entire history is one of continuing disregard of basic considerations for palestinians. Most palestinians believe that Israel's existence is based on factual distortions, or at least unfair colonialist beliefs." --] 13:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
:* Folks, you are straying way off topic. Starting w/ Steve's "Separate comment:," your talk doesn't address either this subheading or even Jenin. If you don't mind, please strikeout or delete your comments. You are welcome to continue your dialogue elsewhere, or in a different section if it pertains specifically to how we can edit this article. Please. ] | ] 14:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
::HG, <s>sorry, but </s>i slightly disagree with you on this. I have created a separate sub-section, but have left it in place here. people can now start discussing the article itself in the original section, above. how's that? <s>this topic began in response to PR's relevant comment above, and your comemnt also on how to be more positive. so i understand your concern, but sometimes a discussion topic has a way of evolving. thanks as usual for your input though. </s> --] 14:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
:::Well, I've moved you section heading below PR (and my reply). If you want to start a different subsection, it's up to you. (I think your topic is more narrow than "article approach" since the entire Talk page does that. But you ge to choose.) You seem to be saying that we should be compromising over sources. I ], though others may feel that your suggestion from ] has merit here. For those who want to discuss the pts raised by Tewfik, me, and PR about how to proceed, e.g. with mediation, please look at the previous section, thanks! ] | ] 16:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

==Nahr al-Bared==
Compare this article to ], the refugee camp which was 90% destroyed by the Lebanese army, who killed 40 civilians and left most the inhabitants without homes or possessions – pathetic! In fact so was the international response! ] 15:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
:*Congratulations, serious problems there too - ] somehow fails to mention the transfer that is the sole reason for the existence of NBC camp.
:*In the meantime, this article is horrible, stuffed with distortions, weasel words and outright mis-statements of fact all edit-warred in by people who's motive is very difficult to understand.
:*The most blatant outright falsehood is the number of total deaths, nobody but the perpetrators believe it was 52, nobody but deniers said it was 52 (outside reports all said "at least 52", some commented on the stench and squashed bits of bodies all over the camp). The real toll will never be known - it's most likely in the 100s (though likely not 500 as sometimes claimed at the time). Perpetrators deny - no point in trying to pretend otherwise.
:*And here's a list of just the major factual items that still need inserting (nothing about correcting the weasel-words):
:#Add Sharons words - 5th March, a month before the incursions, before the surge of suicide bombings.
:#Add Sharons advisor telling the UN special envoy, Terje Roed-Larsen .
:#Add the massacre reported in careful detail, with soldiers identified, and the .
:#Add story of three refrigerated trailers in the camp while all observers were excluded - .
:#Add they would bury up to 200 bodies in a "special cemetry in the Jordan valley" (ie closed military zone).
:#Add clips from by the bulldozer driver to an Israeli newspaper.
:#Add an account of the third group that made a visit and presented a "Jenin Investigation", still finding complete bodies in August.
:#Add the allegations that the Israelis mined the refugee camp before they left.
:#Add reference to the ] who returned to Jenin and was shot and badly injured by the IDF in Nov. Mention Ian Hook, killed about the same time.
:#Add mention of the earlier and later armed incursions and the killing of people even when long curfews were supposedly lifted. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 07:16, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
::PS - Here's a that is particularily distorted. The media (ie even the English-speaking media) retracted nothing other than the allegations of a "mass-shooting" style massacre. See this , 8 weeks after the event, which simply reminds us that virtually every reliable source continued to treat Jenin as an atrocity. Michael Silverburg has concentrated on attacking the British media - but the same thing applies to the US media. No-one with any reputation for accuracy, fact-checking or responsible reporting will publish the Israeli version of this one. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 08:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

== Nonsense in the article ==

Why do we have such utter nonsense as this: ''"Whilst considering these press and news reports, it is important to consider the date. At first, many international newspapers reported the possibility of a massacre, whereas 3-4 weeks on, they often describe the massacre as particularly unlikely"'' in the article? As admitted , none of this happened. Can I remove it, please? ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 17:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
:Blogs are not reliable sources. Please go fish. ] 00:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
::Got any ]? I don't think PR is advocating the use of the blog source. The information which he quotes is unsourced, and appears to be a ] of various primary and secondary sources advancing a POV without attributing it. And anyway it's part of the External Links section, which has been relatively free of edit-warring and condemnation but is nonetheless way, way too big and clearly out of line with ]. <tt>&lt;]/]]</b>&gt;</tt> 00:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
:::so now you're disputing that when this battle was first reported, many news sources asserted that it was a massacre, but then, after a while, the news reports discounted those allegations? I actually think this has been proven pretty squarely, and is consistent with the factual record. --] 01:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
:::Mmmm, Jack. I am not an alcoholic. Really. :P But seriously, questioning that the reporting of the attack shifted from "omgmassacre" to "no massacre" is rather unbelievable. ] 03:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
::::I think PR's claim is that the international media organs that "reported the possibility of massacre" (the BBC ''et al'') did not publish retractions nor switch to "describ the massacre as particularly unlikely." I don't know if he's right or wrong on this point, and my objection to our treatment of the massacre/no-massacre narrative is very different from PR's. But Steve and Kyaa, if he is wrong, so "unbelievably" wrong, then just some relevant reports from the BBC, the Independent ''et al'', where they retract their earlier reporting and "describe the massacre as particularly unlikely." The more absurd PR's statement is, the easier is ought to be for you to refute it.--] 10:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
::::: Quite right. Here you go: , 8/2/02, BBC. I got this from here: ]. I would gently note that we have covered this before. Thanks. --] 13:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
::::::Steve, I know you've provided that link before. The problem is, that article is ''not'' an example of the BBC "describing the massacre as particularly unlikely." It reports the UN's conclusions that Israel did not in fact kill hundreds, and then it reports the ensuing war of words between Palestinian and Israeli officials over what constitutes a "massacre." Is this really your source for a sentence saying ''"Whilst considering these press and news reports, it is important to consider the date. At first, many international newspapers reported the possibility of a massacre, whereas 3-4 weeks on, they often describe the massacre as particularly unlikely"''? If so, then PR and Eleland are quite right that it's original research.--] 13:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
::::::I would add that newspaper headlines are designed for concision and punch, and are not written by journalists. The only "UN says no massacre" claim is in the headline, and the article as a whole actually says that "A United Nations investigation has rejected claims that hundreds of Palestinian civilians were killed in Israel's attack on the Palestinian refugee camp in Jenin...the report offers few conclusions and merely reports allegations that have already been made...Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat 'How many civilians must be killed to speak of a massacre?'" In other words, it has little or no bearing on this discussion, especially since the BBC in fact never reported a massacre - they reported that ''allegations'', or ''claims'', or sometimes ''reports'' of a massacre existed. <tt>&lt;]/]]</b>&gt;</tt> 17:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
:::::::Ok. here are some links where repuitable newapapers describe a massacre as unlikely and such reports as overblown. I got these from .


Is there anyone can read Hebrew that can help checking the translations integrity. ] (]) 19:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
::::::: (Tom Gross, National Review, 2002/05/13) - "The British media was particularly emotive in its reporting. They devoted page upon page, day after day, to tales of mass murders, common graves, summary executions, and war crimes. Israel was invariably compared to the Nazis, to al Qaeda, and to the Taliban.


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


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


'''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)
:::::::"The Independent's 'reporting'" (Andrew Sullivan, andrewsullivan.com, 2002/05/06) - the Independent made matters even still worse by uncritically reprinting such stories as news." (See also: (Phil Reeves, Independent, 2002/04/16) and (Phil Reeves, Independent, 2002/04/25))


:::::::thanks. --] 14:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
::::::::First linked source is an opinion editorial in a partisan magazine; furthermore, it does not support the claim which you are making. If anything, it contradicts you, because its central argument is that mainstream newspapers have ''not'' retracted their original statements - "So far only the nonintellectual tabloids have grasped the essential difference between right and wrong ... On both sides of the Atlantic, the mass-market papers have corrected the lies of their supposedly superior broadsheets." (He's excluding ''The Independent'', I guess, which is not a broadsheet). The tabloids to which he refers, like the New York Sun and The Sun of Britain, did not make these claims to begin with, so they can hardly be said to have retracted them.
::::::::Second linked source is an opinion editorial in an online supplement to a reliable newspaper. Noteworthy POV but not the only one and not an established majority POV.
::::::::Third linked source again actively contradicts the argument you are trying to support. It says that the "mendacious claims" (ie, massacre) were never retracted by the liberal European press - that's exactly the portion which you have quoted.
::::::::Fourth source is a blowhard blogger; who cares. Fifth source doesn't contain the word "massacre". Sixth source accuses Israel of massive criminality while noting that "the Palestinian leadership ... without proof, declared that a massacre had occurred in which as many as 500 died. Palestinian human-rights groups made matters worse by churning out wild, and clearly untrue, stories." Doesn't have anything to say about the media response to those stories.
::::::::In summary, you've shown that yes, some sources, particularly Israeli sources and conservative Western sources, do adhere to the "false massacre blood libel conclusively debunked" narrative, and that many other sources, particularly Palestinian sources and liberal Western sources do not. I don't think that supports what you're trying to do here. <tt>&lt;]/]]</b>&gt;</tt> 17:11, 12 October 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.
::::::::Steve, with the exception of Sullivan's blog, these are all good solid reliable sources, but they're also all op-eds. Op-eds are fine sources for presenting a ''point of view'', and as I've said, the view that the mainstream media "uncritically" disseminated exaggerated accounts of Jenin is a notable one and should be included. But the claim we need citations for is the claim that ''"many international newspapers reported the possibility of a massacre, whereas 3-4 weeks on, they often describe the massacre as particularly unlikely"''. The subject is the ''reporting'', not op-ed analysis and commentary about that reporting. At any rate these op-eds manifestly ''do not'' support the statement; indeed, as PR has pointed out repeatedly, they flatly contradict it: ''"None has since retracted the mendacious claims nor tried to find out how they were misled,"'' says one. Says another: ''"One would hope that some honest reflection about their reporting by those European and American journalists who are genuinely motivated by a desire to help Palestinians (as opposed to those whose primary motive is demonizing Jews), will enable them to realize that propagating the falsehoods of Arafat's propagandists does nothing to further the legitimate aspirations of ordinary Palestinians, any more than parroting the lies of Stalin helped ordinary Russians."'' In short, these op-eds do not see the about-face in reporting that the disputed statement claims as fact. These are not examples of mainstream newspaper reports "describing the massacre as particularly unlikely"; they are examples of op-ed pundits opining that Palestinians and Palestinian spokesmen are liars and the international media are dupes or closet antisemites; this is a very different thing. The fact that you've offered these op-eds as support for the statement is a perfect illustration of what's wrong with this article. Instead of presenting a notable partisan analysis of the reporting on Jenin ''as'' a notable partisan analysis, we've simply ''absorbed'' that analysis and let it shape our presentation of fact.


::::::::Just to make sure you understand what I'm saying, I'll provide an NPOV version of the disputed sentences:
<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.'''"
::::::::Readers should bear in mind in each case the date of these press and news reports. As Jenin was sealed for the duration of the siege, early reports of body counts and other battle details varied considerably, and in some cases were significantly revised in the light of subsequent investigations.
</blockquote> </blockquote>
::::::::This is for illustrative purposes only; my position is that a list of external links shouldn't be prefaced by any hand-holding editorial intervention.--] 17:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::I appreciate the thoughtful and in-depth replies from both of you. I would like to step back a bit, just to make a more general comment. The question was whether any news source reported that THERE WAS NO occurrence of a massacre. The answer, based on the BBC article, is YES, YES, YES. The fact they based their article on specific UN findings, rather than general "allegations" by either party, only strengthens the case which i am making.


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)
:::::::::I have little to add to these comments above, and will allow others to comment. thanks. --] 17:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
: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).
::::::::::Comment from others would indeed be welcome. But briefly, the BBC article doesn't report that there was no massacre. It reports that the UN concluded that there weren't "hundreds" of Palestinian victims, and then it reports some of the verbal tussling that ensued, some of it around the word "massacre." What we're discussing in this section is whether this particular "external sources" should be prefaced by a statement advising the reader to pay specific attention to article dates, because "at first, many international newspapers reported the possibility of a massacre, whereas 3-4 weeks on, they often describe the massacre as particularly unlikely." The sources you've given for this are op-eds. It is highly unusual to preface an "external sources" list with ''any'' advice to the reader; when that advice has to be sourced to partisan op-eds, the problem that arises should be obvious.--] 18:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::::Can I take it there's a consensus that that paragraph ''"Whilst considering these press and news reports, it is important to consider the date. At first, many international newspapers reported the possibility of a massacre, whereas 3-4 weeks on, they often describe the massacre as particularly unlikely"'' definitely doesn't belong? ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 21:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC) :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)
== "Allegations of a massacre" section ==
: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)
''The battle attracted widespread international attention due to Palestinian allegations that a massacre had been committed and due to inflated reports on body counts by Palestinian officials and Jenin residents. Journalists and international groups were banned by the IDF from entering the camp during the fighting on safety grounds, and at one point the IDF itself reported casualties as high as 250, yet many journalists reported that a massacre of Palestinian civilians may have taken place during the fighting, and unconfirmed "eyewitness" claims that hundreds, or even thousands, of bodies had been secretly buried in mass graves by the IDF were spread. These allegations were aired widely in the Arab world and European media (most prominently in the British media), inciting extreme antipathy toward Israel. Critics in conservative American publications responded by alleging a "Big Jenin Lie".
:::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)


''According to the Anti-Defamation League, International organizations, non-governmental organizations, and many foreign governments prematurely attacked Israel for committing atrocities during its military operations and before the facts were in. But while a massacre of hundreds was alleged, reported and condemned, it is now essentially certain that no such massacre occurred.''


== Sources and Citation for Moshe Nissim Interview ==
''Many Arabs and Palestinians continue to use the term "Jenin Massacre".''


