Talk:Battle of Jenin (2002)/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

---

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)

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.[4] "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[5] is clearly wrong. The UN report they're talking about[6] 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:[7]

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)

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 [8] and [9], 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[10], and UNRWA Commissioner-General Peter Hansen[11] 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 [12] 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)

UN Report section

link to older talk about this here: [13] (note: static Sep. 3 link before archiving)

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 [14] 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:

• [15], 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 [16] 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[17] 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. [18] 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)

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)

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."[19], 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)

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)

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".^[20]

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.^[21]

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^[22] 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)

"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)

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)

Oh, you have a problem with that? Are you a reliable published source, Mr. "Catlord"? This claim was not made by anybody except the IDF and its backers, while credible and neutral human rights organization did indeed "criticize Palestinian fighters for operating in close proximity to civilians, but found that the only deliberate use of Palestinians as "human shields" was by Israel." Read the source material. Eleland 21:49, 16 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[23] 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 [24], 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)