Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jim Fitzgerald (talk | contribs) at 16:15, 31 August 2009 (←Created page with '::The UN report on Jenin notes: <blockquote> 18. From the beginning of March until 7 May, Israel endured approximately 16 bombings, the large majority of which we...'). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

The UN report on Jenin notes:

18. From the beginning of March until 7 May, Israel endured approximately 16 bombings, the large majority of which were suicide attacks. More than 100 persons were killed and scores more wounded. Throughout this period, the Government of Israel, and the international community, reiterated previous calls on the Palestinian Authority to take steps to stop terrorist attacks and to arrest the perpetrators of such attacks.

19. During this same period, IDF conducted two waves of military incursions primarily in the West Bank, and air strikes against both the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. The first wave began on 27 February 2002 and ended on approximately 14 March. Those incursions, which Israel stated were in pursuit of Palestinians who had carried out attacks against Israelis, involved the use of ground troops, attack helicopters, tanks and F-16 fighter jets in civilian areas, including refugee camps, causing significant loss of life among civilians.

20. Over the course of two days, 8 and 9 March, 18 Israelis were killed in two separate Palestinian attacks and 48 Palestinians were killed in the Israeli raids that followed.

21. Israeli military retaliation for terrorist attacks was often carried out against Palestinian Authority security forces and installations. This had the effect of severely weakening the Authority's capacity to take effective action against militant groups that launched attacks on Israelis. Militant groups stepped into this growing vacuum and increased their attacks on Israeli civilians. In many cases, the perpetrators of these attacks left messages to the effect that their acts were explicitly in revenge for earlier Israeli acts of retaliation, thus perpetuating and intensifying the cycle of violence, retaliation and revenge.

22. It was against this backdrop that the most extensive Israeli military incursions in a decade, Operation Defensive Shield, were carried out. The proximate cause of the operation was a terrorist attack committed on 27 March in the Israeli city of Netanya...

2. Intro - Calling the events a battle while allowing reference to perceptions of a massacre. (the arguments around this issue are listed in prior discussions above) LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 22:38, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi LamaLoLeshLa. I think Elonka has in mind brief pts, like #1 above, without going into the accompanying evidence. HG | Talk 23:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Correct. Also, I'm noticing that there are several places in the article where tags have been placed, requesting sources or whatnot. Some of these tags have been on the article for a long time, so I recommend some cleanup. Specifically: Any statement that has been {{fact}} tagged for over 30 days, should just be deleted. Also, rather than placing a "weasel" template at the top of the page, I recommend either changing text that is of concern, or using {{weasel-inline}} templates at the specific locations of the words that are problematic. And again, anything that isn't addressed within a reasonable amount of time, let's just delete out of the article. Thanks, --Elonka 23:11, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi again. It might also help if bullet #1 more specific. As I recall, the archives will show much discussion of Palestinian casualty numbers and a table of sources. Does #1 reflect a dispute above about Israeli civilians and, if so, what reference are editors seeking in the article? Thanks. HG | Talk 10:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

User talk:HG - I think LamaLoLeshLa is attempting to point us to another very significant factor, well covered in the RS but not included in the points I've identified above. Viz, that all the time Israel was calling on the PA to control terrorists, it was destroying Arafat's security apparatus. Recent (anonymous) confessions by IDF soldiers collected here demonstrate that Israel also set about the mass killing of Palestinian policemen on an exclusively ethnic basis. This is not OR on my part, the UN specifically links cause and effect with "This had the effect of severely weakening the Authority's capacity to take effective action against militant groups that launched attacks on Israelis". Perhaps your good sense can decide if this is such a significant factor that it has to be prominently included alongside all mention of suicide and other terrorism. PR 11:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I think this article neds to focus on the Battle of Jenin, not a whole range of factiors which might be impossible to reflect in one article. We can focus on each side's statements of their reasons for acting, withoput trying to describe the entire conflict here. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 13:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, there was some talkpage controversy at Operation Defensive Shield a while ago regarding the fact that some people wanted to include detailed information on Israeli casualties leading up to the operation while omitting Palestinian casualties leading up to the operation. The same goes for this set of events. I agree with you Sm that we shouldn't go into too much detail. The truth is, at present, there is very detailed info here on Palestinian assaults on Israel as background to the Jenin incursions. There is nothing about the Israeli assaults on the West Bank as background to the Jenin incursions. Bo0th are relevant, as the violence went both ways, almost constantly in overlap during 2002 - there was no clea start and ending, cause and effect.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 19:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

If you want to describe the so-called Israeli provocations which you feel serve as some sort of rationale for terrorist bombings and attacks, the place to do so is in the articles pertaining to palestinian actions. There is no reason to explain past Israeli actions in an article which itself focuses on an israeli action in Jenin. To do that would be to dilute the Palestinian side, since this article should focus on their concerns and grievances in regards to this attack. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 19:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

We have it on excellent authority that Israel's actions had the effect of making it (much?) more difficult for the PA to control militancy. If you think that this information is surplus to the requirements of this article (and I'm entirely prepared to meet you halfway on this as on the other factors), then the obvious solution is to leave out mention of group actions by Palestinians. They can and should be treated as criminal and individual/gang in nature, not as "political". PR 18:40, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I did not say that Israeli offensives served as rationale for Palestinian attacks. Nor do I think there is any rationale for killing civilians. Violence begets violence, the circle - who knows where it begins? That is what I said. Please try to avoid putting words in people's mouths. Thanks LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 19:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

To deal with in a dispute mediation, take 2: Working towards resolution

(Well, I see there's an effort to reorganize. It's generally better to leave threads intact once there are comments. Also, please sign your posts or refactoring. Anyway, here's my comment on this item, copied from above:) Hi again. It might also help if bullet #1 more specific. As I recall, the archives will show much discussion of Palestinian casualty numbers and a table of sources. Does #1 reflect a dispute above about Israeli civilians and, if so, what reference are editors seeking in the article? Thanks. HG | Talk 23:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

There was indeed a "table of sources" (it was loaded into WP as a template, whether rightly or wrongly I don't know) including many "estimates of total casualties". Israeli estimates were up to 381% wrong according to their own official account - no similar calculation can be carried out on the Palestinian figure, since an official death-toll has never been released. (The UN figure covers a wider area and a longer period but is within 1% of early Palestinian estimates).

Unfortunately the template in question was deleted as being in the wrong place, nobody seems to know what's the right place. Perhaps you have a suggestion, because it makes interesting reading, and is far more significant than the Hasbara section on "Allegations of a massacre". PR 18:59, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

No re-factoring

Editors unfamiliar with the processes of the project have sometimes made discussions much more difficult with four obvious mistakes and breaches of process.

1. Failure to indent their contributions.
2. Insertion of comments into the middle of listings of others in a disruptive fashion.
3. Denial on grounds of perceived "truth" of information firmly based on RS reports.
4. Moving the comments of others.

For myself, any of these practices may be a breach of AGF requiring adjudication by the mediator. The same for personalising the discussion - if you have real allegations of cheating then make them carefully and in detail in a new section or another well-signposted page. PR 12:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Mediation Issues, please comment on the most important

Please add in main points with relevant sources (not just rhetoric), below.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 00:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC) I am copying PR's suggestions from above, down here, slightly edited. Please sign all additions as it will be assumed that the rest are PR's suggestions. (PR, if you mind this copy-pasting, feel free to delete. Or, if you'd like to sign your suggestions, that could make things more navigable, too)LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 00:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Background and aftermath:

1) Fair and balanced reference to Israeli and Palestinian civilian casualties leading up to the bombings in Israel and the Operation following. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 02:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC) PR 12:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

2) The action in Jenin refugee camp went on for months, curfews were still being applied (and people killed in and and out of curfew) for a long time. (The UN notes two further incursions by August, some observers imply that Israel was continuously present for months afterwards). Iain Hook (chief of the reconstruction project) shot dead while inside the UN compound by Israeli forces, on 22nd Nov 2002 and an Irish woman shot and badly injured in the thigh at almost exactly the same time. 13 other UN workers said to have been shot dead that year. PR, 23 July 2008

Some mention of the aftermath needed - ex-Israeli academic Ilan Pappe tells us there was a popular television music-show concert staged in the middle of the bull-dozed section after the incident. PR 12:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Inclusion/framing of statements made by Sharon & his advisor:

1) Sharon was widely reported to have told representatives of the world's media on 5th March that "Palestinians must be hit ... must cause them losses, victims a month before the incursions (and before the surge of suicide bombings that is already mentioned in the article). This statement by Sharon was linked even by the otherwise pro-Israel Time Magazine directly to the military action that followed: "He went on to do just that, unleashing a broader military offensive than anything seen so far in the past 17 months of fighting." (Colin Powell was another who criticized Sharon for what he said). PR, 23 July 2008

This may be the single easiest and least controversial inclusion to make. Although we're not going to say it, the individual in question has been harshly criticised (even by the US and Israel) for attacking civilians over a period of almost 50 years. The words themselves are widely reported as if we're supposed to draw conclusions from them - and of course the RS's did exactly that. PR 12:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

2) Sharons advisor told the UN special envoy, Terje Roed-Larsen that he "has no business whatsoever to tell us what is right or wrong". PR, 23 July 2008

Individual incidents within the entire operation:

1) The BBC Telegraph reported that Israel was putting refrigerated trailers into the camp, many report they were seen there and FOX News quoted Army spokesman Brig. Gen. Ron Kitrey telling us the bodies would be buried at a special cemetery in the Jordan Valley. An Israeli newspaper told us there were 200 of these bodies to be disposed of - but an application to the Israeli Supreme Court stopped it. PR, 23 July 2008

This is just insinuation and hearsay. etc etc --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

2) Clips from an interview given by one of the bulldozer drivers to an Israeli newspaper provided a different perspective on the way that some parts of this operation were carried out. PR, 23 July 2008

See my reply above. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

3) A single (small but) actual "up-against-the-wall-massacre" reported in careful detail, with the two perpetrators identified, Amnesty and the Independent newspaper. PR, 23 July 2008

Allegations are already dealt with repeatedly in article. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

4) Allegations included in the UN report that the Israelis mined the refugee camp before they left. PR, 23 July 2008

5) Account of the third "international observer/human rights" group that made a visit and presented a "Jenin Investigation", still finding complete bodies 3 months later. (We don't have a source and can't say what this might do to the death toll). PR, 23 July 2008

6) A new section on the overpowering smell in the camp once it was re-opened, as reported by almost every one of the international observers - eg the New York Times: The smell of decomposing bodies hung over at least six heaps of rubble today, and weeks of excavation may be needed before an accurate death toll can be made. PR, 23 July 2008

A section on the smell.' This does not seem like an encyclopedic or credible approach to this highly important topic. To answer your point, concerns about the smell and any other allegations are already dealt with by inclusion of numerous sources like Amnesty intl, the UN, BBC and many other credible groups taking various positions on factual evidence. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Massacre discussion:

1) Leave to a later date. Meaning of the word, use by both Israeli and Palestinian sources, western media use of and western sources unhappiness with word. "Jenin Massacre" widely used in English, use in other languages. PR 12:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with all of this, as massive WP:SOAP and WP:OR. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 13:42, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The proposal of commentary and providing undue weight to such topics is rejected by me. All of the above is opposed. I also concur with Steve's assessment of this attempt to break OR and SOAP. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 14:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I am waiting for some kind of substantive discussion, or addition of further points, beyond: "I disagree." This surprises no one. What we are trying? to do is to resolve our disagreements, not reiterate that we disagree, with the full understanding that it will probably be a long, but hopefully not unpleasant, process.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 21:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, that's about all I have to say for now. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Question: Have you looked into the material yourself to see if it holds water? What is it you are trying to accomplish with the article exactly? Jaakobou 13:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Some of our fellow editors might prefer we examine such issues later. After all, discovering such factual errors after going into the mediation process would perhaps cast some slight shadow of doubt over all 10 points raised. However, it would not have this effect on the "Kurdi Bear" interview, since you confirmed it's genuine. (As did another). After 14 months we could finally move forwards. PR 20:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

PalestineRemembered,

1. Please review past discussions and make note of why these subjects were previously rejected by members of the community. It might be good to try to address these concerns.
2. Feel free to answer my question as well, it was not meant only for LamaLoLeshLa.

With respect, Jaakobou 07:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

It's a very good idea of yours to look at past discussions - since they contain gems like this: "Jaakobou, you open up sections like the one on "war crimes," invite all to participate, and then when it's thoroughly established that there were no findings of Palestinian "war crimes," and strong "prima facie evidence of Israeli war crimes," you simply ignore what emerged from your own discussion, and go back to edit-warring. Then you open up a discussion on "Pallywood," and when faced with critiques you cannot answer - such as a detailed demonstration of the obscurity of both the "film" Pallywood (in actuality a Youtube video) and the conspiracy theory the film helped to disseminate through the right-wing pro-Israel blogosphere - you abandon the discussion and ignore it." What I don't find is any evidence that the subjects listed above were "rejected by members of the community".

Over and above such sterile exchanges, there is much that is valuable, including statements from many sources and contributors (including yourself) that (I feel sure) will validate each of the 9 points remaining above.

And I'll be pleased to answer the same question you posed to User:LamaLoLeshLa - I'm here to build an online encyclopedia in a collaborative venture with people interested and determined to do the same thing. Now I've answered your question, will you answer mine? PR 16:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Answer: What I am trying to accomplish is an article in which, as I mentioned earlier, we represent the debate around the events at Jenin, that we represent the Israeli official narrative and the Palestinian offical narrative, and the international official narrative, and point out the discrepancies between them, rather than trying to give one or another source a monopoly on establishing the facts of the matter. What I want to see is an article that does not just present this as a battle, but presents this as a flashpoint in worldwide awareness of the scale of Operation Defensive Shield, as well as flashpoint in the discussion within the Arab world. In order to represent the extent of the flurry of discussion around this horrible series of events, and the impact on Israeli-Palestinian relations at the time, we need to see the points raised by PR mentioned in some way or another. For instance, the smell following the events at Jenin is still referred to within Palestinian circles, has entered the Palestinian narrative, and should be represented thus, not omitted. I do not say this in order to argue for or against the accuracy or inaccuracy of the reports of the lingering odor of dead bodies, in itself, but to argue for inclusion of the allegations of 'the smell' and the debate for and against the legitimacy of the reports.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 23:22, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi LamaLoLeshLa, glad to see you explain your approach. It's admirable but I'm not sure entirely suitable. I have my doubts when you say "point out the discrepancies between them" -- which sounds like original research and when you want to present it not as a battle but as a flashpoint -- which sounds like a strong editorial POV. Regarding the flashpoint, though, I agree that the reactions to the battle are notable, but I believe they are covered in the article (though improvements most welcome). Thanks muchly. HG | Talk 03:15, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: "pointing out discrepancies": What I mean by this is that the reader of the article should come away understanding that this is a narrative rife with discrepancies on both sides, and that this is part of the story.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 05:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

LamaLoLeshLa,

Points above: There are a few problems with the above points and I avoided responding to them since (a) a few others already have, and (b) I'm trying to avoid anything that will give rise to my old disputes/complaints against PalestineRemembered. In fact, I probably shouldn't have asked him to look up the history since he used it as an excuse to copy-paste an old uncivil comment ("gem") towards me.

Moving the article where you want to: If you are interested in adding a mention to the Palestinian discussion on the smell at the scene, you need to establish this as a notable issue (for an encyclopedia) with reliable sources. If you provide high quality sources such as BBC, CNN and similar who discuss the smell at the scene or better yet, an array of highly regarded (clarify: not barely known) Arabic sources, then there could be room for that material to have a niche in the page. It depends, as far as I am in concern, on establishing it as a valid point with proper sourcing. Which are the sources supporting this Palestinian narrative as a very notable issue? (suggest you start a new section here on the talk page and lets examine what the sources say)

Cordially, Jaakobou 11:59, 2 August 2008 (UTC) clarify 12:02, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Briefly, I do not have the time to get into this at the moment, but I wanted to be clear - I don't believe it would need to be 'very notable', notable suffices. As far as Arabic sources - I am certain that Arabic sources deal with this matter, however, I do not read Arabic, alas. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 16:55, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Fateh-logo.jpg

The image Image:Fateh-logo.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. --04:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Peres and Haaretz

Regarding the following diff:

A) There's a few issues with this paragraph. For starters, some undo claims about the respectability of Haaretz - it is no more respected than all the other sources in the article and they don't have "respectability" mentions. Secondly, there's too much copy-pasting, leading to a WP:COPYVIO. And thirdly, the text should be made into a short explanation of what Haaretz reported rather than a couple long quotes. Please rewrite the paragraph before reinsertion.

B) Best I'm aware, the paper retracted this article - i.e. printed out a retraction. Anyone else aware of this issue?

Cheers, Jaakobou 06:28, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd never seen the original of this Haaretz article before. Perhaps now it's confirmed that Foreign Minister Shimon Peres used the word "massacre" (and in the general sense too, not the limited "up-against-the-wall" fashion) we can remove the entire blogosphere "Was there a massacre?" discussion and re-instate "also known as 'Jenin Massacre'". (Google tells us that the latter is more than twice as popular as the name we're currently using anyway, making it ridiculous not to have it mentioned).

And we can now say for certainty that the death toll amongst Palestinians was at least twice what Israel later tried to claim that it was. That would save us using the embarrassing, never-confirmed Washington Times figure for number of deaths, referenced only to "Abductions – Life in the Vivarium" Rense.com, "Back to the Moslem Terrorist's Page" PapillonsPalace and assorted blogs.

Shall I update the list of well-referenced, significant reports not yet in the article? PR 10:17, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I think this quote is definitely notable, and should be included, although perhaps rewritten (unless, of course, a retraction is found). However, I don't think it means that the incident is now known as a massacre. Peres is not a neutral, third-party source here. He is a savvy politician, and may very well have been trying to undermine Sharon. IMO, we should call it a massacre only if and when there's a consensus among historians that this is what the incident was. -- Nudve (talk) 11:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The quote seems to be somewhat "private", but Haaretz's report is indeed notable - retraction or not. Still, the COPYVIO by PalestineRemembered is a problem and should be amended. As a side note it's pertinent to add that as soon as the camp was opened, Haaretz quickly and reliably reported that there was no massacre in Jenin during or after the fighting. Jaakobou 14:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I've found Haaretz's retraction. At least unlike several other news outlets they corrected this error the following day. Not bad. Jaakobou 16:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

That's not a retraction, it's simply a different article from different sources on a topic only vaguely related. The papers own reporters refer to "international reaction as soon as the world learns the details" the wire service says "feared Palestinian officials would distort". When were Palestinian officials ever quoted, other than with abuse over "high" death toll estimates, or (allegedly) by cult-owned newspapers with ridiculously low death-toll estimates?

I have a second question for you, the answer to which is long overdue - when can we put all the other well referenced material on this incident into the article - or is that to be permanently rejected on the non-policy objections displayed here? PR 10:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

PalestineRemembered, I've been trying to improve our correspondence but it is a bit difficult when already discussed arguments are repeated -- such as the 'google test' and the 'cult-owned' samples. I'm also having difficulty understanding why you'd call the two Haaretz articles "only vaguely related" and I'm thinking it would be best if you run this content by your mentor first before reinserting it again into the article.