Most of the sources on internet for the interview based on ] therefore I am searching other sources.
This section has a number of minor problems, and one major one. The major problem is that it passively accepts and relays a highly partisan narrative. That narrative can be loosely summarized as follows: ''Jenin was notable primarily for allegations of "massacre." Those allegations began as Palestinian rumors and exaggerations and then were spread far and wide by a credulous international media, but were ultimately disproved.'' In fact, both the massacre rumors and the international outrage were a direct result of Israel's complete sealing-off of Jenin from the outside world – from medical help; from international observers, NGOs and human-rights organizations; from food, electricity, and water; and from journalists. The "massacre allegations" came from panicked residents under 24-hour curfew who had seen missile attacks on homes, non-combatants willfully gunned down, crippled men with white flags on their wheelchairs being crushed by bulldozers, etc.; these panicked residents were communicating by phone with human-rights organizations, who were calling into the camps for the duration of the siege. Jenin remained in the international spotlight after the siege ended, in large part due to Israel's resistance to an international investigation. When the major international human-rights organizations found "no evidence of massacre," partisan sources (blogs, the ADL, the ''Weekly Standard'', various usenet threads) seized upon the finding as a vindication of Israel, and tended to present that finding in isolation, not in the context of the other war crimes the HR groups found Israel ''had'' carried out. These partisan sources also completely disregarded the HR groups' account of the ''origins'' of the "massacre" claims. Amnesty International, for example, gives a very detailed account of exactly how concerns about a "massacre" came into being:<blockquote>
During the fighting Palestinian residents and Palestinian and foreign journalists and others outside the camp saw hundreds of missiles being fired into the houses of the camp from Apache helicopters flying sortie after sortie. The sight of the firepower being thrown at Jenin refugee camp led those who witnessed the air raids, including military experts and the media, to believe that scores, at least, of Palestinians had been killed. The tight cordon round the refugee camp and the main hospital from 4-17 April meant that the outside world had no means of knowing what was going on inside the refugee camp; a few journalists were able to slip into the area at risk to their lives after 13 April, but only saw a small portion of the camp, including some dead bodies before leaving. Those within the camp reachable by telephone were confined to their homes and could not tell what was happening. It was in these circumstances that stories of a "massacre" spread. Even the IDF leadership appeared unclear as to how many Palestinians had died: General Ron Kitrey said on 12 April that hundreds had died in Jenin before correcting himself a few hours later saying that hundreds had died or been wounded.


'''Sources Using of as a reference'''
When Amnesty International delegates went to Jenin Hospital on 17 April they found only "walking wounded" - those who had managed to make their own way through the IDF cordon. Doctors and diplomatic or other military experts who visited the scene, aware that in armed combat there is usually a ratio of three or four seriously wounded people to one dead person, wondered where were the heavily wounded. Stories of bodies buried in secret places or carried away in refrigerated vans spread. 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>
The partisan sources completely jettison these accounts, and replace them with speculations about a perfect storm of gullible-anti-Israel-international-media meets Palestinian exaggeration, inflation, and duplicity. Some of these partisan accounts are content to insinuate ("The Big Jenin Lie"); others cross the line into full-blown "Pallywood"-type conspiracy theories.


*
Our article lamentably adopts the view of these partisan sources, joining them in their separate and foregrounded treatment of "massacre" findings vis-a-vis findings about other war crimes, joining them in their ''a la carte'' approach to HR investigations, and joining them in ignoring the best and most authoritative explanations of the initially higher body counts and subsequently revised massacre claims. We've muted the rhetoric somewhat (but not much, in many instances), but we're going with that narrative. This really needs to change.--] 13:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


*
:"Partisan"..."partisan"..."partisan". what's so partisan about them? as noted above, the UN says there was no massacre. Is the UN "partisan"? --] 13:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
::With respect, Steve, I think you need to read my post more carefully before I'll engage. Having laid my points out so carefully, it's rather depressing to find that you arguing with me about the legitimacy of findings that no massacre occurred – as if I'd contested that.--] 13:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
::Ok, maybe I misunderstood. Sorry. i'll try to read more in-depth when i have a little more time. I guess i wanted to make sure that certain basic points were not contested here, but if they're not, i'm happy to try to read and understand your ideas more correctly. thanks.


*
(later). ok now i understand. I guess if you want to add more factual details to depict a little more about the genuine well-founded concerns of people who were there at the time, that can't be too bad. obviously all material may be subject to some debate later. thanks. --] 13:58, 12 October 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."''
:::G-Dett, hi. I do think that this "Allegations" section deserves to be revisited and the dispute over it resolved. Indeed, maybe we should tackle this next. However, above (question #1), I suggested first looking at the preceding "Fluctuations" section, which may be easier for folks to reach agreement on -- and which serves as some background info not unrelated to the "Allegations" unit. Still, I'm open to proceeding with "Allegations" if that's the order folks want. Perhaps you (and others) would be so kind as to reply, above, to my questions #1-4? Sorry to interrupt. ] | ] 13:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
::::Interruptions are always welcome HG, and anyway they're your prerogative as ''de facto'' informal mediator here. I'll take a closer look at the "Fluctuations" section today. The reason I've focused here first is that I'm concerned about the ''narrative'' we've assimilated, which I think has distorted our approach to this material in a holistic way. The "timeline" approach in the "fluctuations" section is derived from a CAMERA article, as you know. That is not to say I object to a timeline in principle, but I think we need to scrutinize the governing narrative we've adopted, which I think is more representative of a handful of partisan sources than mainstream and scholarly accounts of the Jenin episode. The dispute between PR and other editors about whether international media ever formally "retracted" the massacre angle, for example, is a symptom of this. Both sides are "right" here: the "massacre" claims dissipated, but there was never (in the mainstream media) a major disavowal/retraction. Why? Because the massacre angle was always an ''integrated'' element of a larger configuration of Jenin-related controversies – including a host of war-crimes allegations, Geneva-Convention violations related to the sealing off of the camps, Israel's resistance to outside investigations, tensions between Israel and the US over Operation Defensive Shield, broader debates about the ethical challenges of urban warfare, and so on. Mainstream sources reported the findings of no massacre in the context of other findings and ongoing controversies; as they never positively reported a massacre in the first place, but only reported the best estimates at any given moment, they had nothing to "retract." Partisan sources have either heavily foregrounded the massacre-and-body-count findings or treated them in isolation – for the obvious reason that subsequent revisions thereof can then be presented as exonerating. Meanwhile they've put a special spin on these – a spin wholly unsubstantiated by the HR sources they cite – that is, that the initially higher estimates were due to Palestinian exaggeration and duplicity, and the carelessness, bias, and gullibility of the international media. This analysis has a place in this article, but it should be presented as one argument about Jenin's significance; it shouldn't be ''structuring'' our presentation, and I think a holistic analysis of this article will show that it has done just that.--] 14:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
:::::why do we have to keep saying "massacre"? that seems especially offensive. Can't you simply say "allegations that major human rights abuses occurred"? that seems to me to be just as fair to your concerns. --] 14:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
::::::I'm not sure I'm following, Steve. The allegations of major human rights abuses were confirmed; the allegations of a massacre were not. Why would we use one blanket term for both? If you're saying our treatment of the two should be ''integrated'', then I agree wholeheartedly – that has been my point all along. But we still need to use precise and discriminating terminology in our integrated treatment.--] 14:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
::::::: that doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense to me. if there's no proof of a massacre, then why should we talk about it? Let's just discuss any allegations of such thngs under the term"allegations of human rights abuses".--] 12:59, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
::::::::I agree with you entirely here, Steve.--] 13:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
::::::::: really? wow, that's really open-minded of you. thnks, I appreciate it. I thought you disagreed with that approach initially, but I'm really glad we could find agreement on that. Anyway, that's all i wanted to suggest for now. i really appreciate your open support and open approach to this issue. thanks very much. --] 14:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


* Durham University Department of Geography
:::::::Interesting thought. thanks for your reply. I guess I'll let some others weigh in right now. thanks. --] 14:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
::::::::] - you said something similar when I pointed out the interview with the bulldozer driver, which has been edit-warred out of the article, where it undoubtedly belongs. Furthermore, can I remind you we have credible information that at least one small massacre did occur? It's only "mass-shooting" allegations that were never confirmed. Furthermore, I see no reason to claim that the word "massacre" should be offensive - lists 24 massacres from about the same time, death tolls much smaller than there was at Jenin, even if we accept the laughable figure of the perpetrators. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 21:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
== Current editing ==
Tewfik, I have left in place your edit changing "three" to "numerous." I have reverted only the disruptive edits, i.e. those that misrepresented source materials on the basis of arguments systematically and exhaustively discredited.--] 17:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
:Sorry, but your edit is original research. The of that same report clearly says "prima-facie". The rest of the edit is the disruption, since you even acknowledge that those words only appear in quotes or otherwise not directly in the narrative voice of several of the major groups. I don't understand why you keep insisting that the conclusions are the consensus, but that presents a misleading reading of the sources. <font style="color:#22AA00;">''']'''</font><font style="color:#888888;"><sup>]</sup></font> 17:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
::This is what I can see in that "overview" report from HRW: ''"During the April offensive on the Jenin refugee camp, Israel committed violations including the unlawful or willful killing of civilians, use of Palestinian civilians as human shields, obstruction of emergency medical and humanitarian assistance, and destruction that appeared to exceed that which could be justified on the ground of military necessity"''. Those would appear to me to be war-crimes, even if the "overview" report doesn't yet say as much.
::Looking at ] I see that our aim is to report what the secondary sources tell us ... I don't know what the final version of the report says, but other editors tell me it speaks specifically of "war-crimes", and I'm pretty sure that's what our article should report. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 19:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


*
== Prima Facie ==


*Quoted in the Book Derek Gregory's The Colonial Present: Afghanistan, Palestine, and Iraq pgs. 114 and 115
First, let me note that "prima facie '''X'''" does not mean, "Ghee whiz, we took a quick glance, and it just looks to us like '''X'''." It means, "Evidence of '''X''' which is so strong that, barring some unanticipated counter-explanation, it's sufficient to prove '''X'''." Read the page ], which notes that "It is used in modern legal English to signify that on first examination, a matter appears to be self-evident from the facts. In common law jurisdictions, prima facie denotes evidence that (unless rebutted) would be sufficient to prove a particular proposition or fact." Wiktionary ] that the adjective means, "apparently correct; not needing proof unless evidence to the contrary is shown".


*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
Second, I actually don't mind the language "strong prima facie evidence". It's true that the Amnesty International report flatly stated that IDF committed "unlawful killings", and that "Grave breaches of Article 147 of the Fourth Geneva Convention constitute war crimes.(24) Some of the acts by the IDF described in this report amount to grave breaches of the Fourth Geneva Convention. These acts include some of the unlawful killings described in this report; the torture and ill-treatment of prisoners; wanton destruction of property after the end of military operations; the blocking of ambulances and denial of humanitarian assistance; and the use of Palestinian civilians to assist in military operations." If this is the objectino, we should say something like "HRW found strong prima facie evidence of war crimes, Amnesty listed several categories of war crimes it found committed by the IDF." IIRC, I inserted the "prima facie" language myself, and G-Dett commended me for it, so I'm a bit confused by what's going on now! <tt>&lt;]/]]</b>&gt;</tt> 18:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
:Hi Eleland. Of course you're right that "prima facie" does not mean "at first blush." It does not indicate significant hedging, but it is nonetheless a qualification. But the simple fact is neither Amnesty International nor the British military expert retained by AI ever mention "prima facie evidence"; both attested unambiguously to Israeli war crimes. (Tewfik says that "AI does not drop it," meaning the phrase "prima facie," but this is only trivially true in the sense that they never said it in the first place). Now, HRW ''did'' write that "Israeli forces committed serious violations of international humanitarian law, some amounting ''prima facie'' to war crimes." They wrote this the month after the siege. In their final, end-of-year bound and published report, HRW specifically mentioned the May report and its its finding of "prima facie" evidence, but then used different language in the report itself: "In Jenin, Human Rights Watch documented twenty-two civilian killings during the IDF military operations in April. Many of them were killed wilfully or unlawfully, and in some case constituted war crimes." What Tewfik is inexplicably calling "]" is simply quoted directly from HRW's annual report. These are precisely the sources – HRW, AI, and the British military expert David Holley – whose consensus on the question of massacre Tewfik regards as definitive. Their consensus on war crimes is equally clear. "Prima facie" has a technical meaning and is not a weasel word, but it is misleading in this case. Only HRW ever said it, in the summary of their initial May report, and they dropped it afterwards.


* Pakistan Newspaper
:The other part of the dispute has to do with how to attribute the claim that Israel used indiscriminate and disproportionate force. Both Amnesty and HRW describe it this way. So does the EU. And the UN report cites other "human rights investigations" as describing it this way. I don't know of any human-rights group that ''doesn't'' describe it this way. Having previously insisted that the description be attributed to "Palestinian sources" (!?), Tewfik is now arguing that we should say "some human rights organizations," as if there were a lack of consensus. His argument, so far as I can follow it, is that the UN report attributes the charge to others and therefore doesn't give it its own imprimatur. Whatever. Debatable but irrelevant. The UN is not a "human rights organization." The UN report ''cites'' human rights organizations, and it cites them very clearly as describing the Israeli use of force as "disproportionate and indiscriminate": ''"Witness testimonies and human rights investigations allege that the destruction was both disproportionate and indiscriminate."'' HRW and AI – as has been demonstrated exhaustively, and exhaustingly, and repeatedly, with copious direct quotation, in response to previous wikilawyering on this page – both describe the Israeli use of force as "disproportionate and indiscriminate."--] 19:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


'''Reference to Moshe Nissim interview'''
::Looks like solid case, then. I didn't notice that the language you suggested had different sources than I'd previously brought up. AI and the EU called them war crimes right away; HRW called it a strong prima facie case, then called them war crimes after a little while (presumably because no Israeli refutation or counter-evidence was presented). Thus, your new language is more accurate. <tt>&lt;]/]]</b>&gt;</tt> 20:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


*
Moved here from my talk:
=== Jenin / Prima Facie ===


'''Medal of Honour Moshe Nissim Receive After Publication of the Interview'''
Hey, I think you need to look more closely at the text . The source is actually not the same HRW report from before, it's a year-in-review piece which flatly states, "In Jenin, Human Rights Watch documented twenty-two civilian killings during the IDF military operations in April. Many of them were killed wilfully or unlawfully, and in some case constituted war crimes." I would have agreed with you, until I noticed that it wasn't the same report I saw earlier. <tt>&lt;]/]]</b>&gt;</tt> 00:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
:The full paragraph :
::Our early May report, Jenin: IDF Military Operations, documented Israeli Defense Forces' extensive violations of international humanitarian law, '''some amounting prima facie to war crimes'''. During the April offensive on the Jenin refugee camp, Israel committed violations including the unlawful or willful killing of civilians, use of Palestinian civilians as human shields, obstruction of emergency medical and humanitarian assistance, and destruction that appeared to exceed that which could be justified on the ground of military necessity. We pressured Israel to allow access to the Jenin refugee camp by humanitarian and human rights organizations and strongly criticized its decision not to allow a U.N. fact-finding mission. We welcomed the IDF decision in May to forbid the use of hostages and human shields, and to "examine" the forced use of civilians in response to a petition from seven human rights organizations. The petition was drafted by Adalah's staff attorney and drew on the April and May Human Rights Watch reports noted above.
:emphasis mine. Anyway, I think it's safe to say that the major HR orgs consensus view was that there were "prima facie war crimes" so if we keep it short, and to the point, there's less to argue about ;) ] 00:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
::I can't follow your reasoning for the life of me, Armon. In their annual review, HRW writes the paragraph you've quoted and therein describes their May report. Then in their year-end report itself, they write:
::<blockquote>Israeli security forces continued to resort to excessive and indiscriminate use of lethal force, causing numerous civilian deaths and serious injuries. In Jenin, Human Rights Watch documented twenty-two civilian killings during the IDF military operations in April. Many of them were killed wilfully or unlawfully, and in some case constituted war crimes.
</blockquote>
::I do not understand how (a) you've concluded that the quote on p.418 of their annual report, which uses the phrase "prima facie" in summarizing their May report, somehow trumps the language on 460 of that annual report, where they describe killings without qualification as having "constituted war crimes"; or (b) how you've concluded that a phrase used once and only once by Human Rights Watch, and never by Amnesty International, constitutes "the major HR orgs consensus view." The major HR orgs consensus view is that the IDF carried out war crimes. We know because they both said this. Amnesty's military expert (whom we've quoted as authoritative when he says no massacre occurred) also agreed on war crimes, and never does he say "prima facie." Something makes me think you haven't read the sources or followed the debate on this page.--] 00:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
:::I'm sure I may have missed something in the debate, but it's a summary of the major HR org's position for the lede. I thought we had a consensus on the phrase "prima facie", and HRW ''does'' use it in summarizing their own position. If you think it would be better to say: "major human rights organizations ''alleged'' that the IDF had carried out war crimes." -which is true and neutral, fine, but I think that the "prima facie" phrasing is a bit stronger and more accurate. ] 02:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


