Talk:Battle of Jenin (2002)/Archive 9

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.
09 Apr 2002	a massacre	Foreign Minister Shimon Peres "a massacre"	Ha'aretz quoted by Indymedia	Peres also quoted saying "When the world sees the pictures of what we have done there, it will do us immense damage." [note: Ha'aretz changed story completely the same day.]
c. 10 Apr 2002	up to 200	'very senior generals'	Australia/Israel Jewish Affairs Council Sept 2005	"the press quoted Defence officials with numbers ranging as high as 250. These figures made the Palestinian claims of 500 dead seem within the bounds of plausibility."
10 Apr 2002	'could reach 500'	Saeb Erekat on CNN	17.00pm	"the numbers I am receiving today is that the numbers of killed could reach 500 since the Israeli offensive began" (hence, throughout West Bank.)
10 Apr 2002	'more than 500'	Unidentified male, Saeb Erekat repeats	20.00pm	UNIDENTIFIED MALE: They have committed a major crime today in the old city of Nablus and the (UNINTELLIGIBLE). The number killed, more than 500 people there. SAEB EREKAT: "number of Palestinian dead in the Israeli attacks have reached more than 500 now. ... number may increase ... massacres committed in ... Jenin refugee camp and ... Nablus."
11 Apr 2002	500	Palestinians	CNN correspondent Ben Wedeman	"The Palestinians are reporting 500 dead."
11 Apr 2002	possibly as much as 200	International relief sources	CNN correspondent Ben Wedeman	"International relief sources are saying possibly as much as 200."
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"
12 Apr 2002	100 to 150	Israeli Foreign Ministry	CNN	between 100 and 150, 95% being Palestinian gunmen
12 Apr 2002	200 - 500	Israel, Palestinians and Red Cross	CNN correspondent Ben Wedeman	"Israeli officials .... say around 200. Palestinians say 500. The Red Cross is somewhere in between."
12 Apr 2002	around 200	IDF	Ha'aretz	"IDF intends to bury ... Around 200 Palestinians are believed to have been killed ... those identified as terrorists will be buried at a special cemetery in the Jordan Valley." {Israeli Supreme Court blocks then allows this.)
13 Apr 2002	some 250 killed	Israeli military sources	South African BC	"The Israeli army says it lost nearly two dozen of its own and military sources have estimated some 250 Palestinians were killed."
13 Apr 2002	100s, Israel preparing to bury 900	Yasser Abed Rabbo, Palestinian information minister	South African BC	"The Palestinians say hundreds more were killed and Yasser Abed Rabbo, the Palestinians' information minister, yesterday accused Israel of digging mass graves for 900 Palestinians in the camp."
14 Apr 2002	"had estimated 150-200"	Israeli army	Capt Dallal in New Republic reprinted AIJAC	Captain Jacob Dallal is former Deputy Director of the International Press Office of the IDF Spokesperson’s Unit.
14 Apr 2002	dozens not hundreds	Defence Minister Ben Eliezer	Australia/Israel Jewish Affairs Council	"Sunday morning [14th] when then-Defence Minister Binyamin Ben Eliezer reported to the cabinet that "dozens not hundreds" were killed."
17 Apr 2002	not less than 500	Saeb Erakat	on CNN	"to have an international commission of inquiry to get the results (ph) and to decide how many people were massacred. And we say the number will not be less than 500."
17 Apr 2002	No more than 45	Ben-Eliezer	on CNN	"No more than 45, sir. That's what we have counted. And, you know, the amazing thing that we have found among them, more so than, by the way, were uniformed. And two of them, just recently we found them, with -- as a suicide bomber."
18 Apr 2002	c. 65 bodies recovered	Zalmon Shoval, aide to Ariel Sharon	BBC News	Zalmon Shoval, adviser to Sharon "defended Israel's actions, saying it was fighting for its life ... only about 65 bodies had been recovered, of which five were civilians. "
18 Apr 2002	at least 52	HRW	HRW	"This figure may rise as rescue and investigative work proceeds...Due to the low number of people reported missing, Human Rights Watch does not expect this figure to increase substantially."
18 Apr 2002	54	Palestinian hospital lists	Amnesty International	"According to hospital lists ... there were 54 Palestinian deaths between 3 and 17 April 2002 ... not a single corpse was brought into the hospital from 5 until 15 April"
23 Apr 2002	40 + 120	Derek Pounder, Forensic Scientist	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"
3 May 2002	53 + 22	Palestinian medics, UN officials	SMH	"Palestinian medics in Jenin have so far recorded 53 corpses, including 21 civilians, and UN officials have estimated 22 others are missing."
7 May 2002	c. 375 in all West Bank	PA	PA figure included in UN report	" While the exact number of Palestinians killed is still not final ... as of now reports indicate that 375 Palestinians were killed from 29 March to 7 May 2002" (Nablus included, thought to have 80 Palestinians and 3 soldiers dead).

Additional deaths and bodies not in the original counts:

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 remaining Palestinian ordnance and mines allegedly laid by the IDF according to Jordan in UN report.
4/8 Aug 2002	4 bodies found	12 Internationals	Jenin Inquiry	12 from the US, UK, Ireland, Canada, Norway, including an international lawyer. 3 bodies 4th August, 1 body 8th August from under rubble.

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

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

Date (dd mon yyyy)	Rumour	Attributed source	Source reporting rumour	Notes
11 Apr 2002	500	"Saeb Erekat has told CNN"	Ali Abunimah on ElectronicIntifada (or) claims misquote	Jpost allegedly misreported Saeb Erekat saying "told CNN that Israel had 'massacred' 500 people in the Jenin camp" not "the numbers I am receiving today is that the numbers of killed could reach 500 since the Israeli offensive began" (ie West Bank generally).
12 Apr 2002	no estimate	"IDF general staff meeting"	Captain Jacob Dallal on AIJAC	"talk at the IDF general staff meeting on Friday [12th] of removing the bodies of Palestinian gunmen and burying them elsewhere proved to be the nail in the coffin of Israel’s PR effort."
?? Apr 2002	52 in UN report	misquote of the UN report	Captain Jacob Dallal on AIJAC	Captain Jacob Dallal, former Deputy Director of International Press Office "I gathered the press together and went over the Palestinian body count. According to the final UN Report on Jenin, 52 Palestinians were killed in the fighting, a figure Israel accepts as definitive"

Please expand the above table; also please document properly and read your sources carefully. Be sure to distinguish between (say) "37" and "at least 37 recovered at Hospital X"; if there are ambiguities document them in the notes. Eleland 13:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of transfering the contents of these 2 tables to this location, for linking from the article. I have made some further small changes, please check the template I've created. What I've not succeeded in doing is making the two tables line up! PalestineRemembered 16:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I appreciate the work you're putting into this PR. Don't think we need a template, just maybe this table (or moved to a Talk/subpage), as background documentation and to help us finish up the discussion. Thanks! HG | Talk 17:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Jaakobou seems to have an aversion to one of the entries in the "subsequent deaths" table - do you think we should humour him and take it out? PalestineRemembered 22:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I have further divided the table into deaths outside the siege period and/or outside the camp. I think we need a record of these deaths because they appear in the same references, in relation to the same incident (even though they're not part of it). We might choose not to include this last part in the final table. I have updated the template so that it reads the same as this table, but I propose that, temporarily, we treat the copy here as "the master". PalestineRemembered 09:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Please check my links and quotes. Some links not provided, since I've picked up details from sources that may be dangerously Palestinian-sympathetic - some may have to come out. PR^talk(New Sig for PalstinRembred) 23:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Add a 4th table, estimates and sources that apparently made mistakes, or started rumours identified as such by the reporting sources given. PR^talk(New Sig for PalstinRembred) 08:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The fat lady sings about facts, structure, and tone

The revised-casualty-statistics narrative as presented by the top-tier journalistic sources and human rights groups is roughly as follows: Jenin was completely sealed from the outside world – both from the media and from relief organizations – for the duration of the siege. During this time, human rights groups were constantly telephoning residents of the camp, and what they could glean – killing of defenseless civilians, the flattening of large sections of the camp, bodies piling up in the streets, people being used as human shields – was more or less the only eye-witness information the media had to go on. These accounts were very grim, and the international community – including even the US government – voiced grave concerns. There were rumors of massacre; the media reported these rumors, but largely described them as such and put the word "massacre" in quotes. When outsiders were finally admitted to the camp, they described the devastation as appalling. Israel's refusal to cooperate with the UN and other investigations heightened suspicions. When the reports from the international investigations were completed, they found strong evidence of war crimes – including willful killing of civilians, "indiscriminate and disproportionate" use of force, and the blocking of medical aid and other emergency necessities – but no evidence of massacres, and significantly lower casualty numbers than had initially been estimated. The mainstream international discussion shifted from one invoking Sabra and Shatila to one invoking the ethical dilemmas of urban warfare, asymmetrical warfare, counter-insurgency and collective punishment.

Here, however, partisans on each side go in different directions, picking different cherries and cropping their pictures in different ways. Pro-Palestinian partisans of course emphasize the destruction, the war crimes, etc., but they also emphasize the atmosphere of suspicion, fear, and outrage in the early days – the shock of the first outside observers to enter the camp, for example, or the demands from the international community to end the siege, rebuffed by Israel; meanwhile they tend to gloss over the significant contrast between what was feared to have transpired and what did in fact transpire. If they're very pro-Palestinian, and not terribly scrupulous, they'll insinuate a coverup and emphasize rumors of refrigerated trucks bearing off hundreds of corpses, etc., and try to give them credibility without overtly endorsing them. Pro-Israel partisans, by contrast, emphasize the revised body count and the finding of "no evidence of massacres," present these as an acquittal of sorts, and tend to present the other findings as if they were miscellaneous addenda to a not-guilty verdict – addenda moreover hesitant, qualified, inconclusive, not terribly significant and probably biased anyway. If they're very pro-Israel, and not terribly scrupulous, they'll insinuate a hoax and emphasize state-sponsored rumors of staged atrocities, humanitarian aid rebuffed because of "Jews' blood," and snicker about "pallywood" and fake funerals and deliberate exaggeration and the complicity of the international media in same.

The NPOV problem with this article is that we've adopted this second propaganda version as the structural, factual, and tonal basis for our overall presentation of source material.--G-Dett 23:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

P.S. My edit summary, which was cut short when a chubby pinky chubbily hit "Shift" and "Enter" together, was meant to apologize to Steve for the brusqueness and arrogance with which I asked him not to reformat my comments. HG is in the process of breaking me; give him time.--G-Dett 13:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. thanks for your comment to me. I'm being broken of some habits of my own too, by various people in various ways! :-) that's fine. thanks a lot. --Steve, Sm8900 14:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, G-Dett, your synopsis makes some sense (though straying from our topic, eh?!). But I'm not sure characterizing Wikipedians as partisans is so helpful since we need to encourage everybody to see themselves as neutral editors. (The new you could strike your 2nd para, ;-> ) Anyways, I did notice some structural similarity betw the Camera approach and our "Body count estimates" section, which isn't necessarily wrong per se except that the section is mislabeled. Ideally, the section would start off with a simple statement of the body counts as known today. (Or a range, if disputed or unknown.) Later, there can be a section like what we have now, which shows the chronological development of the controversy over the 'massacre' designation and the death toll. Personally, I think the ups and downs of the reporting is of less general interest, and arguably less notable in the long run, but anyways it should be labeled differently. See what I mean? Thanks. HG | Talk 01:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Whoa whoa whoa, HG, the pro-Palestinian and pro-Israel "partisans" I'm referring to aren't Wikipedians! I'm talking about opinion-oriented source material, that has produced two competing meta-accounts: one for which no-massacre was a whitewash, the other for which no-massacre is the narrative climax and the central significance of the siege of Jenin. Neither of these meta-accounts is the mainstream account, but our article is weirdly in thrall to the second of them, and that's the main POV problem.

I note that SM8900 has adopted Jaakobou's disconcerting habit of reformating and subheading the comments of other editors. I think this is a problematic practice in general, but I have to ask both of you to refrain altogether from doing it in my case. This is not a "colloquy on tone," and your mislabeling it as such is a good illustration of why it isn't wise to presume to divine the essence of other editors' contributions to the talk page.--G-Dett 03:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Point taken. I may still do so in the future, but I will try to always respect your concerns, and use very neutral headings, to avoid any appearance of intrusion. By the way, any sub-headings which I add are almost always only for convenience, and not for any other reason. I respect your point of view, and would not wish to misrepresent your comments, or to distort or slant your viewpoint or contributions in any way. thanks, --Steve, Sm8900 13:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok I'm reined in. Just delete 'Here' at the outset of your soliloquy <smile>. But really, your point is that the q of the Wash Times sources is moot. So you are off-topic and maybe you should put in a subheading. HG | Talk 04:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I see the validity of the points from both of you. however, the only way to handle this is to list the allegations of both sides, and then to label them as that--allegations. I know you probably think we can attain some understanding or conception of what should be the objective tone or content of the article. however, i feel that really, we will simply go in circles on this, since the two sides are more or less irreconcialable. I am opening to listing Palestinian allegations if they are well-sourced. i am rather tolerant of some sources which some might seek to call fringe, as the partisan sources of either side might always seem somewhat fringe to some other people or to some other editors. --Steve, Sm8900 02:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

page move

It appears the article was recently moved from it's previous title at "Battle of Jenin," to "Massacre of Jenin,"^[1],[2] without discussion, and by an editor who has previously not edited this article. Could we hear what the arguments are for this name change, or if (as I suspect,) most others agree with me that the name change was not a good idea, can we move it back soon? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

note: it appears someone also blanked out the redirect page.^[3]. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

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

Staying focused with an agenda

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

If so, it might be easier to stay focused if you all are confident that other issues will be addressed. Let me toss out an idea. You can shoot it down, but please recommend a constructive alternative, ok? What if we think about breaking the existing "Body count estimates" section into three or four pieces? You all could then work on them in this order:

• 1st, an intro about the importance of body counts to understanding the impact of Jenin as a battle and as a controversy within the broader Israeli-Palestinian conflict. (Actually, intros I tend to write last.)
• 2nd, a piece on the best, up-to-date data on body count estimates. I suspect this will emphasize confirmed counts, e.g. UN source. But it could also take note of differences of opinion, such as current Palestinian concerns with deaths before or after the battle, as well as suspected deaths that may not have been accounted for. (Please forgive me if this isn't POV-balanced enough.) So keep working on the documentation table, ok?
• 3rd, a subsection about the Reporting of Casualties -- this would aim to describe the chronology, the ups and downs, of body count reports and the consequent investigations and media coverage. Much of the current section lays out the sources/quotes/facts. If you don't mind my saying so, the current section reads a bit too staccato and might be condensed into more of a narrative. (Are there any fairly neutral secondary sources that already give this narrative about competing PA-IDf reports, the media scramble, the investigations?) It would conclude, of course, by arriving at our up-to-date data (in the 2nd piece).
• 4th, tied to the Reporting of Casualties narrative, we need to deal with controversial Reporting of such descriptors as "massacre" and "war crimes" etc. I'd recommend that we write about this reporting in stages. Later, maybe with the help of uninvolved editors, we might weave the Reporting of XXX units together.

Well, please let me know if you understand what I'm suggesting and if you think it has legs to stand on. Thanks for hearing me out. HG | Talk 12:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I think even a rough idea of the death toll isn't known and never will be known. For reasons that are basically very clear to anyone who examines the sources (and as should be clear to anyone who reads our account).

The best we can say is something along the lines of "The bodies of around 50 Palestinians are known to have passed through the hospital during the attack, only the briefest examination being possible by observers and the forensic scientist. Remarkably few (if any) badly injured people were presented for treatment when the siege was lifted, and there was no organised (let alone mechanised) search made in the rubble. It is impossible to say how many were killed and Palestinian sources seem to have only quite sketchy estimates. However, a figure between 200 and 300 seems reasonable according to these 2 tables. The early estimate of 500 is not supported, and the eye-witness accounts of mass shootings presented by at least one major British newspaper were never corroborated."

I'm prepared to compromise and leave out the "massacre of 3, 1 survivor" allegation, firm though it is, in order not to make waves. It should really be amongst the "other allegations" section somewhere. PalestineRemembered 16:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

comment - with all due respect to the honest attempt at getting some concensus, i think the currect usage of the chart has become a sad display of inability to stay NPOV. when deaths that occur 2 months after the battle are listed, i honestly don't know what is the point of participating in this chart. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

All we are doing at this stage is putting all the cards on the table, so to speak. Let's not fold our hand yet. We'll clarify what data we have, then we'll discuss where we agree and where we disagree (both about the sources and their use in the article). Hopefully, we can narrow down the points of disagreement. (E.g., as you comment, what time period should be used for the article's subject matter?) Then we're editing the article to fairly present the disputed points in an appropriate way. Make sense? HG | Talk 19:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

MEMRI etc. sources

i know you're trying your best to keep things going, but if i were to play with the same hand, we'd be getting videos that memri collected from the arab and iranian world about 9-11... sometimes people have no sense of the basic rules, and this is the reason for my comment above. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

MEMRI is credibly accused of cheating, eg "Every time I wrote Zionism, MEMRI replaced the word by Jew or Judaism. Now, I don't know what Barakat actually wrote - but MEMRI's translation is here. They've made no reference to the fact that the author contests the translation. That last factor, just on it's own, makes them dishonest. If the article is indeed mis-translated then the intention was presumably to incite race-hatred. It should be obvious that we don't use such sources, even if some of the less careful do use them. (Incidentally, MEMRI is also credibly accused of mass copyright violation - western media would not take kindly to their words being translated and distributed for free). PR^talk(New Sig for PalstinRembred) 18:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

since when is the muslim brotherhood a credible source for anything? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate you have real problems with these people, but then you've previously told us you have real problems with practising Jews and secular Israelis when I've quoted those people. For the moment, the Muslim Brotherhood claim that a writer of Arabic has been badly misquoted to make him appear anti-semitic. I've no way of knowing who is right - but I know that, if an author objects to a translation of his work, it is dishonest to continue to publish it without some kind of explanation. (And I suspect it's dishonest to publish a translation of his work without paying him). There are other accusations of serious misconduct aimed at MEMRI, including a report commissioned by the Greater London Council.

You've told us before you can make allegations against any RS - I don't think you can make a credible case against any of them as good as the one just made against MEMRI. (Or the ones made earlier against CAMERA and the Washington Times, since I don't recall you ever challenging the case made against them. Nor have I seen a justification for "International media initially reported the fighting as the Jenin Massacre." being in the article). PR^talk(New Sig for PalstinRembred) 19:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

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

Extremely frustrating

We've been showing for months how international media did not, in fact, report that a massacre took place in Jenin. They reported that reports of a massacre existed, and gave them varying degrees of credibility and emphasis depending on the outlet and the phase of events. And yet still I'm seeing flat falsehoods editing into the article; it currently reads "International media initially reported the fighting as the Jenin Massacre." At this point I'm of half a mind to just give up, and leave this article to the Likudniks. Eleland 21:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

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

i disagree with your content point, i very much think that the massacre claims were the frontward of how this issue was reported, and as a perfect example we just had a drive by editor who renamed the article to "massacre of jenin".^[4] another perfect example is a quick run through on the titles of articles. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Eleland's objection sounds as if it is spot-on. By the Hated Google Test, there are far more references to "Jenin Massacre" (34,000) than there are to "Battle of Jenin" (13,000). But calling it the "Jenin Massacre" is (I'm fairly certain) only something that came about after the reporters had been into the camp, seen the destruction and smelt the decomposition.

Still, if we're both wrong, then you'll be able to prove to us that "International media initially reported the fighting as the Jenin Massacre". I don't think you'll be able to do that, in fact, I strongly suspect it's a terminological inexactitude that's been inserted into the article and needs to come out again. PalestineRemembered 22:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Fine, rather than get into an argument about whether you're a Likudnik and whether I'm a Hamasnik, let's just ignore that last. And yes, I already saw the move, Jaakobou. My point is that nobody has been able to provide a single mainstream source "reporting the fighting as the Jenin Massacre"; all we have is a bunch of articles saying things like "Jenin 'Massacre Evidence Growing'", a headline properly read as, "In Jenin, somebody who we find reasonably credible says that evidence of a massacre is growing." I have not seen in major Western media a single straight report of a Jenin Massacre, as distinct from a report of allegations, rumours, reports or statements of a Jenin massacre, and I don't believe one was ever made. Eleland 22:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

(Dropping in with: Public service announcement here. I suggested above that we focus on 4 stages, beginning with Body counts and only later move to the reporting with 'massacre' terminology. Should I take the argument above as a sign that you guys don't like my suggested order? Or that you'd like an agenda to keep from butting heads? <friendly tone of voice> Anyway, let me know if I can be useful here. Thanks. HG | Talk 00:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC) )

I've worked hard on the Body Counts, and I want something like the table we've created above to be permanently accessible to readers of the article (eg via this template). However, it's a detail, and the way w're handing this part of the discussion is a major part of the unbalanced problem we have with this article. We need a time-line of events, not the weirdly prominent "Body Count Estimates" section we have now, funnelling down to "Allegations of a massacre" and "Post-fighting investigations".