With respect, Jaakobou 10:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Jaakobou, stop removing RELIABLE SOURCES which contain important information about what happened in Jenin. Feel free to include the second Ha'aretz story, but is FALSE to call it a retraction. Peres does not deny that he was/is "very worried about the expected international reaction as soon as the world learns the details of the tough battle in the Jenin refugee camps, where more than 100 Palestinians have already been killed in fighting with IDF forces." Peres IS correct here, since there was a STRONG INTERNATIONAL REACTION. Also, in the second story, he does not deny his original (and probably accurate) description, when he privately said what happened in Jenin is "a massacre." What happened is that Peres CHANGED HIS MIND about how he is now referring to Jenin. This is very important evidence that there was a massacre, and is known politically as "damage control." The IDF repeatedly made statements which were probably accurate, then revised those statements to hide the fact that there was probably a massacre. Sharon has been associated with massacres of civilians throughout his career. Your repeated: 1) deletion of evidence of an Israeli massacre, 2) altering the published conclusions of the UN and human rights organizations when you delete the words "AT LEAST" when referring to the number of Palestinian dead, and 3) using CAMERA as if it were RS, when, in fact, it is a Zionist propaganda source is WP:NPOV. And stop your false accusations against PalestineRemembered WP:CIV. You should apologize to him. I've seen you do this before, and I imagine you are now going to make false accusations about sock puppets. I AM NOT PalestineRemembered, I never have communicated with PalestineRemembered, and unless you have conclusive proof, STOP your uncivil habit of making repeated reckless derogatory speculations.68.37.255.64 (talk) 19:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I have a book by Haaretz correspondents Avi Issacharoff and Amos Harel (the one who wrote the article in question) called in English "The Seventh War", published in 2004. (translated into French as "La septième guerre d'Israël". It's about the Second Intifada and discusses the battle and the massacre allegations. Can I use it? -- Nudve (talk) 10:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

You'd be welcome - except the "massacre allegations" are Israel's Public Relations - a device for denial.

After 6 days in which to cover up the evidence (and mine the camp), Israel finally allowed very restricted access. On that first day (16th April) two US papers (Newsday, Washington Post) casually told us that they could see "no evidence of a massacre", apparently forgetting that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

But other sources were brutal indeed, saying things like "The smell of decomposing bodies hung over at least six heaps of rubble today" (New York Times) and "A monstrous war crime that Israel has tried to cover up for a fortnight" (Independent) and "The refugees I had interviewed ... were not lying. If anything, they underestimated the carnage and the horror." (Guardian) and "permeated with the stench of rotting corpses and cordite" (different Independent story) and ""Rarely in more than a decade of war reporting ... such disrespect for human life" (Times)

On that day, even the Israeli Supreme Court was being told "IDF leaving dead to rot in Jenin".

If, after all that, you still think there is something relevant, it could go in a separate section - remember that it's unverifiable in English, so please provide a proper page or so of translation containing any clips you want to use (but I'll not raise any objection to you doing the translation yourself). PR 18:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I guess it's a question of how much weight is to be given to media impressions. After all, I'm sure there were some heaps of rubble and nasty smells during, say, the Battle of Stalingrad, but that article doesn't detail all that, certainly not as evidence of the death toll. Anyway, considering the sensitivity of the subject, I'll wat a while for further input. -- Nudve (talk) 18:24, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Please don't stop! I'd be very interested to learn what these journalists made of the denialist propaganda spin put on this affair. Probably see a dramatically different angle on "The Battle of Jenin: A Case Study in Israel's Communications Strategy". However, it's near enough an irrelevant side-show to the actual story. PR 22:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Removal of sources

Hi, I still have no strong opinion on the content of this article one way or the other, but I am concerned by edits like this, which appear to be removing reliably sourced information. Is there consensus for this, or what exactly is the concern? Are the sources unreliable in some way? Is the information from those sources not being properly interpreted? It would seem to me that if the citations are good, then it would be better to keep the citations in place, and just edit the information from those citations, rather than deleting everything at once. --Elonka 17:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Elonka. I'm rather new to this article. As you probably know, this isn't an easy place to work. Jaakobou has reverted a couple of times and has given his reasons. He seems to come by only once a day or so, and meanwhile I'm trying to get a consensus per WP:BRD. The discussion has not been too constructive so far. I have made a suggestion and am waiting for a reply. The sources are reliable, but are somewhat contradictory, due to the nature of the incident and the media coverage of it. It may be possible to edit "from" the citations, but that might stretch WP:NOTNEWS - I think it's better to rely on later, more conclusive accounts, rather than synthesize real-time news reports. -- Nudve (talk) 17:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't wish to make a case against PR on a content talk page, but the content issue can be, I hope, fairly easily followed from the top of the section -- Talk:Battle_of_Jenin#Peres_and_Haaretz. A major point of concern right now is that old issues are being brought up again in a WP:FRINGE attempt to change the final reports of the event. For example, the final Palestinian report (April 30) said 56 casualties and now, based on a (later corrected) report from April 9 - there's a push to persuade us to inflate the death toll and rename the article "Jenin massacre". (See also Hated Google Test)

I'm still trying to figure out the best way to handle this clash of versions, but being that the initial April 9 report was retracted the following day, it cannot be posted as is without further thought and discussion. Personally, I feel PR is in breach of several Arbcom descisions but as I don't wish to enhance on our past disputes, I suggested he address the issues to his assigned mentor.

Let me know if there's anything else that needs clarification. Jaakobou 19:18, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

1) It is not true that the April 9 report was retracted the following day, and Jaakobou does not provide a source for his assertion, since there is none. 2) The source of the assertion that "the final Palestinian report (April 30) said 56 casualties" is from the Washington Times, which is in not a reliable source (it is owned by the Unification Church, which is controlled by the convicted Sun Myung Moon) and the best evidence is that NO OTHER AMERICAN NEWSPAPER RAN THE STORY. NOT ONE! Doing an internet search for a match reveals all of the other citations for this claim are either from Zionist blogs, or THE GOVERNMENT OF ISRAEL. 3) the false accusation that I am PR is being repeated. There is no evidence that I am PR, but that is the way of hasbara; you don't need any evidence to make a false accusation. 4) One example of hasbara tactics is working to delete inconvenient reliably sourced facts which are unfavorable to Israel. I see that an attempt is being made to delete the hasbara page, which details the dishonest and underhanded tactics the Zionists use, which again, is the removing of information that they do not like. Do we want a POV majority vote here, or the truth? Because right now, the truth loses. Also check out the unethical attempt by CAMERA to secretly infiltrate Misplaced Pages. They got caught.68.37.255.64 (talk) 01:21, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

The disruptive reverts and other conduct at this article is highly reminiscent of the situation at the linked article Saeb Erekat, where one editor defied the consensus of 8 other editors (including an admin) for over 18 months. (The inclusions being so bitterly fought over there were WP:BLP, so should not have lasted a minute). Look at the TalkPage there too, note the extensive time-wasting and non-policy arguments used to buttress the tendacious editing.

Similarily in this case we have highly relevant elements (I count at least 10) being excluded by arguments that don't even pretend to be policy.

However, I would warn the IP editor that, while frustrating good editing has long been a well-established (but mysteriously tolerated) art, there is an increasingly powerful movement to make CIVIL the only enforceable policy of the project. As a result, Reliable Sources policy has been pretty nearly replaced by IDONTLIKEIT policy in 100s of articles relating to the I-P conflict. PR 12:17, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, a quick Google search has found two sources, which support the retraction theory. This one is by the Haaretz correspondent in London, and this one is by the director of the Palestinian American Research Center in Ramallah. I suggest we add the Haaretz reports with this evidence of retraction, as per Elonka's suggestion. Comments? --Nudve (talk) 06:31, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

1) This is NOT a retraction. Another newspaper, The Guardian, cannot retract something which appeared in Ha'aretz. Only Ha'aretz can retract something which appeared in Ha'aretz. The fact that there is no link from Ha'aretz making a retraction is proof that the information was NOT retracted. 2) This does NOT support the contention that there even was a retraction. The relevent section says, "That atrocities which in scope and scale extend well beyond those committed elsewhere in the West Bank have taken place in Jenin is beyond question. On April 9, in fact, Ha’aretz quoted Peres as characterizing Israeli conduct toward the residents of Jenin refugee camp as 'a massacre'—albeit in the context of the Nobel Laureate’s concern over international reaction, rather than the massacre itself—while in the same article military officers were quoted as stating that 'when the world sees the pictures of what we have done there, it will do us immense damage.' The following day, Ha’aretz reported that the Israeli Foreign Ministry had established a PR committee to deal with the consequences, another indication that the world best prepare for the worst." Setting up a public relations committee is NOT a retraction. Since there continues to be NO evidence that Ha'aretz retracted its story, I am returning the original Ha'aretz story on the Battle of Jenin page.68.37.255.64 (talk) 10:41, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Not sure I agree. I think the Haaretz correspondent is reliable enough to say the statement was retracted. The quote I was referring to in the second link is this :"Indeed, a statement several days earlier by military spokesperson Ron Kitri that “hundreds” had been killed in Jenin almost immediately was retracted by his superiors, who elaborated that “hundreds” referred to both dead and wounded, and that the actual death toll was in the dozens and almost exclusively limited to armed Palestinians." I used this source because I don't think it's likely that the author works for the "Hasbara". -- Nudve (talk) 10:52, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I haven't been following this article for a while, but would like to add my 2 cents on this particular dispute (about April 9 'event'). I'm really not sure how many people here actually read the Haaretz article, but on careful inspection, it's clear that the current (badly-written, I might add) version puts an unnecessary spin on this article, which is fairly ordinary. There are the following problems with this version:

• The section in the Misplaced Pages article (Fluctuations in reported deaths) is about reported deaths, not about reactions. Anything Peres supposedly said, if it's notable and verifiable, should go into a 'Reactions' section.
• The Haaretz article says that Peres "In private, Peres is referring to the battle as a 'massacre.'" Not sure how the Haaretz writers should know what Peres says in private, but this is clearly not the main idea behind the article (despite the provocative title), and the claim is exceptional, so it requires an exceptional source, and not a shoddy passage in an Haaretz article. For claims like this, if true, it's dodgy at best and inconceivable at worst, that there is only a single source with a brief mention.
• The current Misplaced Pages prose meshes together Peres's alleged comment with comments by IDF soldiers, a passage that is taken verbatim from the Haaretz article. This is highly confusing to the reader, and implies that Peres actually said those things about justification. Furthermore, it is not clear how 'IDF officers' (might not represent even a tenth of all IDF officers in the battle - Haaretz doesn't elaborate) are notable in this case. The official IDF position is the responsibility of the IDF Spokesperson.

In light of all of the above problems, I can't see how the Haaretz source alone is sufficient to make the claims in the article, or why they should even be made in the context of fluctuating casualty reports. -- Ynhockey 12:34, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

These points are valid. Right now, I don't want to aggravate the edit war. I'll try and work on a draft for the article, using the book I mentioned above, but it'll take some time. Anyway, I've also found this Haaretz article, a speech by its then-editor, Hanoch Marmari, in which he says there was no massacre, and that some of his correspondents "might have been obsessive in their determination to unearth a massacre in a refugee camp". -- Nudve (talk) 12:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm looking forwards to hearing about the contents of this book, but it's about presentation, not the event itself as we're trying to document. There is of course nothing to indicate in the Israeli newspapers report that anything about Perez's language was "retracted". PR 07:20, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom restrictions

Hi all, as a reminder, this article falls within the scope of the Palestine-Israel articles arbitration case. As such, in January 2008 the arbitration committee authorized uninvolved administrators to place additional restrictions as needed: "Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project."

I recommend that everyone read the section under Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Remedies, such as, "Editors are reminded that when editing in subject areas of bitter and long-standing real-world conflict, it is all the more important to comply with Misplaced Pages policies such as assuming good faith of all editors including those on the other side of the real-world dispute, writing with a neutral point of view, remaining civil and avoiding personal attacks, utilizing reliable sources for contentious or disputed assertions, and resorting to dispute resolution where necessary. Misplaced Pages cannot solve the dispute between the Israeli and Palestinian people or any other real-world ethnic conflict. What Misplaced Pages can do is aspire to provide neutral, encyclopedic coverage about the areas of dispute and the peoples involved in it, which may lead to a broader understanding of the issues and the positions of all parties to the conflict. The contributions of all good-faith editors on these articles who contribute with this goal in mind are appreciated."

There are currently no additional restrictions on the editing of this Battle of Jenin article, but as an uninvolved administrator, I've been watching this article for awhile, and the recent edit-warring is of concern. If disruption continues or escalates, further restrictions may be placed on the article, or on the editors who are working on it. This does not mean that anyone needs to worry that they're a hair's breadth away from being blocked. Any blocks or bans are multiple steps down the road. For example, before an editor can be sanctioned under the ruling of the ArbCom case, there is a requirement that they must be warned via a specific message on their talkpage, along with instructions on what they can do to avoid restrictions. And though I can't speak for all administrators, my own style is to give multiple warnings, and I usally only impose bans or blocks when an editor keeps ignoring all other cautions. So we're not at that point yet. I am starting this thread though, to advise people that it's a possibility down the line. Also, other administrators have different styles than I do -- some are much quicker with the "ban hammer", as they say.

So, please be careful, please stay calm, please avoid edit warring, and please try hard to find a compromise which keeps the article in adherence with Misplaced Pages policies. Our ultimate goal here is a high quality article, which well serves our readers, and reflects positively on Misplaced Pages and the editors who worked on it. Thanks, and let me know if you have any questions, --Elonka 17:22, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

There are huge problems at this article, with the most absurd non-policy arguments being made to keep out what the RS say and said about it. I'm not entirely sure how to treat the most recent finding, that an Israeli Cabinet Minister was calling the incident "a massacre" long before outside observers were talking about war-crimes - but it must be obvious to all that the report renders the current "No massacre" theme of the article either completely pointless - or blatant, full-bore Hasbara.

I've previously pointed out the 10 or more well-attested details that almost certainly belong in the article - what we need here is administrative action against editors refusing to abide by policy, raising IDONTLIKEIT objections, inserting laughably POV edits and disruptively removing excellent material.

Incidentally, the only reason I'm currently able to protest what has been going on here is that my hands are clean as regards edit-warring - I backed off I completely stopped editing the article and am waiting for administrative action to clear the road-blocks preventing us writing a good article. PR 20:30, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Dear PalestineRemembered,

In my previous note I mentioned a suggested solution for the dissonance between your statements and the ones made by fellow editors, myself included. If you believe the community is ignoring your valuable input on baseless/political grounds, it would be best if you approach your assigned mentor and discuss this with him. If Ryan is still your mentor, this would also help you regain his trust as well as give you a chance to re-examine your arguments at a less involved environment. When you avoid your mentorship and repeatedly exclaim exasperation towards the project and your fellow editors it is not going to magically solve the problem and, in fact, it only serves to increase sentiments of antagonism towards you. Content-wise, you believe there was a massacre at the camp and wish that we write this down into the article as well as change the title. What other sources do you have to support the 'Jenin massacre' perspective other than the private Peres quote from April 9 - which Haaretz published a 180degrees version of, an official public statement, the following day?

Cordially, Jaakobou 03:17, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I think there's some good advice in the comments made above. Staying calm and civil, avoiding edit warring, and touching base with mentors (where applicable) is always a good plan. I hope sanctions don't prove necessary here and that consensus can be reached through analysis of the relevant sources. WJBscribe (talk) 03:38, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Even when consensus has been reached (in the particular case I'm thinking of, one disruptive editor against eight others, including an admin, continuously for 19 months) the policy-trashing insertions will continue even after an ANI and an ArbCom. The problems at just that one article were only stopped by a further one week block under ArbCom enforcement. PR 13:48, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Note on user Blindjustice and IP 68.37.255.64

User:Blindjustice has been blocked under the provisions of this arbcom restriction, as well as per our policy on disruptive editing, for using a logged out IP address User talk:68.37.255.64 to disruptively sockpuppet on this article. The shenanigans on this article won't be tolerated any longer. ⇒SWATJester 01:46, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

There has been massive disruption at this article - but I can see none of it from this editor. I find 17 edits from him, all of them either good or at least "arguably sound". They are . Meanwhile, there is a huge amount of other material that is definitely sound which has been edit-warred out, to the severe detriment of this article. Statements are still being made (such as the alleged retraction of an Israeli article on "Peres calling it a massacre") that appear totally unjustifiable. Attempts are being made to discredit sources normally considered to be second only to the Red Cross, while absurd "information" from blogs (about unverifiable articles in newspapers owned by cults) is edit-warred in.

Were we (or User:Blindjustice given any opportunity to challenge any allegations made against this editor? Judging by his UserPage, this action was carried out with no discussion whatsoever. I certainly didn't know any accusations were being made, and there is nothing on this page to indicate any suspicion. PR 10:03, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Draft proposal

Alright, sports fans. I have created a draft in my sandbox for this article, here. Here are the major changes:

• Content - mostly about the battle itself, based on Harel and Isacharoff's book. It is also used for establishing commanders and casualties.
• Cleanup - removal of a lot of info that is about Operation Defensive Shield and/or the Second Intifada in general, but not this particular battle. I have also removed many "2nd degree criticisms". I don't think the allegations section should include all the people who don't think there was a massacre. Finally, I have formatted the refs and cropped the link farm at the bottom. In general, I have refrained from "cherry picking" quotes from reports. I only channeled them through secondary sources. The reports themselves are available as external links.
• Copyedit - I tried to arrange the article so as to separate the casualties reports, the massacre allegations and the various reports. I think it flows better this way.
• This draft may still have some problems, such as typos and syntax errors. I have removed the tags because of the bots, but of course it's possible to use it and keep the tags.

Anyway, comments would be appreciated. Cheers, -- Nudve (talk) 18:26, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I like your changes, mostly because they make the article cleaner and easier to read, which has long since been lost as a goal in disputed articles. However, the lead section is IMO lacking, and the current one is better (although still not perfect). I don't wish to address the entire article point by point at the moment, in order not to get into minor unimportant content disputes, but will help with the article if need be in the future. -- Ynhockey 17:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Is it the paragraph on the passover massacre? My rationale was that it belongs in the article on the operation, but I could just put it back. -- Nudve (talk) 17:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

A couple points about the lead:

a) A bit too much input on the Israeli troops for the lead. If we go in that direction there should also be text about the militancy. I'm thinking it would be best to remove/shorten it.

b) Intro image seems more appropriate for inside the article where it currently is.

Haven't really taken the time to review more of your effort; I tend to think that edits are better made in sections than as a whole though I was working on a version of the page myself also.

