Talk:Battle of Jenin (2002)/Archive 9

war crimes

to resolve the dispute about who did what and how the war crimes should be attributed i open this subsesction so that we can handle this dispute properly.

please add all sources relating to who did what either to Israeli war crimes, Palestinian war crimes, or Both were complicit, make your comments on the comments section.

note: please pay careful attention to who says what on your provided sources, don't misrepresent, and try to keep it short and easy to follow. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Israeli war crimes

• Palestinian report submitted to the Secretary-General -
  • http://www.un.org/peace/jenin/
    • relevant quote: Many credible sources have reported about atrocities committed... prima facie evidence of war crimes... it is probable that a massacre and a crime against humanity might have been committed... enhanced by the statements made at some point by the occupying forces... and their reported attempts to move bodies from the camp to what they referred to as the graveyards of the enemy.
    • note: if you wish to expand/discuss on the palestinian part of this source in length, please start a new subsection. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Palestinian war crimes

• An bomb-maker from Jenin refugee camp gives testimony about his activity.
  • http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2002/582/6inv2.htm
    • relevant quotes:
      • "We cut off lengths of mains water pipes and packed them with explosives and nails. Then we placed them about four metres apart throughout the houses -- in cupboards, under sinks, in sofas.".."everyone in the camp, including the children, knew where the explosives were located so that there was no danger of civilians being injured."
        • • bomb factories in UNRWA managed refugee camp, see: 2.8 Using civilians as shields
      • "We all stopped shooting and the women went out to tell the soldiers that we had run out of bullets and were leaving." The women alerted the fighters as the soldiers reached the booby- trapped area."...'"When the senior officers realised what had happened, they shouted through megaphones that they wanted an immediate cease-fire. We let them approach to retrieve the men and then opened fire."
        • • see: Ruse_of_war#Prohibited_ruses
      • note: if you wish to expand/discuss on the palestinian part of this source in length, please start a new subsection. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Both were complicit

• http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2165272.stm
• UN - Report of the Secretary-General
  • http://www.un.org/peace/jenin/
    • relevant quote: 32. Of particular concern is the use, by combatants on both sides, of violence that placed civilians in harm's way. Much of the fighting during Operation Defensive Shield occurred in areas heavily populated by civilians, in large part because the armed Palestinian groups sought by IDF placed their combatants and installations among civilians. Palestinian groups are alleged to have widely booby-trapped civilian homes, acts targeted at IDF personnel but also putting civilians in danger. IDF is reported to have used bulldozers, tank shelling and rocket firing, at times from helicopters, in populated areas.
    • note: if you wish to expand/discuss on the Secratery-General part of this source in length, please start a new subsection. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