In the meantime, we need an answer to the question - "Which parts of the International media initially reported the fighting as the Jenin Massacre?". If terminological inexactitudes are being deliberately edited into this article, then we have an bigger problem than we thought we had. PalestineRemembered 08:32, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Colin Powell a massacre denier?

the latest edits on this article have crossed WP:NPOV^{"Evidence of a massacre"} to the point where it's verging on WP:SOAP.^{" However, when Powell served in Vietnam"} please consider that such editing will most probably be contested and consider discussing the changes first on talk. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 01:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

It would seem pretty obvious that evidence from a sources with a known propensity to deny massacres should come with a "health warning". The following diff might also bear some small relation to this discussion. PR^talk(New Sig for PalestineRemembered) 10:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

you already know that this edit is inappropriate.^[5]

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

to the issue, we can do quite a lot of research and smear all the sources in the article, however, that is not common practice on wikipedia unless you have a direct article criticizing his statements regarding the event. for example, i'm sure it would be objected to if i were to add a list of terror organizations and regimes (including one you took upon yourself to represent) that they condemn and we chalk them down next to the amnesti international report. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I've provided rather good evidence that CAMERA distorts things and it's certainly angry with it, as we'd not expect to use in a work of reference. I've provided evidence that MEMRI's reputation is decidedly tainted, in some cases amounting to acting dishonestly.

Now we discover that Colin Powell was guilty of at least one blatant case of denial (though perhaps not exactly the one we were told).

If you see me or others quoting unreliable sources in this article, by all means call us for it. Meanwhile, there is another question urgently to be answered - which "International media initially reported the fighting as the Jenin Massacre" as it says in the lead? Why does the lead state "subsequent investigations found no evidence of one (massacre)" when we know at least one is definitely alleged, and the specific incident has been confirmed by Israel? PR^talk(New Sig for PalstinRembred) 16:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know whether it violates NPOV, but it's a case of original synthesis. It would be more appropriate to simply state what Powell did and said at the time, and then possibly add opinions from various sources. If any notable points of view brought up Powell's past history, then we can attribute that information to them rather than presenting it ourselves. I do wish that the hugely POV language and presentation of facts sprinkled throughout this article could be addressed, rather than only the POVs that impugn Israel / America. Eleland 14:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way, poorly thought out, POV, or original research-ey edits are not vandalism, and I ask that they not be described as such. Eleland 14:29, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

It is a fact that Powell was assigned by his superior to investigate My Lai, and it is a fact that he reported that he found no evidence that a massacre took place. How is this POV? How is this not applicable to Powell's ability to investigate massacres? Blindjustice 08:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the sources I'm seeing don't seem to say that. Glen was reporting atrocities (massacres?) that had occured in the same period as My Lai, but he'd only heard of it, he didn't know the details. Colin Powell denied the accusations but not My Lai specifically. Well, unless you can show me differently, of course. I'm on a learning curve, I didn't realise quite how much of this denial went on - if Colin Powell was really guilty of what you claim, then we should know about it and it is bound to colour our impressions of him and will affect how we use his testimony. PR^talk(New Sig for PalstinRembred) 16:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I hear you, BlindJustice, and I personally have nothing but contempt for the man. But it comes down to whether sources have made this connection from Powell's past role in Vietnam investigations / coverups, and in the Iraq WMD fraud, to his role in the Jenin events. If this argument is as important as you think, then I'm sure some acceptable source has made it. WP:OR#SYN is pretty clear on this matter, and represents an established consensus. < eleland // talkedits > 16:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Ahem - established policy may operate on this principle, but if it does, then I've never noticed it. Here's what reliable sources says: "Sources with a poor reputation for fact-checking or with no editorial oversight should only be used in articles about the sources themselves. Articles about such sources should not repeat any contentious claims the source has made about third parties, unless those claims have also been published by reliable sources." As best I know, it's down to editors to pick their sources and other editors to object if they're flakey. PR^talk(New Sig for PalstinRembred) 17:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Colin Powell is not really being used as a source here. I think we're reporting his statements as part of the story, rather than as a viewpoint on it. In any case, the choice is to leave him in, or take him out - but not to make original arguments about his reliability which are not found in sources. < eleland // talkedits > 17:58, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposed partial rewrite and outline

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

Let me suggest a somewhat restructured outline with subheadings. Here's what I'd do. Put the key paragraph on body counts at the end of the "Aftermath" section. Then place a subheading for "Reporting" about the battle, including much of the bullet points about PA/IDF/media reports of the body count, and then a subheading for "Investigations" of the battle. Here's roughly what the whole thing would look like:

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

According to the United Nations , "at least 52" Palestinian deaths were confirmed. Human Rights Watch "confirmed that at least fifty-two Palestinians were killed ... This figure may rise". No other Palestinian deaths from the battle have been confirmed since this time. The HRW and IDF differ over combatant deaths, with the IDF counting 38 "armed men" and the HRW counting 30 "militants." In general, Palestinian officials have spoken of significantly higher suspected (unconfirmed) deaths, though one Palestinian Fatah official reportedly put the death toll at 56. A few Palestinian deaths were reported subsequent or ancillary to the main battle.* The IDF reported that 23 Israeli soldiers were killed. In sum, roughly 75 persons were killed during the battle. However, during and immediately after the battle the reporting of casualties was quite varied, as discussed in the following section. (*) detailed footnote

4. Reporting battle casualties

5.1 Fluctuations in reported deaths //based on current bullet items

5.2 Was the battle of Jenin a massacre?

6. Investigations of the Battle of Jenin

6.1 United Nations //various UN subsections

6.2 Human Rights Watch

6.3 Amnesty International

Ok, if you're not too annoyed and want to see more how I might implement this, here's a somewhat fuller version of the redrafting idea. I am certain that most everybody will have complaints about the redrafted paragraph above and the outline subheadings. Well, I'm not trying to please everybody. Instead, I'd aim to navigate a course that, in my attempt to be neutral, would likely disappoint both "sides" in the dispute here. I welcome you feedback -- but besides being critical, please tell me where I might be on the right track and where you might be able to live with the wording or outline, even if it's not your first choice. Thanks for giving this some patient and calm consideration. HG | Talk 21:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

You'll never succeed in pleasing everyone .... but it is important that rumours spread (eg that the UN said the total death toll was 52) are not repeated (and preferably rebutted). Saeb Erekat suffers massive personal attacks, yet according to one source he only ever claims "up to 500 deaths throughout West Bank" on CNN on the 10th April and didn't then use the word massacre (though he does it later, Israeli ministers having done the same). We're not in the business of original research, but this is an easily falsifiable statement, and if it's true he never used the figure 500 again, some gentle reminder of this is in order. PR^talk(New Sig for PalstinRembred) 08:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

HG, I'm afraid that the UN is almost useless as a source for Palestinian deaths. Their New York-based "investigation" did in fact only repeat the conclusions of on-the-scene investigations like HRW and Amnesty, and various & sundry press reports. Nor can I tell where you get "no other Palestinian deaths confirmed". Amnesty reported 54, and the UN reported 2 more killed by UXO during the period Israel was blocking demining access to the camp. 56 sounds like the most credible number to me. We should state HRW found "at least 52", Amnesty reported 54, and the UN based on press reports stated 2 more killed by UXO. The "battle box" at the top should say "52-56", maybe with an asterix to the effect that some Arab sources continue to put the toll in the hundreds. < eleland // talkedits > 12:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for both comments. Really, I don't have a stake in 52, 54, 56 or "52-56". I wrote the UN and "at least 52" because it's in the article, and your previous discussion[6] accepted the data as long as we don't leave out "at least." I know there's been some debate here about the credibility of HRW and AI, too. Eleland, if you don't mind my nudging you a bit, the question over the UN source isn't what we personally think is "almost useless" or "like the most credible" but rather how the UN source is treated by other (or more) reliable sources. So, if you accept the "2 more killed by UXO" from the UN, it would seem consistent to add that to the previous 52 from the UN and maybe arrive at 54? In other words, stick w/the UN and not mix & match different sources (e.g., AI + UN). I've quoted both the 52 and +2 in the next Talk section. What did you think of the outline and subheadings I've suggested? thanks! HG | Talk 14:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't wish to make a nuisance of myself, but I'm here because I'm moderately interested in accurate reporting. I've checked the UN report carefully and I've previously posted exactly what it says on this subject. Unless we have reasons for rejecting them entirely, we should be stating that the death toll was in "several hundreds" - though probably well short of 500.

There hasn't been much discussion about the reliability of HRW and AI, what has been noted is the enthusiasm of some people to accept as definitive some of what they say, while ignoring the other things they say. (eg "indiscriminate", the International sources really do say this, it's not just the Palestinian ones). The only substantive discussion we've had about RS/notRS concerns CAMERA and the Washington Times, where all the evidence produced suggests we should never use them. PR^talk(New Sig for PalstinRembred) 17:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

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

In the early hours of 3 April 2002, as part of Operation Defensive Shield, the Israeli Defence Forces entered the city of Jenin and the refugee camp adjacent to it, declared them a closed military area, prevented all access, and imposed a round-the-clock curfew. By the time of the IDF withdrawal and the lifting of the curfew on 18 April, at least 52 Palestinians, of whom up to half may have been civilians, and 23 Israeli soldiers were dead. Many more were injured. Approximately 150 buildings had been destroyed and many others were rendered structurally unsound. Four hundred and fifty families were rendered homeless. The cost of the destruction of property is estimated at approximately $27 million.

I've added emphasis to highlight their body count estimate. I also found the following at item #69, which I believe Eleland refers to, above. "Negotiations carried out by United Nations and international agencies with IDF to allow appropriate equipment and personnel into the camp to remove the unexploded ordnance continued for several weeks, during which time at least two Palestinians were accidentally killed in explosions." This supports Eleland on 2 more deaths, though I can see that we might write these up as ancillary or subsequent deaths, as proposed in redraft above. Thanks for reading this. HG | Talk 14:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

As long as we agree that the mainstream view places the death toll in the mid fifties, I think the exact phrasing can be ironed out (and I don't have a particular stake in "at least 52" vs 54 vs 56 either). We have seen debate over the credibility of HRW and AI, but the debate lacked substance or evidence. Even HRW & Amnesty's critics seem to ignore the factual content of their reports, and focus instead on the relative proportion given to various human rights abusers. You do raise a good point (or nudge) about how the UN report was treated by the media at large. This being said, I don't think it's original research to treat the UN report on its own terms - it described its own "very limited findings of fact". I think it is self-evident that the main portion of the UN report is a tertiary source, a compilation of others' findings, like an encyclopedia. As such, it should not be used to source contentious factual claims about the main issues. It's fine for background information, or for actually discussing the UN report itself. On the last point, I think that the broad outline of your proposed version is a definite improvement, although I have problems with some of the temporary statements you've made. I'll discuss on the workshop page. < eleland // talkedits > 17:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like we have converging views on sources with a few exceptions. Even if you feel a debate lacks substance, if AI/HRW are critiqued by reliable sources (I don't know) then that could be mentioned. You make a good point -- we should note the UN's qualifications of its own data (in a concise way, like your quote). However, I don't think it's correct to view UN as a tertiary source. We can raise that specific question elsewhere, if need be, but the UN is serving at least implicitly as an authoritative negotiator of facts & reports, so it is quite different than Brittanica. Press and academic coverage of the UN vs Brittanica, among other things, shows that the U.N. is quite different. In my judgment, the UN report is a secondary source, to be distinguished from, say, interview transcripts, hospital records, etc. HG | Talk 19:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

HRW estimate of Palestinian dead being misrepresented

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

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

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

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

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

where is the link to the ref for "someone who's removing this info" so we know where on the article this issue is occurring? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The part of the statement "at least" has been repeatedly reintroduced and editors have been repeatedly reminded that the HRW report says "at least 52" not "52 in total".

This particular fault is the most serious of the actual errors in this article. The other serious weaknesses of the article are because of the important material that has simply been removed (or in some cases, never introduced for fear of an edit-war). See this partial list of missing information/urgently needed edits. PR^talk(New Sig for PalstinRembred) 12:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

I'me sure a man with your proven investigative skills can examine the record and find out for himself who it is who is removing material in a way apparently in danger of misleading the casual reader. I'll help you if you get stuck. (But please don't tell HG I've made this offer, because he doesn't think we should discuss such potentially explosive malpractise on this page). PR^talk(New Sig for PalstinRembred) 17:18, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

let Blindjustice do the work unless you want to be asked that question again... btw, there was a point to both questions. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure it improves the article or discussion on the article to imply that editors are meat-puppets of each other. In the meantime, User:Blindjustice deserves an answer to his question "Why are HRW's words being misrepresented in the "Battle of Jenin" box?". PR^talk(New Sig for PalstinRembred) 20:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The person who misrepresented the correct wording by removing the words 'at least' was Tewfik at 07:22 on 10 September 2007; the comment made by Tewfik was, "the year is 2007, not 2002; lets not revise history." How is correctly stating HRW's actual words 'revising history?'Blindjustice 23:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

and do you feel that he was incorrect when he said he believed that "at least" has pretty much stayed the final death toll or do you believe there are dozens more? please revert the introductory numbers, you may leave the "at least" on the article body. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 02:25, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I am having trouble following you. Why is misrepresenting HRW's report OK in the introduction but not in the body? Shouldn't the goal be no misrepresentation at all? Are you condoning the misrepresentation of HRW's report in the introduction? Blindjustice 05:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

the problem is that the HRW's document implies that there could be more casualties and deaths. the introduction to the article is supposed to be a final death toll summary and not a midway estimation. considering that HRW haven't come out with any new reports claiming their previous number was false, i believe that the "at least" statement has room in the article's body, but not in the intros final summary. also on that same note, i saw you removed the number of arrested,^[7] i agree that placing them under "casualties" is a bit inaccurate, however, the removal blanks out information and we should come up with a replacement location rather than just delete it. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:05, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

We don't seem to have a "final death toll", but it's almost certainly in the hundreds. We're hardly going to accept the word of the people who blocked entry to the camp to prevent investigation, and mined the camp to kill more civilians (as stated in the UN report) now are we? PR^talk 13:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Blindjustice, I didn't misrepresent anything. HRW's section says explicitly what HRW reported. As an estimate, the number in the lead inherently is not exclusively based on HRW. Moreover, it would be inappropriate to imply that there were more casualties than there were by using 2002 language when five years later none have surfaced. I'd also like to kindly request that you not make edits like this; WP:NPOV does not mean say bad things about both sides. Tewfik^Talk 21:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

• Because of Israeli obstruction of investigators, we do not know the final death total. Ha'aretz reported that Foreign Minister Peres called what was happening in Jenin "a massacre." Ha'aretz also reported that Jenin dead were being buried in unmarked graves, according to the IDF. The real death toll probably was what was initially reported in Ha'aretz, that is between 100 and 200.
• If you state the number of arrests, you should say that there was a mass round up of all males of military age, only male children and elderly men were not arrested. It should also be stated that Israel permits torture of anybody arrested, including those who are never charged.
• With respect to the 'background' of the battle at Jenin, both sides should be able to state what their 'background' is. It is true that the residents of the Jenin refugee camp are refugees from the 1948 war, who were illegally prevented from returning to their homes after the fighting stopped. Israel promised the UN prior to its admission that it would permit the return of the refugees. Not only has Israel prevented the return of the refugees, it has confiscated their homes and property without compensation. Almost 50 years without justice may possibly be a reason for the terrorist violence. It is a fact that Irgun, the Stern Gang and Haganah all used terrorism during 1948. Benny Morris estimates that there were over 20 Deir Yassin type massacres.
• Tewfik, you most certainly did misrepresent what HRW's report stated. If you don't like it, take HRW out of the introduction, or truthfully state that HRW's report includes the words 'AT LEAST.'Blindjustice 23:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what you mean, as HRW is not in the introduction. Neither is the 1948 Arab-Israeli War immediately relevant to the Israeli operation in Jenin in 2002, but if it were, it wouldn't be limited to just those points dealing with Palestinians.

G-Dett, I don't know what changed just now, but removing those passages is still not okay. If you find the presentation "grossly POV", then fix it. Tewfik^Talk 00:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Tewfik is saying that only the Israeli point of view is entitled to be told, and what the Palestinians consider as their "background" is to be censored. Readers of this article are not entitled to know that many of the refugees living in Jenin were "ethnically cleansed" during 1948, and ALL of the refugees had their homes and property confiscated without compensation by Israel. Bengurion once said of the refugees, "the old will die, and the young will forget." This has obviously not happened.Blindjustice 00:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

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

Three

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

This is getting silly. Please stop re-weaseling this sentence in the lead by obscuring the number of attacks in the reference, which being words from the PM of Israel himself, is basically the most accurate reference we could have on what prompted his decision to launch this attack. See WP:WEASEL and cut it out. -- 146.115.58.152 02:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

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

Perhaps it's because nobody has ever provided a citation to back their "series of suicide bombings" version, preferring instead to cite a source which very specifically and unequivocally references three bombings. I am getting quite exasperated with this persistent use of inappropriate citations which do not verify the text, despite all efforts to explain the problem. < eleland // talkedits > 03:28, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Because that is the number per the reference? Did you even try reading WP:WEASEL? I would be happy with removing this even this partial back history from the lead, as it's only presenting one side. But as it stands now, I will continue revealing the correct number (3) here until I am on my deathbed, and then I will have my children carry this on. So save us all time and stop removing this. Thanks. -- 146.115.58.152 03:36, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Synthesis vs. Weasel - About the number three

the following is in continuation to this thread.

-- leave your comments on this subsection. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

warred out version

the following is a previous version of the article:

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

extra notes and sources

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

UN Secretary-General Annan (Mar 28): The Secretary-General condemned suicide bombings against Israeli civilians as "morally repugnant": "Last night's heartless and indiscriminate attack in Netanya was an especially appalling example of this phenomenon. This is terrorism, and it greatly damages the Palestinian cause."

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

Friday's terror attack was the sixth suicide bombing targeting Israeli civilians since a Passover bombing in the Israeli coastal town of Netanya that killed 28 people. The following day, a militant wing of Hamas claimed responsibility for a shooting in a Jewish settlement near Nablus that killed four Israeli settlers. In response, Sharon's ordered Israeli troops into Palestinian-controlled cities across the West Bank, and Israeli troops have kept Arafat confined to an office building in his Ramallah compound.

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

The Hamas Izzadin al Kassam terrorist faction has reportedly claimed responsibility for the attack. It should be recalled that convicted terrorists of the same faction have recently been released from Palestinian Authority jails, in violation of signed Israeli-Palestinian agreements and despite repeated Israeli warnings that terrorist attacks would imminently result. The Palestinian Authority cynically justified the attack, placing the responsibility for it on Israel. The crime which was committed today is merely the latest in a series of Palestinian terrorist attacks against Israel and Israeli citizens. I have detailed these incidents, the number of which has sharply increased in recent weeks, in a number of letters addressed to you, most recently in my letter dated 13 February 2001 (A/55/781-S/2001/132) and in my letters dated 2 February 2001 (A/55/762-S/2001/103), 25 January 2001 (A/55/748-S/2001/81), 23 January 2001 (A/55/742-S/2001/71), 28 December 2000 (A/55/719-S/2000/1252), 22 November 2000 (A/55/641-S/2000/1114), 20 November 2000 (A/55/634-S/2000/1108) and 2 November 2000 (A/55/540-S/2000/1065). Israel now finds itself in a daily reality of ongoing Palestinian violence and terrorism directed against its citizens and security forces.

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

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

6) Embassy Briefing March 29, 2002:

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

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

"We're quite fed up with those declarations that Arafat makes every time he feels the pressure is mounting on him," said Gissin. "He has to take real action. Declarations won't do. They won't get him off the hook." ... A source at the Israeli Foreign Ministry in Jerusalem said Thursday that Israel had not responded to Wednesday's terror attack because the government continued to support U.S. Mideast envoy Anthony Zinni's efforts to reach a cease-fire. He is still in the region, and U.S. officials said Zinni will remain there to try to negotiate a cease-fire. "Israel will do the most it can," said the source, adding that Israel has followed a policy of retaliatory restraint for the last 10 days. During that period, the source said, Israeli authorities have intercepted 11 would-be suicide bombers.

