Talk:Battle of Jenin (2002)/Archive 9

war crimes

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

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

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

Israeli war crimes

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

Palestinian war crimes

• An bomb-maker from Jenin refugee camp gives testimony about his activity.
  • http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2002/582/6inv2.htm
    • 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
      • note: if you wish to expand/discuss on the palestinian part of this source in length, please start a new subsection. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Both were complicit

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

war crimes comments

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

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

pallywood

i'm starting up a section regarding this^[1] dispute over the "see also" inclusion/exclusion of the Pallywood article.

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

include pallywood

• i'm surprised someone is contesting that "the big jenin lie"^{75,600 hits} is not referred to as events (allegedly) staged by Palestinians to portray Israel in an unfavorable light. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:49, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  • comment - See WP:UNDUE. If you want to include a section on how both Israelis and Palestinians (and their respective supporters) have exploited Jenin for propaganda purposes, that could be done. Let's do it cooperatively, and with an eye to WP:NPOV. In the meantime, let's not insert an insinuating link to a decidedly marginal term that many consider offensive if not downright racist. "Pallywood" is used by a handful of right-wing bloggers, and to most educated ears sounds like "Jew York Times."--G-Dett 00:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
    • reply comment - (1) this battle has been noted as one of the most prime examples of pallywood. (2) the "Pallywood: According to Palestinian Sources" film includes footage of residents of jenin having fake funerals as part of their "jenin massacre" propaganda push. it could be written in, but for now no reason to exclude from "see also". Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 02:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
      • See reply below.--G-Dett 16:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Just as NPOV as including Jenin, Jenin. Keep it or lose both. Kyaa the Catlord 06:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
• Not only do I agree with Kyaa, but also I cannot understand how anyone can say that the relation to Pallywood is not notable enough (i.e. undue weight). The battle of Jenin was one of the most publicized and well-known casualty exaggerations by Arabs of all time (second only to Deir Yassin), thus it is a prime example of Pallywood. The relation is relevant to the article. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 14:57, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

"Pallywood" is not an accepted or encyclopedic term for the kind of alleged exaggeration you're talking about. And the movie Pallywood, which Kyaa is referring to, isn't notable per WP:NOTFILM, unlike Jenin, Jenin, which is.--G-Dett 20:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the film Pallywood satisfies WP:N in general because it has been noted many times by independent sources. Whether it satisfies the further criteria in WP:NOTFILM is arguable, but it is not relevant. Even assuming Pallywood as a film is not notable, that only means that there shouldn't be a separate article about it. This does not however prevent it from being mentioned in other articles. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 08:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

What are the "independent sources" in which the film Pallywood has been "noted"? Just name three. Sanguinalis 12:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

comment - this is not the AfD page. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

p - comments / questions

• comment by Eleland 1 - Please learn to use Google. The search "brutal+Israeli+terrorism" returns 1.52 million GHits; "brutal Israeli terrorism" as a phrase returns 289. Similarily, the search "big jenin lie" as a phrase return 245 GHits, almost all of which trace back to a single opinion editorial in an extremely partisan magazine. It is difficult to see how "Pallywood", the supposed phenomenon of Palestinians staging events in front of world cameras, could apply to an event which became subject of great consternation specifically because no international press were there to record it. Eleland 01:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • reply - we've been though this on [[2]], the way this battle has been tagged by people who allege this is a prime example of pallywood is quite clear. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 02:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• comment by Eleland 2 - Please stop attempting to structure the conversation with these headers. As you must know, it is not on editors to provide reasons to exclude material; rather the burden of proof is on those who want to include it. Eleland 01:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • reply - pardon me for trying to resolve issues seriously. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 02:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• reply comment (to Jaakobou 02:01, 3 September 2007 above) - Slow down, and explain to me why an article on the siege of Jenin, an event of major importance in the second intifada, an event that drew and continues to draw massive international attention, should be 'see-also' linked to an obscure propaganda term from the right-wing pro-Israel blogosphere, taken in turn from the title of an obscure American propaganda film about alleged propaganda on the part of Palestinians. I fail to see the logic. This is a serious article, not a provincial parade for Wikipedians on hobby horses.--G-Dett 04:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • reply - see my reply from before. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 06:11, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
    • continued - I have seen your reply from before. It does not address the general violation of WP:NPOV, or the specific violation of WP:UNDUE. Nor does it respond to the suggestion that we tackle the issue of propaganda on both sides in a balanced, neutral, and serious way using high-quality sources, instead of providing a promotional link to an obscure propaganda film.--G-Dett 14:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
      • reply - i think i've explained my perspective in regards to UNDUE, and considering the neologism is non NPOV by definition, then that is resolved also (from my perspective). the issue of propaganda from both sides is being dealt with as seriously as possible considering the voices involved on this article. to the new point, i think your perspective, on how obscure the term is, is incorrect. p.s. please keep long opinion based questions off the main part so that people can follow the debate easily. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
        • continued - Huh? My "perspective" that the "term" Pallywood is obscure is based on the fact that the article Pallywood, whose editors are decidedly enthusiastic about the word, has only been able to find 16 citations where the word is even referenced, and these citations include the blog of the man who coined it, as well as a usenet thread (!) where someone says it off-handedly and then applauds his own cleverness. Some "neologism." My perspective that the film "Pallywood" is obscure is based on the fact that it is not registered in the exhaustive IMDB database, had no proper distribution deal, is not available through Netflix, is not available in any research library I can find, and appears to be referenced only be its right-wing blogger-fans and a very few (as in five or six) back-page feature articles which note it in passing. I am curious if you can give me the basis of your perspective that "Pallywood" is "NPOV by definition" (!) – an assertion which strikes me as outlandish at best. Do you also think "Jew York Times" is NPOV by definition? That's a rhetorical question, but I am seriously trying to follow what seems to me a most idiosyncratic line of reasoning.--G-Dett 16:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
          • reply - (1) i stated: the neologism is non NPOV by definition. (2) i don't think this is the proper subsection to discuss how reliable and considering this is an 18 minute "production", i really don't know why you mention IMDB. (3) if you really want to make a "jew york times" article (as might be construed from your commentary), you're invited to do so. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
            • reply (1) Sorry, I missed that. I guess I don't see why you're advocating we foreground it then. (2) Reliability (WP:RS) is another thing, what I'm talking about is WP:UNDUE, and the film's manifest obscurity is certainly relevant in that regard. IMDB is, so far as I know, exhaustive, and it includes both "short" and "documentary" as categories. That Pallywood is missing from it forms part of a cumulative picture of its obscurity; as I noted, the film is not available through any research library I know of, nor does Netflix stock it. Significant documentary works, even short ones, are routinely purchased by research universities; not this one. There are also distribution companies that specialize in independent documentary shorts; to my knowledge Pallywood is not available through any of these. I don't know if it's reliable because I haven't seen it, and I don't know how I would see it if I wanted to. Would I write to CAMERA? Search limewire for an illegal download? When I do a search for "Pallywood" in the complete historical archives of the New York Times, the database's droll response is priceless, and neatly sums up the situation: "No documents found for: pallywood. Did you mean: plywood?" (3) I am confident that no literate person who knows a reductio ad absurdum when she sees it will confuse my posts as advocating the creation of "Jew York Times." You may be interested to know that I do endorse the existence of the Pallywood article. I am an inclusionist, and someone might stumble on the concept in his daily digest of right-wing blogs, and wish to know its history; whereas "Jew York Times" is a self-explanatory slur, and a nonce phrase with no traced or traceable history that I know of. "Pallywood" and "Jew York Times" are very close in their essential vulgarity, of course, but in my book they straddle the lower threshold of notability, with the former just clearing it and the latter just missing it. There are secondary sources for the former, only primary sources for the latter. It wouldn't take much, mind you, to push "Jew York Times" over the line where it could join its cousin; a couple of secondary sources mentioning the term would be all that's needed (quote farms assembled from primary sources are OR). But even if Jew York Times were to meet the threshold of notability, perhaps with a nasty little film, discussion of which percolated through the blogosphere, I still think it would be extremely inappropriate to link to it from articles on episodes in the I-P conflict, citing the flimsy grounds that said film mentioned said episode. Similarly, to link from an article on a prominent and historically significant event like the siege of Jenin, to an article on a ugly little obscurity like Pallywood, is a violation of WP:UNDUE, for reasons I hope and trust are growing obvious.--G-Dett 17:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
              • reply - you can watch it here... google is your friend. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 04:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
                • Thanks for the link. I watched it. It's garden variety conspiracy-theory mongering, with a dose of racism and sleazy innuendo thrown in.--G-Dett 18:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
                  • (1) i don't think it's (a) racist film or (b) conspiracy theory or (c) obscure either. (2) please stop reverting this film out, its done in poor form when you present it as part of a sequential edit^outin while making statements on the films supposed unavailability (per I don't know if it's reliable because I haven't seen it, and I don't know how I would see it if I wanted to.). Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

offtopic

Please stop re-structuring the discussion, moving comments around, and adding headers to comments. I am becoming progressively more upset with this behavior. I do not believe you intend to manipulate opinion by this procedure, but it nonetheless could have the effect. There is no reason for it. Please stop. Eleland 02:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

i believe i explained the reason, and i find your commentary for this in an unrelated subsection unhelpful. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 03:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - considerable numbers of editors have been driven off this article in frustration by the complete failure to edit it to Wikipedia policy. The discussion on "what should be contained in the lead" come to the conclusion that the "context" contained therein did not belong there. So why have we not corrected this substantial problem? And why is it that people are deleting the "Totally disputed" tag from the article, when every portion of it is so POV (and much of it very badly written)? PalestineRemembered 11:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • comment to PR - PR, there are open subsections to both issues and it's a strange soapbox that you leave these messages on each and every subsection when you can simply talk on the open and related subsections. i'll help you out: (1) Intro debate - Israeli explanation - (2) "Totally disputed". please try to keep talk focused and related. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Removal of {{TotallyDisputed}} - round II

previous related talk can be found here round I - sep. 11 static]

link to previous related talk: [3]

the following is an attempt to resolve the long standing dispute of the inclusion/exclusion of the {{TotallyDisputed}} tag at the top of the article.

for now, there are three subsections -
(1) opinions about the tag - keep/exclude
(2) issues i'd like to see resolved
(3) questions and notes
-- Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

opinions about the tag - keep/exclude

please state your opinion in a brief and short manner, this is just a declaration of position - not an evidence section of full discussion - for questions and discussions go here:

• exclude - a few (tiny) snippet problems can be discussed and fixed, i believe that the article is well factual and referenced, and i don't see how any of the issues justifies such an inclusive tag. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
• exclude - worthless tag. If you have problems with the article, use fact or dubious tags to directly point out which portions you are contesting. Blanketing the article with a scare tag doesn't help improve the article. Kyaa the Catlord 09:12, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

issues i'd like to see resolved

please state issues that you would like resolved, be brief, this is only for mentioning/declaration of perspective, not for resolving:

• (1) issues by PR stated here. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

• (2)

• (3)

TotallyD - questions and notes

Please note that nobody has actually addressed this issue properly. The tag denotes that "The neutrality and factual accuracy of this article are disputed". It doesn't say "This article is neither neutral nor factually accurate". Those who are expressing their opinion of the article's neutrality are missing the point. The discussion should be about whether the dispute exists. Myself, and (I believe) G-Dett and PalestineRemembered also, say that the article is highly POV and contains factual inaccuracies and misrepresentations. Jaakobou, Tewfik, and Kyaa do not seem to agree. Prima facie that is an NPOV and accuracy dispute; nobody has explained why it isn't one. Rather than removing the notice of the dispute, why don't we try and remove the cause of the dispute. Eleland 13:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'd like to see this article be presented in an NPOV manner as well. I'd be happy to see that actually. Kyaa the Catlord 13:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Then you'll want to see the death-toll reported properly, along with all the other problems detailed here. PalestineRemembered 20:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

PR, half your claims there violate NPOV. You really need a mentor to go over your ideas and help you learn to use the wikipedia. This isn't a taunt, just a suggestion. Kyaa the Catlord 00:38, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

lead again

Hi Tewfik and Jaakobou. Here are the two disputed versions of the lead:

1. Palestinian and international sources described the Israeli actions as indiscriminate and raised allegations of massacre and war crimes. Major human rights organizations subsequently conducted extensive investigations and found no evidence of massacres, but strong prima facie evidence of IDF war crimes.
2. Palestinian and some international sources described the Israeli actions as indiscriminate and raised allegations of massacre, initially reported in the international media and subsequently disproven by outside observers, although major human rights organizations maintained that there was strong prima facie evidence of IDF war crimes.

Tewfik, you continue to insert "some" before "international sources," arguing that the EU report is the only international source that describes Israeli actions as indiscriminate. This is false, as we've gone through together pretty exhaustively here. Both the Amnesty investigation/report and the HRW investigation/report (as well as the latter's response to the U.N. report) stressed indiscriminate and disproportionate use of force by the IDF. I'm not sure why you're still edit-warring over this.

