Talk:Battle of Jenin (2002)/Archive 9

Module:WikiProject banner/doc
This page is a soft redirect.

Talk about your thoughts about the wikipedia article "Battle of Jenin".

Numbers etc

Ramallite, the first figures given by Palestinian spokesman Saeb Erekat, according to journalist Tom Gross, were 3,000 Palestinian dead. As for the causes of the British misreporting, it can't have been because of an Israeli exclusion zone, because they were reporting from inside the camp. Phil Reeves of the Independent, for example, wrote at least one of his notorious stories from inside a damaged house where he had spent the night. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:25, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

The second paragraph is the least of my concerns - I had some changes in the 1st and 3rd also ... Ramallite ^(talk) 21:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I didn't see any changes in the third paragraph. As for the first, the only change I saw is that you want to dispute it was a counter-terrorist operation (or rather, you want to dispute stating it as a fact), but I don't know of anyone who says otherwise. The State Dept, for example, refers to it as counter-terrorist, and no one disputes that the Israelis had targeted the people who organize suicide attacks. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

The US State Department is hardly an objective source regarding Palestine, to put it mildly. Palmiro | Talk 21:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

It counts as a reputable source for Wikipedia. But regardless, who seriously disputes that it was a counter-terrorist operation? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I've restored Ramallite's edit while we discuss it, because I hadn't actually intended to delete it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:14, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

:The third paragraph had the perceived bias of "killed" (Palestinian civilians) versus "lost their lives" (Israeli soldiers). As for the first paragraph, are you saying that Palestinians (regardless of how one feels about them) share the POV that it was a counter-terrorist operation? It shouldn't be necessary to pull out countless Palestinian references that called it 'aggression' (again regardless of if one thinks they are right or not - this is about neutrality). Regardless of whether the State Dept is biased or not, their saying something doesn't automatically make it neutral. We are not using DOS as a source here, that would be a tangent sentence that we are not going into. Ramallite ^(talk) 22:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Would you two stop for a second so I can save my stuff?? GASP! This is my third attempt. If you look closely at my edit, I don't think the first paragraph is actually reducing the notion of "counter-terrorist". I was careful not to use the word "claim" (i.e. that the IDF 'claims' it was counter-terrorist) because it's more solid than that. Is my wording really that problematic? Slim, if you are sure that there were journalists in there during the block, who were saying that there are hundreds or thousands of bodies and secret mass graves, then I withdraw my opposition to your second paragraph, although I do contend that part of the reason it drew attention was because of the media blackout (irrespective of the reports coming out). Ramallite ^(talk) 22:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

First, yes, there were British journalists reporting from inside the camp. Indeed, that was Phil Reeves' excuse afterwards: that he had written his story from inside a damaged house in the camp where he had spent the night, trying to write by candlelight, highly personalized account etc.

I didn't get your point about perceived bias between being killed and losing lives. I used a different phrase only to avoid repetition. I don't see how there's a POV difference.

As for "aggressive" versus "counter-terrorist," the two are not mutually exclusive. It would be a pretty ineffectual counter-terrorist operation if it weren't aggressive. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:35, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

It was called "an aggression" not "aggressive", you misread the above. The Palestinians media carried the headlines about "Udwaan Isra'ili" (Israeli aggression) for months during and after the operation. Ramallite ^(talk) 22:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Why have you added "also"? Now it sounds as though "oh, by the way, some Israelis died too." The two sentences shouldn't be linked by "also." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I was concerned about Palestinians are merely "killed" vs Israelis "lose lives". There is a perceived distinction between the two when talking about a battle, such phrasing does in fact suggest one side is more righteous. But I understand the repetition concern. Can you suggest a compromise? Ramallite ^(talk) 22:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I honestly can't see any difference. Which side sounds as though it's more righteous, and in what way? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

And how did the word "also" help? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

"Lost their lives" generally (though not always) is more emotive language than "killed". I contend that "lost their lives" is used more often to generate sympathy, whereas 'killed' is not necessarily as often so. The 'also' was my attempt to equate "killed" with "loss of life" to sort of level the field between the two, not to suggest an "oh by the way" POV. So again, I would appreciate compromise language if you can suggest any. Of course, if there is no difference between the two, we could just switch the two phrases' locations? Compromise language (for either) would be things like "fatally wounded", "lost", "fatally ambushed", etc. Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against sympathizing with the Israeli side, but doing so at the expense of the Palestinian side is not neutral in my mind. Ramallite ^(talk) 23:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've gone for the repetition instead of possible POV problems, and it now says "killed" for both. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:31, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

1. Counter-terrorism implies that the Palestinians were terrorists - disputed by what... around 1 billion people worldwide?
2. "Lost their lives" is unacceptable whilst Palestinians were merely "killed". If you still consider them the same as no different you won't mind me making it "Palestinians lost their lives" and "Israelis died" then?
3. The fact the media were barred from the scene is significant - they felt they were being barred from viewing the massacres that the Palestinians were talking about
4. Not really related, but only 23 Israelis died - people keep inserting the figure 33 (which is either wrong or unsourced). -- Tomhab 01:26, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I think all your points have been dealt with already, except for the media exclusion, but there were, in fact, journalists reporting from inside the camp. See above. In any event, what difference does it make whether you're a reporter inside the camp, inside Israel, or on the other end of a telephone? The journalists who got it wrong reported what largely anonymous sources told them with no evidence whatsoever to back it up. Where they were when they wrote their copy isn't the issue. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:35, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Using PR terms from one side such as "counter-terrorist operations" is surely perceived by readers as POV. You may argue otherwise, but the perception remains. Or can we start categorizing suicide bombings as "counter-occupation operations"?

HRW report and BBC link

I've removed the BBC link from the HRW report section, as it was an obvious attempt to discredit the HRW report via original research. The link provided was not a response to the report; indeed, it came out before the HRW report, and did not mention it. You can't use your own arguments to try to refute various sources, you have to come up with a reliable source which itself tries to refute them. Again, please read WP:NOR. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

It provides the background of the circumstances surrounding the HRW report's findings, and puts them into perspective. Looks like it's me vs. a few disciplined users attempting to whitewash facts through suppresion and intimidation, or dare I say censorship? It's all in context, so the obscure OR accusation is unfounded. Ulritz 23:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

How does it provide background regarding the HRW report? The HRW report came after the article and the quote in question. You're trying to insert OR in the article via this quote. Bibigon 23:55, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

"Puts them into perspective" = original research. Please read the policy; it is not "obscure", but rather one of Wikipedia's 3 fundamental content policies. The only person connecting this article to the HRW report is you. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd agree that the link isn't that useful (I wouldn't really say it was original research, just not that useful), but one thing which I note about that section is that the article says the HRW report focused "mainly on the actions of the IDF", yet we have 2 quotes saying about how Palestinians endangering life, but none about the IDF endangering life.

If someone is keen to balance it up a bit, it might be an idea to find the quote that suggests Israelis used human shields?

Having said that its not all that bad. -- Tomhab 10:24, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Is there any reason to believe the Israelis actually used human shields? Bibigon 17:57, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

All observers told of it, here's the UN report (Israel refused to let their team go in, apparently terrified that war-crime allegations would be made against individual soldiers, on top of anything else).

01/08/2002 - Press Release - SG2077 - REPORT OF SECRETARY-GENERAL ON RECENT EVENTS IN JENIN, OTHER PALESTINIAN CITIES [5]

....... Human shields: There were numerous reports of the IDF compelling Palestinian civilians to accompany them during house searches, check suspicious subjects, stand in the line of fire, and in other ways protect soldiers from danger. Witnesses claim that this was done in the Jenin camp and other Palestinian cities. The Government of Israel has denied that its military personnel systematically engaged in this practice, but on 5 May issued "an unequivocal order ... that forces in the field are absolutely forbidden to use civilians as a means of 'living shield'". .......

(Note that this report didn't actually agree that only 70 or so Palestinians were killed in Jenin. There were that number in Nablus, which was far less attacked).

......... Death toll: Four hundred ninety-seven Palestinians were killed and 1,447 wounded in the course of the IDF reoccupation of Palestinian areas from 1 March through 7 May 2002 and in the immediate aftermath. Most accounts estimate that between 70 and 80 Palestinians, including approximately 50 civilians, were killed in Nablus. The IDF lost four soldiers there.

PalestineRemembered 19:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, all sorts of reports. Here's what it says about the "Battle of Jenin": "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." Jayjg ^(talk) 19:09, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Media reports vs. IDF claims

The section Inflated body counts shows (on April 14) references to reports by the BBC and Australian newpapers that give inflated body counts of 250 and 188. The referenced articles indicate that these numbers come from the IDF, but do not indicate the exact source (like done on April 12, "IDF spokesman Brigadier-General Ron Kitrey reports ...") It is true that IDF reports were inaccurate at the beginning; I guess that they relied on Palestinian estimates, not being able to return to the battlefield and assess the situation themselves. Now I need some help... I think that this perspective should somehow be incorporated into the article, but I don't know the right way to do it. Any suggestions? --Gabi S. 17:09, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

part of the point of it all is that no-one really knew (or at least publically admitted) that only 50 or so palestinians died, IDF, media or Palestinians. If you leave in the Palestinians' estimates, and say the media said "250 palestinians dead" then it looks like the media were biased and solely relied on either faulty reports. But lets face it, if the IDF and PLO both claim 250+ figures then the over inflation makes mroe sense.... --Tomhab 01:16, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Allegations of a massacre

After "Rumors of massacres in Jenin swirled through Palestinian communities which were then echoed in the world press for several weeks," the phrase: "pitting world public opinion against Israel" is biased and not properly sourced. The source is from a pro-Israeli group.

Also, this sentence contains Weasel Words:

"There are various journalists who believe that the Jenin Massacre tale is an example of a wider systematic use of lies by Arab propganda throughout the years, such as allegations of massacres during the 1948 war."

And its reference to a pro-Israeli propoganda site is very biased: "...is an example of a wider systematic use of lies by Arab propganda throughout the years, such as allegations of massacres during the 1948 war."— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.155.165.220 (talk • contribs)

In fact, one could easily say:

"There are various journalists who believe that this Wikipedia tale is an example of a wider systematic use of lies by Israeli propganda throughout the years, such as allegations of terrorism."— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.152.240.79 (talk • contribs)

Jewish blood incident

Only one partisan source for this incident seems suspicious. When the Urban Legends website [[6]] discussed this incident, they just said that they were reporting that this story had appeared in one newspaper, they were making no claims that it was accurate. PatGallacher 12:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

• The Snopes story is here.[7]. Snopes sort of vouches for the piece, stating that the news story was printed, that author specifically identified his sources, and that the Israeli accounts of Jenin have generally been shown to be accurate, but that they can't specifically confirm this account beyond that. IMHO, the underlying question is whether the Jewish Journal (LA) is a reliable source or not. If so, the incident is fair game, if not, not. Based on the Jewish Journal's self-description,[8] I would say that it is a sufficiently reliable source to make the encyclopedia. WP frequently cites similar "free weeklies," and the JJ claims to be an award winning LA free weekly. TheronJ 14:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Intro

Ramallite 15:32, 26 January 2007: The reasons of Operation Defensive Shield are Israeli reasons, not Israeli-Palestinian reasons. The Israelis called it an operation to "crush the terrorist infrastructure"; the Palestinians called it "the Israeli assault". I don't think it's particularly NPOV to describe the Israeli reasoning as fact. This is not to belittle the reasons for ODS, but to make clear that the Palestinians did not see it the same way the Israelis did. It's a neutral phrasing issue....

Jaakobou 21:20, 28 January 2007: this is ridiculous, israel went on an operation due to an onslaught of suicide attacks and you want to say that those attacks can't be mentioned in the intro... pure POV vandalism on your part. Jaakobou 19:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

You must not understand English very well. I didn't say you can't mention the Israeli POV, I said it's not neutral to present it as a matter-of-fact. Park3r understood the difference. Do you? Ramallite ^(talk) 00:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I understand the difference between point of view and between baseless accusations of point of view... until you can prove that those people making the attacks who the militant group claimed was their responsibility did not come from the city israel claims they came from, your "alleged" vandalism, shows "personal reaserch" which is not allowed on wikipedia. Jaakobou 08:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Ramallite, since it was the Israeli forces "on the move" then their reasons are much more germane. The Palestinians do not need to have a justification for staying and defending their territory, while the Israelis do need a justification for invading. For that reason, it seems to me that it is required to present the one side's reasons much more than the other's.

Consider a less emotionally charged incident, the Battle of the Alamo. The Prelude to battle section there goes extensively into Santa Anna's reasons and justifications, without any mention at all of Travis' reasons for investing and defending the fort. The attacker's reasons need to be explained, the defender's don't. This is not PoV, it is simply common sense! --Eliyahu S ^Talk 13:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

If the notion that "Palestinians were defending their territory" were allowed in here, I would be much less inclined to object to the language that is being pushed now. Not to mention the original research being introduced that the Palestinians reaction was "inconsistent" or whatever. Is there an actual source that describes the Palestinian reaction as "inconsistent"???? Ramallite ^(talk) 13:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Ramallite, I don't see a problem with a mentioning that Paletinian perception is that they are defending their territory (if you can find a proper link), however, removing the precursors to the israeli operation is far from useful ettiquette for this article.. and you've recieved 2 warnings. i suggest you revert the information back to avoid a deservingly third warning. Jaakobou 13:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what warnings you are referring to. First, you are ignoring what I said about NPOV, each side has its story and you cannot present one side's narrative as fact. SECOND: You have no source for this notion that Palestinian reaction was inconsistent, that is nonsense. You have references attached to that statement, but they do not support what you say about "inconsistent". I have made several attempts to modify this intro to suit your needs, but you just blindly revert every time. This version is not consistent with WP:NPOV and WP:V and will have to be reverted. How about you try to address some concerns instead of blindly reverting? Ramallite ^(talk) 14:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I seem to be having a monologue here. Jaakobou, how can you say to me "i thought you were the one reverting rather than working with others" when I am the one trying to work with you as shown here and you just revert? I will still revert to my version. Second, this source does in no way support the claim that "Palestinians reaction was inconsistent as some denied that those responsible for the attacks on Israel were in Jenin and claimed a Massacre was being commited by Israel, while others gave the city the nickname of "City of Martyrs" for the large number of Palestinan Suicide Bombers emerging from it" - that's rubbish. Third, you didn't answer my question: Are you User MouseWarrior? Ramallite ^(talk) 04:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

This is getting very annoying. Now we have "MouseWarrior", "Paul T. Evans" and Jaakobou all reverting this article.Park3r 10:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I've asked Jaakobou if he is also MouseWarrior. Here and on his talk page. He has not responded to that particular question, yet. Ramallite ^(talk) 14:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

rest of the talk

Also, there were no "mixed" Palestinian reactions to the Jenin massacre, it produced blanket condemnation by Palestinians. I took out that sentence because that unsourced sentiment was not shown to be related to the contents of this article. If Jenin was actually called "city of martyrs", it was because of those killed there, not for suicide bombers launched from there. No? Ramallite ^(talk) 15:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

you insist on showing both bias (OMG! the palestinans saw an israeli offensive as an assault??! no way!) and lack of knowledge on this issue ("there were no mixed reactions"). your initial vandalism in removing anything which might shed light into why israel would "assault" on the poor defenseless "city of martyrs" is exactly the bullshit that encyclopedia's should avoid.. if you don't know the material then butt out and don't destroy the hard work of others who actually do know the material. Jaakobou 16:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I would watch my language if I were you. Your edits are uncivil and you are asking for intervention. Ramallite ^(talk) 16:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, "showing both bias" as you say is Wikipedia policy. Don't assume to know the extent of knowledge of others. And when you talk about 'hard work' on this page, look at the history. In all, be civil, air your concerns properly, and do not be rude, provocative, and/or disrespectful of me or of WP policies. Ramallite ^(talk) 16:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I do believe that some context needs to be added to the intro. Israel was reacting to suicide bombings (or at least claimed to be, a claim that I would tend to believe in this case).

However, the addition of details that are covered in the Defensive Shield article is pointless, makes the intro too long (and the Passover Massacre is already linked to in the infobox). The "City of Martyr's" thing should be removed, unless someone can provide a source.

On another topic, why are the civilian casualties not being covered in any depth? Surely there is some information about the 22 civilian casualties from reputable sources? Park3r 16:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

you can find examples on how Israel knows where the suicide attacks are coming from here:

1. living in jenin.
2. coming from jenin.
3. Jenin was was dubbed "city of martyrs" by Palestinain for 28 succesful suicide assains in the span of 2.5 years Israel totaled it as 34% of all suicide massacre assasinations within' the second intifada. Jaakobou 19:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
4. sample of "city of martyrs" use by pro-palestinain reporter takig his story from the palestinians Jaakobou 21:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

All Israeli government sources, which is fine, but it should be evident that it's one side's POV and not necessarily undisputed fact. Ramallite ^(talk) 00:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, no, Ramallite. The third link is to the British newspaper "The Observer", which is hardly a pro-Israeli source. Please be factual in your comments, and avoid misleading generalizations. Misstatements is how the whole "massacre" epithet was applied to this incident. --Eliyahu S ^Talk 13:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Well don't I feel like an idiot for mistaking one British source for Israeli? Anyway if you read my statement above you'll notice that my pointing to the sources as being Israeli was not to discount them, because I said "which is fine". I think it is misleading of you to portray my comment as discounting Israeli media - and if you were not accusing me of this then I apologize in advance. Are you disagreeing that one side's narrative should not be introduced here as fact? THAT is the essence of what I'm writing, not pointing out what source is Israeli, and what is British, Bahraini, or Bhutanese. Ramallite ^(talk) 13:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Well if something along the lines of "Israel alleged that suicide bombers were originating from this camp" needs to be included, that's fine. There's nothing wrong with that. But that wasn't the content before. As for the 22 civilian casualties (just the dead, not including the wounded), I have no idea why it's not covered, except to emphasize that the number was 22 and not in the hundreds as feared earlier, and thus couldn't be called a massacre. Apparently a 'massacre' is a number somewhere above 23. Ramallite ^(talk) 16:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Israel lost 23 soldiers in the battle. Essentially, Israeli soldiers lost their lives in order to keep the collateral deaths of Palestinian civilians to a minimum. this -> 8,000 Muslim men and boys were massacred by Serbs, Israeli army killed between 3,000 and 4,000 Arabs. - did not happen. Jaakobou 19:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

This is an article about Palestine and Israel. Why are you bringing up Muslims/Serbs/etc here? Wrong article for that, it's irrelevant. Ramallite ^(talk) 00:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

It seemed clear to me that comparisons with other, contemporary "massacres" is a very appropriate point to bring up in a discussion of the appropriateness of the term "massacre". Especially so where the referenced article, in the Christian Science Monitor, was contrasting the Arab, and especially Egyptian, reaction to and perception of the two "battles". --Eliyahu S ^Talk 13:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

What is a "massacre"? What is the magic number that qualifies a killing from being officially designated a massacre? Ramallite ^(talk) 13:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record, and I'm not taking sides here, the Passover Massacre which is linked to from this article as the cause, had 30 civilian casualties and is called a massacre. Of course they were not "collateral damage", but targets of the suicide bombing. Interesting how this article seems to have become about the media controversy over the term "massacre", and less about the battle itself.Park3r 15:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to take sides either ;) But I will say that using phrases like "collateral damage" insinuates that civilians were not intentionally targeted (I'm not referring to your usage above, Park3r). Rightly or wrongly, that opinion is not shared by the Palestinian victims, according to Palestinian media/publications. I agree with Park3r that this article seems to have turned into a terminology war. That is not the intent of this article. Ramallite ^(talk) 15:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the intro is the only problematic part of this lengthy apologia, but certainly bald statements about Palestinian inconsistency, for example, don't help. Palmiro | Talk 00:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The "Boston massacre" was 5 killed. While they were technically "innocent victims", they had chosen to be on the street demonstrating. Unlike the refugees in Jenin, 100s of whom died in their houses (not that you'd guess that from reading this article). See [9] for the nearest thing to a determined attempt by international observers to document this event. PalestineRemembered 17:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Passover Battle? // Liftarn 10:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Intro Part 2

Folks,

I've tried to work in some of the previous concerns. These have been reverted by some without any explanation and without addressing the reasons why the other version won't work because or NPOV and original research. Shamir1 added that Human Rights Watch reported that Palestinian militants had "endangered the lives of Palestinian civilians". According to the source, this is absolutely correct. But the source also says that HRW "has so far found no evidence that Palestinian gunmen forced Palestinian civilians to serve as human shields during the attack." This is contradictory to what the article said before (prior to Shamir1's addition), so I removed it. Ramallite ^(talk) 03:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

i do believe that the population was not forced to do anything there - see the CNN transcripts link:

"And all of them, almost all of them, told us stories of mass graves, of bodies being loaded into trucks and driven away. Of bodies being left in the sewers and bulldozed."

doesn't sound to me like they were all, almost all, forced to spread libel. Jaakobou 21:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

precursors to the battle

i removed this problematic use of information from the article:

During the same period , hundreds of Palestinians were killed in the occupied territories by israeli soldiers. The UN estimated that 497 Palestinians were killed and 1,447 wounded during the IDF reoccupation of Palestinian areas between 1 March through 7 May and in the immediate aftermath. An estimated 70-80 Palestinians, including approximately 50 civilians, were killed in Nablus. [10]

end

i'm concerned both with how this nitpicks at the detail of the article and creating bias by adding up to the death toll including the fights but mostly by how it is inserted into the precursors to the battle while it is definately not centered on events of before the battle. Jaakobou 21:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

---

Why is this information problematic at all? It is also in other articles about the intifada, and is backed by a official source. I dont wan´t to be biased, but as it is now the part " precursor to the battle" talks only about violence against Israelis. There is no single word to let the uniformed know that violence in this time frame, as in all this whole conflict, has always been used by both sides. If the sentence above is not to the liking of forum members ok, but I think a way to balance this especific part of the article has to be found. ( Rathed - 18 April 2007 )

1. nice to see you've just joined wikipedia.
2. you should re-read my 2 concerns.
3. if you wish to present a generic death toll across the land, you should work on the second intifada article rather than the battle on jenin.

-- Jaakobou 17:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

1. Many thanks :) Actualy, been contributing for a long time, mostly on military articles.
2. I did read your concerns. Like I said , I am trying to be balanced, exactly the oposity to biased. The overall palestianian death toll is the period certainly is not "centered" on the episody at hand, but how the israely casualities differ on this? And we do find space for them...If we are going to mention israeli deaths that ocurred before the battle , and outside Jenin, we should at least mention that palestianas deaths also ocurred in the same period. As I said, to give the uniformed reader a fair view.
3. You did not answered any of the points I made regarding the article being unbalaced as it is now.

Best regards ( Rathed , 18 april)

(1) you can add a pre-battle notes if you find something that focuses on pre-battle notes. I don't see how your post emphasized precursors to the battle of jenin. (2) considering that this article covers a blatant libel attempt that failed (see the CNN trasncripts about the mass graves rumors), i don't see how the article is imbalanced. Jaakobou 21:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Jenin battle wasn't even a massacre

The battle in the jenin refugee camp wasn't a massacre. A massacre is when someone comes intentionally killing innocent civilians. What Israel did in Jenin was trying to dismantle terrorist activity. israel iontended to minimize civilian casulties. The terrorists hid themselves and their weapons in a refugee camp so they can get Israel to kill refugees so they can get sympathy form the world amd more Palestinians to hate Israel. if Israel wanted to kill the civilians or anted to bomb the terrorists without caring about the civilians then Israel would have just bombed it. I am not saying that bombing the refugee camp would have been the right descision for Israel to make but Israel risk the lives of their soldiers to minimize civilian casulties in Jenin. Jenin was a battle not a massacre. The world condemns Israel when she defends herself. The Purity of Arms, is in the IDF charter and it calls on Israel to minimize its civilian casulties. We should listen to more guys like Walid Shoebat-Dendoi Monday Apiril 23, 2007 10:06 PM

We have "strong evidence" from many sources, amounting to "undisputable proof" that innocent civilians were deliberately killed.

Most graphic of all (and nobody can call it "Palestinian propaganda") may be the "Kurdi Bear" testimony [11] published in Yediot Aharonot, Israel's most widely circulated tabloid paper, on May 31, 2002. Moshe Nissim, nicknamed "Kurdi Bear", D-9 operator "I had no mercy for anybody. I would erase anyone with the D-9 ... They were warned by loudspeaker to get out of the house before I come, but I gave no one a chance. I didn't wait. I didn't give one blow, and wait for them to come out. I would just ram the house with full power, to bring it down as fast as possible. ... Many people where inside houses we started to demolish. They would come out of the houses we where working on. I didn't see, with my own eyes, people dying under the blade of the D-9. and I didn't see house falling down on live people. But if there were any, I wouldn't care at all. ... I am sure people died inside these houses." PalestineRemembered 09:05, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

BBC wrongly quotes the UN report

The BBC (and presumably other media sources) appear to be quite wrong about what is in the UN report "Report of the Secretary-General prepared pursuant to General Assembly resolution ES-10/10" at [12].

The BBC report [13] quotes the UN as saying "the UN said the overall number of Palestinians killed was 52".

However, examining the report itself we find "By the time of the IDF withdrawal and the lifting of the curfew on 18 April, at least 52 Palestinians ........ were dead" and "Fifty-two Palestinian deaths had been confirmed by the hospital in Jenin by the end of May 2002. IDF also place the death toll at approximately 52".

There is a further problem, since the BBC report is titled "UN says no massacre in Jenin", and I can see nothing of the sort in the report. The UN report refers to "the battle" 6 times and "battle-field" twice, it also refers to "massacre" 7 times.

I would propose that the BBC has failed to reach Wikipedia: Reliable Source in this particular case, and that quotes from the report should take precedence (in fact, the BBC version should not appear). This would not be un-encyclopaedic, since the BBC's own investigation of its coverage of the area in 2006 showed bias in favour of Israel [14]. PalestineRemembered 16:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

"commentary translation"

moved here from my talk page (jaakobou)

Please self-revert at [15]. The original of this article in Hebrew is at [16] of the Yediot Aharonot article on May 31, 2002. Gush-shalom provide a translation at [17]. While Gush Shalom is a campaigning web-site, it is not a blog, and would normally be considered a Reliable Source in its own right. It is certainly an RS for translation purposes. PalestineRemembered 08:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

the hebrew version might be an accurate copy of the ynet article, however, the english one is full of defamation and one sided "the truth!!!" style bloggish narratives that are not by any means accurate or encyclopedic. if you want, we can include some gush shalom refrence to the ynet article, but you must find the ynet article, and you must find a gush shalom article that doesn't plagerize(sp?) from ynet. you should also find a way to write things without copy-pasting. Jaakobou 09:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I fail to understand the objection - unless you wish us to understand that prominent Hebrew-speaking and writing journalists (Tsadok Yeheskeli in Yediot Aharonot and Uri Avnery in Gush Shalom) cannot be trusted. Tsadok Yeheskeli's reporting is good enough for Nizkor [18] and these Israelis [19] - why is it not good enough for Wikipedia?