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

Israel has experienced an unprecedented wave of terrorism during the month of March 2002, claiming the lives of 120 Israelis. Israel is now fighting for its survival. No democratic nation can acquiesce in the face of the ongoing massacre of its own citizens. Every nation has the right and responsibility to defend its people.

comments on syn vs. weasel

• considering theses sources, i request User:146.115.58.152 to please revert back to the more accurate version that doesn't use "A series of three suicide bombing attacks by Palestinian militants on Israeli civilians...".^[8] Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • comment - Let's see. Extra sources (1), (3), (4), (5), (6) and (8) are all Israeli government sites, while (7) is quoting a anonymous Israeli government source. Source (2) is from 13 April, and includes attacks well after the start of the operation. I've given as much ground as I care to here. We're leaving out the last round of Israeli attacks from the lead, after the start of which these first three bombings occurred. We're linking to the entire list of every attack by Palestinians against Israeli during the entire 2nd intifada. So this is already presenting a somewhat one sided POV, so least we can say is what the highest leaders of the Israeli government actually said, in a "spontaneous declaration," as to what prompted the attack, succinctly as possible. Let's take another civil war for an example: would you think an article on the Battle of Gettysburg should link to a list of every attack by the Confederacy on the Union, and insist those attacks were what "prompted" the Gettysburg Campaign. Of course not; this would be obviously biased and ignore all the history of attacks by both sided in the war up to that point. It's perfectly fair, though, to say that this was the Union's immediate response to Lee's incursion into the North after the Battle of Chancellorsville. Exactly same problem with how you want the lead here. Even if I might agree the the terrorists/slave-holders are the bad guys in each case, it's simply not our job to take sides. -- 146.115.58.152 20:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
    • reply - i thought we were discussing the israeli reasoning for operation defensive shield. this is not taking sides, but merely reporting the proper justification for the operation. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:53, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
      • reply - Of course terrorist attacks were the justification for Operation Defensive Shield, just as slavery was, ultimately, the Union's justification for the Gettysburg campaign. Though, to be balanced if we brought up slavery there, we'd have to bring up state's rights -- the Confederate's justification for fighting -- too. However, we don't rehash these justifications, especially not only one side's, within the articles of every single battle of the U.S. Civil War, nor should we, even though these justifications are, in an ultimate way, perfectly true; WP:WEASEL doesn't mean stating a falsehood, so much as a half-truth. There's simply no better source than what the Prime and Defense ministers of Israel said at the time prompted this particular operation and this subsequent battle, within the larger Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Some statement by some minor Israeli diplomats (whose job it is, after all, to present Israel in the most favorable light possible), whether a year prior to these events or weeks afterward, simply don't bear the same weight. -- 146.115.58.152 23:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
        • comment by Sm8900 - to respond to your exact analogy. when dealing with the Union attacks on border states, such as Maryland, Missouri, and Kentucky, the justification is repeated, every time it is necessary to indicate why the Union Army was justified in attacking that city or state and considering it enemy territory. So when the allegiance of a particular geographical area or political area is in doubt, it is totally appropriate to lay out the justifications. Your analogy is more useful than you know. --Steve, Sm8900 00:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
          • reply - The Gettysburg Campaign took place in Maryland in part. I see nothing about State's rights in the lead there. In anycase, we do know exactly what Israel's justification was for Operation Defensive Shield, and we have it from the two of the highest people in the Israeli government. -- 146.115.58.152 00:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
        • comment - at the time = March 29, 2002 -- i.e. same day as most of my references.
        • I believe that your arguments, ultimately come down to the issue of what should the intro/background/article include rather than the "three" vs. "series" issue. if i am correct with this, then by all means, we should open a subsection, but i really don't see how, if the topic of why the IDF went into Jenin to begin with (most certainly a part of the article) should be written in, we base the reasoning for "three" on false synthesis of a single press conference. If this reasoning was the one stated in all the sources, you'd have a valid point, however, this is clearly not the case and clearly not the reason israel went on the operation in jenin (it does fit the "casus belli" though). Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
          • reply - No, your belief is incorrect. It's not a false synthesis to look at the source and see exactly three attacks prompted this. The conflicting justifications (causus belli) of the Israel-Palestinian conflict are usually considered security versus occupation by most sources, however I have no reason to doubt the words of Israel's leaders as to the cause of this particular operation. -- 146.115.58.152 00:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
            • note - please go over the source list, it would appear that you may have missed it. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 01:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
              • reply - None of these sources are superior to the source we already are using, as I've repeatedly stated. -- 146.115.58.152 01:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Stating the reasons for the operation does not mean we are restating the causes of the conflict. This is not a normal type of war. Israel is not free to attack palestinian communities just because it feels like, as there is not a general official war. Israel is justified in undertaking actions againsts specific terrorist threats. That is why the entry needs to state the evidence and/or allegations which form the basis and justification for israel's attacks on a particular location. --Steve, Sm8900 13:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

If you have a source that claims that the attack on Jenin was the result of all the suicide bombings, then reference it to the passage in the article.

In the meantime, we're using a reference that refers to just three suicide bombings, and that's what the article should say.

Here it is again: "March 29, 2002 - PM Sharon: Good morning, In the past few days we have witnessed horrific terrorist attacks - the attack during the Pesach Seder in Netanya, where 21 people were killed, tonight's events in Elon Moreh, resulting in 4 deaths, and the incident which is currently taking place in Netzarim where so far two people have been killed. PR^talk(New Sig for PalstinRembred) 20:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Those three attacks are quite sufficient as justification. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 20:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Jaakobu, don't bother trying to reason with them. It's hopeless. Just accept that they think that somehow there is no basis for believing there was onoing incitement and supprot for terrorist attacks. if they want to make a big deal over this three attack thing, let them. the key to successfully editing these articles is realizing that to soem degree, we must take some note of the prevailing views of the conflict within the media, and try to work within that context to spread the facts. --Steve, Sm8900 20:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with "what editors believe", it has to do with what the sources say. It's not our business to say what is justified ... do we now agree that "three" is what belongs in the article? Can we move on without reverts based on POV, which is what has been happening here? PR^talk(New Sig for PalstinRembred) 20:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, actually I agree with you here. I don't see why it is such an isue to say "three attacks." of course, I also think it's insane to write the entry that way, but I am willing to accept it as a compromise. --Steve, Sm8900 20:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

It is really remarkable how little attention has been paid to the sources here. Jaakobou & Steve's preferred version cites a CNN article from April 13th which notes that "Friday [the 12th]'s terror attack was the sixth suicide bombing targeting Israeli civilians since [27 March Netanya bombing]". Defensive Shield started on the night of the 29th. In other words, the current article states that Defensive Shield was "prompted by" events which occured after it started. < eleland // talkedits > 21:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

that was really uncalled for. try reading WP:CIVIL and try to actually understand it this time. --Steve, Sm8900 13:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The matter seems to be settled (after the most enormous amount of fuss), we now agree that the justification for the attack on the camp was (at least according to the source we're using) three suicide bombings. Thankyou everyone, I trust we've all learned something useful about the use of references and not inserting OR. PR^talk 07:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

A series can be three. There was no OR or SYN involved here. Gaming the system, yes, but SYN and OR, no.... Kyaa the Catlord 07:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

second para again

It is important to describe as exactly as posible what the sources say and who is saying it thus I would suggest something along the following lines

On 29 March Israel began Operation Defensive Shield. In giving his reasons for the action Ariel Sharon listed 3 suicide bombings.[9] A briefing released by the Israeli embassy in Washington claimed the scale of attacks by the palatines combined with the lack of cooperation on the part of Yasser Arafat made the operation necessary.[10] Geni 01:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations, you drew together the two sources and accurately reported what they said. It is depressing that so much time has been wasted by involved editors who have failed to grasp some of the most basic policies of the project. It would be nice if we could get on and fix the other (likely serious) problems I've listed here. PR^talk 10:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

1. Early 29.3.2002, Ariel Sharon starts the public statement regarding the cabinet's meeting and descision with a usual preface condolences to both the victims and families of the casus belli (i.e. Netanya bombing - March 27) and also happens to mentions two extra events with few casualties (2-4), one of which has not yet resolved. it is customary to start public statements by giving out a word of solace to victims and then proceed with the actual body of the statement. (repeated condolences introduction style here (31.3.2002), 2 days later after another attack that killed 15 more people)
2. these two new events were in progress after the emergency 28.3, 23:00pm meeting was announced,^{press release} - first one among the two started at the end of the holiday^[11] in elon moreh (i.e. only 2-3 hours before 23:00) and the other was going on even later than that.
3. in the statement body, there are clearly two points:
   1. that israel has been repeatedly trying to strive for peace.
   2. the response has repeatedly been terror activity.
   3. these two points are also mentioned (and slightly expanded) in the 31.3 statement (mentioned also above) where sharon retorts the following:

      "we cooperated with the american embassador anthony zinni - and we received in terror response. we worked together with US vice-president dick chany - and we received in terror response. i've decided, in order to promote the possibility for a truce, to relinquish my claim for the seven days of quite and we received in terror response. we took the IDF out of the cities - and we received in terror response. everything we received in response to our efforts was terror, terror and more terror."..."the israeli government have decided in it's meeting last thursday to go out on a wide campaign to uproot the infrastructures of terror within the territories of the palestinian authority."

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

inferring by this single ref to have us believe that 3 events, mentioned as a preface or foreword to the defense cabinet meeting's media statement, caused the operation is mistreatment to the topic and represents a coarse mis-connection between an introduction condolences notice and between the operation defensive shield, prompted by the events of "Black March" which culminated with the netanya bombing - using three would be a serious stretch (WP:SYN). Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 00:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Your 1 through 3 don't seem to have any relevance to the discussion. Yes, Sharon et al made reference to terror, and to dismantling the "terror infrastructure" in the West Bank. We already note that Israel considered the operation to be counter-terrorist. Your 4 is a nonreliable source which, even if were is reliable and says what you say, would be completely irrelevant. We know there were lots of attacks. The question is which attacks were officially cited as the cause of Defensive Shield. Your 5 is apparently a Hebrew translation of an English text (unhelpful, that). Again even if it says what you say, that's not relevant to the line at issue, which relates to the publicly announced reason for the incursion. <eleland/talkedits> 18:02, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

i was about to completely disagree with your statement until you stated what you are looking for, i.e. "The question is which attacks were officially cited as the cause of Defensive Shield.". the response to that one of the main contributors to the decision was the cassus belli of the netanya bombing, the "number three" however has nothing to do with it.

p.s. please explain why no. 1-4 have nothing to do with the discussion about the public statement and it's relation to the number three. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

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

the sources don't say "three", they say that the casus belli is the netanya bombing and Palestinian terror attack responses to Israeli attempts for peace... have you read my comment? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

• Can anyone explain to me why the number three is mentioned considering this information? I took the liberty to revert sice this section clearly does not support it's usage. Eternalsleeper 22:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Three is the number of attacks the Prime and Defense ministers cited as prompting their launch of Defensive Shield, in their own words. This has been extensively discussed, and User:Jaakobou has been unable to come up with a better source (I would suggest none exists). Though he has made some valiant attempts, he mostly just sources low level Israel officials who weren't involved in the decision to start the operation of which this battle is a part. We need to adhere to WP:NPOV in the lead here; it's barely justifiable to link out to a list of every attack of one side of the Second Intifada against the other as it is. We need to be accurate as this is just one in a series of battles/massacres or whatever you want to call all the attacks on both sides. -- 67.98.206.2 23:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Let's see:

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

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

Sharon told the world's press on 5th March that "Palestinians must be hit and it must be very painful ... We must cause them losses, victims, so that they feel a heavy price." The fact that these incursions were intended to be punitive on the whole population should probably be in the lead - particularily since it might suggest that the incursions were planned *before* the alleged surge of suicide-bombings in March and April. Small-minded people might even think the Israelis carried out bombings on wedding-parties themselves (they have a long record of carrying out such "false flag" operations, including the bombing of Jews) in order to justify the attack on Nablus and Jenin they wanted to do. PR^talk 19:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

You're interepretation of Sharon's words are a stretch, Sleeper. Eliezer's words are definitive, however.

DM Ben-Eliezer: At the outset I would like to extend my condolences to the families of the recent victims. The sheer number of people, and a massacre of this nature is something that no nation can live with. On the eve of Passover we witnessed the Passover massacre. Yesterday evening, an entire family was slaughtered. This morning, a laborer, who usually works in Netzarim, went in and killed two people.

Consequently, the security forces decided to initiate extensive operational activity aimed at a conducting an all-out war against terrorism

That makes perfectly clear the operation was a consequence of those three attacks. -- 146.115.58.152 10:23, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I will open an RfC regarding this issue sometime soon. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

prompted...

Hi, Eleland,

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

-- Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

NPOV title

Hi, PalestineRemembered,

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

considering you are insisting on this version.^{[12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19]} i request you make a serious case to why the battle is "also (still) called" jenin massacre (in the mainstream media), rather than just a basic count of the number of times the phrase "jenin massacre" is listed (which includes articles that attack the press for using the terminology). Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 00:14, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

This article continues to suffer really serious problems, which will not cease until WP policies are operated. There is *no* requirement on me to "make a case", I'm using what the secondary sources say, as editors are required to do. The use of "also known as" is standard practice throughout the project, as all editors know. It's sometimes been seen when the name in question is <1% of the useage - it's absurd to carry on an edit-war here when "Jenin massacre" is 3 times more popular than "Battle of Jenin" and should be the title of the article.

And we know all about this, since it's all been discussed in Talk (though our contributions are aggressively archived out of sight).

Further severe problems that have been edit-warred into this article include this sentence in the lead, laced with falsehoods: "Palestinian sources described the Israeli actions as indiscriminate" - False - it's international sources that speak of "indistrictimate". "International media initially reported the fighting as the Jenin Massacre" - False, Israeli Foreign Minister described it as a massacre, it appears that international media did not do so until much later. "subsequent investigations found no evidence of [massacre]" - False - the Telegraph and Amnesty document a massacre, 3 unarmed guys lined up and shot to death in an alleyway. It's possible (perhaps even likely) that observers have evidence of other massacres, they've only released details of the one which Israel admitted and for which they know the first names of the culprits (Gaby and David).

What will it take to get this article edited to WP:POLICY? PR^talk 12:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

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

out of the first 10 -

1) wiki - excluded.

2) The Big Jenin Lie - Jenin "massacre" (surely, not the version you're promoting)

3) BBC: Jenin 'massacre evidence growing' (18 April, 2002) - in June 2003 BBC admitted the claims were false.

4) BBC: Jenin 'massacre' (it's somewhere between no. 2 and no. 3)

5) Jeningrad: What the British Media Said

6) Jenin 'Massacre' Reduced To Death Toll Of 56 (same as no. 2)

7) Jenin massacre syndrome (same as no. 2)

8) TIME: Battle of Jenin - quote: "no wanton massacre in Jenin, no deliberate slaughter of Palestinians by Israeli soldiers."

9) PETER CAVE on ABC radio: Was there a massacre in Jenin? Well, yes there was. (4 August , 2002) - (in April 2003 Peter calls it a Battle and a classic example... of urban warfare)

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

following this list, i'm afraid i'm changing my position regarding the - also known as the Jenin Massacre - to now have the text: also known as the Jenin "Massacre". i will await your reply before making the change. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

More nonsense from you - the Hated Google Test isn't hated for no reason, it's a pretty blunt instrument. However, even if you write off 80% of the references, that would still leave "Jenin Massacre" 60% as popular as "Battle of Jenin", ample to be included.

And you're shoveling us more of the same stuff - because your reference #3 refers to "unsubstantiated claims of a wide-scale massacre", which doesn't mean it didn't happen (as any native English speaker would know). It just means that the bodies weren't found and no Palestinian testified to seeing it happen. Oh, wait a moment, Palestinians did testify to journalists that something along these lines happened - the Telegraph and Amnesty even described a small massacre, they named the victims and named the perpetrators. Israel confirmed the incident and killings.

So give up what you're trying to do, and don't try to pretend that "scare quotes" would be acceptable either. PR^talk 16:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

RfC - NPOV title

Request: User:PalestineRemembered requests^{[20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27]} that the title of the article will include what he believes to be the more common name for the topic. and his assertion for this is based on results of a google search - "Jenin massacre" is 3 times more popular than "Battle of Jenin" and should be the title of the article.

response (by Jaakobou): i thought that i reached some type of possibly acceptable version when i simply registered the names given to the event both in hebrew and in arabic,^[28] to portray the obvious contrast among the two.

i submit the following previous discussions that i find relevant (this is my own personal linkage to this issue and others may feel it appropriate to link to other previous talks):
1) [29] - 'previously referred to as the Jenin Massacre - round III', one (old) suggestion and commentary by a number of editors.
2) [30] - PalestineRemembered statement/evidence and responses by other editors.

in any regard, my response to the google search (as seen above) was that the problem with it is that it does not observe the usage within' the articles -

google search for "jenin massacre":

out of the first 10 -

1) wiki - excluded.

2) The Big Jenin Lie - Jenin "massacre" (surely, not the version you're promoting)

3) BBC: Jenin 'massacre evidence growing' (18 April, 2002) - in June 2003 BBC admitted the claims were false.

4) BBC: Jenin 'massacre' (it's somewhere between no. 2 and no. 3)

5) Jeningrad: What the British Media Said

6) Jenin 'Massacre' Reduced To Death Toll Of 56 (same as no. 2)

7) Jenin massacre syndrome (same as no. 2)

8) TIME: Battle of Jenin - quote: "no wanton massacre in Jenin, no deliberate slaughter of Palestinians by Israeli soldiers."

9) PETER CAVE on ABC radio: Was there a massacre in Jenin? Well, yes there was. (4 August , 2002) - (in April 2003 Peter calls it a Battle and a classic example... of urban warfare)

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

following that inspection, i was more leanning towards changing my position regarding the - also known as the Jenin Massacre - to not remove the text but to change it to: also known as the Jenin "Massacre". Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

---

Rebuttal:

• I should warn everyone now, this RfC has been structured in ways that makes any kind of conclusion or even sensible discussion impossible - nonsensical "pseudo-information" has been shovelled in to lead the discussion in a dozen different ways. And this way of operating has scarred this article as long as I've known it by the aggressive ownership going on.
• However, the nub of this particular "friendly difference of opinion" is very easily sorted, as must be obvious to anyone reading this far. In cases where there is an "alternative name" having "significant use", we include the alternative name in the lead in the form (also known as "XXXX"). In this case, the alternative name of "Jenin Massacre" is likely the most common name - as the Hated Google Test suggests. (Though does not prove - I really should congratulate Jaakobou for, just this once, pointing out something genuine).
• There has been a long-standing refusal to include what sources actually say - and this serious failing is immediately apparent even in this Rfc eg - the comment at #3 above is plainly a misreading - the source says "Palestinian authorities made unsubstantiated claims of a wide-scale massacre." It is impossible to legitimately parse that phrase (or anything else in the source) as "in June 2003 BBC admitted the claims were false". (This laughable error was pointed out earlier, it's difficult to understand why it's been repeated, unless the author has problems with English). PR^talk 11:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Comments by others:

• Involved editor - This entire mess comes about because we're not using what the sources actually say, and this serious failing is immediately apparent. Where shall I start - how about the comment immediately above (later moved elsewhere)? Amnesty and the Daily Telegraph Independent tell us there was at least one small massacre, notable because Israel confirmed the incident and we have the first names of two of the soldiers involved. Eye witnesses say there were mass shootings (though the bodies were never found) - only ethnic warriors would dream of jeering at their credibility. Israel announced (this is the Telegraph, it's hardly Israel-hating) that it was going to bury the bodies of the "terrorists" (90% of the 200 bodies they had) in a closed military area, and they sent three refrigerated trucks into the camp. Here's FOX News confirming the Jordan Valley story, and other Israel sources confirm the trucks. Israel blocked entry to the camp for 4/5/6/7 days after the shooting stopped - then deny the massacre. Which, of course, is what perpetrators do. Other editors reading this are not too stupid to be aware of that - even if they're understandably nervous of standing on roof-tops and yelling it out. PR^talk 11:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Please clarify your claims above to ... "RfC has been structured in ways that makes any kind of conclusion or even sensible discussion impossible - nonsensical "pseudo-information"" ... Making such accusations without saying what is false is not productive to actually discussing this issue. Making the claim is ok, but please make it very clear what you are calling that. Thank you. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 14:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - while I'm not a frequent editor of this article and look at it only sometimes (on the other hand, I'm also not a 100% neutral editor because of my involvement with the article), I will offer a couple of opinions (as well as reiterating what others have said) which may help future commenters look at this from a different perspective:
  • 1) To expand on what Bigglove said, and to combine this with the claims of WP:COMMONNAME, it's important to mention that we're an encyclopedia and the fact should come before the opinion. The well-sourced fact is that there was no massacre in Jenin, therefore calling it Massacre of Jenin per WP:COMMONNAME is completely irrelevant and an insult to the reader's intelligence.
  • 2) The article isn't, or at least shouldn't be, about the alleged massacre in Jenin, but about the battle - like Battle of Berlin or Battle of Stalingrad. The battle itself, even without the massacre allegations, is notable enough to have an article, which should be named... Battle of Jenin. If some users are so intent on turning this into another Allegations of Israeli Apartheid-like article, they should feel free to create an article called Allegations of a massacre in Jenin, or something along those lines... and then they should be prepared for a plethora of rebuttals in the relevant section of such an article. In short, 'Battle of Jenin' and 'Jenin Massacre' (assuming for a second that it happenned) don't even talk about the same event, and both events could be notable enough for Wikipedia. Since the idea of a massacre is disputed, you cannot name the article simple 'Jenin massacre', similarly to how you cannot name one 'Israeli Apartheid'.

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

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

The operational words here are 'civilians' and deliberately. As an occupied territory, the West Bank evinces a classic case of an occupying army opposed to guerrilla irregulars. Both sides targeted civilians Nishidani 20:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

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

PR, I think you've clarified things. You said you are not trying to change the "title of this article." It did seem to me and others that the RfC is dealing with the article's title (or Article Name). You would like an upfront reference to "Jenin massacre" as describing the same subject matter. For instance, you would like to restore the "also known as" phrasing. (Perhaps it would be less confusing if we call this the "alternate description" or something, rather than alternative "title.") Thanks. HG | Talk 14:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

HG, thanks for that note. In that case, I agree with PR's request to include that phrase somewhere. I am sure that some Palestinians do refer to this as a massacre. So I understand about reflecting that phrasing to some degree. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 15:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Steve's AGF is appreciated and I will do my utmost to return the favour. When I first saw him edit in this article I took some of his edits to be disruptive and posted as much to the ArbCom, I wish to further retract those implications. Thankyou. PR^talk 13:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Briefly, I am fine with the current title. I think the alternate description should read something like "also known as the Siege of Jenin, or sometimes, especially in the Arabic press, the Jenin Massacre." Incidentally, I think "Siege of Jenin" would be far and away the best title, since the sealing off of the camp was so central to the overall notability of the episode (indeed giving rise to the conflicting reports and ensuing controversies that have given Jenin its iconic status in the first place); and since – while pro-Israel voices and pro-Palestinian voices debate whether what took place during the siege was a "battle" or a "massacre" – no one debates that the siege itself took place. If there were general support to move this to Siege of Jenin, that would be great, but I'm not otherwise inclined to fight the point.