Cheers, Jaakobou 17:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I've removed this paragraph. Tweaking the images should probably be done in mainspace, since the bots won't let them show on userspace. Let me know when you have further reviewed it. -- Nudve (talk) 17:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I will start by admitting that I have not yet had a chance to take a look. However removal of "2nd degree criticisms" leaves only official army PR, so I can't imagine that your draft will be NPOV. It seems like people who believe in retaining and adding non-army source information (or what you refer to as "2nd degree criticisms") have been repelled from this page because of all the incivility issues. I know I have. But I'll be back to review the above.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 04:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, by "2nd degree criticisms" I meant criticisms of the UN/HRW/Amnesty reports, i.e., "criticisms of criticisms". I tried to avoid using "official army PR" as facts. Can you be more specific? -- Nudve (talk) 04:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

General note: Secondary sources would be the final reports of the likes of BBC, CNN, Haaretz, JPost etc. Amnesti and other HR groups are simply echoing Palestinian claims and are far worse (blood-libel massacre blunders) as "the army's PR". In retrospect, it might be good to start looking up written sources on this issue (books). Jaakobou 19:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

You must be very skeptical when you read about human-rights violations in Saddam's Iraq, Sierra Leone, Rwanda, or the Balkans then. Half the stuff we know about those things came from such dubious, discredited, partisan sources as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch - you must be wondering if any of this stuff even happened! Well at least you have the dependable ADL to inform you there was no Armenian genocide. Or at least there was no Armenian genocide until last year when suddenly Abe Foxman announced: "Upon reflection, the consequences of those actions were indeed tantamount to genocide". Of course, the ADL doesn't get tangled up with historical data, or established facts, or the documentary record, or old-fashioned notions of maintaining political and financial independence, or sending experts to investigate and prepare reports on-site, or anything of the sort. Rather, Foxman sits and "reflects" in the relative solitude of conference calls with Israeli government figures, who then coordinate their own reflections and announcements in consultation with the Turkish president, who until that moment had veto power over historical truth for the ADL under Foxman, who in turn has veto power over historical truth in articles in WP. PR 20:29, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Jaakobou. You have just re-invented the term "secondary source" arbitrarily to suit a political- and ethnic-based conspiracy theory that you seem to have personally contrived. This is no basis for editing a Misplaced Pages article. Kindly take your bizarre and unsupported claims about HRW and "Amnesti" methodology somewhere else. <eleland/talkedits> 02:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Without having any consideration to anything else, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch are a partisan source, and have been highly criticized for their accuracy and "spin" by sources like The Economist, the New York Sun, NGO Monitor, Alan Dershowitz, Discover the Networks, University of London, The Conflict Analysis Resource Center, etc. ⇒SWATJester 03:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

HRW is on the front line fighting human rights abuses in despotic Arab countries, including Iran and Saudi Arabia, where religious minorities, homosexuals, and women often find themselves subject to the worst kinds of abuses. That they treat Israel and the United States exactly the same in this regard is a testament to their reliability. PR 07:53, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

How they treat Israel and the US similarly or differently is significantly less important as far as Misplaced Pages policies are concerned, than the fact that they've been highly criticized for their accuracy and spin by numerous highly-regarded sources. Interestingly enough, one of the more common criticisms is that both HRW and AI both grossly underreport, or fail to report human rights abuses in Syria and Iran, while reporting abuses of questionable veracity and value in Israel and the US. It may well be that they treat the US and Israel equally. But that's not the complaint: that they treat Israel and other countries disparately, something that is documented in the media. ⇒SWATJester 09:15, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

You have made a variety of unsupported claims, and the fact that you would refer to "the New York Sun, NGO Monitor, Alan Dershowitz, Discover the Networks " in the context of opposing partisan spin makes me frankly question your seriousness here. There is a variety of low-level partisan dross which attempt to paint HRW and Amnesty as biased anti-American sources, sure. But, besides the fact "you're biased and anti-" is the absolutely standard reply to human rights criticism, these charges are quite easily shown to be outright lies.

One of the arguments of those who are critical of Human Rights Watch's reporting on the Middle East is that the organization devotes too much attention to alleged abuses by Israelis. A corollary is that it pays insufficient attention to violations of human rights by Israel's antagonists in the region. Yet a glance at the back pages of the "World Report" published annually by Human Rights Watch where it lists all its publications suggests that these criticisms are not well founded. Typically, Human Rights Watch publishes more than a hundred reports each year. In all, it issued more than 350 reports in 2003, 2004, and 2005 on the seventy or so countries that it monitors. Of these, just five dealt with Israel and the Palestinian occupied territories while another sixty reports dealt with various Arab countries and Iran. The largest number of reports concerned abuses in Iraq, Sudan, and Egypt, but reports were also published on Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Algeria, Tunisia, Morocco, and Jordan.

Or, you could simply read their websites. Currently, for example, the front page of HRW's "Middle East and North Africa" section has five articles about Saudi violations, four about Iran, three about Libya, and one each about Algeria, Syria, and Tunisia. And nothing about Israel. Is this really what you would expect from an organization which grossly under-reports abuses of Arab countries while constantly bashing Israel? Be serious, man. <eleland/talkedits> 01:58, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

How are my claims unsupported? I said that these organizations have been highly criticized, and provided the names of the organizations who have proffered those criticisms. Whether you like the sources or not is irrelevant (I note that you only mentioned "some" of the sources as "opposing partisan", which while your claim of partisanship is certainly disputable, the other sources are clearly not so (unless the Economist and the University of London suddenly became "spin sources")). And please don't accuse me of not being serious. If you can't discuss civilly, without resorting to slights, you shouldn't discuss things at all.⇒SWATJester 09:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

We are entitled to expect compliance with the principles of the project from an administrator. I'm not sure what serious criticisms of HRW there have been from responsible sources, but your mention of NGOM and Dershowitz in this context is worrying. The only serious criticism of HRW I've seen is that from Jonathan Cook (a Briton living in Israel), which strongly suggests that HRW (at least sometimes) falls over backwards giving Israel the maximum benefit of the doubt.

Incidentally, the discussion at the RS/N looks very much like overwhelming consensus, with nothing but a partisan trying to disrupt the work of the project with seriously frivolous objections. PR 19:08, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the Reliability of Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International

Both organizations have been discussed at the RS/N. Please refer to Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_15#Human_Rights_Watch. Of note especially is the end of the discussion, where consensus is established rather emphatically that both organizations are indeed eminently reliable for information regarding human rights violations. The rest of the discussion consists mainly of two editors (myself included) trying to argue with a third that "accusations of bias" do not amount to unreliability.PelleSmith (talk) 17:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Bias has nothing directly to do with reliability as a source. ⇒SWATJester 17:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes but "accusations of bias" do not equate to proof of bias either. These organizations are accused of bias by pretty much every country they report on (surprise surprise) -- in the Middle East that includes pretty much every country. Also please note that you highlighted criticism of "accuracy" above, which would effect reliability were it true. The RS/N discussion would suggest a consensus there that there is no accuracy issue with these organizations, certainly not one subject to any national bias.PelleSmith (talk) 17:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure the limited discussion on RS/N quite qualifies as consensus, but differentiating between accusations of bias and proof of bias is an academic task, because there's no clear line where such accusations become proof, and it will be disputed by partisans in any event, so there's not much point in the distinction in the first place. ⇒SWATJester 18:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Well consensus during one RS/N discussion isn't the last word on the subject matter. When I used "consensus" I was simply referring to that discussion. Perhaps you should start another discussion at the RS/N or at the NPOV/N or another location where uninvolved editors will respond. Regarding proof vs. accusation -- there is a fairly big distinction between partisan sources accusing some entity of bias and non-partisan sources making similar claims. There is also a fairly big distinction between accusations supported with a fair amount of evidence and those not so supported. The sources you name are mostly of the partisan variety, and of course we do not know the exact claims being made or the context of these claims since you have only enumerated critical sources. Are we talking investigative reportage? Editorializing? etc. I suggest, especially given the previous consensus at the RS/N that you start another discussion there if you wish to re-examine the issue in a forum that isn't as prone to partisanship as an entry talk page.PelleSmith (talk) 18:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Should you take this advice I will gladly stay out of the discussion as well.PelleSmith (talk) 18:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Err, I'm not an "involved editor." I have not edited the article. My only substantive edit to the talk page was a tangent related to the reliability of a source. So Please keep that in mind. Similarly, the statement that the sources I name are "mostly" of the partisan variety is simply not correct, when confronted with sources like The Economist, University of London, and major US newspaper. Some of the other support may have accusations itself of bias a specific direction, but none are explicitly partisan sources, and it's all disputable anyway. But as I said before, it's a tangent, and a deep argument has nothing really to do with the article itself, and in order to remain an uninvolved editor, I'm not intending to pursue it further. ⇒SWATJester 02:48, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Well you and I are both "involved" on the talk page in question -- right here, right now -- whether or not we have any other edits to this entry or talk page. All I meant by uninvolved was someone not a party to the original conversation we are having or to editing this entry. I'm not sure The New York Sun was ever a "major US newspaper". But from the sources you enumerate as certainly non-partisan context is extremely important. You claim that none of the other sources are "explicitly partisan" in this area. Eh hem. Here is the first line of the lead of NGO Monitor: NGO Monitor is an Israeli non-governmental organization with the stated aim of stopping "certain self-declared 'humanitarian NGOs'" from promoting agendas which are perceived as anti-Israel. I'm not sure you can get more partisan on this subject matter than that. Discover the Networks is one of David Horowitz's projects. Horowitz is also clearly "explicitly partisan" on this subject matter, and the same goes for Alan Dershowitz who has a history of public commentary that is completely pro-Israeli. HRW and AI may in fact have a bias ... against human rights abuses. They have no nationalistic, ethnic or religious bias however, and that is what you, are alleging through these sources. Some of these sources themselves have a very clear nationalistic bias, which is in the public record and which by denying or attempting to downplay you make a very odd impression of your own understanding of the issues at stake.PelleSmith (talk) 12:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

It's very sad to me that on WP these two orgs are considered reliable sources of info and CAMERA is not. When it comes to HRW and AI, I find the work done at NGO Monitor to be solid:

Here's info. from NGO Monitor on HRW:

• Website: www.hrw.org
• Founded 1988 (originally Helsinki Watch, founded in 1978); claimed an annual budget of over $50 million in 2005.
• Based in New York, headed by Kenneth Roth.
• 1997 Nobel Peace Prize for Campaign to Ban Landmines.
• CLAIM: "The hallmark and pride of Human Rights Watch is the even-handedness and accuracy of our reporting. To maintain our independence, we do not accept financial support from any government or government-funded agency."
• In contrast, detailed NGO Monitor analyses demonstrate the disproportionate condemnations of Israeli security policy.
• HRW was an active participant in the 2001 Durban conference, and continues to campaign in favor of boycotts and other measures against Israel.

Here's info. from NGO Monitor on Amnesty International:

• Website: www.amnesty.org
• Founded in 1961 by British lawyer, Peter Benenson.
• Amnesty describes itself as a "worldwide movement of people who campaign for internationally recognized human rights for all."
• Amnesty International claims to be "Independent of any government, political ideology, economic interest or religion… it does not support or oppose any government or political system."
• During the Second Lebanon War in 2006, Amnesty unjustifiably accused Israel of “war crimes” and “deliberate attacks on civilians,” and relied on Lebanese “eyewitnesses” to allege that Hezbollah did not operate in population centers.
• In 2007, Amnesty continued to disproportionately single out Israel for condemnation, focusing solely on the conflict with the Palestinians, misrepresenting the complexity of the conflict and ignoring more severe human rights violations in the region.
• Amnesty International distorts international law – misusing terms like “collective punishment,” “occupying power” and “disproportionate” – in its condemnations of Israel’s Gaza policy.
• In the fiscal year ending March 31, 2007, AI reported an operating budget of approximately £30 million. In prior years, this sum represented "approximately one quarter of the estimated income likely to be raised during the year by the movement´s national sections." The majority of the funds come from individual donors, and Amnesty International does not accept donations from governments or political parties.

It is my hope that anyone who is truly trying to be objective will look into the detailed reports found there. --Einsteindonut (talk) 03:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

As to why CAMERA is not considered reliable you may wish to familiarize yourself with this: Committee_for_Accuracy_in_Middle_East_Reporting_in_America#Misplaced Pages. Of course there are more substantive issues that transcend that little fiasco but after that happened I'm not sure Misplaced Pages can or will ever consider them as credible. NGO Monitor is quite possibly the most partisan organization within the context of this discussion. They are basically an organization with the political goal of discrediting human rights organizations that come out with statements critical of Israel.PelleSmith (talk) 12:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm very familiar with the case and I don't think CAMERA did anything wrong to try to get volunteers involved with WP to help in the extreme bias against Israel readily found here because of these very issues. There sanctions against those involved were completely unfair while the folks working with the Electronic Intifida seem to have gotten off with no problems. Typical "wiki justice." --Einsteindonut (talk) 01:09, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I think we don't need to go very far with the credibility issues. The problem with the Jenin 2002 incident is that non of these human rights organizations took measures to validate claims which were later found to be bogus blood-libels. This is really not about general reliability but about reliability towards the discussed event - which is clearly lacking. Jaakobou 14:08, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Good point, Jaakobou. I do think it's important to consider that HWR and AI have only helped to fuel a lot of the blood-libels. It would be helpful if more WP editors could pay more attention to legitimate sources like CAMERA, HonestReporting, and NGO Monitor when looking at these issues rather than slanted left-wing sources which only help fuel misinformation on complex situation in the Middle East for their own biased political reasons. I have found so much of these RS material is from the extreme fringe left. I would hope that more editors at least make an attempt for neutrality, but those who are honestly after it seem very few and far between (maybe b/c of the CAMERA case where WP sanction people for trying to get involved?) Pathetic. Trust me, there's quite a lot of evidence of organized pro-Palestinian campaigns behind the scenes as well. --Einsteindonut (talk) 01:09, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Can I assume that an editor who suggests that avowedly partisan and nationalist campaign groups like CAMERA, HonestReporting and NGO Monitor are "legitimate sources" but implies that mainstream human rights groups, and presumably certain mainstream media sources as well, are the "extreme fringe left" is having a little joke? Neutrality does not mean "agrees with my political viewpoint" you know. --Nickhh (talk) 08:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Original introduction

The current introduction is, to say the least, quite biased. Almost any news report or summary of the battle in Jenin first goes on to discuss Palestinian claims of a massacre. That was the most significant, most publicized, and most stressed part of this event.

For starters, my edit is entirely sourced, so one must have good reasons to remove those sources. The introduction that another user keeps reverting to is flawed in other ways besides what I just mentioned above. It says that subsequent "Israeli investigations" did not find evidence of a massacre. This is VERY misleading. ALL investigations did not find any evidence of a massacre. It further only mentions criticism of Israel from human rights groups, when both the UN and these interest groups criticized Palestinian militants for a number of things during the battle, including endangering Palestinian civilian life. That is not a fair representation, not to mention very inaccurate. To include all points and give an accurate representation of the reception of the battle and a basic representation of these investigations. --Shamir1 (talk) 18:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. Here's my reply:

• Misplaced Pages is not a newspaper. The history book I used, for one, does not start with the claims of massacre. IMO, the article should start with established facts, and only later move on to (ultimately unsubstantiated) claims. The lead does mention - in summary, of course - those claims.
• Just because it's sourced doesn't mean it should go in the lead, which should be a concise summary of the article.
• As for the "Israeli investigations", I don't mind dropping the word "Israeli".
• The lead doesn't mention criticism, only the aforementioned allegations of massacre.

Cheers. -- Nudve (talk) 18:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Using one source, one history book, should not drop all other sources from contributing to the lead. I only included plain facts in the introduction, this was in fact, based on an introduction that was used for this article for a long time. The current introduction seems very biased for the reasons I pointed out about. The media controversy and claims of a massacre were the most stressed and yet it is barely mentioned here at all. The closing statement in the introduction: "Subsequent Israeli investigations found no evidence to substantiate these charges; however, international human rights organizations such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International alleged that war crimes had occurred." To "substantiate" these charges? Please tell me exactly what "history book' is this? To correctly reflect reality we would say that Palestinian claims of massacre were never corroborated and that several investigations found no evidence of a massacre at all. That sentence is filled with weasel words.

Secondly, it only mentions criticism of Israel (from special interest groups/NGOs) in this case, when these same NGOs had a fair share of criticism of Palestinians in Jenin. If you add a short blurb about allegations raised against Israel from these groups, then give an accurate reflection of the report and add a blurb about alleged Palestinian misconduct. Much of the information here in the introduction is selective at best. --Shamir1 (talk) 23:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

If you prefer "corroborated" to "substantiate", that's fine. I'm not sure I understand your point about the criticism of the Palestinians. First you say that the allegations of massacre are the most important aspect of the incident, and then you say that the criticism of the Palestinians should be given as much weight as the allegations of massacre. As I said, the lead summarizes the article, which has a section on the allegations of massacre. The NGOs' accusations are brought within the general context of all of the reports and investigations. HRW and AI's reports are not by themselves are not important enough (and, according to some - see above - not reliable enough) to be given that much weight. Therefore, they are not in the article, and not in the lead. Which words in that sentence are weasel words? Also, this particular sentence is not mine, but a residue from the previous version.

I'd like to take this opportunity to elaborate on my rationale for rewriting the article. I felt it had too much of what I would call "allegations of no-massacre". IMO, the article should describe what happened, not what didn't happen. If the description of the battle doesn't include a massacre, then that should be enough. No need to "spell it out" for the readers. That makes the article look partisan. -- Nudve (talk) 06:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Nudve. The lead is not supposed to document rumors, but facts. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 07:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

There is the issue that a big chunk of the battle's claim to notability came from the blood libels. I think there is room to mention it's claim to notability in the lead. Jaakobou 14:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, I think the battle would certainly have been notable even without the allegations of massacre. Secondly, about half the lead is pretty much dedicated to them. -- Nudve (talk) 15:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Who here is documenting "rumors"? It is a fact that rumors were made up. That is mentioned in nearly every report, investigation, news story, or what have you on the battle in Jenin. When I said allegations of a massacre are important, I didnt say it is the only thing important, as you may suggest. The AI and HRW reports in the lead are in the version you are asking for; I dont know why youre acting as if I am fighting to put them in when they are there. What I am saying (and I was very clear about this), is that IF you add a blurb in the lead about allegations of Israeli military misconduct from these organizations (as you currently have it), then give a fair representation of these reports from the same investigations and add a blurb about allegations of Palestinian misconduct during the battle in Jenin. It is a matter of accuracy and proper reflection of the source.. And again, this one "history book", which I question, should not cancel out the contributions from so many other reputable Internet sources. --Shamir1 (talk) 22:04, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Fine. I've just copyedited it and formatted the refs. -- Nudve (talk) 07:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality and balance in lead and elsewhere

I've popped in and out of this article in the past (as pretty much a neutral and objective editor, even if I've not always been seen that way by some) and checked back on it just now. I'm sorry, but the problems in the lead are worse now than they were. As currently written it presents a seriously one-sided view of events here. For example -

• The second paragraph is devoted purely to prior Israeli casualties and explaining the Israeli justification for the assault in considerable detail. This a) has nothing to do with the battle itself of course and is almost certainly undue weight in the lead, and b) ignores the fact that there are two sides in this conflict, each of whom was inflicting considerable damage on each other before the attacks on the West Bank.

• The third paragraph also is based almost entirely on Israeli claims, eg about the number of militants/fighters killed, about the IDF's efforts to avoid civilian casualties. Even those claims not sourced to the Israeli side appear to be there to highlight negative claims about Palestinian conduct (eg re booby traps). This totally downplays the fact that civilians were killed as a result of direct IDF actions, with some allegedly buried with their houses, others shot in the street etc. That doesn't need to be flagged up as "evil IDF murderers", but equally it shouldn't be brushed over.

