Talk:Battle of Jenin (2002)/Archive 9

Looks like a cover-up

It should be obvious to everyone that this was a major event, and that the word "massacre" probably describes what took place - the BBC says "Palestinians claim hundreds of bodies are buried beneath the rubble, but Israel says the numbers of dead are far fewer. An independent forensic expert says evidence suggests that a massacre has taken place."

The BBC also reports the words of the UN Special Co-ordinator for the OPT: "Terje Roed-Larsen, who toured the Jenin refugee camp on Thursday, said it was "morally repugnant" that Israel had not allowed emergency workers in for 11 days to provide humanitarian relief." 86.159.186.70 (talk) 18:36, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a blood libel if you ask CNN.[1] Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:36, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Definition of "massacre" and "civilians"

Note: Title change performed by LamaLoLeshLa (talk · contribs) at 20:23, 17 July 2008 - Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:14, 18 July 2008 (UTC) (From Definition of "massacre" to definition of "massacre and civilians")LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 03:41, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I am surprised that nowhere in this entry is there a discussion of the meaning of the term "massacre" in relation to events in Israel and Palestine. Consider the Hebron massacre and other massacres of Jews which remained in the dozens, didn't reach the hundreds (in particular, consider the wiki entry, the Passover massacre, a more recent case). The term massacre does not need to refer to a concerted and explicit policy of killing reaching into the hundreds. It can be a spontaneous result of disorder within the context of battle as well, leading to the deaths of several dozen innocents, as in this case. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 22:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion 1 - Beyond ourselves debating whether this was or was not a massacre (not that I disagree that there is a need to debate) perhaps it's now time to shift towards inserting a paragraph summarizing some of the main debates around the term in relation to this case. Such a section should mention that, as G-Dett notes, the word "massacre" has "no legal definition in international law," and that "the question of whether an "indiscriminate and disproportionate" attack on a refugee camp leaving 25+ civilians dead constitutes a 'massacre' is a question that can't easily be settled by "the facts." What is most important about the term "Jenin massacre" is what it reflects about Palestinian and international perceptions of Operation Defensive Shield and the escalation of offensives in 2002. The fact that the killings were and are still perceived as such (a massacre) by Palestinians, most of the Arab world, and many in the international community, in itself warrants highlighting of the term 'massacre.' In my opinion, in terms of public perception the killings in Jenin certainly constituted as at least as much of a massacre as the Passover massacre-LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 22:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC) LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 23:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

LamaLoLeshLa,
The fighting in Jenin was a battle, not a massacre and the sources are quite clear on this when they criticize the Palestinian (Blood Libel) exaggerations from the early days of the clashes. Please review the article sources before giving undue weight to the Islamic Jihad/Saeb Erekat version of occurrences in your "summary of events". As a side note, connections to other similar events would be a proper addition to the see also section, but only if those have some real similarity. As for adding a section on the "public perception the killings in Jenin", that would actually be interesting to see if it were based on reliable sourcing. I hope that answers the majority of your questions/suggestions.
Cordially, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 05:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I think my main point got buried in all my other musings: The term massacre does not need to refer to a concerted and explicit policy of killing reaching into the hundreds. It can be a spontaneous result of disorder within the context of battle as well, leading to the deaths of several dozen innocents, as in this case. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 20:49, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't call 45 militants and 7 civilian casualties in an explosives ridden territory "several dozen innocents" or "massacre". The PLO dropped their massacre charges and your information and personal interpretation of the sources are clearly incorrect. The fighting in Jenin was a battle, not a massacre and this is supported by a slew of reliable sources. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:37, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I can't continue with a back and forth, but for the record I will insert here the text from our dear wiki entry:

• 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 unconfirmed deaths,[25] though one Palestinian Fatah official reportedly put the death toll at 56.[26]
• The UN report confirmed a body count of 52 Palestinians, up to half of them civilians, and found earlier claims of hundreds of deaths to be unsubstantiated.

No one has said that 45 militants were killed. Modest estimates point to 26 civilian deaths, while IDF estimates still point to 18. Again, in the passover massacre, 30 people were killed.

My point here, however, is not to argue about numbers. Dead innocents are dead innocents, unquantifiable, on both sides. But for the record, I thought I'd remind you here. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 22:02, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Please don't lecture me about alleged innocence of the "capital of suicide bombers" population. I'd add a few more words but I'm fairly disgusted at how you're first promoting the "massacre" blood libel and are now passing judgment, accepting the Palestinian interpretation of "innocent". War crimes were committed during those 10 days by use of these "innocent" "civilians" . Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 02:15, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I should have known better than to reply to your last message. It was an attmept at a discussion, however, here you take it to another level. Please try to return to your, "cordially" state of being. thanks, LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 05:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Pardon me then for considering your "highly moral" comparison -- between the Passover massacre victims (suicide bombing at a hotel lobby full of elderly people eating dinner) and the battle in Jenin casualties (urban battlefield filled with explosives where "civilians" were used in violation of war codes to kill both IDF soldiers and civilians) -- to be an objectionable insult but it is what it is. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, everyone. I thought I would step in and give some input. I think we should turn to Wikipedia's policy vis-a-vis the use of the term "terrorism" as a precedent for the use of the term "massacre." It is not consistent with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy to describe an event as an "act of terrorism" or "not an act of terrorism." It is permissible, however, to write that "According to _____, _____ constituted an act of terrorism." It seems, then, that Wikipedia policy requires the use of the term "massacre" to be accompanied by explicit attribution. For example, "According to Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, a massacre did not take place." I believe this, or something similar, is already the phrasing used in this article. As for titles in which the term "massacre" appears, the title should be based on the most frequently used term in reliable sources. It was already discussed whether this article should be titled the "Battle of Jenin" or the "Jenin Massacre"; the result of the discussion was that -- ignoring instances of "Jenin Massacre" where "massacre" was placed in quotes or where an article stated that a massacre had not taken place -- the term "Battle of Jenin" was used more frequently in reliable sources than "Jenin Massacre". I hope that helps. Good luck and have a good day. ← Michael Safyan ^(talk) 17:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

<off-topic question: Following this logic, would you be receptive to changing the title of Passover Massacre then, as well?>LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 08:13, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I would be receptive to changing the title if there were an alternative title which was used more frequently by reliable sources. However, the article provides five reliable sources which refer to the event as the "Passover massacre." Two of these sources -- one from CNN and one from The Daily Telegraph --, as mainstream news sources, are indicative of this title's prevalence. Furthermore, the matter has already been discussed at length on the article's talk page, and -- without my intervention or interference -- "Passover massacre" was chosen as the most suitable title. ← Michael Safyan ^(talk) 09:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Off the specific topic perhaps, but nonetheless relevant to the concept of civilised and grown up debate, could I also add that it is neither helpful nor interesting for editors here to start using mock inverted commas (eg "civilians"), and language such as "alleged innocence" when talking about people who happened to live in a particular place, who were killed in a military assault. Ascribing collective guilt to entire populations is a rather unpleasant game to engage in. --Nickhh (talk) 20:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

A civilized and grown up debate is one where insults are not made to suggest one's defense from the most disgusting war tactic of possibly all time (see Hussam Abdo, Wafa al-Biss) was actually a massacre of dozens of innocent civilians (as the propaganda suggested during the early days of the assault). Regardless, if it offends you that I don't call the people who violated war rules (i.e. committed war crimes) -- by acting like civilians and leading the Israeli soldiers into a death trap -- when I use double quotes around their "civilian" description, then I apologize. That doesn't, however, mean that the term civilian applies to their activity or that the (now dropped) massacre claims have any footing.