I share PR's grave concerns about NPOV problems in this article, but I am not as concerned as he is about the title and first sentence. The real problem seems to me one he correctly identified earlier – our extraordinary emphasis on the "massacre/no massacre" narrative, and our strong insinuation that this narrative reveals Palestinian duplicity and media gullibility. This presentation is not a neutral one, and it is not the one presented by either mainstream journalists and scholars.--G-Dett 16:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Support current name

• Support.I think this discussion is getting a bit hard to read. I am voting in favor of the current name. i think the difficulty in reading this is due to the lack of separate sections for comments for and against. I will add those now. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 13:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is not a propaganda tool. There was no massacre in Jenin. Wikipedia should not be used to create one (or re-create a already debunked reports of one) after the fact. Bigglove^talk 21:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

• support. - considering about 6 out of the first 9 (2, 3+4 currently, 5, 6, 7, and 10) are using the "massacre" (quote on quote) terminology, i would either support keeping the:

The Battle of Jenin (Arabic: مجزرة جنين lit. Jenin Massacre; (Hebrew: הקרב בג'נין lit. Battle in Jenin) took place ...

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

The Battle of Jenin (Arabic: مجزرة جنين lit. Jenin Massacre; (Hebrew: הקרב בג'נין), also known as the Jenin "massacre", took place ...

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

Note

• Just a note, see meta:polls are evil. Doing this is fine, but do not consider this a final measurement. Everyone should be attempting to find agreement somewhere. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 15:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

You've no idea what a relief it is to discover we're actually going to try and operate to policy after all. Could we please, please have a definitive ruling that this is the English Wikipedia and where it says "references can be verified by any reader" it means "references can be verified by any reader"? Failing which, I don't mind designing a cute template to be added to all these articles saying "Monoglots not welcome". PR^talk 21:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

You still have to be willing to discuss with these people, and focus on content rather then editors. Frankly I really don't care the result of this, I'm just noting that you all need to work to agree on something, this poll is a decent start, but its not the be all end all. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 23:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

How about a template that says "References in English depreciated in this article"? Or "Ignoramuses only speaking English please don't waste your time"? This problem is becoming steadily more serious, I see other editors on other articles being told (with prejudice!) today to get their own translations done. If it's not our intention to write good articles, or this one crosses a red-line, then you only need to say so and we can all stop wasting our time. PR^talk 15:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest you make a new section and start discussing it. I am not the judge jury and executor here, you guys have got to figure out how to put aside your differences and write an encyclopedia article. If you feel that sources in foreign languages are hard to read, then make a new RFC on it. I do not think we have a specific policy against foreign language sources, though I could be wrong, and if thats the case, raise that policy up when you start your discussion. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 16:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Ultimately, we depend on you guys to deal with idiocy and stop Bad editing driving out Good. You may think I'm about on the same level as some of the most blatant offenders, but there have been many (and still are a few) highly skilled editors around, and they've all been/being driven off the project by the utter crap that is being shovelled at them. PR^talk 22:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Archive everything older then 2 weeks

I have archived everything older then ~2 weeks. If I have archived something that should not be archived, just pull that section back out. Congratulations to all for discussing the matters on the talk page, I will continue to monitor this article. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 21:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I'm always a big fan of bot archiving. I don't mind setting it up, but only if no one disagrees. While bot archiving usually does result in discussion threads getting order of order which can sometimes make the archives confusing if someone references the previous thread or whatever, it's a lot easier then requiring someone to manually archive and it avoids any possibility that there is any legitimate impression of selective archiving. While there may still be disputes in how long before archiving, it's a much easier issue to deal with IMHO Nil Einne 11:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

If you guys want a bot thats fine. I think I'm about as uninvolved in this dispute (aside from monitoring it) as you can get. I really don't care what the outcome is anyway. :P I quite literally removed everything from the top of the page up to the part about blocks. All of that was ~2 weeks old. :) —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 15:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

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

This article suffers terribly from ownership and it's even been apparent in the archiving. We suffered a deeply involved editor disappearing other people's comments only 4.5 days old, while leaving his own (idiotic and orphaned) links to non-English sources for over 90 days. (He may have stopped, but his attitude at the AN was still brazen and gave no confidence atall). Clearly a bot would be better and cut out this particular opportunity for mischief. PR^talk 20:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

PR, for now I'll be archiving unless someone beats me to it ;) I really doubt you can get anything more neutral, short of bot archiving, which if everyone can't agree to, its not worth the fight. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 23:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Intro "martyr's capital"

hi burgass00,

1) if we agreed on something and i've missed it, i apologize, however - i'd appreciate a link to the proper location on where we agreed on this change you wish to achieve.^[31]

2) regardless, i reverted your change (and the info blanking by g-dett) because it broke 2 references in the article.^[32]

-- Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

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

User:Burgas00,

1. i'd appreciate a link to where we agreed on this, if we have not, then it is unhelpful to make false claims when editing.
2. if you make edits, it's always preferable to not break the reference list - and i'm not a clerk who has to clean up after people's edit mistakes.

-- Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

"Other controversies"

This section will have to either (i) go; or (ii) be expanded to include a more representative sampling of unverified and largely unreported rumors. From refrigerator trucks to concealed mass graves, there is no shortage of this kind of material. I prefer (i), obviously, because I want this to be a quality article.--G-Dett 19:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

added note I wrote in this edit summary that one of the two rumors was mentioned "by a guest on a CNN talk show." This was a reference to the claim that the IDF – contrary to the overwhelming consensus among mainstream sources that they had blocked medical aid for the duration of the siege – had in fact "worked to keep the local Palestinian hospital open and that Israeli doctors had offered the Palestinians blood for their wounded, who then refused to be given 'Jewish blood'". Gideon Meir made this claim on Paula Zahn's morning show; it has never been verified or to my knowledge repeated anywhere else in the mainstream media. CNN mentioned the other rumor (about a "fake funeral" near Jenin) in a brief article, indicated that it was being claimed on an IDF website, but pointedly did not verify or endorse it. The rumor has since been circulated by conspiracy theorists in the blogosphere, and is presented as fact (!) by Jaakobou in the material he's edit-warring over, but remains otherwise ignored by the mainstream media.--G-Dett 19:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

i agree with no. ii.

comment - wikipedia is not a censorship and you cannot simply delete well referenced material and first state that the media ignored it (both cases are cited by CNN for cryin' out loud) and then accuse me of edit warring.

p.s. do i really need to bring back your "uninformed innocent" disruptive behavior from the pallywood talks to prove that you won't even list the first 5 finds of a google search when you're pushing POV? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

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

point taken. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

One of the two rumors you want to include claims that "Dr. David Zangen, chief medical officer of the Israeli paratroop unit that was fighting in Jenin, reported that the IDF had worked to keep the local Palestinian hospital open and that Israeli doctors had offered the Palestinians blood for their wounded, who then refused to be given 'Jewish blood' ". Your source is a government website and a remark by Gideon Meir on Paula Zahn's morning show. Do you know the origins of that story? A Hollywood screenwriter called Dan Gordon (Murder in the First, Wyatt Earp), having traveled to Jenin, claimed in a piece for the Jewish Journal of Los Angeles that he heard that story from Zangen. In a subsequent piece for the Jewish Journal, another writer noted that Zangen was questioned about Gordon's claims at a State Zionist Council meeting in Australia, where Zangen was the guest lecturer: "Zangen categorically denied ever having said anything like that to Gordon, and denied being aware of any incident in which Palestinians had refused blood from the Israelis."

Gordon's response? "I spoke with some 50 Israeli soldiers, officers and enlisted men, reservists, conscripts and career army personnel on site in Jenin, Bethlehem, Beit Jallah, at military headquarters (the Kirya) in Tel Aviv and in Jerusalem. I did not write the article in question until almost a month after my return from Jenin. Could I have misattributed a story told by one Israeli officer to another Israeli officer; in this case, Zangen? Yes." Well done, Gordon. Gordon then claims that the story has been "confirmed" anyway by someone at the Israeli Military Spokesman's office, even though the source disavowed it. Whatever. Gordon is back to his Hollywood screenplays, as I understand it, and the major media – who employ, you know, fact checkers – have stayed the hell away from his bullshit. Put it in Pallywood if you like, Jaakobou, or whatever the article is now called that deals with gross fabrications, real or alleged, but don't put it in here.

Your second rumor relates to a grainy, blurry video taken by an Israeli military drone in which some sort of mock funeral procession appears to be taking place. The Israeli government says the video "speaks for itself," by which they mean it shows that Palestinians fake casualties to prove fake massacres. Again, yeah whatever. The Palestinian Society for the Protection of Human Rights and the Environment (LAW) noted that (a) the drone's footage matched footage shot for a fiction film by a Palestinian filmmaker at the time, and (b) in a "real" funeral the corpse is wrapped in a flag, which the actor in this case was not. Again, whatever. Neither side's claims were ever confirmed, and other than a couple of tabloids the major media had the good sense to stay away from such a flimsy story. The source you keep swooning over, CNN, goes out of its way to present this as an IDF claim; they do not verify or endorse it, and they certainly do not believe the video "speaks for itself." Let's face it, this ain't no Rodney King. CNN mentions the claim once, never again, and the rest of the media stay away. But you want this crap in Wikipedia, and your version doesn't even follow the CNN version you're swooning over; where they present this as an unverified government claim, you present it as fact. This itself is enough to convince me you aren't serious. But even were you to rewrite this so that it followed the source, it would still be a gross violation of WP:UNDUE, as well as a gross editorial misjudgment about what is well-sourced, quality material, and what on the other hand is inert propaganda – ignored by the mainstream media and well past its sell-by date.--G-Dett 12:05, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

G-Dett, can you please find links for a few of the points you've noted? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

G-Dett has provided a full and complete and satisfactory explanation of why these two claims have been treated with gross WP:UNDUE in the article (leaving aside the RS and other problems). The claims they make are far less significant than a whole raft of good information we have on this incident - lets start with "Kurdi Bear" published in Yediot Aharonot, Israel's most widely circulated tabloid paper, on May 31, 2002, and highly pertinent to the article. "They were warned by loudspeaker to get out of the house before I come, but I gave no one a chance. ........ Many people were inside houses we started to demolish. ....... I am sure people died inside these houses." Let's put real information into the article and not this crap that's been going in up until now. PR^talk 22:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

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

-- Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Here is Hollywood screenwriter Dan Gordon's original op-ed, "A Question of Blood," published in the Jewish Journal and planting the seed of the rumor. Here is the letter published by the same Jewish Journal citing Zangen's denial and refutation of the op-ed's claims, accompanied by the response from Gordon that I referred to above. The LAW statement regarding the "fake funeral" footage and the Palestinian filmmaker is here. Mohammad Bakri, the director of Jenin, Jenin, is the filmmaker referred to. I trust that the mainstream media's silence, wide berth, and/or latex gloves regarding these rumors speaks for itself. Let me know if there are other links you want or information you need.--G-Dett 23:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Jaakobou - there is masses of material much better referenced and much more significant than this which has been aggressively edit-warred out of the article.

In fact, any comparison between them is insulting, because we have nothing to indicate (and good reason to reject) it was a fake funeral that was filmed by an Israeli drone.

By comparison, for instance, we have lots to indicate that Israel "indiscriminately" attacked the camp. The easily checkable fact that many international sources used the word "indiscriminately" has been edit-warred out of the article, just as (also known as Jenin Massacre) and Kurdi Bear and near-cast-iron proof of a massacre and cast-iron-proof of Israel planning to hid bodies and so much else has been edit-warred out. Only when this outrageous behaviour has been stamped out (as we look to administrators to do) can there be any progress with this article. PR^talk 11:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

i consider this irrelevant to the discussion regarding the fake funeral. we have proper sources and your justification reeks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The evidence for a "fake funeral" was very weak, which is why it was all but completely ignored by scholars and the mainstream media. Even at the time, its propaganda value for Israel was very short-lived and negligible outside the blogosphere. Stop using Wikipedia to keep silly rumors and propaganda stunts on life-support; it violates WP:UNDUE, and undermines the credibility of the encyclopedia.--G-Dett 15:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

it is not your place to judge what evidence is very weak. most of the input in this article is based on reports by BBC, CNN, etc. that were later changed - your claim that this video was supposed to get more covrage (than a public statement by the IDF, noted on CNN and a good number of other places - admitted to by 'LAW' the pro-palestinian advocacy group) to be allowed inclusion into the article under "other controvercies" seems false to me. i suggest we open this up for 3O - should i list my proposed version here or on a new subsection? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you should list it here. LAW did not "admit" to it; you've read that piece wrong. CNN – in a single stub-like article they never expanded or followed up on – mentioned the videotape and the IDF's claims about it, and underscored that these were IDF claims. A Chicago tabloid also mentioned the IDF claim. The IDF maintained at the time that the videotape "speaks for itself"; the mainstream media obviously did not agree, and with the two brief exceptions noted above completely ignored it. Your version for Wikipedia does not even follow the CNN article stub you're so impressed by; what CNN presented as an unverified IDF claim you present inexplicably as fact. This suggests to me that your editorial judgment on this subject has been seriously clouded by your passions. I don't know what a "3O" is; is it like an RfC? If so, I think here would be a good place for it. I don't want to have to recapitulate all this in a new section.--G-Dett 16:43, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Videotaped funeral ("Other controversies" cont'd from above)

the following, title included, is a suggested text for inclusion under the subsection of 'other controvercies. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

A popular video footage of a fake burial procession, occurring between the destroyed area in the Jenin refugee camp and the nearby cemetery and shot by an aerial drone on April 28, showed Palestinians acting as pallbearers carrying a green blanket-wrapped "corpse" who repeatedly falls and then stands up and places himself back in the blanket. At some point they are joined by a crowd who runs away as the man falls, according to Richard Landes, perhaps startled when the "corpse" comes to life.,^(VIDEO) On Sunday, May 5, a Palestinian advocacy group called 'LAW - The Palestinian Society for the Protection of Human Rights and the Environment' denied the story and compared the evidence with images shot by Mohammad Bakri's, (Palestinian actor and film producer) latest project who was filming at the same location, they pertained that what was perceived as a staged 'burial' was actually a group of children playing "funeral" near the cemetery in Jenin. They add that the footage shows no flags which are usually seen at many Palestinian funerals, and the children were running, which is not common for an actual funeral. According to them, the Israeli and foreign media quoted the Israeli army representative, Colonel Miri Eisen stating, "the film speaks for itself," adding "they tried to fabricate evidence of funerals to inflate the number of their dead." without criticism or investigating to what the footage actually shows.

comments regarding suggested videotaped funeral text ("Other controversies" cont'd from above)

• i believe both sides gets to have their fair say regarding this footage. i disagree with any UNDUE claims and i do believe the sources given are enough to maintain notability. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• How do you respond to the WP:UNDUEWEIGHT issue, other than to say you disagree? If the story of the drone tape and the IDF's claims about it was notable, why did the CNN never expand their stub-article or follow up on it? Why did the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, the Chicago Tribune, the BBC, the Guardian, Haaretz, and every other major world newspaper ignore it?

• Secondly, can you tell me – in terms as specific as possible – your criteria for notability and your standards for inclusion for material in this article? Can you sketch the objective standard, for example, by which this story would be included, but stories about Kurdi Bear, or Brian Avery [33], and so on, would be excluded?

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

• • (1) perhaps they had no way to further validate this story. and (2) perhaps they feared injuring their credibility after giving so much credit to saeb erekat and his friends. (3) perhaps we have simply not looked for more references. (4) regardless, we are inserting this as an outside "other controversy" at the end of the article and we are noting exactly who said what - so it fits the "should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject" from WP:UNDUE. i also believe that WP:CENSORED and lastly WP:ENC apply in this case - the footage has been viewed by enough people and reported on a global news agency and other international ones (according to LAW). Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks Jaakobou. Do you have a response to my second set of questions (beginning "Secondly..." above)? Or is it your position that anything about Jenin noted by at least one reliable source, however marginally, is worthy of inclusion in this article?--G-Dett 00:56, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

it has just dawned on me that every source you mentioned lacked a link to the reference. could you please rectify this issue? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 01:32, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, what? What links do you need?--G-Dett 02:04, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

every source you mentioned/found in regards to the fake funeral. you wouldn't be holding out on us would you? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 03:11, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Is this some sort of half-assed jedi mind trick? I haven't found any good sources for this "fake funeral" of yours – my point is that sources are lacking, remember? If you mean the Chicago tabloid I mentioned, that article is here. Really, Jaakobou, you baffle me sometimes.--G-Dett 03:22, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

outdent outdent... thank you for that link - so now our source list for the event includes: CNN, IsraeliInsider, Chicago Sun-Times, richard landes (seconddraft.org), LAW, the new editor, and the IDF website - 7 sources by my count - how many would you require to allow for this material - if i come up with a haaretz article would you back down? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 04:47, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The source doesn't say it's a fake funeral, it says "Palestinians accused of holding fake funeral". And the explanation of the perpetrators of this attack is obvious rubbish - since when have Palestinian funerals (or any one elses) been carried out with the "dead bodies" on open display, not wrapped up? Why have they dropped him if it's a "practice" funeral - why are they experimenting with a completely new and hopelessly unsatisfactory way of carrying a body? It's only kids would allow themselves to be dropped to the ground and then carry on with the "game". No fair-minded person would ever mistake this for a funeral - how much longer do we have to put up with crap shovelled into this article? PR^talk 06:58, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

regardless if it is made with the intention of fooling the media or just kids playing, it's still a videotaped fake funeral, please try to not be disruptive and inject unrelated issues and topics into the subsection. each of your questions is matter for personal interpretation, and we don't really do that here... both sides will have their stance presented, and it's up for the fairl minded people to decide on their own. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:42, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Jaakobou, do you understand the connotations, in English, of "fake funeral"? And do you understand the meaning, in English, of Wikipedia's NPOV policy?--G-Dett 15:46, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

this is not a core issue of our dispute at the moment. btw, i'm well aware and the title i had used was a different one. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:54, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome Jaakobou. I'm unimpressed by your source list. It's not just that it's padded out with things like Israeli Insider ("Israel's Online Daily News Magazine"), the "New Editor" ("straight outta the Lone Star moonbat asylum of Austin, comes this erudite conservative group blog. Think Powerline with a little Tex-Mex flava"), and the self-published blogposts of a medieval history professor and amateur Youtuber. No, the real problem is that there's no depth there; all the citations simply report the IDF claim, which was never verified or followed up on. The IDF thought they had a propaganda coup with this stupid blurry incomprehensible tape, but for international media that saw it there was just no there there, so they quite appropriately ignored it. Those few that even bothered to note the release of the tape and the IDF's "theorizing" about it did so very briefly and non-committally, and then dropped the story for good. There's just no evidence that the IDF's story was taken seriously by anyone except the right-wing bloggers upon whom you rely so distressingly for your understanding of this conflict.

If you have a Haaretz reference, I'd like to see it. If it's the same thing as the CNN and Chicago tabloid pieces – i.e. just briefly notes that the IDF held a press conference, released a blurry videotape, and made some theoretical claims about it – then it will change nothing. If it takes the story further or deeper in some way, then that will be worth discussing.

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

from my perspective, this is a well notable enough declaration by the IDF that the palestinians were asked for response and they have provided. CNN is a major news source, and haaretz is a notably serious one, richard landes, despite your reservations (btw, where does it say "middle ages" on his record?), is considered an authority researcher on this subject. if a story is reported on by CNN and other international news sources, regardless if they cannot fully verify it, that makes it valid for this article.. i'm willing to go your way by finding another article or two, but clearly, a story about a fake corpse (true or false) is notable enough for an encyclopedia.

p.s. suicide bombings in israel, are also usually mentioned by only one short report appearing about them. try to let go of the "hey it's freekin' blurry" and "only the 'stupid IOF' declared it" statements. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:15, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Some clarifications. Of course Haaretz is "notably serious"; it's one of the world's top newspapers, but you still haven't cited it. Richard Landes is a historian of medieval Europe, an amateur Youtuber and a partisan blogger. He is not "considered an authority researcher on this subject" by anyone except other partisan bloggers, and his self-published blog is not a reliable source by Wikipedia standards. You are now saying that any unverified allegation attributed by a reliable source such as CNN to an Israeli or Palestinian official is "valid for this article." Be aware of the implications.