war crimes comments

• comment - I will not enter a pseudo-vote on the grounds that it is ridiculous to subject clear questions of fact to such a process. It is abundantly clear that credible third party observers (Amnesty, HRW) only used the words "war crimes" or the legalistic equivalent "grave breaches [of international humanitarian law or the laws of war]" when describing Israeli actions in Jenin. Palestinian fighters were criticized for putting civilians in harm's way, but that is not the same as saying they were accused of war crimes. Much like the earlier "genocide" discussion, there seems to be a persistent confusion between editors' personal interpretations of claims made, and the actual claims. For example, the report listed under "both were complicit" simply doesn't use the phrase "war crimes" in any context at all. After several fairly deep Google searches (getting in to obscure Likudnik blogs and the like) I simply haven't found any accusations of "war crimes" or "grave breaches" by Palestinians during the battle, even by extremist partisans of Israel. In summary, there is no objective reason to discuss this at all. Eleland 12:31, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
  • comment - Per Eleland, this is silly. Only one source has been listed under "Both were complicit," and this one source never mentions "war crimes." A while back Eleland wrote a version of the lead that handled the matter with elegant fairness: "Subsequent investigations by major human rights organizations found prima facie evidence of Israeli war crimes, while casting doubt on allegations of a deliberate massacre. Some investigations also criticized Palestinian fighters for operating in close proximity to civilians, but found that the only deliberate use of Palestinians as "human shields" was by Israel."--G-Dett 16:27, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
    • reply comment - User:G-Dett, please go over the sources, you've just quoted a phrasing used by the palestinian submission to the UN, who also alleged on that submission a very large possibility for mass graves. I would add some extra commentary, but i suggest we not turn this into polemics and just expose the sources and what everyone said. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:52, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
      • question - Um, huh? I quoted a sentence from Eleland's lead proposal above; the sentence is accurately sourced to Amnesty and Human Rights Watch. What are you talking about? And why are you talking about mass graves?--G-Dett 18:10, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
        • reply - please go over Talk:Battle_of_Jenin#Israeli_war_crimes. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:31, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
          • Jaakobou, I don't know or care whether the phrase "prima facie evidence of war crimes" appeared in the Palestinan submission to the UN, but as I properly indicated in my preferred intro version, HRW said "There is a strong prima facie evidence that, in the cases noted below, IDF personnel committed grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions, or war crimes," and Amnesty said "In Jenin and Nablus the IDF carried out actions which violate international human rights and humanitarian law; some of these actions amount to grave breaches of the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 1949 (the Fourth Geneva Convention) and are war crimes.". You'll note that I actually chose the less strongly worded of the two, "prima facie evidence" at least allowing the possibility that some subsequent investigation will disprove the evidence. By the way, can we stop with this comment and reply comment thing? It's not a straw poll. Eleland 21:25, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

• comment - this is not a vote, this is a summary of the refs as we have and some categorization of them so that we can have a clearer image on who said what and each person can make a more knowledgeable assessment that is not only based on hunches and preconceived beliefs. please add your references and try to keep commentary short and easy to follow. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:52, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
  • reply comment - How's this for short and easy to follow: you've provided no sourced references to Palestinian war crimes, and there don't appear to be any.--G-Dett 18:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
    • reply - the reference section is incomplete, i've started it out for the other editors to work on. please focus on improving this talk section so we can move forward with this dispute. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:23, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
• comment - Generally speaking, a dispute involves two or more sides making a case and presenting evidence for it, rather than one side making a case and asking the other side to provide evidence for it "so we can move forward". Quite simply, nether G-Dett nor I have found any sources which accuse Palestinians of war crimes - the closest I could find was a really slipshod pro-Israel blog which ranted about "UN complicity in war crimes" on the basis that UNRWA was running schools and hospitals in Jenin, so they should be able to forcibly prevent Islamic Jihad from running cells in the camp, but it was a reference to suicide bombings and not to the actual battle. The way to "move forward" would be to avoid raising spurious disputes which do not exist in the source material, which is abundant and clear. Eleland 19:31, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
  • comment - it would be helpful if you focus on what you can contribute rather than what you can't. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:34, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Wow, Jaakobou, you said it. It would be nice if I could focus on positive contributions. Unfortunately, I can't make them — or rather, I can make them but I will be reverted on shabby pretexts within hours. And on the talk page, I can't make positive contributions because they keep getting bogged down with spurious disputes which do not exist in the source material. I'll say it one more time: No sources have been found, nor by all evidence do any reliable sources exist, which accuse the Palestinian side in the Battle of Jenin of committing war crimes. Eleland 21:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Removal of {{TotallyDisputed}} - round II

previous related talk can be found here round I - sep. 11 static]

link to previous related talk: [1]

the following is an attempt to resolve the long standing dispute of the inclusion/exclusion of the {{TotallyDisputed}} tag at the top of the article.

for now, there are three subsections -
(1) opinions about the tag - keep/exclude
(2) issues i'd like to see resolved
(3) questions and notes
-- Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

opinions about the tag - keep/exclude

please state your opinion in a brief and short manner, this is just a declaration of position - not an evidence section of full discussion - for questions and discussions go here:

• exclude - a few (tiny) snippet problems can be discussed and fixed, i believe that the article is well factual and referenced, and i don't see how any of the issues justifies such an inclusive tag. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
• exclude - worthless tag. If you have problems with the article, use fact or dubious tags to directly point out which portions you are contesting. Blanketing the article with a scare tag doesn't help improve the article. Kyaa the Catlord 09:12, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

issues i'd like to see resolved

please state issues that you would like resolved, be brief, this is only for mentioning/declaration of perspective, not for resolving:

• (1) issues by PR stated here. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

• (2)

• (3)

TotallyD - questions and notes

Please note that nobody has actually addressed this issue properly. The tag denotes that "The neutrality and factual accuracy of this article are disputed". It doesn't say "This article is neither neutral nor factually accurate". Those who are expressing their opinion of the article's neutrality are missing the point. The discussion should be about whether the dispute exists. Myself, and (I believe) G-Dett and PalestineRemembered also, say that the article is highly POV and contains factual inaccuracies and misrepresentations. Jaakobou, Tewfik, and Kyaa do not seem to agree. Prima facie that is an NPOV and accuracy dispute; nobody has explained why it isn't one. Rather than removing the notice of the dispute, why don't we try and remove the cause of the dispute. Eleland 13:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'd like to see this article be presented in an NPOV manner as well. I'd be happy to see that actually. Kyaa the Catlord 13:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Then you'll want to see the death-toll reported properly, along with all the other problems detailed here. PalestineRemembered 20:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

PR, half your claims there violate NPOV. You really need a mentor to go over your ideas and help you learn to use the wikipedia. This isn't a taunt, just a suggestion. Kyaa the Catlord 00:38, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

When did this stop being called the Jenin Massacre?

??? -- 146.115.58.152 22:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

When the UN, HRW and AI presented their findings that there was "no evidence of a massacre". Kyaa the Catlord 22:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Er, I'm just googling here, and haven't looked at the sources, but this seems to say none of those groups ever said that? -- 146.115.58.152 23:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Read the article. Its in there. Follow the links to the citations from the UN, HRW and AI. All three released statements and reports that state no massacre occured. Kyaa the Catlord 23:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm looking at the UN report and it explicitly calls it a massacre repeatedly. There's a section entitled "Direct eyewitness accounts by survivors of the massacre at the Jenin refugee camp" with a sentence beginning "The present report contains a number of eyewitness accounts by casualties who survived the massacre...." Another sentence says "Al-Amri was one of the first journalists to enter the Jenin camp during the massacre." Where exactly does the UN report say what you say it says? -- 146.115.58.152 23:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Um, that would be Anexe III which was written by the Jordanian government, not the UN. The UN does not use the term massacre in their statements at all. It appears once in the Palestinian statement and several times in the Jordanian statement, usually in quotations by "eyewitnesses". Kyaa the Catlord 23:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, OK. So Jordan still calls it a massacre, and the UN has no opinion. So the word "previously" in the lead still seems a stretch. The HRW report seems to only say that multiple massacres did not occur. Or am I misreading it too? -- 146.115.58.152 23:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi anon, as Kyaa indicates above, the HRW and AI found "no evidence of a massacre" (you're right that the UN had no opinion). Kyaa and Jaakobou – for whom these organizations' findings are either absolutely definitive or laughably "partisan," depending on whether Kyaa or Jaakobou agree with the finding in question – are thrilled with this particular finding. Admittedly, they feel it ought to have been more strongly worded, so they've doctored it and puffed it up from "no evidence of" to "disproven," while continuing to try to hide, bury, or contest the findings they disagree with. Such as evidence of war crimes, and "indiscriminate and disproportionate attacks" on the camp. Get yourself a user name – I suggest "Grey Ghost," "Richard Landes," or "Skin-tight Alligator Luggage" – and join the fun.--G-Dett 23:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the rough overview of where everyone stands, G-Dett; I know you getting batted around like a mouse between cats for these kinds of summaries. Not to quibble, but the HRW report says no evidence of "massacres" (my bold italics). In any case, insisting no one anywhere still considers this a massacre is biased in the lead. I'd perhaps consider "colloquially known as" as I'm not sure exactly how many innocent civilians you have to kill to qualify as a massacre these days in the sausage factory of wikipedia. -- 146.115.58.152 23:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Hell, Wikipedia doesn't know what qualifies as a massacre in the sausage factory. :P But in this case we have verifiable proof that even the groups that tend to cry "massacre" at the drop of a hat say "no massacre" despite the lack of coverage of such by most of the media. Kyaa the Catlord 00:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

We know exactly what constitutes a massacre in everyday parlance, it's almost any number of killings carried out by soldiers of unarmed civilians. Hence Boston Massacre (5 dead) and Kent State Massacre (4 dead).