Cordially, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:46, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Why is pointing out that (genuinely) innocent people were killed apparently some sort of personal insult to you? You are also continuing to pass some sort of bizarre collective judgement on everyone who was killed in the assault as well as engaging in some pretty hardcore WP:SOAP which has no relevance to attempts to improve this article. Some simple advice - when you are in a hole, stop digging. Its not merely offensive (to the victims, not to me) but simply wrong-headed and borderline racist to keep on claiming that Palestinians are somehow all war criminals. And no, that's not a breach of WP:NPA, it's fair comment on what you yourself are on record as saying. --Nickhh (talk) 23:12, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't consider the casualties of the Battle of Jenin, where "civilian" militants in the refugee camp have committed numerous war crimes, as "victims". I have no idea on why you suggest this has anything to do with racism, it doesn't. There's plenty of honest working Palestinians who did not booby-trap their homes with 20,000KGs of explosives outside the Jenin camp. If it weren't you (my fav stalker) I'd go further to explain the difference between terrorists and the rest of the Palestinian population. Regardless, suggesting my comment has anything to do with race/racism and following with hyperbole/ad-hominem is a personal attack so I request you don't repeat it. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 03:31, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Jaakabou - One question, because I really do not understand your meaning: Are you saying that the civilians who were killed were not really civilians because they were used as human shields by Palestinians (a claim you have yet to offer a citation for)? Or, even, are you suggesting that the (what you call 'quote') civilians were actually voluntary human shields? LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 06:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I think Jaakobou is right. Both sides exchanged fire and both sides suffered casualties, which makes it a battle. Many battles in history resulted in civilian casualties, but that doesn't make them massacres. -- Nudve (talk) 06:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I still hope Jaakabou answers my question. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 06:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Jaaka is a student and is in exams so I wouldn't wait. Besides, your question is loaded. I'd not answer such a question if I were Jaaka. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 07:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok: a reminder to assume good faith. My question may seem loaded, but seriously, the above is what I understood from his/her comments. Thus I welcome his/her clarification.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 07:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

AGF is not a suicide pact. Sorry. You bait and make accusations, there's not good faith to assume here, friend. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 07:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Jaakobou and Nudve, above. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 16:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Huh? did you read what your friend wrote? I simply do not understand what s/he writes, here: "Regardless, if it offends you that I don't call the people who violated war rules (i.e. committed war crimes) -- by acting like civilians and leading the Israeli soldiers into a death trap -- when I use double quotes around their "civilian" description, then I apologize. That doesn't, however, mean that the term civilian applies to their activity". S/he seems to imply not simply that s/he does not recognize that a bit less than half were civilians - s/he seems to imply that those killed were disguised as civilians. I genuinely want to understand if this is what s/he meant and, if so, where s/he got her/his information. I have never seen this before, have only heard it in the rumor-mill, and if indeed this is what Jaakabou is asserting, I want to see substantiation, plain and simple. I am not hiding my lack of comprehension of his/her charge, here, rather, am addressing ti directly. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 07:19, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Wait, you mean you do not realize that the terrorists militants who act with impunity in Palestine do not wear uniforms, rather they attempt to blend in with the civilian population as they wage their "war" against Israel and victimize even those who they purport to be fighting for? These aren't uniformed soldiers, rather they are angry armed men who bear the trappings of civilians in an effort to hide themselves within the population from which they plot their ambushes. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 07:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The fact that most Palestinian fighters/militants/terrorists/whatever do not wear full uniforms and are not part of an official army is well known, and is also already taken into account in the casualty figures for Jenin. Jaakobou's comments appear - pretty explicitly - to go beyond that and cast doubt on whether those recorded by official accounts as having been civilians rather than gunmen, were in fact civilians, seemingly on the basis of some sort of collective guilt which brands all Palestinians as terrorists, even elderly men in wheelchairs. This is not the first time such comments have been made, on this talk page and elsewhere. On the "massacre vs battle" point, it's possible that something can be both, and the definition of massacre is of course subjective - there's no set threshold (based on numbers, who was killed and how etc) at which point something suddenly becomes a massacre. Different people will take different views, and no one view is necessarily conclusive. --Nickhh (talk) 08:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Further discussion

Prof Derrick Pounder and his fellow "we've been given testimony of civilian deaths.. looks like a massacre to us!" teams of Human Rights Inspectors certainly listed all the people which were not holding a rifle as civilians.[2] However, there's other versions as to the "civilian" activity.

Samples of the Palestinian "civilian" war crimes:

• An bomb-maker from Jenin refugee camp gives testimony about his activity.
  • The 'engineer'
    Al-Ahram Weekly Online
    18 - 24 April 2002
    Issue No.582.
    • relevant quotes:
      • "We cut off lengths of mains water pipes and packed them with explosives and nails. Then we placed them about four metres apart throughout the houses -- in cupboards, under sinks, in sofas.".."everyone in the camp, including the children, knew where the explosives were located so that there was no danger of civilians being injured."
        • • bomb factories in UNRWA managed refugee camp, see: 2.8 Using civilians as shields
      • "We all stopped shooting and the women went out to tell the soldiers that we had run out of bullets and were leaving." The women alerted the fighters as the soldiers reached the booby- trapped area."...'"When the senior officers realised what had happened, they shouted through megaphones that they wanted an immediate cease-fire. We let them approach to retrieve the men and then opened fire."
        • • see: Ruse_of_war#Prohibited_ruses

These are just examples and don't quite yet tell the full story of the Capital of Suicide bombers' "civilian" militancy. The fact that Israel could not prove the militancy of 14 people (out of the 56 Palestinian killed in the fighting) does not give credence to any of the insulting "let's talk about why we should call it a massacre (of dozens)" language applied by LamaLoLeshLa (or the racism allegations by Nickhh). Fact remains that a blood libel was spread during the days of the fighting and the "civilians" spreading this hoax couldn't back up their claims which started with "3000 Palestinians butchered! Sabra and Shatila again!!!" and later turned to a victory declaration, "56 of our glorious martyrs inflicted unprecedented damages to the evil Zionists!".

Cordially, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Note to Nickhh: I request you desist from violating WP:NPA, repeatedly suggesting I apply a racist "collective guilt which brands all Palestinians as terrorists". Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:19, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Note in reply: I have not explicitly accused you of racism and have not made any sort of personal attack on you. I have simply called you out on what you have written here, for example your constant used of inverted commas around the word civilians when referring to people who were killed and were officially described that way by the UN and others (this figure may be as high as 26, although you wouldn't know it from reading the introduction as it stands). See also your comments about "the alleged innocence of [Jenin's] population"; that you "don't consider the casualties .. as victims"; and the suggestion that those counted as civilian casualties were only classified that way because "Israel could not prove [their] militancy". Anyone else can read all this and make their own judgement. It is not only offensive, but is soapboxing and is irrelevant to any attempt to improve this article. I'm vacating this spot now. --Nickhh (talk) 13:57, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

To clarify the quote from the source:

• "may have been civilians" != "are civilians". Just because the UN did not want to call the Palestinians on their gross exaggerations does not remotely give credence to this statistic.