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

I disagree compltely with G-Dett. This is a conflict which we are documenting. Sometimes the only way to get balance points of view is to quote partisan souyrces from one side or the other. Sometimes major media outlets won't provide balancing argumnents at all. In this case, it is disingenuous to omit partisan or community opinionated sources completely. --Steve, Sm8900 17:01, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

There should not be continuing onoging discussion of which side committed "massacres" or war crimes. That is insane, irrational, and the road to continuing edit wars. the only thing we should actually discuss here is what actually happened, based on verifiable, neutral sources ... Here at Wikipedia, we do not collect, accumulate or document evidence against one side or the other. the only thing which belongs in this article is a clear retelling of events. if you want to discuss evidence of Israel war crimes, or any finding by an international body, advoacy group, or wahtchdog organizations,then I would suggest going over to Human rights in Israel. --Steve, Sm8900 19:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Pending clarification, Steve's position is that: we should not quote the findings of major international human-rights organizations that resulted from thorough onsite investigations and were reported by every major media outlet in the world, as well as most scholarly accounts of the matter; but we should quote an unverified theoretical claim made at an IDF press briefing and widely disseminated in the right-wing blogosphere but almost completely ignored by every major media outlet in the world. The reason we should not quote the former is because to do so would be insane and irrational, and lead to edit wars, and we are here to report what actually happened, not to document evidence against one side or the other. The reason we should quote the latter is because sometimes the major media won't provide balancing arguments, so we need to. Or something.--G-Dett 20:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

G-Dett, here's my clarification. I never said the article shouldn't mention allegations of massacres or war crimes. What I said is that we editors here should not attempt to resolve the question of whether there were masscres or war crimes. If you want to quote any reputable organizations or groups and their allegations of war crimes, by all means, I feel you should do so. However it sometimes appears that some editors here are trying to convince us that a massacre did take place, and that the article itself should present that as an established fact, That is what I was trying to express my disagreement with. In fact, it is simply an open issue, with various differing allegations and reputable statements on both sides of the issue. --Steve, Sm8900 13:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Upon further thought, what i was also saying is that an article on a historical event or military operation, should simpl describe the events themselves. You can certainly include any statements or allegations by human right groups about what happened during the operation, no matter how critical or castigating. However, the debate on war crimes should not be the heart oif this article; describing the events themselves should be. Descripotions of the resulting debate should be in a separate section, at the very least. however, again, any allegations pertaining to the actual events can be included, as long as it is clear they are allegations by one side. You can certainly indicate which allegations are made by a number of groups, if that is the case as well.

the point here is that any claim by any side, no matter how well-documented, will still be the claim of one side or the pther. We can achieve balnce if we start trying to reflect that simple factm in a mutually respctful way, instead of always bludgeoning each other, and shouting "no, my version is the objective reality!!!" --Steve, Sm8900 13:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

User:G-Dett, i'm afraid this subsection is getting a bit confusing to follow, i will make a rewrite adding more sources and start a new subsections, perhaps in RfC form when i have it finished. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

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

seems from the second link you gave seems to corroborate the story, not refute it. considering the story by the reader is hearsay (and that the writer is not agreeing with it but only keeps an opening to the possibility that it might be true), i'm not sure it's worth much of a mention. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 01:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Yet again, passers-by have no means to understand what's going on here, because a new section, bearing no relation to anything else, has been promiscuously opened. PR^talk 12:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

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

Media coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has a section on alleged distortions and fabrications; consider adding this material there, if you are devoted to it.--G-Dett 15:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

i do believe that the IDF made an official statement regarding this issue so perhaps there is room to find more citations but i really don't consider your "give it a rest" justifications as worthy for building an encyclopedia.

p.s. in regards to your last statement, note the date, location and context of the event. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

"Give it a rest" is an idiomatic phrase meaning something like, "stop plugging away at a lost cause." The "Jewish blood" rumor went belly up the moment it came out of the fish hatchery; like all dead rotting things, it stank for a while and then crumbled away. I'm not surprised they're still serving it up on various propaganda feedlots of the internet, but quality sources avoided it from the start, and so should we. --G-Dett 17:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Protection

Ok, I've seen the editwarring that went on, I"m going to protect this page for 1 day. Please sort out your differences here. Also a warning to all participants, restrict yourself to one revert per day on this article. Any more will be viewed as disruptive. Being disruptive means being blockable. Consider this a warning and friendly reminder that revert wars don't solve anything. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 15:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

A suggestion for tomorrow, someone can have a look at the References section of this article, and note the cite.php errors. (Error No 8: no text found). This means there are some blank tags laying about. Just an idea :) —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 15:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I thought I'd cleared this up one time, it was simply reverted. I did part of it again along with a pile of careful changes, this time it was reverted with a "rvv Vandalism" and a complaint logged against me. I'd accidentally deleted one of the "Time Magazine" links (there were still an astounding 20 references to the same rubbish article left in, parroting the denial of the perpetrators!).

But in any case, we have to re-invent WP Policy first, starting with an agreement on which language we wish to operate in. Would you care to make the first nomination? PR^talk 21:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Various issues

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

See User:Eleland/JeninSandbox. Thanks, <eleland/talkedits> 16:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

1. who are you adressing here?
2. i don't recall ever attacking HG, so mind the false accusaionts.
3. i have tried to open up subsections for issues mentioned so i find what is clear to you a bit murky from where i'm standing.^{sample 1, sample 2}

-- Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I distinctly recall doing quite a bit of work presenting the most glaring errors and omissions in this article, on a page set-aside by a self-appointed mediator - only for the page to be effectively vandalised by contributors who appeared to have diametrically opposed views on methods to produce a good article. I've not suggested our dear new "friend" use this tactic to try and bring order to the chaos, but it was, IMHO, a very good way to go. I wish the new attempt at writing good article/s all success. PR^talk 19:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

1. I'm addressing whoever reads the post.
2. I didn't mean to imply that you attacked HG. I stated that you and your cohorts preferred attacks over mediation, which is my impression of the case. Feel free to clutter up my user talk page with more irrelevant warnings; perhaps I'll even create a special sandbox for you. This focus on real or imagined incivility really is a marvelous way to avoid discussing reasoned and supported arguments, but I don't appreciate it in the slightest.
3. Huh? I don't understand what you're saying. <eleland/talkedits> 20:16, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Jaakobou - my "mentor" had nothing to do with that page, which well predates my choosing him. The efforts of User:HG to get an agreement on the facts at the root of this article were cynically torpedoed after I'd made an excellent start with a whole bunch of work. HG's goodwill and my efforts were greeted with statements that people would not take part there, they'd open up a new section in the Talk here instead.[34] A contributor I could have mistaken for one of your allies opened up with a new section "HG is far to buddy buddy in tone with PR for this to be a neutral venue.", an idiotic mis-reading of the situation.

User:Eleland - you might (perhaps?) be unaware that Jaakobou has a long history of harrassment of people on their TalkPages, including the harrassment of two admins. He was taken to the Administrators Noticeboard/Incidents and blocked for it. Two more admins took up the case, letting User:Jaakobou off with these warnings "If Jaakobou is promising to mend his ways and only crap in the litter box in future (metaphorically speaking...) I think he should be given the chance to prove his sincerity." and "The important thing is to see a change in behaviour and it is clear now that Jaakoubou is apologizing, explaining and promising not to do so in the future".

That particular case of harrassment on TalkPages only exploded because he was simultaneously harrassing two other editors, including publishing the personal details of one of them, see here and here. It would be bizarre indeed if he is still behaving in a fashion almost guaranteed to poison the atmosphere. PR^talk 07:32, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

thank you for that notice, why don't you just try asking your mentor about it instead of wasting so much time and effort on this drama? p.s. since you've been mentioning this story so many times, i have to ask - are you carrying a text file on your computer with this "history of harrasment on talk pages" text? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:50, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

comment - while we're on the subject of various issues, i intend to readmit the notes regarding the netanya bombing, the stated casus belli, to the intro of the article. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

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

Agree completely with Jaakobou in the above exchange. --Steve, Sm8900 16:58, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Let's review: Jaakobou declares his intention to place summary of a stated reason for the attack into the lede. PR points out that another stated reason was reported, and suggests that both reasons be listed for balance. He even provides a direct quote. Jaakobou declares that he is misrepresenting the source. He provides no evidence for this assertion and offers no alternative reading of the source. PR responds that he's puzzled, and provides another good source making similar assertions, as well as reviewing the standard, accepted timeline of events. Jaakobou then makes more personal accusations, which he does not support with evidence. Steve jumps in with a useless "IAWTP".

Now, is anyone going to actually address the legitimate point PR is making here? <eleland/talkedits> 17:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

it was addressed that he's misrepresenting the source - it is done so when he claims it was a "statement made by Sharon to the world's press" (this cafeteria conversation), and also when he declares he wants this in the intro when it obviously not part of the intro to the battle (unless you want to go all the way back to the attacks of february 27, march 2, 3 and 5 and add them also into the intro. btw, what is exactly valid about not wanting the netanyah bombing in the intro? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Uh, Jaakobou, the source says that Sharon was "speaking to reporters in an impromptu session at the parliament cafeteria early last week. Explaining the decision of his inner Cabinet to intensify the military campaign..." which seems pretty open-and-shut to me. I'm not aware of any standard which holds that statements to reporters aren't statements to reporters if they're made in a cafeteria.

You say that it is "obviously not part of the intro to the battle", although Amnesty International disagrees, and the Palestinians were expecting the incursions based in no small part on this kind of rhetoric. Tbe Sharon quote reflects a POV on the Jenin attack, namely that it was a collective punishment aimed at Palestinian civil society (POV of Palestinians, most Arab states, Israeli far-left, Western left, human rights groups). The "martyrs' capital" narriatve reflects a POV on the attack, namely that it was a security operation designed to root out a nest of terrorists (POV of Israeli gov, Western right, US and British governments). I can't think of any more appropriate and balanced way than to include both in the lede. <eleland/talkedits> 23:10, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the civility. I will gladly reply, but this subsection is getting a bit confusing, would you mind reopning a subsection dedicated to this issue? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Is it so confusing, Jaakobou? You objected to the inclusion of the ad hoc Sharon press conference on the grounds that it took place in a cafeteria; Eleland pointed out that the location of a press conference is neither here nor there. Can we move on without opening up yet another "subsection"?--G-Dett 00:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

no. i objected it for more than just one reason, but i'm willing to reconsider and discuss this issue - i think it would be far easier to follow, not only for now, but for future reference if we start it on a clean slate - i don't suppose you consider this thread to be a clean slate that could be used for future reference? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 01:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Jaakobou - you and others have edit-warred to include in all the suicide-bombings as reason for the attack on the camp. Turns out that the intention to attack the camp came about much earlier, well before the surge in suicide bombings. But even more significantly, Sharon did not intend his attack to root out the sources of the terrorism - but to attack the Palestinians generally. He started at Nablus, killing 80 Palestinians - which contradicts your insistence that Jenin was the seat of the suicide bombers, and makes nonsense of the Jenin death toll you've fought to defend (52 in total). No wonder this article is so bad with the ludicrous ownership it's under! PR^talk 12:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

User:PalestineRemembered,

Disregarding the edit-war accusation, you make assertions based on figurative speech interpretation of a couple sources - try to follow the time-line and sources more accurately without inflation. (1) this is a cafeteria quote, not a public statement. (2) there were 24 Israelis (16 civilians - 3 children, 2 babies) killed on march 2+3 (not counting wounded) and on March 5 there were three separate attacks. Israel responded to this without a full scale operation - and then Anthony Zinni was launched to the region. The attacks continued, and only then the decision to deploy 30000 troops was made. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

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

Thanks for the kind words, HG. I'll have to take some time to compare my sandbox page (almost a month old) with the current article to see what's most germane, but I'll certainly post something here.

On a more general note, how do you feel about the prospects for moving into mediation? It seems that your offer of "pre-mediation-mediation" has been declined, which casts doubt on the prospects of ever getting an RfM accepted by all parties (by my count, that would include you, me, Tewfik, Jaakobou, PR, and G-Dett at the least). But (achingly slow) progress has been made over the last two months here, and it might be worth further exploration. <eleland/talkedits> 02:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Moving forward with restructuring

Specific proposals and ideas on article

Greetings. I thought that, before it gets archived, this might be a suitable time to implement some of the Proposed partial rewrite and outline. Granted, it doesn't resolve the various nuances discussed in meantime. However, the rewrite effort on the user page didn't get much comment, so perhaps it will be more constructive here.

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

Tewfik kindly wrote to me about why he deleted a brief lead I had added for the casualties section. He considers it unencyclopedic and says "I don't have see any major content problems with your edits, however I think that while your "introduction" language makes for a smoother read, it is generally a bad idea to stray from strictly factual citation-laden paragraphs, no matter how dense the prose, especially in an area as controversial as this. I also slightly restructured in order to keep the casualty summary paragraph together with the list of casualty counts, and altered language implying that that there were more than 60 Palestinian casualties, which no RS reported AFAIK." Rather than defend my prose, I just wanted to encourage folks to explain their edits on this rather contested article. Thanks to Tewfik for contributing. HG | Talk 03:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

To be clear, there are some problems in the recent edits preceding yours:

1. Despite the charges of "indiscriminate" and "disproportionate" being only made by some international organisations, edits are continually being made that imply that this was the consensus among such organisations, which is inappropriate considering the lengths that some like the UN go to to not make such charges themselves, and the length of our previous discussions of this topic.
2. The first "martys' capital" reference might be a bit repetitive, however the prominence of Jenin as a base for many suicide attacks should not appear to be a disputed or only Israeli claim.
3. Reference to the numerous attacks preceding the Israeli operation is continually limited to "three", seemingly synthesised from the Israeli press conference's explicit mention of the three latest attacks.

Perhaps, HG, you might suggest some method of dealing with these issues. Tewfik^Talk 11:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Questions about disputed issues. Well, Tewfik, thanks for asking! Perhaps we can all put our head together and think about your question -- that is, focus on what method might help folks deal with such editing disputes. Unfortunately, I don't have an easy answer to your 3 specific issues because my intuition would be to first agree on which issues to tackle. Giving my training, of course, I simply want to ask you back some related questions:

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

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

I'm very keen to stay within a structured discussion (as I think I proved over your first attempt at "mediation"). I'm not sure how much "personalised" venom I've injected, I'd suggest it only concerned quite serious, detailed allegations of disruptive behaviour and outright cheating. If any of those allegations are proven (or even suggested) to be improper, I'm entirely happy to withdraw them (as I think I've proved over quite rare mistakes I've made elsewhere).

Meanwhile, I'm very concerned that it's impossible for even the most scholarly amongst us to aspire to reasonable levels of writing in the face of the idiocy with which we've so often been confronted. Inserting hate-sites, seriously mis-quoting others at AN and inability to read sources and Talk should get people topic-banned - otherwise, this is not a serious project, it's a plaything. We need active protection of articles by administrators from this behaviour - it's lunacy to force people like me to wrestle in the mud and then claim I'm dirty. There's been a huge amount that is not some kind of unmanageable "content dispute" - it's straightforward disruption, and there's no possible good going to come from allowing it to continue. PR^talk 09:53, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

PR, thanks for responding. Your 1st sentence is helpful because it indicates how you'd be willing to proceed and contribute, as you did so cooperatively before. However, after that you are talking again about user conduct, which basically doesn't belong on this Talk page. I think you need to stop discussing your allegations here. You/we need to rely on mechanisms -- mostly outside this Talk page -- to prevent or manage disruption, etc. by anybody. If we let disruptions divert us, then we can't explore consensus on the content. That's part of my point #4. Thanks! HG | Talk 18:21, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

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

Thanks for your replies and interesting ideas. Among other pts, I note that you'd prefer formal mediation. Ciao. HG | Talk 14:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Discussion of article approach

HG, I understand and agree with your concerns, as follows:"If you don't mind me being blunt, you all seem to have a tendency to be a bit contentious, and diverge into inter-personal (or old, unresolved) disputes. I don't say this to cast blame, but to help us reflect on the situation here. Charitably and AGF, a few active editors are so passionate and dedicated that they seem to find it hard to stay mellow". please look at my comments below, which i posted at Talk:Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus. I feel this indicates one possible method to address your concerns.

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

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

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

"most Palestinian sources will deny or somewhat revise the holocaust" .. "[they are harsh on Israel] that is how their side feels, and they do not have much diversity of opinion". Yes dear, and please keep on taking the tablets. Does generalising, racist bigotry count for much where you come from, or is it merely automatic and assumed? --Nickhh 21:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I apolgize if you felt I was insulting Palestinians in any way. let me withdraw that, and revise my comments, as follows: "Most Palestinians believe that Israel's actions have been one long string of disposessions of Palestinians, and denials of their rights. Most of them believe that israel's entire history is one of continuing disregard of basic considerations for palestinians. Most palestinians believe that Israel's existence is based on factual distortions, or at least unfair colonialist beliefs." --Steve, Sm8900 13:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

• Folks, you are straying way off topic. Starting w/ Steve's "Separate comment:," your talk doesn't address either this subheading or even Jenin. If you don't mind, please strikeout or delete your comments. You are welcome to continue your dialogue elsewhere, or in a different section if it pertains specifically to how we can edit this article. Please. HG | Talk 14:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

HG, sorry, but i slightly disagree with you on this. I have created a separate sub-section, but have left it in place here. people can now start discussing the article itself in the original section, above. how's that? this topic began in response to PR's relevant comment above, and your comemnt also on how to be more positive. so i understand your concern, but sometimes a discussion topic has a way of evolving. thanks as usual for your input though. --Steve, Sm8900 14:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've moved you section heading below PR (and my reply). If you want to start a different subsection, it's up to you. (I think your topic is more narrow than "article approach" since the entire Talk page does that. But you ge to choose.) You seem to be saying that we should be compromising over sources. I respectfully disagree, though others may feel that your suggestion from Talk:Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus has merit here. For those who want to discuss the pts raised by Tewfik, me, and PR about how to proceed, e.g. with mediation, please look at the previous section, thanks! HG | Talk 16:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Nahr al-Bared

Compare this article to Nahr al-Bared, the refugee camp which was 90% destroyed by the Lebanese army, who killed 40 civilians and left most the inhabitants without homes or possessions – pathetic! In fact so was the international response! Chesdovi 15:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

• Congratulations, serious problems there too - Nahr al-Bared somehow fails to mention the transfer that is the sole reason for the existence of NBC camp.
• In the meantime, this article is horrible, stuffed with distortions, weasel words and outright mis-statements of fact all edit-warred in by people who's motive is very difficult to understand.
• The most blatant outright falsehood is the number of total deaths, nobody but the perpetrators believe it was 52, nobody but deniers said it was 52 (outside reports all said "at least 52", some commented on the stench and squashed bits of bodies all over the camp). The real toll will never be known - it's most likely in the 100s (though likely not 500 as sometimes claimed at the time). Perpetrators deny - no point in trying to pretend otherwise.
• And here's a list of just the major factual items that still need inserting (nothing about correcting the weasel-words):

1. Add Sharons words "Palestinians must be hit - 5th March, a month before the incursions, before the surge of suicide bombings.
2. Add Sharons advisor telling the UN special envoy, Terje Roed-Larsen "has no business whatsoever to tell us what is right or wrong".
3. Add the massacre reported in careful detail, with soldiers identified, Amnesty and the Independent newspaper.
4. Add story of three refrigerated trailers in the camp while all observers were excluded - Israel told us about them.
5. Add the Israeli report they would bury up to 200 bodies in a "special cemetry in the Jordan valley" (ie closed military zone).
6. Add clips from the interview given by the bulldozer driver to an Israeli newspaper.
7. Add an account of the third "international observer/human rights" group that made a visit and presented a "Jenin Investigation", still finding complete bodies in August.
8. Add the allegations included in the UN report that the Israelis mined the refugee camp before they left.
9. Add reference to the Irish woman who returned to Jenin and was shot and badly injured by the IDF in Nov. Mention Ian Hook, killed about the same time.
10. Add mention of the earlier and later armed incursions and the killing of people even when long curfews were supposedly lifted. PR^talk 07:16, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

PS - Here's a section of our article that is particularily distorted. The media (ie even the English-speaking media) retracted nothing other than the allegations of a "mass-shooting" style massacre. See this angry rant, 8 weeks after the event, which simply reminds us that virtually every reliable source continued to treat Jenin as an atrocity. Michael Silverburg has concentrated on attacking the British media - but the same thing applies to the US media. No-one with any reputation for accuracy, fact-checking or responsible reporting will publish the Israeli version of this one. PR^talk 08:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense in the article

Why do we have such utter nonsense as this: "Whilst considering these press and news reports, it is important to consider the date. At first, many international newspapers reported the possibility of a massacre, whereas 3-4 weeks on, they often describe the massacre as particularly unlikely" in the article? As admitted by the bloggers, none of this happened. Can I remove it, please? PR^talk 17:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Blogs are not reliable sources. Please go fish. Kyaa the Catlord 00:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Got any Jacks? I don't think PR is advocating the use of the blog source. The information which he quotes is unsourced, and appears to be a synthesis of various primary and secondary sources advancing a POV without attributing it. And anyway it's part of the External Links section, which has been relatively free of edit-warring and condemnation but is nonetheless way, way too big and clearly out of line with WP:EL. <eleland/talkedits> 00:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

so now you're disputing that when this battle was first reported, many news sources asserted that it was a massacre, but then, after a while, the news reports discounted those allegations? I actually think this has been proven pretty squarely, and is consistent with the factual record. --Steve, Sm8900 01:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Mmmm, Jack. I am not an alcoholic. Really. :P But seriously, questioning that the reporting of the attack shifted from "omgmassacre" to "no massacre" is rather unbelievable. Kyaa the Catlord 03:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I think PR's claim is that the international media organs that "reported the possibility of massacre" (the BBC et al) did not publish retractions nor switch to "describ[ing] the massacre as particularly unlikely." I don't know if he's right or wrong on this point, and my objection to our treatment of the massacre/no-massacre narrative is very different from PR's. But Steve and Kyaa, if he is wrong, so "unbelievably" wrong, then just some relevant reports from the BBC, the Independent et al, where they retract their earlier reporting and "describe the massacre as particularly unlikely." The more absurd PR's statement is, the easier is ought to be for you to refute it.--G-Dett 10:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Quite right. Here you go: UN says no massacre in Jenin, 8/2/02, BBC. I got this from here: Talk:Battle_of_Jenin/Archive_5#Both_were_complicit. I would gently note that we have covered this before. Thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 13:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Steve, I know you've provided that link before. The problem is, that article is not an example of the BBC "describing the massacre as particularly unlikely." It reports the UN's conclusions that Israel did not in fact kill hundreds, and then it reports the ensuing war of words between Palestinian and Israeli officials over what constitutes a "massacre." Is this really your source for a sentence saying "Whilst considering these press and news reports, it is important to consider the date. At first, many international newspapers reported the possibility of a massacre, whereas 3-4 weeks on, they often describe the massacre as particularly unlikely"? If so, then PR and Eleland are quite right that it's original research.--G-Dett 13:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I would add that newspaper headlines are designed for concision and punch, and are not written by journalists. The only "UN says no massacre" claim is in the headline, and the article as a whole actually says that "A United Nations investigation has rejected claims that hundreds of Palestinian civilians were killed in Israel's attack on the Palestinian refugee camp in Jenin...the report offers few conclusions and merely reports allegations that have already been made...Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat [asked] 'How many civilians must be killed to speak of a massacre?'" In other words, it has little or no bearing on this discussion, especially since the BBC in fact never reported a massacre - they reported that allegations, or claims, or sometimes reports of a massacre existed. <eleland/talkedits> 17:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok. here are some links where repuitable newapapers describe a massacre as unlikely and such reports as overblown. I got these from here.