Furthermore, if we're going to re-write WP policy and insert a new section called "Find the original", then we'll note the 2-day old revert in this very same article [20], where the original words of a UN report were removed, and a faulty version by the BBC was inserted in preference. We'd also have to re-write policy on non-English sources (currently depreciated). Perhaps the new policy should be called UnReliable Sources. PalestineRemembered 09:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Another exciting new WP policy in action for the first time "can't use source (gush-shalom) that is politically motivated" according to diff [21]. PalestineRemembered 11:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Well said. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 12:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

(1) i don't see avneri's name on the "translation" (+blog) gush shalom page.

(2) User:Abu ali, you have the nasty habbit of not contributing anything on talk pages and then reverting.^[22] Jaakobou 12:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

(3) User:PalestineRemembered, the political motivation is not the problem, it's the article not being a translation but it's being a blog that plagarizes ynet... why don't you just find the sourse article without the extention blog around it?? Jaakobou 12:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

• (1) Uri Avneri's name is not on the "translation" page, because (although this Hebrew speaking and writing journalist founded Gush Shalom some 14 years ago) the organisation now includes many 100s of Israelis and cannot be labelled as "self-published" or "a blog". Gush Shalom is entirely adequate to verify the existence of this article (repeated in 100s of places across the web) and reliably translate it. At this stage, if you believe "Kurdi Bear" said something different, the onus is on you to prove that there's some kind of falsehood been perpetrated. (If you do this, of course, then you'll wish to reconsider the revert you made of this article 4th May, replacing the words of the UN report with a BBC quote which is clearly wrong).
• (2) A breach of WP:AGF which I'm sure you'll want to withdraw. Equally, I'm sure User:Abu ali will graciously accept your contrition.
• (3) You told us that "political motivation" was the problem, and reverted on that basis. If you did this wrongly, then feel free to self-revert (but on this occasion, I'll save you the effort by doing so myself). What say you we do a deal, and edit only to existing WP policies, not the new ones I know you're so keen to introduce? PalestineRemembered 14:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

(1) Uri Avneri, is considered an extremist leftist (and some give him even worse titles), the people of gush shalom, are not considered WP:RS best i'm aware of it... maybe if it were an official statement or release. meanning that there's no signature on the blog entry (+plagarism). and at this stage i believe that the "kurdi bear" statment should be linked the way it was written and not the way some gush-shalom blogger added his own pre-text to it.

(2) actually no, i havn't breached WP:AGF with abu ali considering our history and the way he reverted the article.

(3) i think you misunderstood, and please don't "save me the effort" in the future. just find the YNET original and we'll get this conflict over with. Jaakobou 15:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The time may be approaching to insist on the editing of this article being done to WP policy, not to innovative new policies that have not been accepted, and are never going to be accepted.

In particular, nobody (including Yediot Aharonot, who would most certainly sue if their story had been mis-represented) seriously disputes the content of the "Kurdi Bear" article.[23]

Furthermore, describing living people as "extremist" (unless they're convicted of it, which Avnery has not been) is breach of yet another WP policy, risking a damaging legal case against the Wikipedia Foundation. You might choose to make that correction yourself, since it appears you take angry objection "you speaking for me is... disturbing. try not to repeat it." to my making such corrections for you. PalestineRemembered 11:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

there's so many things wrong with your paragraph.... in the future don't assume in my name and revert pages on my behalf. Jaakobou 11:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations, it would appear you've accepted the validity of the "Kurdi Bear" interview after all. It's unfortunate you thought it so important to revert the work of others, removing good referenced information, before checking and discovering the validity of it for yourself. Perhaps all parties have learnt something and the work of writing and improving the encyclopaedia can be re-started with less time wasted. I have had to correct what you added, since referenced sources must be in English, a basic WP policy I'm sure you understand and appreciate now I've explained it to you. PalestineRemembered 11:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

PalestineRemembered, please avoid condecending attitudes on your "replies", i've looked into the information and found some validation to the artcile and it's proper source, something gush-shalom has left out. regardless of this, their "translation+blog" page is unnaceptable POV pushing because it does not address the text properly and adds so much out of context information in a way that does not uphold WP:RS. sadly, we are forced to trust their hebrew version of the article since a second version could not be found, while i did find some mentions of this article on blogs, however, the english version is unnaceptable for a self-respecting encyclopedia. using WP:RS is a basic wikipedia policy which i'm sure you undersatnd must be followed when writing into articles. Jaakobou 16:24, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

new film about the fight

http://www.haaretz.co.il/hasite/pages/ShArtPE.jhtml?itemNo=286481 - i'm sorry i'm only posting an interesting source rather than inserting into the article.. pehaps i'll find time for it later. Jaakobou 09:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

We have been round this at some length already - this is the English Wikipedia, and is not properly served by foreign-language references. That is WP policy, and your other proposed modifications to it have not yet been accepted either.

Furthermore, you earlier implied that even Hebrew-speaking and writing journalists such as Tsadok Yeheskeli in Yediot Aharonot and Uri Avnery in Gush Shalom cannot be trusted when it comes to translation. Insertion of this fresh foreign-language material, in contravention of policy, and given your previous attitude to translation, might be mistaken for disruption. PalestineRemembered 11:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

you'll excuse me if i disregee with how you misinterpret the policy... and please, don't talk to me about disruption when you insist on adding wierd POV links such as this edit which held within' it the insertion of this link from the media outlet which made the most (intentional?) errors in reporting this incident. Jaakobou 16:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Bottom Line

The bottom line about Jenin is: More Israeli soldiers died than Palestinian civilians. This is unique and unparalleled in the history of warfare. Erudil 15:51, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

widspread hatered

i really dont understand the removal of this information, not only is there a valid link from the proper timestamp as reference, but this information is also common knowledge so there's really no need to dispute this even if there were no refrence... but there is. Jaakobou 06:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem is the CNN transcripts do not even come close to supporting the claims you have just put back in the article. Let's look at them one at a time:

The April 11, 2002 transcript

The April 11, 2002 transcript: You have used this as reference for the article text The battle attracted widespread international attention due to persistent Palestinian claims of war crimes, genocide, and inflated reports on body counts. I replaced that sentence, using the exact same transcript as reference, to read: The Israeli Defense Forces prevented journalists from entering the camp during the operation, and initially Palestinian sources reported 500 dead.

Please read the transcript and note that:

• It says nothing about why the battle was drawing attention at the time. In fact it has hard to imagine that a major Israeli military operation in a densely populated urban area would not draw major attention, regardless of what allegations the Palestinians were making.
• The transcript does not say any Palestinian claims are "persistent". It simply talks about what was being said at that moment.
• The word "genocide" never appears.
• It is true that Palestinian sources were reporting a death toll of 500 while the operation was going on. I have preserved that information in the article text. However, nothing in the transcript proves that the Palestinians deliberately "inflated" the total. Around the same time official Israeli sources were saying that "several hundred" had died [24]. Were the Israeli numbers also "inflated"? How can you prove that one was and the other wasn't? My version, which simply states what was said on CNN that night, is much more neutral and encyclopedic in tone.
• On the other hand, the CNN transcript does state, quite clearly, that journalists were banned from the camp during the Israeli operation. (Ben Wedeman states: "In fact, we have no access whatsoever to the refugee camp....the question that we would like to know and that we would like to direct to Israeli officials is why aren't we being allowed in that camp?") You have deleted this important information. Sanguinalis 02:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The ref is used to explain the inflated body count and the "rumor show", you can use it again later in the article to show that the press was not allowed to go in the camp during the fighting, the ommission was not intentional. p.s. the word genocide (and/or it's derivatives) appeared on other refs, i saw no need to muliply the usage of them.... why are you fighting these statements if you know it really happened.. or maybe you havn't watched/read any news during that period? Jaakobou 05:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

What, specifically, is the reference were Palestinians charge "genocide"? This would not be "repeating" references, because the CNN transcript - the ONLY reference you used - clearly does not mention the word. If you did not mean to delete the information about the IDF preventing journalists from entering the camp, put it back. I will temporarily refrain from reverting to give you a chance to do so. Sanguinalis 10:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The April 12, 2002 transcript

The April 12, 2002 transcript: This is your sole evidence for the assertion that These allegations were aired widely in the Arab world, inciting extreme antipathy toward Israel. But it is not evidence at all, because the transcript does not even mention Jenin! I am removing this reference altogether, because it is not relevant to this article, and removing the assertion that references it because it is unsourced. It is not up to me to disprove an unsourced assertion. The Wikipedia:Verifiability policy states clearly that "Editors adding or restoring material that has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, or quotations, must provide a reliable published source, or the material may be removed."

I find the assertion doubtful on its face. There are all kinds of reasons for Arab anitpathy towards Israel. If you want to put this material in the article, you will need to find evidence from reliable sources that Arab antipathy is specifically due to Palestinian allegations of massacres during the Jenin incursion, and not for any other reason. It is not up to me to look for articles that refute this view.

I really shouldn't have to explain all this. Anyone can see that The April 11 transcript does not contain the word "genocide". Anyone can see that the April 12 transcript does not mention Jenin. Please look for sources that specifically mention the 2002 Israeli operation in Jenin, and stick to what those sources say and not what you think is "common knowledge". Sanguinalis 02:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

first off, the word palestine and it's derivatives are mentioned quite a lot so it's not very far fetched from jenin, which is a small place. secondly, the article mentions it's an observation on a "telethon underway trying to raise money, they say, for the martyrs in the Middle East", jenin, being dubbed "city of martyrs" by the local "resistance" movement is something i believe is even refrenced in the article, which is impressive considering this is somewhat of a local lingo. thirdly, this trasncript came on the same day that a "martyr" (a.k.a. suicide human bomb terrorist) woman detonated herself in the heart of jerusaelm, this "martyr" came from jenin according to palestinian sources... which connects the whole story again. fourthly, i don't even understand why you mention "reliable published source" in connection to this refrence.

last note: the information is well sourced and well accurate with reality and simple searches for the background of this historical event, wikipedia offcourse allows you to challenge material, but considering that it sat on the article for quite a few months without being challenged for "semantics" and considering how this shouldn't even be argued, i expect this debate done on the talk page and not by reverts. Jaakobou 06:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I can't believe you are fighting this. The article clear does not mention Jenin. To assume that because the speakers referred to "martyrs" that they were specifically talking about Jenin is original research on your part. This is not an argument about semantics. The CNN transcript does not mention Jenin, so cannot be used, and that's that. Please find a source for your "incitement" claim. If it was so easy to find a source by a simple search, you could have found one faster than you typed this response to me. Sanguinalis 10:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Jenin comes to Lebanon

i figure we should consider adding information about media bias from this article - "Jenin comes to Lebanon" - into the battle of jenin article. i might get around to it sometime in the future. Jaakobou 06:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

This is an editorial, not a regular news article. If you use it for this page, it can only be used to describe a point of view, not a statement of fact. Sanguinalis 11:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

yes i know, thank you for mentioning that anyways. Jaakobou 12:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Jeningrad

It's used too ;) [25] --HanzoHattori 07:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

international attention - article conflict

I am reverting this edit [26] because:

1. Journalists were banned by the IDF before any of the other events in the paragraph, so it should be mentioned first. There is no reason to more this simple statement of fact to the middle of the paragraph, nor to link it to another sentence with an "and yet" clause.
2. You have changed the title of the Sydney Morning Herald article. Please don't do that. If an article is listed as a reference, it must be listed with the title it actually has, not the title you think it should have.

Sanguinalis 02:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Sanguinalis,

1. the journalists were banned from being in the camp during the fighting and yet they reported based on rumors... there's more than "room" for placing it in the proper location on the paragraph which deals with style of repot.
2. The title addition comes to help the readers find the proper citation to the article so it would be easier to read the correct source. it's a more than welcome change regardless of the reference which is, in this case, problematic to the Palestinian cause.
3. Please stop this incessant revert war over the materials - it is very much validated and researched. if there is something which bothers you specifically, you can raise it for debate (or find a countering source) and recieve a myriad of examples which could be inserted into the article. Jaakobou 07:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Malam Report (Hebrew)

I found this very interesting source, i thing we should add info from this to the article.. maybe i'll find time to do this soon, but i can't do it today.

main article: martyr city Attachments main: UNRWA terror supporter image sample attachment: translation and original

Jaakobou 16:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

gush shalom source

assuming that the hebrew reprinting is indeed 1-to-1 with the original 7 days news paper, we cannot allow a POV "translation" blogsource. using this refrence would be as NPOV as using littlegreenfootball to reference reports about lebanon. if you can come up with an accurate authoritative source english translation that doesn't add personal unsigned POV B.S. it would probably be used. until then, the only encyclopedic supposedly reliable source is the hebrew one. the 1st rule of wikipedia is reliability. Jaakobou 20:26, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

We have been all round this before, starting with commentary translation above. We can, and must, use English language sources, otherwise the encyclopaedia ceases to have verifiability, a core policy. Gush-shalom have translated the article, and they're not an organisation not a blog. Your only remaining argument is that Israelis are liars, and I don't think we need to go down that road. PalestineRemembered 21:25, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

That's completely untrue. English language sources are preferable to non-English language sources, especially when equal quality English language sources can be found, but one can certainly use non-English language sources. Please review WP:V#Sources in languages other than English. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

What the policy actually says is that "In principle, readers should have the opportunity to verify for themselves what the original material actually said, that it was published by a credible source, and that it was translated correctly." It's vandalism to take out the English reference. And replace a relatively well-written paragraph with a POV mess as has happened here (though it's not you who did it). Language such as "presumably in order to continue the operation without risking more Israeli deaths" has no place in the project. Calling 'Kurdi Bear' problematic, and then harping on about what was on his mind as he demolished houses with people in them is ludicrous - we should be using words from the actual source. Letting a problematic volunteer use army equipment in this fashion has all the makings of another scandal, we don't need to go there. PalestineRemembered 09:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

User:PalestineRemembered.

1. as i stated, and you keep ignoring - the problem is that Gush-Shalom, a known POV organization, did not just translate the article, but added unsigned POV which renders their article unreliable
2. can you read Hebrew?? because the article clearly describes Nissim as problematic and he further admits to this description and even notes "Kurdi always does what's in his head (what he feels like doing)":

טלפונים מהחבר'ה: 'כורדי', הם אמרו לי, 'מגייסים אותנו, אבל אותך לא'. "האמת היא שהבנתי את המפקדים שלי. תשמע, 18 שנה אני עושה מילואים, וכלום לא עשיתי שם. רק להפריע. בסדיר נכנסתי בלי סוף למעצר, כי סירבתי להיות חשמלאי רכב. גם ביחידה שלי, של הדחפורים, הייתי אמור להיות חשמלאי. אבל בפועל לא עשיתי כלום. רק ברדק. הייתי בא, ישר פותח שולחן קלפים, מביא בקבוק. כשאיזה קצין העיז לשלוח אותי לשמירה, הייתי שולח אותו קודם. כורדי תמיד עשה מה בראש שלו. כשרציתי ללכת למשחק של בית"ר או הביתה, אף אחד לא יכול היה לעצור אותי. אני מניע את האוטו ונוסע.

I really don't understand how you would like this guy to be described, and I further object to the way you portray the explanation of the interview as vandalism without the capability of reading it yourself. Jaakobou 13:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

We know Kurdi Bear was problematical, bordering on clinical psychosis and (he claims) drug-fuelled. We know he was completely untrained. We know he was given free reign to operate army equipment in circumstances where some/many people were likely to be killed by his actions - and he tells us this almost certainly happened. One almost wonders whether the IDF cares.

However, all of that is of less significance than the words of the interview.

As to your claim that Israelis lie to us, I'm perfectly happy to believe you. But Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth - we have a translation that the readers of the English Wikipedia can check. It's definitely not a blog, and it's the only source that is acceptable for us to use. PalestineRemembered 18:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

User:PalestineRemembered, this back and forth is becoming frustrating because you simply ignore what i am saying and are repeating your narrative misinterpretation of the referencing rules. please, try to read read again about article reliability and make note of the "Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field." statement, and try to remember that the analysis added alongside the translation does not fit the "well known, professional" requirement. i would love to add a translation of the article, however, the translation must be made professionally, and not via POV blogger. Jaakobou 00:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

This back and forth is more than frustrating, because the removal of English language references, and putting badly written POV material back into the article is vandalism. Gush-Shalom has 100s of members and a world-wide reputation, it's ludicrous to call it a blog. Thousands turned out for it's "6 days of protest" last month alone. Unless, as I said, you wish to imply that Israelis lie to us .... really?

And it's not the first time this has happened to this very section of this article - the inclusion of this excellent material (the only eye-witness material we have) was repeatedly obstructed.

There is a lot more work needs doing on this article, such as the inclusion of material that is provably quoting the UN report wrongly. That urgent improvement was also reverted. Anyone watching this would be excused for thinking this article is suffering a determined attempt to deny an atrocity. PalestineRemembered 09:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

User:PalestineRemembered, (1) can you name the "well known, professional" who added his commentary to the translation? (2) could you please avoid the libelous declarations? Jaakobou 14:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

It would be of great value to the project if you familiarised yourself with the various policies. Some of them are a bit technical and difficult to take on board all at once, but there is no mention of "well known, professional" anywhere within Reliable Source, and nowhere else that I'm aware of - and that's because there is no reason for there to be such a mention. There's a policy called verifiability, another core policy you seem to have real trouble with. I've lost track of how many new policies you've tried to introduce into this article alone (at one point, you were proposing the opposite of what you'd been doing just 2 days earlier). It is indeed very tiresome to be going backwards and forwards, particularily over an article with such major faults eg sources which wrongly quote from the documents they're supposedly based on.

Incidentally, the only breach I can see going on here is "Ill-considered accusations of impropriety of one kind or another (cite as WP:ICA)". The only reference to libel is this one "Calling someone a liar, or accusing him/her of slander or libel. Even if true, such remarks tend to aggravate rather than resolve a dispute.". PalestineRemembered 16:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

User:PalestineRemembered, you can find "well known, professional" here. please lose the "Some of them are a bit technical and difficult" attitude and the claims about what i've supposedly done or havn't done. Jaakobou 16:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Needs more work

There are several problematical parts in this article, including unsubstantiated statements right in the section I'm trying to improve (but in the interests of cooperation, I've not taken the completely unsourced material out). There are other problems too, such as the BBC quoting the UN report wrongly.

But in the meantime, there are editors apparently claiming that Israelis systematically lie to us and cannot be trusted to translate newspaper articles correctly. No alternative translation has been offered, so given we have an excellent source for the English one we've got, please can we use it? PalestineRemembered 17:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem, is that even if it is an accurate translation, it is being included in a way that makes the quotes say something other than what they are, and that is not acceptable (for example, only the bold was inluded, but the full quote says something quite different "When I was told to bring down a house, I took the opportunity to bring down some more houses; not because I wanted to - but because when you are asked to demolish a house, some other houses usually obscure it, so there is no other way. I would have to do it even if I didn't want to. They just stood in the way." He then goes on to discuss the boobytraps in the buildings that necessitated this. I hope that you read through it before again inserting it. Tewfik^Talk 18:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

You've introduced a third possible objection - does that mean the previous two are dropped?

And this objection looks like nonsense too - some parts of that interview simply describe the way he had to work under the conditions, they're interesting but irrelevant. I've pulled out the sections where he makes it clear that he took no precautions to allow people to escape, and, although he didn't see it happen, he believes that people were killed by his actions. Israel claims to have taken precautions not to kill civilians - but it then handed 60 ton bulldozers to the totally unqualified (+ problematic + +) who used them with reckless abandon. All of that belongs in the article, with the English references. PalestineRemembered 19:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

This article is awful, indeed an embarrassment to Wikipedia. The unsourced assertions (e.g., "explosive charges in their schoolbags"), distortions of source material (including the UN report), flagrant POV like "Palestinian propaganda victory" in the summary box, the timeline that is not a timeline of the actual fighting at all but of the press coverage, the boldface epithets that pepper the lead: all this needs to be fixed.

Next to this, the Kurdi Bear dispute is minor, and I wouldn't want it to prevent improvement of the article. A revert war like what is going on now is just as bad as an article freeze, in my opinion, as any change to other parts of the article is likely to be tossed with the reverts. PalestineRemembered's critics have a point about relying on a translation provided by Gush Shalom. However, the alternative they have proposed, simply trusting Jaakobou to read the Hebrew for us and rely on his summary, is also bad. Jaakobou has proven that he cannot be trusted, as he has misused even Engligh-language sources in this article. As I have pointed out earlier in this talk page, he has put the word "genocide" in this article even though the source does not use the word, put in a highly inflammatory sentence about "incitement" based on a source that does not even mention Jenin, and even altered titles of news reports in citations. Unfortunately all these distortions are still in the article!

I think the best way to treat the Kurdi Bear material is to put it in its own paragraph, tell the reader that the translation is provided by Gush Shalom, a radical peace group, and then provide a few representative quotations. I don't think PalestineRemembered has misrepresented it, though he does make an important omission regarding boobytraps, which were explicitly mentioned by Kurdi Bear. I also doubt the Gush Shalom translation is really erroneous. Jaakobou has hinted that it is but he has never pointed out which passages are mistranslated and what the errors are. Furthermore, lengthy excerpts of the Gush Shalom translation have been published in Tanya Reinhart's book, Israel/Palestine: How to End the War of 1948 (Seven Stories Press, 2002). Reinhart was a columnist for Yediot Aharonot as well as a professional linguist and it is unlikely she would give so much space in her book to an erroneous translation. Let's put an appropriate POV caveat on the source, quote it directly and move on. There is plenty of material from completely undisputed reliable sources that can be used to improve this article. Sanguinalis 23:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

there is no point in addressing the accuracy or inaccuracy of the gush shalom translation, as long as they insist that the page is not a translation page but rather a "bloggish battle assement" and unverifiable POV pushing. i disagree with the assessment that we should include this, as we could do the same with israeli right wing websites and mention that it is written by extremist right wingers... while we're at it, we can add the reports about the battle made by al-manar and mention it is an extremist shia militia run media... even better, let's use the iranian cartoon made on the battle, that would surely be a reliable source... all we need is to mention that it's an iranian report.

btw, i agree that the children's schoolbags claim should be cited... i made a quick search for something but havn't found anything yet... i did find a number of sources who mentioned the 15000 explosives claim by kol ysrael and i've also found this page (arabic), which is supposed to be the Alharam Weekly (cairo) issue 582, 18-24 April 2002.

you can see a partial translation here google auto translator does half the page, and you can copy paste segments of the article here.

in the article there's quite an impressive testimony about "redoubling efforts in the preparation and processing exponentially" ... "some of the crews arrive at work day and night without rest, everyone tirelessly to accomplish the tasks entrusted to him what is required of him in his area of specialization." ... "As for the explosive materials necessary for the preparation of packages of different kinds, have focused our efforts in the preparation of a strong and huge quantities compared to the time factor and potential. This article urbanization of subgroups where articles were purchased nearly three tons of each article and the crew competent in this aspect, which was the hero on the head Mahmoud Tawalbeh" ... "After the preparation and processing of this article the same crew worked on the preparation of the bombs sizes and different shapes, which manufactured large-sized packages of ad hoc mechanisms and armored vehicles, was also prepared packages of various sizes and the ad hoc against individuals. This is in addition to manufacture and prepare more than one thousand small packages that were hit by hand"... a few mistranslations but overall, google does a nice job. Jaakobou 08:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

btw, according to a hebrew article about this source, the source also says that everyone including the children knew where explosives were being hidden. Jaakobou 08:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

First of all, we can use al-Manar as a source in certain circumstances, when it is properly labeled and identified as POV, and is used in an area where the viewpoint of Hezbollah is notable. If there was a transcript of an al-Manar broadcast in 2002 that claimed 50,000 people died in Jenin you would be rushing to put it in this very article in order to prove the duplicity of Israel's enemies. You're ignoring two factors that make using the Gush Shalom translation different from a random political website, which is that Gush Shalom is itself a notable group (as PalestineRemebered has pointed out), and the authenticity of the Gush Shalom translation has been endorsed by Tanya Reinhart, a notable figure and a regular columnist in the Hebrew-language newspaper in which the original article appeared. The rest of your post I can't make sense of, you seem to be saying you found a source for the "explosive charges in schoolbags" claim but don't seem to grasp that to be used, such a source must explicitly mention explosive charges in schoolbags. None of your sources mention schoolbags. And nobody should be copying and pasting Google translations into this or any other Wikipedia article. Sanguinalis 02:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

No. al-manar, a TV station banned in Europe for incitement of racism is not a reliable source. The only place it might be used is in an article about al-Manar itself. Isarig 02:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

You are wrong, Isarig. Here are two Wikipedia articles that are not at all about al-Manar, but nonetheless use material from al-Manar to illustrate a POV: Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and September 11, 2001 attacks timeline for September. The posture of many Wikipedia editors seems to be: We can't use sources from radical Arab groups, except when useful to prove what wicked anti-Semites they are. Sanguinalis 02:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

No, I am 100% correct, and you need to read more carefully. In the 2 articles you referenced, Al-Manar is not used as a source for anything - it is mentioned as a station that ran antisemitic conspiracy theories. It is not forbidden to comment on Al-manar- but we can not use it as a source. Do you understand the difference? Isarig 02:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it should be clear, since I only wrote about using al-Manar as a source in "certain circumstances, when it is properly labeled and identified as POV, and is used in an area where the viewpoint of Hezbollah is notable", that I am not arguing that al-Manar be used as a source for any thing other than what the views of al-Manar are, and then only in cases where the views of al-Manar (or its sponsor, Hezbollah) are notable. I regret the blunt tone of "Isarig, you are wrong": I simply wanted to make the point that the views of al-Manar are notable enough to be mentioned outside the al-Manar article itself. To get back to this article, I still think it would be acceptable to describe the contents of an al-Manar broadcast about the battle of Jenin, so long as it is attributed to that organization, and the reader is informed of its political orientation. Sanguinalis 04:14, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Sanguinalis, this is not a statement about the battle but a generic bloggish "translation+personal thoughts" POV piece about the palestinian-israeli conflict. Jaakobou 11:24, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

The Gush Shalom page that you object to consists of two things: An English translation of the 7 Days article, and a few additional paragraphs which express the POV of Gush Shalom.