On Highs and Lows:

• They are brilliant statistics and I have no objection to someone citing the UN secretary general portion of the report as long as it's done with accuracy. However, the highs in casualty figures "estimations"(/allegations) for this battle reached 3000 with a famous Palestinian official/TV-persona going on record promising over 500 "massacred" Palestinians in Jenin while repeating blood libel claims of hidden graves and a cover-up. The lows tell a different and far more accurate story though.

On how this discussion got started:

• Suggestions that we should debate whether or not this battle was a "massacre" while calling the gunmen of Jenin "victims" clearly fall under WP:SNOW and are quite an insult as well considering the number "28" to be among the "lows" for suicide bombers dispatched from the camp's alleyways.[3]

On the Nickhh WP:NPA issue:

LamaLoLeshLa's reply regarding "Modest estimates"(false) and "passover massacre"(abusive comparison) were a reason for my reminding/noting him of the Jenin camp nickname and the war crimes committed by "civilians" in the camp. If you believe calling the Palestinian "innocent" statistics from the Jenin battle 'bogus' to be a clear sign of racism towards the entire Palestinian population (of 11 million) then I'm afraid we disagree.

Cordially, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC) clarify 16:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

calling it a massacre is a sign of overt, excessive and completely needless politicization of Wikipedia. there is no need to use such a volatile and politically loaded word in regards to any historical event or political or historical topic. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 16:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

At no point did I argue for the exclusive use of the word massacre to describe these events, please do not put words in my mouth, Jaakabou. This 'began' when I tried to suggest that the perception of the fact that this was a massacre is worthy of highlighting in and of itself, as would be a short discussion of the debate around the term "massacre" in this context. I never said anything else, except to offer that what is a battle for one side can be a massacre for the other. I don't know how one can argue with that - in boston, during the revolutionary war, they used the term 'massacre' when the brits won in battle and few civilians were killed. I too, am leaving this page now. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 19:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

There is a subsection on the reports of a massacre at this battle here [4]. I do not believe that this article is the place to have such a broad discussion on the use of the term massacre in the context of the broader IP conflict. Maybe there is an article on the press coverage of the IP conflict out there? Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 06:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

second section break

A broad discussion did take place on exactly this a while ago, in terms of naming pages here. If anyone's got a couple of minutes to go through it - to be honest I haven't and am not sure what the conclusion (if any) was. As for a page/article itself, there's Media coverage of the Arab-Israeli conflict. I would add as well that I am not arguing that Jenin was a massacre, nor am I saying that Western sources generally say that it was. The issue I have with this page (and have had for a long time) is that I think it's too simplistic to say people who did - or still do - claim it was a massacre are somehow definitively wrong, or are/were deliberately perpetrating some form of blood libel. Even as currently written, the article gives too much emphasis to suggestions of that, as if that were tha main issue here. Ooops, I wasn't meant to be here .. but did think I should at least drop that link in. --Nickhh (talk) 08:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Nickhh, I feel it is unfair for you to use the term "racist" to describe Jaakobou. As I hope you realize, we do not issue personal attacks here. You may or may not have intended it as one, but people are entitled to have their own feelings and sensibilites when comments are about them personally. In this case, you are unfairly labeling Jaakobou's actions and motives, when he is making legitimate comments about article contents. I will ask you use a little more care. As you know, discussions here can proceed positively, even on the most contentious issues, as long as we all try to show some respect. I appreciate if you could please try to give this some more thought. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk)14:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Well I didn't of course describe him as a racist, I said making assertions of collective guilt was an "unpleasant game" and also said that for him to continue insisting - as he had appeared to do - that Palestinians were all war criminals was "borderline racist". You might see that as semantics, but in turn I saw his words as being pretty clear in suggesting that no Palestinian who was killed in Jenin was a civilian, or a genuine victim, or uninvolved in war crimes somehow - ie that they were all guilty of something by virtue of being Palestinian and having homes in Jenin. And nor do I know what those kind of rants have to do with improving the article to be honest. (Still not meant to be here ...) --Nickhh (talk) 15:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I do appreciate you replying. I understand your point. However, I still see a problem here. I do hope you'll try to keep these concerns in mind. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

_{Subscript text}

• massacre there are some commonly accepted perameters here. 1) massacre always implies multiple murders, although I am not aware of a minimum number. 2) massacre always implies that at the time the killing occurred, it is a matter of armed people killing unarmed people. Not innocent people. Just unarmed people. The Katyn massacreis a good example. Innocence or guilt are really not relevant. LamaLoLeshLa is introducing a red herring.Elan26 (talk) 21:48, 18 July 2008 (UTC)Elan26

Ok. sounds good. please prepare to start the article rename discussion on the Hiroshima massacre, Dresden massacre. By the way, is there some reason we do not have articles for 9-11 massacre? Could it be that "Massacre" is deemed too volatile a word even in these clear unambiguous examples? --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 03:28, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

By the way, based on your example, it appears that maasacre refers not to any violence involving the death of civilians, but rather the prearanged execution-style killing of people, especially if based on nationality, ethnicity, or political affiliation. For example, see this excerpt:

Katyń massacre, also known as the Katyń Forest massacre (Polish: zbrodnia katyńska, 'Katyń crime'), was a mass execution of Polish military officers, policemen and civilian prisoners of war ordered by Soviet authorities on March 5, 1940.

Just wanted to mention that. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 03:36, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Elan26, thanks for your view on the matter of defining 'massacre'. As far as my introduction of the idea of 'innocence', I'm not at all fixated on whether people are innocent or not - who are we too know and how can we know unless we were there and witnessed every single killing, or there was a proper trial? As you properly emphasized, what is actually important is to clarify the idea of the civilian vs. combatant, in terms of being armed or unarmed. It sounds to me like, by your definition, this was a massacre, by the way - did you mean to give that impression? The irony is that I personally don't care whether what happened at Jenin is here defined as a massacre or not - what is really important is:

• 1. To represent the debate around the use of the term in this case, which is as important as what actually happened those three days.
• 2. To clearly represent the difference between combatants and civilians. Jaakabou's arguments remind me directly of the arguments made byu those Palestinians who view all Israelis who serve in the army as combatants, even when sitting unarmed and hardly on active duty, on the beach. (my two cents: The fact that 'they' -- the 'other', whether Israeli or Palestinian -- are not viewed as civilians, when unarmed, is why the violence has spiralled for so long). LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 03:40, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Dear LamaLoLeshLa,

Please avoid making uncivil commentary. I'm referring to this policy: Wikipedia:CIV#Engaging_in_incivility, and my concern is specifically the judgmental tone directed at me in person -- comparing me with extremist Palestinians (see also WP:NPA), rather than a civil inquiry regarding the content issue which you are unclear about (i.e. Jenin being a battle rather than a massacre). Judgmental commentary directed at fellow editors detract from an ability to discuss your concerns in a calm manner (see also: Erosion_of_critical_thinking).

The golden rule, in my opinion, is "Comment on content, not on the contributor." (from the NPA)

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:41, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

That is what your argument reminded me of, no offense intended. I will try to describe the argument and not mention your name, next time. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 18:04, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Entire world calls it a massacre

All of this has been discussed before, and there's actually no room for doubt - the incident is generally known as the "Jenin Massacre" - and overwhelmingly so amongst informed non-partisan observers. How can I be so confident? Well, lots of pro-Israeli sources tell us so themselves eg:

1. A US group, JFEDNEPA - "How Did the Massacre Myth Become Fact"? (this is 6 weeks after the incident).
2. CAMERA - "... the credibility of these spokesmen with the American press is apparently unaffected". (14 weeks after the incident).
3. An Israel group, AISH - "The myth of the massacre endures to this day" (2 years after the incident).
4. YnetNews - "After a lot of hesitancy and a short-lived attempt to take balanced positions, the worldwide left-wing has returned in full force to the 'Jenin massacre syndrome'." (4 years later).