"Jeningrad - What the British media said" (Tom Gross, National Review, 2002/05/13) - "The British media was particularly emotive in its reporting. They devoted page upon page, day after day, to tales of mass murders, common graves, summary executions, and war crimes. Israel was invariably compared to the Nazis, to al Qaeda, and to the Taliban.

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

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

"The Independent's 'reporting'" (Andrew Sullivan, andrewsullivan.com, 2002/05/06) - the Independent made matters even still worse by uncritically reprinting such stories as news." (See also: "Amid the ruins of Jenin, the grisly evidence of a war crime" (Phil Reeves, Independent, 2002/04/16) and as "Once upon a time in Jenin" (Phil Reeves, Independent, 2002/04/25))

thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 14:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

First linked source is an opinion editorial in a partisan magazine; furthermore, it does not support the claim which you are making. If anything, it contradicts you, because its central argument is that mainstream newspapers have not retracted their original statements - "So far only the nonintellectual tabloids have grasped the essential difference between right and wrong ... On both sides of the Atlantic, the mass-market papers have corrected the lies of their supposedly superior broadsheets." (He's excluding The Independent, I guess, which is not a broadsheet). The tabloids to which he refers, like the New York Sun and The Sun of Britain, did not make these claims to begin with, so they can hardly be said to have retracted them.

Second linked source is an opinion editorial in an online supplement to a reliable newspaper. Noteworthy POV but not the only one and not an established majority POV.

Third linked source again actively contradicts the argument you are trying to support. It says that the "mendacious claims" (ie, massacre) were never retracted by the liberal European press - that's exactly the portion which you have quoted.

Fourth source is a blowhard blogger; who cares. Fifth source doesn't contain the word "massacre". Sixth source accuses Israel of massive criminality while noting that "the Palestinian leadership ... without proof, declared that a massacre had occurred in which as many as 500 died. Palestinian human-rights groups made matters worse by churning out wild, and clearly untrue, stories." Doesn't have anything to say about the media response to those stories.

In summary, you've shown that yes, some sources, particularly Israeli sources and conservative Western sources, do adhere to the "false massacre blood libel conclusively debunked" narrative, and that many other sources, particularly Palestinian sources and liberal Western sources do not. I don't think that supports what you're trying to do here. <eleland/talkedits> 17:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Steve, with the exception of Sullivan's blog, these are all good solid reliable sources, but they're also all op-eds. Op-eds are fine sources for presenting a point of view, and as I've said, the view that the mainstream media "uncritically" disseminated exaggerated accounts of Jenin is a notable one and should be included. But the claim we need citations for is the claim that "many international newspapers reported the possibility of a massacre, whereas 3-4 weeks on, they often describe the massacre as particularly unlikely". The subject is the reporting, not op-ed analysis and commentary about that reporting. At any rate these op-eds manifestly do not support the statement; indeed, as PR has pointed out repeatedly, they flatly contradict it: "None has since retracted the mendacious claims nor tried to find out how they were misled," says one. Says another: "One would hope that some honest reflection about their reporting by those European and American journalists who are genuinely motivated by a desire to help Palestinians (as opposed to those whose primary motive is demonizing Jews), will enable them to realize that propagating the falsehoods of Arafat's propagandists does nothing to further the legitimate aspirations of ordinary Palestinians, any more than parroting the lies of Stalin helped ordinary Russians." In short, these op-eds do not see the about-face in reporting that the disputed statement claims as fact. These are not examples of mainstream newspaper reports "describing the massacre as particularly unlikely"; they are examples of op-ed pundits opining that Palestinians and Palestinian spokesmen are liars and the international media are dupes or closet antisemites; this is a very different thing. The fact that you've offered these op-eds as support for the statement is a perfect illustration of what's wrong with this article. Instead of presenting a notable partisan analysis of the reporting on Jenin as a notable partisan analysis, we've simply absorbed that analysis and let it shape our presentation of fact.

Just to make sure you understand what I'm saying, I'll provide an NPOV version of the disputed sentences:

Readers should bear in mind in each case the date of these press and news reports. As Jenin was sealed for the duration of the siege, early reports of body counts and other battle details varied considerably, and in some cases were significantly revised in the light of subsequent investigations.

This is for illustrative purposes only; my position is that a list of external links shouldn't be prefaced by any hand-holding editorial intervention.--G-Dett 17:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the thoughtful and in-depth replies from both of you. I would like to step back a bit, just to make a more general comment. The question was whether any news source reported that THERE WAS NO occurrence of a massacre. The answer, based on the BBC article, is YES, YES, YES. The fact they based their article on specific UN findings, rather than general "allegations" by either party, only strengthens the case which i am making.

I have little to add to these comments above, and will allow others to comment. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 17:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment from others would indeed be welcome. But briefly, the BBC article doesn't report that there was no massacre. It reports that the UN concluded that there weren't "hundreds" of Palestinian victims, and then it reports some of the verbal tussling that ensued, some of it around the word "massacre." What we're discussing in this section is whether this particular "external sources" should be prefaced by a statement advising the reader to pay specific attention to article dates, because "at first, many international newspapers reported the possibility of a massacre, whereas 3-4 weeks on, they often describe the massacre as particularly unlikely." The sources you've given for this are op-eds. It is highly unusual to preface an "external sources" list with any advice to the reader; when that advice has to be sourced to partisan op-eds, the problem that arises should be obvious.--G-Dett 18:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Can I take it there's a consensus that that paragraph "Whilst considering these press and news reports, it is important to consider the date. At first, many international newspapers reported the possibility of a massacre, whereas 3-4 weeks on, they often describe the massacre as particularly unlikely" definitely doesn't belong? PR^talk 21:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

"Allegations of a massacre" section

The battle attracted widespread international attention due to Palestinian allegations that a massacre had been committed and due to inflated reports on body counts by Palestinian officials and Jenin residents.[43] Journalists and international groups were banned by the IDF from entering the camp during the fighting on safety grounds, and at one point the IDF itself reported casualties as high as 250,[44][7] [45][46][47] yet many journalists reported that a massacre of Palestinian civilians may have taken place during the fighting,[48][6][42] and unconfirmed "eyewitness" claims that hundreds, or even thousands, of bodies had been secretly buried in mass graves by the IDF were spread.[6][49][50][51][43] These allegations were aired widely in the Arab world and European media (most prominently in the British media), inciting extreme antipathy toward Israel.[6][50] Critics in conservative American publications responded by alleging a "Big Jenin Lie".[52][53]

According to the Anti-Defamation League, International organizations, non-governmental organizations, and many foreign governments prematurely attacked Israel for committing atrocities during its military operations and before the facts were in. But while a massacre of hundreds was alleged, reported and condemned, it is now essentially certain that no such massacre occurred.[54]

Many Arabs and Palestinians continue to use the term "Jenin Massacre".

This section has a number of minor problems, and one major one. The major problem is that it passively accepts and relays a highly partisan narrative. That narrative can be loosely summarized as follows: Jenin was notable primarily for allegations of "massacre." Those allegations began as Palestinian rumors and exaggerations and then were spread far and wide by a credulous international media, but were ultimately disproved. In fact, both the massacre rumors and the international outrage were a direct result of Israel's complete sealing-off of Jenin from the outside world – from medical help; from international observers, NGOs and human-rights organizations; from food, electricity, and water; and from journalists. The "massacre allegations" came from panicked residents under 24-hour curfew who had seen missile attacks on homes, non-combatants willfully gunned down, crippled men with white flags on their wheelchairs being crushed by bulldozers, etc.; these panicked residents were communicating by phone with human-rights organizations, who were calling into the camps for the duration of the siege. Jenin remained in the international spotlight after the siege ended, in large part due to Israel's resistance to an international investigation. When the major international human-rights organizations found "no evidence of massacre," partisan sources (blogs, the ADL, the Weekly Standard, various usenet threads) seized upon the finding as a vindication of Israel, and tended to present that finding in isolation, not in the context of the other war crimes the HR groups found Israel had carried out. These partisan sources also completely disregarded the HR groups' account of the origins of the "massacre" claims. Amnesty International, for example, gives a very detailed account of exactly how concerns about a "massacre" came into being:

During the fighting Palestinian residents and Palestinian and foreign journalists and others outside the camp saw hundreds of missiles being fired into the houses of the camp from Apache helicopters flying sortie after sortie. The sight of the firepower being thrown at Jenin refugee camp led those who witnessed the air raids, including military experts and the media, to believe that scores, at least, of Palestinians had been killed. The tight cordon round the refugee camp and the main hospital from 4-17 April meant that the outside world had no means of knowing what was going on inside the refugee camp; a few journalists were able to slip into the area at risk to their lives after 13 April, but only saw a small portion of the camp, including some dead bodies before leaving. Those within the camp reachable by telephone were confined to their homes and could not tell what was happening. It was in these circumstances that stories of a "massacre" spread. Even the IDF leadership appeared unclear as to how many Palestinians had died: General Ron Kitrey said on 12 April that hundreds had died in Jenin before correcting himself a few hours later saying that hundreds had died or been wounded.

When Amnesty International delegates went to Jenin Hospital on 17 April they found only "walking wounded" - those who had managed to make their own way through the IDF cordon. Doctors and diplomatic or other military experts who visited the scene, aware that in armed combat there is usually a ratio of three or four seriously wounded people to one dead person, wondered where were the heavily wounded. Stories of bodies buried in secret places or carried away in refrigerated vans spread. After the IDF temporarily withdrew from Jenin refugee camp on 17 April, UNRWA set up teams to use the census lists to account for all the Palestinians (some 14,000) believed to be resident of the camp on 3 April 2002. Within five weeks all but one of the residents was accounted for.

The partisan sources completely jettison these accounts, and replace them with speculations about a perfect storm of gullible-anti-Israel-international-media meets Palestinian exaggeration, inflation, and duplicity. Some of these partisan accounts are content to insinuate ("The Big Jenin Lie"); others cross the line into full-blown "Pallywood"-type conspiracy theories.

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

"Partisan"..."partisan"..."partisan". what's so partisan about them? as noted above, the UN says there was no massacre. Is the UN "partisan"? --Steve, Sm8900 13:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

With respect, Steve, I think you need to read my post more carefully before I'll engage. Having laid my points out so carefully, it's rather depressing to find that you arguing with me about the legitimacy of findings that no massacre occurred – as if I'd contested that.--G-Dett 13:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, maybe I misunderstood. Sorry. i'll try to read more in-depth when i have a little more time. I guess i wanted to make sure that certain basic points were not contested here, but if they're not, i'm happy to try to read and understand your ideas more correctly. thanks.

(later). ok now i understand. I guess if you want to add more factual details to depict a little more about the genuine well-founded concerns of people who were there at the time, that can't be too bad. obviously all material may be subject to some debate later. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 13:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

G-Dett, hi. I do think that this "Allegations" section deserves to be revisited and the dispute over it resolved. Indeed, maybe we should tackle this next. However, above (question #1), I suggested first looking at the preceding "Fluctuations" section, which may be easier for folks to reach agreement on -- and which serves as some background info not unrelated to the "Allegations" unit. Still, I'm open to proceeding with "Allegations" if that's the order folks want. Perhaps you (and others) would be so kind as to reply, above, to my questions #1-4? Sorry to interrupt. HG | Talk 13:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Interruptions are always welcome HG, and anyway they're your prerogative as de facto informal mediator here. I'll take a closer look at the "Fluctuations" section today. The reason I've focused here first is that I'm concerned about the narrative we've assimilated, which I think has distorted our approach to this material in a holistic way. The "timeline" approach in the "fluctuations" section is derived from a CAMERA article, as you know. That is not to say I object to a timeline in principle, but I think we need to scrutinize the governing narrative we've adopted, which I think is more representative of a handful of partisan sources than mainstream and scholarly accounts of the Jenin episode. The dispute between PR and other editors about whether international media ever formally "retracted" the massacre angle, for example, is a symptom of this. Both sides are "right" here: the "massacre" claims dissipated, but there was never (in the mainstream media) a major disavowal/retraction. Why? Because the massacre angle was always an integrated element of a larger configuration of Jenin-related controversies – including a host of war-crimes allegations, Geneva-Convention violations related to the sealing off of the camps, Israel's resistance to outside investigations, tensions between Israel and the US over Operation Defensive Shield, broader debates about the ethical challenges of urban warfare, and so on. Mainstream sources reported the findings of no massacre in the context of other findings and ongoing controversies; as they never positively reported a massacre in the first place, but only reported the best estimates at any given moment, they had nothing to "retract." Partisan sources have either heavily foregrounded the massacre-and-body-count findings or treated them in isolation – for the obvious reason that subsequent revisions thereof can then be presented as exonerating. Meanwhile they've put a special spin on these – a spin wholly unsubstantiated by the HR sources they cite – that is, that the initially higher estimates were due to Palestinian exaggeration and duplicity, and the carelessness, bias, and gullibility of the international media. This analysis has a place in this article, but it should be presented as one argument about Jenin's significance; it shouldn't be structuring our presentation, and I think a holistic analysis of this article will show that it has done just that.--G-Dett 14:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

why do we have to keep saying "massacre"? that seems especially offensive. Can't you simply say "allegations that major human rights abuses occurred"? that seems to me to be just as fair to your concerns. --Steve, Sm8900 14:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'm following, Steve. The allegations of major human rights abuses were confirmed; the allegations of a massacre were not. Why would we use one blanket term for both? If you're saying our treatment of the two should be integrated, then I agree wholeheartedly – that has been my point all along. But we still need to use precise and discriminating terminology in our integrated treatment.--G-Dett 14:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

that doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense to me. if there's no proof of a massacre, then why should we talk about it? Let's just discuss any allegations of such thngs under the term"allegations of human rights abuses".--Steve, Sm8900 12:59, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you entirely here, Steve.--G-Dett 13:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

really? wow, that's really open-minded of you. thnks, I appreciate it. I thought you disagreed with that approach initially, but I'm really glad we could find agreement on that. Anyway, that's all i wanted to suggest for now. i really appreciate your open support and open approach to this issue. thanks very much. --Steve, Sm8900 14:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Interesting thought. thanks for your reply. I guess I'll let some others weigh in right now. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 14:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Sm8900 - you said something similar when I pointed out the interview with the bulldozer driver, which has been edit-warred out of the article, where it undoubtedly belongs. Furthermore, can I remind you we have credible information that at least one small massacre did occur? It's only "mass-shooting" allegations that were never confirmed. Furthermore, I see no reason to claim that the word "massacre" should be offensive - this lists 24 massacres from about the same time, death tolls much smaller than there was at Jenin, even if we accept the laughable figure of the perpetrators. PR^talk 21:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Current editing

Tewfik, I have left in place your edit changing "three" to "numerous." I have reverted only the disruptive edits, i.e. those that misrepresented source materials on the basis of arguments systematically and exhaustively discredited.--G-Dett 17:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but your edit is original research. The "overview" section of that same report clearly says "prima-facie". The rest of the edit is the disruption, since you even acknowledge that those words only appear in quotes or otherwise not directly in the narrative voice of several of the major groups. I don't understand why you keep insisting that the conclusions are the consensus, but that presents a misleading reading of the sources. Tewfik^Talk 17:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

This is what I can see in that "overview" report from HRW: "During the April offensive on the Jenin refugee camp, Israel committed violations including the unlawful or willful killing of civilians, use of Palestinian civilians as human shields, obstruction of emergency medical and humanitarian assistance, and destruction that appeared to exceed that which could be justified on the ground of military necessity". Those would appear to me to be war-crimes, even if the "overview" report doesn't yet say as much.

Looking at WP:POLICY I see that our aim is to report what the secondary sources tell us ... I don't know what the final version of the report says, but other editors tell me it speaks specifically of "war-crimes", and I'm pretty sure that's what our article should report. PR^talk 19:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Prima Facie

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

Second, I actually don't mind the language "strong prima facie evidence". It's true that the Amnesty International report flatly stated that IDF committed "unlawful killings", and that "Grave breaches of Article 147 of the Fourth Geneva Convention constitute war crimes.(24) Some of the acts by the IDF described in this report amount to grave breaches of the Fourth Geneva Convention. These acts include some of the unlawful killings described in this report; the torture and ill-treatment of prisoners; wanton destruction of property after the end of military operations; the blocking of ambulances and denial of humanitarian assistance; and the use of Palestinian civilians to assist in military operations." If this is the objectino, we should say something like "HRW found strong prima facie evidence of war crimes, Amnesty listed several categories of war crimes it found committed by the IDF." IIRC, I inserted the "prima facie" language myself, and G-Dett commended me for it, so I'm a bit confused by what's going on now! <eleland/talkedits> 18:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Eleland. Of course you're right that "prima facie" does not mean "at first blush." It does not indicate significant hedging, but it is nonetheless a qualification. But the simple fact is neither Amnesty International nor the British military expert retained by AI ever mention "prima facie evidence"; both attested unambiguously to Israeli war crimes. (Tewfik says that "AI does not drop it," meaning the phrase "prima facie," but this is only trivially true in the sense that they never said it in the first place). Now, HRW did write that "Israeli forces committed serious violations of international humanitarian law, some amounting prima facie to war crimes." They wrote this the month after the siege. In their final, end-of-year bound and published report, HRW specifically mentioned the May report and its its finding of "prima facie" evidence, but then used different language in the report itself: "In Jenin, Human Rights Watch documented twenty-two civilian killings during the IDF military operations in April. Many of them were killed wilfully or unlawfully, and in some case constituted war crimes." What Tewfik is inexplicably calling "OR" is simply quoted directly from HRW's annual report. These are precisely the sources – HRW, AI, and the British military expert David Holley – whose consensus on the question of massacre Tewfik regards as definitive. Their consensus on war crimes is equally clear. "Prima facie" has a technical meaning and is not a weasel word, but it is misleading in this case. Only HRW ever said it, in the summary of their initial May report, and they dropped it afterwards.

