Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:32, 6 October 2007

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

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 This template has been replaced by Module:WikiProject banner Israel This page is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Misplaced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

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

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

Archives

Archive 1

Body Count Table

N.B. Only add a source if you consider it reliable 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! HG | Talk 14:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Additional deaths and bodies not in the original counts:

(rm'd table of Jenin killings in July, after Battle of Jenin and unrelated) < eleland // talkedits > 12:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Lastly, estimates and sources who either made mistakes in conflict with their sources, or started rumours identified as such by the reporting sources given:

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. Eleland 13:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of transfering the contents of these 2 tables to this location, 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! PalestineRemembered 16:49, 18 September 2007 (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! HG | Talk 17:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Jaakobou 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? PalestineRemembered 22:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

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 the template so that it reads the same as this table, but I propose that, temporarily, we treat the copy here as "the master". PalestineRemembered 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. PR(New Sig for PalstinRembred) 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. PR(New Sig for PalstinRembred) 08:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The fat lady sings about facts, structure, and tone

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.

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.

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.--G-Dett 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.--G-Dett 13:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

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. --Steve, Sm8900 14:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

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. HG | Talk 01:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

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.

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.--G-Dett 03:58, 17 September 2007 (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, --Steve, Sm8900 13:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

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. HG | Talk 04:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

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. --Steve, Sm8900 02:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

page move

It appears the article was recently moved from it's previous title at "Battle of Jenin," to "Massacre of Jenin," 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? Jaakobou 08:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

note: it appears someone also blanked out the redirect page.. Jaakobou 08:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I have requested reversion of the page move. I hope that an admin will look into this matter soon. — Indon (reply) — 08:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Staying focused with an agenda

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?

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:

• 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.)
• 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?
• 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).
• 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.

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. HG | Talk 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 these 2 tables. The early estimate of 500 is not supported, and the eye-witness accounts of mass shootings presented by at least one major British newspaper 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. PalestineRemembered 16:07, 18 September 2007 (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. Jaakobou 18:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

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? HG | Talk 19:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

MEMRI etc. sources

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. Jaakobou 13:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

MEMRI is credibly accused of cheating, eg "Every time I wrote Zionism, MEMRI replaced the word by Jew or Judaism. Now, I don't know what Barakat actually wrote - but MEMRI's translation is here. 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). PR(New Sig for PalstinRembred) 18:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

since when is the muslim brotherhood a credible source for anything? Jaakobou 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). PR(New Sig for PalstinRembred) 19:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Seems like folks on a different topic here, so I added a guess of a section heading. HG | Talk 20:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Extremely frustrating

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, and leave this article to the Likudniks. Eleland 21:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

seeing that no one is suggesting Hamasniks are trying to take over the article with weasel tags, i wonder what you are expecting to achieve with this Likidniks hyperbole.

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". another perfect example is a quick run through on the titles of articles. Jaakobou 21:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Eleland'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. PalestineRemembered 22:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

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. Eleland 22:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

(Dropping in with: Public service announcement 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. HG | Talk 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 this template). 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. PalestineRemembered 08:32, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Colin Powell a massacre denier?

the latest edits on this article have crossed WP:NPOV to the point where it's verging on WP:SOAP. please consider that such editing will most probably be contested and consider discussing the changes first on talk. Jaakobou 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 diff might also bear some small relation to this discussion. PR(New Sig for PalestineRemembered) 10:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

you already know that this edit is inappropriate.

please avoid such playful adjustments in the future as they are not contributing to the conversation.

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. Jaakobou 11:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

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.

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? PR(New Sig for PalstinRembred) 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. Eleland 14:27, 20 September 2007 (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 described as such. Eleland 14:29, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

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? Blindjustice 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. PR(New Sig for PalstinRembred) 16:22, 21 September 2007 (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. WP:OR#SYN is pretty clear on this matter, and represents an established consensus. < eleland // talkedits > 16:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Ahem - established policy may operate on this principle, but if it does, then I've never noticed it. Here's what reliable sources 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. PR(New Sig for PalstinRembred) 17:29, 21 September 2007 (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. < eleland // talkedits > 17:58, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposed partial rewrite and outline

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?