*
*''Station break. Stop reverting the same text, as of now, until the discussion reaches a better and fuller mutual understanding. (As a technique, you might each try summarizing your opponents' arguments in the best possible light.) And don't think that unhelpful edit summaries exempts one from 3RR.'' ] | ] 03:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


*
The HRW report overview does not say "we once said prima facie, and now we don't" - it just says prima facie. Reading the part that does not say prima facie while ignoring the part that does as ''proof'' that their position had changed is original research and not the conclusion of the report. Attribution of "indiscriminate" to 'Human rights organisations' instead of the previous 'Palestinian and international organisations' was a limitation introduced by , but even so, along with the UN, Amnesty does not make such a declaration. Moreover, to revert to your language, including in the introduction the charge of war crimes along with selected examples of said war crimes only serves to buff up the charge through undue emphasis.
Another logical fallacy that keeps getting presented is the idea that if the NGOs confirm one point that the Israelis argued , that they then achieve some status of "definitive" . I'm not sure where people have gotten that idea, but your agreement with someone on ''one point'' would hardly force you to then agree with everything that person argues. <font style="color:#22AA00;">''']'''</font><font style="color:#888888;"><sup>]</sup></font> 08:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
::I don't think any of what you've written above makes any sense, Tewfik. Much of it in fact seems willfully nonsensical. We don't need "proof" that HRW's position has changed because we're not saying it has changed. We're simply saying the major human rights organizations agree that the IDF carried out war crimes. We have quotes from both where they say this unequivocally. It is inappropriate for you to keep deliberately misleading the reader into thinking that AI tempered their findings of war crimes with any language about "prima facie." Your wikilawyering about "indiscriminate" is likewise dead in the water<s>, Tewfik, and has seriously eroded my belief in your good faith</s>.--] 14:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
''Page protected. Pls let me make 2 suggestions. (#1) You all have identified and debated the issues, without much repetitiveness, so how about we '''open a ]'''? If you can't agree on how to describe the dispute, you can let some mythically fair-minded editor write the RfC (humble me?) or share it. (#2) You all should check to see if you're satisfied with the '''AI and HRW sections'''. This part of the lead should only reflect/summarize the content below, right? So your discussion could help get buy-in for those sections, too. How's that? ] | ] 12:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
::I think if we're going to open an RfC, it should be on substantive issues where reasonable people who have read the sources could conceivably disagree. <s>Tewfik's equivocations about "indiscriminate" and "disproportionate" (and his disruptive editing of same) are not examples of this. Equally absurd is his argument that it is appropriate to sift through the findings of HR organizations, and present some of them as definitive facts and others as allegations. Sophistries like this are an insult to the intelligence, and deserve to be ignored or flatly rebuked by any editor of good faith.</s>--] 14:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
:::''For heaven's sake, G-D! Your edit summary was fabulous but.... Scratch everything (and I mean it!) after your 1st sentence and tell us, affirmatively and constructively, how to do the RfC. Can you concisely and fairly describe the substantive issues? Or how will an RfC be submitted?'' ] | ] 15:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
::::I've struck it, HG. I plan to take a couple days break from this page. I don't intend to draft an RfC, because I don't see points of substantive disagreement between Tewfik and me; I see disruption. I'll come back to the page when it reopens. An appropriate RfC would be one on the structure of the article, especially the separate and foregrounded treatment of the massacre claims, and the partisan narrative regarding them.--] 15:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
:::G-Dett, as frustrated as you might be, commenting on editors is still not okay and won't solve anything. It would be much more helpful if you could address why we should remove "prima facie" when the report you are quoting uses it quite clearly. <font style="color:#22AA00;">''']'''</font><font style="color:#888888;"><sup>]</sup></font> 16:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
::::As best I can tell, many of the sources state, unequivocably, that war-crimes were committed. Under these circumstances, it seems clear that our article should state "war-crimes were committed", followed by the reference to the particular group that says this.
::::After all, that's what we're here for, to examine the secondary sources and report what they say. It's not a terribly difficult concept to understand - and not a terribly difficult principle to follow. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 18:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
No, Tewfik, you need to explain why this article should say –<blockquote>
'''...major human rights organizations found strong prima facie evidence of IDF war crimes.'''
</blockquote>
instead of saying –<blockquote>
'''...major human rights organizations...found that the IDF had carried out war crimes.'''
</blockquote>
For the latter formulation, I've provided citations from both major human rights organizations (Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International) making the claim explicitly and categorically. We also have an independent statement from the British military expert, David Holley, whom AI retained as an advisor to their investigation, making the claim explicitly and categorically.


*
For the former formulation, you have one citation from Human Rights Watch. And nothing else. And yet you want the text to say "major human rights organizations," plural, even though that is false. Why, Tewfik? Why would we present multiple organizations as having said something they didn't say? And why would we ''not'' present multiple organizations as having said something they ''did'' in fact say? Why, in a summary sentence presenting the consensus view of human rights organizations, would we not present the consensus view of human rights organizations? Please keep your answer simple and direct. We can deal with the second issue (why you think there's no consensus among major human rights organizations that Israel used indiscriminate and disproportionate lethal force) in a subsequent section.--] 21:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
:anything human right groups say is only their opinion. what about palestinian terrorists? is it a war crime when they attack busloads of civilians? that's relevant, and you know it. --] 21:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


*
::Excuse me, but anything anybody says is "only their opinion". Climate change, evolution, the theory of gravity - all mere opinions. If that's the best you can do, you really haven't anything to add to the discussion. HRW and Amnesty are eminently credible, and they ''do not'' rush to judgment when Israel is involved - far from it, they hold themselves to a higher standard, and they use more careful language, because they know that scores of well-funded advocacy groups will be scrutinizing their every statement. As for Palestinian terrorists, HRW and Amnesty have condemned them repeatedly and unequivocally, as you would know if you bothered to read their reports. <tt>&lt;]/]]</b>&gt;</tt> 22:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


*
::If you are serious about this, Steve – i.e., if you want to present the finding that no massacre of Palestinians occurred as just another "opinion" – then let me know, and I'll tell you why I disagree. In the meantime, please note the subject of discussion here. We're debating how to present, concisely and accurately, the consensus view of human-rights organizations regarding war crimes. Their views have been expressed with varying formulations and varying levels of nuance. I want to present the consensus view with a formulation all the relevant sources have used; Tewfik wants to present the consensus view with a formulation only one of the sources has used. Both formulations are in boldface above, Steve. They await your scrutiny. I await a serious explanation of Tewfik's reasoning.--] 23:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


'''Partly Translations of the Interview by Other Parties'''
:G-Dett, you justified dropping ''prima facie'' because , however the annual report in question clearly uses the phrase. Please address this. <font style="color:#22AA00;">''']'''</font><font style="color:#888888;"><sup>]</sup></font> 01:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
::Thanks for your replies. I feel I still have not received an explanation of why the concerted, deliberate targeting and blowing up civilians on buses is not a warcrime, while the actions of some individual members of a legitimate military unit, on a justified mission, is a war crime. I feel my comments are fairly clear enough, and I have little to add. I do appreciate your replies. thanks. --] 03:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
:::] - if you have RS to say that Palestinians in this incident carried out war-crimes then by all means put them in. If you don't, then your contribution doesn't look entirely helpful - and certainly doesn't contribute to ''"how to present, concisely and accurately, the consensus view of human-rights organizations regarding war crimes."'', as other editors are trying to do. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 10:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
::] - I can't see what there is to address - you tell us there are (if you're sure?) claims of "prima-facie evidence of war-crimes" in the final HRW report. But there are also straightforward statements that war-crimes were committed. The latter statement is unquestionably the one that belongs in a tertiary report on the article. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 10:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
:::the only statement which belongs in this article about this (and I'm not sure that any does) is that ''some'' human rights groups ''claimed'' that there were war crimes, ''not'' that war crimes occurred as an objectively unquestioned fact. --] 13:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
::::I first noticed you in this article stating that all allegations should be included from each side, which I believe was rather excessive, some of the partisan comment is bound to be outright lies and we should avoid including it.
::::However, we're now attempting to incorporate the findings of "neutral" international observers (HRW are not actually neutral - they're pro-western and are alleged to criticise 5 nations in the region more than they criticise Israel - Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon, Saudi and Iran?). I can't understand why there is such resistance to reporting what they found about this incident, including the bald statement that war-crimes were committed. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 19:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Steve, both major international HR groups have documented Palestinian atrocities extensively. I can give you links to reports if you like. I am not certain offhand if they refer to terrorist attacks as "war crimes," as I think that term applies to violations of the Geneva conventions by standing armies. I wish you would raise these questions in a different section, or even perhaps on a different page, given that there were no exploding buses or pizzerias in the siege of Jenin, and this side-discussion is becoming a distraction.


* OR OR his book "An Israeli in Palestine: Resisting Dispossession, Redeeming Israel (Paperback) by Jeff Halper (Author)"
Tewfik, um, sure I'll answer your questions about an edit summary of mine, but then can we return to the subject at hand – i.e., what is the most accurate and concise formulation for the consensus opinion of the major human rights organizations regarding Israeli "war crimes"? I hope so.


*
OK, to the edit summary you've asked about. It read in full: ''Language was firmer in HRW's annual report; "prima facie" qualifier dropped. AI also was very clear about war crimes, as was the AI military advisor quoted later in the article.'' In asking me about it just now, you left out the last two-thirds of the summary, where I indicate AI's opinion and that of the British military adviser. You quoted only the third about HRW. This omission is rather telling, and symptomatic of the whole problem here. We're discussing how to represent consensus opinion of human-rights sources who carried out on-site investigations, and you keep steering the discussion to only one of those sources – the one that has sometimes used a phrasing that you prefer. So that's the first problem: we're talking about how to represent multiple sources, but in our debates about source material you refuse to talk about multiple sources.


*
Now, you wanted to know why I said the "language was firmer in HRW's annual report." I'm glad we've all become such philologists. Here's the history. HRW's original May report focused a great deal on war crimes; sometimes they used the phrase ''"prima facie"'' and sometimes not; regarding some incidents they called for further investigation, regarding others they stated categorically that a war crime had been committed. In the following exhaustive list, I have bolded the instances where their language was categorical and unqualified.<blockquote>
#Israel also has a legal duty to ensure that its attacks on legitimate military targets did not cause disproportionate harm to civilians. Unfortunately, these obligations were not met. Human Rights Watch's research demonstrates that, during their incursion into the Jenin refugee camp, Israeli forces committed serious violations of international humanitarian law, some amounting prima facie to war crimes.
#'''Some of the cases documented by Human Rights Watch amounted to summary executions, a clear war crime''', such as the shooting of Jamal al-Sabbagh on April 6. Al-Sabbagh was shot to death while directly under the control of the IDF: he was obeying orders to strip off his clothes. In at least one case, IDF soldiers unlawfully killed a wounded Palestinian, Munthir al-Haj, who was no longer carrying a weapon, his arms were reportedly broken, and he was taking no active part in the fighting.
#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.
#Rufaida Jammal was adamant that there was no Palestinian fire in the immediate vicinity where she and her sister were wounded, and that they were "far away from the battle" between IDF soldiers and Palestinian militants.25 The wounding of a member of the medical personnel away from the combat area requires a war crimes investigation.
#The shooting in broad daylight of an unarmed civilian, Imad Musharaka, requires a war crimes investigation. Establishing the true circumstances of the death of Palestinian militant Ziad Zubeidi warrants a separate investigation.
#After he was shot and no longer armed, al-Haj became hors de combat, meaning that he was no longer taking an active part in the fighting. Wounded combatants who are no longer taking part in fighting should not be denied medical care, nor are they legitimate military targets. '''The killing of al-Haj after he was wounded and no longer armed amounts to a case of willful killing, a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions, and, as such, a war crime.'''
#During the time of the incident, there was no active combat or firing in the neighborhood. '''The remorseless murder of `Afaf Disuqi, an unarmed civilian, constitutes a war crime.'''
#The death of Mariam Wishahi appears to have been due to the deliberate denial of medical assistance and as such warrants investigation as a possible war crime. Information about the death of Munir Wishahi suggests he was shot while running away unarmed and requires investigation.
#Human Rights Watch researchers closely inspected the Abu Khorj home, and did not find any suggestion, from sandbags or spent cartridges for example, that Palestinian militants had used the home. The killing of an unarmed civilian in a situation where no combat was taking place requires a war crimes investigation.
#It is difficult to see what military goal could have been furthered or what legitimate consideration of urgent military necessity could be put forward to justify the crushing to death of Jamal Fayid without giving his family the opportunity to remove him from his home. This case requires investigation as a possible war crime.
#Inad Zaiban was shopping at the market when he heard his son had been shot and taken to the hospital. He rushed to the hospital, but soon was informed that his son was dead. Human Rights Watch visited the scene of the shooting, which is in a street with good visibility. '''The soldiers had a clear line of fire from where their tank was parked in the middle of the road. The use of lethal force against a group of civilians following the lifting of a curfew, and where no fighting is taking place, constitutes a deliberate attack on unarmed civilians and is a war crime.'''
</blockquote>
So that's the May report. Though in several instances, obviously, HRW concluded categorically that war crimes had been carried out and said so without qualification of any kind (not even the weak ''prima facie evidence'' qualifier), it is true that they used the ''prima facie'' language twice in their summary. It is also true that once in that same summary they used unqualified and categorical language: "Some of the cases documented by Human Rights Watch amounted to summary executions, a clear war crime." In their end-of-year report, they referred to the May report: "Our early May report, ''Jenin: IDF Military Operations'', documented Israeli Defense Forces' extensive violations of international humanitarian law, some amounting ''prima facie'' to war crimes." This is the sentence (the only sentence) you're referring to when you say "the annual report in question clearly uses the phrase." It would have been more precise for you to say, ''the annual report in question uses the phrase when it summarizes the contents of the earlier May report.'' But the annual report does not merely compile HRW's various early reports; it summarizes, synthesizes, and ''reformulates'' its findings. The annual report in this case has an entirely new synthesis/summary section called ''Israel, the Occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip, and Palestinian Authority Territories: Human Rights Developments.'' It is in this new, rewritten end-of-year report that the language is "firmer": <blockquote>
Israeli security forces continued to resort to excessive and indiscriminate use of lethal force, causing numerous civilian deaths and serious injuries. In Jenin, Human Rights Watch documented twenty-two civilian killings during the IDF military operations in April. '''Many of them were killed wilfully or unlawfully, and in some case constituted war crimes.'''
</blockquote>
I hope that answers your question, Tewfik. It is a painstaking explanation of an edit summary. I think we should be discussing content, not edit summaries, and to be very frank I think you ought to have read the sources closely enough by now that you wouldn't need to be walked through them in this way, at such cost of time and effort to me. With respect, this is not the first time you have forced me to practically read source materials aloud to you.