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

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

Moved here from my talk:

Jenin / Prima Facie

Hey, I think you need to look more closely at the text you are reverting. The source is actually not the same HRW report from before, it's a year-in-review piece which flatly states, "In Jenin, Human Rights Watch documented twenty-two civilian killings during the IDF military operations in April. Many of them were killed wilfully or unlawfully, and in some case constituted war crimes." I would have agreed with you, until I noticed that it wasn't the same report I saw earlier. <eleland/talkedits> 00:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The full paragraph states:

Our early May report, Jenin: IDF Military Operations, documented Israeli Defense Forces' extensive violations of international humanitarian law, some amounting prima facie to war crimes. During the April offensive on the Jenin refugee camp, Israel committed violations including the unlawful or willful killing of civilians, use of Palestinian civilians as human shields, obstruction of emergency medical and humanitarian assistance, and destruction that appeared to exceed that which could be justified on the ground of military necessity. We pressured Israel to allow access to the Jenin refugee camp by humanitarian and human rights organizations and strongly criticized its decision not to allow a U.N. fact-finding mission. We welcomed the IDF decision in May to forbid the use of hostages and human shields, and to "examine" the forced use of civilians in response to a petition from seven human rights organizations. The petition was drafted by Adalah's staff attorney and drew on the April and May Human Rights Watch reports noted above.

emphasis mine. Anyway, I think it's safe to say that the major HR orgs consensus view was that there were "prima facie war crimes" so if we keep it short, and to the point, there's less to argue about ;) <<-armon->> 00:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I can't follow your reasoning for the life of me, Armon. In their annual review, HRW writes the paragraph you've quoted and therein describes their May report. Then in their year-end report itself, they write:

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

I do not understand how (a) you've concluded that the quote on p.418 of their annual report, which uses the phrase "prima facie" in summarizing their May report, somehow trumps the language on 460 of that annual report, where they describe killings without qualification as having "constituted war crimes"; or (b) how you've concluded that a phrase used once and only once by Human Rights Watch, and never by Amnesty International, constitutes "the major HR orgs consensus view." The major HR orgs consensus view is that the IDF carried out war crimes. We know because they both said this. Amnesty's military expert (whom we've quoted as authoritative when he says no massacre occurred) also agreed on war crimes, and never does he say "prima facie." Something makes me think you haven't read the sources or followed the debate on this page.--G-Dett 00:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure I may have missed something in the debate, but it's a summary of the major HR org's position for the lede. I thought we had a consensus on the phrase "prima facie", and HRW does use it in summarizing their own position. If you think it would be better to say: "major human rights organizations alleged that the IDF had carried out war crimes." -which is true and neutral, fine, but I think that the "prima facie" phrasing is a bit stronger and more accurate. <<-armon->> 02:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The HRW report overview does not say "we once said prima facie, and now we don't" - it just says prima facie. Reading the part that does not say prima facie while ignoring the part that does as proof that their position had changed is original research and not the conclusion of the report. Attribution of "indiscriminate" to 'Human rights organisations' instead of the previous 'Palestinian and international organisations' was a limitation introduced by this edit, but even so, along with the UN, Amnesty does not make such a declaration. Moreover, to revert to your language, including in the introduction the charge of war crimes along with selected examples of said war crimes only serves to buff up the charge through undue emphasis. Another logical fallacy that keeps getting presented is the idea that if the NGOs confirm one point that the Israelis argued [regarding "no massacre"], that they then achieve some status of "definitive" [regarding war crimes]. I'm not sure where people have gotten that idea, but your agreement with someone on one point would hardly force you to then agree with everything that person argues. Tewfik^Talk 08:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think any of what you've written above makes any sense, Tewfik. Much of it in fact seems willfully nonsensical. We don't need "proof" that HRW's position has changed because we're not saying it has changed. We're simply saying the major human rights organizations agree that the IDF carried out war crimes. We have quotes from both where they say this unequivocally. It is inappropriate for you to keep deliberately misleading the reader into thinking that AI tempered their findings of war crimes with any language about "prima facie." Your wikilawyering about "indiscriminate" is likewise dead in the water, Tewfik, and has seriously eroded my belief in your good faith.--G-Dett 14:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Page protected. Pls let me make 2 suggestions. (#1) You all have identified and debated the issues, without much repetitiveness, so how about we open a Request for Comment? If you can't agree on how to describe the dispute, you can let some mythically fair-minded editor write the RfC (humble me?) or share it. (#2) You all should check to see if you're satisfied with the AI and HRW sections. This part of the lead should only reflect/summarize the content below, right? So your discussion could help get buy-in for those sections, too. How's that? HG | Talk 12:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I think if we're going to open an RfC, it should be on substantive issues where reasonable people who have read the sources could conceivably disagree. Tewfik's equivocations about "indiscriminate" and "disproportionate" (and his disruptive editing of same) are not examples of this. Equally absurd is his argument that it is appropriate to sift through the findings of HR organizations, and present some of them as definitive facts and others as allegations. Sophistries like this are an insult to the intelligence, and deserve to be ignored or flatly rebuked by any editor of good faith.--G-Dett 14:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

For heaven's sake, G-D! Your edit summary was fabulous but.... Scratch everything (and I mean it!) after your 1st sentence and tell us, affirmatively and constructively, how to do the RfC. Can you concisely and fairly describe the substantive issues? Or how will an RfC be submitted? HG | Talk 15:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I've struck it, HG. I plan to take a couple days break from this page. I don't intend to draft an RfC, because I don't see points of substantive disagreement between Tewfik and me; I see disruption. I'll come back to the page when it reopens. An appropriate RfC would be one on the structure of the article, especially the separate and foregrounded treatment of the massacre claims, and the partisan narrative regarding them.--G-Dett 15:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

G-Dett, as frustrated as you might be, commenting on editors is still not okay and won't solve anything. It would be much more helpful if you could address why we should remove "prima facie" when the report you are quoting uses it quite clearly. Tewfik^Talk 16:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

As best I can tell, many of the sources state, unequivocably, that war-crimes were committed. Under these circumstances, it seems clear that our article should state "war-crimes were committed", followed by the reference to the particular group that says this.

After all, that's what we're here for, to examine the secondary sources and report what they say. It's not a terribly difficult concept to understand - and not a terribly difficult principle to follow. PR^talk 18:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

No, Tewfik, you need to explain why this article should say –

...major human rights organizations found strong prima facie evidence of IDF war crimes.

instead of saying –

...major human rights organizations...found that the IDF had carried out war crimes.

For the latter formulation, I've provided citations from both major human rights organizations (Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International) making the claim explicitly and categorically. We also have an independent statement from the British military expert, David Holley, whom AI retained as an advisor to their investigation, making the claim explicitly and categorically.

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

anything human right groups say is only their opinion. what about palestinian terrorists? is it a war crime when they attack busloads of civilians? that's relevant, and you know it. --Steve, Sm8900 21:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

G-Dett, you justified dropping prima facie because "Language was firmer in HRW's annual report; "prima facie" qualifier dropped.", however the annual report in question clearly uses the phrase. Please address this. Tewfik^Talk 01:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your replies. I feel I still have not received an explanation of why the concerted, deliberate targeting and blowing up civilians on buses is not a warcrime, while the actions of some individual members of a legitimate military unit, on a justified mission, is a war crime. I feel my comments are fairly clear enough, and I have little to add. I do appreciate your replies. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 03:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Steve, Sm8900 - if you have RS to say that Palestinians in this incident carried out war-crimes then by all means put them in. If you don't, then your contribution doesn't look entirely helpful - and certainly doesn't contribute to "how to present, concisely and accurately, the consensus view of human-rights organizations regarding war crimes.", as other editors are trying to do. PR^talk 10:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Tewfik - I can't see what there is to address - you tell us there are (if you're sure?) claims of "prima-facie evidence of war-crimes" in the final HRW report. But there are also straightforward statements that war-crimes were committed. The latter statement is unquestionably the one that belongs in a tertiary report on the article. PR^talk 10:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

the only statement which belongs in this article about this (and I'm not sure that any does) is that some human rights groups claimed that there were war crimes, not that war crimes occurred as an objectively unquestioned fact. --Steve, Sm8900 13:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I first noticed you in this article stating that all allegations should be included from each side, which I believe was rather excessive, some of the partisan comment is bound to be outright lies and we should avoid including it.

However, we're now attempting to incorporate the findings of "neutral" international observers (HRW are not actually neutral - they're pro-western and are alleged to criticise 5 nations in the region more than they criticise Israel - Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon, Saudi and Iran?). I can't understand why there is such resistance to reporting what they found about this incident, including the bald statement that war-crimes were committed. PR^talk 19:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Steve, both major international HR groups have documented Palestinian atrocities extensively. I can give you links to reports if you like. I am not certain offhand if they refer to terrorist attacks as "war crimes," as I think that term applies to violations of the Geneva conventions by standing armies. I wish you would raise these questions in a different section, or even perhaps on a different page, given that there were no exploding buses or pizzerias in the siege of Jenin, and this side-discussion is becoming a distraction.

Tewfik, um, sure I'll answer your questions about an edit summary of mine, but then can we return to the subject at hand – i.e., what is the most accurate and concise formulation for the consensus opinion of the major human rights organizations regarding Israeli "war crimes"? I hope so.

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

Now, you wanted to know why I said the "language was firmer in HRW's annual report." I'm glad we've all become such philologists. Here's the history. HRW's original May report focused a great deal on war crimes; sometimes they used the phrase "prima facie" and sometimes not; regarding some incidents they called for further investigation, regarding others they stated categorically that a war crime had been committed. In the following exhaustive list, I have bolded the instances where their language was categorical and unqualified.

1. Israel also has a legal duty to ensure that its attacks on legitimate military targets did not cause disproportionate harm to civilians. Unfortunately, these obligations were not met. Human Rights Watch's research demonstrates that, during their incursion into the Jenin refugee camp, Israeli forces committed serious violations of international humanitarian law, some amounting prima facie to war crimes.
2. Some of the cases documented by Human Rights Watch amounted to summary executions, a clear war crime, such as the shooting of Jamal al-Sabbagh on April 6. Al-Sabbagh was shot to death while directly under the control of the IDF: he was obeying orders to strip off his clothes. In at least one case, IDF soldiers unlawfully killed a wounded Palestinian, Munthir al-Haj, who was no longer carrying a weapon, his arms were reportedly broken, and he was taking no active part in the fighting.
3. 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.
4. Rufaida Jammal was adamant that there was no Palestinian fire in the immediate vicinity where she and her sister were wounded, and that they were "far away from the battle" between IDF soldiers and Palestinian militants.25 The wounding of a member of the medical personnel away from the combat area requires a war crimes investigation.
5. The shooting in broad daylight of an unarmed civilian, Imad Musharaka, requires a war crimes investigation. Establishing the true circumstances of the death of Palestinian militant Ziad Zubeidi warrants a separate investigation.
6. After he was shot and no longer armed, al-Haj became hors de combat, meaning that he was no longer taking an active part in the fighting. Wounded combatants who are no longer taking part in fighting should not be denied medical care, nor are they legitimate military targets. The killing of al-Haj after he was wounded and no longer armed amounts to a case of willful killing, a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions, and, as such, a war crime.
7. During the time of the incident, there was no active combat or firing in the neighborhood. The remorseless murder of `Afaf Disuqi, an unarmed civilian, constitutes a war crime.
8. The death of Mariam Wishahi appears to have been due to the deliberate denial of medical assistance and as such warrants investigation as a possible war crime. Information about the death of Munir Wishahi suggests he was shot while running away unarmed and requires investigation.
9. Human Rights Watch researchers closely inspected the Abu Khorj home, and did not find any suggestion, from sandbags or spent cartridges for example, that Palestinian militants had used the home. The killing of an unarmed civilian in a situation where no combat was taking place requires a war crimes investigation.
10. It is difficult to see what military goal could have been furthered or what legitimate consideration of urgent military necessity could be put forward to justify the crushing to death of Jamal Fayid without giving his family the opportunity to remove him from his home. This case requires investigation as a possible war crime.
11. Inad Zaiban was shopping at the market when he heard his son had been shot and taken to the hospital. He rushed to the hospital, but soon was informed that his son was dead. Human Rights Watch visited the scene of the shooting, which is in a street with good visibility. The soldiers had a clear line of fire from where their tank was parked in the middle of the road. The use of lethal force against a group of civilians following the lifting of a curfew, and where no fighting is taking place, constitutes a deliberate attack on unarmed civilians and is a war crime.

So that's the May report. Though in several instances, obviously, HRW concluded categorically that war crimes had been carried out and said so without qualification of any kind (not even the weak prima facie evidence qualifier), it is true that they used the prima facie language twice in their summary. It is also true that once in that same summary they used unqualified and categorical language: "Some of the cases documented by Human Rights Watch amounted to summary executions, a clear war crime." In their end-of-year report, they referred to the May report: "Our early May report, Jenin: IDF Military Operations, documented Israeli Defense Forces' extensive violations of international humanitarian law, some amounting prima facie to war crimes." This is the sentence (the only sentence) you're referring to when you say "the annual report in question clearly uses the phrase." It would have been more precise for you to say, the annual report in question uses the phrase when it summarizes the contents of the earlier May report. But the annual report does not merely compile HRW's various early reports; it summarizes, synthesizes, and reformulates its findings. The annual report in this case has an entirely new synthesis/summary section called Israel, the Occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip, and Palestinian Authority Territories: Human Rights Developments. It is in this new, rewritten end-of-year report that the language is "firmer":

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

I hope that answers your question, Tewfik. It is a painstaking explanation of an edit summary. I think we should be discussing content, not edit summaries, and to be very frank I think you ought to have read the sources closely enough by now that you wouldn't need to be walked through them in this way, at such cost of time and effort to me. With respect, this is not the first time you have forced me to practically read source materials aloud to you.

At any rate, now that I've done that, I do hope you will be so good as to take two minutes and answer the question I've put to you several times now: Why do you think the article should say

...major human rights organizations found strong prima facie evidence of IDF war crimes.

instead of saying –

...major human rights organizations...found that the IDF had carried out war crimes.

For the latter formulation, I've provided citations from both major human rights organizations (Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International) making the claim explicitly and categorically. We also have an independent statement from the British military expert, David Holley, whom AI retained as an advisor to their investigation, making the claim explicitly and categorically.

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

HRW and AI reports (prima facie, cont.)

Well, I sense that some arguments are being repeated, though maybe folks feel that you're drilling down to precise points that will settle the debate. At the risk of repeating myself, let me invite discussants to say (here or on my Talk) whether you'd like to open a Request for Comment? Or other ways to resolve this? Thanks. HG | Talk 17:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The arguments are being repeated since there'd appear to be inexplicable resistance to using the relatively clear words and meaning of the secondary sources. When there are participants here who seem to be unable to understand the content of these sources, it's not necessarily a good idea to try and involve others who know even less. Far better that the mediator put questions to each editor here - and it would then be relatively easy (and likely untainted by partisanship? not sure) to adjudge who actually understood the sources, and who was being logical and consistent and scholarly. PR^talk 19:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

As far as HG's suggestion, I have no objection to an intermediary.// An RfC has the disadvantage of attracting editors with no knowledge of the minutiae in dispute, though that is often exactly why one should be called, and so I also welcome that course if it will help fix the situation here, though I would rather it be authored by someone like HG, since the above mentioned charges and their already stricken ilk leave me doubtful as to whether anyone else could accurately represent my position. Tewfik^Talk 22:50, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

G-Dett. Tewfik, // The end of year report uses prima facie with reference to the May report, and then in the newly written overview uses the unqualified formulation: "In Jenin, Human Rights Watch documented twenty-two civilian killings during the IDF military operations in April. Many of them were killed wilfully or unlawfully, and in some case constituted war crimes." Our dispute is over how to collectively represent the views of HRW and AI in the article lede. Eleland, PR and I want to use a formulation that both HRW and AI have used, and that AI's military expert has independently used. You and Armon want to use a formulation that only HRW has used. //--G-Dett 23:09, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

//I've attempted multiple times to reply to those points, and I'm not sure what is impeding the communication, but perhaps HG will be more successful at relaying my meaning. Tewfik^Talk 00:20, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

//I look forward to HG's mediation; /once we/ answer questions and address issues when they're routed through a third party, then we may get somewhere.--G-Dett 00:30, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

HG questions: Gee, not sure if I should be honored or worried by you both having unrealistic expectations of me. In anything I'm about to say -- at great length, sorry -- please comment & correct me kindly. (#H1) For the lead, you all agree to summarize a set of reports that deal with war crimes. Are you agreed that this set consists of AI and HRW? Also, Holley? And you agree that the summary call this set "major human rights organizations"? (H2) However, you aren't using any secondary sources to accomplish this summation. Why not? No reason we can't do our own descriptive recap, but it might be easier if we could work off NYT/WSJ/etc versions. (H3) You seem to mostly agree about describing Amnesty's view on war crimes, which is apparently unqualified. Right? (H4) You disagree about HRW. The sticking point seems whether HRW's view should be described as qualified or unqualified. You're wrangling mostly over the "prima facie" wording, which shows up, hmmm, sometimes but not always in the May report and in the later overview cited by Tewfik just now. Have I gotten the gist of the disagreement? (H5) For Tewfik (Armon, et al.), you strike me as generally a flexible editor. Even if the lead didn't use the term "prima facie" would you accept some other way to qualify the HRW view? For instance, instead of "found, maybe something like "...organizations claimed that the IDF committed war crimes." I mean, look, isn't prima facie just another way of HRW saying that they're pretty certain they've seen war crimes committed? (H6) G-Dett (et al.), you also strike me as flexible. If you folks don't end up agreeing on a way to combine AI and HRW, would you consider splitting up the description? Regardless, G-Dett, I don't know if there's a sweet way to say this, but I think you're arguing pretty hard for your interpretation. Really, I sympathize with the desire to get a straightforward encyclopedic description into these annoying disputed articles. And I feel like you might be pretty convincing about why "prima facie" type language is trumped by the overall HRW view of the IDF. But why should we have to be convinced? Shouldn't this kind of thing be a bit more verifiable and self-evident? Look, you probably trust my judgment somewhat, and I think the HRW Overview linked by Tewfik (w/"prima facie") gives them enough of a hedge that you should help me look for some compromise language here.

(H7) Finally, I'd like to step somewhat out of a mediating role and offer my own view of what "prima facie" means. Granted, this results in me leaning more toward one side, but I can't help that. Let me phrase it as a question esp for G-Dett. Do you think it's possible that HRW (and maybe Amnesty) recognizes -- as a significant distinction -- that they are identifying but not actually sitting in judgment on war crimes? I mean, aren't there legal mechanisms, supported by HRW (if not IDF) to add finality to any war crime claim? If so, then doesn't HRW recognize this distinction as contextualizing all their work? Sure, they may use "prima facie" or they may just flatly say they found a war crime, but they believe that the definitive answer should be adjudicated. (I dealt with a mildly analogous q at Talk:Legal status of Hawaii over the distinction betw a legal scholar view and a juridical determination.) If so, then I think it would be appropriate for Wikipedia to be astute about this context and find encyclopedic wording that qualifies HRW findings. Indeed, I'd presuppose the same context for AI's utterances. Hope you'll consider this perspective. Anyway, I hope these q's and suggestions will help move you closer together. HG | Talk 03:57, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

G-Dett. Hi HG. I'll answer your six questions and then respond to your considered proposal. (H1) Yes, the sentence in question applies to HRW and AI, summarizing their views. As Eleland has pointed out, Holley is not an HR "organization." Insofar as we are making a judgment call about how to present variously phrased views with a single formulation, his views help to tip the balance. Not decisive; just a factor. His views have been quoted as authoritative elsewhere in the article, regarding the "massacre" claims, by the very editor now suddenly skeptical about "what Holley's quotes in a news piece prove." (H2) Perhaps we should use secondary sources, but I see two potential problems. First of all, it won't solve the issue of HRW's dual formulations, since these are exactly mirrored in the secondary sources that covered the HRW report – some say prima facie, some don't. Secondly, the very issue of how secondary sources presented the HR reports is itself a controversy. An exchange between the New York Times investigative journalist David Rohde (who was the Times correspondent from Jenin) and Harvard human rights scholar Samantha Power will serve to illustrate both problems:

Rohde: There is a truth, I think, to what happened in Jenin. I think the Human Rights Watch report essentially captured it.

Power: I have a question for David about working for the New York Times. I was struck by a headline that accompanied a news story on the publication of the Human Rights Watch report. The headline was, I believe, "Human Rights Watch report massacre did not occur in Jenin." The second paragraph said, "Oh, but lots of war crimes did." Why wouldn't they make the war crimes the headline and the non-massacre the second paragraph?...

Rohde: I think there is more pressure writing about Israel than any other place in the world. At the New York Times you feel as if you're being watched by a hawk.

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

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

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

Eleland. Thanks for the considered questions, HG.

H1. Thus far, discussion has centered on AI and HRW because they produced the most prominent and best researched reports. However, the full set is larger. B'Tselem condemned Tzahal's ([35]) "flagrant violation of the most basic principles of international humanitarian law", Christian Aid stated that "In breach of the Fourth Geneva Convention, Israeli forces have prevented Red Cross and other emergency medical services from reaching the injured", etc. UNRWA, though not precisely a human rights organization, condemned the Israeli interference with relief and rescue efforts. ("In the name of human decency the Israeli military must allow our ambulances safe passage to help evacuate the wounded and deliver emergency supplies of medicines and food...Israel is a signatory to international conventions that protect non-combatants in times of conflict. Those conventions are worthless if they are not adhered to precisely at times of the greatest blood-letting. The world is watching and Israel needs to end this pitiless assault on civilian refugee camps.") Indeed, war crimes accusations from NGOs were so prevalent after Jenin that the "pro-Israel" community regards them as a watershed and a major turning point in the "Durban strategy" to delegitimize Israel.

H2. I'd like to have those summaries, but the only secondary sources I've found summarizing rights-group coverage of Jenin are the non-RS "Durban strategy" ones I mentioned above. They present the reaction of human rights NGO's as massive condemnation and omnipresent allegations of war crimes. The news stories from legitimate sources all seem to treat the HRW, AI, UN and other reports separately, one at a time - and by this point, they had significantly backed off from the Jenin story and tended to downplay the reports.

H3, H4 yes to both.

H5 is a good point. The problem with "found" is that it implies authority and accuracy. While I, personally, attribute such authority to HRW, Amnesty et al, not all POV's do. I dislike "claimed", per WP:WTA and more specifically the lightweight, dismissive nature of the word. I prefer "concluded", since the war crimes allegations resulted from intensive and extensive investigation.

H6 I don't understand. Frankly, it is verifiable and self-evident that HRW explicitly stated that Israel had committed war crimes, without qualifying language. In some cases the "prima facie" wording was used, in others (G-Dett has helpfully provided bold-faced quotes). I don't see where interpretation enters into it.

H7 is another good point, tied to H5. What's important for me is not presenting HRW, AI, et al as "just another opinion", comparable to that of the ADL or CAMERA. This is an absurd violation of WP:UNDUE. The mirror of ADL and CAMERA are Palestinian and Arab groups, or possibly elements of the Israeli left. HRW and AI are straight-down-the-middle reliable sources and their carefully considered findings shouldn't be paired up with the rantings of the Israel lobby. <eleland/talkedits> 20:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Tewfik. Hello HG, (H1) Yes. Indeed, David Holley is not a Human Rights organisation, but rather was an agent of AI, and his views were incorporated into AI's report. "Wait," you say, "he is 'quoted as authoritative' elsewhere." So what is the dilemma being posed? Must we either accept his soundbyte as proof that there is another opinion distinct from AI (despite his views already being incorporated in AI's report) or else remove his uncontested observation that there was no mass killing? I don't see the parallel. (H2) Perhaps, but good secondary sources would just mirror the reports' strong desire to say something while explicitly stopping short of it. (H3) Yes, though being as AI hasn't changed their position, and being that HRW's ambiguous language existed in both its original and new reports, and thus it hasn't changed its position, why is there suddenly now a problem with Eleland's "elegant fairness"? (H4) Yes. I understood G-Dett to be saying that the end-of-year report only uses prima facie regarding the May report. As far as I can tell that is not the case, and while HRW uses mixed language in its report bodies, it employed prima-facie in both report summaries. (H5) So I'm flexible, and G-Dett is flexible, and we're communicating through you :-) As the dispute is about the nature of the "claims", I'm not sure that would really help (i.e. are they alleging war crimes, or are they alleging likely war crimes). (H7) Much of what you say seems evident in their desire to say certain things without saying them. I'm not sure as to whether your suggestion would actually resolve the problem though.