Secondly, your version ends on a wordier, more syntactically tangled note, and it falls back into the trap of beefing up one aspect of the findings of human-rights organizations while minimizing the other. My version follows their wording: they found no evidence of massacre, but prima facie evidence of war crimes. Your version keeps elevating the former to a "disproof." I trust it's clear why that's a violation of WP:NPOV? The choices are (i) presenting the massacre as "disproven" and the war crimes as "confirmed"; or (ii) using the language sources use, and say they found no evidence of massacre, but prima facie evidence of war crimes. I much prefer the latter, but I'll leave it you. Understand, however, that the days of picking and choosing and selectively enhancing are over.--G-Dett 13:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

If so, knock it off. Not a battlefield, friend. Kyaa the Catlord 13:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Would you consider rethinking your response here?--G-Dett 13:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I take it you aren't a fan of Beavis? It certainly sounded like you threatened to do "something" if we do not accept your OWNership of the article. If that wasn't your intention, I'll apologize for taking your words "the days of picking and choosing and selectively enhancing are over" as a threat to disrupt the article. Kyaa the Catlord 13:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know Beavis and Butthead, and am finding many of your responses incomprehensible.--G-Dett 14:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The way you ended your statement made it sound like you were hinting that you were fed up and about to go on a spree of edits that would piss off your perceived "enemies". Kyaa the Catlord 14:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

As I've gone through with my red pen and all, could I ask you to stop trolling and discuss the issues, Kyaa?--G-Dett 14:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with G-Dett's choices. "Massacre" refers to a specific alleged event. "War crimes" refers to a whole set of allegations about various events and different times. If you need this, can you please change to "HRW found evidence of war crimes in Israel's actions during (for example) its infantry operations in the refugee area." That makes the text more specific, and allows you to present the material you wish. --Steve, Sm8900 13:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

These aren't compelling or accurate distinctions, Steve. Both terms – "war crimes" and "massacre" – are used with equal specificity in the findings of human-rights organizations. The "massacre" allegations, moreover, did not refer to a "specific alleged event," but rather to the (rumored) large scale of indiscriminate killing over the period of the siege.--G-Dett 14:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

comment - we're going over the war crime allegations here, you might want to participate so we can get some actual proof displayed regarding this issue of who said what. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Pallywood...Jenin Jenin?

Kyaa, I'm trying to understand this edit. I get it that you're mimicking me, but I don't understand the WP:POINT you're making. "Jenin, Jenin" is not a left-wing blog term, and Jenin, Jenin is not a video, nor is it obscure. It was film produced and directed by a major Arab-Israeli actor and filmmaker, had a major distribution deal, screened theatrically, featured in a number of prominent international film festivals and won major prizes in two, including "best film," became the focus of a censorship controversy when the normally dormant Israeli Censorship Board banned it (a decision subsequently reversed by the Israeli high court), and generally attracted a large amount of international attention and became a prominent prop in ongoing disputes about what happened in Jenin. Though originally projected as a film, Jenin, Jenin is now available on VHS and DVD through Netflix, Amazon.com, and Blockbuster, and is housed in most major university research libraries.

Pallywood was an 18-minute video edited together out of TV footage by a medieval historian in Boston, who then posted it streaming on his blog. You can also watch it on youtube. It was never screened, distributed, or reviewed. It is flogged by right-wing pro-Israel bloggers (who found in it the conspiracy theory they needed) and by Wikipedians (who link to it wherever they can and call it a "film" even though it isn't because that makes it sound more important). "Pallywood" – both the youtube video and the blog-slang – went, however, all but completely unnoticed by the mainstream media.--G-Dett 16:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Response unnecessary. Kyaa the Catlord 16:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see, you self-reverted. Thanks,--G-Dett 17:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

When did this stop being called the Jenin Massacre?

??? -- 146.115.58.152 22:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

When the UN, HRW and AI presented their findings that there was "no evidence of a massacre". Kyaa the Catlord 22:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Er, I'm just googling here, and haven't looked at the sources, but this seems to say none of those groups ever said that? -- 146.115.58.152 23:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Read the article. Its in there. Follow the links to the citations from the UN, HRW and AI. All three released statements and reports that state no massacre occured. Kyaa the Catlord 23:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm looking at the UN report and it explicitly calls it a massacre repeatedly. There's a section entitled "Direct eyewitness accounts by survivors of the massacre at the Jenin refugee camp" with a sentence beginning "The present report contains a number of eyewitness accounts by casualties who survived the massacre...." Another sentence says "Al-Amri was one of the first journalists to enter the Jenin camp during the massacre." Where exactly does the UN report say what you say it says? -- 146.115.58.152 23:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Um, that would be Anexe III which was written by the Jordanian government, not the UN. The UN does not use the term massacre in their statements at all. It appears once in the Palestinian statement and several times in the Jordanian statement, usually in quotations by "eyewitnesses". Kyaa the Catlord 23:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, OK. So Jordan still calls it a massacre, and the UN has no opinion. So the word "previously" in the lead still seems a stretch. The HRW report seems to only say that multiple massacres did not occur. Or am I misreading it too? -- 146.115.58.152 23:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi anon, as Kyaa indicates above, the HRW and AI found "no evidence of a massacre" (you're right that the UN had no opinion). Kyaa and Jaakobou – for whom these organizations' findings are either absolutely definitive or laughably "partisan," depending on whether Kyaa or Jaakobou agree with the finding in question – are thrilled with this particular finding. Admittedly, they feel it ought to have been more strongly worded, so they've doctored it and puffed it up from "no evidence of" to "disproven," while continuing to try to hide, bury, or contest the findings they disagree with. Such as evidence of war crimes, and "indiscriminate and disproportionate attacks" on the camp. Get yourself a user name – I suggest "Grey Ghost," "Richard Landes," or "Skin-tight Alligator Luggage" – and join the fun.--G-Dett 23:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the rough overview of where everyone stands, G-Dett; I know you getting batted around like a mouse between cats for these kinds of summaries. Not to quibble, but the HRW report says no evidence of "massacres" (my bold italics). In any case, insisting no one anywhere still considers this a massacre is biased in the lead. I'd perhaps consider "colloquially known as" as I'm not sure exactly how many innocent civilians you have to kill to qualify as a massacre these days in the sausage factory of wikipedia. -- 146.115.58.152 23:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Hell, Wikipedia doesn't know what qualifies as a massacre in the sausage factory. :P But in this case we have verifiable proof that even the groups that tend to cry "massacre" at the drop of a hat say "no massacre" despite the lack of coverage of such by most of the media. Kyaa the Catlord 00:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

We know exactly what constitutes a massacre in everyday parlance, it's almost any number of killings carried out by soldiers of unarmed civilians. Hence Boston Massacre (5 dead) and Kent State Massacre (4 dead).

However, there is another meaning, and various sources (of which Israel was one) led us to think that Nazi-style mass shootings has also been carried out. We have firm published evidence and Israeli confirmation for only one such incident (3 men, 1 of whom survived, giving us the first names of two of the soldiers), and this evidence was not released until 4 November 2002 (perhaps because that's when it became clear that Israel had no intention of even investigating this case as they're required to do?).

Hence, as at todays date, the "No Massacre" thesis is disproved, in both of the meanings of the word.

Howevever, none of this discussion should be going on in Talk, it should be on the mediation page.

That's assuming you're agreeable to withdraw allegations against the good faith of the mediator - and you're prepared to move to Talk the defacement of the mediation page which has taken place. Without both those actions, it is questionable whether you should be editing this article. Even once you've taken those necessary actions, it would be a lot more collegiate if you restricted yourself to taking part in the mediation, and presented your evidence properly, in some fashion such as I've done. PalestineRemembered 09:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Did you simply not read HG's statements on the "mediation" page? He said no discussion. THIS is the proper place for discussion of this article, period. Read WP:TALK. Kyaa the Catlord 09:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

And the character assassination attempts continue. Kyaa the Catlord 00:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, rubbish.--G-Dett 00:38, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Random statement struck out. Kyaa the Catlord 00:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Anon, you have a very good point. One gets so exhausted fighting to have a lead that doesn't grossly misrepresent the sources, you slide into a position of accepting this sort of low-level POV-massage.--G-Dett 00:38, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment - this issue has been fairly well explained and was seemed to be resolved in previous talk and also it's well referenced on the article (so i've already archived it). please go over the material and stop placing tags on the intro before you do. go over these discussions - (1), (2) - and let me know if you're interested in reopening the dispute. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't consider this issue resolved at all, thanks. We'll need to come to a compromise here. -- 146.115.58.152 14:46, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

How about something in the lead along the lines "The battle was initially referred to as the Jenin massacre when initial reports put civilian deaths about 500, but the label fell out of favor with international organizations after the civilian death toll was reduced to 23." That would be more honest and a better explanation than just saying "previously" which is confusing and inaccurate. -- 146.115.58.152 14:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

When this article is (eventually) written in a good NPOV fashion, we can revisit what it's called. (I'm personally convinced we'll find it's universally known as the "Jenin Massacre" - even the angry pro-Israel sources tell us that the "No Massacre Thesis" was ignored by the British/Western media). However, that's rather more of a snake-pit than the "Verifiable information in Reliable Sources" facts of the case (or the lead, on which we may be about to agree, see below). Get the lead and "the facts" into place, and much of the rest of it will shake out properly.

Note that editors have (repeatedly) taken an ax to portions of this TalkPage and archived them away with no discussion/mandate to do this whatsoever. It's one of the relatively minor tricks that have been played here. PalestineRemembered 18:48, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Striking out

Look, all this striking out of comments is getting exhausting. I can barely keep up with the whack-a-mole, and then to have to un-whack every mole that then goes to ground....

Let's concentrate on the mainspace shall we? We are all pissed off. Tone is important, but it ain't everything.--G-Dett 01:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm playing with fire! Fire! Good! :P Kyaa the Catlord 01:34, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

You go girl, I guess.--G-Dett 02:12, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

On massacres

• UN report on Jenin massacre flawed Correspondents Report - Sunday, 4 August, 2002, Peter Cave

ANNIE WHITE: But first, the United Nations has released its long awaited report on the events in the West Bank city of Jenin in April, when Israeli troops seeking Palestinian militants, attacked the refugee camp there with tanks, helicopter launched-missiles and hundreds of troops.

Israel refused to allow the UN to investigate the alleged massacre of civilians so the report was compiled from accounts supplied by the Israeli Army, the Palestinians and various agencies.

The report that has emerged is at best a compromise, criticising both sides for using innocent civilians as human shields.

Unlike the UN investigators, our Foreign Affairs Editor, Peter Cave, did get into Jenin while it was still besieged by the Israeli Army and he's been looking at the UN report for Correspondence Report.

PETER CAVE: Was there a massacre in Jenin? Well, yes there was.

The Macquarie Dictionary and the OED define a massacre as the unnecessary indiscriminate killing or slaughter of human beings.

The UN's report, flawed though it is by being forced to rely on second-hand and often deeply partisan accounts, claims that 75 human beings died, 23 Israeli soldiers and 52 Palestinians, half of them civilians.

Were the deaths necessary or discriminate? Not by any measure.

Israel, however, has put its own spin on the UN report.

DANIEL TAUB: This report, and a whole host of meetings in the United Nations, were a response to allegations of absolutely shocking massacre that was supposed to have taken place in Jenin.

The report apparently makes it clear that there was no such thing,http://www.worldpress.org/Mideast/563.cfm and that allegations, particularly by the Palestinian leadership, of hundreds of innocent civilians who had been killed, were nothing more than a propaganda.

PETER CAVE: Israeli Foreign Ministry Spokesman, Daniel Taub.

Palestinian spokesman, Saeb Erekat, had his own spin when interviewed by the BBC just after the report was released.

SAEB EREKAT: Five-hundred and more Palestinians will be killed, will be a massacre. Five Israelis to ten... what is the definition of a massacre? Do you mean to tell me now that five-hundred and more Palestinians will be killed will be a massacre? Five Israelis to ten will be described by BBC as a massacre. I've heard, this is not the point here, the point is that if we set wrong numbers, we stand to be corrected.

• And then there's this source On the Press Coverage and the battle over naming. Tiamut 02:29, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou Tiamut. I'm convinced that the whole "Massacre/No Massacre" thing is a propaganda red-herring raised to confuse matters. However, as long as there are people who insist this debate has to dominate this article, your information will help us keep the factual side of things straight. PalestineRemembered 18:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Did you notice that article highlighted the HRW investigation's findings that there was no massacre, then used massacre in quotes for the rest of the article? Did you notice that that article is another in a string of articles showing that it is only in the biased, propagandist media that it is still referred to as a massacre? I await your answers. Kyaa the Catlord 19:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's remind ourselves what HRW say: "Human Rights Watch found no evidence to sustain claims of massacres or large-scale extrajudicial executions by the IDF in Jenin refugee camp. However, many of the civilian deaths documented by Human Rights Watch amounted to unlawful or willful killings by the IDF. ..... Among the civilian deaths were those of Kamal Zgheir .... even though he had a white flag attached to his wheelchair .... Some of the cases documented by Human Rights Watch amounted to summary executions, a clear war crime ... Al-Sabbagh was shot to death while directly under the control of the IDF: he was obeying orders to strip off his clothes".