'''Jenin'''
At any rate, now that I've done that, I do hope you will be so good as to take two minutes and answer the question I've put to you several times now: Why do you think the article should say <blockquote>
'''...major human rights organizations found strong prima facie evidence of IDF war crimes.'''
</blockquote>
instead of saying –<blockquote>
'''...major human rights organizations...found that the IDF had carried out war crimes.'''
</blockquote>
For the latter formulation, I've provided citations from both major human rights organizations (Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International) making the claim explicitly and categorically. We also have an independent statement from the British military expert, David Holley, whom AI retained as an advisor to their investigation, making the claim explicitly and categorically.


*
For the former formulation, you have one citation from Human Rights Watch. And nothing else. And yet you want the text to say "major human rights organizations," plural, even though that is false. Why, Tewfik? Why would we present multiple organizations as having said something they didn't say? And why would we ''not'' present multiple organizations as having said something they did in fact say?--] 16:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


I will add the sources I can find, you can help too, if you can search in Hebrew. ] (]) 14:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
=== HRW and AI reports (prima facie, cont.) ===
''Well, I sense that some arguments are being repeated, though maybe folks feel that you're drilling down to precise points that will settle the debate. At the risk of repeating myself, let me invite discussants to say (here or on my Talk) whether you'd like to open a ]? Or other ways to resolve this? Thanks.'' ] | ] 17:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
::The arguments are being repeated since there'd appear to be inexplicable resistance to using the relatively clear words and meaning of the secondary sources. When there are participants here who seem to be unable to understand the content of these sources, it's not necessarily a good idea to try and involve others who know even less. Far better that the mediator put questions to each editor here - and it would then be relatively easy (and likely untainted by partisanship? not sure) to adjudge who actually understood the sources, and who was being logical and consistent and scholarly. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 19:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


== References ==
HG, if it's OK with you I'd like to wait for Tewfik's answer to my question before opening an RfC.--] 19:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


{{reflist}}
'''Tewfik:''' G-Dett, if I understood you correctly, you are saying that HRW's end of year report only uses ''prima facie'' in regards to its previous May report. To rephrase what both Armon and I have said above, in , which is an overview of the section dealing with Jenin etc., the ''prima facie'' line is the only mention of an accusation of war crimes, and there is no indication that they limited the usage to the past and/or subsequently changed their position. They could use more consistent language in the extended discussion, but I do not think it proper to cite a line from within the report's body as evidence that they've adopted a position that they clearly refuse to take in its summary.

Regarding the May report quotes, most call for investigation or say ''prima facie''. The four cases (2, 6, 7, 11) where they seem to level an unqualified charge still result in a report conclusion of "some amounting prima facie to war crimes", just like in the end of year report. I don't understand what Holley's quotes in a news piece prove, but as AI's position hasn't changed, and considering Eleland's drafting of the language and your commendation of it, I share the earlier confusion; I wouldn't object to more specific representation of both organisations' positions if that is what your objection boils down to, though I'm not sure of how the lead could practically fit it all.

As far as HG's suggestion, I have no objection to an intermediary.// An RfC has the disadvantage of attracting editors with no knowledge of the minutiae in dispute, though that is often exactly why one should be called, and so I also welcome that course if it will help fix the situation here, though I would rather it be authored by someone like HG, since the above mentioned charges and their already stricken ilk leave me doubtful as to whether anyone else could accurately represent my position. <font style="color:#22AA00;">''']'''</font><font style="color:#888888;"><sup>]</sup></font> 22:50, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
:'''G-Dett'''. Tewfik, // The end of year report uses ''prima facie'' with reference to the May report, and then in the newly written overview uses the unqualified formulation: '''"In Jenin, Human Rights Watch documented twenty-two civilian killings during the IDF military operations in April. Many of them were killed wilfully or unlawfully, and in some case constituted war crimes."''' Our dispute is over how to collectively represent the views of HRW and AI in the article lede. Eleland, PR and I want to use a formulation that both HRW and AI have used, and that AI's military expert has independently used. You and Armon want to use a formulation that only HRW has used. //--] 23:09, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
:://I've attempted multiple times to reply to those points, and I'm not sure what is impeding the communication, but perhaps HG will be more successful at relaying my meaning. <font style="color:#22AA00;">''']'''</font><font style="color:#888888;"><sup>]</sup></font> 00:20, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
::://I look forward to HG's mediation; /once we/ answer questions and address issues when they're routed through a third party, then we may get somewhere.--] 00:30, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
'''HG questions:''' Gee, not sure if I should be honored or worried by you both having unrealistic expectations of me. In anything I'm about to say -- at great length, sorry -- please comment & correct me kindly. (#H1) For the lead, you all agree to summarize a set of reports that deal with war crimes. Are you agreed that this set consists of AI and HRW? Also, Holley? And you agree that the summary call this set "major human rights organizations"? (H2) However, you aren't using any ''secondary sources'' to accomplish this summation. Why not? No reason we can't do our own descriptive recap, but it might be easier if we could work off NYT/WSJ/etc versions. (H3) You seem to mostly agree about describing Amnesty's view on war crimes, which is apparently unqualified. Right? (H4) You disagree about HRW. The sticking point seems whether HRW's view should be described as qualified or unqualified. You're wrangling mostly over the "prima facie" wording, which shows up, hmmm, sometimes but not always in the May report and in the later overview cited by Tewfik just now. Have I gotten the gist of the disagreement? (H5) For Tewfik (Armon, et al.), you strike me as generally a flexible editor. Even if the lead didn't use the term "prima facie" would you accept some other way to qualify the HRW view? For instance, instead of "found, maybe something like "...organizations ''claimed'' that the IDF committed war crimes." I mean, look, isn't prima facie just another way of HRW saying that they're pretty certain they've seen war crimes committed? (H6) G-Dett (et al.), you also strike me as flexible. If you folks don't end up agreeing on a way to combine AI and HRW, would you consider splitting up the description? Regardless, G-Dett, I don't know if there's a sweet way to say this, but I think you're arguing pretty hard for your interpretation. Really, I sympathize with the desire to get a straightforward encyclopedic description into these annoying disputed articles. And I feel like you might be pretty convincing about why "prima facie" type language is trumped by the overall HRW view of the IDF. But why should we have to be convinced? Shouldn't this kind of thing be a bit more verifiable and self-evident? Look, you probably trust my judgment somewhat, and I think the HRW Overview linked by Tewfik (w/"prima facie") gives them enough of a hedge that you should help me look for some compromise language here.

(H7) Finally, I'd like to step somewhat out of a mediating role and offer my own view of what "prima facie" means. Granted, this results in me leaning more toward one side, but I can't help that. Let me phrase it as a question esp for G-Dett. Do you think it's possible that HRW (and maybe Amnesty) recognizes -- as a significant distinction -- that they are ''identifying'' but not actually ''sitting in judgment'' on war crimes? I mean, aren't there legal mechanisms, supported by HRW (if not IDF) to add finality to any war crime claim? If so, then doesn't HRW recognize this distinction as contextualizing all their work? Sure, they may use "prima facie" or they may just flatly say they found a war crime, but they believe that the definitive answer should be adjudicated. (I dealt with a mildly analogous q at ] over the distinction betw a legal scholar view and a juridical determination.) If so, then I think it would be appropriate for Misplaced Pages to be astute about this context and find encyclopedic wording that qualifies HRW findings. Indeed, I'd presuppose the same context for AI's utterances. Hope you'll consider this perspective. Anyway, I hope these q's and suggestions will help move you closer together. ] | ] 03:57, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
:'''G-Dett.''' Hi HG. I'll answer your six questions and then respond to your considered proposal. '''(H1)''' Yes, the sentence in question applies to HRW and AI, summarizing their views. As Eleland has pointed out, Holley is not an HR "organization." Insofar as we are making a judgment call about how to present variously phrased views with a single formulation, his views help to tip the balance. Not decisive; just a factor. His views have been quoted as authoritative elsewhere in the article, regarding the "massacre" claims, by the very editor now suddenly skeptical about "what Holley's quotes in a news piece prove." '''(H2)''' Perhaps we ''should'' use secondary sources, but I see two potential problems. First of all, it won't solve the issue of HRW's dual formulations, since these are exactly mirrored in the secondary sources that covered the HRW report – some say ''prima facie'', some don't. Secondly, the very issue of how secondary sources presented the HR reports is itself a controversy. An exchange between the New York Times investigative journalist ] (who was the Times correspondent from Jenin) and Harvard human rights scholar ] will serve to illustrate both problems:

<blockquote>
:'''Rohde''': There is a truth, I think, to what happened in Jenin. I think the Human Rights Watch report essentially captured it.<br /><br />
:'''Power''': I have a question for David about working for the New York Times. I was struck by a headline that accompanied a news story on the publication of the Human Rights Watch report. The headline was, I believe, "Human Rights Watch report massacre did not occur in Jenin." The second paragraph said, "Oh, but lots of war crimes did." Why wouldn't they make the war crimes the headline and the non-massacre the second paragraph?...<br /><br />
:'''Rohde''': I think there is more pressure writing about Israel than any other place in the world. At the New York Times you feel as if you're being watched by a hawk.</blockquote>
:Incidentally, the headline of the NYT piece filed by Rohde and recalled above by Power actually read as follows: ''Rights Group Doubts Mass Deaths in Jenin, but sees signs of War Crimes.'' And yes, it goes on to use the ''prima facie'' phrase. But guess what? It never mentions the word "massacre." We have a lot to think about as we bring secondary sources into the mix; there's lots of competing narratives, and narratives about narratives. Personally, I think the article ''needs'' a section discussing such controversies, instead of merely adopting one narrative, so in the long run I absolutely think we'll need to bring in secondary sources; but it doesn't really solve our problem now. '''(H3)''' Yes. '''(H4)''' I don't know that we ''do'' disagree about HRW. That is, if the disputed sentence only covered HRW, I'd support the ''prima facie'' language, as would Eleland. The dispute is how to present the views of both HRW and AI collectively. It is misleading to insert a qualifier only sometimes used by HRW, and never used by AI. Especially when the alternate formulation is amply supported by explicit statements from both groups. '''(H5)''' is addressed to Tewfik. '''(H6)''' Misunderstanding here. I don't ask anyone to be convinced that "'prima facie' type language is trumped by the overall HRW view of the IDF." Indeed, I've said repeatedly that if we were only dealing the "overall HRW view" then ''prima facie'' would trump, because it's the more conservative formulation. Please refer back to H4. HRW has said both X and Y; Amnesty has said only X, and our question is how to collectively present the views of both HRW and AI. ''That'' 's the configuration within which X trumps Y. Now, as with the Holley statement, I offer the evolution of HRW's language as supporting evidence, to be weighed in the balance on the talk page. I'm not making claims about that evolution in the mainspace; if I were, then technical OR-objections and demands for verifiability and self-evidence would be appropriate. But I'm not and they aren't.

:Now, what you say about HR groups in general "believ that the definitive answer should be adjudicated" is right on the money, as is your suggestion that WP "be astute about this context and find encyclopedic wording that qualifies HRW findings." I only ask that whatever standard we astutely devise be applied to our presentation of ''all'' the findings of HR groups. I also ask that we don't take a very specific qualifying phrase like "prima facie" and ascribe it to Amnesty, who never said it.

:Finally, if we're going to assume that in presenting HRW and AI's findings collectively we should always go with the more <s>conservative</s> cautious formulation – which I take to be Tewfik's premise – then it's worth noting that AI ''never'' weighed in on whether there had been a massacre. Indeed, they made a public statement (for which they were excoriated by the ADL) saying that "massacre" has no precise legal definition and it wasn't Amnesty's place to say whether there had been one. My premise in coming up with a concise and accurate lead that synthesizes the two group's varying formulations is to take a holistic and common-sense approach. Amnesty describes the siege-conditions in which "rumors of massacre" fomented. I've always thought it was fair to say, all these considered, that they seem to concur with HRW on the question. Again, I take into account "Holley's quotes in a news article" here in adjudicating this. But I do not find acceptable an approach that is maximalist on one side of the ledger, and minimalist on the other. In short, if we are going to break down the two HR group's findings regarding war crimes in the article lead, in order to preserve the minor rhetorical qualifications used in an on-again, off-again manner by one of the two groups, then the next step would be to take that same scalpel to the findings about "massacre."--] 18:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

:'''Eleland'''. Thanks for the considered questions, HG.
:H1. Thus far, discussion has centered on AI and HRW because they produced the most prominent and best researched reports. However, the full set is larger. B'Tselem condemned Tzahal's () "flagrant violation of the most basic principles of international humanitarian law", Christian Aid stated that "In breach of the Fourth Geneva Convention, Israeli forces have prevented Red Cross and other emergency medical services from reaching the injured", etc. UNRWA, though not precisely a human rights organization, condemned the Israeli interference with relief and rescue efforts. ("In the name of human decency the Israeli military must allow our ambulances safe passage to help evacuate the wounded and deliver emergency supplies of medicines and food...Israel is a signatory to international conventions that protect non-combatants in times of conflict. Those conventions are worthless if they are not adhered to precisely at times of the greatest blood-letting. The world is watching and Israel needs to end this pitiless assault on civilian refugee camps.") Indeed, war crimes accusations from NGOs were so prevalent after Jenin that the "pro-Israel" community regards them as a watershed and a major turning point in the "]" to delegitimize Israel.
:H2. I'd like to have those summaries, but the only secondary sources I've found summarizing rights-group coverage of Jenin are the non-RS "Durban strategy" ones I mentioned above. They present the reaction of human rights NGO's as massive condemnation and omnipresent allegations of war crimes. The news stories from legitimate sources all seem to treat the HRW, AI, UN and other reports separately, one at a time - and by this point, they had significantly backed off from the Jenin story and tended to downplay the reports.
:H3, H4 yes to both.
:H5 is a good point. The problem with "found" is that it implies authority and accuracy. While I, personally, attribute such authority to HRW, Amnesty et al, not all POV's do. I dislike "claimed", per ] and more specifically the lightweight, dismissive nature of the word. I prefer "concluded", since the war crimes allegations resulted from intensive and extensive investigation.
:H6 I don't understand. Frankly, it is verifiable and self-evident that HRW explicitly stated that Israel had committed war crimes, without qualifying language. In some cases the "prima facie" wording was used, in others (G-Dett has helpfully provided bold-faced quotes). I don't see where interpretation enters into it.
:H7 is another good point, tied to H5. What's important for me is not presenting HRW, AI, et al as "just another opinion", comparable to that of the ADL or CAMERA. This is an absurd violation of ]. The mirror of ADL and CAMERA are Palestinian and Arab groups, or possibly elements of the Israeli left. HRW and AI are straight-down-the-middle reliable sources and their carefully considered findings shouldn't be paired up with the rantings of the Israel lobby. <tt>&lt;]/]]</b>&gt;</tt> 20:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
'''Tewfik.''' Hello HG, (H1) Yes. Indeed, David Holley is not a Human Rights organisation, but rather was an agent of AI, and his views were incorporated into AI's report. "Wait," you say, "he is 'quoted as authoritative' elsewhere." So what is the dilemma being posed? Must we either accept his soundbyte as proof that there is another opinion distinct from AI (despite his views already being incorporated in AI's report) or else remove his uncontested observation that there was no mass killing? I don't see the parallel. (H2) Perhaps, but good secondary sources would just mirror the reports' strong desire to say something while explicitly stopping short of it. (H3) Yes, though being as AI hasn't changed their position, and being that HRW's ambiguous language existed in both its original and new reports, and thus it hasn't changed its position, why is there suddenly now a problem with ? (H4) Yes. I understood G-Dett to be saying that the end-of-year report only uses ''prima facie'' regarding the May report. As far as I can tell that is not the case, and while HRW uses mixed language in its report bodies, it employed ''prima-facie'' in both report summaries. (H5) So I'm flexible, and G-Dett is flexible, and we're communicating through you :-) As the dispute is about the nature of the "claims", I'm not sure that would really help (i.e. are they alleging war crimes, or are they alleging likely war crimes). (H7) Much of what you say seems evident in their desire to say certain things without saying them. I'm not sure as to whether your suggestion would actually resolve the problem though.