1. There is reason to believe the translation itself is accurate, as it has been endorsed by a prominent Israeli linguist. Anyway, you have never told us where you believe there are inaccuracies in the translation.
2. As to the POV part, Gush Shalom is a significant organization. Significant enough, that their views are considered worth reporting on by the Jerusalem Post. We can certainly put in this article, for example, the statement that "The Israeli peace group Gush Shalom called Kurdi Bear's testimony 'sickening'." Sanguinalis 02:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

gush shalom are a noisy bunch who are allowed to express their opinions and having friends at a few high places they can also get quoted.. does not make their statements more accurate than those of ahmed tibi or avigdor liberman. regardless, their unprofessional handling of the translation is the reason i cannot accept such a blatant backdoor introduction of POV... and the wiki protocols explain this. (pun intended) Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 02:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Source inadequate to support statement

"Rumors of massacres in Jenin swirled through Palestinian communities which were then echoed in the world press for several weeks, pitting world public opinion against Israel. 27" Ref 27 is a publication by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL). According to the ADL, "a massacre of hundreds of Palestinians by Israel was widely alleged, reported and condemned".

The word "massacre" appears 27 times in the document. Although quotations from the international press are sprinkled throughout this document, the ADL doesn't produce a single quotation of ANY media outlet using the word except in scare quotes or preceded by some variation on the word "alleged".

In other words, we have only the ADL's word to rely on here. Is the Anti-Defamation League of the B'Nai Brith, a deeply partisan organization dedicated to advancing Israeli militarism under the cloak of anti-racism, a reliable source on this matter?

What the article should say is something like "Rumors of massacres in Jenin swirled through Palestinian communities, and the existence of these rumors was reported by international media outlets who could not confirm or deny them. Israeli authorities prevented the international press from entering the refugee camp for two weeks, which delayed the ability of the world community to assess the damage. After it became clear that no systematic massacre had taken place, supporters of Israel's actions condemned the international media for reporting on these rumors and allegations. According to The Independent, "Israel’s host of government spokesmen and its media have seized on such claims to mount an argument tantamount to saying that, as there is no proof of a massacre, there is no case to answer at all."

Eleland 19:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The standard on WP is verifiability, no truth. I appreciate the effort you put into researching the validity of the ADL's claims, but this original research can't be part of the article. Isarig 21:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

So now reading the sources given to support a claim is "original research"? The ADL is too partisan to be a reliable source on its own. So I read the source material, looking to see if perhaps the ADL citation could be converted into citations of more trustworthy sources. Finding none, I believe that the cited information should be removed altogether, unless a better (ie, non-partisan) source can found. Failing that, the claim should at least be attributed within the text -- "According to the Anti-Defamation League, an American Zionist organization, rumors of massacres..." Eleland 21:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The Anti-Defamation League is an American Human Rights organization, not an American Zionist organization. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The ADL is both. However, their claims that world media were unfair to the Israeli military is clearly Zionist advocacy, not human rights advocacy. Eleland 19:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Reading the source is not original research. Reading the source and concluding that "the ADL doesn't produce a single quotation of ANY media outlet using the word" and subsequently that the article should say that "international media outlets ... could not confirm or deny" is. Isarig 22:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, the statement about "could not confirm or deny" was not based solely on the ADL link. But you're right, it is something of a synthesis of sources, so it shouldn't be included. The phrase "who could not confirm or deny them" shouldn't be included, just the other language. Eleland 18:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

We should handle the Anti-Defamation League the same as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and other organizations. That is, their views and conclusions should be presented, but not treated as undisputed fact. Sanguinalis 10:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• This article lists lots of sources. This too. This is an interesting headline from The Daily Telegraph: Hundreds of victims 'were buried by bulldozer in mass grave' Also, this Guardian article says: Hundreds are reported killed, including many civilians. The BBC reports The Palestinian Authority is calling for an immediate investigation into what happened at Jenin; it claims Israeli troops killed hundreds of people there. Martin Sieff did an interesting 3 part report for UPI about the hysteria, titled "Why Europeans Bought the Myth", worth reading. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

As far sa I can tell, absolutely NONE of the media organizations you cite actually claimed there was a massacre. They only claimed that "reports", "rumours" or "allegations" of a massacre existed. So I think it's totally consistent with the language that I've proposed. Eleland 18:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

You're far to focussed on the word "massacre"; the ADL doesn't say the sources used the specific term "massacre", but when they're reporting hundreds of civilians killed, bodies being buried in mass graves, etc., they are clearly talking about a massacre. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, the world press didn't report on "the existence of these rumors"; rather, they repeated them. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg, every link you gave me featured Palestinian allegations reported as: allegations! The current wording implies that international press credulously passed on rumours as if they were true, when in fact, they simply reported that these rumours existed. This is a major difference. Even the sources you provide take pains to downplay the credibility of the rumour, noting that it could not be verified, that burying victims in Jenin would not serve to hide a "massacre" at all, etc etc. Eleland 18:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

So what exactly is your point? The European press was filled with these stories - i.e. they echoed them, and they didn't, in fact, call the "rumors" as your edit claims. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how my edit implies that the world press specifically used the word "rumours". They were in fact called "rumours", "allegations", or sometimes "reports". Furthermore, can you tell me what "sourced information" your last edit restored, and what "original research" was deleted? Eleland 03:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I used direct quotes from the sources, rather than various unsourced POV statements. The different is quite easy to see. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

A direct quote from the Independent was removed, leaving the only source as the Anti-Defamation League, a highly partisan group with zero credibility on this issue. And an unsourced statement, tagged as unsourced, but which supported Israeli POV, was restored. Oops! I'll correct this apparent error. Eleland 12:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

There was no citation for the Independent quote, and its placement appeared to be original research. Please review WP:V, which doesn't say at all what you seem to think it does. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

So, if I properly cited the Independent quote, you would be fine with it? And please explain how its inclusion is "original research". I've noticed in the past that some people use "original research" to mean "anything I don't like". Eleland 16:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

big jenin lie

i'm not 100% certain this must be in bold, but it certainly feels like it considering it's one of the predominant terms used to describe this event - 13,000 finds is fairly indicative. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:55, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

But the relevant search would be "Big Jenin Lie", which returns 236 results, most of which seem to pull back to a single Weekly Standard editorial. It wouldn't seem that "Big Jenin Lie" is one of the predominant terms used to describe this event, after all. It's fine to have a line mentioning that some Western commentators called the media furore the "Big Jenin Lie", but pretty silly to have it listed in bold as if it's a significant name of the event. Eleland 22:27, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

actually, the most used is "the big lie" while referring to jenin, however, as you stated, "the big jenin lie" does not appear on many sources but it's still easily interchangeable between "the big lie" and makes it difficult to narrow down when "the big lie" is about jenin and when it isn't... perhaps it should be changed into "the big (jenin) lie", what do you think?

note: the third link in the 13,000 find is "Jenin: The Big Lie" which is yet another interchangeable possibility. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at. The specific phrase "Big Jenin Lie" is bolded, as if that phrase is a common name used to refer to the Battle of Jenin. This formatting is reserved for names used to refer to an event. It makes sense to mention that some Western commentators accused Palestinians of propagating a "Big Lie" for propaganda purposes, but not to put the name in boldface as if it's commonly used as a name of the event. Eleland 12:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Boldface is for commonly used alternative names for the subject of the article, such as Tamil Tigers for Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam. It is not supposed to be used for every epitaph anyone has ever used in relation to the subject. I can find zillions of web pages that use Shrub or Worst President Ever to refer to the current U.S. president but nonetheless those terms should not listed in boldface in the lead of the George W. Bush article, and they aren't. Elelend was right to unbold "Big Jenin Lie". "Jeningrad" should just be removed; the fact that Arafat once used it doesn't justify giving it such prominence. Sanguinalis 12:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

you have a point, i'll give this naming issue a go later today to try and fix it to a version that will hopefully be agreed upon. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

"Jeningrad"

should we somehow insert the information about the term jeningrad and why it was used by very few people to describe the events? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 00:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

massacre 30-50

we deem the netanya bombing as masscre, because it is the indiscriminate killing of 30 people sitting at a dinner table while the perpetrator had the racist intention of killing as many jews as possible and the brainwashed mindset of thinking that this will get him into heaven. the jenin battle is not deemed a massacre, because it was fighting between two armed forces, one of which was victorious, yet with many casualties (that are not registered as massacred either).

p.s. i agree that it was a palestinian propaganda victory, considering they got their "500 killed!" message out in prime time and the "ok, maybe it was 50" message was barely noticable due to the lack of media interest in letting the public know they were wrong/lying/spreading libel. to top things off, many arabs/muslims still use the term "jenin massacre" which shows this was successful propaganda. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Fine. I know I'm stupid for even trying to make even the smallest amendments to articles on Israeli-Palestinian issues when there's a whole gang of editors who'll jump in and revert them (I assume you are also referring to this gang when you talk about the "we" who "deem" things). Good to know as well that we can describe it as a Palestinian propaganda victory on the basis that you personally "agree" that it was one. Terrible of course as well that the Palestinian authorities didn't know at first how many people had been killed and overstated the death toll (as in fact is common in situations of this sort, see September 11th). I do understand your point about motive - but I'm always reminded of a comment I saw at the time along the lines of "if a bunch of soldiers came into my town, flattened all the houses around me and killed 50 of my neghbours, I'd call that a massacre".--Nickhh 08:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

The infobox is hardly the place to discuss naming, but in this case the '50 neighbours' were mostly armed combatants killed in battle, while the 30 in Netanya were civilians killed by a suicide bomber with the stated aim of killing civilians. I'll grant you that there isn't currently an explicit source for the outcome listed, but I believe that can be easily remedied, and a {{cn}} tag would be far more reasonable in such a situation. Tewfik^Talk 09:02, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Of course it's easily remedied. All one of you needs to do is go through back issues of the New Republic or the Jerusalem Post, find a comment to this effect by one of their writers, and there you are - OR and personal opinion suddenly becomes reliably sourced Wikipedia fact.--Nickhh 09:20, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

One final thought from me on this point - regardless of the accuracy of the phrase, do you have any idea how offensive it is to describe the deaths of 50 people as being a "propaganda victory" for those people? Probably not I guess --Nickhh 09:52, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

(1) disagreement on the "propaganda victory" is something i don't mind and we surely can discuss this and work on some references. (2) i explained why the generic wikipedian who works on this article (and the general public) deems the netanya bombing a massacre while the 50 fighters (most of them fighters) who died at the jenin camp are not deemed as massacred. (3) your explanation about your "50 neighbours" fits the netanya bombing, not the situation at the camp that just launched 28 successful suicide bombings and managed to place explosives everywhere including kitchen cupboards and under cushions of couches! - and according to one of the captured they were waiting in anticipation on such a battle their whole lives. to be honest, I found your comparison insulting but apparently you only care for dead militants, comparing them to your neighbors, and not for people who are unsuspectingly targeted while they eat their holiday meals. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

The Palestinians killed in the camp were not all militants. Even Israel acknowledges that some innocent civilians were killed, even though they say it was by mistake. Sanguinalis 14:20, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

read my note again, notice the "most of them fighters". Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Please do not post untrue and offensive accusations about other editors on article talk pages. It's rude and it's irrelevant. I have responded to what you have said on your user talk page, although I'm not sure your comments deserve a reply. --Nickhh 14:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

please don't compare terrorist militants to your neighbors and act as though people who are unsuspectingly targeted, while they eat their holiday meals, are not massacred just because "only" 30 people wound up dead; and we won't have this problem. i was the one insulted - and suddenly you get insulted in return when i note this insult to you?! Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

your posts also say "50 fighters" and that I compared my neighbours to militants (twice, now), the implication of the latter being that only "militants" were killed. That is not the case - civilians were killed too, and if I lived in Jenin they would have indeed been my neighbours. Hence the comparison. And where did I "act as though" people were not massacred at Netanya, or use the word "only" alongside the number killed? I simply queried why one event was called a massacre and one was not. We wouldn't have this problem if you didn't attribute opinions to me that I don't hold, or suggest I made statements that I never made --Nickhh 16:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

you just selectively quoted my text. just try not to compare the martyr's capital populace (militants and human shields in a bomb filled batteground) with people who celebrate passover, as though they are on the same innocence level. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:59, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I did not selectively quote your text. I quoted part of your text, and acknowledged, by my use of the words "your posts also say ..", that another part of it did say something different, ie that the victims weren't all fighters. However now you seem to be arguing anyway that the civilians who were killed in Jenin are on a different level of innocence from other victims of violence. I think you need to be very careful about what you are suggesting with that comment --Nickhh 17:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

"Human shields"? Sir, the only documented evidence of human shields in Jenin relates to Israeli forces ordering Palestinians to walk in front of them, open potentially booby-trapped doors for them, etc. Jenin was "bomb-filled" in order to make its capture s as difficult and costly as possible for the invader. It was a "battleground" because Israel invaded it. You're talking as if Jenin was some kind of giant bomb factory where civilians flocked to become human shields, and not a densely populated town where some militant groups made bombs. Nicknh is right, this article is still littered with anti-Palestinian bias, and adopts the completely false accusation that the media were grossly unfair to Israel and reported a massacre that didn't exist. In fact, the media simply passed on what fragmentary reports they receieved, for a while, and then ignored the massive human rights violations by Israel in favour of this bogus question of "massacre". Eleland 13:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

proposed tidy up to intro

On a more constructive note, I'd like to make some changes to the intro. In particular some of the cited sources and the interpretation of them needs to go. However I'd like to suggest them here first, to avoid the usual revert war

1. These allegations were aired widely in the Arab world, inciting extreme antipathy toward Israel.[14]. This may be true, however a) the cited reference doesn't provide evidence for either of these points and doesn't mention Jenin at all; and b) I think it's fair to say there's quite a lot of antipathy towards Israel in the Arab world anyway - it's not solely dependent on what did or didn't happen in Jenin.

2. Due to this activity, critics in the West name the events as the "Big Jenin Lie".[15][16]. All these sources show is that a couple of US opinion pieces had the phrase as a headline. Having this in the intro slightly overstates the significance of the criticism and the phrase - it's better off just staying in the media reaction section.

3. Many Arabs and Palestinians still use the term "Jenin Massacre" (ar:مجزرة جنين) regardless of the results of the investigations.. Sorry but second part here just strikes me as being a bit unnecessary, and being little more than a "but they're wrong of course" POV insert. If the phrase is still widely used (are there sources that suggest that?) then it should be noted as a standalone fact, to reflect the fact that some people in the region do use different words to describe what happened. There's also a slight contradiction as well with the recently-changed first sentence, which says "previously dubbed as .." --Nickhh 16:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

1. (a) this report is taken out of a CNN day dedicated to the Jenin fighting. (b) true, however, this was yet another factor to strengthen these racist feelings which are found for the most part on misinformation and lies. regardless, a "hate telethon" for the "massacre" is certainly something worth mentioning.
2. you made an interesting point, however, if you look up in the talk page, you'll find that there's quite a lot of people who used this and similar phrasings, hence it was notable enough.
3. i agree that we should add a citation to this, however, it was not added on a whim.

-- Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. I kind of read all this as meaning you want it to stay as it is, but you will add one source to tighten it up. Maybe other editors will have a view (as they did when the Jenin Lie issue came up previously, in the section you referred me to). Oh and as usual you immediately reverted the one change I did make, where I had clarified that Israeli sources also initially referred to 100s of casualties. Working with the existing text did make it come out a bit clunky, but you were wrong to say in your revert summary that my wording suggests Israel admitted to a massacre - it says, as it did before, that some media began reporting a massacre .. but changed the following section so it said that those reports were based on [a combination of] the Israeli & Palestinians accounts.--Nickhh 17:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

That Israeli estimates were originally higher is noted, but your edit changes the meaning to say that Israeli reports claimed there was a massacre. Tewfik^Talk 17:59, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

As I explained above, my edit didn't say that if read carefully. But equally, as I admitted, it ended up being somewhat confusing. I'll add it to my list of things that I think need changing and see if anyone else has any views about how it should best be written up. Currently the intro suggests that the only reason for the high casualty figures (and use of the word massacre) is because the Palestinians tried to hoax the world and slander Israel, and that the western & Arab media fell for it. As ever the reality is a little more complicated than that - yes the Palestinian spokespeople and witnesses made exaggerated claims about the numbers killed, but I imagine that's as much because, at senior official level, they simply didn't know what was going on in the camp in the first days of the assault. The IDF, who probably had a better idea, were also talking about 100s of casualties. The media were therefore faced with both sides at times offering similar estimates (albeit each of them describing the situation in very different terms) - and as they were barred from sending reporters into the camp themselves, that was all they had to go on and report. In the early stages of events like this, there is always genuine confusion and contradictory or incorrect reporting about the detail of what is happening. --Nickhh 18:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Nickhh, the reason i changed your phrasing was because international reports were based on the reports of the palestinians, not on a cross-check between israeli and palestinian reports. if a couple of israeli sources echoed the "palestinian narrative" (citation is needed), the source still remains palestinian and not israeli. the way you originally phrased it, allowed for the misinterpretation that the international media followed israeli reports - which is wholly inaccurate and misleading. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

What you'[re saying about "a couple of israeli sources" is factually incorrect. Israeli Defence Force spokesmen did, in fact, offer casualty estimates in the hundreds. Shimon Peres was quoted using the word "massacre" (he later said he was misquoted), and a number of IDF officers were quoted anonymously in a major Israeli paper saying "when the world sees what we have done here, our reputation will suffer immense damage". This was in no way "echoing the palestinian narrative". Eleland 22:15, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Everyone: don't forget all the (pro-)Palestinian claims about the supposed secret burials in mass graves or what-not. --HanzoHattori 23:48, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Um, they're still there. In the intro. As for whether Israeli actions and comments affected the reporting, even one of the sources cited, one of the CNN reports, includes an individual reporter querying whether the IDF has something to hide, and whether that's why they're not letting journalists into the camp. I watched a lot of media reporting at the time and this was in fact a common reaction - the Palestinians say 100s of civilians are being killed, some IDF spokespeople appear to be confirming a large number of deaths and they're not letting people in to see what's happening. That all helped feed the reporting frenzy. You might want to blame it all on deliberate Palestinian misinformation, but that's not even what the sources 10-13 cited here say. My edits clarified all this, without inserting any judgemental emphasis. --Nickhh 09:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

More inadequate references

The claim that Jenin was called "the martyrs' capital" is supported by "The Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center opened in 2001. It is part of the Israel Intelligence Heritage & Commemoration Center (IICC) , an NGO dedicated to the memory of the fallen of the Israeli Intelligence Community and it is located near Gelilot , north of Tel Aviv. It is headed by (Col. Ret.) Dr. Reuven Erlich ."

Please acknowledge that NGO's closely, and openly, linked to one side of the combat are not reliable sources on their enemies. This is equivalent to citing a Hamas-linked NGO for information on an Israeli city. If Jenin was, indeed, called "the martyts' capital", and this was, indeed, a reference to suicide bombings, then there ought to be more reliable sources which can back up the claim. In any case, this claim does NOT belong in the very first sentence of the article; that is a clear attempt to push the Israeli line that the refugee camp was somehow the essential keystone of the suicide bombing campaign and therefore a legitimate target. Eleland 22:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

it is simply the current reference to a known fact/nickname, there are links with a scans of documents written in arabic and references - try inspecting them please. this is a fairly WP:RS for referencing a known fact that has been noted on several other sources also.. i don't mind more citations being added, however, there's no reason to feel the given source is unreliable in this matter. secondly, while there is no room to expand on this in the intro, i think it certainly merits a mention. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

So provide these other sources that make it a known fact. Eleland 00:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

unless you have reason to believe this reference is a fraud, the duty of coming up with more references lies with you. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 00:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Um, no, statements which are not properly attributed to reliable sources may be remvoed at any time. No question of "duty" or "fraud" enters in to it. Read the relevant WP policies. Eleland 00:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

the text is referenced to a WP:RS source. did you inspect the scanned documents? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 01:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I take it you do not have a source both RS and verifiable by "any reader" of the encyclopedia. The reference should come out (especially from the lead!) PalestineRemembered 08:57, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

actually, this issue was fixed allready (see martyrs' capital on talk). Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect edit summary 24th July

Jaakobou you claimed you had tidied up some unreferenced claims & a few incorrect phrasings. This untrue for two reasons - in fact you more or less simply reverted several edits by good-faith editors to a previous version you approved of; also you actually removed sourced material and re-introduced OR and editorial speculation that does not belong in an introductory paragraph. To be more specific -

1) You re-inserted the statement that Palestinians had claimed "genocide" was taking place, which has a footnote referring to a CNN report/transcript. I had removed the word for the simple reason that it is not mentioned once in that article. Even if you can find a source for that, it'll have to be quite a bit better than one individual merely using the word once in a live TV interview if it's going to get into the introduction (which I have no doubt you can find, given the type of language people can use when discussing massive military invasions of densely populated towns).

2) You reverted the quote from the allegedly authentic Fatah document so that it says Jenin is called the martyrs capital "by Palestinians". I can't see that in the source: quite aside from any - wholly valid - debate about its reliability, the document itself just says "is termed". It doesn't say by whom, and yet again you are also trying to suggest one (alleged) quote can be presumed to be the view of a siginificant part of a population.

3) You re-inserted the word "vastly" to describe the extent to which Palestinian officials inflated the body count figures. This is a far too value-loaded phrase for an introduction, and is unnecessary. I'd even rather not use the word inflated.

4) You reverted changes that had tried to make clear journalists were NOT simply relying on the wrong figures given by Palestinian officials and witnesses when they reported on what was happening. However, as I have pointed out before, even the currently cited sources say that it was a combination of factors that led them to talk about a higher death toll. For example if you actually read the two CNN pieces cited from 11th & 12th April at notes 10 & 11, you will see the following - Ben Wedeman says "we have no way of confirming [the Palestinian claims about a massacre]", because journalists are not being allowed in the camp(ie he is not simply taking the claims at face value); he also says "international relief sources are saying possibly as much as 200 [dead]" and that because the IDF is barring access "the feeling is, is that they are hiding something .. that there's something they don't want the world to see".

5) On the same point, The Telegraph piece cited as footnote 13 says Israeli sources put the death toll at 200. The Sydney Morning Herald article cites two different Israeli quotes, one talking about "100s" of dead, another 250 dead. Other media sources also quoted similar Israeli estimates. However you removed the words from the introduction that had flagged this point up.

I am sorry but it seems you have no interest in making the introduction a balanced piece of writing that sets out the very broad facts, with reference to the sources being cited in it. Instead you seem to want to highlight every point that makes the IDF look noble and victimised, while minimising any real reference to what did happen in the camp, and also highlighting every point that appears to make (to you at least, presumably) the Palestinians appear as vicious and mendacious people who probably deserved what they got. Some of your comments on this talk page corroborate that (ie talking about the different "levels of innocence" for Palestinian civilians as compared to that of Israeli civilian victims). Added to that you insert a false description of what you are actually doing in your edit summary. Whether I can be bothered to change any of this back is another matter. It all gets very tiresome. --Nickhh 20:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

You have now reverted again, claiming in your - as usual - fictional edit summary that you have included a proper reference for the genocide claim, and alleging that I vandalised the article

1. The Telegraph piece, like the CNN piece also make no mention of "genocide". Can you actually read?

2. You presumably saw the VERY long post above in which I clearly explained what I did. Even if you do not agree with the reasoning (which is absurd, given that that most of my comments relate to whether certain words or events are mentioned in the references or not), my revert was clearly not vandalism. --195.92.40.49 12:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

(forgot to log in for the above post due to lack of time - when i have more will consider how to pursue the blatant abuse being perpetrated here --Nickhh 12:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC))

1. if you keep your objections short and to the point, i might be able to actually address them properly.
2. some of your objections are argumentative beyond response as though you insist of "proove it!" polemics once a statment has been proven well enough.
3. feel free to start a separate subsection here on talk for each objection and i will answer them as best as possible. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

My objections were to the point - I numbered them, explained clearly what the issues were, and yet you did not respond to any of them, you just reverted the article. It is still open to you to respond to them one-by-one. There are quite a few of them because there are so many problems with the current wording of the introduction. First time round my objections were not short, unfortunately, because it seems to be a struggle to explain to you the concept of "this source does not use the word you say it does .. therefore I have removed it from the main text". If I point out that a source simply doesn't say what you say it does, or says something that you choose to ignore, of course you have to "prove" that my specific changes are wrong before reverting them, rather than making a vague assertion that everything you say is "well proven". And don't forget we are not talking about complex interpretation of these sources, it is a simple point of checking whether certain words and phrases are in them or not. I find this process rather easy. You clearly prefer to rely on filibustering on a talk page. --Nickhh 15:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

i'll address the first one: plasetinians made numerous versions of genocide claims, some used the word genocide, and most just used boundless exaggerations that amount to genocide, it you are displeased with the references, note it with the tag, not by reverting information which is both factual and also fairly well cited. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

If I'd put in a cn tag, you'd presumably just have done what you did previously anyway, and added another reference which also doesn't use the word. And I think you should be able to work out that including the claim in the article because some Palestinians used "boundless exaggerations that amount to genocide" is what we call Original Research round here. For the tenth time, the information about the genocide claims may or may not be "factual" - it is certainly not currently "fairly well cited" in this article.

In turn, and by your own reasoning, you should not remove the part of the text that talks about the impact of the IDF barring entry to the camp, or the IDF's own initial casualty assessments - you should tag them cn. Except of course they ARE ALREADY included in the directly cited references, and also noted further down in the article itself. I quoted some of the relevant parts above. Do you want another one just to make it clear? "The greatest impediment to establishing the truth of what happened in Jenin is the Israeli insistence, on safety grounds, on keeping the camp closed" from the Sydney Morning Herald piece. --Nickhh 17:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

A final clarification before I give up and leave you to perfect your Likudipedia. The media sources cited refer, several times each to a) Palestinian claims of 100s dead, allegations of a massacre (although not specifically genocide) etc; b) Israeli statements about 100s killed; c) the IDF's sealing off of the camp. "My" version of the intro references all three, with much more weight still being given to the Palestinian quotes, and use of the word subsequently rather than consequently, in order to avoid inferring direct causation (as I'm sure you'd prefer on both counts - although my own POV is that all three factors contributed to the massacre claims gaining some currency). Your preferred version removed any references to Israeli statements or actions. If you don't see the gaps and lack of neutrality in that, I'm afraid I'm a little lost. I am not trying to make this "pro-Palestinian" instead of "pro-Israeli", since that is not where I am coming from - I am just trying to present what the cited sources say --Nickhh 18:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

thank you for that redundant personal attack on how i phrase myself (on the talk page) to describe a phenomenon of exaggerations and lies that included claims of mass graves, bodies being repeatedly mangled by tanks, and more than 3000 dead by some "eye witnesses". Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

genocide

i figure, since people are perhaps naive to the claims made in the global media, that we should start digging up a few of the references for the word genocide that's reverted out so many times even though it was used on many occasions, sometimes with the word itself and sometimes bluntly implied with "figuratively descriptive eye witnessing".

i present this source as a starting point: http://www.honestreporting.com/articles/45884734/reports/Jeningrad_What_the_British_Media_Said.asp

feel free to explain why you consider the use of the word genocide in this paragraph not usable.