Under these circumstances, the "No massacre" thesis should certainly not dominate the article as it does now. Wikipedia is based on reporting honestly what the secondary sources say, and your synopsis of the HRW words clearly don't give an NPOV impression. PalestineRemembered 19:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, the HRW quotation you give above explicitly supports the claim that what happened in Jenin wasn't a massacre. --GHcool 00:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

As I keep saying, the "Massacre or no Massacre" discussion is a complete red-herring. It's certainly not the reason for this incident being notable.

However, the sources saying "No Massacre" are only refering to one meaning of the word (Nazi-style mass shooting). Yet it's clear there are even good indications that there was a massacre in this limited sense of the word too. Evidence for this particular allegation was not published until November 2002 - perhaps because by then it was clear that Israel had no intention of investigating the case, with first names, that had been presented to them.

Over at your TalkPage you said "the IDF kills a handful of Palestinians (some were civilians), and then the world buying the Palestinian propoganda version of the story". I'd be very interested to know why this article is not written to this "Majority View" (that we agree the world accepts). WP:Policy would apparently say our article should be written to that "Majority View" with NPOV balance to the "Minority View" - why is that not happening? PalestineRemembered 10:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

We have Godwins! We have Godwins! :P Kyaa the Catlord 11:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

For my response, see my talk page. --GHcool 00:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Prompted by in lead

It is completely one-sided to count up all the Palestinian attacks in the lead and ignore the Israeli attacks, which prompted the Palestinian attacks, etc. The source, the Prime Minister of Israel at the time, specifically says the Jenin attack was in response to the attacks over the previous few days which caused 27 or more causalities. -- 146.115.58.152 12:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

comment - this issue has been discussed, please (1) signup with your regular username, or at least sign up with a new one. (2) go over the talk and look for previous discussions. (3) i disagree with your perception on who prompted what and this article could get real troublesome if we go with that type of information all the way back to the jews of Yathrib. the general consensus was that the events which led to israel moving into PA controlled jenin camp are the attacks, we can't go back beyond that, please look for this in the archives and let us know if you wish to reopen the issue. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

146 does not need a username to contribute, and since previous discussions were circular, frustrating, and did not resolve anything, it is most welcome for a new user to re-open the discussion with a fresh perspective.

I think we have persistent problems in this article of citation and attribution. For instance, Jaakobou reverted back to a statement which says that "Prompted by over a dozen suicide bombings in the previous month which left over 100 civilians dead, the IDF launched a large-scale offensive in the West Bank..." and is sourced to an IMFA record of a press conference [4].

First problem: "prompted". "X prompted Y" is an objective statement of fact, and it strongly connotes that Y is the natural and logical response to X. It is true that Sharon and other senior Israelis said that terror attacks prompted Defensive Shield, and that's very much worth including. But for us to say "X prompted Y" goes beyond this; it makes a direct conclusion on which not all sources agree.

Second problem: "over a dozen...100 dead". The simple fact is, nobody at the cited press conference said this. Sharon and Ben-Eliezer both referred to three attacks which killed 21 people. The terms "dozen", "twelve", "fourteen", "fifteen", "sixteen" and so on do not occur ("thirteen" occurs in an unrelated context) nor do "100" or "hundred". Sharon makes a general reference to "terrorism, terrorism and more terrorism" which is about as close as he gets to what we're actually writing here. It may well be that in some other source, senior Israelis did say that they were prompted by over a dozen attacks with 100+ dead; if this is the case, we should add those sources and present them accurately. It is unacceptable to use sources that seem to support a claim unless you read them closely and check what they say. This technique is used heavily in Battle of Jenin to its severe detriment.

Third problem: Removal of maintenance tags without consensus. This should not be happening. Perhaps was more appropriate than in this case, but we can't allow a statement to stand unchallenged when it is not in the given source and is phrased in a leading POV fashion. Eleland 14:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

"this article could get real troublesome if we go with that type of information all the way back to the jews of Yathrib." Yes, exactly. The lead is making it sound as if Israel sat around and did nothing for months, then suddenly attacked Jenin, which isn't what the historical record according to the sources says. At the same time you keep removing from the background the fact, from the UN report on the battle, that there were ongoing tit for tat attacks on both sides. I guess you want to make the Palestinian side look ruthless at the expense of making Israel look weak, and at the expense of the sources. But your position is untenable. This is, as the name suggests, just one battle in a larger war. -- 146.115.58.152 15:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Anon and Eleland both make good points. I wonder why we don't simplify and neutralize the lead paragraph so that it gives context without tendentious causality. Something like:

The Battle of Jenin took place between the 3rd and 11th of April 2002 in Jenin's Palestinian refugee camp. It constituted the apex and most controversial episode of Operation Defensive Shield, Israel's large-scale military response to a string of Palestinian suicide bombings. As the camp was completely sealed for the duration of the siege, early accounts of what took place depended heavily on hearsay, and were significantly revised by outside investigations in the aftermath. Details of the siege are still hotly disputed, and continue to serve as a lightning rod for criticism of Israel's alleged human-rights violations on the one hand, and alleged Palestinian media manipulation on the other.

And then the last paragraph of the lead can cite the findings of human-rights organizations, and mention that the siege/battle is sometimes still referred to as the "Jenin massacre," though the formulation is highly controversial.

I wonder what y'all think.--G-Dett 15:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Much improved in content, although I would obviate "constituted the apex" and "serve as a lightning rod". How about, "It was the most visible and controversial episode of", and "details of the siege are still hotly disputed, with allegations of Israeli war crimes on one hand, and of Palestinian propaganda on the other." I think that "war crimes" and "propaganda" describe the allegations more succinctly and accurately. Eleland 15:50, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, good improvements/tightening.--G-Dett 15:55, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to put a stick into anyone's spokes, but I think incremental improvements of this article is a mistake while it is structured to be "For/Against" the "No Massacre Thesis". That structure is a road-block that will stop us ever getting a sensible article. Re-structure first, then do the lead, then tighten up on the rest of it. However, I'm very happy with the work done by G-Dett and Eleland and commend their new lead (which, incidentally, would be something like what we decided we needed some weeks ago, in one of the sections started by Jaakobou).

PS - I've re-indented this section into the "threaded" form I believe it should have. This is not an exercise in disruption (I've even left the comment contribution in it's original confused state), it's because I'm pretty sure it makes it much more sensible and easier to read. PalestineRemembered 18:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

comment1 - if certain editors can't cool off and avoid discussions that don't really relate to them, then i'm afraid we won't get many things achieved on this article.

comment2 - User:146.115.58.152, please follow my requests and when finished start a proper subsection on the topic and we will adress it properly and probably make some new concensus on how to write down the intro and the background section, i think the background is indeed pro-israel in an innaccurate way, but i don't see how misplacing information and turning the talk into a battleground (not reffering to anyone in particular) will help us resolve anything. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:12, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

This section seems perfectly proper to me. This isn't a bureaucracy. The sentence in question, in any case now has been rewritten, the only thing left to do is replace the WP:Weasel word "numerous" with the more accurate count "three." -- 146.115.58.152 22:25, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

the problem is not the weasel term, but editors "batteling", who change the article repeatedly in a manner that allows degregation of the article rather than an improvement.^{burgass 1st,2nd,3rd,4th,CJCurrie,PR trimming,tewfik correcting poorly,g-dett... etc. etc.}

here's an old version of the lead you should get acquained with, it will be making a swift comeback soon so we can avoid the "numereous" weasel term. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:51, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

User:146.115.58.152, in case you didn't notice, in this edit, you've removed the information that i retrieved from the past (about 6 suicide attacks within' two weeks). pardon the heated note, but regarding my previous note (1) you've yet to login with a proper user name, and (2) i get the feeling that you've not yet went over the material properly considering how you treat the UN reference (that, best i'm aware, israel did not even participate in it's process) while omitting other sources and the information within'. and lastly (3) it seems that you've mixed times and contexts with the introduction and while you added that the israeli 1st incursion caused many life loss, you've not went before it to register why the first incursion occurred... and also, not registered why the palestinians made these terror attacks that ignited the 1st incursion... etc. see note (3) from above and related talk. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 06:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

previously referred to as the Jenin Massacre - round III

based on the notation of User:146.115.58.152,^{00:53, 9 September 2007 Static} the following talk is resumed in continuation from previously referred to as the Jenin Massacre - round II.

an earlier discussion was is registered here

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

preferred version

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

comments and questions

• comment - Can't we slow down on the conflict? The previous one is still smoldering. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1937048.stm The headline calls it a massacre. That's my quick and unfinished research for the moment. Jerseycam 01:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
• comment - The word "massacre" is part of some man's quote. You need reliable sources saying that the battle was indeed previously called "Jenin Massacre". Beit Or 19:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
  • reply comment - we have a number of sources in the article body, both mainstream and official sources, who clearly used the massacre terminology during the battle. p.s. one of them is right above your comment. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
• elements of a massacre did occur. A UN report concluded that mass killings in the range of 500 did not occur but official Israeli source acknowledge that 52 were killed. A significant part of the public will probably remember it as a massacre. News sources quote it as a massacre. Blame them, not WP. Jerseycam 02:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  • perhaps we should say "overstated in the media as a massacre" then, since international rights groups (the UN, HRW, AI) either do not term the battle as a massacre or blatantly state that a massacre did not occur. Yes, it was widely reported by the media as a massacre during the conflict and even until the smoke cleared and investigations actually had the ability to go in and disprove the claims of massacre. Kyaa the Catlord 01:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
• comment - extra talk can also be found here: sep. 9 static
  • i refer you to my "comment/explanation" for a further comment regarding my perspective. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 01:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Take "Jenin Massacre" out of the lead - comment by Sanguinalis, and related talk

I would prefer to take Jenin Massacre out of the lead altogether. If we consider only Western sources, it is not at all clear that "Jenin Massacre" was ever used as a name for the fighting of April 2002, even by the British press. Jaakobou seems to concede this when he writes "'jenin massacre' was never an official name". Compare, for example, Racak massacre. Here is a BBC article three years after the fact that uses the term "Racak massacre" in a plain, matter-of-fact, narrational voice to refer to that incident (in which the death toll was 45, by the way). There has never been an article in the British press that uses the term "Jenin massacre" in a comparable way. The most notorious article, the BBC's Jenin 'massacre evidence growing', does not state as fact that a massacre occured. The article only says that it is the opinion of an expert working for Amnesty International that there might have been a massacre, based on the evidence available at the time. Note that the word massacre in headline is inside a quotation. On the other hand, if we are talking about the Arab press, it seems to be the consensus here that the term Jenin massacre is still being used, so "previously referred to" does not apply. Sanguinalis 02:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The original allegations of a massacre, though, seem to be the reason this little battle gained any notoriety in the West to begin with. 1,539 Palestinians died thru 7 May 2002 during the Second Intifada due to Israeli violence (per UN ref). So, mathematically, this was an above average week, but not by an order of magnitude, as was thought at the time. Compare the 27 February 2002 IDF Operation, for lack of a working title, which the U.N. mentions. It got no international attention (beginning the same week as the U.S. Invasion of Afghanistan oops, I was thinking of Operation Anaconda; there musta been something going on 2002#February?) so no Western source knows what it was called, or how many people died; it's not on the templates we have for it and we have no article for it. We're suffering from WP:RECENT in reverse here. -- 146.115.58.152 05:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that that is a good solution, and hope that you'll be able to convince the rest of us. The only issue which I had with the edits (which were clearly marked and thought out - I'm grateful for that) was inclusion of the previous incursions etc. in the lead. I appreciate the attempt at "balance" as it were, but the previous IDF actions, while relevant, are not directly related in the way that the other "context" is, that is those specific bombings were cited by the Israelis as a direct part of the cassus belli. The information is still valuable to the broader picture, and so I moved it to the "background" section, albeit without the vague and possibly controversial "cycle" phrasing. Tewfik^Talk 08:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The anon's version has made the article worse, not better. Who exactly is it that is supposed to have referred to the subject of this article as the "Jenin massacre" in April 2002? The anon's text implies the term was once "in favor" with "international organizations". Which organizations exactly? AI? HRW? The UN? No one has produced a statement, report, or other document from any of these organizations which refer to the battle/incursion as the "Jenin massacre", and until someone does this text should be removed. Likewise there is no article from the British press during this period that refers to it as such. If the Arab press is meant, that should be said explicitly (and is, later in the article). Sanguinalis 14:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I think Sanguinalis sums it up well. The term "jenin massacre" appears to have been largely an invention of Israeli and pro-Israeli press, who then attributed it falsely to their opponents. In any case, it is not suitable for inclusion in the lead, which should focus primarily on the actual events on the ground, with secondary attention to international reaction. Currently we have a lead which talks more about Palestinian suicide bombings than any other topic; now you want to add information about sporadic reports in non-reliable media outlets? If you replace paragraphs 2 and 3 with a single brief mention that it was part of IDF operation "Defensive Shield", you have something close to the lede I'd prefer. The last thing we should do is stuff in more tangentally relevant information just to make Palestinians look bad, let alone draw false implications about what international organizations did. Eleland 14:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Eleland,

The term "jenin massacre" appears to have been largely an invention of Israeli and pro-Israeli press, who then attributed it falsely to their opponents.