There are many, many other angry Israeli defenders telling us how unfair it all is - but the last of the above is perhaps most significant - clearly, at some point the defenders were comforting each other that their "no massacre" version was going to be accepted. Four years out, their hopes had been dashed (except at Wikipedia, where administrative action has still not been taken against those who would distort the record).

One gets the same thing with a search on "Jenin Massacre" (18,400 hits on Google) vs "Battle of Jenin" (979 hits). At Yahoo the ratio is only 3:1 in favour of "Jenin Massacre" (165,000 vs 25,600) - it's distorted back towards Israel a bit by the angry blogosphere and non-RS, as would never be acceptable in articles at Wikipedia. PR^talk 18:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

PalestineRemembered, I advise you look at the discussion archives. This has already been thoroughly discussed, and the decision was that "The Battle of Jenin" is the term most frequently used by reliable sources and that, while there are more Google hits for "Jenin Massacre", the vast majority of such links state that a massacre did not occur. Case in point, the first source you show does not call it a "Massacre", but a "Massacre Myth" (emphasis added). The second link you provide does not use the term "massacre", and therefore does not support your claim. The third link does not refer to a "massacre", but rather to the "myth of the massacre" (em. added). The fourth link uses the term "massacre" in quotations, which indicates that the words are not the opinion of the source (indeed, the source is speaking of a "syndrome" -- a disease, if you will -- of repeatedly and erroneously referring to the Battle of Jenin as a "massacre"). If anything, your sources are supportive of changing the title of the article to "Jenin Massacre Myth" or "Myth of the Jenin Massacre", not to "Jenin Massacre". Please see this archived discussion, in which -- following an RFC by you to change the title -- several editors supported "Battle of Jenin" while you, alone, supported "Jenin Massacre". ← Michael Safyan ^(talk) 19:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

PR, there are numerous sources which refute your sources. the entry cites a BBC article in which mainstream expert find that there was no massacre. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 19:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

There are 100s and 100s of articles in the RS on this incident, as best I'm aware there are only 3 which state there was no massacre, [5], [6], [7], all of them seriously problematical to use directly in an article. As the angry blogosphere tells us so graphically, the RSs are around 99% unanimous that something appalling happened. Why do you suppose that Israel banned the documentary of it, and then shot dead the maker producer of the film? PR^talk 23:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

@Michael - I'm badly disappointed in you - that's not an RfC (which I've never raised on this subject, usually stating that the really big problems are in the content of this article and not in it's title). Nor was it raised by me - it was raised by Jaakobou with "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." - so I've clearly not even been asking for the name to be changed, only that the alternative name be included.

However, readers of that (rather brief) discussion would almost certainly suppose that I made an excellent case for the article to be entitled "Jenin Massacre", even though I'd not proposed changing it, and that subsequent to my presentation there had been next to no attempt to present an alternative case. PR^talk 23:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Further details, and quotes from PR's links:

• A US group, JFEDNEPA - "How Did the Massacre Myth Become Fact"? (this is 6 weeks after the incident).

Note: as PR candidly notes, this article is from 6 weeks afterwards, before world media began to retract claims, as noted in articles below.

• CAMERA - "... the credibility of these spokesmen with the American press is apparently unaffected". (14 weeks after the incident).

Note: dated Aug 2002; well before media began to retract their stories.

• An Israel group, AISH - "The myth of the massacre endures to this day" (2 years after the incident).

Note: Aish also states: "

"Massacre evidence growing," a headline on BBC's website blared on April 18, 2002.

There was just one small problem. None of that happened.

The truth would come out eventually, Canadian reporter Martin Himel reports in his new documentary, Jenin: Massacring Truth. But the damage was done.

The myth of the massacre endures to this day, even though the BBC was backpedalling within days of the initial reports.

Little more than 10 days after accusations of a massacre were posted on the BBC's website, British military expert David Holley, a major in the British Territorial Army and military adviser to Amnesty International, was quoted on the same site saying Israel was right to challenge the UN observers' claims.

• YnetNews - "After a lot of hesitancy and a short-lived attempt to take balanced positions, the worldwide left-wing has returned in full force to the 'Jenin massacre syndrome'." (4 years later).

NOTE: As per the quote above, that article says syndrome. syndrome. this article is not upholding claims of a massacre at all, but simply drawing parallels between coverage of jenin battle and of conflict in Lebanon.

Note: article states:

took months for human rights organizations, even the United Nations, to issue their reports refuting Palestinian claims. There was no massacre in Jenin, no ethnic cleansing, no intentional destruction of hospitals. There was a bloody battle in which soldiers died on each side.

Learning the lessons

The fairytale about the "Jenin massacre" may have died, but were lessons learned? Some were. The European media, especially the electronic media, has given some expression to the suffering of Israeli civilians under attack. It has not (usually) supported Hizbullah.

But in other cases, no lessons were learned from the blood libel of the Jenin massacre. During the second week of fighting, Israel's military campaign in Lebanon is currently being portrayed as the total destruction of Lebanon, of essential civilian infrastructure, as a human tragedy on the level of the 2004 tsunami that killed hundreds of thousands of people in Southeast Asia. Reading reports from left-leaning field reporters, one gets a picture that Beirut has been destroyed at least as badly as Dresden was during the Second World War. Foreign television channels use one section of footage over and over, showing the destruction of one neighborhood in south Beirut, to "show" what has happened throughout the city.

thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 20:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm getting the same response as I had when I first posted a selection of these clips, people are cherry-picking optimistic words out of these angry and baffled defenders of Israel, and attempting to give credence to their pathetic attempts at bolstering their self-deception, somehow putting a different and optimistic spin on the evidence that stares them in the face.

The fact is that all these commentators (and there are many more blogosphere editors ranting like this, particularly in the weeks immediately after the incident) are blowing smoke, they know they're defeated and they're railing at the RSs that refuse to toe the Israeli line.

Now then, as WP editors, we're familiar with WP processes and we know that this article must be written to the reliable sources. Fortunately, we don't have to sift through the literally 100s and 100s of mainstream reports in order to figure out what the "majority view-point" is, because the blogosphere editors have done something similar for us already and thrown up their hands in defeat.

I note that nobody comments on the other plank of my thesis, that a Google test also proves conclusively that "Jenin Massacre" is the prefered title for this event.