In response to G-Dett's repeating that I'm advocating "an approach that is maximalist on one side of the ledger, and minimalist on the other", I refer her to my previous post to this page, which the last time she raised it with me. I'll only point out the continuing implication that I'm somehow biased ("always go with the more conservative formulation") in the hope that it may have been a slip on her part, since /such/ remarks don't contribute to constructive discussion. <font style="color:#22AA00;">''']'''</font><font style="color:#888888;"><sup>]</sup></font> 23:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
:'''G-Dett.''' "Conservative" as in restrained, cautious, etc., Tewfik, not as in politically conservative. I assumed this was clear – both from the immediate context, and from the fact that I have twice now applied it to myself and to Eleland.--] 23:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
'''Tewfik:'''. As in I am intentionally favouring one interpretation over others, along the lines of the previous charge of maximalist on one, minimalist on the other. Your //claim// is crystal clear.//<font style="color:#22AA00;">''']'''</font><font style="color:#888888;"><sup>]</sup></font> 23:47, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
:'''G-Dett.''' Tewfik, regarding maximalist/minimalist, // that was an allusion to the selective approach to findings that you've not only explicitly admitted but defended several times ( most recently in your response to HG above, where one part of Holley's statement is to be accepted as an authoritative "observation," the other part dismissed as a "soundbyte"). That ''is'' your minimalist/maximalist approach, // you've laid it out for us and advocated it (''"your agreement with someone on one point would hardly force you to then agree with everything that person argues,"'' you write, where the explicit subject is how to present HR findings). The reference to "conservative formulations" was another thing entirely, and you've simply misunderstood it.--] 00:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
:'''Addendum'''. Tewfik, you write, ''I understood G-Dett to be saying that the end-of-year report only uses'' prima facie ''regarding the May report. As far as I can tell that is not the case, and while HRW uses mixed language in its report bodies, it employed'' prima-facie ''in both report summaries.'' I think it's very clear that the end-of-year report only used ''prima facie'' with reference to the May report, and not in its new summary. It uses this formulation in the "Middle East and North Africa Overview," in a subsection called "The Work of Human Rights Watch," which gives a calender overview of their activities and public statements ("Our staff and other representatives traveled to Algeria, Bahrain, Egypt, Lebanon," etc.; "We continued efforts to ensure that our research and output reached a broader section of the region's population"; "We urged reform of criminal and civil laws in Morocco," etc.), and in that context they describe their May report: "Our early May report, Jenin: IDF Military Operations, documented Israeli Defense Forces' extensive violations of international humanitarian law, some amounting prima facie to war crimes." That's the only time the phrase appears. The later, newly written section is also a summary, this time not a calender summary of HRW's public activity but a substantive summary of "Israel, the Occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip." It's a summary alright, and there's only paragraph on Jenin, which begins "Israeli security forces continued to resort to excessive and indiscriminate use of lethal force, causing numerous civilian deaths and serious injuries. In Jenin, Human Rights Watch documented twenty-two civilian killings during the IDF military operations in April. Many of them were killed wilfully or unlawfully, and in some case constituted war crimes."--] 01:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
'''Tewfik:'''. /G-Dett, your/ repeating to me that you believe the end-of-year prima facie is limited to discussion of May obviously won't move the discussion forward, since I've twice stated that ''I know'' you believe as much, and ''still disagree'' that that is the meaning. <font style="color:#22AA00;">''']'''</font><font style="color:#888888;"><sup>]</sup></font> 02:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
:'''G-Dett.''' // The other statement that /of concern/ was this, to HG: "But I do not find acceptable an approach that is maximalist on one side of the ledger, and minimalist on the other." That is not a personal attack. // It is the core issue I wish to address through mediation. Regarding HRW's end-of-year summary: I did not reaffirm my beliefs about it, but rather offered further evidence rebutting your persistent claims.//--] 12:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
::Thanks to all who've answered so far. This may take me some time to absorb. Meanwhile, I invite anyone to give me further advice on my Talk page, e.g. suggested compromise language. Thanks again. ] | ] 23:30, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
:::::''Please do not discuss user conduct matters here. Kindly <s>strikeout</s> or delete comments that stray from the content/editing discussion. I've set up a subpage if you'd like to move your thread and continue to discuss ]. (G-Dett and Tewfik, perhaps you could authorize me to edit your comments myself?) Thanks!'' ] | ] 13:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
::::::You have my permission.--] 13:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
::::://HG, I'll ultimately defer to your judgement about moving the thread and striking out text, and I hope that you can direct this mess into the realm of civil and productive discussion. <font style="color:#22AA00;">''']'''</font><font style="color:#888888;"><sup>]</sup></font> 21:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
::::::Tewfik, //"conservative" is a synonym for "cautious," I'll go ahead and switch it. There are other instances where I apply the word to myself and Eleland in the same context; <s>I trust it's alright with you if I leave those</s>.--] 21:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
:::::As I said above, I'm well aware of what conservative means - the problem is the repeated implication that I am trying to unfairly use "cautious" language. //<font style="color:#22AA00;">''']'''</font><font style="color:#888888;"><sup>]</sup></font> 23:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
:::::::''Still thinking. You're invited to give feedback on ]. Thanks.'' ] | ] 15:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
::::::::''As ok'd by both, I struck and have now deleted some text, marked as //.'' ] | ] 13:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
:::I'm not sure what there is to absorb. We have either two or three sources, already accepted by both parties, and they all make unambiguous allegations of war-crimes.
:::Incidentally, there were other international observers, here is , ''"a group of 12 internationals from the US, Britain, Ireland, Canada, and Norway—including an international lawyer—conducted detailed, in-depth interviews with people of the Jenin Refugee Camp from 11 April until mid-May, 2002."'' who refuse to make allegations of war-crimes themselves but say on p.17 of their report: ''"Executions of civilians and surrendered fighters are well documented by numerous international human rights organizations. Despite that there were heavy battles in Jenin refugee camp, there is no justification for the wanton execution of individuals who had either no involvement with the armed conflict or those who had surrendered themselves to the Israeli military. Individuals who performed such actions and those, if any, who ordered them to be done, should submit to legal proceedings in an international court of law and stand trial. Finally, it is necessary to act on the recommendations of reports by Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and others, who have stated unequivocally and provided evidence for war crimes violations by the Israeli military."''
:::I'm sure there are many, many thorny questions of fact and interpretation in this article - but the fact that human rights organisations and workers (all of them?) stated there were war-crimes committed is not one of them. If this one were to be tough, then 99% of articles in the encyclopedia would never make any progress. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 09:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

== Proposal on HRW and AI on war crimes ==

'''HG analysis and proposal'''. Having been asked to help find a solution to the AI/HRW "prima facie" disagreement, I've asked q's and read the thread above. Here's my analysis -- I'd apologize for the length, but it's also a credit to the depth of thinking you all have put into this question. I end with recommended wording for your consideration. (Please read the following in a calm mood, thanks!)
#The average reader needs slightly more context, at the outset, on HRO (human rights orgs) war crimes statements. Whatever wording we choose, editors should be realistic about our ability to strike the perfect degree of fairness. After all, Misplaced Pages articles shift over time and our resolution of this dispute won't be etched in stone. So, I think it's best to focus on the context and structure of the disputed sentence(s), and not exhaust ourselves over specific word choices.
#Implicitly or explicitly, both HROs recognize that they are not issuing conclusive findings of war crimes. (Hence the call for official inquiries.) So, the "war crimes" point needs to be somewhat qualified. Granted, the lead already implicitly qualifies the war crime finding by mentioning HROs as the source (rather than merely citing HROs as footnote). For the astute reader, this might be sufficient. For many readers, though, our wording should explicitly reflect the non-definitive aspect of the HRO findings on war crimes. How to do this with the perfect balance that everybody is happy with? (rofl...)
#For the purpose of informing the average reader, I think the "prima facie" wording has limited value and it seems odd to apply it to AI. (Logically, prima facie could serve to qualify both HROs, just like "claims" or "accusations" might.)
#Do we say "major human rights organizations" or name HRW and AI? I'd say name both, by which we can provide the most accurate qualification of the claims for astute readers (who will interpret the findings based on their view of the groups). Do we differentiate how we describe their findings? Ideally, no. Their results are quite similar, prima facie wording notwithstanding, and detailed differences can be found in the relevant sections of the article. Failing agreement on the recommended wording below, we could fall back on this wording from the article itself: ''... HRW did say that Israel "committed serious violations of international humanitarian law, some amounting prima facie to war crimes," while Amnesty International similarly alleged evidence that Israel had committed war crimes.'' This is still fairly concise.
#Contextualize by focusing on the evidence: The HROs are deemed reliable mainly for their ability to gather and report evidence (HG guess), they are not adjudicating crimes. So, by mentioning the evidence, we emphasize that role. Plus, such evidence comprises much of their sections.
#Contextualize the findings as charges/claims: I can think of 2 ways to do this. Use a term like "charge" or "claim." And/or, note that they call for official inquiries. //On this vein -- I assume no Israeli or Int'l war crimes inquiry or trial was conducted. Shouldn't we say that in the lead or in the article?
#Should the "war crimes" sentence be linked, either in the article or in our mediation, to the "massacre" issue? Current WP text combines the massacre and war crime issues. I'm wondering if that close link is a byproduct of our editors' own interests and preoccupations. The HRO reports themselves seem to keep the issues somewhat separate, at least textually? (esp AI, right?) More importantly, the "massacre" issue is more complicated, involves more sources, sparks more heated debate, etc.
#Presumably, you've already discussed this -- Why isn't the IDF response in the article? Am I going off topic, or is the IDF view part of the context? I've tentatively added in a bit, with a (?).

So, given the foregoing considerations, I would recommend:
<blockquote>''Based on testimony and documentation, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch charged that IDF personnel in Jenin committed war crimes.'' //add(?): ''Both human rights organizations called for official inquiries; however, the IDF disputed the charges and no war crimes trials were held.''// OR:</blockquote>
<blockquote>''Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch charged that Israel had committed war crimes and called for a formal legal investigation.'' //add(?): ''However, the IDF disputed the charges and no war crimes trials were held.''// </blockquote>
Based on my exchanges with ] and ], I expect they'll have a positive reaction overall to the above bullet points, though of course they are welcome to clarify disagreements or concerns. Hopefully, we can find common ground by wordsmithing one of the above recommended blockquotes. So, I'd like to offer the analysis and suggested wording for everyone's further comments here. Thanks very much, ] | ] 16:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
:::''(PS G-Dett & Tewfik -- feel free to copy your comments here or write afresh. Thanks for your input!)'' ] | ]
::::Why don't we write the article to policy and report what the secondary sources say about the event? And wouldn't it be a good idea if we treat the reports of observers as if they were much more credible than involved agencies that have behaved in threatening or secretive ways? See . ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 19:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

That looks good to me HG. <s>How about giving us a proposed wording based on that? We might find a quick consensus.</s> ] 03:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC) Sorry, you did -duh. OK, I think the first option is better mainly because "IDF personnel in Jenin committed war crimes" is more accurate than just saying "Israel" because the charges related to specific incidents during the battle rather that the operation itself. Presumably, the IDF could have entered Jenin ''without'' committing any war crimes. I have a slight niggle about the second sentence though -were war crimes trials not held simply because the IDF objected? ] 22:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
:Thanks Armon. Yes, I noticed that some of the texts refer in various ways to IDF personnel, so I think that phrase is useful. Also, I realize that the two ending clauses (IDF disputed the charges and no war crimes trials were held) leave a somewhat misleading impression, so I welcome a copy edit. Take care, ] | ] 23:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

There is a difference between ''X committed crime'' and ''there are N (credible) allegations that X commited crime'': the difference separating these two assertions is having valid decision on conviction in a court of law. The same should apply to war crimes as well. Therefore in present context the correct wording should be that ''there are following allegations that IDF commited war crimes in Battle of Jenin: ...'', after which there should be itemization of specific instances of allegations, preferrably along with analysis of their credibility.