— by User:Eleland, 14:35, 9 September 2007

all i can say is, "wow". Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I put on my tin foil hat as I step away from the microphone to breathe. Wow. Kyaa the Catlord 17:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps Jaakobou or Kyaa can help. In "previously referred to as the Jenin Massacre", who exactly is it who once referred to the battle as "Jenin massacre", and now now longer does? Be specific. Sanguinalis 17:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

the mainstream media reported it either as massacre or possible massacre, the word battle was secondary in the reports. i suggest you go over the linked talk and also the article sources and compare the words in the 6 april - 28 april and the articles that came out afterwards. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

My very first involvement in this talk page was to point out that an Anti-Defamation League screed claimed that world media rushed to embrace this "Jenin massacre" concept, yet none of the quotations given by the world media actually used the term "massacre" except in scare quotes, or attributed with some word such as "allegations" or "claimed". If you Google "Jenin massacre" you will find scores of rightwing media-flak groups, blogs, etc which all attribute this term "Jenin massacre" to supposedly anti-Israel sources, yet never quote them using it.

I have just now noticed that Media Lens made this observation long ago: "As of May 6, 2002, Media Lens found 65 examples in the Guardian and Observer, and 27 examples in the Independent, of articles containing the words 'Jenin' and 'massacre'. Remarkably, we found not even +one+ example of a Guardian, Observer or Independent journalist describing Jenin as a massacre. Instead, we found dozens of references to 'claims' and 'allegations' of a massacre in Jenin."

I don't know what Palestinian officials may have said off-the-cuff during those dark days when the camp was locked down, Israeli generals were estimating "hundreds" or "250 dead", and Ha'aretz was quoting Shimon Peres calling it a "massacre". But as Uri Avnery so aptly put it, "The army wanted to prevent the entrance of eye-witnesses into the camp at any price. The army knew that this would give rise to rumors about a terrible massacre, but preferred this to the disclosure of the truth. If one takes such extreme measures to hide something, one cannot complain about the rumors." Eleland 21:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

"Jenin Massacre" is currently the name of this entry's Arabic version. That phrase in Arabic returns 13,800 hits, none of them to CAMERA et al., while English returns 30,500. Such contemporary gems from the "Israeli and pro-Israeli press" include "Jenin 'massacre evidence growing'", "Arabs press UN over Jenin 'massacre'", and "Expert weighs up Jenin 'massacre'" from the BBC, "Jenin massacre uncovering" and "UN report on Jenin massacre flawed" from ABC (Au), "UN report rejects claims of Jenin massacre" from the Guardian, and others from pro-Israel bastions like Al Jazeera, Democracy Now!, CounterPunch, and more. Tewfik^Talk 09:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

“Weasel words and disruptive spin” in the lead

The weasel word reference, Tewfik, is to the repeated insertion of the word “some” – "some international sources" – on your stated grounds that “only the EU said without qualification” that Israel had used “indiscriminate” and disproportionate force. I don’t where you get this idea and why you keep insisting on it when it’s been shown to be false. The “spin,” of course, is a reference to your continual attempt to frontload, buff up, and even exaggerate those findings you agree with, while muffing or weasel-wording those you don’t. So the fact that human-rights groups “found no evidence of massacres” isn’t enough; you need them to have “disproved” or “overturned" the allegations, and you’re willing to have a syntactically muddled sentence in order to get that extra legalistic ooomph. And while you’re burnishing that finding, you won’t even acknowledge the fact that HRW very clearly described Israeli actions as “indiscriminate,” although it’s irrefutable. I don’t know how to describe this kind of behavior except as disruptive. At any rate, the version you’re edit-warring against is clean, elegant, straightforward, incontestably NPOV, and closely follows the language actually used by the sources. Please stop spinning it.

Now I’m going to give you some sources, most of which you should already have read, in the hopes that you’ll stop once and for all claiming that “only the EU” has described Israel’s use of force as “indiscriminate.” We’ve been through the UN report together; your argument, as I understand it, is that whenever it uses the word “indiscriminate” it’s quoting Palestinians. Even if this were true – and it isn’t – this would still be a very weak argument, because these are findings, and the report is obviously quoting what it finds to be credible. When the UN report says “Witness testimonies and human rights investigations allege that the destruction was both disproportionate and indiscriminate," (i) it is clear that they find the allegations credible, and (ii) while the "witness testimonies" are almost certainly Palestinians, the "human rights investigations" are almost certainly not. At any rate, the reliable sources do not agree with your idiosyncratic argument, and the UN report was widely described as finding Israel to have used “indiscriminate force”: The Toronto Star, for example, reported that “Israel is criticized for "disproportionate and indiscriminate destruction" of civilian property, using Palestinian civilians as human shields during house-to-house searches and for preventing aid and medical workers from staging rescue operations."

The Association for Civil Rights in Israel described in Ha'aretz how the "Jenin refugee camp has been subjected to indiscriminate house demolitions." The detailed Amnesty report "Shielded from Scrutiny: IDF violations in Jenin and Nablus" also focused on the "indiscriminate" use of force. But your most mind-boggling omission is Human Rights Watch's repeated statements on the matter. They say very clearly "Palestinians were used as human shields and the IDF employed indiscriminate and excessive use of force." In their Human Rights Watch World Report, 2003: Events of 2002, they describe the background of Operation Defensive Shield:

During the operation, Israeli soldiers repeatedly used indiscriminate and excessive force, killed civilians willfully and unlawfully, and used Palestinian civilians as humans shields.

Then in the next paragraph they focus specifically on the siege of Jenin:

Israeli security forces continued to resort to excessive and indiscriminate use of lethal force, causing numerous civilian deaths and serious injuries. In Jenin, Human Rights Watch documented twenty-two civilian killings during the IDF military operations in April. Many of them were killed willfully or unlawfully, and in some cases constituted war crimes.

It then goes on to describe a 57-year-old man in a wheelchair "equipped with a white flag" being shot to death and run over by IDF tanks, and a 37-year-old quadriplegic being crushed to death when his father was not permitted to evacuate him from their family home. Tewfik, an entire chapter of HRW's lengthy report on Jenin is called "Disproportionate and Indiscriminate Use of Force Without Military Necessity by the IDF." A sample passage:

The destruction in other areas of the camp was indiscriminate in its effect on the civilian population, and disproportionate to the military objective obtained... Human Rights Watch concludes that the Israeli military actions in the Jenin refugee camp included both indiscriminate and disproportionate attacks. Some attacks were indiscriminate because Israeli forces, particularly the IDF helicopters, did not focus their firepower only towards legitimate military targets, but rather fired into the camp at random. This indiscriminate use of firepower added significantly to the civilian casualty toll of the fighting and the destruction of civilian homes in the camp. The Israeli offensive in Jenin refugee camp was also disproportionate, because the incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, and damage to civilian objects was excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.

This chapter then has a subsection on "Indiscriminate Helicopter Fire":

Although missiles had been used from the beginning of the incursion, their use became particularly intense in the early morning hours of April 6. Testimony collected by Human Rights Watch indicates that many areas of the refugee camp were fired upon at that time, catching many sleeping civilians unaware. Many of the rockets used were U.S.-made wire-guided TOW missiles. The evidence gathered by Human Rights Watch suggests that many of the TOW missiles indiscriminately hit civilian homes and in at least one case a civilian was killed when she was struck by a helicopter missile. The number of solely civilian objects hit in the helicopter attacks the early morning of April 6 suggests that insufficient care was taken by Israeli forces to target only military objects. Due to the dense urban setting of the refugee camp, fighters and civilians were never at great distances. Nevertheless, such proximity does not provide a valid excuse by Israeli forces' action in firing upon the entire area as if it were a single military target... Indiscriminate attacks were most intense on April 6, but they did not entirely abate afterwards... Some of the helicopter missile fire was so indiscriminate that it nearly killed IDF soldiers.

Tewfik, can you please, please stop saying that among international sources, only a Spanish official of the U.N. described Israeli actions as “indiscriminate”? And will you please leave in place a neutral version of the lead, one which doesn’t muffle or disguise one set of HRW findings while foregrounding and burnishing another?--G-Dett 14:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

To your thorough and unimpeachable demolition of Tewfikstery I add only that Peter Beaumont of The Observer specifically described "helicopters ... firing indiscriminately into the city's crowded refugee camp"; he was an international journalist and a direct eyewitness. Tewfik argued previously that because Beaumont in another paragraph also said that Palestinians alleged indiscriminate helicopter fire, his direct objective-voice statements didn't count. It's in Talk:Battle of Jenin/Archive 3#The neutrality and factual accuracy of this article are disputed.. Eleland 14:46, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Instead of an essay justifying your allegations of bad faith, G-Dett, you could acknowledge that comments should be limited to the edits, and not the editors. The same goes for you, Eleland, since poison like Tewfikstery is just as wrong as me talking about some hypothetical "Elelandery". No one has the right to suspend WP:CIV because they believe that their position is the correct one, and I'm certainly not going to begin taking seriously comments that ignore it just because their frequency is increasing.

As for the actual substance, the above comments omit that the UN report still refuses unqualified use of the word in reference to Jenin, that the AI report still refuses any use of the word in reference to Jenin, and that despite its section documenting the cases it considered indiscriminate, HRW still makes the charge twice in its introduction, once in regard to the Israelis ("At times, however, IDF military attacks were indiscriminate"), once to the Palestinians ("using indiscriminate tactics such as planting improvised explosive"). Whether you agree that HRW is qualifying or not, none of this substantiates the idea that the objective position of all of these parties was that "Israeli actions were indiscriminate", nor are these the sum of relevant "international organisations" (the US being a notable example). Hence, "some international organisations". Tewfik^Talk 07:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

No, Tewfik.--G-Dett 10:07, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The cites which are there support "Palestinian sources" but not "International". The UN report is based on Palestinian accounts. As for the NGOs and HR groups, that's in the next sentence. <<-armon->> 13:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

All the international findings – including that there was "no evidence of a massacre" – were based on Palestinian accounts, in this strict and tendentious construction. The Israelis refused to cooperate with the investigations, remember?--G-Dett 13:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Well I guess it's not surprising that the allegations were from Palestinian sources then. <<-armon->> 13:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

We should not be labelling sources by their ethnicity. That's the kind of thing that the South Africans used to do. PalestineRemembered 14:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree. So we won't change it to "Arab sources". <<-armon->> 15:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Armon, the minor problem with saying "Palestinian sources" is that it's well-poisoning, as well as patronizing in the way that PR accurately suggests. The major problem is that it's incredibly misleading, because the very sources whose findings of "no evidence of massacre" we're presenting as definitive, also very explicitly found Israel's use of force to be "indiscriminate." That's what's exhaustively demonstrated above, in the section you claim to have read.--G-Dett 15:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually no, it clearly and correctly identifies who made the claims. Adding in "International sources" is a way of "buffing up" the accusation which is misleading and not supported by the cites. <<-armon->> 15:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International are international sources, Armon, not Palestinian ones. Again, please the relevant material.--G-Dett 15:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

...who also investigated, and later stepped back from the massacre claims. The very next sentence makes that clear. <<-armon->> 16:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the very next sentence makes that clear, so why are you tooling around with this one? The major international human-rights organizations found Israel to have used "indiscriminate" force, but your edit attributes this claim to Palestinians. Why?--G-Dett 16:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Because it was their claim. I thought I made that clear. <<-armon->> 16:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Good G-d, man, read the damn sources already. If you can't be bothered with that, read the damn section you're commenting in. "Indiscriminate" is HRW's claim; they reiterate in their conclusions again and again and again and again and again and again. HRW is international; HRW is not Palestinian; HRW says "indiscriminate." I'm in Boston, Armon, where are you? If you're not too far, I'll make the trip and read the sources out loud to you, if you can't bring yourself to drag your eyes over them.--G-Dett 17:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

That goes for you too, Kyaa. Read the damn sources. An edit like this, after all the foregoing, is disruptive.--G-Dett 18:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

HRW attributes their statement to Palestinian sources. WP:IDONTLIKEIT much? Kyaa the Catlord 22:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't like these calculated misrepresentations of source materials much, and I'm tiring of these assembly-line ".....much?" quips as well. HRW doesn't attribute their statements about Israel's "indiscriminate and disproportionate" use of force to Palestinians any more than they attribute their finding of "no evidence of massacre" to Palestinians. Read the sources, Kyaa, and stop lying to readers and other editors.--G-Dett 23:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm rather concerned that PR is accusing us of being racist. I certainly hope he refactors his statement to avoid that accusation. Kyaa the Catlord 15:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Par for the course. <<-armon->> 16:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