However, as I said, until there is administrative action to enforce encyclopaedic standards, this article will continue to be held hostage to POV and will disgrace the project. PR^talk 23:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

PalestineRemembered, I see that you did not consult the previous discussion on this matter. You state that we should rely on the Google test to determine the title. However, in the previous discussion on this matter, I demonstrated that a Google test does not support using the title "Jenin Massacre", since Google Scholar has more hits (44 as of July 22, 2008) for "Battle of Jenin" than hits for "Jenin Massacre" (32 as of July 22, 2008). Furthermore, the vast majority of the hits for "Jenin Massacre" come from papers or articles which reject the claim that a massacre had taken place. (e.g. the first three hits). ← Michael Safyan ^(talk) 04:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow, PR recycled his material again. Yippee! The press redacted their initial false reports of a massacre. Nothing to see here, just more gaming from PR. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 06:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to continue to sit in the middle. I'm not sure anyone can make a definitive judgement either that it was or wasn't a massacre, and we certainly can't say there's any consensus out there on it. The word is just too loosely defined and used (often as a propaganda tool). Yes casualty figures - initially put very high by both IDF and Palestinian spokespeople - were rounded down, and suggestions that there may have been mass indiscriminate killings were also found to be lacking in substance. However the IDF was accused of using Palestinians as human shields and shooting at civilians, flattening large parts of the camp and blocking outside help and observers for several days. Acording to some estimates, as many as half of the Palestinans killed were not combatants. Personally I'm not going to quibble with the "Battle of Jenin" title, but this article should not then go on to simply refer to the "massacre" description as if it were "wrong" or "refuted", and therefore merely an issue of Palestinian lies or media gullibility/hostility to Israel. --Nickhh (talk) 08:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

We already have an inordinately long section devoted to the allegations of massacre. Discussing this over and over again is pointless. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 09:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

No need to dive in and have a go at me. I was merely making the general point that in the past (and currently, to a lesser extent), the broad thrust of this page has been that the massacre claim is some sort of mendacious blood libel, rather than merely an alternative description of what happened, depending on where you're coming from. That has nothing to do with whether there is an "inordinately long section devoted to the allegations of massacre", but to what such a section - as well as the lead - actually says. Thanks for your time. --Nickhh (talk) 09:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Calling the event "Sabra and Shatila again! Massacre!" (as did several of the Palestinian officials) could be considered as just a different perspective. However, it is still a blood libel perspective considering the fact that, (A) there is no similarity, (B) almost everyone in the camp was telling the media made up stories of hidden dead bodies (sample: "And all of them, almost all of them, told us stories of mass graves, of bodies being loaded into trucks and driven away."[8]).

p.s. The IDF had a short list of wanted terrorists but the Palestinians had other plans (see Thabat Mardawi quotes). Hence, the destruction of 6-10% of the camp (about 0.6-1% of the city itself) is clearly the fault of the Palestinians who planted 20,000Kgs of explosives in their own backyards and kitchens. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The thrust of this article should be to document what is known, not the outrages claims that made the sensationlist media. I believ the majority of us who have worked on this article and discussed PR's theories that there was a massacre to death repeatedly in the past are pretty much burnt out of arguing about this matter and would like nothing more than getting back to writing about the battle, not the media coverage. This is not a dive at you, if anyone, its a dive at PR for resurrecting his copypasta once more. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 11:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree we should not be spending time here debating whether there was a massacre, or who's fault it might have been. That's not really up to us, and I don't even really have a view. I also agree that the name is probably OK as it is, when one looks at the sources overall. However as I said my concern is that we don't conclude automatically from that - 1) that anyone who raised alarms about what was happening when the camp was closed off (and even IDF spokespeople were talking about 100s killed) is somehow guilty of blood libel; nor 2) that, now more of the facts are in and even though the known death toll is far lower, it is illegitimate to take the view that there was a massacre. Plenty of incidents with lower death tolls that also occurred in wartime are so described. --Nickhh (talk) 12:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

To Nickhh and others - the evidence I placed at the sub-heading above was not intended to discuss use of the word massacre. My evidence refers to the use of the name "Jenin Massacre" which, as can easily be proved, is what's in general use. I've never called for the name of the article to be changed to "Jenin Massacre", only complaining that, after having been included as an "also" for so long, it's been removed. My evidence actually shows that this article is totally at odds with almost everything that's appeared in the RS - as the angry bloggers illustrate so well, nothing was ever retracted by the reliable sources, and there's been no change of emphasis either. PR^talk 10:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, I took your comments to mean that you thought it was, at this time, the majority description. It clearly is not and once the dust had settled, much of the Western media did start running "no massacre" headlines, on the basis of the actual death tolls. The blogosphere took this up and ran with it, hence the number of Google hits for the term. However I agree that it is still widely - and legitimately, in terms of it being an alternative view - known as "the Jenin massacre" because of the killings of civilians, even if there weren't as many deaths as originally feared. Perhaps there could be more sources for that though - I suspect they might be more available in the Arabic media.--Nickhh (talk) 11:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Allow other viewpoints in for the sake of NPOV, or we need to seek mediation

Yesterday I created a brief two-line intro and moved all the tortuous details down to introduce the background section. The intro read:

"The Battle of Jenin (Arabic: مجزرة جنين, Hebrew: הקרב בג'נין lit. Battle of Jenin) took place between the 3rd and 11th of April 2002 in Jenin's Palestinian refugee camp as part of Operation Defensive Shield during the Second Intifada. The Battle of Jenin has been referred to as the Jenin Massacre by Arab and international sources, although several large international human rights monitors found no evidence of a massacre.

I will be restoring this line, with several citations, in a bit: "The Battle of Jenin has been referred to as the Jenin Massacre by Arab and international sources, although several large international human rights monitors found no evidence of a massacre." (I didn't cite these two aspects because there is ample evidence below)

I will also try to find the citation to HRW's own statement: Human Rights Watch says "the closure of the area severely compromised the ability to conduct a fair assessment after the fact." (I saw this quote in the report and simply did not have time to retrieve it) LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 17:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Here is the relevant citation: The UN report says: 28."As a result of the severe restrictions on movement, human rights workers and journalists were unable to observe the conduct of the parties and provide independent reporting on that conduct."

Furthermore, the IDF obstructed reporting on events and obstructed relief efforts: 28."Some journalists reported being fired at by members of IDF." "United Nations and other humanitarian personnel offered to comply fully with IDF security checks on entering and leaving the camp, but were not able to enter the camp on this basis. Furthermore, United Nations staff reported that IDF had granted some Israeli journalists escorted access to the camp on 14 April, before humanitarian personnel were allowed in. United Nations personnel requested similar escorted access to assess the humanitarian condition of people in the camp, but were unsuccessful, despite assurances from senior IDF officials that such access would be possible.

68. On 15 April, 12 days after the start of the military operation, IDF granted humanitarian agencies access to the Jenin refugee camp. The Palestine Red Crescent Society and the International Committee of the Red Cross were permitted to enter the camp under military escort but reported that their movement was strictly confined to certain areas and further constrained by the presence of large quantities of unexploded ordnance including booby traps. After evacuating only seven bodies, they aborted their efforts. A United Nations team including two trucks with water and supplies was forbidden from unloading its supplies and was also forced to withdraw. Supplies were distributed to the camp inhabitants only beginning the following day, 16 April. Acute food and water shortages were evident and humanitarian personnel began calls for specialized search-and-rescue efforts to extract the wounded and the dead from the rubble.