• The fourth paragraph talks pretty simplistically about "uncorroborated" Palestinian allegations of deliberate massacres, war crimes and extensive civilian casualties. In reality, Israeli officials were also talking about 100s of people possibly having been killed at the time, and journalists were barred from the camp leading to confusion and also suspicion in the media that the IDF "had something to hide". While it did become clear eventually that there had been no deliberate, widespread massacre in the camp, equally civilians were killed, much of the camp was flattened and individual cases of alleged war crimes were documented (as above). None of this is recorded in the lead as it is.

• The fifth paragraph purports to be a round up of later assessments, and again comes out as "move along, nothing to see here .. those Palestinians made it all up". As ever, the reality is more complex than that, both as to why the original massacre claims gained currency and as to what actually happened in the camp. In addition of course there is a still a body of opinion around the world - it doesn't matter whether you or I think they are right or wrong - that regards an attack on a residential area which kills around twenty civilians as a "massacre".

Sources for all of the above points are already scattered throughout the main parts of the article, and nothing of what I've said is really disputed as far as I'm aware - it's simply about marshalling and summarising the existing known info in order to get a balanced lead. I'm tempted to tag the page for neutrality, but I'll lay off doing that. And can people stop using the phrase "blood libel" on talk pages? I don't see how it helps anything. Thanks. --Nickhh (talk) 08:22, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Would you support a revert to this version? -- Nudve (talk) 08:46, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

It's definitely a better version in my view, as it covers the issue quite broadly (as a lead should, rather than going into intense detail that is better dealt with further down) and doesn't seem to make one-sided judgements about the background to the attack, the assault itself or the disputes that developed over what had occurred in the camp. I'd quibble with one or two of the points in it, but wouldn't everyone? For example, it duplicates the point about the stream of suicide bombers reportedly coming from Jenin, and probably does need a quick note on the final assessment of casualties and consequences, eg -

The Battle of Jenin took place from April 3 to April 11, 2002 in the refugee camp of Jenin, in the West Bank. It was fought between the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) and Palestinian forces as part of Operation Defensive Shield, during the Second Intifada.

As part of the operation, which involved invasions of cities and towns all over the West Bank, Israel targeted Jenin's refugee camp, after it determined that the city had "served as a launch site for numerous terrorist attacks against both Israeli civilians and Israeli towns and villages in the area", including the dispatch of 28 suicide bombers since the start of the Second Intifada.

The IDF denied entry to journalists and human rights organizations, leading to a rapid cycle of rumors that a massacre had occurred. Jenin remained sealed for days after the invasion. Stories of civilians being buried alive in their homes as they were demolished, and of smoldering buildings covering crushed bodies, spread throughout the Arab world. Various casualty figures circulated, reaching into the mid-hundreds. Palestinian sources described the events as "the Jenin massacre", and international media and human rights organizations expressed concerns that a massacre had taken place.

Subsequent Israeli investigations found no evidence to substantiate these charges claims that a widespread, deliberate massacre had taken place. However large areas of the camp were destroyed and of the xx Palestinians killed in the attack, up to yy were thought to be civilians. zz IDF soldiers were killed. International human rights organizations such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International alleged that war crimes had occurred and criticised the conduct of both sides.

I don't want to get over-involved here again, but those are my brief thoughts FWIW. --Nickhh (talk) 09:52, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually on reflection, I think I am being a little overgenerous in aiming for balance by suggesting that HRW & AI criticised both sides, based on my memories of them having raised the whole houses-rigged-to-explode issue. In fact the main thrust of both reports, having just checked the HRW & AI websites and run over the headline coverage of the reports in the mainstream media at the time, was overwhelmingly that they were accusing the IDF of having committed war crimes and causing the deaths of civilians. --Nickhh (talk) 10:45, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Small comment about "up to" and HRW and AI reliability for the lead. I think we're already giving undue credence to the unverified claims and we should add the initial claims of "thousands massacred" next to these assertions so that their true credence in regards to Jenin would be clear. Either that or we go by my original suggestion of leaving their "Human Rights" propaganda issue out for the body of the article. Jaakobou 10:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

So while other editors are discussing and agreeing specific edits in detail, you chip in briefly to say you are merely making a general "comment" .. and then suddenly dive in regardless and make major changes without any discussion or agreement? Not good practice I'd have thought. Problems with what you've done -

1) You've erased any mention of civilian casualties

2) You've confused the issues by suggesting that because there was no (widespread, deliberate) massacre, that human rights groups are wrong in "holding on" to allegations about war crimes. That's just a logical non-sequiter, the points are totally different. Just because it turned out that 100s of civilians weren't killed, as was feared and suggested by many sources including Israeli ones, it doesn't mean that none were. I know that is the narrative favoured in some quarters, but it can't have prominence here.

3) You've mangled the English (for example - rumours cannot "purport" a massacre, or indeed anything else)

4) You've removed the undisputed fact that the IDF barred entry to the camp, so it now simply says the "camp remained sealed" as if it were due to an act of God

5) You've inserted a reference into the lead which is not needed, and in any event appears to be a single example of particulary OTT comment from one Palestinian official, from which you've then created the most exaggerated text you can. This is undue weight of course, by any definition. Most Palestinian officials were talking about 100s not 1000s, and even then were frequently using this figure to refer to casualties of "Defensive Shield" in its entirety.

6) You've also left it as suggesting that only (mendacious) Palestinians and (biased) human rights organisations were giving casualty stats that turned out to be wrong, or using the word massacre in some capacity (note as well I'm not sure even how many of these specifically used the phrase "the Jenin massacre"). You know full well of course that Israeli sources were also using similar figures and language. It was also a time of intense confusion - hence why the previous wording was, correctly, much looser while also being more accurate.

I'm bored of listing them now. --Nickhh (talk) 15:23, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)
Replies to the raised concerns:
1) We don't know the number of civilian casualties. Writing the highest possible number is propaganda. I'm willing to add a note that the number of civilians is between X-Y as per 52-56 casualties.
2) I did not say they were wrong, that is your own assumption. A quote reasonable assumption considering that they hadn't fact-checked any of the claims and many of the reported claims were found to be baloney.
3) I'm open to suggestions where English is the problem. I never claimed to be an authority on the matter.
4) What is wrong with "camp remained sealed"? I think it's a clear issue but I'm open to external opinion by uninvolved users to this issue.
5) There are obviously more sources repeating the 'thousands' claim, but mostly they are people repeating the Palestinian claim rather than a head official making it. Thousands is thousands and no one suggested high numbers regarding Nablus. His claims were about Jenin just as Erekat's Live-on-CNN promise of more than 500 "massacred" - in Jenin. Please also note that the mentioned line does not say thousands 'in Jenin' but is written in a more generic tone as the Palestinian speaker used.
6) Gideon Levy is a "Israeli source" - and a couple misquotes on Haaretz were later retracted. Was there any Israeli using the term thousands or was it the Israelis saying that Palestinians are falsly trying to portray the situation as a massacre - I believe sources show it's the latter. To further clarify, I'm quite certain that Israeli officials did no describe the event as a massacre in the international media (current phrasing of article).
Hope I answered all your concerns. Jaakobou 16:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC) clarify 16:12, 4 October 2008 (UTC) further clarify. 16:16, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

This is the precise reason why I chose not to go into detail in the lead in the first place. It worked fine until Shamir1 rewrote the lead unilaterally. I eventually went along with his changes because it seemed at the time like consensus was with him. Now that this is no longer the case, perhaps we can agree on the "minimalist" lead? -- Nudve (talk) 18:52, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know of any sources claiming there were thousands killed. The UN report said it was 497 in total, and it was widely believed that an Israeli shot dead the head of reconstruction, Iain Hook in Nov 2002, along with 13 other UN workers and serious injury to the Irish woman. PR 19:49, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

"Secretary-General of Palestinian Authority Cabinet Ahmed Abdel Rahman said, "They took hundreds of bodies to northern Israeli to hide their massacre they committed against our people. "This massacre is not less than the massacres committed against the Palestinian people in the refugee camps of Sabra and Shatila in Lebanon." He said thousands of Palestinians were either killed and buried in massive graveyards or smashed under houses destroyed in Jenin and Nablus."

"Palestinian minister Saeb Erekat said Israelis killed three thousand Palestinians, then lowered the number to five hundred." Donna Rosenthal. The Israelis: Ordinary People in an Extraordinary Land, Free Press, 2003, p. 69. Jayjg 07:11, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

This leads me to believe it's no longer possible to discuss the reliability of sources (even mention of a conviction for denial will lead to an immediate block!).

So editors will have to judge for themselves whether the project should rely on sources that say "The Nazism of Abu Mazen" Nazism ... still maintains a lethal grip on the minds and souls of many Arabs, particularly the ruling classes. As Israelis know all too well, Nazism was exported to and took root in the Arab world".

Meanwhile, of course, we have lots and lots of excellent material on this event from even the most acceptable sources, and they cannot be used either in case we document this event accurately. Sadly, more and more of the media record is being cleansed from the archives as every kind of human rights observer and reporter and editor is smeared, sometimes with the openly avowed intention of breaking them personally. PR 09:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC)\

1) Newsmax is a news-source aggregator. The opinion piece you note is just one opinion piece from another source, and using search engines to cherry-pick what you imagine to be extremist is disingenuous at best. The source for the quote regarding Ahmed Abdel Rahman is a United Press International story, which is a reliable source. They made these claims of thousands killed. Accept it and move on.

2) Stop your ridiculous soap-boxing. I mean it. Stop now. When you comment, comment only and specifically on suggested article text changes, and bring material related only and specifically to that change alone. If you don't stop disrupting article Talk: pages, I am going to start taking more serious action. Jayjg 15:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

There were one or two instances of people talking about a death toll in the 1000s, but these were not the main claims (and as I've said it was not always clear whether they were talking about the whole range of attacks, or simply Jenin. Indeed the Rahman quote cited above is noted as including Nablus). As I have also pointed out many times - I remember the coverage from the time very well - it was a time of real confusion and chaos, as battlegrounds usually are, and no-one really knew what was going on. The IDF had closed the camp to the outside world, there were rumours floating around as well as official and semi-official briefings from both sides talking about 100s being killed. Palestinian spokesmen seemed to have a real fear of another Sabra and Shatila, whether that was justified or not. Anyway, the problem in respect of the article is that the more (as it turned out) inaccurate claims from Palestinians are being highlighted with undue weight in a bid, it would seem, to suggest that the reality of what happened was rather trivial by comparison. Some edits are trying to build a narrative that says "Palestinians and human rights groups deliberately exaggerated what was going on, those reports turned out to be wrong, ergo nothing bad happened in the camp at all and anyone who suggests it did is clinging to a refuted version of events". As ever the real world of events is more complicated and nuanced than that - hence the lead needs to record the basic facts (eg the incursions, the initial confusion about casualties, the final casualty count including the real concerns about civilian deaths) but also be fairly broad and minimalist in what it says, which is where myself & Nudve at least came to an agreement. Quite apart from all the above, leads should of course be concise and clear anyway. I'll remove the POV tag, but personally I'd like to see the lead go back more or less to the recently agreed version prior to these changes. --Nickhh (talk) 08:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Secretary-General of Palestinian Authority Cabinet Ahmed Abdel Rahman and Palestinian minister and spokesman Saeb Erekat are not just random inconsequential voices. Jayjg 15:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Regardless if the claims were deliberate of not, the lead is writing this as rumors without ascribing intentions - i.e. "Various casualty figures circulated" does not ascribe intentionality and it is explained that the camp was closed (please also see my reply to point no.5 above). The rumors, a mixture of true concern, elevation of martyrdom (read: experience dramatization), and a bit of a deplorable war-time tactic; are not being explored for their reasoning within the lead paragraph and we even justify them by adding the note that the camp was sealed (as if that's any type of justification for starting out a baseless global blood-libel). What is written is that the rumors were being reported/echoed/circulated as official claims by Palestinian officials as well as Human Rights activists in the international media. This is a very mild and neutral description of the events. Jaakobou 11:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

(move left) First of all, those articles are behind a paywall, so I can't really evaluate their importance. Anyway, I'm not sure I share your concerns. There really was a fog of war in Jenin, and I doubt that the IDF spokesman was motivated by the mixture you mentioned above. It's a bit unfair to suggest that all the newspapers cited were involved in a global blood-libel. The allegations are already described as such, and stressing out the fact that they were unsubstantiated may give the reader a feeling that the article is slanted. -- Nudve (talk) 12:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The version of the lead suggested by Nickhh at 09:52, 4 October 2008 above looks good to me. I would replaced "after it determined" with "after it deemed", as I've just done in the article; or with "after it decided based on investigation" or "after it stated", etc.; since "after it determined" seems to me to imply that what they stated was necessarily true, and I don't think the term "terrorist" is NPOV, so Misplaced Pages can't assert the Israeli quote.

Since apparently there is a POV according to which there may be large numbers of civilian casualties buried under the bulldozed ruins, I would change "of the xx Palestinians killed in the attack" in Nickhh's version to "of the 52–56 Palestinians estimated killed in the attack". I would change "up to yy were thought to be civilians" to "about 5–26 of whom were estimated to be civilians". This source (<ref name="israelinsider">) says that 23 IDF soldiers were killed, so I would change "zz IDF soldiers were killed" to "23 IDF soldiers were reported killed." ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 13:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Jaakobou:

Status of discussion: I don't mean to be offensive, but I'm getting the feeling that misinformation has crept into this discussion while the new text hasn't been read with an external, uninvolved perspective.

Clarifying the issues: The 'fog of war' is already mentioned alongside the claims of "thousands massacred". I don't know what IDF spokesman is supposedly quoted here - but no IDF spokesperson went ahead on international media with an official statement alleging a massacre of thousands in Jenin.

Request of a second review: Please review the current version and make your points in accordance to cite-able material and the written text. Please avoid adding personal interpretations of the text which are not written in it. e.g. there is no assertion to a global blood-libel in the text.

Other versions: Coppertwig, I'd appreciate some explanation to the advantage in the version suggested by Nickhh. I note to you that he's made a few erroneous suggestions regarding the text and his personal interpretations of it and I've countered these misconceptions by clarifying the text and linking to 3 relevant sources.

With respect, Jaakobou 14:14, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The IDF spokesman in question is Ron Kitri, as is mentioned in the article. He indeed said hundreds, not thousands. The "global blood-libel" was quoted from your previous post on this talk page, not the article. -- Nudve (talk) 14:42, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

He said "hundreds" of casualties, meaning both killed and wounded, as was quickly clarified by the IDF. Jayjg 15:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

It seems he did say that hundreds were apparently killed, and yes, his statement was retracted. Again, I'm not trying to support the allegations. I'm just saying that at that time, one did not have to be a blood-libeler to suspect that the death toll was much higher than it actually was, that's all. -- Nudve (talk) 15:26, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

He was speaking in a foreign language, he accidentally used the word "killed" for "casualty", and in English, "casualty" means killed or wounded, but is popularly thought of as meaning "killed". The statement was very quickly clarified, as opposed to the grossly inflated Palestinian claims, which were abandoned only with great reluctance, and even then not abandoned at all by many, including some regular commenters on this Talk: page. Jayjg 15:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

It seems he did say "200 killed" in Hebrew, and then retracted. Again, I'm not saying there were hundreds killed, and it's quite possible that some Palestinians deliberately inflated the numbers. I was just saying that the lead shouldn't suggest that all inflated estimates were/are malicious. -- Nudve (talk) 15:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

You make a good point, but I doubt Kitri's statement, and quick retraction, had any impact on the worldwide condemnation, demonstrations, etc. that targeted Israel. You can be sure that it was the Palestinian statements, combined with a general prejudice against Israel, that were responsible for that. Jayjg 16:15, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm puzzled, I thought it was statements like this from Time Magazine that did it: "The bumptious Prime Minister of Israel outdid himself ... used language that was unusually bald. "The Palestinians must be hit, and it must be very painful," he said. "We must cause them losses, victims, so that they feel a heavy price." He went on to do just that, unleashing a broader military offensive than anything seen so far in the past 17 months of fighting." Even the US, Colin Powell criticised him for it. PR 17:32, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

No, you're not "puzzled", you're just soapboxing again. It's unlikely that an article in Time magazine, printed weeks before the events in Jenin, and discussing total deaths of just over 100 on the Palestinian side, and around 50 on the Israeli side, would cause people to imagine a massacre of hundreds or thousands had happened in Jenin. Please stop wasting everyone's time. Jayjg 20:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict & reset indent). Agreed - I don't see anyone here maintaining that 100s or even 1000s of people were killed in Jenin, so I have no idea what you are talking about Jayjg. The point being made is that people on all sides did at one point or another - for whatever reason, and in whatever context - talk about elevated figures, which fed into a cycle of rumours. One or two Palestinians (yes I know Erekat & Rahman are signigicant figures) on occasion appeared to have gone as high as 1000s - although to make the point again, they appear to have been talking about more than just Jenin. This should not be twisted in the article to a suggested narrative of a deliberate, one-sided bid to defame the IDF and the Israeli nation. Equally the fact that most of these claims turned out to be inaccurate in terms of numbers, does not mean that the article should hint that any mainstream 3rd party reaction (eg from AI, HRW) that nonetheless criticised IDF conduct can be discounted. These are separate points. --Nickhh (talk) 16:02, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

You make some valid points, but there can be no question that the death tolls in Jenin, as well as the nature of the IDF activities, were deliberately distorted, by Palestinians from the top ranks to the man in the street, for purely propaganda purposes. I recall reading a contemporary account by Middle East correspondent Stewart Bell, who was actually in Jenin at the time. He was told by local residents that the IDF had murdered hundreds of Palestinians. When asked where the bodies were, he was told they were being kept in a refrigerated truck, at the top of a hill some distance away. Not content to take their word, he insisted on going to the truck and opening it. It was filled with apples. The propaganda war carried out in the name of Jenin is an important part of the entire Battle, and should not be ignored, downgraded, or whitewashed. Jayjg 16:15, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Can you explain why Israeli spokesmen, with access to the camp, were saying there were 250 dead in the camp? PR 16:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Can you explain why you state an unnamed "Israeli spokesman" had "access to the camp"? Jayjg 20:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The article he quotes does not even attribute the 250 to an "Israeli spokesman", but rather to unnamed 'military sources' - which could be Palestinian for all we know. NoCal100 (talk) 21:20, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Please quote to me where the text assigns malice to the estimations. I'm not aware that the text does this. Jaakobou 16:31, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't. I was referring to this post. I have no objection to the current version if nobody else does. -- Nudve (talk) 16:42, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Thank you for your comments, Jaakobou. I've taken a closer look, comparing the current version with Nickhh's proposal.

The first two paragraphs are the same in both versions (except for "deemed").