Going back to HRW's documents there are clauses to effect of having ''serious evidence that IDF might have commited war crime in case of ... etc.'' and it is better to analyse those claims one by one. The ADL's critique of HRW's memos was partially based on perceived prejudice on part of HRW team and partially on great reliance of HRW's (and other) memos on interviews with Palestinians which is basically reliance on hearsay. It is Ok as a departure point for a criminal investigation, but the investigation ultimately was not conducted and findings were not legally submitted or contested. I've pointed out elsewhere that PA had means and (ostensibly) should had an impetus to conduct criminal investigations backing their claims with material evidence but has failed to deliver in more than 5 years what logically can be seen as absense of credible evidence. ] 23:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

:I think you're raising some valid points, but I though we were just talking about the lead at the moment. If so, we need to be concise. ] 02:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

:I like phrasing #1. It is inline with what the sources say. The reason I held off on voicing my approval is that it leaves a sour taste in my mouth to apply such a stringent standard to HRW and AI while the lede is currently so cavalier when it comes to "pro-Israel" points, like the "suicide bombers" issue. Don't take this as ] or ], but I'd like to suggest that the next disputed phrasing we examine be something which is currently alleged to be biased towards IDF POV. Sharon is on record saying during the run-up to Defensive Shield that the Palestinians needed to be hit, and needed to be made to suffer, so that they would be forced to return to the bargaining table (and, presumably, accept a ]-style solution in line with previous offers). <tt>&lt;]/]]</b>&gt;</tt> 17:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

::Probably it is little bit too much of intepretive liberty to assume that remark to effect of ''Palestinians must be made to suffer'' can be presented as an expression of intention to allow small-scale perpetration of war crimes? If we are going into area of intepreting intentions of IDF in Battle of Jenin in operative-tactical sense then I can point out that Central Command explicitly decided not to use strikes by jets or howitzers out of clear recognition that it is civilian area; accordingly Palestinian fighters are on record expressing amazement at seeing infantry entering Jenin camp on foot. I suggest this fact is an indication of true intentions of IDF i.e. sparing civilian lives.
::Regarding the choices of phrasing and your preference, I do not think that wording of contentious articles should be focus of tug of war or give-and-take bargaining. We should rather aspire to arrive to more defensible formulations and above I've tried to point out that "IDF commited war crime" is much less defensible than (based mostly on hearsay) "Palestinian advocacy groups alleged that IDF commited war crime". ] 19:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
:::Hi DBWikis. What's both notable and defensible is that HRW and AI levelled these charges (and IDF disputed etc). Allegations by Palestinian groups can be mentioned in the article body, but the Palestinian view is less important for the lead than HRW/AI. Editors from various viewpoints agree on the emphasis on HRW/AI (as you can read from the Talk page above), we were just trying to hammer out our best effort at neutral descriptive wording of their claims. Thanks for your input. ] | ] 20:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
:::Hey. We all recognize that Tzahal had the capacity to inflict any level of destruction on Jenin up to and including ]. They chose to use infantry supported with tanks (main guns mostly silent) and helicopters. You may think this is a reflection of their humanitarian purity of arms; I'm much more inclined to think it's a reflection of their need for the US public to ''believe'' in their purity of arms to keep the aid and dipolmatic cover flowing. Neither of our personal views belong in the article. What we should do is report what reliable sources said, without reference to our personal interpretations of their validity. HRW and Amnesty are world-class organizations and not "Palestinian advocacy groups". Their reports are widely cited by the same governments who profess to despise them when reporting on "unworthy" victims. The problem with reporting only what Palestinians said is that Palestinian sources are generally less reliable, often much less reliable. Reliable sources like the BBC reported HRW and AI's criticisms prominently, gave some space to Israeli denials, and to Palestinian affirmations. As should we. <tt>&lt;]/]]</b>&gt;</tt> 20:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
::::Headcount of proponents of any idea does not make it any more valid. In lieu of AI/HRW/etc. consider, say, any religious denomination with global scope and wide base of believers or supporters - I really doubt arguments of this sort will succeed in converting you to their particular doctrine.
::::Regarding IDF troops entering Jenin camp on foot - I wouldn't enter polemics whether it was done due to the fact IDF being army of a democratic state or was rather a ploy to curry favor with US public opinion - because even if we are to entertain the latter hypothesis, still I think that PR in this style is preferrable to sending kids to throw boulders on tanks, waging guerilla from built-up area and then drumming up support by flooding news reels with graphic accounts of 500 martyrs etc. ] 04:10, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


{{tl|editprotected}}

We've achieved high degree of support among editors, as shown above, about how to revise a disputed sentence in the lede. I'm proposing this revision based on the assumption that all of you who have expressed support, from both sides of the aisle, will "safeguard" the new text against unfriendly emendations -- even if the revision favors your own POV. In other words, don't accept a change from "charged" to "proved" or from "committed" war crimes to "maybe committed." Ok? Nobody gets exactly the wording they want, yet everybody has a responsibility to support the rough-consensus revision.

Anyway, thanks to everyone for putting substantive attention on this dispute and responding in flexible ways.

'''Please replace this text:''' ''Subsequent investigations found no evidence of one, although major human rights organizations found strong prima facie evidence of IDF war crimes.''

'''With this text:''' ''Subsequent investigations found no evidence of one. Based on testimony and documentation, ] and ] charged that IDF personnel in Jenin committed ]. Both human rights organizations called for official inquiries; however, the IDF disputed the charges. No war crimes trials were held.''


== Recent additions ==
Thanks very much. After we finish patting ourselves on the back, let's use this success to tackle some of the other disputed aspects of the article. ] | ] 18:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
:This looks great, HG, thanks again. I would like to suggest two minor tweaks. Neither has anything to do with NPOV; they are purely for stylistic clarity. I won't put them in myself, even when the page opens. I'll leave it you; if you agree they're an improvement and others don't object then you can put them in. ''Subsequent investigations found no evidence of one. Based on testimony and documentation, however, ] and ] charged that IDF personnel in Jenin had committed ], and both called for official investigations. The IDF disputed the charges, and no war crimes trials were held.''--] 23:14, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
::G-Dett, I appreciate your editing suggestions. In terms of the last few clauses, I'd like to keep it as is because, as noted above, combining the last 2 ("IDF disputed... no trials") might leave the reader assuming a causal implicature we don't intend. In terms of adding a contrastive connector ("however") up front, it's fine the way the paragraph is set up. Of course, we might end up revising the order or content of the preceding text, and so need to change it again. ] | ] 04:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
:::I'm still not seeing any attempt to deal with the question presented : Why are we saying: '''...major human rights organizations found strong prima facie evidence of IDF war crimes.''' instead of saying: '''...major human rights organizations found that the IDF had carried out war crimes.'''?
:::For the latter formulation, we've had detailed citations from both major human rights organizations (Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International) making the claim explicitly and categorically. We have an independent statement from the British military expert, David Holley, making the claim explicitly and categorically. (We're elsewhere quoting Holley directly as if his words were definitive ''corroborated that there was no massacre'').
:::For the former formulation, we have one citation from Human Rights Watch. And nothing else. Why would we present multiple organizations as having said something they didn't say? And why would we ''not'' present multiple organizations as having said something they did in fact say? ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 07:34, 28 October 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.
Per my comment below, I suggest you put the requested version in a sandbox, and get general agreement for a version there, so that it's completely clear to everyone what wording has agreement. It's good to see the discussion seems to be making progress. &mdash;&nbsp;Carl <small>(]&nbsp;·&nbsp;])</small> 16:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


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.
==Proposal: Use ]'s data==
Basically their tally of lives lost by the Palestinian side corroborates "27 militants + 22 non-combatants" cited as HRW figure and on the same time seem to be not as skewed as AI or HRW (which are based primarily on Palestinian interviews conducted in 2002 and read almost as Nasser Al-Qidwa's paper submitted to UN) in part of "possible war crime" allegations. The main problem with their stats is that majority of the dates are defaulted to April 1st, but overall this source is reasonably reliable and under no circumstances can be seen as sympathetic to IDF's press office. ] 18:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


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.
:Do you meant to mention B'Tselem's data, or to use it to the exclusion of others as somehow definitive? Keep in mind that the B'Tselem numbers are not intended to be a count of Jenin deaths specifically, in the same way that HRW and AI are. Your comments about the authoritative or non-authoritative nature of their data seems like original research, and according to most sources I've seen, Israel did not dispute the numbers given in their reports. 52 seems like the minimum figure given by reliable sources, and reportedly accepted by Israel as definitive. 56 seems like the maximum figure substantiated by reliable sources (and reported by a non-RS as being the official number counted by the P.A.). This 49 figure is lower than anyone else has reported, and Google News does not seem have any secondary sources reporting the 49 figure at all. <tt>&lt;]/]]</b>&gt;</tt> 18:53, 26 October 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)
::No, I am not disputing the total figure between 52 and 56. I was arguing in favor of moving away from linguistic analysis of what the WP article should say concerning what HRW has said concerning what interviewed Palestinians have said concerning all Zionist crimes and massaacres; and rather to get closer to more substantiative analysis how many civilian deaths could warrant criminal investigation in case Palestinian Authority or organizations like AI or HRW did indeed bother to proceed from interviews to collection of material evidence i.e. autopsies, ''in situ'' re-enactment, ballistic data, etc. My point is that this way their risked that the list of crimes which already shrank from Mr Erekat's "more than 500" to 56 individuals would loose even more entries. User Burgas00 has lamented that Palestinian deaths do not mean as much as if going wholesale - but unfortunately it looks like it is Palestnian side is more interested in heaping deaths, gore and "martyrdom" accounts. So my proposal to use of B'Tselem's data was to get as close to the facts as possible and review all available information on lost civilian lives. You are right it would be clearly OR so I am not pushing it into the article - I just suggested that if someone engages in discussion as loaded as this one then getting acquainted with pertinent information usually helps. ] 20:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


== Retractions ==
:::I really don't think I'm following you here. You've said that AI and HRW's data are "skewed" because they didn't conduct extensive forensic investigations, re-enactments, autopsies, etc, and because their conclusions substantiate some of the allegations made by the Palestinians. Did B'Tselem conduct these forensic investigations? And how do you conduct forensic sluethery and ''in situ'' re-enactment when most of the crime scenes were since bulldozed and most of the victims were hastily buried?
:::Oh, and I checked up on the B'Tselem numbers. They recorded 53 deaths, not 49. You excluded deaths of non-residents of Jenin who were killed in Jenin. (And Mr Erekat never said more than 500. He said that according to his information, the total could reach 500 for the entire West Bank. He was widely misquoted, but nobody has ever said where and when he allegedly made this "500 in Jenin" statement.) <tt>&lt;]/]]</b>&gt;</tt> 00:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
::::eleland, let's not try to play the 'Erekat end game' - it would be an impressive leap of faith to take all of his quotes and shift them as you did. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 10:21, 29 October 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)
::::eleland, my point in proposal for all parties in this discussion was to tabulate all civilan deaths in Jeinin camp and around from first two weeks of April 2002 and then review them instance-by-instance to estimate to what extent the allegations of war crimes can be substantiated in each case. Instead of it we are dealing here with allegations of massacres because the focus is consistently shifted from real figures and real lost lives to imaginary figures - this way instead of the table with names of real victims (which in case of civilians will have less than 30 entries) we have tabulation of claims having hundreds of killed and this ultimately appears to be tabulation of propaganda (where the list can be endless). I was (and is) arguing in favor of ''de re'' approach while many contributors here are engaged in ''de dicto'' discussion. There is nothing wrong in linguistic re-hashing of formulations but here it became point of contention almost as a ''conduit to settle consensus'' regarding what happened there really, and it is wrong. Again, insisting ''there was a massacre'' because BBC reported that HRW concluded based on what Palestinians have said etc. is and will remain recycling of hearsay and will not establish facts even after Nth repeating. The maximum it can achive will be enshrining of propaganda in form of WP article and finally will be detrimental to WP and BTW I believe to Palestinians too.
: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)
::::Now, I've never said B'Tselem concluded there was "only" 49 killed on Palestinian side. What I have said was their stats "corroborate 27 militants + 22 non-combatants cited as HRW figure" (please have a look in the caption box in the article itself where the numbers stay as "at least 27 militants and 22 civilians according to HRW") and my point was on corroboration of the count of civilian deaths. And I have stressed above that "I am not disputing the total figure between 52 and 56" only to read your charge "You excluded deaths of non-residents of Jenin...".
::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)
::::Also regarding Mr Erekat being misquoted - this very page contains a table with some of the body count estimates churned in 2002 and inter alia it contains a reference to April 17th transcript from CNN where he confirmed "we say the number will not be less than 500". But probably it should belong not to ] but rather to ]. ] 18:34, 29 October 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)
::::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)
::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. <b>]'']''</b> 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? -- ] (]) 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. <b>]'']''</b> 00:04, 15 February 2009 (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)
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.
== UN Report ==
::::::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)
The section on the UN report currently begins with criticisms of the report, rather than with the report itself. Such criticisms should be placed in a separate section, entitled "Criticism of the UN Report." The section on the UN report should begin with the UN's confirmation that a massacre had not taken place -- which is of greater importance to readers than the number of reported casualties --, citing the following sources:
:::::::Well, if we can't use Sadeh's article, then I suppose the current revision is OK. -- ] (]) 13:31, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
* by the ]
* by the ]
← ] 08:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
:Michael, hi. I've temporarily removed the "protected edit" request because I think you'll need to be more specific about exactly what text you would modify or add. If it's to add a subheading, that may not be controversial. If it's to shift how we cover the "massacre" question, that probably will need some conversation and feedback. Thanks, Hope you don't mind. ] | ] 08:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
:: Understood. Detailed changes shown below.
==== UN report ====
===== Allegations of a massacre =====
The UN report confirms that a massacre had not taken place; it finds that "at least 52 Palestinians" deaths were reported by the Jenin hospital by the end of May 2002 and that Palestinian reports of 500 dead had not been substantiated <ref>{{cite news| title=UN says no massacre in Jenin| url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2165272.stm| publisher=]| date=2002-8-1}}</ref><ref>{{cite news| title=U.N. report: No massacre in Jenin| url=http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2002-08-01-unreport-jenin_x.htm| publisher=]| date=2002-8-1}}</ref><ref name=UN/>.
:The UN report gives the death toll as 52, and says the figure of 500 was unsubstantiated by the evidence. It does not use the word "massacre," or weigh in on the question of its aptness.--] 22:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


== Jeningrad ==
===== Context of events =====
The report explains the rising violence of the first two years of the ], with particular reference to the suicide bombings that had been carried out. It describes all the operations carried out in the West Bank. <ref name=UN />
===== Tactics =====
On the subject of Jenin, it says the ''"IDF urged civilians in Arabic to evacuate the camp. Some reports, including of interviews with IDF soldiers, suggest that those warnings were not adequate ..... Estimates vary on how many civilians remained in the camp throughout but there may have been as many as 4,000."''
Following the ambush of April 9 the IDF changed tactics and began bombardment with tanks and missiles, and demolished parts of the camp using armored bulldozers. The report says ''"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."''
According to the report, supplies of food and water were delivered to the camp starting on April 16th but this was impeded by the large amounts of explosives present. Negotiations began to bring in specialist equipment and workers to remove the explosives, but in the several weeks it took to negotiate the entry of these teams, at least two Palestinians were killed in explosions.<ref name=UN />
==== Criticism of the UN report ====
Human Rights Watch criticized the report as "flawed" due to a lack of first-hand evidence <ref>http://www.hrw.org/press/2002/08/jenin080202.htm</ref>. The report, itself, states that a fact-finding team led by ] was unable to visit the area as planned due to concerns of the Israeli government. The report relied on papers submitted by different nations and NGOs, and on other documents.<ref name=UN />
:: ← ] 23:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
:::] - can I ask you to please attach your sig into the end of your message like everyone else. Starting new lines and (especially) indenting your signature differently is disruptive.
:::In the meantime, I cannot understand what edits you want to make, and you've not responded to or corrected the clear error I believe you've made over the UN saying there'd been no massacre. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 12:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
] - the BBC is wrong, the UN did not confirm that a massacre had not taken place. It's hardly surprising the BBC made such a gross mistake (and refuses to correct its reports) since we know it to be pro-Israel (though it does not admit as much in the summary of its - you have to go to section 4.7). The BBC wrongly quotes other parts of the report in a "pro-Israel" fashion, such as the total death toll. USATODAY is almost certainly far more biased.