When you two are finished licking each other's wounds, note that PR is clearly talking about the patronizing tone of the text, not about the flawed souls of editors.--G-Dett 16:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

PR is lucky to have you to "translate" for him. <<-armon->> 16:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

No, he's unlucky to have other editors misrepresenting him. It's been a problem in his time here, you will recall.--G-Dett 17:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Hmmm, my custom-made Personal vs. Substance meter seems to be blinking. Nudge, nudge. HG | Talk 02:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm at a loss, HG. HRW's findings re "indiscriminate" are very clear, as are their findings about "no evidence of massacre." Armon and Kyaa like the latter, dislike the former, and are whitewashing accordingly.[5] [6]I've given voluminous evidence above, which I shouldn't have had to do, because it's their responsibility as editors to know the sources and not misrepresent them. Yes, we are to assume good faith, but even WP:AGF makes an exception when editors are evidently lying.--G-Dett 02:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see how the very next sentence which summarizes the HRGs' findings as "Major human rights organizations subsequently conducted extensive investigations and found no evidence of massacres, but strong prima facie evidence of IDF war crimes." is whitewashing. <<-armon->> 03:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The part you're whitewashing is the part about "indiscriminate," which – despite an avalanche of source material to the contrary – you keep falsely attributing to "Palestinian sources."--G-Dett 04:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Again, because they made the initial allegations. The HRGs' findings are a different issue, so there's no reason to conflate them. <<-armon->> 04:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

And yet what you just deleted was not a conflation.[7] And the edit you've left in place makes it look like only Palestinian sources described the Israeli attack as indiscriminate.--G-Dett 04:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

It certainly is a conflation. It's an attempt to piggyback what has been shown to be a less-reliable source, onto what's regarded as a more reliable one. This is an example of biased writing. The solution is to clearly attribute who said what. <<-armon->> 05:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you know what "conflation" means – or "piggyback" for that matter – but there's only one source we're discussing here, HRW. You're alternately suppressing their finding of "indiscriminate" use of force, or misrepresenting it as coming from as a "Palestinian source." Now Tewfik has returned to edit-warring to have it say massacre claims "were overturned by outside sources." So HRW is a "Palestinian source" or an "outside source" depending on whether you're trying to burnish/exaggerate a finding or to suppress/well-poison it. Way to go, team spin. The contempt you show for your fellow editors' intelligence, not to mention WP:NPOV, never ceases to appall.--G-Dett 11:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I'm now going to ignore your tantrums. If you have anything of substance to say, try not to conflate it with personal attacks and incivility -otherwise it will just be drowned out by the background noise. <<-armon->> 00:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, nonsense. My "tantrums" are the one thing you pay attention to. What you steadfastly ignore, as demonstrated above, is the actual source materials.--G-Dett 00:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Hear, hear. Enough punctilios. If, as Tewfik claims, he has read the sources, then he knows that HRW calls Israeli actions in Jenin "indescriminate" again and again and again. He knows that the EU describes "an indiscriminate use of force, that goes well beyond that of a battlefield", and that Amnesty describes "documented cases in Jenin and Nablus where people were killed or injured in circumstances suggesting that they were unlawfully and deliberately targeted". To claim that these statements do not represent allegations of indescriminate action can prima facie be regarded only as conscious distortion of the facts. I would welcome any information which dispels this perception, but I'm not holding my breath. Eleland 03:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. At some point it just becomes degrading to keep discussing this.--G-Dett 03:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Ultimately employed

Well, here's another narrow and clear-cut dispute which we can all spill some ink on.

The Israeli force consisted primarily of infantry supported by armoured vehicles and ultimately employed attack helicopters and armoured bulldozers as their casualties mounted,[6][7][8]

Note six is a scholarly opinion piece by an Israeli grad student, seven is Peter Beaumont in the Observer, and eight is the Jafee Centre conference report.

6 says nothing of the sort about helicopters; just that they were used, and that the IDF officially stated their use was "carefully controlled". It does say that D-9s were used after the April 9 ambush. 7 says nothing about the timing of various weaponry; just that "Dr Zaid Ayasi, director of the [Jenin] hospital, tells us that many of the civilian victims that he knows of were hit by helicopter fire in those few days [after IDF casualties mounted]." 8 has a reprint of BBC's Jeremy Cooke saying "And so for days now [on April 10] the Israeli helicopter gunships have been carrying out wave after wave of attacks against Jenin,"of HRW saying "Civilian residents of the camp described days of sustained missile fire from helicopters hitting their houses...Firing was particularly indiscriminate on the morning of April 6, when missiles were launched from helicopters", and of the UN recounting that "Interviews with witnesses conducted by human rights organizations suggest that tanks, helicopters and ground troops using small arms predominated in the firsttwo days ... There are reports that during [5-9 April] IDF increased missile strikes from helicopters".

So that's what the currently used sources have to say; nothing about helicopter fire being "ultimately employed" after Israeli casualties. Armored bulldozer use was greatly stepped up, of course, after the IDF penetrated Hawashin around 9 April but this appears to have happened after their casualties had stopped, rather than "as their casualties mounted". I propose:

The Israeli force consisted of infantry and armored vehicles, supported by attack helicopters. Towards the end of operations armored bulldozers were used heavily. Eleland 13:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Kyaa the Catlord 13:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree. That was quick ;) <<-armon->> 13:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree. Sounds good to me. --Steve, Sm8900 20:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose - my understanding is that gunships were used extensively in the first few days, before it was clear there was going to be much resistance and before there were too many IDF engaged. They did this all over the camp, causing extensive damage before the militants were forced back into one smallish area, the one that was flattened. The helicopters "swarmed", fired bullets "like rain" and used a considerable number of TOW-missiles.

I should really provide the references for this, but it's all been in the article before, and been edit-warred out. In the meantime, the most important thing is to take out the "Body Count Estimates" section and put in place a structure from which a good article could eventually emerge. PalestineRemembered 14:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

PR, I think what Eleland, Kyaa, and Armon are saying is consistent with what you're saying, unless I'm missing something.--G-Dett 15:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I've made the edit, keeping the the 10% of the camp destroyed bit. OK? <<-armon->> 03:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks good. Tewfik^Talk 07:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Burgas00's edits

Armon why do you disagree with my edits to the lead section?--Burgas00 14:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

You reverted under me while I was still editing out the background you objected to. Anyway, this introduces weasel words. And I think the death toll is better at the end. If you want to highlight it, and I tend to agree, it's the human cost, placing it at the end is good. It's the end result. <<-armon->> 14:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if I accidentally reverted you. The really problematic bit for me is the martyrs bit, that many other editors seem to have objected to and seems overtly POV and inadequate for the lead section.

Taking the main elements of my edits:

Eliminating the phrase in the lead that claims that Palestinians know Jenin RC as a "Martyrs Capital It seems to say: "before you read on, don't forget that the people who live here are just a bunch of terrorists, so its ok if they get killed".

Any source which shows evidence of Martyrs capital being used does not prove that such a term is of general use among the Palestinian population and I am sure, as I recall a Palestinian editor expressing, many find it distateful. I would also understand that they find such a statement offensive since it would indirectly say that all Palestinians condone violence.

Eliminating the bit on past terrorist attacks from lead section

That information is already in the background as I have already expressed. I appreciate you have slightly shortened it. My point is that, Background sections exist for a reason, i.e. to offer facts which lead up and explain the described event (in this case the battle of Jenin. Including the terrorist attacks on Israel in the Lead points to an unexpressed urge to justify the Military Operation inmediately and is thus NPOV. I understand we are all politiced and edit these articles from a strong position. However, it would be better if all explanations on why things occur were in the section which serves that purpose.

My edits regarding the term massacre

I may have unwittingly introduced weasel words in this edit as you claim, but the rationale here is that we should not judge whether there was a massacre or not. It is not a court of law and there is no clear definition of massacre. What must be conveyed is that the term massacre was initially used to describe the event, and then dropped by most mainstream media. This is better than saying that initially it was thought that there was a massacre, and then it turned out that there wasn't.

Moving up the paragraph on deaths

Its not only a question of highlighting the human cost. Its more about logical coherency. The lead section should contain firstly what happened and then about the media/international reaction, not vice versa.

That sums up my position, pretty much. I won't edit the article again until some constructive dialogue is established. --Burgas00 15:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Burgas00, there might be a cultural difference here. the reason palestinians use the term martyrs capital is because it's a sign of pride and respect among what they call resistance. if you consider the resistance terrorism, then you also consider "martyrs" to be suicide bombers and terrorists... however, if you subscribe to the culture that calls their activity "resistance" and "jihad" m then martyrdom has only good connotation and nothing bad with it... do you think posters of suicide bombers are in children's bedrooms because they consider "martyrdom" a bad word? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

p.s. we're here to report the facts, not judge which culture is better/worse and who's language bears what POV with other people. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

If we're to insert material of dubious provenance that Palestinians (apparently) find offensive, I wonder what other material we should be inserting into articles. Some youtube videos of settlers are so shocking I'm reluctant to write the key-words to help people find them. PalestineRemembered 10:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

read my comment again, your reply here doesn't make any sense. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Jaakobou, yes we are here to report the facts, but to put relevant information in the right places. That X number of Palestinians refer to the Jenin refugee camp as the City of martyrs is not relevant in the lead section of this article. Its sole purpose is to present the camp as "a bunch of terrorists."

Your cultural argument is irrelevant. I'm sure you know as well as I do that the term "martyr" or "shaheed" is associated in the non-muslim world (and english speaking world) with religious violence and suicide bombing. In Arabic, however, the term is applied in all sorts of senses, including, for example, for victims of assasinations.

Therefore this phrase is what you would call "poisoning the well". This article is on English wikipedia and the aim is to present the refugee camp as terrorists immediately in the lead section, hoping for the reader to immediately associate the term "Martyr's capital" with "Terrorist Capital". It is a rather sinister form of editing. --Burgas00 18:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

When one of those sources is the government of Palestine, it becomes important to describe the city in "their own words" and that even the government of Palestine referred to the camp that way is rightfully telling. Kyaa the Catlord 20:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I see no link to the government of Palestine website. That a Fatah memorandum (according to an Israeli website) calls Jenin the capital of martyrs, bombers or whatever is not sufficient to attribute such a name to the palestinian people. It is neither the official name nor commonly used by Palestinians according to any credible source.

I stand by my above statement, which has not been addressed that this is simply an exercise of well poisoning and word twisting so as to make Jenin's citizens appear as terrorists and collectively responsible for their own deaths.

In any case, it is absolutely unnacceptable that such an irrelevant point be included in the lead section.

Im erasing this until some valid response to my arguments is offered. By the way, setting up a politicised clique in this article, stifling debate is not the way to proceed in wikipedia. --Burgas00 20:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

look into the "israeli source", the appendiges have the original documents in arabic. i'm pretty surprised at how you ignored 2 other editors and just did as you felt without waiting on a response. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

You do realize that in 2002 the Fatah WAS the ruling government of Palestine? Kyaa the Catlord 23:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I fear that assertions like this are deceptive. Many Middle Eastern nations (perhaps all of them, other than Israel) don't operate with "one government". Palestine barely operates/operated with any government whatsoever - they couldn't even coordinate counting their dead. Articles such as this one will be severely compromised if we apply Western norms to other societies with very different cultures. PalestineRemembered 11:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok maybe I'm being hasty. I'll look into the source in next few days and discuss.--Burgas00 23:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The sole evidence that Jenin is called the "capital of martyrs" is a single document, an internal memorandum written by officials of the local Fatah branch in Jenin, which the Israeli Defense Forces say was captured by Jenin. Besides the fact that it is open to question whether the IDF is presenting an authentic document, the fact that something is written an internal memorandum, meant to be kept secret, by some Fatah members does not make it the official position of Fatah, much less the Palestinian government. Sanguinalis 02:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Burgas is spot-on. The biased presentation of background information in the lede was designed to "soften up" the reader and predispose them to agree with the Israeli assault. And the free use of lurid terminology whenever it impugns the Palestinians is totally uncalled for. We have not quoted, for example, Peter Hansen expressing his "pure horror" at the results of the attack, which was extensively reported, but we're shoving this disputed and less notable claim right into the lede! Eleland 02:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

You're not being hasty, Burgas, and Sanguinalis' post is exactly right. Assuming it's authentic, the document in question was an internal memorandum sent by members of the Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigade, which is secular and linked to Fatah, to Marwan Barghouti, trying to solicit more support for secular militant groups in Jenin to offset the Islamist influence. The point of the "martyrs' capital" rhetoric was to impress upon Barghouti/Fatah the strategic importance of Jenin for intra-Palestinian politics. A rough equivalent for purposes of illustration would be a private memorandum from a West Coast liberal lobby group, say a gay-rights group, to DNC headquarters, saying hey look we need more support here, don't you know the San Francisco Bay Area is widely known as the "Gay Area," and this is in your interest – libertarians are horning in on our territory, and we're crucial to your political base. This is intra-party political talk, not "reliable source" information about how Jenin is "known among Palestinians." According to one pro-Israel academic source, the document had "clear propaganda value" for Israel, and its discovery was described by one Israeli intelligence official as "the wettest dream I've ever dreamed." It was circulated by the sort of pro-Israel blogs, lobby groups and so on that some editors here depend upon for their understanding of history and contemporary politics, and their enthusiasm for it rivals that of the quoted intelligence official. The relevant policy violation is WP:UNDUE. The editors opposing you will never admit that, of course, but that is neither here nor there. The question to ask yourself is, if an internal memorandum sent to the IDF describing Operation Defensive Shield or the Jenin siege in unflattering terms were leaked and circulated by a small handful of pro-Palestinian sources and appeared once in the BBC, would we put that in the lead? Would Jaakobou, Tewfik, Kyaa et al insist that we do? Would they allow anyone to do that? Would they even allow it in the article at all? To ask these questions is to answer them.--G-Dett 02:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

comment - i suggest you go over all the refs for this instead of trying to defame a single source and claim, in unison, that it's a false presentation. as for the rest of your uncivil comment, User:G-Dett, i note you that it is inborderline soapbox and i do believe that i've already issues a last warning on such activity.^[8] should i understand that this assertion that i'm "enthusiastic about pro-Israel blogs and lobby groups" to be an honest mistake or should i pursue the case on the AN/I considering i've given due notices ? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 04:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

We can understand and sympathise with your anger at being challenged in this fashion by what looks like excellent research and sound encyclopedic logic. Pity you've not responded in a similarily persuasive fashion.