The battle attracted widespread international attention due to Palestinian claims of war crimes and genocide and also due to vastly inflated reports on body counts by Palestinian officials.

--Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I am trying to stay away but it gets very hard. I certainly won't bother trying to edit some accuracy or balance into the introduction any more, let alone the rest of the piece. Whether there were significant contemporaneous Palestinian claims of genocide or not is the least of the problems with this article, and there are far more important issues over what happened in Jenin (like the verified killings of civilians and the physical destruction of large parts of the camp); however I can't let your latest bit of research pass without comment - the only reference to "genocide" claims in the above link is a second-hand one to an AN Wilson column in the Evening Standard. Here is a link to the original piece - http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-446185-details/A+demo+we+can%27t+afford+to+ignore/article.do

Please note - 1) He is not a Palestinian, hence it does not justify an assertion of "Palestinian claims"; 2) he is clearly referring to the combined effect of the overall IDF operation at the time in the West Bank & Gaza, presumably including - but not limited to - the assault on Jenin. Feel free to say he's talking nonsense, but it doesn't support the statement that you want to put in this introduction. I even started to do some more of your work for you, and did a Google search for "Jenin genocide" .. I didn't spend too long trawling through the results, but it actually bought up zero sources showing Palestinians - ANY Palestinians - claiming at the time that what happened in Jenin was genocide, let alone any that showed that they had done so in a wicked bid to defame the IDF. It did, however, bring up quite a few US or Israeli sources alleging that the Palestinians had alleged genocide, but without offering any actual examples. That is a very different thing. --Nickhh 20:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

please note, you disregarded the 3000 deaths first claimed combined with the mass graves claim which lead to a single concept - genocide. i'm not saying we have enough sitations at this moment, i'm saying the word is most fitting and we simply should work for finding the sources for it because i wouldn't be pushing this issue had i felt it was not a major part of the way israel was presented in the international media. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Contentious claims must not be cited with "starting points"; they must be fully cited or not cited included at all. What we have is a rightist commentary site alleging a quote from a British newspaper that "we are talking of ... genocide", it's completely inadequate for the charges you mean it to support. At most, it could support the charge that "pro-Israel websites quoted a British Weekly Standard columnist discussing genocide in the context of Jenin", but that kind of statement is pretty much useless. You should find the original Weekly Standard piece, or not include this information at all. And in any case, whether a Weekly Standard columnist used the word genocide is not the same as whether Palestinians made claims of genocide. Eleland 22:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

In addition Jaakabou you seem to misunderstand what the point of an encyclopedia is - the idea is not that editors flag up their highly personal and speculative interpretations of events, and then declare an intent to trawl around for sources, any sources, that will even vaguely back them up. Nor did I disregard the "3,000 deaths" claim. As I keep saying, I know several Palestinian witnesses and officials made what turned out to be incorrect claims about the death toll. These claims remain in the introduction, and I have never suggested they should be removed. What is in dispute beyond that is a) why they made those claims (confusion? ignorance? panic? a bid to slander the Israelis with some kind of vicious blood libel?); and b) whether any of them specifically made the highly-loaded claim of genocide

ps Eleland, the piece is in the Evening Standard, the main London regional newspaper, in a column by a writer who usually covers a broad range of social & cultural topics, and is not particularly known as a "heavyweight" political columnist. The link to the original is above. Of course, not only does it not provide any evidence for Palestinian claims of genocide, but it is hardly evidence either for any suggestion that genocide claims took over the UK press (there are ten national newspapers here [and thousands of regional newspapers. --Nickhh 07:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)] - as I said, this is one opinion piece in one regional newspaper) --Nickhh 07:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

agreed, i will take a deeper look into sources/origins of this issue before/if i make another suggestion to insert the term genocide again. i will start a new subsection on talk about the other issues soon. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

They always cry about genocide and compare 6 million deaths (which they deny btw) to their "we lost the war and you're evil" casualties which don't even amount to 20K, maybe you and a couple others got confused. i don't think you can add genocide here. Kalisto89 11:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

i will give it a deeper look and won't force the issue if it does seem like it's only an exaggeration by the british media. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

martyrs' capital

i first became aware of the number of succesful suicide attacks from jenin and the term "martyrs' capital" while watching a pro-palestinian documentry on the israeli channel 8, in this documentry, it was deemed that palestinians in general called the place "martyrs' capital" and not only fatah members. currently we only have a citation from a fatah source and therefore it's written as "called ... by fatah", which is minimizing what we are supposed to report on only to the citation provided. i believe we should perhaps find a second source so we can expand this to "called... by palestinians", which is a more complete/accurate phrasing. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not more accurate of course unless those sources actually exist. And "martyr" of course is a phrase used to describe anyone killed in the fighting - it may well be that many Palestinians do indeed refer to Jenin as the "Martyrs' Capital", quite possibly not because of the numbers of alleged suicide bombers that came from there before the battle, but because of the numbers killed by the IDF incursion. Which would put quite a different meaning on it --Nickhh 11:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

the term was not mentioned to allege "suicide bombers" but rather noted right after some text about the militants operating at the camp in recent years, to note the high stature of the city among the palestinian "resistance jihad" movement... take a look at my last version. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

is there any objection to reinserting this material under "called... by palestinians" with a note that more refrences should be used along with the fatah one? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

nevermind, i found a source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3015814.stm Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:58, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Here we go again - you freely admit you want to "find a second source so we can expand .. to a more accurate phrasing". As ever, you know what you want to say and then trawl for something, anything to back it up. And has it not also occurred to you that maybe the magic new source that you have found is actually, in effect, the same source as the one you are already subtly misrepresenting? That is, this BBC journalist is just relying on the disputed IDF-supplied document for his (very brief) comment? That is the way the modern media works you know, with stories and claims going round in circles from one outlet to the next (see the pre-Iraq WMD reporting farce for an obvious example of this). This reference doesn't offer any genuine independent verification for the claim that "the Palestinians" refer to Jenin this way, let alone what they mean by it --Nickhh 14:38, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe Jaakobou's motives are relevant, or at issue. While you may well be correct about BBC getting the information from the same partisan sources, making this call on our own is original research. In the absence of sources which specifically dispute the martyrs' capital claim, a BBC citation is enough. This being said, mentioning the "martyrs' capital" information so prominently early on seems a little POV for me. I'm going to rephrase it slightly. Eleland 19:38, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

no offense, but your change in this matter made the paragraph broken. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

IDF reporting 250

i request a citation for this text that the IDF at some point reported 250 killed in the jenin attack... otherwise, it seems incorrect.

the current text:

"The IDF barred journalists from entering the camp during the fighting on safety grounds and at one point reported casualties as high as 250, yet many journalists...."

-- Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:10, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

It's cited in the body text to an Australian newspaper [27]. Eleland 11:43, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

seems like a "3rd person" report that doesn't quite meet WP verifiability standards. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:16, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

The source, a major Australian newspaper, clearly and unambiguously states that an IDF spokesperson reported 250 dead. Your objections are unfounded and, frankly, nonsensical (all newspaper stories are written in "3rd person" and this has no bearing on verifiability.) Eleland 15:32, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

And why do you insist on inserting text that is not justified by the cited sources, yet query text that is? Is it simply because what it says doesn't accord with your POV. I think most of the contemporaneous media sources cited claim IDF casualty estimates in the 100s - this is presumably because the journalists asked the IDF for their estimates, and various spokespeople gave them those estimates, either in individual or official briefings, or in media interviews. Those figures were wrong, as were the Palestinian claims. The other depressing thing about all this is that, going back up the talk page, it seems another editor had very similar debates with you back in May/June this year, for example about the inclusion of the word genocide in the intro, and other examples of your general misuse/misreading of sources and references. --Nickhh 14:48, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

(1) i don't think that an australia news source should vouch for IDF spokepersons. (2) i have a pretty strong recollections of the events in question and i see documentaries relating every week on our channel 8. (3) please refrain from POV accusations as they testify to your own POV also.

i request you come up with proper citations on this one. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:03, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

These objections are nonsensical. Furthermore, they seem to hinge on whether you personally like the claim at issue. You sourced the "martyrs' capital" claim to the BBC (after a laborious explanation of why Israeli propaganda websites are not WP:RS). If a British TV station reporting claims about what Palestinians say (without specific attribution) is perfectly reliable, is not an Australian newspaper reporting claims about what Israelis say (with attribution) also reliable? Whether you remember seeing it on a Channel 8 (whatever that is) documentary that you think was "pro-Palestinian", or whether you have a pretty strong recollection, is completely irrelevant. Provide sources for your claims or stop making them.

On a personal note, you would do best to leave this issue to one of Wikipedia's many competent Israeli hasbara-pushers. Your broken English, and your manifest ignorance of Wikipedia policy, make you look really silly. Eleland 03:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

(1) User:Eleland, i think you should take a good hard look at WP:AGF, WP:CIV and WP:NPA.

(2) please note that i'm not forcing the issue when a reasonable explanation to an objection is given.

(3) please address this issue properly - either we find a reliable reference to give this this alleged spokesperson some credibility or the hearsay statement should be removed. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth - the Australian article gives us an estimate of 250 dead from an IDF source, and that is perfectly adequate to be included. However this article is not written to the WP standard of verifiability, since English-language sources of the Kurdi Bear interview were removed - I believe you can explain how this happened. And this article is laced with other inaccuracies, including a BBC report ("52 dead") which clearly conflicts with the source they're quoting ("at least 52 dead"). Perhaps it would be better if you edited the Hebrew WP rather than the English one, since it's clear you're having some difficulty with the language in use here. PalestineRemembered 22:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify the point - one way governments feed a lot of information to the public is via anonymous briefings to the media (either officially via a press office, whose staff in the UK at least do not give out their names, or unofficially in off-the-record briefings by other staff). This happens either because the journalist has contacted a press office for a comment, or because the government is trying to pro-actively push a point out. That journalist, and other media, may then report what they have been told. That is the way the system works, and it happens in addition to more direct and public methods such as government press conferences, officially released statements etc. We cannot just exclude any information that comes out this way on the basis that it is "3rd hand" - it is still attributed by the journalist to the government collectively, and is certainly not hearsay. What matters is whether the media organisation in question is considered to be a reliable or professional one (which of course is a separate point from whether it is considered biased or not). Any mainstream media outlet saying "the IDF said last night that ..." should be a reliable source for the content of that IDF statement. --Nickhh 07:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

that assessment may become valid once we get a couple hebrew sources (or some valid english ones) that repeat this information. we cannot base this information on a single 3rd party source from another country who's giving this information almost indirectly to it's own article. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

And yet, we can, when the information is something you want known ("martyrs' capital"). Here [28] is Ha'aretz approvingly quoting an Arab-Israeli filmmaker on the IDF estimate of 250, without printing any kind of correction or retraction. Here [29] and [here www.aijac.org.au/review/2005/30-9/jenin30-9.html] is a soul-searching "why does the world hate us" editorial of an IDF Captain published by The National Review Online ("Worse still, the IDF was releasing what turned out to be erroneous, highly inflated estimates of Palestinian casualties ... While our office was saying around 150 Palestinians were killed, I heard very senior generals say up to 200, and the press quoted defense officials with numbers ranging as high as 250. These estimates made the Palestinian claims of 500 dead seem reasonable.")

Do you realize that you are, concurrently, arguing that a single report in a free Jewish-community weekly in San Fransisco be treated as received wisdom without even attributing the claim to its sources, arguing that a single background line on the BBC is enough to label an entire city as the suicide bombers' capital, and arguing that a single 3rd party source from another country isn't adequate to report on Israel? How can you sustain this apparent contradiction? Do you even recognize that the contradiction exists? Eleland 12:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

kalisto89 I've never heard about an IDF official stating we killed 250 people, a rumors on a semi-paragraph in Australia is not a good source. Kalisto89 10:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

These aren't "rumors on a semi-paragraph", but a report in a major Australian daily. Their correspondent was undoubtedly in Israel which obviates any question of Australia somehow being too far away to report on Israel. Explain why they are not a good source. Eleland 12:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

that sounds like a lot of OR to support this statement and i really don't understand why you ask for an explanation when one has been given. just find some proper source for it so we can get rid of this discussion or get rid of this rumor. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

seems to me that the current phrasing of:

The battle attracted widespread international attention due to Palestinian claims that war crimes were committed (these claims were repeated in the HRW report), and as a result of inflated reports on body counts by all parties.

simply avoids the issue of the 500+ claims by palestinian officials on international broadcasts (saeb erekat on CNN for example) and tries to equate it with one australian report about an unknown israeli source who supposedly claimed up to 250 were injured. i believe this issue needs to be addressed properly so we can phrase it in better accordance to validated facts. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Explaining my revert

(i) The claims made by Dr. Zangen and the IDF officials are contentious, and should not be presented as undisputed fact, (ii) we should provide information on the actual damage done to the Jenin camp, as well as the subsequently refuted claims of a massacre. CJCurrie 08:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

agreed on this one, i don't mind the phrasing "said" anymore. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

actually, i changed my mind - this is not a civilian being interviewed, but an actual report by an official medic on the scene. the word reported is far more valid than "said". Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Kalisto89: I agree with Jaakobu

• • I don't particularly care if the wording is resolved as "said" or "reported". I'm more concerned about presenting IDF claims as uncontested fact, as the current wording still does. CJCurrie 21:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Part (ii) is the more serious point. It is equivocation bordering on fraud to describe the devastation to Jenin as a "Palestinian claim" rather than an objective fact. The camp was bombarded heavily by tanks and helicopters, and subsequently some 10% of its area was deliberately razed to the ground by Israeli bulldozers. These are not merely allegations, but widely reported facts. The bulldozing, indeed, was proudly confirmed by official Israeli sources, who were eager to point out that they'd "merely" flattened a tenth of the camp, not the entire camp. Can we address this serious problem? Eleland 01:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

It is equivocation bordering on fraud to describe the devastation to Jenin as the result of the IDF "deliberate bulldozing" leaving out that everything was deliberately rigged with explosives, in order to kill as many IDF soldiers as possible. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it is time this article was edited to WP policy. The devastation was carried out by the IDF - actually, much of it by an untrained "problematical" volunteer whom they let free on IDF equipment. Kurdi Bear told us exactly how he did it, with reckless disregard for the safety of civilians, and believing he killed people in the rubble. It's also high time the "verifiable" reference was put back so that "all readers" can verify what he said. PalestineRemembered 09:30, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

PalestineRemembered, statements like - The devastation was carried out by the IDF, would be OR. WP policy is not to base articles on such OR, if you read the actual article, you'll notice there's nothing there about IDF being the sole body responsible. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

The BBC reports... in the fighting

Two problems with this line. Firstly, the destruction was an objective fact rather than a "report". Everyone involves agrees that about 1/10 of the camp was bulldozed to the ground. Israel proudly reported this to the world! Their spokesmen went on TV to tell us about it! [30] [31]

Secondly, the houses were indeed "systematically razed to the ground" not "destroyed in the fighting". Destroyed in the fighting is, frankly, a lie. Most of the bulldozing was done after the fighting [32]. The current wording falsely implies some kind of "crossfire" or "collateral damage", and misrepresents what the sources actually say. Eleland 03:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

i reverted because information from the intro was removed, and the "facts phrasing" was based on inappropriate references. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 06:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

btw, i saw images of the destruction, and to me "the facts" looked much closer to 3% destruction of the camp and not 10%. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 06:38, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

i guess if you mix my own bias and the BBC bias, you get the proper number (6 percent), as i just added to the article. havn't removed the BBC, they are still a large news body, bias and all. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I provided two sources, the BBC and the UN report, for the fact that tanks and helicopters shelled the camp. These are manifestly reliable published sources. Yes, I know that many people, yourself included, believe that the BBC and the UN are out to get Israel. This is irrelevant. Unless reliable, published sources not constituting a tiny minority dispute the fact that tanks and helicopters shelled the camp, this fact should not be removed or changed to a "claim".

On the percentages: GlobalSecurity.org may not be a reliable published source by our standards. I don't know. In any case, the percentage they gave referred to the "stadium", the large demolished area in the centre of the camp. The 10 percent figure given by the BBC, the EU report on Palestine, and the "pro-Israeli" group CAMERA, includes other areas of demolition.

"Mixing" one's own bias and the perceived bias of reliable published sources is not a recognized procedure on Wikipedia. Vague references to half-remembered television programs you saw personally are not useful in resolving content disputes. Please accept this. Eleland 20:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Eleland, please don't make claims about me beyond what i state, if you have better sources than BBC, feel free to share with us. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 07:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

You might be interested to read the English-language version of the "Kurdi Bear" interview, it's here. That reference was deleted and replaced by the Hebrew version of the same thing (and all the wrong clips from it put into the article). We were told that verifiability (supposedly one of the core principles of the encyclopaedia) now only meant that "all readers" were expected to understand Hebrew.

You might also note that both the UN and HRW state that "at least 52" were killed, not "52 in total". The UN weren't allowed in atall - but one group of International observers discovered[33] that "bodies were still being recovered from under the rubble as late as early August", over 3 months later. PalestineRemembered 20:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

User:PalestineRemembered, you should consider linking not only to the problematic sources, but also to all the talks relating it. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 07:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

No, it is time this article was edited to WP policy, whereby we reference or quote what was actually reported. It's a bit late to tell us you have problems with the observations of International volunteers, when you've previously told me you reject what Israeli observers say. The IDF told the UN that they would not be allowed to visit Jenin unless Israeli soldiers were indemnified for war-crimes (UN and HRW reports say that these were committed). It's the IDF that is rendered a totally unreliable source for everything about this incident, because they prevented investigation, and told us why they were doing so. PalestineRemembered 09:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

1. why "No"? quite a lot of words have been made about this.
2. please don't use wiki as a soapbox blog; anyone can come up with their "figurative speech" version and write them on the talk pages claiming WP is no good. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:24, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Propangada

For those editors who are unaware of it, propaganda generally frowned upon by Wikipedia, even if it consists of true statements. Both sides in any conflict commit atrocities, even the Palestinians and the Israelis, imagine that. On Wikipedia, however, history is not written by the winners. Pro-Israeli editors; innocent civilians tend to die in battles, and nothing can be gained from whitewashing that fact. Pro-Palestinian editors; it is not necessary to wring every last drop of propaganda value from the deaths of your innocent civilians. _{unsigned by IP 129.252.87.183}

innocence is easy to claim when you do guerrilla warfare using civilian support to provide human shields, try watching "death in gaza" sometime (it's slightly anti-israeli film because israelis don't explain their perspective, but in general a fair film). Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 06:42, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

That's right, erode your own soul by devaluing your enemy. All people are more or less innocent. You've tied yourself in a knot over this, a pathetic dry patch of land that an old book says God gave to you. Speciate 09:04, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Israel was founded to be "A Light unto the Nations", this from Ha'aretz[34]. PalestineRemembered 16:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

i remind you both to keep it civil, there's obviously many ways to look at things, but i don't think that i should use the talk page as a blog or an ideological discussion forum. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Is it civil to vandalise my TalkPage, as you've now done at least three times? PalestineRemembered 20:10, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the argument against propaganda completely. You all (meaning both sides) need to stop your warring. Stop tossing conflicting allegations around and conflicting sources. Simply state the allegations held by each side, and stop this wasteful bickering and arguing. --Steve, Sm8900 16:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

kurdi bear and other issues

i question the validity of this edit, in particular the blanketing of information from the kurdi bear paragraph and the diminishing of the title of the referenced link. considering my history with editor, i am no longer assuming good faith and unless a good explanation is given for this censorship, i am considering this edit as WP:SOAP vandalism. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:11, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

The Kurdi Bear quote from an Israeli newspaper is an RS source that claims made about "loudspeaker warnings" is false in many cases. If you have alternative sources that prove your contention, by all means insert them. In the meantime, do not remove verifiable information, and in particular don't remove English-language references and replace them with the non-verifiable. PalestineRemembered 18:15, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

User:PalestineRemembered, you did not address the issue of content blanketing and only justified the content you allowed to stay on the article (and added an unsourced accusation). Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:24, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Jaakobou I'm not aware of having blanked any content. However, I am a little bit keen to delete material that is provably false. The UN and HRW said only that a minimum of 52 were killed, it is clearly false to say "52 in total". If you continue to behave in this deceitful fashion I will have to escalate the matter. PalestineRemembered 18:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

the issue is the removed information from the kurdi bear paragrah. i would think you would know since you've already mentioned the kurdi bear quote (see above) when you made your unsourced accusation. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:54, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I just made a number of edits to the page, most of them expanding the sourced content to cover the combat etc. (I intentionally spread it out over several edits so as to make it easy for everyone to see exactly what I did). The major change I made was to remove what was left of the Kurdi passage, as it suffered from the same distorted context as its previous iterations (in this case, especially if one reads the Hebrew, it is obvious that he is only saying that he didn't give a warning shake of the house and says the loudspeaker announcements were made before he even got there, very different from how it is currently represented). I expanded upon the same points from less problematic sources to ensure that any gap was addressed. I also made some more minor content changes like changing "sections of the city" levelled by bulldozers to "numerous buildings", which seems more factual to me. I also rephrased the "BBC wrongly reported" bit, which is quite unencyclopaedic, and removed "Israel's alleged part in" from the Sabra and Shatila massacre, since he was not specifically alluding to those allegations, and it is best not to have discussions of other controversial topics here that are fleshed out on their own linked entries. I preserved CJCurrie's edit, but moved it to the discussion of the casualties, leaving a more concise wording in the lead. That should cover everything, but if not, please raise it here. Tewfik^Talk 06:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

There was nothing distorted about the "Kurdi Bear" passage, it was just a very small sample of a detailed (and horrific) RS account by the guy who probably did the largest amount of the destruction.[35] "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."

Whether it's unencyclopedic to say "BBC wrongly reported" I'm not sure, but that particular article[36] is clearly wrong. The UN report they're talking about[37] clearly does not say "total 52", it says "at least 52 Palestinians". We should not be putting information into the encyclopedia that we know to be false. PalestineRemembered 15:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

It is exactly that kind of selective quoting that is the problem, in addition to the inadequate translation provided by Gush Shalom. He actually says:[38]

They were warned by loudspeaker to get out of the house before I [would] come,[actually a period and line break]
But I gave no one a chance. I didn't wait. I didn't give one blow,[no comma] and wait for them to come out.

The "but I gave no one a chance" is in reference to not giving a "warning blow/ramming"; the loudspeaker warning takes place before he comes. Thus, while the 'interview' is played up and sensationalised, there is no revelation of war crimes, and certainly not an admission that innocent people were intentionally killed. Even this line is discussing houses from which gunfire was emanating. We are all better off if RS and context are preserved for this entry. As for the "inquiry" from this advocacy group, it is hardly an RS, and there is no reason to believe that any further bodies recovered were not documented by the UN, AI, HRW etc., especially when they were allegedly found before those organisations' reports were published. Also, selecting to highlight some "damning" phrases from external links is not neutral, and not encyclopaedic. I do hope that any further issues can be worked out. Tewfik^Talk 19:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll assume that the continued reversions to text discussed above while ignoring my explanation was accidental, but as I've pointed this out in my edit summary, I do hope it won't be repeated... Tewfik^Talk 04:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I thought I'd invited you to do a "writing for the enemy" on the "Kurdi Bear" clip somewhere? If not, can I extend the invitation to you here? It's a highly significant and unimpeachable account of one small (but very famous) part of this affair, and clearly belongs in the article. Jaakobou did something similar of his own accord, it was pretty poor and objectionable on a number of grounds, but at least he made an effort. PalestineRemembered 10:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

You did extend that invitiation already, and I replied below to it: I've already explained above what the passage does and doesn't say. There is no 'admission' that the Israelis were really lying. Tewfik^Talk 19:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC) Tewfik^Talk 18:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Grammar

This has been bothering me for some time. The "Evil Zionist POV Version" is written in atrociously broken English. So I made a completely content-neutral edit which only shuffled clauses around. Due to an edit conflict, I then self-reverted. O Tendentious Editors, if you must revert, consider reverting to the version that does not make my head hurt just to scan it. Eleland 18:55, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Eleland, these type of pharsings, even when encapsulated with parenthesis, are simply unhelpful to the project, putting it mildly. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:56, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I wanted to put the trademark symbol after it, but it's not in the box at the bottom. It was indeed farcing and not pharsing, let alone phrasing. Eleland 20:20, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

that would not make it less offensive. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:35, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

But it would be funnier. Eleland 20:58, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

"Massacre"

There is no hard and fast definition of this term. Would editors please stop adding things like "claims of a massacre were debunked".

To take an extreme example, the killing of a single soldier involved in combat, in one case in American history, is called a "massacre". To take a more pertinent example, the killing of 17 people, at least 13 of which were soldiers riding a civillian bus to their military base to take part in military operations, is listed as a "massacre" over at List of massacres committed during the Al-Aqsa Intifada.

Reliable published sources report that people who are not an extreme minority viewpoint (ie, the entire Arab world) regard what happened in Jenin as a massacre. Claims of a systematic house-to-house campaign of deliberate mass killings of noncombatants were debunked. Claims of a systematic house-to-house search in which civilians were forced to serve as human shields, and some were arbitrarily and randomly murdered, were confirmed. Claims of a massacre were made, rejected by some, and accepted by others. Whether you reject or accept them is irrelevant; they were made, and not by an extreme minority. Stop contradicting them, or sneeringly mocking them, in the text because you personally disagree. Eleland 01:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Just noted this conversation as a link to the Buffalo Grove article linked above. I came upon the article as Buffalo Grove massacre. Massacre is a term which can imply POV, and in the case of the aforementioned article I was concerned with its title from the beginning, pertinent discussion can be found here and here. In the end I moved that page to Buffalo Grove ambush.