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:

3. Aftermath ... ending with the following paragraph (revised from current article):

According to the United Nations , "at least 52" Palestinian deaths were confirmed. Human Rights Watch "confirmed that at least fifty-two Palestinians were killed ... This figure may rise". 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, though one Palestinian Fatah official reportedly put the death toll at 56. A few Palestinian deaths were reported subsequent or ancillary to the main battle.* The IDF reported that 23 Israeli soldiers were killed. 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

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

Ok, if you're not too annoyed and want to see more how I might implement this, here's a somewhat fuller version of the redrafting 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. HG | Talk 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 original research, 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. PR(New Sig for PalstinRembred) 08:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

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. < eleland // talkedits > 12:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

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! HG | Talk 14:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

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 previously posted 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.

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. PR(New Sig for PalstinRembred) 17:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

FYI here's the UN report at item #43: <moved from below, to fit better in thread> HG | Talk 19:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

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.

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. HG | Talk 14:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

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 tertiary source, 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. < eleland // talkedits > 17:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

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. HG | Talk 19:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

HRW estimate of Palestinian dead being misrepresented

The citation for HRW estimate of the Palestinian death toll from the following link:

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

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.

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).

This unjustified modification changes HRW's meaning significantly. Why are HRW's words being misrepresented in the "Battle of Jenin" box?Blindjustice 08:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

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? Jaakobou 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 missing information/urgently needed edits. PR(New Sig for PalstinRembred) 12:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

sorry for the bold question, but are you two meat puppeting for each other (or some type of variation of sock puppetry)?

p.s. you've not answered the asked question. Jaakobou 13:58, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Jaakobou, pls pursue such concerns, if at all, elsewhere, not on this page. HG | Talk 14:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

<snip>moved response, that wasn't on thread, to previous sectionHG | Talk 19:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

this is not an answer to the question i asked. i asked for the ref on the article for removal of information. Jaakobou 16:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

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). PR(New Sig for PalstinRembred) 17:18, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

let Blindjustice do the work unless you want to be asked that question again... btw, there was a point to both questions. Jaakobou 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, User:Blindjustice deserves an answer to his question "Why are HRW's words being misrepresented in the "Battle of Jenin" box?". PR(New Sig for PalstinRembred) 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?'Blindjustice 23:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

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. Jaakobou 02:25, 29 September 2007 (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? Blindjustice 05:57, 30 September 2007 (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, 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. Jaakobou 11:05, 30 September 2007 (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 mined the camp to kill more civilians (as stated in the UN report) now are we? PR 13:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

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 this; WP:NPOV does not mean say bad things about both sides. Tewfik 21:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

• 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.'Blindjustice 23:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what you mean, as HRW is not in the introduction. Neither is the 1948 Arab-Israeli War 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. Tewfik 00:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

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.Blindjustice 00:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Blindjustice, wikipedia is not a soapbox. please try to remember that when you quote ben gurion (?!). Jaakobou 08:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Three

the following section is a continuation to this conversation. static version sep. 26

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 WP:WEASEL and cut it out. -- 146.115.58.152 02:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

can anyone explain to me why the intro is being repeatedly changed and then the number three keeps popping up? Jaakobou 02:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

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. < eleland // talkedits > 03:28, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Because that is the number per the reference? Did you even try reading WP:WEASEL? 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. -- 146.115.58.152 03:36, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Synthesis vs. Weasel - About the number three

the following is in continuation to this thread.

-- leave your comments on this subsection. Jaakobou 19:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

warred out version

the following is a previous version of the article:

A series of suicide attacks by Palestinian militants on Israeli civilians, which culminated in the March 27, 2002 Passover massacre in which 30 Israelis were killed, followed by six other suicide bombings in a span of two weeks, prompted the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) to conduct what it considered a large-scale counter-terrorist offensive.

1. 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
2. Cite error: The named reference UN was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
3. HRW Summary on hrw.org Similarly, the IDF estimate the number at 52.
4. Cite error: The named reference Qadoura56 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
5. BBC: UN says no massacre in Jenin
6. Passover Massacre: Passover suicide bombing at Park Hotel in Netanya March 27, 2002
7. Israel enters West Bank villages
8. Statements by Israeli PM Sharon and DM Ben-Eliezer 29 Mar 2002

extra notes and sources

1) Passover suicide bombing at Park Hotel in Netanya - 27-Mar-2002:

UN Secretary-General Annan (Mar 28): The Secretary-General condemned suicide bombings 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."

2) [http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/04/12/mideast/index.html Israel enters West Bank villages]:

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.

3) Letter from Israel Ambassador Lancry to the United Nations Secretary-General - 14-Feb-2001:

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 incidents, 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.