Can I ask why you're not threading your comments in a regular fashion? We trust you're in favour of meaningful discussions taking place - and we'd hate you to get a reputation for disrupting TalkPages now, wouldn't we? PalestineRemembered 11:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Jaakobou, I've removed the reference to specific editors. Note that the "enthusiasm" I described is for the leaked document, not for blogs, etc. I gathered that you're enthusiastic about it from your speeches above, my favorite being the one about "cultural difference": "we're here to report the facts, not judge which culture is better/worse and who's language bears what POV with other people". I have to admit that made me smile.--G-Dett 13:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

indeed you've removed the specific editors' names^[9] but i'm not sure on how the reset of your explanation fits into my request that you refrain from making statements about what you allege i think, feel or do. to be frank, the suggestion that i'm thrilled at some reference could be regarded as an attempt to take a jab on my credibility; and i note you that there are other references also. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

FYI on process. I analyzed some of the strengths and weaknesses of this section's discussion. (Partly I'm giving PR a critique, so cut him some slack and don't use my words against him.) In short, Burgas and Jaakobou had a good, reasoned exchange that has gotten sidetracked, inch by inch (no individual to be blamed), so it ends up as a dispute about user conduct. HG | Talk 15:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I took Jaakobou's suggestion to read the cited source, and oh my! how interesting! Source 1 doesn't make the claim at all! The string "martyr" appears thrice, in the following contexts: "Under the slabs of fallen masonry in Jenin is a new legend of martyrdom and heroism," "the camp's activists, drawn from the Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, Islamic Jihad and Hamas," and "they were interred together in Jenin's Martyrs' Cemetery." And the other source is a single sentence tacked on to the end of a BBC report, "according to Israel's count". We know very well where they got the claim from - the single document already cited. Thanks for playing, kids. Eleland 15:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm back after that brief arrest.:-) As far as I'm concerned, the credibility and validity of sources is of little importance regarding my qualms with the phrase in the lead section. I have already expressed as clearly as I can why I am against it. However, if objections to credibility do exist, all the more reason to eliminate it.

I honestly think that its now time that we eliminate this line, considering such widespread and reasoned opposition to it. Jaakobou, I think recommend rather than responding by accusing me of sockpuppeteering and "suspicious behaviour" on my talk page, that you are flexible on this point. We all have political agendas on wikipedia, but we have to set limits on ourselves regarding what is fair and what is rational. --Burgas00 20:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

it's a bit difficult to negotiate your points when other editors jump in with what you called "such widespread and reasoned opposition to it", you'll pardon me if i completely 100% disagree with that assessment of the commentary by other editors. as to your point that it should not be in the lead, i tend to agree if only we can address the issue of what should and shouldn't be in the lead (btw, i've just recently archived that section due to lack of interest).

my point is that, if we are to explain that israel attacked indiscriminately, then it must be added that palestinians called the city by it's martyr nickname - if we are to remove the indiscriminate charge, then we can eliminate the "martyr capital" title from the 28 suicide bombers charge. however, the war crime allegation and the charge that thousands have been killed, makes it difficult to remove this "martyr's capital" charge since it POV's the intro against israel. i suggest we start a new subsection and deal with possible suggestions on how to treat this issue of what each side is allowed to say about the other in the intro. do you feel i should re-factor the old intro subsection, or would you prefer a new one? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 04:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with any attempt to resolve disputes. But I dont remember the word "indiscriminate" being used in the lead section. --Burgas00 22:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

perhaps you should pay more attention to the versions you edit then - it's in the fourth paragraph. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Blocks for disruption

I have blocked the following users for 24 hours for disruption on this article and others, each user should have a message on there talk page explaining why they were blocked:

1. User:146.115.58.152 - blocked for 3RR on Jewish_Defense_League
2. User:67.98.206.2 - Also blocked for 3RR on Jewish_Defense_League both IPs belong to the same user and have made at least two edits to this article (hence why I am mentioning him/her here)
3. User:Armon for disruptive editing on this article. (defined by continued editwarring.)
4. User:Burgas00 for disruptive editing on this article. (defined by continued editwarring.)

Folks, you guys should know better then to revert war all day, please discuss the issues here rather then trying to get your chosen version to be the top revision. As you all seem to have a decent grasp on the english language, I expect that we all are mature enough to discuss here on the talk page rather then disrupting the article. I would suggest that all of you look at WP:1RR as a possible ideal that may help you folks come to a compromise. Failure to stop editwarring will result in longer blocks. I wish you all best of luck in resolving this issue, and remind all of you that there are alternatives such as WP:MEDCAB and WP:MEDCOM and even a request for comment, use them. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 03:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Did you completely miss the section above where Burgas00 and Armon etc are discussing the edits you blocked them for? Kyaa the Catlord 05:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes I did, but in any case the revertwarring is disruptive, and has been going on for over a day. Let this serve as a reminder to everyone working on this article to discuss rather then revert. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 22:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I think this is blowing out of proportion. First Armon and me are blocked and now the page is blocked for 4 days? --Burgas00 20:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

As far as the protection, that was not done by me. In any case I think you all should take some time away from reverting each other and discuss here. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 22:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Protection

In response to a request at WP:RFPP and an ongoing edit war, I've protected the page for 4 days. Please use the time to try to reach a consensus on disputed issues. If a consensus is reached before the 4 days are up, you can request un-protection at WP:RFPP. As always, the article was protected without regard to its existing state, and the protection in no way endorses the current version as "correct". MastCell ^Talk 18:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I've received a couple of requests via various channels to "adjust" the protected version to a more stable one. I can't do that. I just can't. The protection policy is very clear that admins cannot pick and choose which version of an article to protect, with specific and very limited exceptions which do not apply here. While this might be one of the more frequently ignored aspects of admin-related policy, it's policy nonetheless. I realize that the protected version incorporates a controversial, non-consensus edit, but that's the deal. You can try the {{editprotected}} template to propose a specific edit, but these generally require something like consensus to be enacted. MastCell ^Talk 22:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

{{editprotected}}
"Palestinians refugees" in lede to "Palestinian refugees", please.

Of course, the whole exposition of Deir Yassin, etc is just a misguided WP:POINT attempt to expose the undue weight on suicide bombing in the next sentence, but we can work with that after the protection expires. Eleland 12:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

 Done - Nihiltres^(t.l) 13:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Now that we're all on enforced break...

...is anyone going to take up the task of stopping this edit war permanently? The most serious effort I'm aware of is HG's attempt to clarify editing issues, so we can move smoothly into formal mediation, but it seems to be a little stale right now.

So let me ask a few basic questions.

1. Are there many serious disputes relating to neutrality, factual accuracy, proper citations, fair and encyclopedic language, etc etc here?
2. Have these disputes been ongoing for weeks, become heated, and involved a large number of editors with different viewpoints? Have they resulted in blocks, page protection, WP:ANI, WP:WQA, and WP:RSN postings, and even an attempted community ban?
3. Is there any reasonable basis to believe that this dispute will just resolve itself without outside intervention? Have previous efforts to resolve the dispute through more "light-weight" means had any success?
4. If you answered "yes" to 1 and 2 and "no" to 3: Doesn't this show the need for formal mediation pretty clearly?

Eleland 13:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the main problem with this article is the editor Jaakobou. He is a relentless POV pusher who has no understanding of the need to provide reliable sources. Just recall the enormous time and effort it took to get him to stop inserting "Palestinian claims of genocide" into the article. Anytime someone tries to fix one of the many unsourced statements or pieces of blantant POV he has inserted into the article, he just reverts and says "if there's a problem, take it to the Talk page". He then ignores or pretends not to understand whatever is said there, no matter how well reasoned. He's had a stranglehold on this article for a long time. I tried to fix some of the worst parts a few months back and got nowhere. Ramallite and other users had frustrations with him before me. The article is a little better now, thanks to the efforts of you, G-Dett, Nickhh, Palestine Remembered, and others, but it has been a long a difficult struggle, and there are still a lot of issues. And the stupid comment/reply comment structure he is arrogantly trying to impose on this page just makes everything worse. Banning Jaakobou from this article would remove the single biggest obstacle to improving it. It will take time, however, to build a case against him. We can start keeping track of his bullying behavior. In the meantime, we should all refuse to go along with his "refactoring" of this Talk page. From this point on, all edits by Jaakobou of other users Talk page contributions need to be immediately reverted. And someone else needs to take over the archiving. Sanguinalis 02:17, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

that's an impressive breach of WP:NPA... could this be a spill from the Hussam Abdo incident where i did not allow you to WP:SYN information not mentioned in the reference?^[10] Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 02:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

No, it wasn't spillover. You have certainly commited enough tendentious and disruptive editing in this article alone to justify what I wrote. But I'm glad you brought up the Hussam Abdo article, editors who have encounterd your style may want to take a look and draw their own conclusions. Sanguinalis 03:09, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

by all means, i invite everyone to see just how "tendentious and disruptive" i've been there -> "tendentious and disruptive". Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 03:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

A good example of tendentious disruption would be continually increasing the font size of your comments. Could you please stop shouting? Eleland 13:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

if only people would stop the bullshit accusations which i don't quite appreciate. font size tags removed. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - I sincerely hope that a really determined mediator could rescue this article (the alternative doesn't bear thinking about, areas of human knowldedge that WP cannot document, as I don't think has never happened before!). But it will need someone willing to stand up and vigorously defend the policies of the encyclopedia.

I see several things that are blocking progress. First there is a massive problem of ownership, coupled with pretty blatant disruption. The mediator might wish to control the influence of certain editors, either by their edits to the MainSpace or by their overwhelming of the TalkPage. The mediator might choose to control the TalkPage (or another page set up for the purpose), setting out the structure of it and sending back any excessive contribution (along with fielding anything badly worded, badly spelled, in inappropriate fonts, personalising etc).

The second problem is the trampling of reliable sources that has gone on. We've had an RfC on the use of one of these resources - despite the disruption of this discussion, the contribution from 3 uninvolved editors was tolerably clear, the particular source should not be used in the way it's been done. So what is it doing still being inserted into the article?