I agree that simply stating that the camp "remained sealed" fails to attribute this action to a particular party; on the other hand, Nickhh's version seems to me to give undue prominence to "The IDF denied entry" by placing it at the beginning of a paragraph; and asserting that it's the cause of the rumours seems to be OR or at least probably non-NPOV. Also, "reaching into the mid-hundreds" gives the reader more information. I therefore suggest the following for the 3rd paragraph:

During the fighting, a rapid cycle of rumors purported that a massacre of as many as thousands of Palestinians had occurred. While the IDF denied entry to journalists and human rights organizations during the invasion, stories of civilians being buried alive in their homes as they were demolished, and of smoldering buildings covering crushed bodies, spread throughout the Arab world. Various casualty figures circulated, reaching into the mid-hundreds, as Palestinian sources, as well as human rights organizations, described the events as "the Jenin massacre" in the international media.

Comment by Jaakobou regarding 2nd para suggestion:

• If we're changing the number mid paragraph, then it makes little to no sense to the reader and the rumored numbers (not what the media was willing to report) were higher than "mid".
• Israelis were going as high as between 100 and 200 (Kitrey was misquoted). and mostly focused on saying that the Palestinians are lying. I tend to believe that the 'no less than 500 massacred in Jenin' statements by Erekat on CNN as well as the Israeli "they are lying" responses are undue for the lead.

With respect, Jaakobou 17:21, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Re the last paragraph: To me, the first two sentences give the impression that no deaths occurred. "in the clashes" claims that all deaths were by people fighting, which is not universally accepted. "held on to allegations" seems to me to imply that the allegations are false. "52–56 Palestinians were killed" asserts too much certainty, ignoring Derrick Pounder's POV. I therefore suggest for the last paragraph:

Subsequent investigations found no evidence to substantiate claims that a massacre had taken place. Overall, 52-56 Palestinians were estimated killed — 5 to approximately 26 of whom estimated as civilians — while 23 IDF soldiers were reported killed as well, and a large area in the camp was destroyed as a result of the fighting. Human rights organizations alleged that war crimes had been committed in the fighting and criticized the conduct of both sides.

In reply to Jayjg: it would be interesting to see reliable sources for such statements. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 16:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't like the separation between 5 and 26. Also, I believe that Human Rights organizations did not verify any of their statements not while the aforementioned Derrick Pounder was alleging a massacre not after wards - it's basically a repetition of the war crime claims made while they were claiming a massacre only that now they added some allegations that the Palestinians made some violations as well. I appreciate your efforts here, but I'm not a fan of these changes. Jaakobou 17:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Re "mid-hundreds": good point, it already says "thousands" earlier in the paragraph – I hadn't noticed that – so the "mid-hundreds" bit can be left out.

How about "approximately 5–26"? I think it's misleading to just say "26", since the source is vague about this number.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Are you disputing whether Pounder's POV is worth taking into account? Well, Pounder is mentioned later in the article, so if the lead asserts that a certain number were killed, it's contradicting a POV reported later in the article, making the article self-contradictory or implying that Pounder's POV is necessarily wrong, which seems to me to violate NPOV. Do you see any problem with inserting the word "estimated"? I've given a reason to put it in (i.e. NPOV); I'm not aware of any reason to leave it out. It doesn't seem to me to be doing any harm. If you have problems with other parts of the changes I suggested, please specify them too.

By the way, I don't know what the usual practice is on this page, but I prefer not to have comments interspersed within other comments; and if you do, it may help to use the {{interrupted}} template. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 17:42, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I've taken up on the "approximately" suggestion - it was a fair suggestion. I'll be back for further discussions tomorrow or maybe later today. Cheers, Jaakobou 18:02, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Derek Pounder (forensic expert, the only one known to have visited, examined 2 bodies) said to the BBC: "I must say that the evidence before us at the moment doesn't lead us to believe that the allegations are anything other than truthful and that therefore there are large numbers of civilian dead underneath these bulldozed and bombed ruins that we see." I'm not aware that he retracted any of this, perhaps you can point me to the right places.

David Holley (military expert with Amnesty) said to the BBC: "it just appears there was no wholesale killing". Then he says: "That is a fact, that is a war crime. You cannot stop medical services from administering to the wounded. These are facts we have at the moment that cannot be disputed and need to be investigated." Then he says: "some very credible witnesses have come forward who have told stories of how they have seen executions. They have seen snipers cutting people down in the streets with clear views of civilians trying to get away from the fighting. These are individual killings that need to be investigated." If we need to quote him saying "no massacre" (and I think he's the only independent visitor who said that) then we should balance it by quoting the other things he said, rather than giving undue weight to the words "no massacre", which are perhaps a minor element of what he said.. PR 18:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

PalestineRemembered,

I want to thank you for making my point for me about the credibility of the Human Rights organizations in regards to the Jenin allegations against Israel.

Cheers, Jaakobou 18:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Except for the fact the accusations and propaganda were all about "wholesale killings" and "massacres". Remember? On the scale of Sabra and Shatila? As for Holley's "credible witnesses", were these the same ones that claimed a truck full of apples and supplies was actually a truck full of dead bodies? Jayjg 20:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, this seems to have spiralled a little off point into bickering about what's the supposed "truth" rather than focusing on attribution, reliable sourcing and verifiability, and also, more disturbingly, into apparent slurs against any cited witness who happens to be Palestinian. As for the article - the lead as it stands needs, if nothing else, a bit of copyediting. Plus I'm still a little unhappy personally with the substantive changes that Jaakobou made a while back, as per my post higher up. Having said that, I neither want to sit here and carp on the talk page, nor revert those changes and end up in a spat over minor edits, so I'm dropping out. I'm assuming others will tweak the wording, hopefully for the better. --Nickhh (talk) 22:46, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, honestly Nick, what do you think of someone who brings, as evidence, a "forensic expert" who found only two bodies, but was quite sure "there are large numbers of civilian dead underneath these bulldozed and bombed ruins that we see", and, in fact, believes him to be correct, despite the fact that the bodies of those alleged civilians have never been found in the six years since Jenin? These kinds of comments move beyond the realm of ridiculous and squarely into that of self-parody. If I didn't know better, I would think he was playing us all for fools for even bothering to respond. Jayjg 23:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

One of the autopsies carried out by Professor Pounder was that of Wadah Shalabi, an unarmed man shot in the back in a narrow alleyway after he'd come out and given himself up. Major-General Giora Eiland, Head of the IDF Plans and Policy Directorate, confirms this incident. Israel was given the first names of two of the soldiers who carried out this double killing (a third man miraculously survived by feigning death for an hour). There has been no investigation - the UN team was blocked from Israel.

Pounder travelled from the UK and was at the the Israeli High Court on the 14th trying to get access for medical organizations. He was finally able to reach the hospital on the 17th, by which time, all the bodies "lay in piles of earth in the hospital grounds, but Professor Pounder was not allowed to enter to carry out forensic examinations" again according to Amnesty.

There were a number of specific items found in the RS which were introduced for "mediation", above. Perhaps we could have administrator assistance to counter some of the objections raised - it is difficult to credit that "This is just insinuation and hearsay" is an objection based on policy - especially not when the sources are the Telegraph, FOX news and Haaretz. PR 17:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

PR, what does any of that have to do with the still undiscovered "large numbers of civilian dead underneath these bulldozed and bombed ruins that we see"? Nothing, of course. Stop ]. Jayjg 00:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

PalestineRememebred,

I can't find the part of the Amnesti report that says Wadah Shalabi was shot "after he'd come out and given himself up". I did notice a mention of a suicide bomb belt however. Can you please clarify this part of your note?

With respect, Jaakobou 18:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Wait a second: the UN report says "at least 52 Palestinians, of whom up to half may have been civilians". We need to get the idea of "at least" into the article: otherwise we're misrepresenting the source. And I think we need to stop saying 26. "Up to half" of "at least 52" is not necessarily 26. It's going to be hard to word it concisely. Here's another try at the last paragraph:

Subsequent investigations found no evidence to substantiate claims that a massacre had taken place. Official estimates of overall Palestinian deaths were variously 56 and "at least 52" — of whom up to approximately half may have been civilians — while 23 IDF soldiers were reported killed as well, and a large area in the camp was destroyed as a result of the fighting. Human rights organizations alleged that war crimes had been committed in the fighting and criticized the conduct of both sides.

☺ Coppertwig (talk) 01:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Heyo Coppertwig,

I'm sorry for the idiom and I'm sure this is not intentional, but it feels like when given a finger, you reach for the whole arm (allow me to exlain...). "Up to" is based on the 'most credible' witnesses who were mostly busy fabricating stories of dead bodies under the rubble or in Army food supply containers and claiming fighters were unarmed civilians (please review the references from above for some examples). Still, I've agreed to a pro-Palestinian presentation of the civillian toll without any criticism to the bogus accounts and I cannot understand on why you refuse to accept this good will gesture and push further for total elimination of the actual civilian casualty tolls. Please clarify your position and why you now suggest we should be writing more than 26 civilian casualties. Jaakobou 01:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I just wanted to state my opposition to some of the recent changes. I believe that some of these attempts at restoring "neutrality" have gone in excess of neutrality into overt bias in favor of the opposite side. While this article can and should present Israeli and Palestinian narratives of the event in question, it is important that this article distinguish between externally verified fact and unverified one-sided narratives. Moreover, while the article may discuss these unverified narratives, it should not give them undue weight; rumors promulgated by one-side or the other should certainly not be given more prominence in the article than the actual externally verified events which took place. ← Michael Safyan 07:21, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Can you be more specific? What undue weight was given to the rumors in the previous lead? Also, a long discussion was held yesterday, and a relative consensus was pretty much agreed on. I respect your objection, but it's not nice to simply revert so far back just because you disagree. Also, you have removed some good later edits and a copyvio tag (which I hope Coppertwig will be willing to retract now, although he has not posted since I changed the text). I don't want to get into an edit war, but I would appreciate some cooperation. Thanks. -- Nudve (talk) 16:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Heyo Nudve,

I personally thought we were making some progress until Coppertwig clarified to me that he's unhappy with a slightly pro-Palestinian version and he wants the article written to the Palestinian narrative. It's a shame that some progress has been reverted - I do agree that some major clear-cut issues were removed but I saw some good in the clean version as well. I'm hoping we can get the discussion back on track, but that this time editors will not try to push the "allegations as truth" perspective since it's already been established that this is not only false for the massacre claims but under serious contention for everything else as well. Jaakobou 18:18, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Jaakobou, as I already said, I support a "minimalist" lead, since going into detail is bound raise allegations of bias. I could go with either your version or Nickhh's. I also agree with your recent objection to Coppertwig's suggestion to emphasize the "at least" part. However, as I said to Michael Safyan above, I don't like the current - Shamir1's - lead. -- Nudve (talk) 18:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

In response to the request for details... the problem with this diff is that it minimizes the rationale for Israeli operations in Jenin while going into major detail (and providing a very sensationalist presentation) of the massacre rumors. If that much detail of the massacre rumors are going to be provided, then a similar amount of detail about the Israeli rationale for Defensive Shield should also be provided. Furthermore, this sensationalist presentation of the rumors leaves the reader wondering how we know that they are rumors and not truths, since the newer version simply says that the claims are unsubstantiated whereas the older version cites the various agencies and individuals who have stated that a massacre did not take place. Additionally, the change completely elides any information about the Passover massacre, which was "the straw that broke the camel's back", so-to-speak, and which was a major motivation -- if not the key motivation -- for the IDF entering Jenin. Also: it is dismissive of the Israeli footage showing a faked funeral, it emphasizes Palestinian suffering and Israeli war crimes while having elided any mention of the Passover massacre, it emphasizes Palestinian rejection of the UN report and continuing claims that a massacre took place while removing almost all of the material refuting the claim that a massacre took place. There are other problems (e.g. it uses the nonsensical phrase "risking civilians"), but those are the main ones. ← Michael Safyan 23:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

First of all, the Passover massacre has its own article. Second, it is important as a rationale for launching Operation Defensive Shield in general, not for this particular battle. Excessive information about it here would be undue, and stating it in the lead would sound "apologetic", when there's no reason for apologetics. Just like not every battle in the Pacific War should detail the Attack on Pearl Harbor. IMO, the fact that the Palestinian leadership rejected the UN report and stuck to the claims of massacre is very notable. Again, the article says, as fact, that there was no massacre, and that the allegations are just allegations, which is why I think adding "refutations" on top of them would be "pushing it". I don't think the article is dismissive of the footage of a fake funeral, but you can rewrite that paragraph if you want. Ditto for specific phrases like "risking civilians" (which was itself a rephrase because Coppertwig suspected copyvio). Anyway, the main issue, as can be seen from this discussion is the lead, and I really don't think there's consensus for the current one. Cheers. -- Nudve (talk) 07:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm thinking there is room to add a little more detail into the minimalist version for the reasoning to attack (add the 28 suicide bombers bit and the nickname of the city) and to reduce the rumors section a little as well with a touch more volume to the "no massacre" bit. I remind everyone that this is supposed to be a hint for the article and not the entire detailing of the article. That said, there is no way that the rumors should be told as truthful. I thought we had a reasonable version, though personally, I felt the 'civilians' bonus is what got us into trouble to begin with. Should I make a rewrite suggestion or are there objections to my compromise suggestion? Jaakobou 08:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll repeat as well that while the background is of course relevant to a point, there is indeed a real risk of overloading it. No other WP article does or should go into huge detail in a lead about this sort of thing. In my view the lead itself doesn't need to say much more than "during the second intifada", in the same way - to continue Nudve's point - that the assault on Iwo Jima is said to have taken place simply "during the Second World War". People can link to the second intifada article, and of course more detail can go in a background section in the main part here (and I would add should not merely focus on Israeli casualties, but that's another debate). As for the massacre point - it is I think relevant that very high figures and fears of a Sabra/Shatila were being floated. This was a significant feature of the media coverage at the time, although there is a key separate dispute about the extent to which these claims were some kind of blood libel as opposed to the result for the most part of general confusion; and also I think we still need to bear in mind the distinction between a deliberate, widescale massacre (which did not happen) and an assault on a populated area which nonetheless kills several civilians, some in questionable circumstances (which is what happened). All in all that's why I favoured a lead which, broadly and concisely, says - a) an assault took place during a period of widespread violence and as part of a wider operation; b) there were fears at the time of a serious massacre and a death toll in the 100s (as suggested at one point or another by ALL sides, and given momentum by the closure of the camp), most of which proved incorrect; c) nonetheless once the fog had cleared the evidence suggests that some pretty bad things happened, even if not on the scale originally feared. I know I said I'd drop out, but I hope I'm merely restating my position rather than carping. --Nickhh (talk) 08:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I'd love to see Jaakobou's suggestion. -- Nudve (talk) 09:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I have a few obligations but will get around to a rewrite suggestion in a few days. Jaakobou 08:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for a sentence in my proposed draft above, which I am striking out. I had copied the sentence from the article and included it without critical analysis. The Palestinian report submitted to the Secretary-General attached to the UN report says "In addition, it is probable that a massacre and a crime against humanity might have been committed in the Jenin refugee camp ..." There may be other errors in my proposed draft. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 14:38, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Coppertwig, you really need to start reading more carefully. The sentence you quote above is NOT part of the UN report, but rather the claims of the Palestinian delegation to the UN, attached to the UN report and is clearly labeled as such in the document you are citing, under the heading "Palestinian report submitted to the Secretary-General". The UN report itself says the opposite. NoCal100 (talk) 17:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou for doing that, the UN report mentions "massacre" as a given a number of times. Are you aware there's another clear (indeed ridiculous) error in there? The UN report does not say 52-56 dead, it says "55. Press reports ... and subsequent interviews ... suggest that an average of five Palestinians per day died in the first three days of the incursion and that there was a sharp increase in deaths on 6 April. 56. Fifty-two Palestinian deaths had been confirmed by the hospital in Jenin by the end of May 2002. IDF also place the death toll at approximately 52. A senior Palestinian Authority official alleged in mid-April that some 500 were killed, a figure that has not been substantiated in the light of the evidence that has emerged." Similarly, the EU assumes that the 55 bodies are not the final death toll, since there are bodies under the rubble. PR 15:36, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

PR, I'm sure you've read the Amnesty International report, since you've quoted from it several times. This report, written in November 2002, more than 6 months after the event, states very clearly that

'After the IDF temporarily withdrew from Jenin refugee camp on 17 April, UNRWA set up teams to use the census lists to account for all the Palestinians (some 14,000) believed to be resident of the camp on 3 April 2002. Within five weeks all but one of the residents was accounted for. '

. So, if AI says 54 were killed, and all but 1 camp resident is accounted for, whose bodies are supposedly still under the rubble, 6 years afterward? NoCal100 (talk) 17:06, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

When the blizzard of accusations about soap-boxing (aimed just at edits bringing documented information, not speculating on anything) has died down a bit, I'll get back to you on this one. But I won't be able to tell you why Amnesty write "According to hospital lists reviewed by Amnesty International there were 54 Palestinian deaths", when we know, from the same source, that "not a single corpse was brought into the hospital from 5 until 15 April" (and only 10 wounded made it through the blockade in the same period, with similar very small numbers to the Al-Shifa and Al-Razi hospital).

What we can say with certainty is that the conclusions of the report could be written into the article with far less difficulty: "In Jenin and Nablus the IDF carried out actions which ... are war crimes."

Or we could sample the conclusions of some of the many observers - even the very few who said "No massacre" leave us in no doubt there were many, many more bodies. 'Bad things did happen - we had no choice' is one in the UK Telegraph "in a reconstruction of the campaign, Philip Jacobson on the West Bank finds that this was no indiscriminate massacre ... The sickening stench of decomposing corpses that hangs over the camp signals that while the final death toll may never be precisely established, there will be more, perhaps many more, names to add to the civilian casualty list." PR 20:40, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

No, please get back to me on this NOW, and stop dodging and soapboxing: if AI says 54 were killed, and all but 1 camp resident is accounted for, whose bodies are supposedly still under the rubble, 6 years afterward? NoCal100 (talk) 21:08, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm puzzled by this apparent demand that I accept every word of the Amnesty report as true, and I'm sure it's some form of personal failing on my part that I have difficulty with this. But I'll grant you the Amnesty people have a high degree of integrity and most of their report is indeed accurate. The Amnesty report's biggest weakness is probably where it's re-publishing the work of some other body, and in those cases we avoid error by going to the source. The BBC makes just this mistake later, telling us that the UN report says "No Massacre", when it clearly does not. PR 23:02, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I see, you'd rather only accept as true those words which support your POV, but disregard the rest, is that it? Once again: if AI says 54 were killed, and all but 1 camp resident is accounted for, whose bodies are supposedly still under the rubble, 6 years afterward? Will an answer to this be forthcoming anytime soon? NoCal100 (talk) 23:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll accept what Amnesty say for themselves, I'll accept what UNWRA say for themselves. Well, I'll accept what UNWRA say when their staff are no longer shot at, threatened and detained - or indeed shot dead, like Iain Hook, head of reconstruction and some 13 other UN workers in 2002 alone.