As a note Merriam-Webster's defines a massacre as: the act or an instance of killing a number of usually helpless or unresisting human beings under circumstances of atrocity or cruelty or a cruel or wanton murder so depending on how that is applied I guess the Buffalo Grove incident can be called a massacre, maybe, but it seemed a bit much to me in that case. I settled with following whatever reliable sources say, if they don't say anything about nomenclature of the event go with the most accurate NPOV description (which can be "massacre" sometimes). Hope that helps, sorry to butt in. : ) IvoShandor 07:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your comment as a non-involved editor. The definition you provided sums up the problem perfectly. It's not agreed whether these were "circumstances of atrocity or cruelty" - some POVs say yes, some say no. That's why we should not contradict or mock those claims, although we should contradict claims of a systematic house-to-house execution squad massacre. Eleland 12:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

IvoShander, well done for making that change. "The Boston massacre" was 5 killed in a threatening crowd, so the number of deaths can be quite small - but it was absurd to use the word for one!

We can be satisfied that there was indeed a "killing of helpless/unresisting people under conditions of atrocity", because we have the verifiable words of one of the chief perpetrators (even Jaakabou accepts those words are genuine). Under such circumstances (and given there are 100s of millions, if not billions of people who believe there was a massacre), then this article should be so entitled - it's insulting to call it anything else. The fact that parts of it were "a battle between 2 forces" should not conceal the fact that it's most memorable as a massacre. PalestineRemembered 12:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

User:PalestineRemembered,

1. i believe i told you already that you speaking for me is... disturbing. don't do it yet again.
2. the name "massacre" is no longer mainstream for this article and only stands as a past name or as a reference to how some pro-palestinians still call it.

-- Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

After edit-warring to keep the "Kurdi Bear" story out of this article, you then told us you accepted that the story was genuine.

I don't know what you mean by "mainstream", but "massacre" is clearly the word used by large sections of opinion. Even the IDF admit to killing 20 or so civilians, and the ways that they died (shot at or crushed) clearly match the meaning of "atrocity". PalestineRemembered 15:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

User:PalestineRemembered, could you try to reference your claims? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Jaakobou when you learn how to behave on other people's TalkPages (you've already been taken to AN/I and blocked for harrassing people on them), then we can start having sensible discussions. PalestineRemembered 19:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Wait, are you saying that the main title should be "Jenin massacre"? I don't agree. While you are correct that Kurdi Bear's actions met the Merriam-Webster definition of a massacre by any logical standard, making this association ourselves is WP:OR#SYN, I have learned this elsewhere the hard way. Virtually the entire English-language professional media denies that a massacre occurred, so we should not contradict them outright. Sadly, the fact that their denial was transparently a pernicious, propagandaistic device designed to obscure war crimes — doesn't matter. We should just report the various viewpoints, and the readers can figure it out for themselves. Eleland 17:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC) (belatedly)

It is interesting that you bring that up Eleland because while I have been researching the Black Hawk War I have come across a number of historical discrepancies (granted it is because of how long ago this was not because it involves controversial issues) but it still has some applicability here. I am often stuck between one source saying one thing and another saying something completely different. I took Eleland's suggested approach and just noted the discrepancies to be fair, people who look up individual battles and wars on Wikipedia are smart enough to figure out what something ought be identified as. IvoShandor 18:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Eleland - I've googled Jenin + massacre and I get at least 20% saying "massacre". On the first page, there's one from the very early period (so I'm not counting it), and one is our article. So it's 2 from 8 say "massacre", or 25%/75%. That's quite substantial enough to be given credence in our article. - 4 August 2002 (compares Jenin to 'no massacre' Tiananmen square) and "History of Israeli aggression". And some of the 75% dispute "massacre" but speak of "crimes". I think the balance is 30%/70% on the second page of Google.

Furthermore, despite asking for the reference, I can only find the Washington Post (rather unconvincingly) claiming that the PA has announced only 56 killed. The actual story says "PA official list of 50 named + 6 bodies" (and this is on 1st May, long before there's time for a proper accounting). PalestineRemembered 19:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The neutrality and factual accuracy of this article are disputed.

article was first nominated on Aug. 3rd for inspection of neutrality by anon. user who did not open a talk page section.

Then first to introduce the "totally disputed" tag (same date aug. 3, much later in the day - 19:44) was User:Eleland, who also did not open a talk page subsection explaining this dispute.

this info was reinstated in this order: CJCurrie, PalestineRemembered, CJCurrie, PalestineRemembered, G-Dett, then it was removed by Eleland but reinstated again and reinserted by Speciate.

now, will someone from above editors please make a valid case for this "totaly disputed" tag or can we get rid of it without seeing it reverted in? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Jaakobou, you know very well that there's a long, ongoing neutrality and factual dispute because you've been a major disputant. There is no provision which requires a separate section on talk just for the tag, when the dispute already exists. Don't you dare take the tag down again on such a shabby excuse. Eleland 12:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Eleland, your in no position state "Don't you dare...", if the article is "totally disputed", it means that it is extremely distorted and innaccurate and unreferenced etc. etc. which is not the case here. i see no reason for the orange tag except that one side is unhappy that they look bad with the material in the article. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

This article was terrible, and it's not much improved. It's extremely distorted, beginning with the lead, it contains

Jaakobou - this article is a disgrace. All efforts to improve it are wrecked by the outrageous reverting back into the article of such garbage as"The allegations were debunked, and the Palestinian death toll was estimated at 52 by the UN". That's a provable falsehood (as well as being unencyclopedic). If this article were not so bad, you would quite likely have been perma-blocked for inserting such straightforward falsehoods. In your shoes, I'd keep very quiet about the tags - they're about the only tattered protection you have left! PalestineRemembered 13:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• And User:Jaakobou, there is a question I need to ask you. During the period of this action (April 2002) were you more than 4, more than 40, more than 400 or more than 4000 miles away from Jenin? If you were less than 4 miles away from it, did you handle a weapon or otherwise take any part in the Battle of Jenin? If you cannot (or refuse) to answer this question, then I think you should recuse yourself from editing this article, because of the grave danger of Conflict of Interest. If you'd told us earlier of your involvement, there'd still be a danger of CoI, but your editing behaviour would be more understandable. PalestineRemembered 13:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

When your username openly states that you have a quite partisan agenda, incivility and spurious allegations against other users are unacceptable. Please maintain a collegial atmosphere by reciprocating the lack of attacks against you, and focusing on content, rather than contributors. Tewfik^Talk 19:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

warning issued. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know (nor do I care) how far away Jaakobou was from Jenin during April 2002. I was in Los Angeles during April-May 1992. Does that mean I shouldn't edit the article on the 1992 Los Angeles riots? This event was at least as controversial in the United States as the Battle of Jenin was in the Arab-Israeli conflict. --GHcool 17:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

If you were a police officer, a rioter, or a victim of rioting, there could be a CoI. That doesn't mean you can't edit the article. It means you should tread lightly and make others aware of the conflict. PalestineRemembered has not said that Jaakobou shouldn't edit the article, so your rhetorical question seems like a straw man. Eleland 17:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

he only made an accusation and demanded things based on that accusation. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I have modified the template, so that it now links to here as "the relevant section on the talk page". Keep in mind that virtually the entire talk page comprises disputations of neutrality and factual accuracy, though. Eleland 17:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

there are disputes in every article, the disputes on this one do not justify such a strong "totaly disputed" tag, as most of the article is agreed upon and everything is well referenced. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

now, will someone from above editors please make a valid case for this "totaly disputed" tag or can we get rid of it without seeing it reverted in? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

A partial and provisional summary:

• The lede is mostly devoted to laborious explanation of the official IDF reasons for the raid (well, I presume they're the official versions, since there are no citations the reasons might actually be original research), and perniciously presents the widely reported fact that the Israelis used tanks, helicopters, and armored bulldozers as if it was only a "Palestinian claim".
• The "background" section is devoted entirely to hasbara, and I mean this word in its neutral sense. It's mostly a summary of Israeli explanations for why they "had to do it", with brief info about the units involved. There is no corresponding Palestinian Order of Battle, and it is capped off with a particularly disgusting line which describes defensive booby traps as "ten times larger than a typical suicide bomber's charge". It's as if the authors believe that WP readers are ignorant children who need to be reminded of the "correct" way to think about Jenin every sixty seconds or so.
• "The battle" section begins with "Israeli forces...secured the town of Jenin". I'm sure the dozens of Palestinians who died subsequently were glad to die "securely". It proceeds to an estimate from Israeli intelligence with no corresponding reports from neutral observers or Palestinians. It proceeds to present the IDF claim of "infantry instead of carpet bombing for humanitarian reasons" as objective fact, falsely claims that there were no targeted bombardments from aircraft, then describes a "limited" use of helicopters, a blatant misrepresentation of the cited sources ("The helicopters that swarmed angrily above the city's roofs, firing indiscriminately into the city's crowded refugee camp", "Houses pierced from wall to wall by tank or helicopter gun ships")

At this point my summary ends, because I am too filled with rage and disgust at you personally and your ilk to continue without violating CIV or NPA. Eleland 06:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

First of all, if this subject-matter is filling you "with rage and disgust", you might consider stepping back and taking a break. Perhaps you would appreciate this essay. As for your points:

• Perhaps you could explain what it is you would like to be added to the lead? AFAIK, there is no alternative explanation to balance that of the IDF. Tanks, armoured bulldozers, and helicopters are mentioned uncontroversially throughout the article, and are not presented as Palestinian claims. The Palestinian claim was that that military hardware was used indiscriminately to effect a massacre. Keep Wikipedia:Lead section in mind when replying.
• I'm not sure what you mean by calling it hasbara, but again, could you suggest specific changes? I didn't find any Palestinian order of battle, which is unsurprising since they didn't initiate the battle directly, which was framed as a response to the suicide attack campaign. I'm also unsure of what you mean about "the 'correct' way to think about Jenin", but that line is a specific paraphrase from Times section on Palestinian preparation for the battle.
• Few, if any people, died in the town of Jenin AFAIK. What other wording would you suggest? Do you have a corresponding report from Palestinians or neutral observers that we could use? Is there some other viewpoint about why the Israelis decided on infantry that you are aware of and would like to include? Do you have a source that says that aeroplanes were used? The quote "helicopters that swarmed angrily above the city's roofs, firing indiscriminately into the city's crowded refugee camp" is part of the article's reproduction of the Palestinian claim, and still doesn't comment on the extent of use, just an emotion being attributed to them by the observer. Likewise the second quote only documents that helicopters was used, and doesn't comment on how many.

I hope that I was able to address your points adequately, and I hope that you've found away to not get so upset from Wikipedia. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 07:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

There remain massive problems in this article, starting with the lead. Since you wish to act cooperatively, how about doing some "write for the enemy", referencing the words of the prime witness/perpetrator of the leveling of the camp? Jaakobou did this, I thought his attempt was terrible, but at least he tried. I'm doing the same below on one of the Time Magazine clips. PalestineRemembered 08:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I've already explained above what the passage does and doesn't say. There is no 'admission' that the Israelis were really lying. Tewfik^Talk 19:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

My "rage and disgust" was specifically related to the blatant misrepresentation of [39] and [40], and ending my comment to go copy-edit unrelated articles was my break.

I can provide some suggested additions to the lede, but of course, one doesn't need to have a suggested solution in order to identify a problem. It's a travesty that the lede does not mention the findings of serious widespread violations of the laws of war ("war crimes", in English) by the IDF, by credible and respectable observers.

The presentation of "Palestinian claims" of "indiscriminate" attacks is fine, except that:

• factual information should not be wholly replaced with "claims"
• it was not only Palestinians or Arabs claiming; I propose

Buildings in the camp were struck by shells and missiles fired from tanks and helicopters. Palestinians, Human Rights Watch[41], and UNRWA Commissioner-General Peter Hansen[42] called the firing "indiscriminate".

• What I meant by "hasbara" was "explanation of the official-Israeli POV". Your statement about no order of battle is difficult to parse. An OOB is "an organizational tool used by military intelligence to list and analyze enemy military units", basically a detailed summary of strength and organization. I object to the "suicide bomber" line for the same reason I would object to a line noting that Operation Defensive Shield killed more people than the Nazis did in Lidice; whether Time magazine is playing that game means little. On a side note, I do have to question why this one single report from Time is cited so pervasively, while other investigations are not. Could it be because Time chose to editorialize and emphasize events in a manner more favorable to Israel than many other reports?
• My point about "secured" was that, while "secured" may be correct in technical military jargon to describe "securing ones' control over the area", it also means "provided security for". The line seemed to say that Israel was protecting the town, rather than occupying it.
• Peter Beaumont of the Observer [43] describes "helicopters that swarmed angrily above the city's roofs, firing indiscriminately into the city's crowded refugee camp ... what we could see was a long-range assault, unequal in every part. We could see the tanks manoeuvering and shelling houses from the plain. We could hear them firing from the ridge behind us. Most shocking, however, were the Apache helicopter gunships that hovered like an angry swarm above the city, approaching, often in pairs, and firing bursts of cannon-fire every five minutes into the camp. Every now and then they would fire a pair of missiles which would explode and send a plume of darker smoke above the white haze of gunsmoke already hanging above the camp." Statements about "reproduction of the Palestinian claim" and indiscriminate being "an emotion" are completely unsupportable by any normal reading of the text. So is "appears to have been a limited bombardment". He explicitly says he saw it with his own eyes. Your personal interpretation of emotional helicopters is not a suitable basis for editing the article. How many helicopters is not at issue, it's whether helicopters were alleged to have fired indiscriminately, and by whom, and it's whether the cited sources say "limited bombardment by helicopters", which they obviously don't.

Also, note please that my summary of problems was partial, provisional, and personal to me: other editors have raised serious complaints. I'm not campaigning to have the TotallyDisputed tag stay for all time, but I don't see the discussion getting to that point for at least several weeks at the most optimistic. Eleland 08:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

You should by all means identify problems that you see. I was just pointing out that solving those problems requires an additional step:

• Again, the Israelis don't deny, and we discuss uncontroversially, their use of tanks etc. The "claims" refer to allegations that there was indiscriminate firing. HRW only says that firing was indiscriminate "at times", while criticising Palestinian tactics as being indiscriminate without such qualification. Both points are discussed in their respective sections, and are undue weight in the lead. Hansen's statement is from March, and has nothing to do with Jenin.
• Again, I have found no Palestinian order of battle, or very much other information about their side. If you find such information from RS, feel free to add it. When you say that it is "explanation of the official-Israeli POV", discussing a specific change would necessary to improve it. The analogy about Lidice wouldn't make sense since the Israelis had nothing to do with Lidice, while the bombs were both manufactured by the same people who made suicide bombs, and as the latter is a familiar phenomenon, it is an ideal means of comparison - do you have a different suggestion? Regarding your questioning my motivation on Time, please see Wikipedia:Assume good faith.
• This was mostly addressed above, but "helicopters that swarmed angrily above the city's roofs, firing indiscriminately into the city's crowded refugee camp" is part of the article's reproduction of the Palestinian claim as in "The Palestinians have called it a 'massacre', alleging that their houses were bulldozed with families still inside, that helicopters fired indiscriminately on a civilian area", and what, if not an emotion attributed by the observer, does "swarmed angrily" describe?

Feel free also to reply to the rest of my previous response. Tewfik^Talk 19:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

If it is being argued that an extended summary of Israeli hasbara for "why we had to invade Jenin" ("martyrs' capital", etc) in the lede is fine, but that statements of Palestinians, major human rights groups, and a British journalist present on the scene referring to "indiscriminate" bombardment is "undue weight", then I have little interest in continuing the discussion.

The Hansen quote was a mistake on my part. I had thougt I was linking to a later statement Hansen made, on 7 April. It is partially quoted here: "Pitiless assault ... we are getting reports of pure horror ... that helicopters are strafing civilian residential areas". I do not know if Hansen used the word "indiscriminate", since I can no longer find the original statement, but I do recall that Israel and its diaspora propagandists pilloried Hansen for this, and that UNRWA stood by him, saying "That IDF helicopters have strafed Palestinian residential areas in the West Bank during March and April 2002, particularly in the Jenin refugee camp is now widely accepted as fact".

An aggreived tone and reminders to assume good faith do not answer the important question: Why does this article cite one Time Magazine piece twenty times? Is it because the piece uses convoluted language ("compelled Palestinian civilians to take the dangerous job of leading the approach to the buildings") instead of ("used Palestinians as human shields"), at times even slipping into direct Israeli point-of-view ("the Palestinian defenders retreated to ... where their defenses were strongest. It was time to hit harder.")? Is it because the piece, an after-the-fact "investigation" conducted partially from Tel Aviv, substantially differed from the contemperaneous reports of European journalists on the scene? And from reports of investigations by independent human rights groups?

Any reading of the Observer quotes on helicopters as "reproduction of a Palestinian claim" is impossible. In his second paragraph, Beaumont says, "The helicopters that swarmed angrily above the city's roofs, firing indiscriminately into the city's crowded refugee camp". At this point, he has not made ANY reference to ANY Palestinians, indeed the only people he mentions are "Israeli soldiers". Later, he tells us that "from a rooftop in the adjoining village of Wad Burqin, we watched the fighting ... what we could see was a long-range assault ... We could see the tanks manoeuvering and shelling houses from the plain. We could hear them firing from the ridge behind us. Most shocking, however, were the Apache helicopter gunships"

You have read a clear and unambiguous statement from an eyewitness, who even tells you where and when he stood when he observed events, and concluded that it is a "reproduction of Palestinian claims"?

Again any further comment would violate WP:CIV, so that's it. Eleland 20:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm unsure as to where I am being unclear, but that is not what I said above. The Palestinian claim is included, while I explained that what you see as evidence of "indiscriminate" (The Observer clearly says "Palestinians have called it", though even if you believe that Beaumont felt the need to attribute to Palestinians something that he objectively believed, his distant observation outside the camp hardly grants him the ability or expertise to broadly label anything as "indiscriminate", especially as human rights groups don't say that) is far from clear. The rest of your comment doesn't deal with whether "indiscriminate" is claimed. As for Time, the majority of the references, if not all of them, are to mundane or undisputed claims from the detailed report, and do not include the quotes you used above. So yes, I will be aggrieved by what seems like an attempt to attack my intentions, rather than any specific edit. I point you to WP:AGF so as to avoid such a waste of both our time, and I hope that this discussion can return to a productive vein. Tewfik^Talk 06:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Time quote

I took out this Time Magazine quote because I thought it was unreferenced (I was wrong). Time reported that while houses were knocked down by the bulldozers, they could not have buried the amount of people alleged by Palestinians since it takes a half-hour to fully wreck a building, and because Israeli soldiers say they always called any residents to leave in advance. In this form, it sounds as if someone has investigated how long it takes to "fully wreck" a building, that this is significant, and hence another Palestinian claim is disproved.

But it still needs more work, because our re-write has (quite accidentally) exaggerated the impact of the article. The "time to fully wreck a building" is no more than an assertion. Read the actual words of the article, they come across much like an op-ed. "Undoubtedly, the D-9s destroyed houses, but they certainly didn't bury as many people as Palestinian officials have alleged. It takes the D-9 at least half an hour to fully wreck a building. Israeli soldiers say they always called to residents to come out before the bulldozers went in. But even if the innocents were too frightened initially to leave, most would surely have done so as soon as the D-9 started its work." Time magazine is an RS, but we shouldn't imbue the article with more credibility than would be gained from reading the article. (Compare this with the Kurdi Bear clips I used, reading the entire article makes it more credible and thought-provoking, not less).

I'd propose "Time magazine asserts that the demolitions could not have buried as many people as Palestinian officials have alleged, due to the time needed to fully wreck a building. Israeli soldiers say they always called any residents to leave in advance". However, in that form, it's barely worth including atall. Perhaps we should bring out the real significance of this clip, and say "Time magazine breezily conceded that people were crushed alive in their homes, but disputes the numbers who could have died in this way" PalestineRemembered 09:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Copyvio Section

The amnesty international report subsection is was pure copyvio. Kyaa the Catlord 15:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

So is the UN report.... Kyaa the Catlord 15:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The UN report subsection has been rewritten to avoid copyvio concerns. Kyaa the Catlord 15:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

REMINDER "Content that violates any copyright will be deleted". Its on every edit page. Kyaa the Catlord 17:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm positive that your reading of copyvio is wrong. After you posted the above, I posted a moderately complete explanation to your TalkPage here. Regards. PalestineRemembered 09:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll repeat what I stated on YOUR talk page in response: "The copyvio issue was that the Amnesty International section was not "used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea is acceptable under "fair use"." It was a stand alone chunk of text stolen from another source. You have subsequently changed that, although I've not ran your new section through google... yet." Btw, this section still remains at this point. Kyaa the Catlord 10:14, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Copyvio or not, it is far from clear what relevance these different statements, selectively picked, have to the article. They do not add any new info- merely rehash known information, spiced up with proven falsehoods. Are we going to reprint every statement made by any UN member state on this topic? See WP:NOT . Isarig 14:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

This article is stiff with information from Israel (sometimes fed through Time Magazine). Of course a statement from the Palestinians has to be included! Especially when it has their estimate of the death toll (sadly, they've not broken it down by town). Other International observers need to have some reference too. PalestineRemembered 22:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Please leave your conspiracy theories about how Israel controls Time magazin out of our encyclopedia. If there is some important data in the Palestinian statement not already in the article, feel free to summarize it and add it. Isarig

I can find no accusation of Israeli control over Time in his comment. He implied that Time passed along Israeli claims unduly. That's hardly the (implicitly anti-Semitic) conspiracy theory you make it out to be. And it's his encyclopedia as much as it is yours. Eleland 23:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

This article uses Time as a source for numerous claims, which do not quote any Israeli official nor refer to an Israeli claim. As such, they can safely be assumed to be Time's editorial position. To claim that this is "really" information from Israel ..fed through Time Magazine - is an insinuation that Israel controls Time's editorial staff. It is a wacko conspiracy theory that does not belong in our encyclopedia. Note the use of the word "our" encyclopedia, not "my" encyclopedia. If you have trouble with this simple English construct, I will be happy to explain the difference. Isarig 23:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Um, I didn't see PalestineRemembered here say anything about a conspiracy theory either - that merely appears to be your rather paranoid construct. They were simply making the - fairly uncontentious - point that this article has a lot of content reflecting the official Israeli point of view. And then made the secondary point that some of that content happens to be sourced from Time (I would add that this is neither surprising or controversial - Time, along with other media outlets, will quote use information - including direct quotes - from media spokespeople from Israel, as well as from the PA and other countries etc). What is more at issue is which of those quotes what elements of that information Wikipedia editors choose to highlight in these articles. And would it be unfair of me to point out quite how often certain editors complain that the BBC, Guardian etc are supposedly under the control of anti-Israeli forces? As for the "our encyclopedia" point, the distinction between "my" and "our" isn't that simple of course - it depends of course who EXACTLY you mean by "us/our". Let's assume you did mean all editors, not merely a select group of them. --Nickhh 14:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC). (amended to reflect that not all info sourced is from direct quotes --Nickhh 15:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC))

Revert at 2:18am 8/8/2007

Rationale: 1. Addition of unencyclopedic "Was there a massacre?" heading rather than the less investigatory heading that originally appeared. 2. Readdition of unsourced "statements". These need to be more than a blockquote of text copied from somewhere and MUST BE SOURCED. 3. The "moves" of information broke my references fixes. Please be more careful when you're editting. 4. POV and NOR, the use of the header adds a level of synthesis which comes close to breaking WP:SYN. Kyaa the Catlord 08:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, I'm in the midst of fact-checking this article. Some of the sources I've found do not support some of the statements they are supposed to be providing verifiability to. Kyaa the Catlord 08:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear Kyaa - I don't understand your explanations above. This revert of yours:

1. Reinserted that the UN "found claims of a 'massacre' to be baseless". The UN report doesn't mention massacre (though it does include the submissions of the PA and Jordan, the latter is quite specific that there was a massacre).
2. Removes the Palestinian and Jordanian investigatory reports (which are of far more significance than the "Floor Statement" to Congress).
3. Re-inserts "Allegations of massacre", with the piece of the ADL at the top. It is debatable whether any such opinion piece belongs, but it should clearly come after the numerous real investigations.
4. Divides the new "Was there a massacre" back into two sections, the second being "Post-fighting investigations", which now leads with the fairly trivial investigation done by Time magazine. (Other than walking through the camp, it's not clear they've done anything themselves).
5. Re-inserts the unencyclopedic (and out of place) statement "Massacres refer not only to the numbers killed, but also to the method used."
6. Reinserted the distorted paraphrasing of Powell's words "that there was no evidence of mass graves or a massacre", when he appears to have said the very different "I have no evidence of mass graves. I see no evidence that would support a massacre took place." (Though you later corrected this, thankyou).

I had hoped that it would be possible to improve this article at last but it might be better to abandon the attempt and just leave it tagged "Totally disputed". However, given that you were editing at 2.30am (your time), and have corrected one of the most blatant errors you made, I'm prepared to give this article another chance. I will painstakingly repair what you've done, avoiding the temptation to revert it (and/or charge you with the deliberate disruptive insertion of fraudulent material).

Please also note that in large, contentious and/or badly flawed articles like this one, it is better to do a series of single edits with explanations of each change, as I was doing. It is impolite bordering on disruptive to revert anything in the middle of such a series of edits (though it is not necessarily very obvious that that is what I was doing). If you need to make a change, only do a re-write, and only if you're confident that the other editor has finished with that section. Thankyou. You may be confident I will continue to try and treat you as a serious editor, but it does depend on working in a cooperative fashion. PalestineRemembered 09:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The number 1 rule of wikipedia is "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable." You need to have sources for your insertions of text. You readded the Jordanian and Palestinian statements directly and did not attempt to source these properly. Your opinion of the ADL is noted. I suggest that if you do not like their characterizations, find and include alternative viewpoints. You may also not like the Time article, that's fine. You're free not to like it. But as long as we have properly sourced material, the simple fact that you do not like the inclusion of verifiable, mainstream press accounts are valid sources. The "unencyclopedic" ""Massacres refer not only to the numbers killed" is a direct quote. Again, I don't like it statements bear little weight. Kyaa the Catlord 10:02, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

There are several key principles of WP. Verifiability is certainly one of them, but it doesn't permit undue weight. There may (perhaps?) be a place for opinion pieces in this article, but they cannot come in front of the results of actual investigations, and belong in a section "Was there a massacre?" or something similar.

It should have been clear that the Palestinian and Jordanian reports and Spain/EU reports were included in the UN report, but I've glad you've brought that to my attention, because it has enabled me to greatly improve that section.