In response to G-Dett's repeating that I'm advocating "an approach that is maximalist on one side of the ledger, and minimalist on the other", I refer her to my previous post to this page, which I reproduced on her Talk the last time she raised it with me. I'll only point out the continuing implication that I'm somehow biased ("always go with the more conservative formulation") in the hope that it may have been a slip on her part, since /such/ remarks don't contribute to constructive discussion. Tewfik^Talk 23:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

G-Dett. "Conservative" as in restrained, cautious, etc., Tewfik, not as in politically conservative. I assumed this was clear – both from the immediate context, and from the fact that I have twice now applied it to myself and to Eleland.--G-Dett 23:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Tewfik:. As in I am intentionally favouring one interpretation over others, along the lines of the previous charge of maximalist on one, minimalist on the other. Your //claim// is crystal clear.//Tewfik^Talk 23:47, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

G-Dett. Tewfik, regarding maximalist/minimalist, // that was an allusion to the selective approach to findings that you've not only explicitly admitted but defended several times ( most recently in your response to HG above, where one part of Holley's statement is to be accepted as an authoritative "observation," the other part dismissed as a "soundbyte"). That is your minimalist/maximalist approach, // you've laid it out for us and advocated it ("your agreement with someone on one point would hardly force you to then agree with everything that person argues," you write, where the explicit subject is how to present HR findings). The reference to "conservative formulations" was another thing entirely, and you've simply misunderstood it.--G-Dett 00:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Addendum. Tewfik, you write, I understood G-Dett to be saying that the end-of-year report only uses prima facie regarding the May report. As far as I can tell that is not the case, and while HRW uses mixed language in its report bodies, it employed prima-facie in both report summaries. I think it's very clear that the end-of-year report only used prima facie with reference to the May report, and not in its new summary. It uses this formulation in the "Middle East and North Africa Overview," in a subsection called "The Work of Human Rights Watch," which gives a calender overview of their activities and public statements ("Our staff and other representatives traveled to Algeria, Bahrain, Egypt, Lebanon," etc.; "We continued efforts to ensure that our research and output reached a broader section of the region's population"; "We urged reform of criminal and civil laws in Morocco," etc.), and in that context they describe their May report: "Our early May report, Jenin: IDF Military Operations, documented Israeli Defense Forces' extensive violations of international humanitarian law, some amounting prima facie to war crimes." That's the only time the phrase appears. The later, newly written section is also a summary, this time not a calender summary of HRW's public activity but a substantive summary of "Israel, the Occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip." It's a summary alright, and there's only paragraph on Jenin, which begins "Israeli security forces continued to resort to excessive and indiscriminate use of lethal force, causing numerous civilian deaths and serious injuries. In Jenin, Human Rights Watch documented twenty-two civilian killings during the IDF military operations in April. Many of them were killed wilfully or unlawfully, and in some case constituted war crimes."--G-Dett 01:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Tewfik:. /G-Dett, your/ repeating to me that you believe the end-of-year prima facie is limited to discussion of May obviously won't move the discussion forward, since I've twice stated that I know you believe as much, and still disagree that that is the meaning. Tewfik^Talk 02:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

G-Dett. // The other statement that /of concern/ was this, to HG: "But I do not find acceptable an approach that is maximalist on one side of the ledger, and minimalist on the other." That is not a personal attack. // It is the core issue I wish to address through mediation. Regarding HRW's end-of-year summary: I did not reaffirm my beliefs about it, but rather offered further evidence rebutting your persistent claims.//--G-Dett 12:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to all who've answered so far. This may take me some time to absorb. Meanwhile, I invite anyone to give me further advice on my Talk page, e.g. suggested compromise language. Thanks again. HG | Talk 23:30, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Please do not discuss user conduct matters here. Kindly strikeout or delete comments that stray from the content/editing discussion. I've set up a subpage if you'd like to move your thread and continue to discuss Jenin-related civility issues. (G-Dett and Tewfik, perhaps you could authorize me to edit your comments myself?) Thanks! HG | Talk 13:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

You have my permission.--G-Dett 13:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

//HG, I'll ultimately defer to your judgement about moving the thread and striking out text, and I hope that you can direct this mess into the realm of civil and productive discussion. Tewfik^Talk 21:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Tewfik, //"conservative" is a synonym for "cautious," I'll go ahead and switch it. There are other instances where I apply the word to myself and Eleland in the same context; I trust it's alright with you if I leave those.--G-Dett 21:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

As I said above, I'm well aware of what conservative means - the problem is the repeated implication that I am trying to [among other things] unfairly use "cautious" language. //Tewfik^Talk 23:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Still thinking. You're invited to give feedback on my draft ideas. Thanks. HG | Talk 15:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

As ok'd by both, I struck and have now deleted some text, marked as //. HG | Talk 13:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what there is to absorb. We have either two or three sources, already accepted by both parties, and they all make unambiguous allegations of war-crimes.

Incidentally, there were other international observers, here is The Jenin Inquiry, "a group of 12 internationals from the US, Britain, Ireland, Canada, and Norway—including an international lawyer—conducted detailed, in-depth interviews with people of the Jenin Refugee Camp from 11 April until mid-May, 2002." who refuse to make allegations of war-crimes themselves but say on p.17 of their report: "Executions of civilians and surrendered fighters are well documented by numerous international human rights organizations. Despite that there were heavy battles in Jenin refugee camp, there is no justification for the wanton execution of individuals who had either no involvement with the armed conflict or those who had surrendered themselves to the Israeli military. Individuals who performed such actions and those, if any, who ordered them to be done, should submit to legal proceedings in an international court of law and stand trial. Finally, it is necessary to act on the recommendations of reports by Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and others, who have stated unequivocally and provided evidence for war crimes violations by the Israeli military."

I'm sure there are many, many thorny questions of fact and interpretation in this article - but the fact that human rights organisations and workers (all of them?) stated there were war-crimes committed is not one of them. If this one were to be tough, then 99% of articles in the encyclopedia would never make any progress. PR^talk 09:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Proposal on HRW and AI on war crimes

HG analysis and proposal. Having been asked to help find a solution to the AI/HRW "prima facie" disagreement, I've asked q's and read the thread above. Here's my analysis -- I'd apologize for the length, but it's also a credit to the depth of thinking you all have put into this question. I end with recommended wording for your consideration. (Please read the following in a calm mood, thanks!)

1. The average reader needs slightly more context, at the outset, on HRO (human rights orgs) war crimes statements. Whatever wording we choose, editors should be realistic about our ability to strike the perfect degree of fairness. After all, Wikipedia articles shift over time and our resolution of this dispute won't be etched in stone. So, I think it's best to focus on the context and structure of the disputed sentence(s), and not exhaust ourselves over specific word choices.
2. Implicitly or explicitly, both HROs recognize that they are not issuing conclusive findings of war crimes. (Hence the call for official inquiries.) So, the "war crimes" point needs to be somewhat qualified. Granted, the lead already implicitly qualifies the war crime finding by mentioning HROs as the source (rather than merely citing HROs as footnote). For the astute reader, this might be sufficient. For many readers, though, our wording should explicitly reflect the non-definitive aspect of the HRO findings on war crimes. How to do this with the perfect balance that everybody is happy with? (rofl...)
3. For the purpose of informing the average reader, I think the "prima facie" wording has limited value and it seems odd to apply it to AI. (Logically, prima facie could serve to qualify both HROs, just like "claims" or "accusations" might.)
4. Do we say "major human rights organizations" or name HRW and AI? I'd say name both, by which we can provide the most accurate qualification of the claims for astute readers (who will interpret the findings based on their view of the groups). Do we differentiate how we describe their findings? Ideally, no. Their results are quite similar, prima facie wording notwithstanding, and detailed differences can be found in the relevant sections of the article. Failing agreement on the recommended wording below, we could fall back on this wording from the article itself: ... HRW did say that Israel "committed serious violations of international humanitarian law, some amounting prima facie to war crimes,"[55] while Amnesty International similarly alleged evidence that Israel had committed war crimes. This is still fairly concise.
5. Contextualize by focusing on the evidence: The HROs are deemed reliable mainly for their ability to gather and report evidence (HG guess), they are not adjudicating crimes. So, by mentioning the evidence, we emphasize that role. Plus, such evidence comprises much of their sections.
6. Contextualize the findings as charges/claims: I can think of 2 ways to do this. Use a term like "charge" or "claim." And/or, note that they call for official inquiries. //On this vein -- I assume no Israeli or Int'l war crimes inquiry or trial was conducted. Shouldn't we say that in the lead or in the article?
7. Should the "war crimes" sentence be linked, either in the article or in our mediation, to the "massacre" issue? Current WP text combines the massacre and war crime issues. I'm wondering if that close link is a byproduct of our editors' own interests and preoccupations. The HRO reports themselves seem to keep the issues somewhat separate, at least textually? (esp AI, right?) More importantly, the "massacre" issue is more complicated, involves more sources, sparks more heated debate, etc.
8. Presumably, you've already discussed this -- Why isn't the IDF response in the article? Am I going off topic, or is the IDF view part of the context? I've tentatively added in a bit, with a (?).

So, given the foregoing considerations, I would recommend:

Based on testimony and documentation, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch charged that IDF personnel in Jenin committed war crimes. //add(?): Both human rights organizations called for official inquiries; however, the IDF disputed the charges and no war crimes trials were held.// OR:

Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch charged that Israel had committed war crimes and called for a formal legal investigation. //add(?): However, the IDF disputed the charges and no war crimes trials were held.//

Based on my exchanges with G-Dett and Tewfik, I expect they'll have a positive reaction overall to the above bullet points, though of course they are welcome to clarify disagreements or concerns. Hopefully, we can find common ground by wordsmithing one of the above recommended blockquotes. So, I'd like to offer the analysis and suggested wording for everyone's further comments here. Thanks very much, HG | Talk 16:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

(PS G-Dett & Tewfik -- feel free to copy your comments here or write afresh. Thanks for your input!) HG | Talk

Why don't we write the article to policy and report what the secondary sources say about the event? And wouldn't it be a good idea if we treat the reports of observers as if they were much more credible than involved agencies that have behaved in threatening or secretive ways? See this. PR^talk 19:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

That looks good to me HG. How about giving us a proposed wording based on that? We might find a quick consensus. <<-armon->> 03:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC) Sorry, you did -duh. OK, I think the first option is better mainly because "IDF personnel in Jenin committed war crimes" is more accurate than just saying "Israel" because the charges related to specific incidents during the battle rather that the operation itself. Presumably, the IDF could have entered Jenin without committing any war crimes. I have a slight niggle about the second sentence though -were war crimes trials not held simply because the IDF objected? <<-armon->> 22:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Armon. Yes, I noticed that some of the texts refer in various ways to IDF personnel, so I think that phrase is useful. Also, I realize that the two ending clauses (IDF disputed the charges and no war crimes trials were held) leave a somewhat misleading impression, so I welcome a copy edit. Take care, HG | Talk 23:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Probably it is little bit too much of intepretive liberty to assume that remark to effect of Palestinians must be made to suffer can be presented as an expression of intention to allow small-scale perpetration of war crimes? If we are going into area of intepreting intentions of IDF in Battle of Jenin in operative-tactical sense then I can point out that Central Command explicitly decided not to use strikes by jets or howitzers out of clear recognition that it is civilian area; accordingly Palestinian fighters are on record expressing amazement at seeing infantry entering Jenin camp on foot. I suggest this fact is an indication of true intentions of IDF i.e. sparing civilian lives.

Regarding the choices of phrasing and your preference, I do not think that wording of contentious articles should be focus of tug of war or give-and-take bargaining. We should rather aspire to arrive to more defensible formulations and above I've tried to point out that "IDF commited war crime" is much less defensible than (based mostly on hearsay) "Palestinian advocacy groups alleged that IDF commited war crime". DBWikis 19:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi DBWikis. What's both notable and defensible is that HRW and AI levelled these charges (and IDF disputed etc). Allegations by Palestinian groups can be mentioned in the article body, but the Palestinian view is less important for the lead than HRW/AI. Editors from various viewpoints agree on the emphasis on HRW/AI (as you can read from the Talk page above), we were just trying to hammer out our best effort at neutral descriptive wording of their claims. Thanks for your input. HG | Talk 20:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey. We all recognize that Tzahal had the capacity to inflict any level of destruction on Jenin up to and including vapourizing the entire area. They chose to use infantry supported with tanks (main guns mostly silent) and helicopters. You may think this is a reflection of their humanitarian purity of arms; I'm much more inclined to think it's a reflection of their need for the US public to believe in their purity of arms to keep the aid and dipolmatic cover flowing. Neither of our personal views belong in the article. What we should do is report what reliable sources said, without reference to our personal interpretations of their validity. HRW and Amnesty are world-class organizations and not "Palestinian advocacy groups". Their reports are widely cited by the same governments who profess to despise them when reporting on "unworthy" victims. The problem with reporting only what Palestinians said is that Palestinian sources are generally less reliable, often much less reliable. Reliable sources like the BBC reported HRW and AI's criticisms prominently, gave some space to Israeli denials, and to Palestinian affirmations. As should we. <eleland/talkedits> 20:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Headcount of proponents of any idea does not make it any more valid. In lieu of AI/HRW/etc. consider, say, any religious denomination with global scope and wide base of believers or supporters - I really doubt arguments of this sort will succeed in converting you to their particular doctrine.

Regarding IDF troops entering Jenin camp on foot - I wouldn't enter polemics whether it was done due to the fact IDF being army of a democratic state or was rather a ploy to curry favor with US public opinion - because even if we are to entertain the latter hypothesis, still I think that PR in this style is preferrable to sending kids to throw boulders on tanks, waging guerilla from built-up area and then drumming up support by flooding news reels with graphic accounts of 500 martyrs etc. DBWikis 04:10, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Thanks very much. After we finish patting ourselves on the back, let's use this success to tackle some of the other disputed aspects of the article. HG | Talk 18:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

This looks great, HG, thanks again. I would like to suggest two minor tweaks. Neither has anything to do with NPOV; they are purely for stylistic clarity. I won't put them in myself, even when the page opens. I'll leave it you; if you agree they're an improvement and others don't object then you can put them in. Subsequent investigations found no evidence of one. Based on testimony and documentation, however, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch charged that IDF personnel in Jenin had committed war crimes, and both called for official investigations. The IDF disputed the charges, and no war crimes trials were held.--G-Dett 23:14, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

G-Dett, I appreciate your editing suggestions. In terms of the last few clauses, I'd like to keep it as is because, as noted above, combining the last 2 ("IDF disputed... no trials") might leave the reader assuming a causal implicature we don't intend. In terms of adding a contrastive connector ("however") up front, it's fine the way the paragraph is set up. Of course, we might end up revising the order or content of the preceding text, and so need to change it again. HG | Talk 04:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm still not seeing any attempt to deal with the question presented here: Why are we saying: ...major human rights organizations found strong prima facie evidence of IDF war crimes. instead of saying: ...major human rights organizations found that the IDF had carried out war crimes.?

For the latter formulation, we've had detailed citations from both major human rights organizations (Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International) making the claim explicitly and categorically. We have an independent statement from the British military expert, David Holley, making the claim explicitly and categorically. (We're elsewhere quoting Holley directly as if his words were definitive corroborated that there was no massacre).

For the former formulation, we have one citation from Human Rights Watch. And nothing else. Why would we present multiple organizations as having said something they didn't say? And why would we not present multiple organizations as having said something they did in fact say? PR^talk 07:34, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Proposal: Use B'Tselem's data

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

Do you meant to mention B'Tselem's data, or to use it to the exclusion of others as somehow definitive? Keep in mind that the B'Tselem numbers are not intended to be a count of Jenin deaths specifically, in the same way that HRW and AI are. Your comments about the authoritative or non-authoritative nature of their data seems like original research, and according to most sources I've seen, Israel did not dispute the numbers given in their reports. 52 seems like the minimum figure given by reliable sources, and reportedly accepted by Israel as definitive. 56 seems like the maximum figure substantiated by reliable sources (and reported by a non-RS as being the official number counted by the P.A.). This 49 figure is lower than anyone else has reported, and Google News does not seem have any secondary sources reporting the 49 figure at all. <eleland/talkedits> 18:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

No, I am not disputing the total figure between 52 and 56. I was arguing in favor of moving away from linguistic analysis of what the WP article should say concerning what HRW has said concerning what interviewed Palestinians have said concerning all Zionist crimes and massaacres; and rather to get closer to more substantiative analysis how many civilian deaths could warrant criminal investigation in case Palestinian Authority or organizations like AI or HRW did indeed bother to proceed from interviews to collection of material evidence i.e. autopsies, in situ re-enactment, ballistic data, etc. My point is that this way their risked that the list of crimes which already shrank from Mr Erekat's "more than 500" to 56 individuals would loose even more entries. User Burgas00 has lamented that Palestinian deaths do not mean as much as if going wholesale - but unfortunately it looks like it is Palestnian side is more interested in heaping deaths, gore and "martyrdom" accounts. So my proposal to use of B'Tselem's data was to get as close to the facts as possible and review all available information on lost civilian lives. You are right it would be clearly OR so I am not pushing it into the article - I just suggested that if someone engages in discussion as loaded as this one then getting acquainted with pertinent information usually helps. DBWikis 20:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I really don't think I'm following you here. You've said that AI and HRW's data are "skewed" because they didn't conduct extensive forensic investigations, re-enactments, autopsies, etc, and because their conclusions substantiate some of the allegations made by the Palestinians. Did B'Tselem conduct these forensic investigations? And how do you conduct forensic sluethery and in situ re-enactment when most of the crime scenes were since bulldozed and most of the victims were hastily buried?

Oh, and I checked up on the B'Tselem numbers. They recorded 53 deaths, not 49. You excluded deaths of non-residents of Jenin who were killed in Jenin. (And Mr Erekat never said more than 500. He said that according to his information, the total could reach 500 for the entire West Bank. He was widely misquoted, but nobody has ever said where and when he allegedly made this "500 in Jenin" statement.) <eleland/talkedits> 00:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

UN Report

The section on the UN report currently begins with criticisms of the report, rather than with the report itself. Such criticisms should be placed in a separate section, entitled "Criticism of the UN Report." The section on the UN report should begin with the UN's confirmation that a massacre had not taken place -- which is of greater importance to readers than the number of reported casualties --, citing the following sources:

• UN says no massacre in Jenin by the BBC
• U.N. report: No massacre in Jenin by the USA Today

← Michael Safyan 08:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Michael, hi. I've temporarily removed the "protected edit" request because I think you'll need to be more specific about exactly what text you would modify or add. If it's to add a subheading, that may not be controversial. If it's to shift how we cover the "massacre" question, that probably will need some conversation and feedback. Thanks, Hope you don't mind. HG | Talk 08:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Michael Safyan - the BBC is wrong, the UN did not confirm that a massacre had not taken place. It's hardly surprising the BBC made such a gross mistake (and refuses to correct its reports) since we know it to be pro-Israel (though it does not admit as much in the summary of its own report - you have to go to section 4.7). The BBC wrongly quotes other parts of the report in a "pro-Israel" fashion, such as the total death toll. USATODAY is almost certainly far more biased.

And it shouldn't be necessary to tell you this - have a look at the UN report yourself. If you read it, you could even be excused for thinking the UN had stated there was a massacre. Contained therein are the statements of various governments such as eg "it is probable that a massacre and a crime against humanity might have been committed in the Jenin refugee camp" and "Direct eyewitness accounts by survivors of the massacre at the Jenin refugee camp" and "eyewitness accounts by casualties who survived the massacre" and so on an so forth. The UN report also contains quotes such as the Chinese journalist Shu Suzki ... stated ... "... All of the victims were civilians. ... I say again that a huge massacre was committed" Chips, the United States volunteer "... It was a real massacre and the scenes were terrible". PR^talk 13:32, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

It is of note to show that PR once again is alleging that the words of the reports by Palestine and Jordan which were attached as appendices to the UN report are the words of the UN which is NOT THE CASE. The blatantness of his falsehood here is troubling. Kyaa the Catlord 13:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

On the BBC and "no massacre" reportage: a headline on their website read, "UN says no massacre in Jenin", but the actual article only said the UN "rejected claims that hundreds of Palestinian civilians were killed". Headlines are generally written by copy-editors and not journalists, and I'm not sure if we can count information which appears only in a headline as RS. This is especially true when the headlines use the word "massacre", which does not appear anywhere in the UN report. <eleland/talkedits> 15:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

And then there are mundane things too....

...except that they are not truly mundane if we are trying to make an article half way decent. General improvements which are not germane to the POV to-ing and fro-ing can/should be made to this article. The intro for instance, would be improved IMMHO if changed to:

The Battle of Jenin took place between April 3-11 2002 in the West Bank Palestinian refugee camp of Jenin as part of Operation Defensive Shield, during the Second Intifada. In Arabic it is called مجزرة جنين (Jenin Massacre) and in Hebrew, הקרב בג'נין, (Battle in Jenin).

But I guess that even a general copyedit like that might cause a POV pusher to imagine a slight, so maybe it's not worth my while bothering with it. Sigh. Moriori 08:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you've made a fine copyedit. We'll try to implement it. Unfortunately, so much else is contested, I wouldn't encourage you to spend much time copyediting here yet. Sigh. HG | Talk 08:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)