Misplaced Pages

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

One-sided

This article is biased toward Israel. Robin Hood 1212 22:36, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, right. If facts contradict theory, so much worse for the facts. ←Humus sapiens 23:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

please give some basis for that accusation and we can work to resolve any problems you may have.Pluke 00:13, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

HRW report and BBC link

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PalestineRemembered 19:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, all sorts of reports. Here's what it says about the "Battle of Jenin": "By the time of the IDF withdrawal and the lifting of the curfew on 18 April, at least 52 Palestinians, of whom up to half may have been civilians, and 23 Israeli soldiers were dead." Jayjg 19:09, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Media reports vs. IDF claims

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

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

Allegations of a massacre

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

Also, this sentence contains Weasel Words:

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

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

In fact, one could easily say:

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

Jewish blood incident

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

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

Intro

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

rest of the talk

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Intro Part 2

Folks,

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

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

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

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

precursors to the battle

i removed this problematic use of information from the article:

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

end

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

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

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

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

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

Best regards ( Rathed , 18 april)

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

Jenin battle wasn't even a massacre

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

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

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

BBC wrongly quotes the UN report

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

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

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

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

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

"commentary translation"

moved here from my talk page (jaakobou)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

new film about the fight

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

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

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

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

Bottom Line

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

widspread hatered

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

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

The April 11, 2002 transcript

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

Please read the transcript and note that:

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

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

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

The April 12, 2002 transcript

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jenin comes to Lebanon

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

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

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

Jeningrad

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

international attention - article conflict

I am reverting this edit because:

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

Sanguinalis 02:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Sanguinalis,

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

Malam Report (Hebrew)

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

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

Jaakobou 16:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

gush shalom source

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

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

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

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

User:PalestineRemembered.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Needs more work

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source inadequate to support statement

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

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

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

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

Eleland 19:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

big jenin lie

i'm not 100% certain this must be in bold, but it certainly feels like it considering it's one of the predominant terms used to describe this event - 13,000 finds is fairly indicative. Jaakobou 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 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 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 00:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

massacre 30-50

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

proposed tidy up to intro

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

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

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

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

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

-- Jaakobou 16:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More inadequate references

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Incorrect edit summary 24th July

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

genocide

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

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

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

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

--Jaakobou 20:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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