There is a third area where there is rampant breach of a core principle of the project, verifiability. It cannot be right that foreign language sources are introduced with no translation atall. Instead of accessible third-party translations, we get only assertions as to what they contain. It cannot be right that versions inaccessible to us are claimed to trump the translation that we have access to. PalestineRemembered 09:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Palestine Authority claim 56 dead?

after the massive success of closing the first issue raised on the dispute tag conflict^[11] in this subsection.

i'm opening a second subsection regarding the second complaint about the reliability of the definitiveness on the statement that the Palestinin Authority claimed 56 were dead.

please leave your commentary regarding the source/s on the related discussion section. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

new: opened a RSN here. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

sources for the statement

• [12] - Paul Martin, The Washington Times, 5/1/2002 (papillonsartpalace.com) , (also on CAMERA) (also here)

comments/support/object reliability

• support reliability - best i can see, the source fits my understanding of WP:RS. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

• The Washington Times is a fringe paper controlled by a religious cult. Paul Martin was accused of fabricating false quotations of Arab militant groups by Canada's national broadcaster, an accusation which has not been retracted. The P.A.'s official website alleges 380 missing, and that "the Israeli forces, during the massacre, transferred the bodies of the dead to be buried away from the refugee camp in order to conceal the evidences of the massacre." Eleland 20:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  • comment - regardless of all the figurative language and the mistaken records in this PA official document (last i checked, between the The Canaanites naming it “Janim” and the Romans calling it “Jenai” - the Israelites called it Ganim), i find nothing in this source about real investigation, nothing about the battle itself (of 3-11 of april) apart from some declarations of steadfastness, and i do see some very much rejected claims about body snatching - i do believe you've found a source regarding how this rumor was spread^{Ze'ev Schiff article} so i'm very much surprised at your double standard in choosing your sources. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  • p.s. i appreciate you taking a step back from the allegations of talk page manipulation.^[13] Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
    • That last accusation was just a silly mistake on my part, I thought for a second that you'd done the "Support / Oppose / Comment" structure again. I tried to self-rv it before anybody noticed. There are still outstanding problems regarding your selective and premature archiving of threads, which I urge you to respond to. Moving on to the actual allegation: I do not believe the PA claim I linked to is credible, but we're asking what the Palestinian Authority claim is, not whether it's credible. An official PA website is a better source for the official PA position than a disgraced fraudster writing in a Mooninite paper. Eleland 21:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
      • i don't see any claim regarding the bodies from the battle of jenin, only statements of steadfastness. i note you that the numbers cited are from 31/05/2002 and later, not from the time of the battle, to be frank, i believe it to be a purposeful omission so that the "massacre" myth can live on, mass graves and all.Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
        • It's a poor translation which is difficult to understand, but the full quote (beneath the unrelated table) is, "The initial estimations confirm that the previous statistic is not the final since there are many others (380 people) are still unaccounted. The Israeli forces, during the massacre, transferred the bodies of the dead to be buried away from the refugee camp in order to conceal the evidences of the massacre." Clearly referring to the April 2002 events. Eleland 22:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
        • The "official death toll" is 380, and that is the only figure that should appear in the lead of the article. This figure is not confirmed by anyone in the international community, but it comes from the PA, which is what makes it "official". We can and should mention the problems around it in a subsequent section, but there is no RS for the figure of 56. The figure/s given by Israel should be included, but must be juxtaposed with statements regarding its obstruction of *all* investigations and the statements it made about burying bodies elsewhere. PalestineRemembered 22:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
          • comment - this argument is really going in the wrong direction, i'm not discussing the reliability of this source (there is non) in comparison with the one of the washington post (they have some). unless you have a notice by the PA that the post was misquoting qadoura mousa and the events of the day, then we will have to agree to disagree. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

This is the second time that the Washington Times has been mis-characterised as the Washington Post. Over and above what we were told above, this is a truly notorious paper, utterly unsuitable to use for anything, let alone a claim as "surprising" as this one. The Columbia Journalism Review said of the Washington Times "because of its history of a seemingly ideological approach to the news, the paper has always faced questions about its credibility." and details a number of very non-RS incidents. Clearly, there are serious problems here with referencing - we don't even have the Washington Times article, we have a re-posting of the article by a race-hatred site that links to "Back to the Moslem Terrorist's Page" - immediately above this very story! Meanwhile, we have the PA, on it's own web-site, telling us that 380 people are/were missing. That's the official figure we have and the only one we should use in the lead. PalestineRemembered 07:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

reply:

(1+2) it matters not to me if this is the washington "times" or "post", i take it to be more credible than the PA website... even when regarding PA public statements. (i can muster some attacks on pretty much any news source, BBC, CNN, etc.)

(3+4) it matters not where the Washington article is hosted as long as we believe it to be true to the source (and we have camera as a second validation - we've already established them to be fairly credible for citing other sources).

(5) this 380 missing figure is not directly connected in the article to the april battles, in fact, it's more associated with the may 2002 and newer battles. please go over WP:SYN.

-- Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

We are actually using a copy of the Times piece in the article already; the copy hosted at that appalling hate site seems to match this copy hosted by a communist mailing list. Eleland 12:34, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

thank you, added to the top. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comments on sources by HG:

1. The Washington Times is a generally acceptable RS. Yes, there are editorial biases and problems, arguably linked partly to its ownership, but such flaws merely place it in a tier lower than higher quality US newspapers (e.g., Wall St Journal, Wash Post, NYT, Chi Tribune, LA Times etc). It is not a fringe paper.
2. CAMERA is a biased source, to be sure. I checked the Wash Times quote in Nexis, and the quote itself stands.
3. The number '56' does not seem implausible, given how many sources use 52 or 54 during that time period, based on my Nexis search. Interestingly, Wash Times Betsy Pisik the following day gives a somewhat different use of the number, writing: "...the Jenin hospital yesterday had confirmed only 56 deaths in eight days of pitched fighting ..." (The Washington Times. May 02, 2002, p.A01). The '56' was also used in: May 14, 2002, Tuesday "Hard-linders Blast Arafat. Palestinian chief target of angry chants near Jenin camp" By Bazinet and Siemaszko in New York Daily News. So, while I have no info about Paul Martin, absent stronger evidence to the contrary, I would be inclined to accept the Wash Times -- at least to put into the documentation mix.
4. For the PA. However, I'm not sure how strongly the source should be used to establish the views of PA/Fatah itself. If the PA continues to claim much higher numbers, I'm not sure that a single, even reliable exception can serve as more than a footnote about PA/Fatah's discourse. Ideally, it would be best to find a fairly academic, secondary source that can shed light on the apparent gap (sorry if I've misunderstood) between the PA's more speculative rhetoric and any PA statements that focus on confirmed deaths (presumably in the 50-60 range). HG | Talk 18:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

HG, I think this may be a moot point, as the PA document in question does not address Jenin casualties during the siege. Your point about the Washington Times being lower than top-rung journalism but not quite with World Weekly News at the supermarket checkout line is well-taken. I think however that the provenance of final death toll statistics is a bit of a red herring here. The NPOV problem, as PR has correctly and repeatedly pointed out, is our adoption of the massacre/no-massacre narrative. I address this in my aria below.--G-Dett 13:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Further comments by other users

• Comment - the source seems fine. Do we have any other officials that are not Saeb Erekat with some actual figures from the battle, other than Abu Mousa? -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 14:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The sources offered here are appalling - and represent a miniscule "Minor View". The "Major View" remains that this was a massacre (as the likes of the windsofchange.com and the Washington Times tell us themselves). Furthermore, we have an "official death-toll", and it's 380 (though we're not sure quite what dates or location is refered to), and that's what belongs in the lead. Meanwhile, there are massive other problems (as User:HG discovered when he set up his clarify Battle of Jenin page) and attempted to set out ground-rules to solve some of these content issues). PalestineRemembered 16:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Jaakobou is correct that the PA statistics represent Jenin from the end of May to the end of September; so they probably don't belong here. The 380, moreover, appears to represent the number that are missing, whereas the number of dead is given as 204. That said, I find unacceptable Jaakobou's reasoning that in principle, a PA statement is a non-reliable source, even as he treats official Israeli statements as not only notable, but as unquestioned and unquestionable fact (see last part of this edit).--G-Dett 20:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, despite what I said earlier, I'm actually not sure now what those particular numbers are supposed to refer to. The .ps sites are frankly all over the place and inconsistent. Here is one .gov.pa site which lists 99 alleged massacres from the Irgun days up to late 2005, but does not describe anything in Defensive Shield as a massacre. Here is another .gov.ps site which says, "the Israeli forces demolished the Camp completely on the heads of hundreds of its inhabitants women, children and elders using all their devastating weapons". Another .gov.ps site recounts "595 persons their names were not known and were killed in Jenin massacre and in Nablus", but the dates given are well after the Jenin/Nablus massacres which is very confusing. In additon, Hamas' terrorist wing says here that "More than 200 Palestinian were killed in the Massacre of Jenin." It's worth noting that absolutely nothing comes up for the number 56; you get a lot of news postings made at "11:31:56 AM" and the like, but nobody saying the total number was 56. Eleland 03:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

User:G-Dett - one of the significant problems with this article as it stands is that it ignores the fact that the events of April 2002 are only the high point of an ongoing campaign by the IDF. There were at least two more incursions into the camp with many Palestinian deaths, an Irish woman was shot and badly injured and Ian Hook was killed in November. Israeli killings only stopped for a brief time while there were reporters and observers present in Jenin in late April (and the bomb-disposal effort to protect them was blocked). I'm not sure how the article should deal with this, but the PA figures (subject to qualification based on time and location and difficulties) belong in the article first anyway. PalestineRemembered 09:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

• Suggestion. Here's an idea, it's not intended to favor any particular side here. Since there still seems to be disagreement here on how to report Jenin deaths, I'm wondering if you might put together a concise table of the various contested sources and their data? The table would be for Talk or a Talk subpage -- I doubt it's needed for the article, though here's an example of such a table. The table could list the Source, Publication Date, Other citation info (e.g., author & page #), Data on deaths/casualties, Basis for data (e.g., interviews), Notes (e.g., key quotes, a note about other reports by this Source elsewhere in the Table). Even if you all come to a quick resolution for now, such a Table might provide documentation to inform future generations of Wikipedia editors. Move or refactor this idea as needed. Thanks. HG | Talk 03:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC) NB -- Belated move by HG, sorry. See next section. HG | Talk 18:49, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back, HG. Your idea is great, it might even be a requirement of resolution. However, it is not going to work if reliable sources is to be trashed as has been happening here. For starters, the claims of CAMERA and the Washington Times are totally unacceptable in this article (when presenting "surprising" results, anyway, but probably in any case).

The other problem I see is that your earlier suggestions and work were simply ignored, with accusations totally unsupported dissing of your good faith. I don't see how that can be acceptable - if there are real objections to your contribution, someone has to put together a reasoned case for it. Drive-by assassinations will need to be treated as serious disruption of the project, and acted against. PalestineRemembered 07:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

what is so surprising if the UN gave the figure of 52 ? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

It might be useful for a mediator to demand that editors of this article check the references that they are quoting, and withdraw any falsehoods that get inadvertently inserted.

The UN report actually says "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" and "Fifty-two Palestinian deaths had been confirmed by the hospital in Jenin by the end of May 2002. IDF also place the death toll at approximately 52. A senior Palestinian Authority official alleged in mid-April that some 500 were killed, a figure that has not been substantiated in the light of the evidence that has emerged". It is astonishing that you can misread your reference to the extent that you've apparently done.

But you have been reminded of this repeatedly - it is difficult to understand how you can still be placing misleading material into both the article and Talk. PalestineRemembered 09:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

i apologize for the short "52" version rather than the longer "at least 52" version. i still don't see why the number of 56 is implausible considering the previous known number was 52. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:38, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

On September 10, 2007, I corrected Human Rights Watch's casualties figure to at least 52 in the "Infobox Military Conflict," conflict=Battle of Jenin. The source is http://hrw.org/reports/2002/israel3/israel0502-01.htm#P49_1774

Later on September 10, 2007, Tewfik changed it back to the incorrect '52' without the 'at least' prefix, and said, "the year is 2007, not 2002; lets not revise history." Blindjustice 10:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Blindjustice, how does this connect to the current topic of the Qadoura Mousa source? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Jaakobou, it is not for you to determine the "current topic" of discussion. Eleland 15:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Eleland, maybe it's my fault. It's fair for the current topic to be defined by the section heading. But I shifted topics. So I'll now move my suggestion to a new topic, below. Continue discussion here for comments about "Palestine Authority claim 56 dead?" please. (And forgive my hindsighted refactor.) Thanks! HG | Talk 18:49, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Table of potential sources

Suggestion. Here's an idea, it's not intended to favor any particular side here. Since there still seems to be disagreement here on how to report Jenin deaths, I'm wondering if you might put together a concise table of the various contested sources and their data? The table would be for Talk or a Talk subpage -- I doubt it's needed for the article, though here's an example of such a table. The table could list the Source, Publication Date, Other citation info (e.g., author & page #), Data on deaths/casualties, Basis for data (e.g., interviews), Notes (e.g., key quotes, a note about other reports by this Source elsewhere in the Table). Even if you all come to a quick resolution for now, such a Table might provide documentation to inform future generations of Wikipedia editors. Move or refactor this idea as needed. Thanks. HG | Talk 03:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC) :Note. This suggestion moved from above. So far, there's been one direct response by PR, excerpted below. Let me know if this slight refactoring isn't clear. HG | Talk 18:49, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back, HG. Your idea is great, it might even be a requirement of resolution. //snipped by HG, see full text above// PalestineRemembered 07:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with the suggestion. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 00:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree, and in fact this goes along with some stuff I said above, before I read all the way down here. well done. thanks for your efforts. --Steve, Sm8900 02:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Good, sounds like positive momentum (!). Who can set up the Table format on a Talk subpage? Hopefully, you all can mostly copy info into the Table from the article, Talk or Talk archives. Originally, I'd have suggested simply ordering all entries chronologically. But if you're willing, perhaps you can format the Table by source types. Not to freak you out, but how about these types (this is not endorsing or ranking them, please!!): (a) the UN, (b) independent watchdog groups, like HRW and AI, (c) Israeli and Palestinian govt sources, (d) other govts like USA, EU, (e) major media, (f) self-identified partisans, eg Camera. Anyway, let's cooperate with putting entries into the table and not worry about the types yet, ok? Thanks. HG | Talk 03:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't wish to be awkward, but I can see at least 3 problems with this: 1) there have been repeated attempts to confuse quite good RS sources with very poor ones - this "fact-finding exercise" will be rendered worthless if it is allowed to be overtaken by such a damaging practice. 2) sources that come with no independent thinking/verification (ie simply repeat what involved parties say or act as mouthpieces for involved parties) need be excluded. 3) sources who have attempted to interfere with the investigations of other sources or have acted as if they have something to hide should be quarantined. If their contribution is so significant that it cannot be left out, then it must come with a "health warning". And ....... 4) it shouldn't need saying, but we should not include any sources that appear to hate one party or the other by "group-fault" reasoning.