4) Suicide bombing at Cafe Moment in Jerusalem - 9-Mar-2002

5) Suicide bombing in the Beit Yisrael neighborhood in Jerusalem - 2-Mar-2002

6) Embassy Briefing March 29, 2002:

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.

7) [http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/03/28/mideast/index.html Israel declares Arafat 'enemy']:

"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.

8) Embassy of Israel, Washington DC - statment made April 1:

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.

comments on syn vs. weasel

• considering theses sources, i request User:146.115.58.152 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...". Jaakobou 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 13 April, 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 Battle of Gettysburg should link to a list of every attack by the Confederacy on the Union, and insist those attacks were what "prompted" the Gettysburg Campaign. 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 Battle of Chancellorsville. 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. -- 146.115.58.152 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. Jaakobou 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 state's rights -- 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 U.S. Civil War, nor should we, even though these justifications are, in an ultimate way, perfectly true; WP:WEASEL 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 Israeli-Palestinian conflict. 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. -- 146.115.58.152 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 Maryland, Missouri, and Kentucky, 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. --Steve, Sm8900 00:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
          • reply - The Gettysburg Campaign 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. -- 146.115.58.152 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 "casus belli" though). Jaakobou 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. -- 146.115.58.152 00:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
            • note - please go over the source list, it would appear that you may have missed it. Jaakobou 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. -- 146.115.58.152 01:06, 24 September 2007 (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. --Steve, Sm8900 13:05, 24 September 2007 (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: "March 29, 2002 - PM Sharon: 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. PR(New Sig for PalstinRembred) 20:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Those three attacks are quite sufficient as justification. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 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. --Steve, Sm8900 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? PR(New Sig for PalstinRembred) 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. --Steve, Sm8900 20:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

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. < eleland // talkedits > 21:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

At this point, I'd prefer to let some other editors take a try at adding further comments. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 02:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I can see why you would. < eleland // talkedits > 03:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

that was really uncalled for. try reading WP:CIVIL and try to actually understand it this time. --Steve, Sm8900 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. PR 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.... Kyaa the Catlord 07:36, 27 September 2007 (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

On 29 March Israel began Operation Defensive Shield. 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. Geni 01:55, 26 September 2007 (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 listed here. PR 10:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I support the wording above, as a useful and acceptable compromise. not sure why there is still an issue here. Sorry. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 13:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

it's a very nice attempt, but i believe it to be a mistake for the following reasons:

1. 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. Netanya bombing - 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. (repeated condolences introduction style here (31.3.2002), 2 days later after another attack that killed 15 more people)
2. these two new events were in progress after the emergency 28.3, 23:00pm meeting was announced, - first one among the two started at the end of the holiday in elon moreh (i.e. only 2-3 hours before 23:00) and the other was going on even later than that.
3. in the statement body, there are clearly two points:
   1. that israel has been repeatedly trying to strive for peace.
   2. the response has repeatedly been terror activity.
   3. these two points are also mentioned (and slightly expanded) in the 31.3 statement (mentioned also above) where sharon retorts the following:

      "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."

4. Hebrew wikipedia lists down an article by the title black march, which lists down 18(!) terror attacks before the netanya bombing (not including).
5. as a result, this operation was already in serious consideration in the event that the violence won't stop (Washington Post report repeated on YNET about Israel planing wide scale operation if all peace attempts fail)

inferring by this single ref to have us believe that 3 events, mentioned as a preface or foreword 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 (WP:SYN). Jaakobou 00:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

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. <eleland/talkedits> 18:02, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

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 cassus belli of the netanya bombing, 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. Jaakobou 09:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Consensus amongst editors is that we quote what the source says, which is "Three". This is what WP:POLICY states we should be doing. Consensus amongst editors is that this article should be based on English language sources and that we abide by the verifiability policy of WP. PR 14:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

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? Jaakobou 14:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

• 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. Eternalsleeper 22:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

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 WP:NPOV 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. -- 67.98.206.2 23:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Let's see:

Three is the number of attacks the Prime and Defense ministers cited as prompting their launch of Defensive Shield, in their own words.

No, three is the number of atacks the Prime Minister cites when he sends his condolences to the victims of the last hours. Eternalsleeper 02:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Sharon told the world's press on 5th March that "Palestinians must be hit 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. PR 19:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

prompted...

Hi, Eleland,

1. you stated in your edit summary for diff 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.
2. could you please explain why you decided that a single mention of the full name of the IDF is too much for the intro?