You've objected to the part about the Military Advisor to Amnesty not backing them in the reference I gave you, I'm afraid this is carelessness on your part and (in the circumstances) potentially disruptive. I've put the entire clip from Derek Holley in there (you may think there's too much, please feel free to trim it again). PalestineRemembered 11:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

You're making some very bold accusations, Palestine. I'd advise you to remain calm and realize that the link does not contain the information that you claim. Fact-checking isn't personal, but... if you have a problem with being checked against, please take it to ANI, I'd enjoy that. Kyaa the Catlord 11:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Kyaa on this. Any insertions, especially of such length, must be referenced. That said, copying large chunks of the reports here both violates copyright and content policies. Tewfik^Talk 18:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Refuted

When claims are made of "hundreds of people massacred", but subsequently only 50+ bodies are found, and 5 years later, the number is still 50+, and when Amnesty reports that "Within five weeks all but one of the residents was accounted for."[44], the claims have been refuted. Isarig 21:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The initially higher numbers have been refuted, yes, but that is decidedly not what you've written in the lead. What you've written in lead is that the "allegations of war crimes and massacre" have been refuted, which the body of the article does not support. The relevant section in the article quotes British military expert David Holley (quoted by the BBC) saying "it just appears there was no wholesale killing"; what you leave out is that Holley goes on to say the "hard fact" is that "war crimes" took place (that "cannot be disputed"), and he moreover cites "very credible witnesses" attesting to the following: "They have seen snipers cutting people down in the streets with clear views of civilians trying to get away from the fighting. These are individual killings that need to be investigated." Please don't make edits that suggest that a casualty estimate revised downwards amounts to a "refutation" of war crimes allegations generally; I'll revert it.--G-Dett 22:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

My focus was on the inflated body counts. Some POV-pushers still want the article to insinuate that the 52-56 confirmed dead are just a minimum - it's "at least 52", only 52 were "confirmed" etc.. - and that he "real" toll could yet, someday, be as high as the baseless fabrications tossed about by the Palestinian leadership and embraced whoelheartedly by the international media. Check the recent edit history to see what I mean. I should have made the clearer in my edit. Isarig 22:14, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

You seem to have neglected the fact that both Palestinian sources and the international media were led to understand there were 100s of deaths by the Israeli sources too. PalestineRemembered 07:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I tried to point this out a week or so ago, and make sure it was included for the sake of proper balance .. but had to give up because partisan editors would simply keep removing the info. And of course, the fact that the IDF kept the camp closed to journalists merely encouraged media speculation about the extent of the death toll (ie "what are they trying to hide?") --Nickhh 14:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

In case my edit-summaries were unclear, I changed the key bit to only stating a refutation of the "massacre" allegation, which the main NGOs etc. have stated did not happen, while clarifying that they still maintain the "war-crimes" allegation, as Amnesty and HRW do. I am not aware of any continuing mainstream reference to the events as a massacre, and I've perused most of the sources here, as well as many elsewhere, so I restored the previous wording. As far as a "international sources" alleging indiscriminate attacks, I discussed above the one qualified mention and why I believe that a broad statement is problematic. As for providing a range, there is only a single claim of 56, while the consensus among the UN and NGOs (and even the Israelis) is 52. The Palestinian claim is discussed below, but creating such a range in the lead grants that claim undue weight. I hope that explained my entire rationale. Tewfik^Talk 05:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the business of "Was it a massacre" needs a proper discussion in here. The current setup is confused, with this topic untidily draped across three section, Body count estimates, Allegations of a massacre, Post-fighting investigations. If it was treated as one topic, the article would read much better. PalestineRemembered 07:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep in mind that we are not conducting an investigation that should be asking questions, but rather presented verifiable and previously-published reports etc. I do agree that the information could be organised well, but I think the main issue is the extensive quoting from rather than summary of certain documents, and so per Kyaa, that should be a major focus before we embark on other changes. Tewfik^Talk 18:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The verifiable and previously published reports say a large number of things that are still not properly in the article. They say that substantial war-crimes were committed, they say that helicopters "swarmed" over the camp, they say that the Israeli estimate of people remaining is a severe underestimate, they say that the camp was sealed off for about 5 days after the end of shooting (though some parts of it were opened to conducted tours after only 3 days). The sources say that the devastated camp was extremely dangerous after Israel withdrew, but Israel blocked the bomb-disposal people going in for weeks afterwards. The sources say that Israel made at least two further incursions in the weeks that followed. All of this needs to be refered to before we can say this article is a half-way proper description of these events. PalestineRemembered 20:45, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

UN Report section

This is blatant copyvio from http://www.un.org/peace/jenin/ and needs to be removed. Taking portions of the section and using the firefox "find" feature, you can find the exact same sentances in different orders on the UN webpage. This is not acceptable. Kyaa the Catlord 07:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Copyright infringing text has been removed. Kyaa the Catlord 07:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

This is a drastically new reading of copyright law, and (if it were generally applied) would gut the encyclopedia. It's completely unsupported by anything in policy, and flies in the face of all previous handling of quotations. I trust you're not being disruptive, removing material that you don't like for bogus reasons. PalestineRemembered 09:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

You know, I'd be following proper protocol if I reported this article for copyvio, PR. You really, really don't want that. Kyaa the Catlord 10:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

You can quote some sentences if they are clearly attributed, but some parts of this section were really copied verbatim from [45] without attribution. The current version (reworded and pruned) should be OK though. Regards, High on a tree 10:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I rewrote what you rewrote for POV and some grammar problems. :P Kyaa the Catlord 10:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks (although I don't know what you mean by "some grammar problems", except maybe that "April 16" is more elegant than "16 April"). Of course the section was not meant to be complete yet, it should still be expanded to provide more context, especially about the events during the first two weeks of April. Regards, High on a tree 11:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

To be completely honest, I subscribe to the "less is more". We should not be recreating the report here in different words, rather we should have a concise summary of their findings. We currently have more than that.... Kyaa the Catlord 11:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

We need a lot more than "a concise summary" if we're attempting to write a good encyclopedia article. We need actual information from Reliable Sources. Israel's claims, given the heavy-handed concealment, and given the multiple serious accusations against it from most/nearly all observers, belong a long way down the page. PalestineRemembered 12:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

We need to follow Wikipedia's rules. It certainly seems that everyone who has weighed in on this issue other than yourself agrees that what I've removed has been copyvio material. Even High on a tree agreed and reworded the statements, albeit worded it in a way that made it sound like the only day that food was delivered to this camp was April 16. Kyaa the Catlord 15:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Our work is made much, much more difficult by applying a ferociously exclusionary version of "Fair Use", such as doesn't apply anywhere else in the project (and would gut 100s of 1000s of articles if we tried to apply it generally). But in the meantime, we need to include the considered verdicts of the PA, Jordan, the EU (and likely something from Qatar). All those sources are vastly better than that of those who blocked outside observers, right up to and including the UN. And vastly better than a magazine which appears to have done no "investigation" worth speaking of, and is only parrotting the words of denial from the perpetrators. PalestineRemembered 22:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Strange edits

Perhaps Kyaa the Catlord could take some time to explain the rationale of these edits:

• [46], which changed

"The EU's report said ''"at least 4,000 remained inside and did not evacuate the camp."''<ref name=UN>"

to

"The EU believes ''"at least 4,000 remained inside and did not evacuate the camp."''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Jenin#Statement_by_Spain_for_the_EU_.28Annexe_4_of_UN_report.29]

• the next edit [47] removed this very sentence, saying "[removed faultily referenced statement (wikipedia itself does not meet RS)]"

In other words, Kyaa the Catlord first replaced a good referencing by a bad one (it is of course correct that Wikipedia articles should not be cited as a reference), and then later removed this statement because it was badly referenced.

Besides, the first edit removed another statement (apparently well-referenced, citing the UN report) and destroyed a multiple reference to a BBC article (resulting in this empty citation in the present version). And I don't see the "huge chunk" of text that was restored according to the edit summary?

Regards, High on a tree 11:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

If you look at the actual article links, you'd see that I had actually replaced a large chunk of the article which had become mysteriously invisible in the first edit which inadvertently removed the updated source. Feel free to replace the removed text if you would like. Tossing out accusations is pointless, however, and I'd like to remind you to WP:AGF and maybe look a little deeper next time. Kyaa the Catlord 11:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

For ease, please view the table of contents here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Jenin&oldid=150127081 and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Jenin&oldid=150135929 and you will see that subsections 2.1 and 2.2 went missing somewhere. I know, its tricky to see a huge chunk of the article missing like that.... Kyaa the Catlord 11:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Understanding that remark about the "huge chunk" wasn't my main concern, but thanks - comparing these two links I can see it too. It is quite weird that this is not visible in the diff (but then again the diff function is known to have some rare bugs).

I did not express any assumptions about your intentions, so I can't accept your accusation that I had violated Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Instead I invited you politely to explain edits that (as I think we both agree now) significantly damaged the text. You are saying the damage was done inadvertently, which I accept, although I am still wondering why you hadn't noticed this by pressing "Show changes" - it must have been a second failure of the diff function.

I am going to repair the corrupted references now, although I would have appreciated it if you had seen this as your own responsibility.

Regards, High on a tree 12:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Didn't realize anything had broken... *shrug* Your tone really doesn't come off as someone I want to talk to so, I'll just leave it at that. I found a huge problem and took care of it. You found something relatively minor in comparison and are still trying to accuse me of something. Are you in a bad mood or just being cranky for crankiness sake? Kyaa the Catlord 12:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not going to spend time arguing about my "tone" with somebody who is calling me "cranky". Regards, High on a tree 12:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Being called out to explain something that should not require any explanation if you took the time to compare what was there prior and what was there after really strikes me as someone who is assuming I'm doing something sketchy. But I'll just assume you overreacted since you duplicated the problem when you tried to fix whatever you discovered was broken. Kyaa the Catlord 12:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Again, my concern was not about the "huge chunk" but about the citations you damaged, and you still haven't explained that (above I suggested a second very rare failure of the Mediawiki software as an explanation in your favor).

And I have no idea what you mean by "you duplicated the problem". Where did I change a good citation to a bad one, and then removed the corresponding statement for the reason that it was badly referenced? Regards, High on a tree 13:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

You're assuming I changed the reference so I could remove it while duplicating the exact error that caused me to make the change which removed the huge chunk of text from the article. I even pointed out the problem to you and you are still hung up on your mistaken belief that I am trying to use the edit to somehow remove text that actually appears TWICE on the page while only removing one instance of it, due to what was, at the time, a legitimate concern. Kyaa the Catlord 14:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I can confirm that your behaviour to other editors has been aggressive since you arrived on this article. People seeing my comments on your TalkPage[48] can confirm for themselves that I was trying to be helpful and understanding - I don't feel I've had anything like the same in return. You've done considerable damage to this article, removing sheaves of the best material on threatening (but as far as I can tell, quite spurious) grounds, just that I know of. I'm not surprised you've been found to have messed up other parts. PalestineRemembered 14:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm rather shocked by your accusations PR. If you look at your own talk page, you can see that I responded to your statements on my talk page in a manner that shows I was willing to work with you towards a comprimise as long as you avoid copywrite violations. [49] I'm sorry you feel it necessary to lie though. Kyaa the Catlord 15:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The comment that you've just passed on my TalkPage is the first evidence I've had of any kind that you're here other than to be disruptive (and you've succeeded, raising two serious complaints against me - one block, lifted, one just irritating). So aggressive has been your behaviour that I put you down as hormonal. Now you tell me you're not of the female persuasion, I'm wondering whether perhaps your next step is to be personally harrassing, as I see happens to other good-faith critics of Israel. I've twice asked for someone of a different POV to write up the (highly significant) Kurdi Bear interview. Would you care to do it? Would it be the first piece of writing I've seen from you? PalestineRemembered 18:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't even know how to respond to this. You assumed I was menstruating and thus was acting aggressively? I... don't know what to say. Kyaa the Catlord 22:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

And you broke it again. Kyaa the Catlord 12:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Where? Regards, High on a tree 12:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

You subsequently fixed it. :P Kyaa the Catlord 12:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, you mean the trailing "/" that the author of the previous version had left out? It just occurred to me while doing this that it might be better to separate the corrections of your edit from further fixes, so I decided to make two edits. I take the opportunity to remind everybody of Help:Footnotes, especially for using multiple references. Regards, High on a tree 13:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

If you take out that "/" you'll see what I tried to fix. And quit lecturing, you're coming off like an ass. Thanks. (Just for your enlightenment, I did not realize that it was just a "/" missing and actually copy/pasted text from prior to whoever originally included the "ref name" reference and forgot the "/" which had broken the page, quite similarly to how you "rebroke" the page after you first started giving us a lecture here.) Kyaa the Catlord 14:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Let's compare how it was before I "fixed" it: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Jenin&oldid=150127081 to how it was after your initial edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Jenin&oldid=150166641

Notice how both versions are missing a large chunk of the section headed with "The Battle". My mistake was that I did not realize that the change which had caused this problem was a missing "/" in the ref name tag and my "fix" reverted it back to before user:Tewflik had changed the reference to the one with a name from the one which appeared previously. For your information, I had asked Tewflik to doublecheck my "fix" here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tewfik#Battle_of_Jenin_3 Note how this was long before you started tossing out accusations of misdeeds at me. I agree that how I "fixed" it was clunky and that had Tewflik not accidentally forgotten the "/" in his ref name tag I'd not have removed that piece of text, but throwing a hissy fit over a simple mistake like this is unique in my years of editting wikipedia. Kyaa the Catlord 14:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

It would appear there are people making quick and sloppy edits, thereby making all work by productive editors much harder. I'm not sure at what point this becomes disruptive, but it certainly does nothing for the project. PalestineRemembered 15:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it would probably be best to write this off as a miscommunication, and leave it at that. PR, in such a case, it is not very helpful to jump in with allegations of 'aggressive behaviour'. If we all remain civil and assume good faith, we should have no problem continuing to raise the quality of this article. Tewfik^Talk 18:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The work of productive editors has been made extremely difficult in this article, and it's sometimes difficult to be sure that contributors are attempting to enlighten. What have we said about helicopter gun-ships "spraying the camp like rain" according to one account, and "swarming" by another? Where is the Kurdi Bear account - I've twice asked that people with another POV write it up for consideration, I've not even had the courtesy of an answer. It would be a travesty if the "totally disputed" tag were lifted before this work was done. PalestineRemembered 18:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

sharon

is there ANY source for this edit? (as opposed to the CNN source given)

What exactly is the CNN rush transcript supposed to prove? CJCurrie 05:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

are you planning on referencing your direct accusation at sharon, or can we go back to rely our text on the validated sources? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 05:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe you've provided a validated source for your preferred version. CJCurrie 05:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

are you planning on providing a reference? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 06:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

btw, since when is CNN not a valid source? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 06:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

No-one's saying CNN is not a valid source, generally. It is simply being pointed out that this particular transcript is irrelevant to the issue at hand (which of course it is). And not for the first time, you are going round in circles about a citation issue, after having - and transparently "losing" - exactly the same debate with other editors some months previously.(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Battle_of_Jenin#widspread_hatered) --Nickhh 09:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

i don't see a "loss" in the link you provided, i see some one valid point about the first issue and an invalid reasoning on the second one. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The reference to "losing" that debate may be a little unfair, but at the same time it's the only way to describe the end result of struggles like it, where others try to get you to accept what is or is not - at a fairly basic and obvious level - in the sources you cite as apparent evidence for your own viewpoints and assertions. I recall for example the whole "the Palestinians claimed genocide" debate I had with you, which you kept trying to keep in the intro, claiming it was "well sourced" in several different references - none of which even mentioned the word.

To clarify here - this transcript, even in the widest possible interpretation you can give it, does not make the connection that you want it to. It does not even mention Jenin. Hence it is not, as CJCurrie points out, a validated source for what you are trying to insert into this article. And you should know this, because another editor pointed it out to you a while ago. --Nickhh 17:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

this transcript is from the CNN coverage of the clashes in israel, this news segment concentrated on the arab reactions to the israeli incursions into palestinian militant hotbeds. the word jenin is a redundant unnecessary considering all the people interviewed that day and considering that 10 minutes before they were talking about a suicide bomber ripping through central jerusalem, right along jaffa road (by the al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade) and about colin powell's visit to try and negotiate a cease fire. what makes you contest that this source is not connected to the action?? (p.s. note that the source ends with "We will get more coverage here in a moment, live from Jerusalem") Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Totally Disputed tag

I know it feels good to put this tag up, but its pretty darn worthless, imho. pov-section would be better, marking the specific statements with dubious would be best. Could someone who is involved with the placement of this tag perhaps make these improvements so we can work on specifics not a broad generalization? Kyaa the Catlord 17:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose - this article is a very long way from being NPOV. It systematically puts the Israeli POV first - and they're the one that many sources accuse of war-crimes, for goodness sake!. Furthermore, the IDF put immense difficulties in the way of all observers, right up to complete defiance of the UN. The current state of the article is bad, bad, bad.

Other problems include putting the "Time magazine investigation" (did they do anymore than walk round the camp and publish what they were told by Israel?) ahead of groups that really did investigate.

I've been forced to get all the real information on this business cleared for "copyright", it would be a travesty if this article was labelled anything other "totally disputed" until we've had a chance to write it up properly. PalestineRemembered 17:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

This article was created in September of 2002. Five years and it still isn't written up properly? If we follow that logic, the tag will never be removed. Kyaa the Catlord 17:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

If I go back to the earlier versions, I can tell you whether this article has deteriorated with time. Currently it is confused in layout and wildly POV in choice of references. The Time magazine "investigation" might as well be propaganda. There were observers from all over the world telling us what had gone on, the only thing they failed to find was any evidence of mass killings or mass graves. There were statements from the PA, from Jordan and from the EU (and Qatar handed over tapes from it's world-respected television station), none of whom had anything to conceal, nor (that we know of) did conceal anything. Those 3/4 nations, along with the NGOs, documented lots of evidence of really serious abuses. It will not be possible to get get all of that stuff in, nor easy to agree where the balance has to lie. But we've not even started. PalestineRemembered 19:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your humble opinion but I certainly don't share it. The article is positively dripping with contempt for Palestinian resistance, hammers endlessly on the concept of Jenin as some kind of headquarters for suicide terror (ignoring the obvious explanation that suicide bombers come from Jenin because it's the closest large Palestinian city to Israel's central coastal plain). Depending on the revision at hand, it presents verified facts as mere "Palestinian claims". It places massively undue weight on a single questionable Time magazine piece while downplaying the reports of international observers such as Human Rights Watch, and seems to be positively obsessed with the idea that scheming Palestinians knowingly promoted a false blood libel (which was bound to be disproved rapidly) when even Israeli officers admit that the furor was due mainly to their own actions and their poor communications strategy. This is just off the top of my head. There are greater problems within the text. Finally, I don't know of any policy which allows TotallyDisputed tags to be removed simply because it's difficult or unlikely to come up with a not-totally-disputed version of the article. Kyaa, I appreciate your efforts at cleanup here, but the tag really has to stay for now. Eleland 19:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

My goal is to get these easier to find and correct. So... even if the tag stays, if you find places that desperately need to be fixed, please mark them and I'll do my best to find something to make them more NPOV. Thanks! Kyaa the Catlord 19:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

please User:Eleland, find me a quote in the article that "positively dripping with contempt for Palestinian resistance". perhaps you are confusing resistance activity with indiscriminate terrorist activity (a.k.a. suicide bombings). Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Apart from anything else, Israel attacked cities all over the West Bank, and Jenin was expected to be in the second division in difficulty (and in importance? not sure). Nablus was expected to be far harder to crack. As it happened, Nablus was a walk-over (71 or 80 Palestinians killed there to 3 (4?) Israeli soldiers). In Jenin the Palestinians resisted. Your comments underline the systematic bias we have in this article. PalestineRemembered 19:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

PR, what on earth are you talking about and how is it relevant to the totaly disputed tag? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

please User:Eleland, find me a quote in the article that "positively dripping with contempt for Palestinian resistance". Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:47, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

"Palestinian and International Sources allege that the camp and its dwellings were attacked indiscriminately..."

Tewfik, I'm trying to understand why you keep deleting "and international" from this formulation. Your edit summary says: "disregarding that I've provided detailed explanation on Talk, the UN does not take that position, but only presents quotations." I'm sorry if I'm being thick, but I can't find your explanation on talk. And I can't understand how you've arrived at the conclusion that the report from the UN investigation only presents quotations from Palestinian sources. The UN report lays out what its sources are right at the outset:

The report was written without a visit to Jenin or the other Palestinian cities in question and it therefore relies completely on available resources and information, including submissions from five United Nations Member States and Observer Missions, documents in the public domain and papers submitted by non-governmental organizations. The Under-Secretary-General for Political Affairs wrote to the Permanent Representative of Israel and the Permanent Observer of Palestine to the United Nations requesting them to submit information but only the latter did so. In the absence of a response from Israel, the United Nations has relied on public statements of Israeli officials and publicly available documents of the Government of Israel relevant to the request in resolution ES-10/10.

The body of the report refers on a number of occasions to "indiscriminate" and "disproportional" use of force, etc. In some of these instances the characterization is attributed to Palestinian witnesses, in others to "human rights and humanitarian organizations," and in still others the characterization is made by the UN itself.

"Palestinian and international sources" is the right formulation for this; please stop changing it.--G-Dett 18:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I've discussed these topics at length here. The UN report says indiscriminate in quotes, and attributes that to the vague "reports". It then appears in the narrative voice of the Palestinian statement in the annex. While it may be unfortunate that the UN was denied the ability to carry out an on-site inquiry, we cannot repackage something that they do not themselves say as indeed originating from them, and certainly not with the vague "international sources", which implies a number of such explicit opinions. As for "refute", I am not aware of a single mainstream organisation that still maintains there was a massacre, and I am hoping that we don't make these reports say something that they are not. It would also be helpful if both sides could ensure that violations of WP:CIV and other conduct protocol are avoided in the future. Tewfik^Talk 23:45, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I should add that at least one British journalist present specifically used the term "indescriminately" to describe the helicopter bombardment, despite Tewfik's pathetic and unsustainable attempt to label this "reproduction of a Palestinian claim"; see "NPOV/factual dispute" talk section above. Eleland 19:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Eleland, please give a visit to WP:CIV. this type of language most certainly falls under personal attacks.

User:G-Dett, from my inspection of the UN link, i've seen that the UN document is claiming international sources interviewed palestinians. so in my opinion, the proper reference would be that palestinian sources made the allegations and international sources and the media repeated them. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

It's what's called "Secondary sources". Perhaps you need a crash course in policies applicable to the encyclopedia, "Verifiability not Truth" and all that jazz. PalestineRemembered 22:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Tewfik and Jaakobou, I agree with you that civility has been breached here. I am at a loss to understand how sourcing issues have skittered off the tracks into hormonal and menstrual ones. That said, some of the frustration here is understandable, and I think a little more candor and rigor when discussing the sources – both in the mainspace and on the talk page – would do more to reverse the erosions of civility and good faith than merely citing behavioral policies to those already familiar with them.

The UN report uses the word "indiscriminate" six times. Only twice is it in quotes, and only once Three times it is attributed to Palestinians. Here are the six instances:

1. As IDF penetrated the camp, the Palestinian militants reportedly moved further into its centre. The heaviest fighting reportedly occurred between 5 and 9 April, resulting in the largest death tolls on both sides. There are reports that during this period IDF increased missile strikes from helicopters and the use of bulldozers - including their use to demolish homes and allegedly bury beneath them those who refused to surrender - and engaged in "indiscriminate" firing. IDF lost 14 soldiers, 13 in a single engagement on 9 April. IDF incurred no further fatalities in Jenin after 9 April.
2. Following the ambush, IDF appeared to have shifted tactics from house-to-house searches and destruction of the homes of known militants to wider bombardment with tanks and missiles. IDF also used armoured bulldozers, supported by tanks, to demolish portions of the camp. The Government of Israel maintains that "IDF forces only destroyed structures after calling a number of times for inhabitants to leave buildings, and from which the shooting did not cease". Witness testimonies and human rights investigations allege that the destruction was both disproportionate and indiscriminate, some houses coming under attack from the bulldozers before their inhabitants had the opportunity to evacuate.
3. Over the past 20 months, Israel, the occupying Power, has waged a bloody military campaign against the Palestinian people and has escalated many of its unlawful policies and practices, routinely violating the provisions of international humanitarian law guaranteeing protection to the Palestinian civilian population, in addition to violating the existing agreements between the two sides. Since the beginning of the Al-Aqsa intifada on 28 September 2000, which began in response to the infamous visit of Mr. Ariel Sharon to Al-Haram Al-Sharif, Israel has been expanding its use of "retaliation" and "deterrence" and intensifying its illegal practices, including willfully killing civilians; using excessive, disproportionate and indiscriminate force; using lethal force a gainst demonstrators, including children throwing stones; imposing military siege and severe restrictions on the movement of persons and goods; imposing collective punishments; targeting of ambulances and medical personnel and obstructing their access to the wounded; and destroying agricultural fields and uprooting of trees. (from the Palestinian report submitted to the Secretary-General)
4. On 29 March and throughout the period under report, the Israeli occupying forces waged a large-scale military assault against the Palestinian people, unprecedented in its scope and intensity since the start of the Israeli occupation. The Israeli occupying forces invaded and reoccupied most Palestinian populated centers, including cities, villages and refugee camps and practically all areas under Palestinian control in the West Bank. The Israeli occupying forces dramatically increased the indiscriminate use of lethal force, using heavy weaponry, including tanks, helicopter gunships and warplanes, to attack and, in some cases bombard, heavily populated Palestinian areas. A large number of Palestinians, including civilians, were killed, many willfully. The occupying forces also continued the practice of extrajudiciary executions, using snipers, helicopter gunships and sometimes tank fire, killing identified people as well as others. In some cases, extrajudiciary executions were even carried out against surrendered fighters and people in Israeli custody. (from the Palestinian report submitted to the Secretary-General)
5. "On the third day of the invasion, we heard a very loud explosion on the top floor of our house (a three-storey house), where my sister was getting her things together and preparing to join the 13 members of my family. They had fled to the ground floor, seeking refuge from the indiscriminate bombing." (from eyewitness account of Hajj Ahmad Abu Kharj)
6. The massive destruction, especially at the centre of the refugee camp, to which all heads of mission in Jerusalem and Ramallah can testify, shows that the site had undergone an indiscriminate use of force, that goes well beyond that of a battlefield. (from the attached Report of the European Union, "elaborated by the European Union Consul Generals in Jerusalem and the heads of mission in Ramallah.")

To sum up. The UN Report lays out its sources at the outset as "submissions from five United Nations Member States and Observer Missions, documents in the public domain and papers submitted by non-governmental organizations." We have one instance of "indiscriminate" within quotes, where it's attributed to "reports," which we have no reason to believe are exclusively Palestinian. The next instance of "indiscriminate" is not in quotes, and is attributed to "witness testimonies and human rights investigations," the latter of which again we have no reason to believe are exclusively Palestinian. In two subsequent instances, both within the Factual and Legal Context subsection, the Palestinian report, the UN uses "indiscriminate" twice in its own voice [struck out by G-Dett, per Kyaa the Catlord below], first to describe Israel's general campaign against the Palestinians throughout the second intifada, then to describe the Israeli crackdown beginning "on 29 March and throughout the period under report." Then we have one Palestinian eyewitness who uses the word. Finally, we have a report from the European Union, describing in its own voice Israel's "indiscriminate use of force."