However, there is another meaning, and various sources (of which Israel was one) led us to think that Nazi-style mass shootings has also been carried out. We have firm published evidence and Israeli confirmation for only one such incident (3 men, 1 of whom survived, giving us the first names of two of the soldiers), and this evidence was not released until 4 November 2002 (perhaps because that's when it became clear that Israel had no intention of even investigating this case as they're required to do?).

Hence, as at todays date, the "No Massacre" thesis is disproved, in both of the meanings of the word.

Howevever, none of this discussion should be going on in Talk, it should be on the mediation page.

That's assuming you're agreeable to withdraw allegations against the good faith of the mediator - and you're prepared to move to Talk the defacement of the mediation page which has taken place. Without both those actions, it is questionable whether you should be editing this article. Even once you've taken those necessary actions, it would be a lot more collegiate if you restricted yourself to taking part in the mediation, and presented your evidence properly, in some fashion such as I've done. PalestineRemembered 09:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Did you simply not read HG's statements on the "mediation" page? He said no discussion. THIS is the proper place for discussion of this article, period. Read WP:TALK. Kyaa the Catlord 09:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

And the character assassination attempts continue. Kyaa the Catlord 00:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, rubbish.--G-Dett 00:38, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Random statement struck out. Kyaa the Catlord 00:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Anon, you have a very good point. One gets so exhausted fighting to have a lead that doesn't grossly misrepresent the sources, you slide into a position of accepting this sort of low-level POV-massage.--G-Dett 00:38, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment - this issue has been fairly well explained and was seemed to be resolved in previous talk and also it's well referenced on the article (so i've already archived it). please go over the material and stop placing tags on the intro before you do. go over these discussions - (1), (2) - and let me know if you're interested in reopening the dispute. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't consider this issue resolved at all, thanks. We'll need to come to a compromise here. -- 146.115.58.152 14:46, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

How about something in the lead along the lines "The battle was initially referred to as the Jenin massacre when initial reports put civilian deaths about 500, but the label fell out of favor with international organizations after the civilian death toll was reduced to 23." That would be more honest and a better explanation than just saying "previously" which is confusing and inaccurate. -- 146.115.58.152 14:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

When this article is (eventually) written in a good NPOV fashion, we can revisit what it's called. (I'm personally convinced we'll find it's universally known as the "Jenin Massacre" - even the angry pro-Israel sources tell us that the "No Massacre Thesis" was ignored by the British/Western media). However, that's rather more of a snake-pit than the "Verifiable information in Reliable Sources" facts of the case (or the lead, on which we may be about to agree, see below). Get the lead and "the facts" into place, and much of the rest of it will shake out properly.

Note that editors have (repeatedly) taken an ax to portions of this TalkPage and archived them away with no discussion/mandate to do this whatsoever. It's one of the relatively minor tricks that have been played here. PalestineRemembered 18:48, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

On massacres

• UN report on Jenin massacre flawed Correspondents Report - Sunday, 4 August, 2002, Peter Cave

ANNIE WHITE: But first, the United Nations has released its long awaited report on the events in the West Bank city of Jenin in April, when Israeli troops seeking Palestinian militants, attacked the refugee camp there with tanks, helicopter launched-missiles and hundreds of troops.

Israel refused to allow the UN to investigate the alleged massacre of civilians so the report was compiled from accounts supplied by the Israeli Army, the Palestinians and various agencies.

The report that has emerged is at best a compromise, criticising both sides for using innocent civilians as human shields.

Unlike the UN investigators, our Foreign Affairs Editor, Peter Cave, did get into Jenin while it was still besieged by the Israeli Army and he's been looking at the UN report for Correspondence Report.