-- Jaakobou 23:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

NPOV title

Hi, PalestineRemembered,

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

considering you are insisting on this version. i request you make a serious case 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). Jaakobou 00:14, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

This article continues to suffer really serious problems, which will not cease until WP policies 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 <1% of the useage - 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 WP:POLICY? PR 12:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

the problem with your statement regarding the number of appearances is clear if you just observe the articles - google search for "jenin massacre":

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) - in June 2003 BBC admitted the claims were false.

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) - (in April 2003 Peter calls it a Battle and a classic example... of urban warfare)

10) Israel is exonerated on the Jenin "massacre".

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. Jaakobou 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. PR 16:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

RfC - NPOV title

Template:RFChist

Request: User:PalestineRemembered requests 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.

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, to portray the obvious contrast among the two.

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):
1) - 'previously referred to as the Jenin Massacre - round III', one (old) suggestion and commentary by a number of editors.
2) - PalestineRemembered statement/evidence and responses by other editors.

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 -

google search for "jenin massacre":

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) - in June 2003 BBC admitted the claims were false.

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) - (in April 2003 Peter calls it a Battle and a classic example... of urban warfare)

10) Israel is exonerated on the Jenin "massacre".

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". Jaakobou 19:05, 1 October 2007 (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 ownership 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 Jaakobou 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 "in June 2003 BBC admitted the claims were false". (This laughable error was pointed out earlier, it's difficult to understand why it's been repeated, unless the author has problems with English). PR 11:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Comments by others:

• 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 comment immediately above (later moved elsewhere)? Amnesty and the Daily Telegraph Independent 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 announced (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 FOX News 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. PR 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. —— Eagle101 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 Battle of Berlin or Battle of Stalingrad. 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'.

-- Ynhockey 17:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Just a note, a paste from the page List of massacres committed during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war which defines a massacre as referring to incidents in which at least 10 civilians or disarmed soldiers were killed deliberately.

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 Nishidani 20:10, 2 October 2007 (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 PR 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. HG | Talk 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 list of edits needed at this article. There has been such aggressive ownership 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. PR 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. HG | Talk 14:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

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. --Steve, Sm8900 15:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Steve'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. PR 13:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

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 Siege of Jenin, that would be great, but I'm not otherwise inclined to fight the point.

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.--G-Dett 16:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Support current name

• 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. --Steve, Sm8900 13:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

• 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. Bigglove 21:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

• 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 (Template:Lang-ar lit. Jenin Massacre; (Template:Lang-he lit. Battle in Jenin) took place ...

or replace it with the what seems to be even more notable:

The Battle of Jenin (Template:Lang-ar lit. Jenin Massacre; (Template:Lang-he), also known as the Jenin "massacre", took place ...

and i'm leaning towards stronger support for the latter. Jaakobou 16:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Oppose current name (i.e., favor proposed name)

Note

• Just a note, see meta:polls are evil. Doing this is fine, but do not consider this a final measurement. Everyone should be attempting to find agreement somewhere. —— Eagle101 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 policy 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". PR 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. —— Eagle101 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 being told (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. PR 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. —— Eagle101 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. PR 22:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Archive everything older then 2 weeks

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. —— Eagle101 21:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

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 Nil Einne 11:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

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. :) —— Eagle101 15:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your good ideas and efforts. For my part, I disagree with bot archiving. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 15:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

This article suffers terribly from ownership 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 at the AN was still brazen and gave no confidence atall). Clearly a bot would be better and cut out this particular opportunity for mischief. PR 20:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

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. —— Eagle101 23:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Intro "martyr's capital"

hi burgass00,

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.

2) regardless, i reverted your change (and the info blanking by g-dett) because it broke 2 references in the article.

-- Jaakobou 18:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jaakobou, aren't those references already repeated when the martyrs capital is sourced once more in the main body of the article?--Burgas00 16:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Burgas00,

1. 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.
2. 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.

-- Jaakobou 17:56, 4 October 2007 (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.--G-Dett 19:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

added note I wrote in this 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'". Gideon Meir made this claim on Paula Zahn'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.--G-Dett 19:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

i agree with no. ii.

comment - wikipedia is not a censorship and you cannot simply delete well referenced material and first state that the media ignored it (both cases 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? Jaakobou 11:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Please be careful with your accusations, focus on content, not editors. —— Eagle101 15:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

point taken. Jaakobou 17:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

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."