I hope this settles the issue: "Palestinian and international sources" it is.--G-Dett 12:59, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Had the UN wanted to say indiscriminate, they would have done so directly, without qualifications and attributions. As it is, the claim only appears in other nations' reports in the annex, and as reference to the claims of others in the body, but never in the objective narrative voice, and thus saying "international sources" in that position as if the United Nations unambiguously endorsed this position is misleading. I would appreciate if the other claims dealt with above were replied to before any reversions. Tewfik^Talk 06:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

They never "qualify" their use of "indiscriminate" at all, and they do not attribute it solely or even primarily to "Palestinian sources"; your repeated assertions of this debunked claim try the patience, and your willingness to edit-war over it verges on bizarre. The UN report attributes its account of "indiscriminate" and "disproportional" use of force explicitly to "human rights investigations," and implicitly to its carefully laid-out sources: "five United Nations Member States and Observer Missions, documents in the public domain and papers submitted by non-governmental organizations." And there is this statement from the European Union: "The massive destruction, especially at the centre of the refugee camp, to which all heads of mission in Jerusalem and Ramallah can testify, shows that the site had undergone an indiscriminate use of force, that goes well beyond that of a battlefield." The European Union is not a "Palestinian source," Tewfik, and any edits implying that it is will simply be reverted, without further explanation.--G-Dett 11:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I do not think that you believe I was calling the European Union a "Palestinian source". As I said above, when major international organisations like the UN refuse to use that language directly, and when others feel the need to qualify it, saying "international sources" in the lead misleads the reader into thinking there was a larger consensus on the point that there was. And while you seem to have accused me of plagiarism in an edit summary, you still haven't replied to said points on Talk. Please, lets not head down this sort of road. Tewfik^Talk 18:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Just a clarification: The Factual and Legal Context is from the Palestinian letter contained in the UN report. This isn't in the UN's voice, its in the voice of the author(s) of that submission. So, all of these allegations of "indiscriminate" stuff come from outside statements, not in the UN's own words. Kyaa the Catlord 19:49, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you're quite right about that. I've emended my text above.--G-Dett 20:19, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Note also the Observer report mentioned earlier, where a British eyewitness specifically describes the assault as "indiscriminate". But anyway, I don't want to get sidetracked here. The camp WAS attacked with tanks, helicopters, and armored bulldozers, some 10% of it was totally leveled, and damage to structures was extensive. I'm worried that hanging our hat on this "indiscriminate" thing is really a convenient way of casting doubt on the reality of the whole attack. It's like saying that "Americans alleged that Pearl Harbor and its battleships were attacked with bombs and torpedoes without provocation. Japanese sources disputed this." Those sentences are technically true but only because of the additional "without provocation" claim. Eleland 19:54, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Noone is saying the attack did not happen. But a large portion of the "story" about the Battle of Jenin is the misreporting upon in and that many of the claims, by both eyewitnesses, governments and new agencies were later shown to be incorrect and, possibly, exagerated for propaganda reasons. Kyaa the Catlord 19:59, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

note: sorry i missed this extensive debate, i was preoccupied with a few other issues, and will go over this seriously sometime soon (hopefully today) and join the discussion. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

We've not even mentioned Sharon's declared aim

Clearly, this article cannot cover everything that happened on the West Bank in the spring of 2002. But we can't fail to mention that Sharon intended to punish ordinary Palestinians, he said they must be hit, in a fashion that was to be painful. They (ie all of them) had to lose, to be victims, to pay a heavy price. He said all of that to the press less than 1 month before the attack on Jenin. PalestineRemembered 20:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

PR, let's not forget all the POV we can muster about the arabs either. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

If there are people wishing to inject a "Let the people back to their homes" soap-box into this discussion, I've not noticed them. In the meantime, we've still not documented the fact that Sharon told the world's press that "the Palestinians" (by which I presume he meant every last man woman and child amongst them) were to be hit, punished, feel pain and the rest of it. That's quite a serious lapse on our part, this article is not complete without some passing reference to the intention of the troops. Of which you've still not answered the question - were you one of them? PalestineRemembered 22:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

1. i've issued a notice about this issue to an admin inspecting my AV/I complaint.
2. we did pass a reference to the "intention of the troops" [sic]. we made notice to Nabil Shaath's claims. if you have more sources like this about "the intentions" of the troops, i'd probably be more than happy to include them.

-- Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:04, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I fear that asking if you have a Conflict of Interest is hardly sufficient to ask that I be blocked for 7 days, as happened here. PalestineRemembered 19:42, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

You accused him of being a war criminal, PR. That's... not cool. Very not cool. Kyaa the Catlord 19:44, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Not sure why I bother really. Every - relatively minor, but accurate - change I make is explained in an edit summary or on the talk page, often in some detail, yet if Jaakobou doesn't agree with them, as usual they are all reverted wholesale without any attempt to address the points being made http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Battle_of_Jenin#Incorrect_edit_summary_24th_July.

And again we have a recent fraudulent "NPOV" edit summary on their part. In this case this has even reverted to English that includes glaring spelling errors. That's fine, we can all do typos, but it does show that you don't even look at what you're changing, as long as it reverts to a favoured version. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Jenin&diff=150661017&oldid=150651338. "Supporeted" anyone? --Nickhh 23:26, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Various points re recent changes -

1) where is the source or citation for the suggestion that "refuted" - and implicitly malicious - Palestinian allegations about Jenin led to an "increase in negative feelings for Israel"? This keeps getting reinserted into the intro. If there is a reliable poll of world opinion somewhere that verifies this, fine. Alternatively, if you can find a comment piece from the Weekly Standard or the New Republic which asserts this, then put the claim somewhere in the main article, and describe it as being one editorial viewpoint. This may be a pretty minor point overall, and of course there are plenty of reasons why people actually do have negative feelings about "Israel"/the IDF/Ariel Sharon etc (some justified, some not), but we may as well be accurate.

2) why is the claim that the massacre allegations were "refuted" kept in, but the equally relevant and accurate point that the IDF was nonetheless accused of war crimes constantly being removed? To keep it more neutral, given the genuine debate over what constitutes a "massacre", I'd rather say as well that "the suggestion that a deliberate, large-scale massacre may have taken place" was "rejected". But I know I'm never going to get that one past anybody.

3) why has any reference to the specific fact that Palestinian civilians were killed by the IDF been taken out of the introduction?

4) why do certain editors insist on removing any reference in the introduction to initial IDF estimates of the death toll? These received attention in the international media as well as the Palestinian claims, as did the fact that the IDF excluded journalists from the camp, with the effect that they could not verify - or challenge - those estimates. This is explicitly pointed out in the referenced articles.

5) please explain precisely why the "ten times larger .." quote is relevant. Surely a more relevant comparison - if a reference to one can be found - would be to the size of the munitions the IDF were using in their assualt on the camp.

--Nickhh 08:48, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

1) the ref has been moved to the body of the article, it is the TV telethon in saudi which was broadcast on april 11 and discussed on CNN the following day. numerous people stated their perspective on "when we watched the massacres our brothers in Palestine".^[50]

2) both sides have been accused of violence within' civilian areas, i think my latest edit was fairly clear on this, however, User:Nickhh, you've decided to revert it.

3) i don't think it is the main issue of the battle, however, we can add a mention to it next to the "estimated at 52" text.

4) this information about IDF estimates is in the body of the article, and it's unnoticeable in comparison to the "500-3000/sabra-shatila" palestinian claims. the exclusion of journalists from joining the battle zone seems also like an unimportant add to the introduction, and it's mentioned in the body of the article.

5) i don't think it's overly important, but if a newspaper published it, i think we can add it to the article. p.s. i have not searched for the reference to this.

6) i don't believe the West Bank article has been renamed into occupied West Bank, so please reconsider such insertions which could result in a backlash of people changing it's name into Judea and Samaria.

-- Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:08, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for at least addressing some of the issues this time, rather than simply reverting. However -

1) For the 100th time - The. Cited. Source. Does. Not. Back. Up. The. Assertion. Are you trying to keep this debate going longer than the ridiculous "genocide" one? This is a pretty glaring piece of OR, all the more so for being in the introduction.

2) Um, what does your response here have to do with the point I made about war crimes conclusions, being included or not in the introduction? Nor in any event do I see where my revert - which you've helpfully linked to - actually took out any mention of violence within civilian areas, as you seem to be trying to suggest.

3) I think it is quite a significant point that a large proportion of the casualties were civilians. Maybe that's just my POV though

4) I know it's in the main body of the article, and so it should be, in some detail. However the introduction should give a broad overview of what's in the article. That's my whole point here - it shouldn't just cherry-pick the bits that some editors want in. The exclusion of journalists is important - the journalists themselves (eg CNN's Ben Wedeman) are quite open about how their exclusion meant they couldn't verify or challenge the initial casualty estimates, and even that it suggested to them that maybe the Israelis WERE "hiding" something. Again I've had this debate with you and others on this talk page and shown you the quotes.

5) I don't think it's overly important - I just think that by comparison it's clearly more relevant than the reference to the amount of explosives suicide bombers use

6) I inserted the word "occupied" because I was trying to stress the point that this was a military incursion into a town outside Israel (ie it wasn't just a "domestic" operation). I have no intention of pursuing the point, as it's pretty tautologous anyway - everyone knows the West Bank is occupied territory. That is if the UN collectively, every member state government other than the US & Israel, mainstream Israeli public opinion, most of the people who actually live there under that occupation etc etc is taken to count as "everyone". --Nickhh 11:53, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

A quick note on "massacre" allegations: I have never seen a report, as distinct from a newspaper editorial, or some TV presenter speaking extemporaneously, which categorically said there was no massacre. (The BBC report was headlined 'No massacre', but they put it in scare quotes, and headlines are not written by journalists and not subject to the rigorous fact-checking that they are.) What they said was always something like "there was no wanton and deliberate massacre" - leaving open the possibility of a deliberate non-wanton massacre, or a wanton accidental massacre, or what have you. Or, "a massacre - in the usual sense - did not take place", well, was there an unusual sense of massacre? There was no systematic death squad operation where the IDF tried to kill as many people as possible, which is what Palestinians feared in those dark days after the fighting ended, but before Israel would let anyone in or out. That doesn't mean there was no massacre. Eleland 12:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Human Rights Watch found no evidence to sustain claims of massacres -- Human Rights Watch. THF 12:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

"Found no evidence" is not saying "there was no massacre", it's saying "we couldn't find any evidence of a massacre". And they said "massacres or large-scale extrajudicial executions", which clearly shows that they were defining "massacre" in the same nuanced terms used by media outlets. It would be acceptable to say that "Human Rights Watch found no evidence of massacres, but found strong prima facie evidence of IDF war crimes." Eleland 14:06, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Third-party comment

1. I don't think there's any legitimate dispute that misleading coverage of Jenin inflamed international opinion against Israel. But the CNN cite does not support this, except as a violation of WP:SYN. To the extent people are insisting on a cite, a better cite is needed; Google turned up this one, but one would prefer a source other than the ADL for the claim.
2. Is there still a dispute over the lead's "raised allegations of war crimes and massacre" language? I find that acceptable, but perhaps I'm not understanding what the two of you are arguing.
3. I see one main-text report of 22 Palestinian civilians killed in the fighting. Is there a source for how many of those were killed by the IDF, and how many were killed by fellow Palestinians? Is the HRW figure accepted, or does Israel contend the number is lower? #agree that some mention should be made in the lead, but it needs to be NPOV.
4. The Israeli casualty estimate was 150. It was never as high as Palestinian estimates. The version in the lead equating the two overestimates was misleading, and it's undue weight to include a fully-elaborated sentence in the lead. See WP:LEAD.
5. "ten times larger" is useful context. A lay reader doesn't have a sense of what it means to have 113 kg of explosives, and the size and scale of the explosives is certainly important information about whether Israeli claims of terrorist operations had basis.
6. "West Bank" is the accepted neutral phrasing. Israel calls the terrorities "disputed," so "occupied" violates NPOV.

Hope this helps to resolve a dispute. THF 12:15, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

notes/introduction to the old talk

1) the last talk about this opinions against israel can be seen here: Talk:Battle_of_Jenin#sharon, i can reference my statements on that subsection (i did not reference them much in that talk subsection). i agree that CNN does not spell it out blatantly, but everyone talking about "massacres in palestine" and support for the "martyrs" lends itself very strongly to this assertion. i agree that better sources should possibly be found, but until then. the CNN source is not that bad of a source to this statement.

2) the argument seemed, to me, to be about what human rights ended up saying. at first they joined in on the massacre claims, but when the final reports were given they abrogated their massacre claims and gave out statements about both sides being overly violent in a civilian area, placing civilians at harm. from what i understood, nickhh was requesting information be made that the IDF was no longer blamed for a massacre but was accused for war crimes. i wrote this version down: "critique for placing civilian lives at risk was attributed to both sides." in the edit i referenced above (the one nickhh reverted)... from what i now see in his original statement, he also wanted to change "massacre.. refuted" to "deliberate, large-scale massacre.. rejected".

3) the number of militants/activist/innocent-bystander is very contentious in the middle east conflicts. in this battle, more than half the palestinian casualties were verified as militants while the rest remain an issue of uncertainty. i'm not against some inclusion of a note about this into the intro if it's done properly.

-- Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:55, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Using Jaakobou's numbering ..

1) Indeed the CNN transcript does not "spell it out blatantly". Exactly, that's what makes this sentence WP:OR. The only source that will "spell this out blatantly" is a reference to an international opinion poll, showing that Palestinian "lies" about Jenin - as opposed to IDF actions - impacted on Israel's image. This is surely a very simple point? I am surprised at THF's comments that there is no "dispute" about this - that's a pretty big assumption.

2) "Critique for placing civilian lives at risk was attributed to both sides" is a) pretty poor english & b) not the same point at all as saying the IDF was censured for war crimes

3) Please stop trying to hint that all Palestinians killed by the IDF are all sort-of-guilty-really. It gets very tedious, not to mention grossly offensive

ps User:THF: i have no issue with the wording reflecting the fact that some Palestinians raised allegations of war crimes and a massacre (your 2) since they did - but while arguably the latter was refuted, the former most definitely was not, and some editors are cherry-picking those facts for the introduction .. actually (your 4) some Israeli estimates talked about 250 dead .. in what way exactly is "ten times larger .. " (your 5) useful context? .. as for the "occupied" issue (your 6), as I've said I'm not going to push that in the article, although I would reject the suggestion that "Israel" refers to them as merely "disputed" - mainstream Israeli media, politicians and opinion have no problem with the word "occupied"--Nickhh 18:34, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The allegations of war crimes were levelled against both sides. Tewfik^Talk 18:58, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposed paragraph replacement

Right now there is only one paragraph in the lede which actually talks about what happened in Jenin, as distinct from Israeli explanations of why they made it happen.

1. Palestinian and international sources alleged that the camp and its dwellings were attacked indiscriminately by Israel with heavy military equipment, combat helicopters, rockets and missiles,[8][9][10] and raised allegations of war crimes and massacre, which were reported in the international media, leading to an increase in negative feelings toward Israel. The allegations of massacre were subsequently rejected by outside observers, though major human rights organizations controversially maintained that other war crimes had taken place and criticized the actions of both sides. The Palestinian death toll was estimated at 52 (including 22 civilians), while 23 Israeli soldiers were killed.

This paragraph is a) inadequately sourced b) curiously worded. It seems to cast doubt on the reality of the attack itself, when only the "indiscriminate" part is in any doubt. Furthermore, it devotes more attention to the media battle than to the ground battle! I propose a replacement:

1. Israel attacked the camp using infantry, tanks, combat helicopters, and armored bulldozers,[1][2] causing extensive damage, and ultimately razed at least 10% of the camp.[3][4], Palestinian and international sources called the assault indiscriminate[5][6] and alleged war crimes and massacres, drawing extensive international media coverage. Both Palestinian and Israeli sources initially gave very high Palestinian casualty estimates, which were subsequently revised downward to 52-54. 23 Israeli soldiers were also killed in the fighting. Subsequent investigations by major human rights organizations found evidence of widespread war crimes, although rejecting allegations of a deliberate massacre.

The sourcing is a work in progress, see User:Eleland/Sandbox. Eleland 13:46, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

"Both Palestinian and Israeli sources initially gave very high Palestinian casualty estimates" is highly misleading for the reasons I stated above. It's POV to include only the human rights organizations' POV without noting that it was controversial. The first part of the change is an improvement:

Israel attacked the camp using infantry, tanks, combat helicopters, and armored bulldozers,[1][2] causing extensive damage, and ultimately razed at least 6% of the camp in the process of responding to booby-traps set by Palestinian militants.[3][4], Palestinian and international sources called the assault indiscriminate[5][6] and alleged war crimes and massacres, drawing extensive international media coverage and leading to an increase in negative feelings toward Israel. Israel stated that it took reasonable precautions to avoid civillian casualties. The allegations of massacre were subsequently rejected by outside observers, though major human rights organizations controversially maintained that other war crimes had taken place and criticized the actions of both sides. The Palestinian death toll was estimated at 52 (including 22 civilians), while 23 Israeli soldiers were killed.

THF 14:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

note 1: in previous discussions we've found that while the (known for anti-israeli bias) BBC stated 10 percent, another source not known for any bias (which supplied images), stated 6 percent as the amount destroyed. note 2: i would like to remind that 100kg explosives were planted all around the fight zone and making the assertion that the IDF razed the camp in such a circumstance is one sided POV. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:31, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I've tweaked the edit per the two notes. THF 15:34, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The two sources for the 10% figure are the Washington Times and an Israeli foreign ministry spokesman. See User:Eleland/Sandbox. The BBC doesn't enter into it. Besides, there is no objective evidence that the BBC has an anti-israeli bias. Indeed, a Scottish study some years ago found that Britons who were informed solely or mainly by BBC and ITN had a badly skewed and ignorant view of the situation — skewed, that is, to the Israeli side. GlobalSecurity.org is basically the personal blog of a guy named John E. Pike and not a reliable source. Eleland 16:25, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Eleland's paragraph is a great improvement from any angle. I object to any a la carte well-poisoning regarding the findings of human rights organizations in the lead (i.e. treating their rejection of massacre claims as definitive, but their affirmation of war-crimes allegations as "controversial." Jaakabou, what is your source for the 6%? From the above discussion, it appears to me that's your number average between your personal estimate (3%) and the BBC estimate (10%). Is that right? Are you adding your opinion to the "biased" BBC's to get 13%, dividing that in half to get 6.5%, then rounding down to 6 for good measure? If so, this would be a novel approach to WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR, and other core content policies.--G-Dett 16:27, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

User:G-Dett, you're addressing me a little too much with this math game and well poisoning. just read the full text of the discussions and inspect history to see who made which edit. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:43, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

p.s. i'll give a look at the new sources as soon as i get around to it. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:44, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Jaakabou, this is all I can find here on the discussion page:

btw, i saw images of the destruction, and to me "the facts" looked much closer to 3% destruction of the camp and not 10%. JaakobouChalk Talk 06:38, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

i guess if you mix my own bias and the BBC bias, you get the proper number (6 percent), as i just added to the article. havn't removed the BBC, they are still a large news body, bias and all.

The "math game" appears to be yours. What am I missing here? Where does 6% come from?--G-Dett 16:53, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

it comes from GlobalSecurity.org. i added the reference when i inserted something like: "between 6% (GlobalSecurity.org) and 10% (BBC)" into the article (you can look it up in the article history). the 3 percent was a generic uncommitted POV i mentioned based on old memory of the GS.org images that i've seen in the past, i don't make the habit of writing into articles without proper sourcing and i was only laughing at myself when i made the "bias" remark that the source was in between my initial babble and the BBC article. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:02, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Agree with both G-Dett and Eleland. There is currently far too much focus on Israel's justifications of their actions and the media reportin of the event, and Eleland's paragraph would be an improvement to the accuracy and neutrality of the article.Nwe 16:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

current status estimate

the following is my current moment concerns about this "in the works" version.

1) obviously an Israeli Foreign Ministry Spokesman cannot discern between 6 percent destruction and 10 percent destruction.. he also did not say "the IDF razed 10 percent" but said it's a result of the battle. same goes for the washington times... which also goes with the assertion that 33 Israeli soldiers were killed in the incursion.^[51]

2) i really don't see how you can compare the "500-3000/sabra-shatila" casualty estimates with the "as high as 150" and expect it to pass.

-- Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:13, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Apologies for joining in the lovefest, but I agree as well that Eleland's proposal for the introduction (as above) is a far more accurate and neutral exposition. Disputes around who is to "blame" for inaccurate casualty figures, what is actually meant by the word massacre, what the impact was on world opinion etc are better discussed in the body of the article. The intro should simply point out in a very broad and balanced way - without selectively using information to push one side or the other or making judgements about either side - that "X said A" .. "Y said B" .. "the investigations said C" and so forth, and in particular on what can be shown to have actually happened in the camp. I am surprised that this is proving so difficult. --Nickhh 18:47, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

image caption POV + antipathy

image caption POV

1) why is the statement that the D9 was instrumental in changing the style of combat and the outcome of the battle. a POV? 2) i believe the change in the intro, flipping placing the events leading to the attack after the attack is chronologically confusing and makes the intro hard to read. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:49, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The image caption is POV because it enthusiastically relishes the success and use of the bulldozer, and considers its application from the perspective of those using it. The phrasing "instrumental in...the outcome of the battle" suggests a subtle approval of that outcome, but also provides very little useful information about how it was used. The claims regarding the bulldozer are also completely unsourced.

As for the intro, an introduction to an article shouldn't be chronological. It should first provide basis details of the events the article describes, and then, possibly, some background information. It is when, as in this case, intros follow some chronological order that they become difficult to read and confusing.Nwe 17:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Check Palestinian eye witness, they too admit that the armored D9 bulldozers forced them to surrender. MathKnight 18:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC

That's not the point.Nwe 15:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

antipathy

the "inciting extreme antipathy toward"->"eliciting strong criticism of" change^[52] i'm not sure why the reference about the CNN telethon was removed and i don't see how unfound allegations of massacre and telethons for "martyrs" fall under "criticism". Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:49, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Complete proposed paragraph replacement & move

I propose that the current final paragraph of the lede be replaced with the following version. Also it should be moved to the second paragraph, since it summarizes the actual battle, rather than background information or various POV explanations thereof. Not that I'm saying "POV explanations" do not belong in the article or even the lede. But they don't come before a factual summary of events. Eleland 19:15, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

By the way, the reason for the "specify" tag on casualties is that I simply couldn't find a final tally. It's simply not enough to say that by May the Jenin hospital had collected and counted 52 corpses. In lieu of a reliable source, preferably more than one (since I sourced nearly everything in this paragraph to multiple sources, and when possible used Israeli sources to report details considered harmful to Israel's reputation), it's original research as well as handwaving to say "Hospital X on day Y had Z corpses; we would know if actual toll >Z, therefore final tally = Z". Eleland 19:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't find any "final tally" either. The nearest is the PA reporting to the UN that there were 375 by the 7th May, apparently refering to the whole of the West Bank. 70 to 80 of those would be the death-toll in Nablus (4 soldiers killed there), according to the Amnesty source. PalestineRemembered 15:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Revision

Israel attacked the camp using infantry, tanks, combat helicopters, and armored bulldozers, causing extensive damage, and ultimately razed[ing] at least roughly 10% of the camp. Palestinian and international sources called described the assault [as] ["]indiscriminate["] and alleged war crimes and massacres, drawing extensive international media coverage. Both Palestinian and Israeli sources initially gave very high Palestinian casualty estimates, which were subsequently [and markedly] revised downward markedly. [Sources now generally agree 52-56 Palestinians and] 23 Israeli soldiers were also killed in the fighting. Subsequent investigations by major human rights organizations found prima facie evidence of Israeli war crimes, although while casting doubt on allegations of a deliberate massacre. Some investigations also criticized Palestinian fighters for operating in close proximity to civilians, but found that the only deliberate use of Palestinians as "human shields" was by Israel.

This is superb work Eleland – concise, neutral, comprehensive and thoroughly sourced. I have made several minor tweaks (mostly for syntax and flow), using brackets and struck-out text so you can easily check what I've done.--G-Dett 21:51, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Very good work. I see only trivial objections, I suggest you put it in as it is. PalestineRemembered 14:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I have a problem with the last statement. The Palestinian forces used the entire camp as human shields by using it as their base. Kyaa the Catlord 17:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

further source discussion

There are a number of content-problems with it, most or all of which were addressed by myself and others when you previously made similar changes, some of them as recent as the past 24-48 hours. Repeating the same issues is not helpful, and I suggest you review past discussions or raise specific issues with the current lead, which is almost entirely the work of G-Dett and THF. Tewfik^Talk 00:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh my, this is lovely. When I raise complaints, I am criticized for not providing an alternative. When I provide an alternative, I am criticized for not raising complaints. (Even though I did.) I should note that I have been largely un-involved in the fast-paced editing conflict of the last several days. I must assume that no question of fact is at issue, since virtually every clause in my paragraph has two citations from either neutral or pro-Israeli sources to back it. As for "content problems", I do not intend to scour the (often incoherent) objections raised in an entire massive talk page discussion to find anything which might theoretically apply to a post I made this afternoon, nor am I a skilled psychic who can discern the alleged content problems from only a vague general statement that they exist. Barring the appearance of specific, coherent, and valid criticisms, based on WP policies, I see no reason to refrain from my proposed changes. Eleland 01:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

And that is not what I said, which was that most of the specific changes you suggested "this afternoon" were already suggested by yourself prior to that point, and replied to in kind. For example, there has been extensive discussion, both in the past, and extremely recently, about hy equating the Palestinian and Israeli overestimates creates a false picture. It has already been pointed out that there is a problem with refraining from representing the unambiguous lack of a massacre. It has already been pointed out that putting the range of 52-56 in the lead lends undue weight to the single Palestinian 56 claim, when every other neutral (as well as Israeli) source agrees on 52. The rest of the lead, supposed to be a broad summary, chooses to highlight only certain aspects, and uses language which results in a decidedly nonneutral tone. I don't see what is wrong with the current phrasing, wherein the only point of contention (AFAIK) is whether or not to say "international" sources. Tewfik^Talk 01:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Uh, the criticisms raised earlier were, how shall I say... complete garbage? Jaakobou worried that "BBC stated 10 percent" although the BBC is not, actually, the source for that claim, (the sources were an Israeli military spokesman and a rightist pro-Israel American newspaper) and that "another source not known for any bias (which supplied images), stated 6 percent" even though the source is obviously not a WP:RS, and the "6 percent" figure referred to one specific area of destruction excluding other areas. He also noted that "100kg explosives were planted all around the fight zone and making the assertion that the IDF razed the camp in such a circumstance is one sided POV" which I can't make heads or tails of, is he arguing that the Palestinians demolished their own camp? This is a novel idea which does not appear in any sources, and is indeed contradicted by numerous Israeli and pro-Israeli sources including sources which I cite here. Later, our pal Jaakobou insisted that "obviously an Israeli Foreign Ministry Spokesman cannot discern between 6 percent destruction and 10 percent destruction", although apparently a random pseudonymous Wikipedian can. He raises an unexplained claim that the 10% was destroyed "in the fighting" rather than "razed" by Israel - perhaps the Palestinians have a batallion of armored bulldozers which nobody remembered to mention? If this is seriously disputed, I can and will go through the wearying ritual of digging up more sources for what everybody here already knows to be true. Finally, Jaak argues that I am comparing "the "500-3000/sabra-shatila" casualty estimates with the "as high as 150" and expect[ing] it to pass", a bizzare and rambling accusation which has no bearing to what I actually wrote, considering that 500 was the highest Palestinian claim, and 250 was the highest Israeli claim, which a professional IDF propaganda officer says "made the Palestinian claims of 500 dead seem reasonable". And that's the total extent of the objections. The only serious content problems here exist in the minds of certain contributers. Eleland 02:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what is in anyone's mind, nor do I understand why it is you feel that "garbage" is the right word to refer to other users' points with, but the objections I listed are both present, and unaddressed. Tewfik^Talk 03:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

You objected in very broad terms that the lead is "supposed to be a broad summary" but "chooses to highlight only certain aspects". And yet the present lead uses much of its length on suicide bombings in Israel, a background issue which is not immediately relevant. Regardless of any "massive discussion" on the "false picture" created by "equating Palestinian and Israeli overstimates" (no such equation is made in my proposed changes), the connection is drawn clearly and directly in the source material by a professional IDF media officer! (See note 10) Can you explain why we should ignore the word of an Israeli officer, a media expert, with direct personal knowledge of the effect of those overestimates in favor of unspecified talk page objections?