69. Once IDF granted full access to the camp on 15 April, unexploded ordnance impeded the safe operations of humanitarian personnel." LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 17:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of such info violates NPOV in that it promotes IDF views as paramount and dismisses Arab and international perceptions of the event. The way things were phrased yesterday, (before they were reverted) the intro let Israel define the events as a battle while mentioning that many Arabs do not view it that way. If they are deleted again, I will be seeking a mediator's assistance. These are fundamental facts, central ones, and need to be highlighted, period. You've already got the events titled a 'Battle," and the tone of the intro casts doubt on Palestinian claims. What more do you want? You've gotten to define the debate here, and to frame the terminology used. But you cannot silence the fact that Palestinians do indeed refer to those events as a massacre, and a huge flurry of discussion around the issue circled the globe following the fighting/killing. This discussion is as important as the events and must be mentioned in the lead. I will go back up the aforementioned with multiple citations. Best, LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 17:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced claims may be challenged on sight and if no sources appear, removed as OR. That claim had been there for months. Good luck! I'd be ok with removing the "by Arab and international sources" and removing the comma. There is no need to mention what sources especially since "Arab and international sources" suggests that there is more than "Arab and international sources" (as if there is anyone else) and begs the question "who?" Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 17:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, sometimes Israeli sources (human rights groups) concur. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 17:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Concur with what? Please expound on this sentence since it does not make any sense. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 17:38, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Concur with the findings of international NGOs, the UN, etc. or the testimonies of Palestinians.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 17:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Which findings are you rambling about? The UN and the NGOs found that there was no evidence of massacres. Just because some people believe there to be one and continue to make statements to that does not make it any more true than David Icke's rants about reptiliians. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 17:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

You misunderstood me. What I meant was, on "other matters (i.e. not the Jenin events) sometimes Israelis, Palestinians, and internationals agree. Please, I don;t want to say more because I won't stand for another accusation that I'm rambling. Let's stick to trying to understand each other/the text, and avoid personal judgments, please. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 18:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I do not misunderstand you. I understand perfectly that you, per your userpage, are here to push a pro-palestinian agenda. This is fine, but trying to give undue weight to a fringe theory that there was a massacre at Jenin will be pointed out as such and evidence will be called for at every attempt. You have not provided any evidence that negates the statements already discussed on the article that the allegation of a massacre at Jenin was investigated and that no evidence was found that one occurred. Repeating yourself again and again, here and on my talk page, does not make your argument carry any more weight. Do you have any evidence that negates the facts presented that the NGOs, the UN and international news organizations stopped presenting Jenin as a massacre once investigation occurred? Bear in mind that biased sources will be scrutinized and exposed. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 18:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Re-read LamaLoLeshLa's user page. It says nothing about pushing a pro-Palestinian agenda - on the contrary they suggest merely that they want to ensure both sides get fair coverage. I know sometimes that is interpreted as being "pro-Palestinian" but of course it isn't, unless the person interpreting it that way believes that neutrality requires us to always favour an official Israeli narrative. Nor is it a "fringe" or conspiracy theory to argue that there was a massacre at Jenin. Yes, there was no mass killing of 100s of people in Jenin as initially feared, but civilians were killed in a violent assault. If someone still wanted to maintain that 100s were killed and their bodies spirited away somehow, that is clearly not the case and would qualify as a fringe theory. By contrast if someone wanted to describe what is now known to have happened as a massacre, that is a legitimate point of view. As I and others have pointed out before, there is no clear definition of what constitutes a massacre, and some incidents where less than 20 people were killed are commonly talked about as being massacres. Determining the numbers that were killed is an issue of evidence, describing what happened as a massacre, battle or whatever is an issue of interpretation. If, as it currently does, the article says "it was determined there was no massacre", it has to say who has made that judgement rather than presenting one viewpoint as incontestible fact. In any event I am not sure for example that the UN report says quite that - from what I can tell, it merely says there was not a massacre of 100s of people. --Nickhh (talk) 21:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

PS: I agree the intro is too long and detailed, and has way too much about prior events in Israel rather than about what happened in Jenin. These should all be moved to a background section in the main article

The lead uses summary style to present a brief overview of the contents of the article. If you are interested in the evidence that supports the statement in the lead where it states that no massacre occured, please review this section: [9] Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 08:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I know the lead is meant to summarise briefly (I've made that very point of course, in respect of the "background"). As to the bit you've pointed me to, I was also aware of that. The problem is that if you look at what is actually quoted there, most are not quite as definitive as "no massacre", period. HRW for example say there was "unlawful or wilful killing"; Derek Holley, yes, says there was no massacre on the basis that there was "no wholesale killing", but does talk about apparent executions; Time says there was "no wanton massacre"; the UN report is described as concluding there was no massacre, but apparently only on the basis of one or two sub-editors headlines (for example if you read the actual text of the USA Today piece, it actually - and correctly - says that the UN found no evidence that 500 people were massacred. The NYT piece is similar).--Nickhh (talk) 11:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Drawing conclusions from material in ways that are explicited sourced is original research. Wikipedia policy precludes the synthesis of material present a view that is not verifiable to a reliable source. (Note: Lama has added much text to the original text to which I responded. This additional material seriously changes her original statement. I will now edit my statements so as to not confused the other participants of this discussion.) Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 18:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

What I had to say on your talkpage, as you know, was purely to request that you be civil, and to try to answer your question re: 'who concurs' and 'with what.' LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 18:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Drawing the conclusion that the IDF hindered humanitarian efforts when the original source states: "The Palestine Red Crescent Society and the International Committee of the Red Cross were permitted to enter the camp under military escort but reported that their movement was strictly confined to certain areas and further constrained by the presence of large quantities of unexploded ordnance including booby traps. After evacuating only seven bodies, they aborted their efforts." is drawing a conclusion that is not supported by the text. These journalists and humanitarians left on their own because of "unexploded ordinance" not because the IDF pushed them out. Walking into a battlefield is a DANGEROUS thing afterall. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 18:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Note: I made only one edit, citing the text: ""the closure of the area severely compromised the ability to conduct a fair assessment after the fact" per the UN report which says that journalists and human rights monitors were unable to get in and document much: 28."As a result of the severe restrictions on movement, human rights workers and journalists were unable to observe the conduct of the parties and provide independent reporting on that conduct." (Note that I did not, for a second, edit the entry itself to say that the IDF hindered humanitarian efforts.) Maspik, end of the story, let's stick to the entry edits, please. I need to get off this talk page - nasty nasty atmosphere. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 18:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I quote your statement: "Furthermore, the IDF obstructed reporting on events and obstructed relief efforts: ". You indeed did say that the IDF hindered humanitarian efforts.. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 18:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

That was on the talk page. The edit to teh entry (not the talk page) itself only referred to the closure and inability of non-Israeli journalists to get in and document events for alsmots 2 weeks, as a result.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 19:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

4 days != 2 weeks. You're doing your math wrong. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 19:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I quote (UN report): "12 days after the start of the military operation, IDF granted humanitarian agencies access to the Jenin refugee camp." Some journalists were escorted in after 4 days, but the UN and NGOs were not allowed in for a bit less than two weeks.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 19:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Could it have been that the unexploded ordinance was severely restricting their movements? This is actually supported by the text you have quoted, unlike your statements about the IDF. The assumption of the IDF's guilt in this is so obvious. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 19:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

To clarify my personal interpretation (which, again, I did not for a second insert into the text), the ordinance could have been left by either side, but the IDF, with its very skilled bomb squads, had the capacity to clear it, unpleasant a job though it is. And yes, that places more on the IDF's shoulders, but it would have been the ethical thing to do. That's just my opinion, and again, never entered the text, nor will it. The facts, on the other hand, state not that the ordinance was the means by which the IDF hampered relief efforts, but that they hampered relief efforts by denying entry for two weeks. Please, leave this point, until now I have said nothing further about it and it is not what the 'edit-warring' is about. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 19:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The battle ended on April 11th. Humanitarian and journalistic groups were allowed in on April 15th. Four days is NOT two weeks. The insurgents were fighting amidst civilians, cutting off more civilians from endangering themselves is a reasonable action regardless. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 19:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the IDF has the ability to clear it. However, in the middle of battle with a guerilla army hiding behind civilians such delicate work is placed aside until later. The IDF was busy fighting an insurgent force, not clearing paths for humanitarians to resupply the camp. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 19:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Please do not revert without understanding of the cited reasoning for content removal. Citation had nothing to do with it. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I will get back to you later abpout your assessment that these were weasel words. I need to do something else. Cheers, LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 19:11, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