Heyo Nudve,<br>
And it shouldn't be necessary to tell you this - have a look at the yourself. If you read it, you could even be excused for thinking the UN had stated there was a massacre. Contained therein are the statements of various governments such as eg ''"it is probable that a massacre and a crime against humanity might have been committed in the Jenin refugee camp"'' and ''"Direct eyewitness accounts by survivors of the massacre at the Jenin refugee camp"'' and ''"eyewitness accounts by casualties who survived the massacre"'' and so on an so forth. The UN report also contains quotes such as the Chinese journalist Shu Suzki ... stated ... ''"... All of the victims were civilians. ... I say again that a huge massacre was committed"'' Chips, the United States volunteer ''"... It was a real massacre and the scenes were terrible"''. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 13:32, 28 October 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>
:It is of note to show that PR once again is alleging that the words of the reports by Palestine and Jordan which were attached as appendices to the UN report are the words of the UN which is NOT THE CASE. The blatantness of his falsehood here is troubling. ] 13:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Warm regards, <b>]'']''</b> 10:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
::'''I do not insert falsehoods into articles or Talk''' (it's rare I even make a mistake, and when I do I apologise for it). I've plainly stated that ''"Contained therein are the statements of various governments"''. It would appear that the allegation made against me is an attempt to cover-up an attempt to introduce a distortion into the article, carried out on behalf of someone who (at best) has not read the material refered to. Behavior like this reflects badly on those who do it and cannot possibly improve articles. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 18:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
:Maybe. What are you suggesting? -- ] (]) 12:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
:On the BBC and "no massacre" reportage: a headline on their website read, "UN says no massacre in Jenin", but the actual ''article'' only said the UN "rejected claims that hundreds of Palestinian civilians were killed". Headlines are generally written by copy-editors and not journalists, and I'm not sure if we can count information which appears ''only'' in a headline as RS. This is especially true when the headlines use the word "massacre", which ''does not appear anywhere in the UN report''. <tt>&lt;]/]]</b>&gt;</tt> 15:26, 28 October 2007 (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?
'''Statement by G-Dett on 'criticism of the UN report'.''' I'd suggest that editors actually check out HRW's criticism of the UN report. Michael Safyan writes that they ''"criticized the report as 'flawed' due to a lack of first-hand evidence."'' This is a rather peculiar summary of HRW's statement. What their press release actually says is that the report is flawed because it ''"largely limits itself to presenting competing accounts of the events during the Israeli military operations."'' That's the first sentence, and here's what follows:<blockquote>
::Warm regards, <b>]'']''</b> 17:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
While the report describes some general allegations that have been made about the conduct of the Israeli and Palestinian sides during the Israeli operation, it draws almost no conclusions on the merits of those claims. It makes only limited reference to the obligations of the parties under international law, makes few clear conclusions about violations of that law, and does not raise the issue of accountability for serious violations that may have been committed, some of which rise to the level of war crimes. Its information and analysis are strongest when dealing with the blockage of humanitarian and medical access to the camp.
:::OK, I . -- ] (]) 05:47, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
</blockquote>
Noting their hampered mandate, Mogelly is quoted as saying, "Even with what they had, they could have done more."


Ok Nudve. I've decided to bring up a few sources and see if you have any suggestions:<br>
HRW's statement wraps up by giving five examples of the UN report's "failings": <blockquote>
'''Post-Event reactions by Israelis/Jews, Palestinians, Media members:'''
It refers to the fact that civilians died in the operation, without examining the circumstances of their deaths. It makes no mention of the strong evidence suggesting that some were willfully killed, such as Jamal Fayid, a 37-year old paralyzed man, who was crushed in the rubble of his home on April 7 after Israel Defense Forces (IDF) soldiers refused to allow his family time to remove him from their home before a bulldozer destroyed it. <br /><br />
* - you've come under some widespread criticism here in the United States... Perhaps 500 Palestinians murdered... you suggested." (Erekat also comments)
* (), , - Israeli and Jewish criticism articles.
The U.N. report mentions that missiles were "at times" fired from helicopters, minimizing evidence suggesting that their use was intense and indiscriminate in Jenin camp, particularly on April 6 when missiles caught many sleeping civilians. <br /><br />
* - Criticism at Erekat (e.v. Erekat spoke with CNN from Jericho, massacre claims were regarding Jenin).
* - "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."
In its section dealing with abuses outside Jenin, the report fails to consider the systematic targeting of the offices of Palestinian media organizations, as well as the serious impediments faced by international journalists and human rights monitors attempting to document events. <br /><br />
*
*
It does not discuss what, if any, steps the parties have taken to investigate credible allegations of violations of international humanitarian law raised in the report-vital for ensuring accountability and discouraging future violations.
*
</blockquote>
* , , - Erekat rejected the UN report.
Here's the link to HRW's .--] 22:35, 31 October 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)
: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)


::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)
== UN Report (second try) ==
:::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)
I would like to replace the "UN report" section with the one posted below. ← ] 23:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
:::Addendum: I just found NY Times article. Maybe it should be used in the article. -- ] (]) 08:39, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
{{tl|editprotect}}


==== UN report ==== == "Massacre allegations" ==
===== Allegations of a massacre =====
The UN report confirmed a body count of 52 Palestinians, up to half of them civilians, and found earlier claims of hundreds of deaths to be unsubstantiated. These findings were widely reported and interpreted as rejecting claims of a "massacre."<ref>{{cite news| title=UN says no massacre in Jenin| url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2165272.stm| publisher=]| date=2002-8-1}}</ref><ref>{{cite news| title=U.N. report: No massacre in Jenin| url=http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2002-08-01-unreport-jenin_x.htm| publisher=]| date=2002-8-1}}</ref><ref>{{cite news| title= DEATH ON THE CAMPUS: JENIN; U.N. Report Rejects Claims Of a Massacre Of Refugees| url=http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D04E6DD1E3BF931A3575BC0A9649C8B63| publisher=]| date=2002-8-2}}</ref><ref name=UN/>.
===== Casualties =====
The report finds that fifty-two Palestinian deaths were reported by the Jenin hospital by the end of May 2002 and that Palestinian reports of 500 dead had not been substantiated. The report places the IDF death toll at twenty-three.<ref name=UN/>
===== Context of events =====
The report explains the rising violence of the first two years of the ], with particular reference to the suicide bombings that had been carried out. It describes all the operations carried out in the West Bank. <ref name=UN />
===== Tactics =====
On the subject of Jenin, it says the ''"IDF urged civilians in Arabic to evacuate the camp. Some reports, including of interviews with IDF soldiers, suggest that those warnings were not adequate ..... Estimates vary on how many civilians remained in the camp throughout but there may have been as many as 4,000."''
Following the ambush of April 9 the IDF changed tactics and began bombardment with tanks and missiles, and demolished parts of the camp using armored bulldozers. The report says ''"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."''
According to the report, supplies of food and water were delivered to the camp starting on April 16th but this was impeded by the large amounts of explosives present. Negotiations began to bring in specialist equipment and workers to remove the explosives, but in the several weeks it took to negotiate the entry of these teams, at least two Palestinians were killed in explosions.<ref name=UN />
==== Criticism of the UN report ====
Human Rights Watch criticized the report as "seriously flawed" due to its limited mandate and to a lack of first-hand evidence <ref>http://www.hrw.org/press/2002/08/jenin080202.htm</ref>. The report, itself, states that a fact-finding team led by ] was unable to visit the area as planned due to concerns of the Israeli government. The report relied on papers submitted by different nations and NGOs, and on other documents.<ref name=UN />


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. &lt;]/]]&gt; 20:49, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
] 23:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
:I don't think it makes sense to report what the UN report "refrains" from saying, accompanied by our speculations about how that omission was interpreted. I don't think the BBC and USA Today were building on what the UN ''didn't'' say; rather, their headline writers were using their own terminology to summarize the UN's findings; but the important thing to realize is that both my speculation and Michael's are OR. Given the enormous ensuing controversy around the word "massacre," I think we need to report sources in their own words. Depending on how deep in the weeds we want to go, it would be accurate to say that several sources interpreted the UN's report as rejecting claims of "massacre," but that is very deep in the weeds indeed, and is probably a violation of ]. At any rate, Michael's proposed phrasing runs afoul of both ] and ].


:Dear Eleland,
:The proposed summary of HRW's criticism of the UN report is still woefully inadequate and misleading.--] 03:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
: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 ].
::Again, this part is basically copied verbatim from the existing version. This part is not critical; only that it go into its own section. The HRW page supports this interpretation: "Human Rights Watch said part of the report's problems stems from the terms of its mandate. Set up by a U.N. General Assembly resolution after the Secretary-General was forced by Israel's objections to disband a U.N. fact-finding mission, the report was collated from existing sources." However, feel free to add to it if you think it is inadequate. ← ] 03:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
: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,
:::&lt;]/]]&gt; 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. &lt;]/]]&gt; 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 ==
:::HRW's principle criticism of the UN report was directed at "its watered-down account of the very serious violations in Jenin," to wit: it limits itself to presenting competing claims and "draws almost no conclusions on the merits of those claims," it "minimizes evidence" that helicopter attacks were "intense and indiscriminate," it refers to civilian deaths but "makes no mention of the strong evidence suggesting that some were willfully killed," and it "fails to consider the systematic targeting of the offices of Palestinian media organizations as well as the serious impediments faced by international journalists and human rights monitors attempting to document events." HRW's statement says that these shortcomings reflect in part "the risk of compiling a report without any first-hand information," but concludes that "even with what had, they could have done more."


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.
:::Any summary of HRW's criticism that underscores the 5% about a lack of first-hand information, while omitting the 95% about an egregious whitewash, is cherry-picked and misleading.--] 14:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


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.
::::Again, this part is basically copied verbatim from the existing version. Make whatever changes you want to my proposed version. My ''primary edit'' with respect to the topic was placing the criticism in its own section. ← ] 20:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
:::::Sorry Michael, I read ''This part is not critical; only that it go into its own section'' but misread "critical" and didn't understand what you were saying. I get it now.--] 21:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
::As for the section on "allegations of a massacre," that three mainstream newspapers claimed that the UN claimed no massacre took place is significant enough that it violates neither ] nor ]. ← ] 03:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
:::Furthermore, it could be construed as promoting either POV. The statement could be viewed as pro-Israel for claiming that the UN document implies, albeit not explicitly, that a massacre did not take place. On the other hand, it could be viewed as pro-Palestinian for addressing misperceptions that the document explicitly rejects the claim that a massacre took place. Hence, it certainly does not violate ]. ← ] 03:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
::::The proposed sentence, ''"The UN report refrains from using the term 'massacre' to describe the events of the Battle of Jenin, which the New York Times, the BBC, the USA Today, and others have interpreted as confirming that a massacre did not take place,"'' is awkward and calls attention to itself, as well as calling ] attention to interpretations of the UN's findings. It also engages in ], by speculating that the BBC and USA Today were interpreting the UN's failure to use the word "massacre," as opposed to merely summarizing the UN's body-count findings with maximum brevity for the purposes of a headline. Out of curiosity, can you give me the reference where the New York Times interprets the UN report with regards to "massacre"? The only NYT article on the UN report that I know of is David Rohde's from May 3, 2002, headlined ''"Rights Group Doubts Mass Deaths in Jenin, but Sees Signs of War Crimes."'' The word "massacre" appears nowhere in the article. Is this the article you're referring to?


Here's my old text...
:::::No. I was referring to . ← ] 20:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
<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>
::::::Thanks for the link, Michael. The New York Times is about as mainstream a source as you could get, and James Bennet is a first-rate journalist, so this is significant. I note here what Eleland noted regarding the BBC, that the headline writer is making summative conclusions that the article itself doesn't make; the only mention of "massacre" in the article is the following:
::::::<blockquote>Today, Israeli officials seized on the conclusions as validating their version of the fighting in Jenin, a battleground of the 22-month conflict now accorded nearly mythic status by both sides. The Israeli Foreign Ministry issued a statement saying that the report "overwhelmingly negates this Palestinian fabrication" of a massacre.</blockquote>
::::::Ultimately, as I indicate in my comment below, I'd like to see the article present these competing "versions" in a clear and organized fashion, showing how different sources interpreted key reports like this and built them into their respective narratives about the significance of Jenin. But for now, you've convinced me that mentioning how the UN report was covered by the media would not be a violation of ], and would in fact be interesting and relevant. I still think the proposed phrasing was awkward and stumbled unnecessarily into OR. How about something like this: ''The UN report confirmed a body count of 52 Palestinians, up to half of them civilians, and found earlier claims of hundreds of deaths to be unsubstantiated. These findings were widely reported and interpreted as rejecting claims of a "massacre."''--] 21:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
::::::The word "massacre" appears once in the ''headline'', but the only place it shows up in the ''article'' is in paraphrasing an Israeli statement. As with the BBC piece and many others, the NYT does not dismiss a massacre, whatever a massacre is, but does dismiss unspecified "Palestinian claims" (which likely were never made) that 500 were killed in Jenin. Headlines are not written by journalists and are designed for brevity and impact over strict accuracy. I do not believe that a headline constitutes a reliable source in itself, when the article text does not replicated. I don't think we can rely on a layout artist's '']'' of an article as a reliable indicator of a newspaper's stance on Jenin events as a whole. <tt>&lt;]/]]</b>&gt;</tt> 20:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
:::::::If I could interject a comment on the NYT. (1) Differing w/Eleland, I believe that the headlines of the NYT are not made by a layout artists but rather someone notably more senior. This is probably verifiable. (2) The headline is merely paraphrasing the lead sentence, by subtituting "rejects" for "dismissing as unsubstantiated" and "massacre" for "Palestinian claims that 500 people were killed." We may disagree with the paraphrase (i.e., maybe it's a bad editorial judgment and maybe a bad reading of the UN report) but the NYT is saying that (it thinks that) the UN rejects the "massacre" claims. (3) Another plausible, though unnecessary, indication of the NYT's view is that, in paraphrasing the Israel response, the word 'massacre' is outside the direct Israeli quote. Curious but unmistakeable. To be emphatic, I am only commenting on the NYT, not on my own view of whether it was a massacre. ] | ] 22:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
::::::::Regarding this last, HG, note that the NYT is summarizing a longer statement from the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs in which the word "massacre" appears earlier and is the clear grammatical antecedent of the quoted bit: ''"The UN Secretary General's Report on Jenin, released today, came about as the result of false Palestinian propaganda regarding an alleged 'massacre' in the Jenin Refugee camp during the course of Israel's Defensive Shield counter-terrorist operation of April, 2002. The report overwhelmingly negates this Palestinian fabrication and repudiates the malicious lies spread regarding the issue.'' In other words, "massacre" fell outside the direct Israeli quote as a result of NYT simplifying and condensing the syntax of the statement. Note, however, that I now agree with Michael that the UN report was widely seen as countering the claims of 'massacre' and that it's appropriate to mention this. Indeed, it's a step in the direction of exactly where I think this article should go; we should be explicitly tracing the evolution of competing narratives about the significance of Jenin, rather than haggling over wording in an effort to bolster or counter these narratives.--] 23:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::Good. It nows seems that we 100% concur. So,... what changes do you propose to the article to achieve this? ← ] 00:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
::::::::::Well, see my comment above. I suggested something like, ''The UN report confirmed a body count of 52 Palestinians, up to half of them civilians, and found earlier claims of hundreds of deaths to be unsubstantiated. These findings were widely reported and interpreted as rejecting claims of a "massacre."''--] 03:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::::Ok. I've merged your changes into the proposed edit. Now, what about the changes to the criticisms section? ← ] 07:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
::::::::::::There are '''multiple''' RSs stating that the UN report cleared the IDF of the massacre charge. It simply ''did not happen''. It's not our job to argue with RSs. The fact is, the UN report, not to mention ''every other RS'', has "cleared" the IDF of the massacre charge. It's therefore inappropriate to phrase it as "interpreted as rejecting claims of a 'massacre.'" as though this fact is somehow in dispute -it's not. Even the PA backed off the claim. ] 09:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::::::The claim that "every RS has cleared the IDF of the massacre charge" is demonstrably false. Arabic sources as well as some Western ones still refer to the "Jenin massacre"; are all Arabic sources by definition non-reliable? Amnesty International moreover issued an explicit public statement explaining why their report avoided the word "massacre" (''"there is no legal definition in international law of the word 'massacre',"'' therefore ''"its use in the current circumstances is not helpful."''). Though the UN did not explain why they avoided it, the fact is they ''did'' avoid it. In short the controversy surrounding that word is complicated and ongoing, and there's no good reason to present the UN's findings in terms different from the ones they chose. I remain however convinced by Michael's argument that ''how'' those findings were interpreted by some prominent RSs is relevant and interesting, and deserves mention.--] 18:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