Until that time, we'll just have to write this article to accurately reflect how most journalists and experienced international observers actually reported it, won't we? That's only what policy says we should be doing. PR 18:51, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

What Amnesty say for themselves is that 54 were killed, and all but one resident of the camp were accounted for by November 02. So, going by what experienced international observers actually report, we can safely state in the article that AT MOST, 55 Palestinians were killed in Jenin, and dispense with the persistent insinuations, that you and other POV-Pushers are attempting to include, that there is some unknown number of civilians still buried beneath the rubble. Let's move on. NoCal100 (talk) 20:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Why don't we edit the article as if it were part of the Great Soviet Encyclopedia? Then we could cherry-pick sources for the 1% that fits what we want it to say, and ignore the 99% that says something different (and that none of the readers would want to hear anyway). PR 21:04, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

This indeed seems to be what you are after - seeing as you constantly cherry-pick some nearly random AI quote (when it suits your POV), and yet insist that this very clear statement from AI regarding the number of people killed be ignored. But, no, we are not going to edit the article as if it were part of the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, and we are not going to cherry-pick sources for the 1% that fits what we want it to say. AI says, very clearly, that 54 were killed, and all but one resident of the camp were accounted for by November 02. So, we can safely state in the article that AT MOST, 55 Palestinians were killed in Jenin, and dispense with the persistent insinuations, that you and other POV-Pushers are attempting to include, that there is some unknown number of civilians still buried beneath the rubble. NoCal100 (talk) 21:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Amnesties report is called "Shielded from scrutiny: IDF violations in Jenin and Nablus". Just one tiny part of it matches the Hasbara version of this story, and it's a quote from people with guns held to their heads, who've never told us the same thing ourselves. Let's write the article according to the people who are able to speak freely - here's an Israeli who took part: "Many people were 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." PR 17:04, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

We will write this article according to what reliable sources say. We will not ignore information that runs contrary to the POV you wish to push. You are advised, once again, to stop claiming that there are still an unknown number of bodies under the rubble, when reliable sources have said the opposite. There is a limit to the amount of sopaboxing that the community will tolerate, before it sees such soapboxing as disruptive. You are pushing that limit. NoCal100 (talk) 18:28, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

The possiblity that there are as yet undiscovered dead is something of a red herring PR - the final death toll is, six years after the events, pretty definitive according to any reliable source. Higher tolls were feared both during the fighting and in the immediate aftermath, but those fears proved unfounded. The point is though that this certainly does not mean a) those fears were unjustified or motivated by malice at the time when they were expressed; or b) that all the 50-plus who were killed were necessarily nasty terrorists who deserved it and were shot in a fair fight. It is even legitimate - whether you or I agree with that subjective description or not - to describe the smaller death toll as constituting a massacre, if a high proportion of those killed were in fact civilians. Hence why I'm opposed to text in the article which definitively says, without qualification, that "there was no massacre", based simply on the reports which pointed out (correctly) that the death toll was much lower than initially thought. "No widespread massacre" or "no massacre in the hundreds", fine - but not simply "no massacre". There are plenty of WP articles whose actual title is "The XXX Massacre" where a relatively small number of people were killed. And NoCal, I don't see lots of "POV pushers" attempting to have a "still buried under the rubble" thesis included. --Nickhh (talk) 11:42, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

There was no massacre and it would be nice if the disinformation advocacy stops. Simply put, secondary sources agree on that it was a baseless blood-libel (reasoning explained here:) regardless of the number of casualties during what the media now describes as a battle. Allow me to quote the BBC for you: "UN says no massacre in Jenin". I have no objection, however, to Saeb Erekat being noted in the body of the article for his criticism of the UN report though. In fact, I believe we should have a "Palestinian reaction " section. Jaakobou 12:38, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

What "disinformation advocacy"? I am merely pointing out - without necessarily endorsing the claim - the fact that some do view what happened as a massacre, despite the ultimately reduced death toll. The fact that a sub-editor posted a headline that said "no massacre" on a news organisation's website does not settle the matter, or mean that any source or organisation saying something different is therefore wrong (I have no idea what the other links are meant to be showing me). On top of that, the actual text of that BBC story does not actually come to that specific and explicit conclusion, nor does the actual UN report which it is referring to. And for the 50th time, deciding what constitutes a "massacre" involves a subjective judgement based on some combination of the numbers involved, who they were, how they were killed, in what context etc. People will differ in their interpretations of this. You simply are not getting this point, and instead insisting that one interpretation is "right" and the other "wrong" as if it were a simple matter of deductive logic, based on your view and backed up by a cherry-picking of sources that happen to appear to agree with that view. Added to all that you are now making a far more contentious claim than anything I've ever raised, ie that secondary sources "agree" that it was a "baseless blood libel". Any sentence in the lead or elsewhere which simply asserts "there was no massacre", without any qualification or any reference to a different interpretation, is misleading as to what the broader range of opinions and sources actually say. Whether you like that fact or not. --Nickhh (talk) 14:38, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Nickhh,

Your assertions were not conditioned to a "some" and you repeat the suggestion that the "massacre" claim is a viable possibility when it's been thoroughly rejected. Basically you want Misplaced Pages to assert the text in a manner that suggests a massacre could have occurred when there is no one saying this, best I'm aware, other than Saeb Erekat. Do you have any reliable sources to support your extraordinary claim?

Cordially, Jaakobou 23:23, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

My assertions have always been limited to "some". Nor have I ever said there was a massacre - indeed my whole point has always been that you can't be definitive about such a term, and, more importantly, most potential sources aren't either. Arguably the whole debate is a slightly academic distraction anyway. But you asked for sources that, with some distance from the actual events and once the final death toll was clear, do not simply use your preferred, simple "no massacre" text. So here's a quick sample -

1) Left wing/partisan sources (yes, not necessarily reliable as sources for fact, but we are talking about interpretation and opinion here, not facts. In addition these are the basic mirror image to the right wing forums and op-eds where the "massacre hoax/myth" line prevails. I am quoting them here to prove something about the spread of opinion on a talk page, not to suggest that all of them would be suitable as references in a WP article itself)

Workers World - "Some of the best-known massacres in history involved similar numbers of people killed, or even fewer, than the number that Human Rights Watch attributed to Jenin"

A Counterpuch contributor - "you don't have to spend much time reading the Human Rights Watch report on the events at Jenin to figure out a massacre, as the word is understood colloquially, did happen"

The Council for Arab-British Understanding - "Israel has only itself to blame for it being labelled a massacre"

ANSWER Coalition - "in the dictionary, massacre is defined as "savage and indiscriminate killing" clearly an apt description of what took place. Some of the most well-known, historic massacres had fewer or similar numbers killed"

2) Palestinian officials:

Saeb Erekat - "a massacre in Jenin's refugee camp clearly happened... and crimes against humanity also took place .. How many civilians must be killed to speak of a massacre?"

Ahmed Abdel Rahman - "how many people do you need to kill in order to call it a massacre? Israel calls the killing of 27 people a massacre, and they are right. I call the killing of 20 Palestinians a massacre also. And I am right…The problem is not the number. I am talking here about the methods."

3) Mainstream media:

Australia's ABC - "Was there a massacre in Jenin? Well, yes there was. The Macquarie Dictionary and the OED define a massacre as the unnecessary indiscriminate killing or slaughter of human beings. The UN's report, flawed though it is by being forced to rely on second-hand and often deeply partisan accounts, claims that 75 human beings died, 23 Israeli soldiers and 52 Palestinians, half of them civilians. Were the deaths necessary or discriminate? Not by any measure"

TIME - "there was no wanton massacre in Jenin, no deliberate slaughter of Palestinians by Israeli soldiers"

Despite some of the headlines and the Israeli reaction that spun it that way, the UN report itself does not in fact use the simple phrase "there was no massacre". Nor does the November 2002 Amnesty report - which does however talk about "unlawful killings". The HRW report does say they found "no evidence to sustain claims of massacres or large-scale extrajudicial executions by the IDF in Jenin refugee camp", but again this is a qualified statement, and is then immediately further qualified by the remark that "many of the civilian deaths documented by Human Rights Watch amounted to unlawful or willful killings by the IDF". The simple point is that no single independent primary source actually says "there was no massacre", and the secondary sources - both WP:RS and others - take a mixed view. Jaakobou, you may not agree with what a lot of these sources say and think, but please don't pretend that those views and opinions don't exist out there in the world beyond your head. And - eventually to the point after yet another long essay - don't insist on inserting definitive assertions into pages here based on that denialism. --Nickhh (talk) 14:28, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I (also) apologize for the error in my message of 14:38, 9 October 2008, and I thank NoCal100 for pointing it out; I've inserted some words in italics into that message which I hope suffice to correct it.

Jaakobou, thank you for your reply of 01:55, 6 October 2008. I would appreciate it if you would tell me where "most credible witnesses" is quoted from, and which parts of which references contain the information you wish to draw my attention to. Re agreeing to pro-Palestinian presentation of the death toll: I'm new to editing this article, so I'm not aware of past compromises. Clearly, a lot of work has gone into the article and I congratulate those who participated for producing an article that supplies a lot of information in a concise and well-organized way. The article should present all points of view, including pro-Palestinian and pro-Israeli, without asserting or implying that those points of view are correct. I'm sorry but before I can appreciate any compromises that may have taken place, I would have to see the arguments (based on reliable sources and Misplaced Pages policy) for the positions from which compromises were made. Also, I'm sorry but I may not have fully absorbed all the comments in this discussion; feel free to give me pointers to individual comments in this thread or from previous discussions that might have bearing on what we're discussing. You said, "I cannot understand on why you refuse to accept this good will gesture": I'm trying to make the article what I would see as NPOV, so I'm not likely to appreciate any offer to make the article into what I would see as pro-Palestinian (though the pro-Palestinian POV and all other significant POVs need to be described in the article). I wasn't aware of any good-will gesture having been made, I'm sorry (and I'm still not clear on what it was,) and I didn't refuse to accept it. I simply offered a draft version of the lead for discussion. I'm sorry for not fully incorporating all progress from the preceding discussion in my draft; I didn't have time to absorb everything.

Jaakobou, you said, "and push further for total elimination of the actual civilian casualty tolls." I'm not doing that. I don't know what tolls you mean. You're welcome to suggest changes to the draft lead I posted. I don't think there's any such thing as "actual" tolls; all we have is tolls reported by various sources, sources which may vary in reliability and about whose reliability opinions may vary.

Jaakobou, you said "Please clarify your position and why you now suggest we should be writing more than 26 civilian casualties." To clarify: I did not suggest that we should be writing more than 26 civilian casualties; my suggested draft version is given in paragraphs in italics above. Please feel free to ask me other specific questions about my position.

Jaakobou, you said, "I personally thought we were making some progress until Coppertwig clarified to me that he's unhappy with a slightly pro-Palestinian version and he wants the article written to the Palestinian narrative." I did not clarify that to you and that is not my position. When representing what I've said, if in doubt, quoting entire sentences of mine word-for-word will usually avoid misunderstandings. What I've actually said can be seen in my own posts above.

NoCal100, you said, "So, going by what experienced international observers actually report, we can safely state in the article that AT MOST, 55 Palestinians were killed in Jenin..." I disagree; I think that would be original research: or is there a source stating that at most 55 Palestinians were killed? It would also violate NPOV. If there is such a source, we can present that as one of a number of points of view. Again, we must present all significant points of view: the Misplaced Pages article should not assert one position as being true.

NoCal100, you said, "You are advised, once again, to stop claiming that there are still an unknown number of bodies under the rubble, when reliable sources have said the opposite." In the message by PR of 17:04, 11 October 2008 (UTC) which you were apparently responding to, I don't see any such claim. Instead, I see comments about the level of reliability of various sources, and two quotes. Discussing the level of reliability of various sources is a normal and necessary part of article talk page discussions. We should not be claiming or trying to convince each other that there are or are not bodies beneath the rubble or that there was or was not a massacre, and as far as I can see PR was not doing that in that comment. Instead, we should be discussing reliability of sources, what the sources say, how the statements by various sources can be presented with due weight, etc.; PR's comment seems to me to fall in that category.

I agree with Nickhh that we should not say simply "no massacre"; I would add that we also should not say that there was a massacre, and we probably shouldn't say that there may have been a massacre. I agree that "massacre" is a subjective term and could possibly be applied to a situation where about 50 people were killed, therefore a source that states that there were about 50 people killed cannot necessarily be interpreted as stating that there was no massacre. We can report established facts in terms with more specific definitions than "massacre"; we can also quote various sources saying various things using the words "massacre" or "no massacre". We must present a variety of points of view, not assert that one interpretation is true. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 22:59, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

We have a highly credible source that says, 6 months after the fact, that a total of 54 bodies were identified, and that all but one resident of the camp has been accounted for. So, no, it is neither original research nor a violation of NPOV to rephrase this as "55 killed, at most". I'm not opposed, however, to stating this exactly as AI has reported it, and attributing it to AI. I was not responding directly to PR's message of 17:04, 11 October 2008, but rather to his "body of work" on this page, which is full of insinuations that the total body count is still today, 6 years after the fact, in some doubt, and that it might be in the hundreds. (See for example his message of 23 July 2008: "a "Jenin Investigation", still finding complete bodies 3 months later. (We don't have a source and can't say what this might do to the death toll).", or 14 September "we can now say for certainty that the death toll amongst Palestinians was at least twice what Israel later tried to claim that it") NoCal100 (talk) 17:51, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Copyright violation

I consider the current version of the "Report" section to be a copyright violation. It contains many sentences taken word-for-word from the source, without quotation marks; so many that I think even if we were to put them in quotation marks it would still be a copyright violation.

I'm not trying to suppress any information. The most important parts of the source can be summarized, paraphrased, even quoted to some extent. And the reader is of course free to look at the source itself if they want to get the full story.

Maybe we can find some other sources to flesh out the section without quoting too much from any one source.

I paraphrased, reworked and shortened the section to a version which in my opinion is not a copyright violation. However, my edit was reverted.

Please discuss. We need to arrive at a version that is not a copyright violation.

I'm listing this at the WP:Copyright problems noticeboard, and I've blanked the section and displayed a copyright template. Please leave the section blanked until an admin handles it (normally in about a week). Meanwhile, we can discuss and negotiate a new version of the section (without actually displaying it). The text is still there, it's just not visible due to the template, so it can still be edited. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 19:08, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I've done some rewriting to this section. Tell me what you think. -- Nudve (talk) 19:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't have time to look at it yet. However, I may have told you the wrong procedure: maybe the copyrighted text is supposed to stay under the blanking template, and new text developed elsewhere e.g. Talk:Battle of Jenin/Temp. See instructions on the template itself and at WP:CP. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 12:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the procedure isn't very clear. I'm not sure whether a report can be retracted or not. I really with you had asked me before doing that. Now it's going to take at least a week before an admin looks at it, and the section may not be touched until then. This really sucks. -- Nudve (talk) 13:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Temporary page

I have reviewed the temporary page and addressed a few phrases of minor ongoing concern. I have suggested that Nudve copy that material to the article, overwriting the copyright problem, as he or she is the only substantial contributor other than my few words and I am waiving my right to attribution to my contribution there. I believe that the changes made eliminate copyright concerns as relate to the identified source. Thanks. --Moonriddengirl 22:11, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

POV and lead, ongoing

Due to the fact that no progress has been made with this, and the lead has simply been stuck since being reverted to an old one-sided version, I am re-adding the POV tag. I was hoping other editors would at least start to sort this out - I am quite sure if I try to make any changes, they will be reverted. The discussion about this was started in the section above, but to run through some of the specific problems again -

Para 1 - broadly OK, although it should probably say the battle "took place after an IDF incursion into Jenin refugee camp". They weren't invited in, after all.

Para 2 - the lead does not need a whole paragraph about the attacks in Israel that preceded it. This detail can be covered in a background section (which should also include attacks against Palestinians) and through a simple wikilink to the Second Intifada article in the lead itself, as there is currently

Para 3 - more or less says "most of those killed were militants, and any that weren't were probably killed by their own side's boby-traps, and of course the IDF tries not to kill civilians". I don't think this brief account could be more one-sided

Para 4 - looking through the shoddy grammar, it seems to be suggesting that Palestinians "persistently" accused the IDF of genocide (source please?), deliberately made up death tolls (that's what "inflated" means) etc etc, and that these evil lies made people turn against Israel. There is no mention of the IDF closing the camp (which helped feed into the rumour cycle) or announcing death tolls in the 100s themselves. The relevance of these facts is covered in the UN report and in various journalists' reports, all of which are already cited in the article. Again this is jaw-droppingly one-sided. It also can be covered much more concisely, rather than listing every single accusation about Palestinian accusations, as it were.

Para 5 - we repeat about four times that "there was no massacre", just in case we weren't clear about this interpretation of what happened. Following on from the para above, this has the effect of ramming home the claim above - that the Palestinians, lefty human rights groups and anti-Israel journalists were all in on a plot to make up a whole bunch of lies, but have now been caught out. There is too much detail and repetition for a lead here, and also the claim that the UN said there was "no massacre ", sourced to a BBC report is simple misrepresentation. I don't see why all the UN, human rights and media reports can't be summarised in the simple - and uncontroversially accurate - phrase "various investigations found that there had been no deliberate massacre of large numbers of Palestinians". The qualification of the word massacre is however crucial.

Still carping, but with good reason. --Nickhh (talk) 15:10, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

That was long. In a nutshell: Can we now revert to the previous lead? -- Nudve (talk) 15:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry! I could have saved 10 minutes of my life doing something more productive as well of course. Anyway, as noted about week ago I'm fine (or as OK as I'm ever likely to be with any exact wording) with the lead you and I discussed back then. I recommend we use that, and then others can of course tweak it or add bits and pieces, so long as - hopefully - they don't just try to rebuild this one in its entirety. --Nickhh (talk) 16:45, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Good :) -- Nudve (talk) 16:55, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh well, I see someone is already trying precisely to rebuild the old bloated narrative .... --Nickhh (talk) 14:31, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that a note about the casus beli for Operation Defensive Shield is undue? Personally, I figured it is a basic note that explains to the reader what sparked the operation so I'm not really following why you're calling it an "old bloated narrative". Jaakobou 16:12, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes I am suggesting precisely that, especially to the level of detail you are insisting on. I have explained why on several occasions, and at great length, above. --Nickhh (talk) 16:20, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Let's try and get consensus before making changes. Jaakobou, a few days ago you suggested writing a draft, do you still intend to do that? -- Nudve (talk) 16:53, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I've just made a couple (not huge). Please can they not just be reverted? I know not everyone will be 100% happy, but some of them involve fairly uncontroversial improvements to the language and grammar. The material Jaakobou added is still there, I just moved it down from the lead.--Nickhh (talk) 17:15, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to keep most of your edits, but modify a few. As currently written, the lead suggest that perhaps a "small" massacre did occur, which is not supported by th evidence. It also unduly calls out the IDF for alleged unlawful killings, without similarly calling out Palestinian forces for allegedly mingling with civilians or using children to carry booby traps. I'm also changing the "Large" part of the camp, because that is a subjective quantifier, and replacing it with the actual percentage. NoCal100 (talk) 18:33, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

There are credible allegations of at least one small massacre in the RS - so if we're going to mention massacre (which isn't really necessary anyway, except to the degree the incident is mostly known as "The Jenin Massacre") then we cannot use the Hasbara version of the story by which there wasn't one. To do so would be blatant cherry-picking.