They were not weasel words, but a weasly way of trying to say, "these reports are actually incorrect". Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Mediation proposal - this article might well benefit from mediation. (A previous attempt to do this stopped abruptly in rather unfortunate circumstances). If mediation were to be attempted again, there are a few elements we might choose to discuss and insert in a mutually agreeable form in order that our article covers this incident adequately:

1. Sharon was widely reported to have (perhaps informally?) told the world's media on 5th March that "Palestinians must be hit ... must cause them losses, victims a month before the incursions (and before the surge of suicide bombings that is already mentioned in the article).
2. Sharon's statement (above) was linked by the normally pro-Israel Time Magazine directly to the military action that followed as follows "He went on to do just that, unleashing a broader military offensive than anything seen so far in the past 17 months of fighting." (Colin Powell is also quoted as criticising Sharon over this statement).
3. Sharons advisor told the UN special envoy, Terje Roed-Larsen that he "has no business whatsoever to tell us what is right or wrong".
4. The BBC reported that Israel was putting three refrigerated trailers into the camp (this is while all observers were excluded), and these trailers were indeed observed. An Israeli newspaper presently told us that Israel would bury up to 200 bodies in a "special cemetry in the Jordan valley" (ie a closed military zone).
5. Clips from an interview given by one of the bulldozer drivers to an Israeli newspaper, providing a slightly different perspective on the way that some parts of this operation were apparently carried out.
6. Account of the third "international observer/human rights" group that made a visit and presented a "Jenin Investigation", still finding complete bodies 3 months later. (Needless to say, we should not practice OR on what effect this might have on the death toll).
7. A single (small but) actual "up-against-the-wall-massacre" reported in careful detail, with the two perpetrators identified, Amnesty and the Independent newspaper.
8. Allegations included in the UN report that the Israelis mined the refugee camp before they left.
9. Mention that this particular action in Jenin refugee camp was only part of a series of armed incursions. Israel was still applying curfews and killing people in and and out of curfew for months afterwards. (The UN notes two further incursions). Ian Hook, chief of the reconstruction project, was shot dead, inside the UN compound, on 22nd Nov 2002 and an Irish woman was shot and badly injured in the thigh at almost exactly the same time.
10. Perhaps a new section on the overpowering smell in the camp once it was re-opened, as reported by almost every one of the international observers - eg the New York Times: The smell of decomposing bodies hung over at least six heaps of rubble today, and weeks of excavation may be needed before an accurate death toll can be made. PR^talk 21:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey look, PR rolls out the Kurdi bear crap again. *rolls eyes* Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 08:37, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Greetings. FYI, just put a note up at WP:IPCOLL to encourage some uninvolved folks to help out with this dispute. You all might consider getting some facilitator or working through one of the dispute resolution processes. (Not volunteering myself due to other commitments.) You might also try to identify the precise nature of the dispute, e.g. editing options, and the best arguments & sources for the various alternatives. I think there's relevant discussion and evidence in the archives here, too. Thanks and best wishes, HG | Talk 22:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Dispute tags

Hiya, popping in as an uninvolved admin. I see that this article has been tagged as disputed for about a year. Are all of the tags still appropriate, or can any be removed? For those which need to stay, could someone please provide a brief list of bullet points, to identify which issues are still in dispute? Thanks, Elonka 22:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Someone just archived most of the discussion, which shows that the disputes have not been resolved. In fact, we are the verge of a mediation process due to a range of issues. Of course, others may feel differently about specific tags. Best, LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 22:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

To deal with in a dispute mediation: Israeli/Palestinian casualties leading up to the events

Source for balancing the background to the operation with fair reference to Israeli and Palestinian civilian casualties leading up to the bombings in Israel and the Operation following.

The UN report on Jenin notes:

18. From the beginning of March until 7 May, Israel endured approximately 16 bombings, the large majority of which were suicide attacks. More than 100 persons were killed and scores more wounded. Throughout this period, the Government of Israel, and the international community, reiterated previous calls on the Palestinian Authority to take steps to stop terrorist attacks and to arrest the perpetrators of such attacks.

19. During this same period, IDF conducted two waves of military incursions primarily in the West Bank, and air strikes against both the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. The first wave began on 27 February 2002 and ended on approximately 14 March. Those incursions, which Israel stated were in pursuit of Palestinians who had carried out attacks against Israelis, involved the use of ground troops, attack helicopters, tanks and F-16 fighter jets in civilian areas, including refugee camps, causing significant loss of life among civilians.

20. Over the course of two days, 8 and 9 March, 18 Israelis were killed in two separate Palestinian attacks and 48 Palestinians were killed in the Israeli raids that followed.

21. Israeli military retaliation for terrorist attacks was often carried out against Palestinian Authority security forces and installations. This had the effect of severely weakening the Authority's capacity to take effective action against militant groups that launched attacks on Israelis. Militant groups stepped into this growing vacuum and increased their attacks on Israeli civilians. In many cases, the perpetrators of these attacks left messages to the effect that their acts were explicitly in revenge for earlier Israeli acts of retaliation, thus perpetuating and intensifying the cycle of violence, retaliation and revenge.

22. It was against this backdrop that the most extensive Israeli military incursions in a decade, Operation Defensive Shield, were carried out. The proximate cause of the operation was a terrorist attack committed on 27 March in the Israeli city of Netanya...

2. Intro - Calling the events a battle while allowing reference to perceptions of a massacre. (the arguments around this issue are listed in prior discussions above) LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 22:38, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi LamaLoLeshLa. I think Elonka has in mind brief pts, like #1 above, without going into the accompanying evidence. HG | Talk 23:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Correct. Also, I'm noticing that there are several places in the article where tags have been placed, requesting sources or whatnot. Some of these tags have been on the article for a long time, so I recommend some cleanup. Specifically: Any statement that has been {{fact}} tagged for over 30 days, should just be deleted. Also, rather than placing a "weasel" template at the top of the page, I recommend either changing text that is of concern, or using {{weasel-inline}} templates at the specific locations of the words that are problematic. And again, anything that isn't addressed within a reasonable amount of time, let's just delete out of the article. Thanks, --Elonka 23:11, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi again. It might also help if bullet #1 more specific. As I recall, the archives will show much discussion of Palestinian casualty numbers and a table of sources. Does #1 reflect a dispute above about Israeli civilians and, if so, what reference are editors seeking in the article? Thanks. HG | Talk 10:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