I'm prepared to keep out of this exercise if we can agree ground-rules that exclude partisan sources whose good-faith or reliability is questionable. I invite any editors who would appear to be totally partisan to do the same. PalestineRemembered 07:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Your second (2) point is esp useful. We don't need to keep listing redundant sources, except maybe if they add a higher degree of authority or analysis. E.g., once the U.N. is cited by the Wall St Journal, we won't list citations by the Cleveland Plain Dealer etc. Otherwise, though, let's list all the sources folks think might be relevant, for now. After we see the whole picture, then we can decide what to exclude from the Article itself for the various reasons mentioned by PR. Ok? By filling out the table in this way, we can defer your disagreements over questionable sources and gain some perspective first. Thanks for clarifying these, PR. HG | Talk 09:05, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I object. The chances of getting this article into any kind of reasonable shape have been systematically wrecked by the use of sources that are clearly unfit to be used for questions of fact. Not just once, but at every turn and on almost every item of fact and every paragraph in this article. We'll get nowhere if the "mediation/fact-finding" goes down this ludicrous, completely unproductive route. It's not as if part of this hasn't already been decided by the RfC on RSs in this article, see "next section below": PalestineRemembered 10:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

i think it's a good idea for solving issues for the long run. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

PR, this seems like the best routoe to constructive compromise. There are many Palestinian sources whom the world considers fringe, because they consider Israel's creation to be the result of war crimes, theft of Palestinian land, and suppression of Palestinian rights. There are other sources who believe Israel has no right to exist at all. Would you like them excluded completely, since they are extremist groups? or would you like to see some reasonable way to show that there are two very different viewpoints and approaches at work here, both with some valid acceptance, within their own communities? I am trying to be open to a way that reflects that there is another side to this issue, even if I totally disagree with it. --Steve, Sm8900 13:46, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll play by the rules, the ones that say "we don't listen to Palestinians (or any non-Israelis in the ME) under any circumstances". It has nothing to do with them being extreme - electronicintifada and palestineremembered are both much calmer and much closer to being RS than CAMERA, as even a glance will tell you. PalestineRemembered 18:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

calm, huh? hmmm. The official position of the Palestinian Authority is that any suicide attacks which occur are the work of renegades and rogue elements. So I assume you calm sites must be rather vociferous in their condemnation of any such violence? As well as the fact that any jew setting foot in Ramallah is instantly set upon? Oh wait, i forgot, Israel is just as guilty of violence as the Palestinians. That must be why 100,000 of them work in israel, while not one Israeli cans et foot in a single Palestinian town.

Sorry for my rant, but I am trying to indicate that While I am able to comprehend and even repeat the Palestinian position, that does not mean that I agree with it. i know you feel just as much annoyance at Israel's actions, and I am not trying to negate your heartfelt feelings as well. I am also trying to indicate that, yes, I may have genuine objections to these sites, as you probably guessed, and I woiuld not deny that at all, but I am willing to accept them in order to respect your concerns, and to achieve objectivity, regardless of whatever objections I might ordinarily have. --Steve, Sm8900 19:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

If you guys don't mind my saying so, aren't the last two comments veering off topic ("Table of potential sources")? If I had my druthers, you'd each strikeout your own.HG | Talk 20:10, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, if you want. --Steve, Sm8900 20:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

HG -> I'm entirely serious about what I'm saying, and it's entirely on topic - CAMERA and the Washington Times are terrible sources that we should not be using for almost anything, due to the angriness of their presentation and their reputations for distortion. (I knew they were bad, it was only researching this case that brought home to me just how bad they are).

By comparison, the major Palestinian sources would seem to be fairly good - they might even match some regular RS's. Al-Jazeera is world-class, I'd have thought it was better than the BBC since 2003 and the hounding to death of the WMD expert.

But I don't even bother looking at news from those "other" Middle East sources, knowing that referencing them would simply get me hounded out of the project. I want to insert video links into Israeli Settlement - they show actual settlers in their own words, after all, no nasty Palestinian propaganda there. I'd like to quote a Holocaust Survivor and ex-Professor of the Hebrew University at Qibya Massacre, you know I'd never be allowed to do that either. PalestineRemembered 23:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

CAMERA was rejected as an RS by the RfC

This is the summing up (by me, PR) of the RfC on the use of CAMERA. The floodgates of partisan contribution that swamped this RfC were opened by a very experienced editor later found to be running long-standing sock-puppets and using them to edit-war. But two and a half uninvolved editors did participate and were pretty definite about their opinions.

• Summary - this section was overwhelmed by people party to the original debate (and I joined in, sorry).
• There were two "un-involved" editors, the sense of their contributions seems to have been as follows: "CAMERA is not serving as a 'convenience link' in the sense in which some advocacy websites host duplicates of print articles from more reliable sources. CAMERA is quoting from secondary sources. Thus it should be used with care, and preferably minimized, with alternative confirmation of those news stories found. User:Hornplease 10:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)"[14]
• And "CAMERA is obviously not a generally reliable source for controversial material. .... the initial question is can be be used for its copy of another source. I think the solution then is to quote the place it copies, e.g. the Jerusalem Post, and then say (as reported by ), But if the original source is accessible, why not find it and cite it? ..... User:DGG 02:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[15]
• There was a third semi-involved editor, User:Number_57 had visited the article 5 days earlier hoping to mediate. His involvement may have led him to make this comment: "Talk about selective interpretation! Yes it might be reliable for quotes, but as Nishidani also points out, it is a completely unreliable source for its meaning. Can you guarantee that the source will only be used for quotes and that it will not be referenced for meaning? I very much doubt it. Number 57 08:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)"[16]
• In conclusion, I believe the community, as discovered from this noticeboard, "finds that CAMERA is a source that should only be used with great care". PalestineRemembered 09:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

comment by jaakobou - (1) i disagree that Number57 is only semi-invovled, but that's not the main issue. (2) i agree 100% that camera should be used with great care, however, in this case, we've validated about 46 out of 50 citations, so there's really no reason to believe anything to be false... if there is a certain unvalidated quote which concerns you, you can bring it up and i'll do my best to validate it. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm missing something obvious, but I have no idea what the "46 out of 50 citations" is meant to refer to. Are we now citing CAMERA 50 times? The article wasn't that bad the last time I checked! Furthermore, I must note that your understanding of what "validation" means is contrary to general understanding of the term. Validating would mean you found the original, read it, and cited it, not that you determined that the article really did exist, but you have no idea what it said. Eleland 12:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

i'm well aware of how you interpret the fact that i made a phone call to the publisher and validated that the quote exists as is on the original and not out of context. in my opinion, that is a solid enough validation - you however, disagree. am i correct? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's do it this way: 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 for now notability of such a narrative). Thus, if as PR pointed out, there's a mutual agreement that a given source is unreliable, then nobody need bother entering such an unreliable source into the Table. If at least one User feels that a source may deserve to be utilized in the Article, he/she may add the source. Clear and fair enough? HG | Talk 14:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid we're not going to get anywhere if we reject (in this case) even the considered opinion of the community as expressed in the RfC, and carry on shoe-horning angry, badly referenced and very "surprising" material from CAMERA

It really would be worth your while reading the CAMERA article "A Study in Palestinian Duplicity and Media Indifference". Then ask yourself whether - "if this was Palestinians so angry would you or I give them any credibility whatsoever?" The answer is "of course not!".

If the title alone didn't give it away then the text does so, trying to persuade us "despite copious evidence of their blatant lying – the latest proof being United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan's August 1, 2002 report refuting their fictitious “massacre”– the credibility of these spokesmen with the American press is apparently unaffected.".

And reading this article would remind you what I said before - our article is written to quite a small "Minority View" (even in the English-speaking world, let alone everywhere else). Here is what CAMERA is trying to persuade us (as of August 2002, 14 weeks after the event): "The fact that the American media (with a few exceptions) seem either unwilling to critically evaluate their facilitating of Palestinian misinformation or unaware of their complicity in the phenomenon underscores the importance of a serious presentation of the nature and scope of the problem."

Please don't spoil my tea by telling me that that the CAMERA article is a "serious presentation" of anything - or that it doesnt confirm what I told you first, Israel was/is near universally condemned over this incident! PalestineRemembered 16:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

PR does have a valid point, even if I do accept CAMERA sources. Can anyoine please find some jpost.com articles or some other sources which indicate that Israel was not deservinbg of being condemned? Surely jpost.com must have covered this in some manner which might be more positive. --Steve, Sm8900 16:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't take much notice of the Jerusalem Post, but I'm not aware of it being angry or appearing to distort things the way that CAMERA does. I wouldn't expect to have any objection to their death estimates appearing - go for it! PalestineRemembered 16:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

first paragraph is TERRIBLE

has nothing to do with the actual battle of Jenin and simply adds to the confusion

"Palestinian refugees living in the camp have been denied the right of return or compensation for the confiscation of their property by Israel. Zionist terrorist groups, such as Irgun and Lehi (group) (also known as the Stern Gang) played a major role in achieving Israeli independence, and the massacre at Deir Yassin and at other locations where civilians were targeted were successful in instilling terror in the indigenous non-Jewish population and which motivated them to flee."

All of that is unnecesary and belongs in a different article Drsmoo 05:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

i agree, this is a case of (what i believe to be vandalism) someone inserting inappropriate material (never introduced into the article before) just before it was locked.^[17] Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

What it is, is a misguided attempt to illustrate the absurdity of the lede's focus on suicide bombing by introducing another issue that is only tangentially releated to be battle of Jenin. While I don't approve of this disruption, calling it "vandalism" is a little rich. Eleland 12:00, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

you call it misguided, i call it vandalism. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

not a big deal, but I call it "misguided". We've all been there, including myself. --Steve, Sm8900 13:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

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)

Date (dd mon yyyy)	Count & type of count	Attributed source	Reporting source(s)	Notes
09 Apr 2002	perhaps > 120	Reports from inside camp	Inigo Gilmore for Daily Telegraph	Reporter in Rummana near Jenin talks to non-combatants arrested and taken from camp.
12 Apr 2002	about 100 estimated	IDF	BBC News	"According to the Haaretz newspaper, military sources said two IDF infantry companies were scheduled to enter the camp on Friday to collect the dead."
14 Apr 2002	150-200 estimated	IDF	IDF Capt. Jacob Dallal in The New Republic Online [18], [19]
18 Apr 2002	about 65 bodies recovered	Zalmon Shoval, aide to Ariel Sharon	BBC News
18 Apr 2002	at least 52	HRW	HRW	"This figure may rise as rescue and investigative work proceeds...Due to the low number of people reported missing, Human Rights Watch does not expect this figure to increase substantially."
18 Apr 2002	54 + 1 not recovered	Palestinian hospital lists	Amnesty International
23 Apr 2002	40 + 120	Derek Pounder, Forensic Scientist	Guardian	"Even if one accepts the Israeli claim that "only" 40 Palestinians died, there ought to be another 120 lying badly wounded, in hospital. But they are nowhere to be found. We draw the conclusion that they were allowed to die where they were,"
7 May 2002	c. 375 in all West Bank	PA	PA figure included in UN report	" While the exact number of Palestinians killed is still not final, given the circumstances of the situation on the ground, as of now reports indicate that 375 Palestinians were killed from 29 March to 7 May 2002" (Nablus included, thought to have 80 Palestinians and 3 soldiers dead).

Additional deaths and bodies found:

Date (dd mon yyyy)	Additional deaths & bodies found	Attributed source	Reporting source(s)	Notes
Early May 2002	at least 2 more	Witnesses	UN Report	Bomb-disposal teams refused entry for 'several weeks' in which time at least two Palestinians were accidentally killed in explosions from various Palestinian and IDF ordnance.
21 Jun 2002	2 more	Witnesses	Amnesty International	"two months after Operation Defensive Shield ... IDF reoccupation of the West Bank ... shot from a tank at Dr Samer al-Ahmad, and killed two brothers, six-year-old Ahmad and 12-year-old Jamil Yusuf Ghazawi, seriously wounding their brother, Tareq, and Dr al-Ahmad."
21 Jun 2002	1 child	Witnesses	Amnesty International	"IDF blew up an unoccupied house in the old city area of Jenin .. demolished an adjacent house ... eight family members ... trapped in the rubble. ... 12-year-old child, Fares, died."
4/8 Aug 2002	4 more	12 Internationals	Jenin Inquiry	From the US, UK, Ireland, Canada, Norway. Including an international lawyer. 3 bodies 4th August, 1 body 8th August from under rubble.
XX Apr 2002	XX	XX	XX [20]

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)

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)