More significantly the criticisms from investigations (to a lesser extent the UN as well) related to the incident itself is overwhelmingly of the IDF (in particular, blocking access to humanitarian assistance, but a number of other things, many of them really serious). Criticism of "the Palestinians" is mostly of the militants amongst them, since, as the UN report says "Israeli military retaliation .... had the effect of severely weakening the Authority's capacity to take effective action against militant". Implying that both parties are equally criticized would be extremely POV (the nearest thing to "equal criticism" I can find is #32 in the UN report). PR 19:47, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Jaakobou:

1. PalestineRemembered. There are no "credible allegations" for either a small scale massacre or a large scale massacre. "Eye-witnesses" in Jenin were noted by various media for being untruthful and I request that you stop ommitting information that you are already aware of to pursue an unproven point. It is disruptive.
2. Nickhh. Best I'm aware, military operations generally have the casus beli written within their lead. I don't know what you refer to when you say you've explained why this is an "old bloated narrative" but perhaps I've missed this explanation somehow among the other issues. Can you please repeat the reasoning on why we should censor the casus beli so that we can open this up for community discourse? (WP:DR)
3. A couple recent edits have been in violation of WP:TE as they misrepresented sources and equated between two opposing POVs to give credibility where there is non. This edit, has (for starters) used the word 'claimed' instead of 'deemed', removed the "massacre" description and equated between the Palestinain massacre charges and the Israeli "not massacre" rebuttals. It also promoted the suggestion that a non deliberate, non large scale massacre could have occurred when it barely even qualifies as a fringe perspective amoung mainstream media or other. Please make note of these policies and do not repeat the violations.
4. Nudve. My suggested version was this recent edit which was mildly amended to this version that is acceptable to me. I'd appreciate collaborative opinions/suggestions/criticism about it (no advocacy of fringe views please).

Cordially, Jaakobou 22:29, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

First of all, as I said, I'm fine with the current version, so I'm glad you reverted. The Passover massacre was the casus belli for Operation Defensive Shield, not for this particular battle. To continue an earlier example, the Americans did not target Iwo Jima because of Pearl Harbor but because they were at war with Japan and considered Iwo Jima tactically important. "Refreshing the reader's memory" on something the Palestinians did before Defensive Shield began on this article only serves to create a narrative that makes Israel the good guys, so I think it should be avoided. -- Nudve (talk) 06:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Heyo Nudve,

The American–Japanese battle at Iwo Jima occurred close to the end of WW2, a war which lasted for 6 years and had a plethora of smaller battles, campaigns and maneuvers. The "Battle of Jenin" was a 10 day skirmish during a 10 day operation and the purpose of the battle was to catch the people who were sending suicide bombers. This is not "Refreshing the reader's memory" of something which occurred months or years earlier, but rather what occurred a mere 3 days earlier - a suicide bombing. No one wrote down "the good guys went after evil people" but instead, what was written was "Israel declared a counter-terrorist offensive, dubbed Operation Defensive Shield, after the attacks culminated with the killing of 30 Israelis". This is not a pushy/fringe narrative.

Cordially, Jaakobou 15:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Well it would have been better perhaps if Jaakobou had followed NoCal and just made any small changes again on top of the changes I had made, rather than just rolling them all back in one go and absurdly accusing me of tendentious editing and promoting fringe views (the definition of which appears to be anything that disagrees with the analysis to be found in CAMERA and Little Green Footballs, or The Jerusalem Post if we dare to head off to the extreme radical left). As I said, several of them were pretty basic ones to improve the flow of the language and the grammar. Others in may view added more balance, although I appreciate not everyone will accept that. On the specific "massacre or no massacre" point, in response to NoCal & Jaakobou I would point out that I made a pretty extensive post, with links, in a section above here. Plenty of reliable (and not so reliable) sources make definitive assertions one way or the other. Equally plenty of sources (eg the UN, Amnesty) are not so unequivocal, and in fact do not even address the issue directly. Ultimately therefore it is simple misrepresentation to push one view or the other into this article as a definitive statement, just because it's the view you happen to take. Using slightly more open language along the lines of "there was no widespread/wanton/deliberate massacre" is a) accurate across all viewpoints; & b) does not by implication suggest that there was therefore a massacre of some sort.

I have no baggage here or stake in this issue, and for example have no personal view about whether this was a "massacre" or not. In fact I think the debate around the word is pretty unhelpful in most cases. I am just coming at it as an outsider who nonetheless happens to be pretty well read on the subject and is trying to agree some text which accords with a more worldwide, broader view of what happened and how it has been reported and written up. Sometimes trying to insert spurious balance for the sake of it is a silly game, eg "Mussolini helped drag Europe into a catastrophic war which caused the deaths of millions .. however he brought back national pride to Italy and made the trains run on time etc etc" - however there are real issues in this case, which to be honest for a long time have been trampled down on this page in favour of a one-sided narrative. Not everything is in this world is black and white. --Nickhh (talk) 08:34, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

ps: on some specific points Jaakobou ...

Casus Belli: the lead of course should say that the assault took place during the Second Intifada, and that Jenin was targeted after the IDF said suicide attacks were being launched from the city. I have always said this. Any edits I have made have always retained this information. The simple point is that the lead doesn't need to repeat the same point, in great detail, across two or three sentences.

Initial massacre claims: I did not remove the first reference to it (eg the phrase "rumours developed that a massacre of hundreds or even thousands .. might have occurred" is there in the first sentence), again I just removed duplication further on in that paragraph. Go back at look at the diffs, and please read things more carefully in future before making sweeping accusations.

"NPOV": in fact I do equate the official Israeli interpretation that there was no massacre with official Palestinian claims that there was one, even with the lower death tolls. I'd be interested to hear on what basis you think they are not equivalent (the Barak defence not included)

"Fringe": I have pointed you to links showing that views which do not follow the simplistic "no massacre" view are no more fringe than those pushing that interpretation.

English language: rumours cannot "purport" anything; organisations rarely "hold on to" allegations (and if they do, it is being suggested they are doing it in vain); also the "while"s and "however"s are all over the place. --Nickhh (talk) 09:15, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments by Ynhockey:

• Originally I wanted to just follow the goings-on of the article itself, but recently so many quick edits and reverts happenned that it's becoming nearly-impossible. Therefore, I'll relate only to the current version of the article vs. the version I remember from way back, and comments on the talk page so far.
• Casus belli: It appears that all sides agree that information about the reasoning for this operation should indeed be in the lead section. So why isn't it there? We can argue later about the necessity of citing the Passover Massacre in particular, but some info needs to be inserted ASAP.
• Jenin Refugee Camp: I noticed that all information about the Jenin Refugee Camp has been removed from the article. Was this intentional, or part of the comprehensive rewrite? I think this information is very important, especially because the camp doesn't have its own article. It needs to be outlined what the Jenin refugee camp is (essentially a poor neighborhood of Jenin), who was in charge of it (UNRWA/PA), and why it was targeted specifically (the last point seems to exist in the current version).
• I will comment on the other points raised here once I have carefully analyzed the evidence, sources, and the actual prose of the article.

-- Ynhockey 13:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. Let's see:

• The second paragraph of the lead says: Israel targeted Jenin's refugee camp, after it deemed that the city had "served as a launch site for numerous terrorist attacks against both Israeli civilians and Israeli towns and villages in the area". I think that covers it. The source lists the suicide bombers that came from Jenin, but doesn't mention the Passover massacre. For this reason, as well as the ones I mentioned above, I think it doesn't belong in the lead.
• It was part of the rewrite. I think this stuff belongs in the Jenin article. Why is it very important here?

-- Nudve (talk) 14:16, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

• The text indeed exists, but it is not clear from the paragraph what the situation really was at the time. Instead, it is written as a fringe claim (especially with the use of quotation marks around the Israeli statement). It also uses wording from the first paragraph ("as part of"), so at the very least a re-wording is warranted. The paragraph is also too short for WP:LEAD, so for GA/FA it would need to be merged into another paragraph, further burying the casus belli, probably the most important part of the lead after the definition, in irrelevant info. I suggest expanding the paragraph, but most importantly, defining the casus belli clearly, without any quotation marks or side-implications, at the start of the second paragraph. I'll write a draft if you wish, although an example of how I think the lead should work can be seen in my recent rewrite of the IDF article lead.
• Some points are more important than others, but at this time specifically, we have to take into account that the Jenin article is sub-par and doesn't provide the reader with the info that this article should convey in regards to the refugee camp. In case the Jenin article is expanded however (and I believe the refugee camp also deserves its own article), there are still some points which need to be stated here—as a summary of the relevant points from the refugee camp article. For one, there needs to be mention of the fact that it is/was a PA-administrated camp, clarifying who the "Palestinian forces" were in the lead. Also it's worth mentioning that the UNRWA also ran the camp, which is directly relevant to the battle (UNRWA's involvement should be talked about somewhere in the article, if it hasn't been mentioned already). And finally, as I said before, why the camp was attacked specifically (rather than other parts of Jenin) also needs to be clarified in the article body (other than the simplistic "Israel deemed it a terrorist hotbed"). Of course, the latter requires the best of sources, which I hope someone else will be able to find.

Finally, it's good to see that an editor generally uninvolved in conflict articles such as yourself also contributes to the article! Cheers, Ynhockey 15:02, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

A slight rewording is always possible, and I would like to see your draft. I think we pretty much have consensus on a relatively short lead, to avoid a narrative, so keep that in mind. About the camp: There could be some information added. I'll see what I can find. -- Nudve (talk) 15:28, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Update: added background paragraph. -- Nudve (talk) 16:25, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Draft by Ynhockey

Below is my proposed draft (sans sources). I mainly focused on structure and language, and giving due weight in the lead to each section of the article (per WP:LEAD).

The Battle of Jenin took place between April 3 and April 11, 2002 in the Jenin Refugee Camp in the West Bank. It was fought between the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) and Palestinian militants during the Second Intifada, as part of the Israeli Operation Defensive Shield launched four days earlier.

The Israeli government decided to target the refugee camp after intelligence indicated that it served as a launch site for numerous terrorist attacks against Jewish localities in the area and Israeli civilians in general, including . The attack commenced after the city of Jenin had been captured, while Palestinians dug in in the refugee camp, seeing the Israeli soldiers advance on foot. After an Israeli detachment walked into an ambush, the force changed tactics and subdued the camp with armored vehicles, and the Palestinian forces surrendered on April 11. 23 Israeli soldiers were killed in the battle.

Because many buildings in the camp were bulldozed, and the area was closed by the IDF following the battle, a rapid cycled of rumors began circulating that a massacre of as many as thousands of Palestinians had taken place, supported by statements from the Palestinian Authority and human rights organizations. Subsequent investigations found no evidence of a massacre, and the total Palestinian death toll was determined to be between 52 and 56, including 5-26 civilians. Even so, human rights organizations held on to the allegations of war crimes.

Notes:

• 'Palestinian forces', like in the current version, should be used if sources can be provided that the Palestinian side in the battle was officially operating under the PNA, because 'Palestinian forces' generally refers to the PNA police.
• If the government decided that it was a launch pad for attacks, there must be examples of some attacks. This isn't bloat, as Nickhh claims, but necessary to understand how the refugee camp was different from other Palestinian towns in terms of militant activity. Terrorist acts not linked with Jenin probably shouldn't be included, no matter how terrible.

Comments by Nudve

A few issues with this draft:

• Using the word "terrorist" unattributed right in the lead is going to be a problem.
• "" is yada yada. The debate here is on how much weight should those attacks get in the lead.
• "Even so" is weaselly, and the absence of a massacre does not necessarily negate the possibility of war crimes.
• This is not an issue with the draft, but now that I think of it, the lead should say something about the UN commission, since it is given significant weight in the article.

-- Nudve (talk) 19:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Reply:

• The particular word is not important, it can be removed. ... it served as a launch pad for numerous attacks again ...
• In case the note I left was not clear, what I meant to say is that we should list several notable attacks that specifically emerged from Jenin—without giving any details for them. The general term 'Black March' (מרץ השחור) can also be mentioned if there's a source linking it to Jenin. This seems to me as an acceptable middle-ground compromise between the position that no attacks should be mentioned (Nickhh) and the position that there should be a detailed examination of several attacks (Jaakobou). Perhaps I read the arguments wrong.
• How about: ... the total Palestinian death toll was determined to be 52–56, including 5–26 civilians, although human rights organizations held on to the allegations of war crimes. ?
• I agree. IMO it should go into the last paragraph which is reasonably short for an expantion, and already talks about "subsequent investigation", which would include the UN commission.

-- Ynhockey 20:25, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I suppose that's better. However, it might not be relevant anymore, since the entire article's neutrality and reliability are now in question (see below). Earlier, you said: "I will comment on the other points raised here once I have carefully analyzed the evidence, sources, and the actual prose of the article". I'd be happy if you did that and joined the discussion. Cheers, -- Nudve (talk) 08:13, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't wish to discourage someone who (I think) has done rather a lot of good work. However, the objections I've made are substantive (and not exhaustive). There is an "Unbalanced" template which avoids the problem of whether there is an on-going editing disagreement or not.

How would you feel about me writing-up the UN report? If it leans in either "direction", it's probably towards Israel (judging by who complained, crude though that is as a measure!). It's certainly the nearest thing we have to an account written by people who are both "uninvolved specialists" and "professionals". It got extensive publicity when it came out in August and more or less capped off most discussion. I have taken advice on what I have planned and can only see editing-type corrections to what I've done. PR 09:04, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Still problems

The errors in punctuation, grammar and language which I tried to sort out as part of this edit are still in the lead, since of course my changes were subject to blanket reversion, despite my politely pointing out what I had done. As it happens, unsurprisingly I didn't see what was wrong with the minor content changes either, which were intended to create a bit more balance - none of them were hugely significant and none of them said anything that isn't already known and sourced. Anyway, I thought I'd point it out since no-one has even attempted to deal with the grammar and phrasing problems since, which I could make a cynical comment about (but I won't, I'll merely hint at it. As I just have). --Nickhh (talk) 15:56, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

here's a suggestion: Instead of making cynical comments, or complaining that no one has fixed punctuation and grammar issues, why don't you fix those punctuation and grammar issues, without trying to mix in various changes related to "balance" or other content? NoCal100 (talk) 18:39, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Please don't try to patronise me again or start another fight, it's very tedious. I'm not under any obligation to edit this or any other article, and certainly not just because you've told me to. Especially when my first attempt to deal with the problem was simply reverted straightaway in its entirety. Why should I bother again? If other editors want it to read as it does currently, that's up to them, if that's where their priorities are. It's perfectly legitimate for me to simply flag up the issue on a talk page and leave it at that. --Nickhh (talk) 13:35, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Your first attempt involved making numerous content changes which I (and other editors) found to be POV, along with fixing the punctuation and grammar issues of which you complain now. I made a simple suggestion that would address your complaint - simply fix the punctuation and grammar issues, without getting into the content issues. You are free to ignore that suggestion, but then don't be surprised if your alleged concerns are viewed rather skeptically. 14:32, 25 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by NoCal100 (talk • contribs)

Thanks, but funnily enough the possibility that I could do the copyediting all over again, without the NPOV changes I also made in the first instance, had occurred to me before you suggested it above. --Nickhh (talk) 14:45, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure it occurred to you. Yet instead of making those edits, you chose to make a lengthy post here about the fact that they need to be made, and followed it up with 2 additional responses to my posts. I'd imagine it would take far less time to restore the previous copyedits to the main article, thereby improving the encyclopedia, than it took you to type these three complaints and responses, which is why I say that these alleged concerns of yours can be viewed with considerable skepticism - you do not appear to be genuinely interested in fixing the punctuation or the grammar (or you have have done so, rather than complain about it), but rather seem to be agitating for someone to reinsert the other elements of your edit which was reverted. NoCal100 (talk) 14:57, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Please stop impugning my motives, it amounts to a personal attack, something I know you are concerned about on WP. I'm not agitating for anything, nor is my reluctance to make any more changes anything to do with the amount of time it would take. And I'm only responding to your comments here because, as previously, you dive in to make inaccurate and off-topic attacks on me, which I then feel obliged to rebut. I'm going to stop doing that now. I've pointed out the problem with the phrasing, which is all I intended to do. --Nickhh (talk) 15:14, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure you've read WP:AGF, which tells us that we are not obliged to assume good faith when there is evidence to the contrary. I believe there is ample evidence to the contrary in this case, as spelled out above. You may easily prove me wrong on this by simply making the punctuation and grammar edits that supposedly bother you so much. NoCal100 (talk) 15:19, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm seeing people re-introducing errors of punctuation, grammar and language into an article after they've been corrected - it's difficult to call that anything but vandalism.

I'm then seeing personal attacks on the person (previously people) trying to improve this article. This article still awaits administrative taken against editors who will clearly not abide by policy. PR 16:42, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I made all the changes to the lead that I noticed in Nickhh's edit of October 12 that seemed to me to be pretty much just grammatical changes. Some changes could be considered either primarily grammatical or primarily adjusting the meaning.

Re some parts of Nickhh's edit that I didn't implement at this moment: Rather than changing "after it deemed" to "claiming", I suggest changing it to the neutral "stating". As I've stated previously, I support changing "while Jenin remained sealed" to something that mentions who did the sealing. (See my comment of 16:47, 5 October 2008.) Again for reasons I've expressed previously, (22:59, 12 October 2008) I prefer "no evidence to substantiate claims that a large scale or deliberate massacre had taken place" rather than "no evidence to substantiate claims that a massacre had taken place." "Human rights organizations reported cases" sounds more neutral than "human rights organizations held on to allegations". I think Nickhh's addition "and of unlawful killings by the IDF" is unnecessary and may veer away from NPOV. I don't think we should mention the number 26 unless we have a source specifically mentioning that number. (OR).☺ Coppertwig (talk) 16:16, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

As I wrote before, I object to the phrase "no evidence to substantiate claims that a large scale or deliberate massacre had taken place", because this implies that there is evidence for a "small scale" massacre, which is simply not the case. NoCal100 (talk) 17:03, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

How about "no evidence to substantiate claims that hundreds had been killed" or "no evidence to substantiate claims that large numbers of people had been killed" or "no evidence to substantiate claims that more than 50-odd people had been killed"? (suggested as a substitute for the current phrasing) ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 17:15, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

This is better than your previous suggestion, but I still prefer the current phrasing in the lead, for two reasons: (1) the previous paragraph in the lead twice refers to allegations of a "massacre" , so when those turn out to be unsubstantiated, we should say so. (2) We have a couple of reliable sources that explicitly say "no massacre", so there's no reason not to use the same terminology. NoCal100 (talk) 17:58, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

The reason not to assert "no massacre" is that it isn't NPOV, since it's reported by some sources but we have at least one source (the Palestinian appendix to the UN report) which contradicts it. However, we can assert something along the lines that "sources X and Y reported that there was no massacre" or "sources X and Y reported that they found no evidence of a massacre". Perhaps you could suggest specific wording for a sentence along those lines? ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 18:09, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Here's my suggestion. Instead of the current While a large area in the camp was destroyed as a result of the fighting, subsequent investigations found no evidence to substantiate claims that a massacre had taken place., how about: "About 10% of the camp was destroyed as a result of the fighting. According to a Human Rights Watch report, there is no evidence of a massacre, but official Palestinian sources continue to maintain that a massacre had taken place". NoCal100 (talk) 18:16, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. However, do we have a source to verify that the Palestinian sources "continue" to maintain that a massacre had taken place? How recently did they say that? It may be better (and will not go out of date) to say "official Palestinian sources have stated that there was probably a massacre." (based on the appendix to the UN report, which states "In addition, it is probable that a massacre and a crime against humanity might have been committed in the Jenin refugee camp...") If we have another source we may be able to word it differently. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 19:01, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

We can drop the "continue". NoCal100 (talk) 19:04, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

The second part sounds OK. But now I'm wondering about "as a result of the fighting"; that makes it sound as if the destruction was accidental and caused by both sides. The source says "by a dozen armoured Israeli bulldozers." I suggest, "About 10% of the camp was destroyed by Israeli bulldozers. According to a Human Rights Watch report, there is no evidence of a massacre, but official Palestinian sources maintain that a massacre had taken place". ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 19:14, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Is there a source that says the destruction was caused exclusively by bulldozers? I don't think so. At least part of the destruction is attributed to Palestinian booby traps. NoCal100 (talk) 21:11, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

The entire "massacre yes or no" business is a PR invention of one party. It bears no relevance to the actual reporting of the event - which concerned (in this order, I think): 1) mass destruction 2) obstruction of humanitarian relief 3) obstruction of investigation and 4) various specifics particularly "human shields" (the last being a criticism, by the UN only, of both parties).