User talk:HG - I think LamaLoLeshLa is attempting to point us to another very significant factor, well covered in the RS but not included in the points I've identified above. Viz, that all the time Israel was calling on the PA to control terrorists, it was destroying Arafat's security apparatus. Recent (anonymous) confessions by IDF soldiers collected here demonstrate that Israel also set about the mass killing of Palestinian policemen on an exclusively ethnic basis. This is not OR on my part, the UN specifically links cause and effect with "This had the effect of severely weakening the Authority's capacity to take effective action against militant groups that launched attacks on Israelis". Perhaps your good sense can decide if this is such a significant factor that it has to be prominently included alongside all mention of suicide and other terrorism. PR^talk 11:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I think this article neds to focus on the Battle of Jenin, not a whole range of factiors which might be impossible to reflect in one article. We can focus on each side's statements of their reasons for acting, withoput trying to describe the entire conflict here. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 13:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, there was some talkpage controversy at Operation Defensive Shield a while ago regarding the fact that some people wanted to include detailed information on Israeli casualties leading up to the operation while omitting Palestinian casualties leading up to the operation. The same goes for this set of events. I agree with you Sm that we shouldn't go into too much detail. The truth is, at present, there is very detailed info here on Palestinian assaults on Israel as background to the Jenin incursions. There is nothing about the Israeli assaults on the West Bank as background to the Jenin incursions. Bo0th are relevant, as the violence went both ways, almost constantly in overlap during 2002 - there was no clea start and ending, cause and effect.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 19:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

If you want to describe the so-called Israeli provocations which you feel serve as some sort of rationale for terrorist bombings and attacks, the place to do so is in the articles pertaining to palestinian actions. There is no reason to explain past Israeli actions in an article which itself focuses on an israeli action in Jenin. To do that would be to dilute the Palestinian side, since this article should focus on their concerns and grievances in regards to this attack. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 19:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

We have it on excellent authority that Israel's actions had the effect of making it (much?) more difficult for the PA to control militancy. If you think that this information is surplus to the requirements of this article (and I'm entirely prepared to meet you halfway on this as on the other factors), then the obvious solution is to leave out mention of group actions by Palestinians. They can and should be treated as criminal and individual/gang in nature, not as "political". PR^talk 18:40, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I did not say that Israeli offensives served as rationale for Palestinian attacks. Nor do I think there is any rationale for killing civilians. Violence begets violence, the circle - who knows where it begins? That is what I said. Please try to avoid putting words in people's mouths. Thanks LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 19:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

To deal with in a dispute mediation, take 2: Working towards resolution

(Well, I see there's an effort to reorganize. It's generally better to leave threads intact once there are comments. Also, please sign your posts or refactoring. Anyway, here's my comment on this item, copied from above:) Hi again. It might also help if bullet #1 more specific. As I recall, the archives will show much discussion of Palestinian casualty numbers and a table of sources. Does #1 reflect a dispute above about Israeli civilians and, if so, what reference are editors seeking in the article? Thanks. HG | Talk 23:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

There was indeed a "table of sources" (it was loaded into WP as a template, whether rightly or wrongly I don't know) including many "estimates of total casualties". Israeli estimates were up to 381% wrong according to their own official account - no similar calculation can be carried out on the Palestinian figure, since an official death-toll has never been released. (The UN figure covers a wider area and a longer period but is within 1% of early Palestinian estimates).

Unfortunately the template in question was deleted as being in the wrong place, nobody seems to know what's the right place. Perhaps you have a suggestion, because it makes interesting reading, and is far more significant than the Hasbara section on "Allegations of a massacre". PR^talk 18:59, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

No re-factoring

Editors unfamiliar with the processes of the project have sometimes made discussions much more difficult with four obvious mistakes and breaches of process.

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

For myself, any of these practices may be a breach of AGF requiring adjudication by the mediator. The same for personalising the discussion - if you have real allegations of cheating then make them carefully and in detail in a new section or another well-signposted page. PR^talk 12:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Mediation Issues, please comment on the most important

Please add in main points with relevant sources (not just rhetoric), below.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 00:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC) I am copying PR's suggestions from above, down here, slightly edited. Please sign all additions as it will be assumed that the rest are PR's suggestions. (PR, if you mind this copy-pasting, feel free to delete. Or, if you'd like to sign your suggestions, that could make things more navigable, too)LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 00:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Background and aftermath:

1) Fair and balanced reference to Israeli and Palestinian civilian casualties leading up to the bombings in Israel and the Operation following. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 02:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - leave "balance" issues to a later date. It's both more important and easier to agree on the reliability and significance of factual content. PR^talk 12:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

2) The action in Jenin refugee camp went on for months, curfews were still being applied (and people killed in and and out of curfew) for a long time. (The UN notes two further incursions by August, some observers imply that Israel was continuously present for months afterwards). Iain Hook (chief of the reconstruction project) shot dead while inside the UN compound by Israeli forces, on 22nd Nov 2002 and an Irish woman shot and badly injured in the thigh at almost exactly the same time. PR, 23 July 2008

Some mention of the aftermath needed - Israeli academic Ilan Pappe tells us there was a popular television music-show concert staged in the middle of the bull-dozed section after the incident. PR^talk 12:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Inclusion/framing of statements made by Sharon & his advisor:

1) Sharon was widely reported to have told representatives of the world's media on 5th March that "Palestinians must be hit ... must cause them losses, victims a month before the incursions (and before the surge of suicide bombings that is already mentioned in the article). This statement by Sharon was linked even by the otherwise pro-Israel Time Magazine directly to the military action that followed: "He went on to do just that, unleashing a broader military offensive than anything seen so far in the past 17 months of fighting." (Colin Powell was another who criticized Sharon for what he said). PR, 23 July 2008

This may be the single easiest and least controversial inclusion to make. Although we're not going to say it, the individual in question has been harshly criticised (even by the US and Israel) for attacking civilians over a period of almost 50 years. The words themselves are widely reported as if we're supposed to draw conclusions from them - and of course the RS's did exactly that. PR^talk 12:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

2) Sharons advisor told the UN special envoy, Terje Roed-Larsen that he "has no business whatsoever to tell us what is right or wrong". PR, 23 July 2008

Individual incidents within the entire operation:

We should keep the whole article low-key, only repeating what the sources say. PR^talk 12:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

1) The BBC reported that Israel was putting three refrigerated trailers into the camp, and everyone agrees they were there. An Israeli newspaper told us that Israel would bury up to 200 bodies in a "special cemetery in the Jordan valley" (ie a closed military zone) - only an application to the Israeli Supreme Court stopped this. PR, 23 July 2008

This is just insinuation and hearsay. etc etc --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

2) Clips from an interview given by one of the bulldozer drivers to an Israeli newspaper provided a different perspective on the way that some parts of this operation were carried out. PR, 23 July 2008

See my reply above. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

3) A single (small but) actual "up-against-the-wall-massacre" reported in careful detail, with the two perpetrators identified, Amnesty and the Independent newspaper. PR, 23 July 2008

Allegations are already dealt with repeatedly in article. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

4) Allegations included in the UN report that the Israelis mined the refugee camp before they left. PR, 23 July 2008

5) Account of the third "international observer/human rights" group that made a visit and presented a "Jenin Investigation", still finding complete bodies 3 months later. (We don't have a source and can't say what this might do to the death toll). PR, 23 July 2008

6) A new section on the overpowering smell in the camp once it was re-opened, as reported by almost every one of the international observers - eg the New York Times: The smell of decomposing bodies hung over at least six heaps of rubble today, and weeks of excavation may be needed before an accurate death toll can be made. PR, 23 July 2008

Massacre discussion:

1) Leave to a later date. Meaning of the word, use by both Israeli and Palestinian sources, western media use of and western sources unhappiness with word. "Jenin Massacre" widely used in English, use in other languages. PR^talk 12:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with all of this, as massive WP:SOAP and WP:OR. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 13:42, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The proposal of commentary and providing undue weight to such topics is rejected by me. All of the above is opposed. I also concur with Steve's assessment of this attempt to break OR and SOAP. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 14:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)