I don't know where it has been "pointed out" that not categorically denying a massacre is a problem, but this is simply incorrect. As I have said numerous times, verifiable published sources report that some people, not evidently constituting an extreme minority of opinion, believe that what happened was a massacre nonetheless, so we shouldn't contradict them. Although clearly no systematic execution-squad campaign took place, there is no hard and fast definition of "massacre". Amnesty reports testimony — apparently credible — of three civilian prisoners shoved up against a wall and machine-gunned. "I heard Gaby say in Hebrew ‘Kill them, kill them’, then the other soldier took his gun and sprayed us with bullets. He shot from left to right, so ‘Abd al-Karim was hit first and then Wadah. I don’t know how I wasn’t shot except that when I heard the shots, I fell to the ground. My son’s body was resting on mine." Amnesty found apparent confirmation of the incident from "Major-General Giora Eiland, the Head of the IDF Plans and Policy Directorate", who "described this case as one where IDF soldiers found three men hiding, one with a suicide bomb belt," but they found the bomb story hardly credible. Was this a "massacre"? It appears to fit the dictionary definition. This is the point. The rumors which spread after the fighting had ended, while Israel had locked down the camp and was conducting house-to-house searches and mass detentions, turned out to be false. They don't represent the totality of allegations made.

As for "all reliable sources" saying 52, I have not seen these sources. I've seen several reliable sources which say that at one point, the count from one hospital was set at 52, but this is in no way the same as "all reliable sources say 52 total" period full stop. Fascinatingly, the exact source which you brought up, for the "within five weeks all but one of the residents was accounted for", actually says 54! Eleland 12:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and I notice now that note 3[53] from my proposal, the report of a conference held by Tel Aviv University's "Center for Strategic Studies", says "When it was over, 56 Palestinians were killed in the Jenin refugee camp". But hey, when the game is minimizing Palestinian casualties, who really cares what your own side says — the key is just to pick the lowest number you can get away with and obstinately insist on it. Eleland 15:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

But hey, when the game is minimizing Palestinian casualties, who really cares what your own side says — the key is just to pick the lowest number you can get away with and obstinately insist on it. What sort of productive discourse do you expect with incivil and bad-faith comments like these. You raised several points that I was in the process of replying to until I got to the last part. I've already asked you once not to make such comments. I understand how frustrating this can all be, but I've not once attacked you, and hope that you can return that basic courtesy. Tewfik^Talk 08:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

what is with all this unneeded bickering? simply state the Palestinian allegations, and then the Israeli allegations. this is a highly controversial topic. there's no need to try to create objectivity where there isn't any.

Also, if you want to, you can simply state that Palestinians believe that everything Israel does is a massive effort to dispossess, oppress and otherwise bother Palestinians. i say this as a pro-Israel supporter. the way to achieve consensus is for each side to increase the amount of information provided about the other side's motives, until both feel that it reflects the true reality. --Steve, Sm8900 16:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

While I appreciate in principle Steve what you are trying to do in terms of introducing balance and your reasoning for it above, I think the material that has now gone in here -

Many Arabs and Palestinians continue to use the term "Jenin Massacre" (Arabic: مجزرة جنين). Palestinians[Who?] generally allege that the entire battle was a massive, unprovoked attack on numerous civilians, with no justification whatsoever[dubious – discuss], and was a massive violation of international law, decency and every standard of human conduct. They also allege that Israel's general policies are colonialist, oppressive and unjustified.

is way too broad and OTT in its language for an encyclopedia article, and as a result pretty inaccurate. For example not all "Palestinians" of course believe the same thing about "Israel" as a monolithic entity. The issue with the disputes here - at least as I see them - is that there is in fact quite a lot of specific material available which can be referenced, sourced and quoted in a proper manner, relating to both original accusations and estimates of what happened and also to the results of subsequent investigations. However that is being done very selectively by some editors to favour one POV - a right-wing Israeli one - which they continue to push even when basic errors of citation are pointed out to them. As I've said, I am not "pro-Palestinian", whatever that means anyway, and have no stake in the conflict per se - I would just like to see as balanced an article as possible. --Nickhh 20:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

thank you, but that's not exactly my point. my point is, enough stupid bickering over what each side is permitted to say. My point was also, do you guys want to express all Palestinian allegations abouyt Israeli actions. Fine; i see no problem; in fact my attitude is the more we express of Paesltinian ideas, allegations and sentiments, the better. We can make it clear it is the assertion of of one side. --Steve, Sm8900 20:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I do understand your point, and I thought it was rather clear from my response that I did understand; however I just disagree with your proposed solution. You think more of each side's views we put in the better, and I agree - where those views are accurately represented and sourced to references, which your suggested wording is not. Indeed a lot of the problems with this article have been a bit more subtle than it just giving more weight to the IDF version of events - what editors have tried to do in the past is make untrue claims for example that Palestinians alleged genocide was taking place, highlight the fact that this was found not to have been the case, and thereby suggest that some kind of malicious "hoax" or "propaganda" offensive was being perpetrated at the time, in a bid to defame Israel (both these words have been in the article in past versions). By in fact throwing in invented versions of "the Palestinian viewpoint" at the time, which are then easily knocked down, they were trying to minimise the reality of what did actually happen in Jenin. I might add that a lot of the more bitter debates here have started at the points where one particular editor here starts hinting on the talk pages that some of the civilian victims were not really as innocent as they seem. That editor has in turn come in for some pretty near the knuckle attacks themselves. --Nickhh 20:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) by the way, please understand, i am not seeking to trivialize or side-step any genuine Palestinian assertions. All i am saying is, enough of this stupid bickering. If one side wants to say something, let them say it. Stop pretending you;re on the same side and all you want is objectivity. Let each side have its say, then balance it with your own data and facts. there is absolutely no point to having so much argument or bickering, or even so much excessive or voluminous discussion at all on this talk page. --Steve, Sm8900 21:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Steve - the problem in this article is that significant reports are being removed and edit-warred out of the article, when I think almost anyone would think they belonged. I've been away for a few days, but the parts that I put in and were reverted out include the following:

1) Helicopters "swarmed" over the camp (word used by the Observer newspaper), one account has their firing "like rain" in the first 3 days.

2) The "Kurdi Bear" account, the D9 driver who described what he did and told us he brought houses down with people inside them, believes people died this way. I've repeatedly asked that this statement be "written for the enemy" (might you be interested?).

3) Statements from the PA, the EU and Jordan (and tapes from Qatar) presented to and by the UN. These statements include vital statements such as that the EU believes there were 4000 in the camp right through the attack, not the 1,300 claimed by Israel.

All of these statements should be in there (in fact, all of them should come ahead of the Israeli account), and there are more.

Plus there are other serious distortions eg:

1) The minimising of the various investigations (and complete elision of one of them by 12 Internationals) while the Time magazine "investigation" (near enough a statement from Israel) is prominently displayed.

2) Putting Israel's reason for the attack before the actual description.

3) The half-baked non-discussion of "The Massacre" allegations.

4) The insistence that the number of dead is 52. That's not what the observers claim, and it's fundamentally unlikely. (It appears to be the number of bodies that reached the Jenin hospital).

The current state of this article really is a disgrace. Get back to me if you find any of the above statements surprising or needing references. PalestineRemembered 07:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

A google search of "Kurdi Bear" returns only wikipedia responses, mostly talk page hits at that. Verifiability of this "report" would be, apparently, impossible. Kyaa the Catlord 07:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see what you're claiming - "Kurdi Bear" gets 420 hits. Interestingly, few of them are blogs (which often distort the number of references) and many would be RS's in their own right (ie reputation for fact-checking). (For some reason, 'Kurdi Bear' gets over 27,000 hits). There's no question the article is genuine (it's also on the web in Hebrew) and the only objection that Jaakobou had was that the fact that the English version comes top and tailed with comments. PalestineRemembered 13:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. I'm now getting a different response from google than I did earlier. That is just bizarre. Kyaa the Catlord 14:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm still going to have to call WP:REDFLAG on this one. The Israelis gave a drunkard, first time bulldozer driver a 60 ton armored bulldozer and let him at it. Hard to believe. You're gonna need to back this one up with really impeccable sourcing, and no, blogs, indymedia and the like aren't gonna cut it. Kyaa the Catlord 14:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Nothing "surprising" in any way in that interview. Jaakobou and Tewfik confirm it's existence. Jaakobou didn't even see anything very exceptional about it, he put some parts of it in himself. It clearly belongs, along with all the other things I listed above. WP is written by "Verifiability not Truth", as we know. PalestineRemembered 15:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Precisely my point, we require verifiability which per WP:RS would ask that "Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple high quality reliable sources, especially regarding scientific or medical topics, historical events, politically charged issues, and in material about living people." I don't believe that this requirement has been met with the sources available. Kyaa the Catlord 15:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

This is not an exceptional claim in any way, and it's not been treated in that way by two other firm defenders of Israel. There were some 12 bulldozers available/doing this work, at least one of them was driven by a "problematical army reservist" in the words of one of our fellow editors. It's reported in an Israeli newspaper (and never disputed anywhere). Of course it belongs! You could get on and write it in - or tell me what was wrong with any of the versions I put in. PalestineRemembered 16:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The dispute with that report has focused somewhat on the less-than-perfect translation, but mostly on the quoting selectively in such a manner as to distort what was actually said. I've addressed that in detail a number of times above. Tewfik^Talk 08:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

If you have a different translation, then by all means present it. In the meantime, I've hung back from putting in the reference to this personal statement (and RS source) because of the benefits of another doing a "writing for the enemy". I've asked two people so far, including twice asking yourself. My first version is here. Jaakobou says "looks close to ok, please find the YNET source" so it's clearly genuine - and then there's Jaakobou's own version. If you feel like putting up a version you think is more accurate, encyclopedic or suitable then by all means do so. But don't simply take out a personal, detailed account of this event - particularily not when it refers to the very most memorable part about it, the bulldozing. PalestineRemembered 13:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I feel that Kyaa and Tewfik are correct on this issue. Just wanted to express that, briefly. --Steve, Sm8900 16:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

"It's reported in an Isreali newspaper." Which Israeli newspaper? Do they have a web-based edition which you could link to? Going to a third party website like this one which is definately agenda-driven (I looked it up) for sourcing is a problem with WP:RS. I'm not seeing it linked to a news organization that provides proper editorial oversight. I'm not against including it, but at this time we need to meet the standards before we include it. Kyaa the Catlord 16:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

If this was as groundbreaking as some make it out to be, then it would be subject to multiple, nontrivial mentions in the press. All we have is selections from an interview mirrored on dozens of partisan websites. Moreover, it does not say what some editors here say it does, and its text was distorted in its various inclusions. The primary method of ensuring that such primary sourcing says or doesn't say something would be to use RS press sources, which again, do not exist. Tewfik^Talk 18:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The "stupid bickering" pertains to matters of fact, not allegations. It's a question of fact whether Israel razed some 10% of Jenin camp. It's a question of fact whether independent, credible human rights organizations found strong prima facie evidence of war crimes. Adding background information about opinions is useful, but only when those opinions are properly sourced to people or groups. It's simply not cool to phrase allegations in such sweeping and specific terms and then attribute them generically to "Palestinians". We might as well say that "Israelis generally believe that Palestinians are an undeserving and inferior people with no national rights or identity." This is probably true, but it's not our place to make the assertion. Eleland 21:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

well if that's what you wish to do (meaning the point in your first two sentences), and it is properly sourced, then the pro-Israel side (of whom I am one) should allow you to do so. this is an encyclopedia, and some sort of professionalism would be appropriate here. enough with fighting each other over every single fact, point or source, no matter how minor or trivial. I don't mind if there is some unusual discussion here, but there is no reason these article should have a whole set of dynamics which is different than other articles at Wikipedia. --Steve, Sm8900 21:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The "properly sourced" comment is crucial here - people actually should NOT be allowed to say what they want in this encyclopedia. One of the reasons why there is so much text on this talk page is because it took for example about ten lengthy posts before one editor finally conceded that the word "genocide" doesn't even occur once in the any of the three separate references they were trying to use to back up their straw-man allegation that "Palestinians claimed genocide was taking place". If there was more genuine give & take the process would be easier (as there has been over the removal of the word "occupied" to refer to the West Bank, or the insertion of words to the effect that both sides endangered civilians in the camp, neither of which I have personally challenged or engaged in endless debate about). Equally, when totally fraudulent citations are being included, even in respect of one word (which happens to be a highly loaded word), I will point that out, and if necessary, take a stand on it.--Nickhh 21:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

By the way, so as not to be disingenuous, let me explain where I stand on this. I am on the opposite side of this issue from some people here, and I may disagree with their approach, their attitude and their opinions. however, my support for the Israeli Army is like my support for the NY Police Dept; I may support them, but if someone brings me documented claims or accounts of any police misconduct, I don't fight frantically to stop properly-sourced material from even being mentioned. So that's why I feel that even if there is some discussion necessary here, this talk page should not contain constant cases of people fighting over the most minute parts of the text. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 13:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

You might be a good person to write up the "Kurdi Bear" interview, I've previously suggested to two others that they do it in the best traditions of the encyclopedia, but they seem reluctant. The interview is at here in English and here in Hebrew. It's been suggested there are translation problems in the English (though most likely pretty trivial). If you become aware of anything like that we'd be interested to see your comments. I've done several versions trying to get it in, the first one is at here. There is also Jaakobou's version. PalestineRemembered 14:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the idea. I will try to take a look at it, but I'm not sure right now if I will be able to it at this point. But thanks for the information. will try to be in touch, if I find anything. --Steve, Sm8900 14:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm very sorry to hear that ..... the way out of difficulties in this article is for us to each "write for the enemy". If you have parts you think should be in there, then by all means point them to me and I'll do something. PalestineRemembered 15:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

"Ten times larger than a typical suicide bomber's charge"

Away from the introduction debate for a while - Tewfik, I genuinely couldn't find your rationale on talk for keeping this phrase in (that's what I meant in my edit summary). I'm happy to be pointed in the right direction on that, but in the meantime to me it just reads as an attempt to make sure the phrase "SUICIDE BOMBER!" appears as often as possible in this article, for subtle (OK, not so subtle) POV reasons. It doesn't add much else - suggestions that it helps readers see context is a bit daft, given that most people presumably don't have much of an idea how big a suicide bomber's average payload is. --Nickhh 06:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

An average suicide bomber explosive is 10 kg and ranges from 5 kg to 20 kg. An IED of 100 kg can destroy a M1A2 Abrams tank (however, Israeli armored Caterpillar D9 bulldozers withstood much larger IEDs). MathKnight 11:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

How about, "fifteen times larger than a typical anti-tank mine". (Without the wikilink.) Eleland 11:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The discussion is with Eleland, and contains the word "Lidice". I believe the reason that Time used that phrasing was that the explosives were made by the same people who made suicide-bombs, a phenomena which people are familiar with from the massive coverage the events receive. I doubt that any similar level of familiarity or association exists with a "typical anti-tank mine". Tewfik^Talk 08:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Introduction

"Referred to as "martyr capital by Palestinians" is just plain POV. Firstly it is not called that by all Palestinians (only by some allegedly) and secondly the only reason the phrase is there is to justify the Israeli military operation.

Secondly the introduction to the article is contrary to wikipedia established policy. In the introduction one briefly gives the facts of the occurence i.e. an Israeli military operation with X number of deaths on both sides. One does not start by describing previous suicide bombings also, justifying the operation and distracting from the main content of the article. If you want that info to be included, do so in the "background" section. --Burgas00 17:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not just POV to use it, it's likely "not true" in any meaningful sense. The IDF attacked Nablus first, killing some 70/80 Palestinians and losing 4 soldiers. Jenin seems to have been a secondary target, into which they advanced on foot, not expecting much in the way of resistance. If the Palestinian population had realised suicide bombers were coming out of Jenin, Israel would have known it as well, and acted accordingly. If the phrase "martyrs capital" is now really being used about Jenin by Palestinians (do we really have credible references for it?), it likely refers to April 2002, not anything that came before or since. PalestineRemembered 18:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Removing well-sourced information from articles like you have this morning can be, and often is, considered vandalism. Please refrain from doing so again when your only rationale is WP:IDONTLIKEIT Kyaa the Catlord 19:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Burgas00's rationale was WP:LEAD, not WP:IDONTLIKEIT. What is your rational for reverting him? Go easy on "vandalism"; the term is used sparingly on Wikipedia, and only when it's clear that an editor does not believe he or she is improving the encyclopedia.--G-Dett 19:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Based on his response [54], I'm having some problem accepting that he was acting in good faith. The context of the incidents at Jenin, including the verifiable information that the Fatah referred to Jenin in the way that he wishes removed from the article is covered in WP:LEAD and his removal of this sourced data is considered vandalism per WP:VANDAL. Thanks! Kyaa the Catlord 19:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

He was pretty rough in the talk page link you provided, obviously irritated and all, but I don't see any evidence of vandalism; on the contrary, both his version of the lead and his interpretation of WP:LEAD are very sound and well-reasoned. An article on an incredibly controversial event like this one can't begin with a full paragraph devoted to the moral rationale for one side's actions. There are two reasons why not. One is that it fails WP:NPOV, a problem which should be obvious and can't be willed away with a citation to a Fatah official and a see!-even-the-Palestinians-are-saying-it talk-page talking point. The second reason why you can't do this is even more elementary: the lead has to be about the event, period. If there's an entire paragraph in the lead where the subject of the article is not the grammatical subject of the sentences, it's a pretty good indication the thing's gone off the tracks.

At any rate, you, your sources, and the Israeli government believe this paragraph represents "the context." Other editors with other sources think the context is something quite different. And Palestinians people, not to mention Palestinian officials, also have their view of "the context." Unless you're prepared to allow a balanced presentation of these differing "contexts" in the lead, per WP:NPOV, I suggest you move official moral rationales for the "why" of the event to the "background" section where they belong, and let the lead cover the "what." That seems to work best with contentious subjects.--G-Dett 22:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not certain why you are defending the recently blocked Burgas00. His edits have not improved the article, rather they have broken references and his unwillingness to work within the rules of Wikipedia has led to his blocking. The material he's repeatedly removed contains the viewpoint of the Fatah, which was the ruling party of Palestine at the time of the sourced material used in the crafting of his removed text. It was not simply the Israeli viewpoint, but also the viewpoint of Palestinians. The views of even more palestinians are presented in the next paragraph in the lead which, unsurprisingly, remained when Burgas00 removed the material repeatedly. Who is pushing for a one-sided view? Oh yes, that would be you, PR and Burgas00. Kyaa the Catlord 22:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I think my reasons have been explained well enough. A number of users agree with me on the heavy bias of the phrasing and unsourced statements. Please do not message me accusing me of vandalism, Kyaa. Thankyou.--Burgas00 19:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for erasing your edits G Dett. As you can see I have restored them! --Burgas00 19:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

At the very least repair the broken references you just spawned. Thanks. Kyaa the Catlord 19:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Into and Image Caption Changes

I have had my changes to this article persistently reverted, and the best explanation I have received is that the current version has bee previously explained. Something more categorical than that is needed. What is the excuse for the reversion of the following edits I have made.

• Change in the order of the sentences in the into, prioritizing an outline of the battle, as is customary, ahead of the Israeli reasoning for the assault.
• Removal of the assertion that it was "previously referred to as the Jenin Massacre", which is plainly inaccurate, as many still regard it as a massacre.
• Reversion of my changing of the image caption. The current wording is POV.

There are many other problems with this extremely POV article, which others have raised and are raising. The resolution of the discussion on Eleland's proposed paragraph replacement, a significant and timely improvement to the current version, is also, I think, relevant to my concerns. But I'd personally like to have these minor matters resolved first before considering the rest of the article.Nwe 17:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The order is significant and properly mirrors that of the rest of the article. I agree with point two, the wording needs to be changed to reflect that this is still called the Jenin Massacre by those who believe it to have been one or have not had the opportunity to peruse the evidence refuting the claims. Eleland's proposal needs a lot of work, imho. Kyaa the Catlord 17:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Update: I've made some changes to the revision by Eleland which causes it to more accurately reflect her sources. Please review it. The original is still available in the history and I hope he/she does not mind that I was BOLD and directly editted the revision rather than duplicating the block of text.) Kyaa the Catlord 17:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

note: all these issues have been raised already on the talk so it would be great if editors could try to focus each topic of discussion on it's own subsection rather than make this talk page more confusing to follow than it already is. p.s. i agree with kyaa. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

As far as point two, I've several times asked for sourcing showing that it is still referred to as a massacre by mainstream sources. Tewfik^Talk 19:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Serious NPOV issues. The next steps are an RfC and/or mediation

Tewfik, I appreciate very much your mildness of tone on the talk page; it goes a long way towards maintaining an atmosphere of good faith. That said, I find your latest edits extremely distressing from the point of view of basic policy and common sense. Can you explain, in as much detail as possible, why you keep adding an ADL statement to a section devoted to "Post-fighting investigations"? The ADL is an advocacy group (a lobby). They do not carry out "investigations" of any kind. They make pro-Israel statements on a daily basis, in response to the daily news. Why are they in this section? You keep saying "we can afford the space," but space is a red herring. The point is it's misleading to add lay commentary to a section on investigations. This has puzzled me for several days; I'll concede that my puzzlement has leaped into the territory of outrage when I now see you deleting from that very section the results of a three-week investigation (and accompanying 52-page report) from one of the world's major international human rights organizations, Human Rights Watch. On grounds that it violates WP:UNDUE. And that Human Rights Watch findings are "punditry" (unless they're exonerating Israel of massacres, in which case they're definitive). Is this really your position? That in a section on "post-fighting investigations," it is a violation of undue weight to present the findings of a 3-week investigation by one of the two most prominent human-rights organizations in the world, but it's appropriate to include a windy evaluative judgment by a lobby organization that's never set foot in Jenin? Tewfik, it boggles. I ask you to reconsider. There are other problems with what you're edit-warring over, but frankly this is egregious and must be dealt with first. To be necessarily blunt, soothing tones on the talk page are not sufficient to maintain an atmosphere of good faith in the face of edits like these.--G-Dett 23:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I notice that you've also deleted part of the sentence, "Palestinian sources, the European Union, and major international human rights organizations alleged that the camp and its dwellings were attacked indiscriminately by Israel with heavy military equipment," etc., on the erroneous grounds that it was supported by "just the EU report annex & a qualified mention by one NGO". As I indicated in the summary of the very edit you reverted, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and the European Union described the Israeli attack on the camp as "indiscriminate." This is what I summarized as "Palestinian sources, the European Union, and major international human rights organizations." That was accurate; please stop deleting it and substituting something misleading and tendentious.--G-Dett 00:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

comment - i can't speak for tewfik, but i will say that human rights watch is just as much an advocacy group as the ADL - one protects civilians, and the other protects against defamation - and this case included both civilians and defamation. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Human Rights Watch is not an advocacy group and they are not comparable in any way, shape, or form to the ADL. Nor does an ADL press release commenting on media coverage constitute a "post-fighting investigation"; nor is said press release in any way, shape, or form comparable to a three-week on-site investigation by one of the two most renowned human rights organizations in the world. If Tewfik shares your confusion on these points then that may be the source of the problem here.--G-Dett 12:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

considering how both run their "investigations", i stand by my statement. these "on site" interviews with the citizens from the west bank capital of "martyrs" (a.k.a. suicide bombers), which btw, rumors say were told what to say by radio transmissions, is as much of an investigation as a public reading of hannan ashrawi quotes. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Taken from the lead of "Human Rights Watch is a United States-based international non-governmental organization that conducts research and advocacy on human rights. Its headquarters is in New York City." Um, advocacy != advocacy? I'm confused. Kyaa the Catlord 13:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

A suggestion

I have a suggestion to combat the ridiculous amount of fighting and edit-warring on this article:

1. Find an editor who (a) is knowledgeable about Middle East issues (b) has no history of pro-Israeli or pro-Palestinian editing, and most importantly (c) has not edited this article before (or at most for spelling or grammar).
2. Ask that editor to rewrite it from the start.
3. Accept the neutral version and then spend your wikitime on more worthwhile activities such as the hundreds of kibbutzim/moshavim/MKs/other things that are lacking an article.

This has worked in the past (my rewrite of Kach and Kahane Chai stopped a near-month long slow-motion edit war) and if all editors can control themselves, I don't see why it shouldn't work here. Thoughts? Number 57 14:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)