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.
::::::::::::::Any "source", whether "western" "Arab" or "Martian" which propagates the massacre claim in opposition the to the facts is by definition unreliable. The fact that ] views exist, doesn't mean we present, for example, flat-earthers as a "having a point". ] 22:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::As "massacre" is an emotionally and rhetorically charged word with, as Amnesty International carefully pointed out, "no legal definition in international law," the question of whether an "indiscriminate and disproportionate" attack on a refugee camp leaving 25+ civilians dead constitutes a "massacre" is a question that can't easily be settled by "the facts," no matter how imperiously and talismanically that phrase is invoked. Especially when "the facts" include an unspecified number of civilians killed "deliberately" and "willfully." Amnesty understood this and therefore avoided the term. The UN also chose to avoid it, a decision you evidently regret and would like to reverse now by rewriting their conclusions, replacing their emphasis on "the facts" with your emphasis on a subjective and emotional word they chose not to use. By the way, ] (''all reliable sources cleared the IDF of the charge of massacre'') backed up by ] definitions (''a reliable source is by definition one that clears the IDF of the charge of massacre'') consistently fail to impress.--] 23:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::It's all well and good to accuse me of logical fallacies, but it's easy to settle. Show me the RS (or what you're prepared to argue is a RS, anyway) which states the "hundreds dead" massacre claim is a fact. ] 13:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::That's an easy one - the on 2nd Aug 2002 said: ''"The United Nations concluded that 497 Palestinians were killed during Israeli actions in Palestinian-controlled territory from the beginning of March until May 7, a far higher toll than previously reported."'' Whether that means there was a massacre is debatable - but the only RS dispute of there having been a massacre apparently comes in these three headlines, , and (of the 100s that say there was a massacre). However, none of the articles at those URLs actually say what the headlines claim, that "there was no massacre". By all the regular of the word, there was a massacre - but nobody here is pressing for that to be included except as an ''"also known as"'' name. What's happening is that an insistence on going backwards and forwards over this fairly trivial part of the discussion is needlessly preventing us from documenting everything else about this incident. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 16:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::::If you fact check the quote from the UN report that is being reprinted by the NYT, you'll find this number is NOT a count of the deaths in Jenin, but the whole of the occupied territories, despite PR's attempt here to portray these as evidence of a massacre and a much higher death toll in Jenin than that which is actually reported. ] 13:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::::Or people could simply '''read what I've entered''', which appears fully in context and covers the exact same ground you've presented. There was no intention to mislead - more than that, it's difficult to see how anyone could possibly be misled by the way I've presented this rather striking information, never before seen in this article or in Talk. Did someone really come to my TalkPage and tell me ''"Start making serious, productive contributions to the encyclopedia rather than complaining constantly about your imagined persecution please"'' a moment ago or was that in my fevered imagination too? ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 14:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::::::Armon challenged you to "Show me the RS (or what you're prepared to argue is a RS, anyway) which states the "hundreds dead" massacre claim is a fact." Your response was "that's an easy one" and carried on to show that the NYT's said that the UN reported on 497 dead as a direct response to his challenge. And now you're trying to weasel that you did not intend to show that it was "easy" to find evidence of a "hundreds dead" massacre using a source that does not make any such claim. *rolls eyes* You're killing me here, PR. ] 14:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::] and ], it is objective and ] fact that:
:::::::::::::::::*The UN rejected claims of 500 Palestinians killed.
:::::::::::::::::*The UN confirmed 52 Palestinian casualties.
:::::::::::::::::*The UN limited Palestinian civilian casualties to a maximum of 26.
:::::::::::::::::*The UN does not ''explicitly'' state "no massacre occured"; rather, it leaves the reader to interpret the above as a "massacre" or "not a massacre".
::::::::::::::::], the lack of an explicit statement is sufficient; explaining the absence of such an explicit statement is -- in my opinion -- purely speculative (unless an UN source can confirm the reason for such an absence). ← ] 02:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::
::::::::::::::::], while I happen to agree with the interpretation that the UN report rejects the claims of massacre (albeit ''implicitly'' rather than ''explicitly''), this interpretation is admittedly ''subjective''. Misplaced Pages policy requires that content be both ''objective'' and ''verifiable''. For this reason, I endorse ] proposed edit. ← ] 02:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::OK but what you're forgetting here is that there are multiple, reliable, secondary sources who have stated that the UN report rejected the massacre claim -''we'' need only to follow what ''they've'' explicitly stated. It is a common tactic of pov-pushers to cast doubt on the facts as presented by RSs. This is unacceptable. If this particular fact is in dispute, we need ''other'' RSs which establish that it IS disputed, not just talk page rhetoric. Please see ] and also ]. The standard is verifiability, period, not whatever "Truth" an editor attempts to argue. ] 13:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


Warm regards, <b>]'']''</b> 07:59, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
::::::::::::There is absolutely nothing to indicate that "multiple RS's" eventually decided there was no massacre. The Israel-defending blogosphere is at it's wits end precisely because the RSs refused to do anything of the kind. Here is one of the : ''"The systemic building up of a false, biased picture of Israel as an aggressor and the deliberate murderer of Palestinian babies and children by the British/European media is slowly chipping away at Israel's legitimacy. Because the Big Lie works. After all, how can ordinary people the world over not end up hating such a country? Contrary to the perceptions of some, Israel is not a major power that can withstand such international antagonism indefinitely. It cannot. More importantly, it should not have to. As history has taught only too well, acts of wholesale destruction and genocide do not just spring forth in a vacuum. They are the product of a climate of cultivated, calculated libels, false legends and unforgiving hatred."'' Although reports like this often target the whole of the Western world other than the US, in fact, the US media were not much better as far as Israel was concerned. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 19:58, 4 November 2007 (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. -- ] (]) 08:29, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
::::At any rate, there will be a proper place for ''interpretations'' of the UN report when the article is improved. What we need is a properly demarcated section for competing critical commentaries on the significance of Jenin. One significant critical commentary/narrative, put forth by ''The Weekly Standard'', the Anti-Defamation League, CAMERA, and others is this: 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 other significant narrative, put forth by mainstream media and international human-rights organizations, is this: 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; subsequent investigations dispelled these rumors, but revealed evidence of war crimes and indiscriminate use of lethal force on the part of the IDF. If those advancing the first narrative have used the BBC and USA Today headlines to make their case, then it might be appropriate to mention this in a section devoted to these competing narratives and the ongoing controversies associated with them.--] 14:49, 2 November 2007 (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)
'''Editprotected request''' It's great to see a good discussion here about the proposed changes. As a neutral admin responding to the editprotected tag, I suggest that you start a sandbox (e.g. ]) and construct the proposed addition there. Once there is agreement about it, it will be easy for an admin to copy that to the main article. &mdash;&nbsp;Carl <small>(]&nbsp;·&nbsp;])</small> 16:10, 6 November 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)
::Thank you. I am going to place the edit at ]. ← ] 07:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
:I think that's an excellent idea. Have you been warned that a previous attempt to do this, enthusiastically participated in by some editors, was effectively torpedoed by irrelevancies inserted? Are you willing to aggressively keep the Sandbox on track, and stop it turning into the rambling kind of discussion we're seeing here?
:In addition, someone else created, but I've built on, a table that lists all the claims of the number of deaths (it's about to get archived off the top of this page). Would it be possible to have this table easily accessible somewhere, along with other "cited facts", perhaps linked from the Sandbox page? I'd like to do more of this kind of work, it seems sad to see people's time wasted with some of the easily falsifiable statements that regularily appear in TalkPages. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 12:33, 7 November 2007 (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)
::The table on the current top of this Talk page is rather tabulation of ''claims'' on purported body count and should belong to article ] not the account of the battle itself. If we are to start bothering with facts and defensible statements not with tabulation of propaganda then the real table will contract to 50+ entries and I've suggested above to start with ]'s data; that will be ] of course but nevertheless still seems to be ''sine qua non'' at least in educational sense of getting close to the factual reality which ostensibly should be the WP's objective. ] 19:07, 7 November 2007 (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)
::::::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.
==And then there are mundane things too....==
::::::p.s. the title of that book is borderline antisemitic, portraying self-defense that uses checkpoints instead of cannons as "sadism".
...except that they are not truly mundane if we are trying to make an article half way decent. General improvements which are not germane to the POV to-ing and fro-ing can/should be made to this article. The intro for instance, would be improved IMMHO if changed to:
::::::With respect, <b>]'']''</b> 17:15, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
:''The '''Battle of Jenin''' took place between ]-] ] in the ] ] ] of ] as part of ], during the ]. In ] it is called '''مجزرة جنين''' (Jenin Massacre) and in ], '''הקרב בג'נין''', (Battle in Jenin).''
::::::: 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)
But I guess that even a general copyedit like that might cause a POV pusher to imagine a slight, so maybe it's not worth my while bothering with it. Sigh. ] 08:38, 28 October 2007 (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.
:Yes, you've made a fine copyedit. We'll try to implement it. <s>Unfortunately, so much else is contested, I wouldn't encourage you to spend much time copyediting here yet. Sigh.</s> ] | ] 08:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC) Your presence here is most welcome! Thanks. ] | ] 13:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
::::::::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. &lt;]/]]&gt; 13:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
::Gotta disagree with you HG. More eyes, and ''especially'' copywriters, should ''always'' be encouraged. ] 12:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
:I support this edit. ← ] 23:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
==Regarding IDF investigations==
HG, you were discussing in a section how to present HR orgs recommendations for IDF investigations, and the fact that none took place. This from HRW's statement on the UN report may be relevant:<blockquote>
Human Rights Watch researchers spent three weeks on the ground, including in Jenin camp, immediately following the operation. Researchers gathered detailed accounts from victims and witnesses, carefully corroborating and independently crosschecking their accounts with those of others to reconstruct a detailed picture of events in the camp in April 2002. The findings were published in a 52-page report, "Jenin: IDF Military Operations." In early May, the Israel Defense Forces made a commitment to investigate every incident documented in the report. To date, Human Rights Watch has had no response from the IDF as to the progress of any such investigations.</blockquote>
I wonder if anyone has a source for the IDF's "commitment"?--] 22:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
:Wouldn't it be suitable to have a subsection on IDF's view and response? Though I wonder, where in the order should it be placed? (Alternatively, the IDF view could be split up, maybe some on Investigations and some on Reporting, etc.) Anyway, maybe somebody could workshop this and then put a draft here? For what it's worth, my rule of thumb would be for maybe 3/4 of the section to neutrally/charitably present the IDF view, about 1/8 on substantive criticism of the IDF view from major players, with 1/8 (or less needed?) a wrap-up on the outcome. Thanks. ] | ] 23:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
::As I told you, I'm pleased to see mediation, but I won't put my name to (and thereby promise to defend) statements that still contain known falsehoods. If my obduracy has brought the mediation to a shuddering halt then I'm sorry. How about taking out the known falsehoods first, before concerning ourselves with re-wordings and the re-insertion of all the good information that belongs in the article? ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 12:57, 14 November 2007 (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 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 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)
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)

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.

  1. Failure to indent their contributions.
  2. Insertion of comments into the middle of listings of others in a disruptive fashion.
  3. Denial on grounds of perceived "truth" of information firmly based on RS reports.
  4. 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 BBC Telegraph 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,
  1. 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.
  2. 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)
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)
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)

Peres and Haaretz

Regarding the following diff:

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'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)
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)

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)

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 off I 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)

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)

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)
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)

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.
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 Israeli investigations found no evidence to substantiate these charges 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.
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)

(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)

(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)

(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)

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)
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)

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)

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

'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. '

. 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)
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)

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 probably 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. ☺ 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)

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)
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:
  1. 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.
  2. 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)
  3. 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.
  4. 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)
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)

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)
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)
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)

(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)

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)
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)

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 16 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 "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)

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)
@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)


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

  • Quoted in the Book Derek Gregory's The Colonial Present: Afghanistan, Palestine, and Iraq pgs. 114 and 115 forum not reliable source

Reference to Moshe Nissim interview

Medal of Honour Moshe Nissim Receive After Publication of the Interview

Partly Translations of the Interview by Other Parties

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

  1. 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.
  2. In The CrossHearts The Persecution of an American Musician by Laura Dawn Lewis
  3. Jenin: A Soldier's Triumph in his own Words
  4. 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)
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)

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:

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)

"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)

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 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)
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)
  1. "7 Days"/"Yedioth Ahronoth" - 'Interview with Kurdi Bear, a D-9 operator in Jenin' by Tzvi Yehezkeli, May 31, 2002 (on gush-shalom.org) (in Hebrew)