Reporting the event mostly didn't even mention "massacre". The owner (landlord?) of the camp was the Commissioner of the UNRWA, who said (in translation): “This is pure hell. It is no exaggeration to call it a massacre. I have previously refrained from using the word massacre, but now, when I have seen it, I cannot call it otherwise.” But nobody can tell us that his statement is "true" or "false" - we should simply report what this important player said about it. PR 19:28, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I particularly agree with your last sentence, PR. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 21:48, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Two points -

• Language/copyediting - this edit has reinserted the clunky "rumors purported" phrasing. Constant reversion of this sort of thing is kind of why I didn't actually try to change it again myself, and it appears that decision has been vindicated. You'd have thought we could at least avoid edit-warring and disputes over simple English language issues - there's plenty else to disagree about after all. At worst it suggests that some editors are more interested in point-scoring and and blind reverting rather than improving content here, even at the most basic level.
• "Massacre" - actually I'd happily have the phrasing "there was no large scale massacre", rather than having it as "no evidence", which kind of suggests that some might still be found. It is an uncontroversial fact that 100s of people were not deliberately killed. However the "large scale" or "widespread" qualifier is crucial, since plenty of sources do still assert there was a massacre of some sort, even with the final, lower death toll (I listed some a while ago, including from Palestinian officials and the mainstream media here). Some sources do say simply "no massacre", but there is no agreement or unanimity here, and it's therefore misleading to use that phrasing in the lead. The lead has to reflect the fact that many sources do maintain there was a massacre, albeit not one with 100s of victims, rather than take sides either way. --Nickhh (talk) 11:27, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with the statement "It is an uncontroversial fact that 100s of people were not deliberately killed." That seems to me to contradict Pounder's POV. We can perhaps give weight (prominence) to the idea that 100s were not killed, but we can't assert it as if it's "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute" (NPOV).☺ Coppertwig (talk) 13:38, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Today, 6 years after the event, and after an AI report said all but one of the camp's residents were accounted for, it is a fact that 100s were not killed. It is true that some people (e.g. Pounder, or certain members of the PA) are so prejudiced that they refuse to acknowledge the facts even when those stare them in the face, but that does not change the facts. I think the formulation you and I agreed on prior to Nickhh's recent comments is fine. NoCal100 (talk) 14:44, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if we had quite agreed on both sentences. How about this version: "About 10% of the camp was destroyed. According to a Human Rights Watch report, there is no evidence of a massacre, but official Palestinian sources maintain that a massacre had taken place." This leaves out the bulldozers. Another alternative for the first sentence is "About 10% of the camp was destroyed during the incident." "Flattened" might be more informative than "destroyed". ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 14:53, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Either one of these is fine with me. NoCal100 (talk) 15:30, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Note/clarification: Pounder's comments were from around 18th April, based on an early visit to the camp. Nor in the BBC report did he appear to talk about hundreds dead, he merely suggests that there "could be large numbers of civilian dead" under the ruins. I'm certainly not aware of Pounder or any significant source suggesting now that more than 50-60 people were killed, or whether that would be due to prejudice if they were saying that. Where the "massacre/no massacre" dispute arises is over how to describe or interpret what happened, with that number as given. There are legitimate sources that continue to use the description "massacre", on account of the civilians killed. This needs to be recorded, and without it being couched in terms to suggest they are in denial of some sort (I kind of read the above proposal as doing that, even if not intentionally). The later sources I linked to up above do all use the massacre description, while explicitly acknowledging the lower death toll. Even the HRW report is more nuanced than in the suggested para above, with the full sentence reading - "Human Rights Watch found no evidence to sustain claims of massacres or large-scale extrajudicial executions by the IDF in Jenin refugee camp. However, many of the civilian deaths documented by Human Rights Watch amounted to unlawful or willful killings by the IDF". --Nickhh (talk) 12:36, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

The neutrality of this article is most certainly contested. There is a heavy pro-Israel bias which has gotten worse. The list Israeli war crimes documented by Amnesty International has been cut from a list of 9 to a list of 2. The alleged citation from the Washington Times is not from the Washington Times web site. Does the policy of allowing citations from blogs which cite alleged news articles only apply to stories which are pro-Israel? When I did that, my edit was reverted and the explaination was that if the web site of the original story is not available, then it cannot be used. Just what is the policy here? Blindjustice (talk) 14:37, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I've added some info from secondary sources on the Amnesty report. Highbeam, which hosts the Washington Times article, is not a blog. I believe it is a reliable database. If you insist, we can look for other hosts or ask at WP:RSN. -- Nudve (talk) 15:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

54 dead not 53

the time article number 2 http://www.time.com/time/2002/jenin/story.html says 54 Palestinians died, not 53, so I corrected it. 192.246.224.74 (talk) 18:38, 13 October 2008 (UTC)russell j @ 10/13/08 2:63 pm

Why does the article already cite this one Time Magazine article twelve times?

Is it because the piece uses convoluted language "compelled Palestinian civilians to take the dangerous job of leading the approach to the buildings" instead of "used Palestinians as human shields" - and uses direct Israeli POV "the Palestinian defenders retreated to ... where their defenses were strongest" and "It was time to hit harder"?

Is it because the piece differs substantially from the contemporaneous reports of every European journalist on the scene? And differs greatly from the reports of every investigation by independent human rights groups? PR

We cite this article because TIME magazine is a reliable source, and this specific article is directly related to the topic of this article. In other words, we are doing this because we are editing this article according to Misplaced Pages policies. NoCal100 (talk) 17:09, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

We're plainly not writing this article to regular WP policy, since we've applied massive WP:UNDUE to a single source that uses the POV language of one party. There's a great deal of other RS available, all of it fairly startling, but none of it is written in a POV fashion as if the reporter were on board with a "Palestinian perspective". While I'm about it, I don't much care for the way you're suddenly appearing at articles (such as Shuafat, Mohammed Omer, Western Wall, USS Liberty incident) to confront or revert my edits, in many cases in articles you've previously had nothing to do with. This smacks of the same thing I'm seeing on this page, a decidedly uncollegiate attitude to what should be regular TalkPage discussion. PR 20:04, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

You asked why TIME is being used, and I explained the relevant wikipedia policy to you. Now stop soapboxing and start editing to this policy. I don't believe I've edited USS Liberty incident, and I was editing Western Wall before you, so perhaps it is you who is following me around. NoCal100 (talk) 21:17, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

so which ones are pertinent to Jenin?

Hamas was attributed attacks from September 9, 2001 (a suicide attack in Nahariya), March 19, 2002 (a shooting attack in Hamam Al Maliach), and March 31, 2002 (a suicide attack in Haifa that left, 15 casualties).

Palestinian Islamic Jihad was attributed attacks from July 16, 2001 (a suicide attack at the Binyamina Railway Station), October 28, 2001 (a shooting attack in Hadera), November 29, 2001 (a suicide attack near Pardes Hanna), January 25, 2002 (a suicide attack at the old central bus station in Tel Aviv—in cooperation with Fatah), January 5, 2002 (a suicide attack in Afula), March 20, 2002 (a suicide attack in Wadi Ara), April 10, 2002 (a suicide attack at the Yagur junction).

Fatah was attributed attacks from February 1, 2001 (a shooting of an Israeli civilian visiting Jenin), April 28, 2001 (a shooting at near Umm al-Fahm), June 28, 2001 (a shooting near Ganim), September 11, 2001 (a shooting at "Bezeq" workers near Shaked and detonation of a charge at an IDF force in the area), March 9, 2001 (a shooting near Yabed), October 4, 2001 (a shooting in Afula), October 27, 2001 (Infiltration to Me Ammi and laying of an explosives charge), November 27, 2001 (a joint PIJ and Fatah suicide attack in Afula), February 8, 2002 (a joint PIJ and Fatah suicide attack aimed at Tel Aviv, intercepted), March 12, 2002 (a shooting on the road to Katsir), March 21, 2002 (a suicide attack in Jerusalem), March 30, 2002 (a suicide attack in Tel Aviv).

all to go unless you can find the 6 or 23 for Jenin....so far you haven't shown that these belong in an article about Jenin unless of course you are thinking of adding in all the IDF and settler activity in the area?....Otherwise you are just trying for demonisation.....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 20:54, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

all of these are Israeli MFA claims, which is not made clear in the body of the text....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 21:10, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not a "demonisation" issue since the activities were linked to the Israeli assault on the Jenin infrastructure for these activities. Jaakobou 21:11, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Israeli MFA has been known to be rather inaccurate in its dealings with the rest of the world on many occasions....it needs to be made clear that this is a Israeli government claim and not necessarily fact...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 21:35, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

sorry jaakobou I did not see the IDF spokesperson mainly as all the first 3 sections have the same info in a POV demonisation repetition and quite frankly I stopped paying much attention to what was written...the structural layout of the article has ensured a pro Israel POV....There is no chronological order and information is repeated. The section for massacre theorists is at the bottom yet the massacre theorists are placed front and centre. The IDF failures which led to the massacre allegations isn't even noted in the lead with the allegations.....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 22:12, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

NPOV Tag

The documentation at {{NPOV}} says "Do not use this template unless there is an ongoing dispute." It's my understanding that a POV tag is normally supposed to contain a link to a particular section of the talk page, which should list particular problems with the article, so that when those items have been adequately addressed then the tag can be removed. I would appreciate it if that is done here: PR, would you please specify what the issue or issues are that the tag is intended to refer to. To specify the section of the talk page, use {{POV|talk page section name}}. (The NPOV template is a redirect to the POV template.) ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 21:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know where to start - but an obvious place is the sudden inclusion (just since 30th Sept, 14 days ago) of 30 references to a foreign language book "# Harel, Amos; Avi Isacharoff (2004). The Seventh War. Tel-Aviv: Yedioth Aharonoth Books and Chemed Books, 431. ISBN 9655117677. (Hebrew)" What's the point of having encylopedia policies such as verifiability if we're going to do that? It's clear that they're highly POV "Harel and Isacharoff wrote that the IDF's misconduct with the media, including Kitri's statement, contributed to the allegations of massacre". Every genuine source points the finger at the IDF for keeping medical assistance out of the camp for 10 days as the single most serious problem.

On top of the trampling of a core policy verifiability of the project, we have the usual culprits, in spades:

1) Trivial material from non-RS sources inserted (eg the first three entries to the reference list are #1 = Harel and Isacharoff (mentioned above, completely unverifiable), #2 Time Magazine (12 cites), #3 Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs). A much lauded reference to "56 dead" comes from "Back to the Moslem Terrorist's Page" - even if it's genuine, it's still 2nd-hand from a source that, like the UNRWA quoted by Amnesty, is speaking with a gun held to his head.

2) Blatant POV cherry-picking eg the only substantive mention of helicopters we have is: "On April 4, The Observer reported that Palestinians have called the incident a 'massacre', alleging that ... helicopters fired indiscriminately on a civilian area". What does this same source actually say? "helicopters that swarmed angrily above the city's roofs, firing indiscriminately into the city's crowded refugee camp". Many other sources call the shooting "like rain" - what's so difficult?

3) So many major elements from the RS left out that "most of the article is missing". I have a list of 16 13 distinct elements that I think probably need including if the article is to give a representative view of the incident as reported in the RS. But I've been prevented from getting a single one in, I can't even list them for consideration without a barrage of non-policy objections - the Telegraph, Fox News and an Israeli newspaper dismissed with "This is just insinuation and hearsay. etc etc". PR 19:12, 14 October 2008 (UTC) rewritten by PalestineRemembered on 10:13, 8 November 2008. Jaakobou 10:33, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

A few replies:

Regarding the book. It would indeed be preferable if it was available in English, but WP:NONENG allows foreign language sources in such cases. You could question the book's reliability, of course. However, we did welcome Amos Harel as a correspondent for Haaretz, including this favorite. I don't know about "genuine" sources, but Harel and Isacharoff do say that. I simply preferred to cite other sources for this fact, again per WP:NONENG.

1) I've seen Time Magazine cited many times on Misplaced Pages. Was it ever deemed unreliable? PR - see below. The Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs is only used once to quote an Israeli claim. PR - then it should not be in the lead. I'll be willing to negotiate the "56" if no other source can be found. Is this acceptable? PR - it's still a newspaper owned by the Moonies, by a reporter who (I'm told) was accused of fabricating Arabic quotations by Canada's national broadcaster.

2) Read the source again. I've cited it quite meticulously in the context of the massacre claims. "Like rain" is a metaphor. We don't use those per WP:NPOV. PR - the use of the helicopters was widespread, likely very deadly and widely remarked - we mention them as an "allegation" by Palestinians.

3) Most of the issues "dismissed" in the diff you gave, particularly the burial of the bodies, are detailed in the article.PR - I don't see Sharon, I don't see his advisor, I don't see the UN special envoy or the 12 days, I see slighting remarks about the Red Cross, I don't see the bulldozer driver or the bomb-disposal or the killing of UN staff or a whole lot of other things. -- Nudve (talk) 19:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

First of all let me say that the article has improved considerably. The layout is better, the readability is better - and it's even closer to NPOV than it's been all the time I've known it. If a lot of it was your work, then I commend you - I'll even support locking it down now before damage is done to it. But only a cursory examination tells me there are substantial POV issues remaining and it should remain tagged.

I can see the temptation to use sources that English-language editors cannot check, but this practice cannot give confidence to other editors, nor to readers. It's not as if there isn't lots and lots of material from regular accessible sources. And policy asks for RS translations - here we are, using a non-English source more than any other, with no translation whatsoever. Verifiability is a core policy, not to be cast aside lightly.

Time Magazine is 2nd in our reference list (ie we're using it for references in the lead). Now, Time Magazine actually published a very hard-hitting article on the run-up to Jenin - not just quoting the well-known "Palestinians must be hit ... must cause them losses, victims it said that Sharon's words were linked directly to the military action that followed "He went on to do just that, unleashing a broader military offensive than anything seen so far in the past 17 months of fighting.". Oh, but that Time article has been repeatedly edit-warred out of our article .... I wonder why. Even the famous Sharon quote without the commentary is missing! Instead of this main-stream article, the one we've referenced is an insulting white-wash - starts "The street is a new one, carved by a huge bulldozer out of what was once a narrow alley" - is it too much to ask we think of the victims before before we use anything so insensitive?

Moreover, Time Magazines claim to have carried out an investigation is worthless - so what's it doing ahead of real investigations from the UN, HRW and Amnesty? Amnesty is quoted (relatively well) but is not referenced once in the text. HRW is not referenced once it the text, it gets only "The report said there was no massacre, but did accuse the IDF of committing war crimes", which has been filtered through the BBC and most certainly doesn't give a flavour of what they actually say. The UN report isn't directly referenced either! No mention of the Jordanian, Qatar and EU contributions, that cannot be right. If you want input from me, I'd offer to write the UN report section. PR 21:45, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

About Sharon's quote: I don't know who "edit-warred" it out and why, but I think it's undue, just like the Passover massacre. As I said, it belongs in Operation Defensive Shield, not here. The destruction is detailed in the article, but this is not a memorial site and we are not here to "think of the victims" of anything.

The reliability of the NGOs has been questioned on this page recently. A serious discussion on their reliability probably belongs elsewhere. However, they are definitely not information sources the way newspapers and books are. As I said in my draft proposal above, I preferred to treat them as primary sources and filter them through mainstream secondary sources, such as the BBC. If no mainstream source thought it right to mention the Jordanian, Qatar and EU contributions, for example, then maybe it's not that historically notable. The BBC's filter may be imperfect, but I still think its preferable to our synthesis of it. Besides, we've already seen where this road leads: One user adds his favorite quote from the report, then another one adds his for "balance", and pretty soon the entire section is a quote farm. I think it's better to leave the reports as external links so that the readers can read them and decide for themselves which parts are important and whether it is pro-Israeli, pro-Palestinian, or whatever. Anyway, that's my opinion, and perhaps we should wait for other users' opinions on this. -- Nudve (talk) 11:15, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Re NGOs. A lot of the criticism and questioning of genuinely non-partisan organisations is unfounded and seems to be politically motivated (and please, if it's coming from NGO Monitor or even worse individual WP editors can be pretty much brushed aside). Reports by Amnesty and HRW etc are professional, properly researched papers, which the groups involved will have put a lot of work into and will have checked over pretty thoroughly before being published. Having said that, I accept that they are arguably primary sources and as per policy we should for the most part rely on reliable secondary sources for interpretation of what they say; also that we run the risk of quote-farming otherwise. However -

• One could see the site investigations, witness statements and submissions that go into these reports as being the relevant primary sources, with the finished, published reports acting as a genuine secondary source.
• Either way, policy does permit reference to primary sources for straightforward facts or text.
• The above is doubly safe if done with a clear "according to Amnesty/HRW etc" attribution
• When using secondary sources, we have to remember that they will differ among themselves and we would have to look at a broad range of them (sorry, but this goes back to the simplistic "it was determined that there was no massacre" line that I have remarked on endlessly above - finding a BBC headline that happens to interpret one of the reports as saying "no massacre" does not mean the issue is settled once and for all, as there are other reliable secondary sources that interpret it differently)
• Using the media generally as the main secondary source for interpretation of those reports (as opposed to verifiable facts per se) also carries risks, as media outlets of course often have a considerable partisan bias.
• Also prioritising secondary media sources - as PR points out - leads to the slightly odd result that a self-styled "investigation" by a Time magazine journalist could be seen as ranking above a more formal investigation by a specialist organisation.

Anyway that's my latest piece of waffle. --Nickhh (talk) 11:58, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

1. Palestinians: Thousands in mass graves, United Press International, April 12, 2002
   - Secretary-General of Palestinian Authority Cabinet Ahmed Abdel Rahman said, "They (Israeli solders) took hundreds of bodies to northern Israeli to hide their massacre they committed against our people.
   "This massacre is not less than the massacres committed against the Palestinian people in the refugee camps of Sabra and Shatila in Lebanon."
   He said thousands of Palestinians were either killed and buried in massive graveyards or smashed under houses destroyed in Jenin and Nablus.