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 Pallywood 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.

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 Rodney King. 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 WP:UNDUE, 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.--G-Dett 12:05, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

G-Dett, can you please find links for a few of the points you've noted? Jaakobou 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 WP:UNDUE 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 "Kurdi Bear" 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. PR 22:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

1. the explanation is not satisfactory without any links to support the case.
2. please refrain from injecting non related issues into the discussion.

-- Jaakobou 22:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Here is Hollywood screenwriter Dan Gordon's original op-ed, "A Question of Blood," published in the Jewish Journal and planting the seed of the rumor. Here 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 here. 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.--G-Dett 23:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

"fake" funeral ("Other controversies" cont'd)

seems to me we can report both the israeli report, and the denial from "LAW", i disagree with the undue claim.
p.s. the film Jenin, Jenin is an impressive case of propaganda/pallywood. Jaakobou 01:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Jaakobou - 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. PR 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 WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Jaakobou 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 WP:UNDUE, and undermines the credibility of the encyclopedia.--G-Dett 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? Jaakobou 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 Chicago tabloid 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.--G-Dett 16:43, 5 October 2007 (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. Jaakobou 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., On Sunday, May 5, a Palestinian advocacy group called 'LAW - The Palestinian Society for the Protection of Human Rights and the Environment' denied the story and compared the evidence with images shot by Mohammad Bakri'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.Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page).

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. Jaakobou 21:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• How do you respond to the WP:UNDUEWEIGHT 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?

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

• • (1) perhaps they had no way to further validate this story. and (2) perhaps they feared injuring their credibility after giving so much credit 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 WP:UNDUE. i also believe that WP:CENSORED and lastly WP:ENC 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). Jaakobou 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?--G-Dett 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? Jaakobou 01:32, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, what? What links do you need?--G-Dett 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? Jaakobou 03:11, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Is this some sort of half-assed jedi mind trick? 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 here. Really, Jaakobou, you baffle me sometimes.--G-Dett 03:22, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

outdent outdent... thank you for that link - so now our source list for the event includes: 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? Jaakobou 04:47, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

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? PR 06:58, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

blood controversy ("Other controversies" cont'd from above)

seems from the second link you gave 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. Jaakobou 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. PR 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, Soldier of Fortune, Wyatt Earp, Surf Ninjas, and "A Question of Blood."

Media coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has a section on alleged distortions and fabrications; consider adding this material there, if you are devoted to it.--G-Dett 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. Jaakobou 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. --G-Dett 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. —— Eagle101 15:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

A suggestion for tomorrow, someone can have a look at the References 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 :) —— Eagle101 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 along with a pile of careful changes, 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? PR 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 his "clarify editing battle" page, 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 version that was protected some weeks ago; 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 User:Eleland/JeninSandbox. Thanks, <eleland/talkedits> 16:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

1. who are you adressing here?
2. i don't recall ever attacking HG, so mind the false accusaionts.
3. 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.

-- Jaakobou 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. PR 19:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

1. I'm addressing whoever reads the post.
2. 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.
3. Huh? I don't understand what you're saying. <eleland/talkedits> 20:16, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Eleland, each warning i've listed on your page, you've more than earned and anyone going over them can verify this statement. User:PalestineRemembered, your mentor has noted me to stop working to resolve the issues raised on that page. -- Jaakobou 21:13, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Jaakobou - my "mentor" had nothing to do with that page, which well predates my choosing him. The efforts of User:HG 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 one of your allies opened up with a new section "HG is far to buddy buddy in tone with PR for this to be a neutral venue.", an idiotic mis-reading of the situation.

User:Eleland - you might (perhaps?) be unaware that Jaakobou has a long history of harrassment of people on their TalkPages, including the harrassment of two admins. He was taken to the Administrators Noticeboard/Incidents and blocked for it. Two more admins took up the case, letting User:Jaakobou 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 here and here. It would be bizarre indeed if he is still behaving in a fashion almost guaranteed to poison the atmosphere. PR 07:32, 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. Jaakobou 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) "Palestinians must be hit 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. PR 06:40, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
  • i saw the source, you are misrepresenting it. Jaakobou 06:58, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

1. http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/05/03/jenin.tape/
2. http://www.israelinsider.com/channels/diplomacy/articles/dip_0204.htm#
3. Pallywood, According to Palestinian Sources by Richard Landes (SecondDraft.org) (Video - min 5:49-7:00) (Youtube mirror)

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