PETER CAVE: 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.

Israel, however, has put its own spin on the UN report.

DANIEL TAUB: This report, and a whole host of meetings in the United Nations, were a response to allegations of absolutely shocking massacre that was supposed to have taken place in Jenin.

The report apparently makes it clear that there was no such thing,http://www.worldpress.org/Mideast/563.cfm and that allegations, particularly by the Palestinian leadership, of hundreds of innocent civilians who had been killed, were nothing more than a propaganda.

PETER CAVE: Israeli Foreign Ministry Spokesman, Daniel Taub.

Palestinian spokesman, Saeb Erekat, had his own spin when interviewed by the BBC just after the report was released.

SAEB EREKAT: Five-hundred and more Palestinians will be killed, will be a massacre. Five Israelis to ten... what is the definition of a massacre? Do you mean to tell me now that five-hundred and more Palestinians will be killed will be a massacre? Five Israelis to ten will be described by BBC as a massacre. I've heard, this is not the point here, the point is that if we set wrong numbers, we stand to be corrected.

• And then there's this source On the Press Coverage and the battle over naming. Tiamut 02:29, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou Tiamut. I'm convinced that the whole "Massacre/No Massacre" thing is a propaganda red-herring raised to confuse matters. However, as long as there are people who insist this debate has to dominate this article, your information will help us keep the factual side of things straight. PalestineRemembered 18:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Did you notice that article highlighted the HRW investigation's findings that there was no massacre, then used massacre in quotes for the rest of the article? Did you notice that that article is another in a string of articles showing that it is only in the biased, propagandist media that it is still referred to as a massacre? I await your answers. Kyaa the Catlord 19:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's remind ourselves what HRW say: "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. ..... Among the civilian deaths were those of Kamal Zgheir .... even though he had a white flag attached to his wheelchair .... Some of the cases documented by Human Rights Watch amounted to summary executions, a clear war crime ... Al-Sabbagh was shot to death while directly under the control of the IDF: he was obeying orders to strip off his clothes".

Under these circumstances, the "No massacre" thesis should certainly not dominate the article as it does now. Wikipedia is based on reporting honestly what the secondary sources say, and your synopsis of the HRW words clearly don't give an NPOV impression. PalestineRemembered 19:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, the HRW quotation you give above explicitly supports the claim that what happened in Jenin wasn't a massacre. --GHcool 00:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

As I keep saying, the "Massacre or no Massacre" discussion is a complete red-herring. It's certainly not the reason for this incident being notable.

However, the sources saying "No Massacre" are only refering to one meaning of the word (Nazi-style mass shooting). Yet it's clear there are even good indications that there was a massacre in this limited sense of the word too. Evidence for this particular allegation was not published until November 2002 - perhaps because by then it was clear that Israel had no intention of investigating the case, with first names, that had been presented to them.

Over at your TalkPage you said "the IDF kills a handful of Palestinians (some were civilians), and then the world buying the Palestinian propoganda version of the story". I'd be very interested to know why this article is not written to this "Majority View" (that we agree the world accepts). WP:Policy would apparently say our article should be written to that "Majority View" with NPOV balance to the "Minority View" - why is that not happening? PalestineRemembered 10:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

We have Godwins! We have Godwins! :P Kyaa the Catlord 11:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

For my response, see my talk page. --GHcool 00:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

previously referred to as the Jenin Massacre - round III

based on the notation of User:146.115.58.152,^{00:53, 9 September 2007 Static} the following talk is resumed in continuation from previously referred to as the Jenin Massacre - round II.

an earlier discussion was is registered here

since we seem to have quite a few versions on how to phrase the "jenin massacre" name i request people, rather than revert and change to their preferred version, list down the version they prefer 'and the reasoning. if you wish to ask questions or make commentary please do it on the comments and questions section. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

preferred version

• 'previously referred to as the Jenin Massacre - i was a tad conflicted about "previously dubbed as" because "jenin massacre" was never an official name albeit the way the fighting was presented. i've decided to support the mellower and more encyclopedic version, to what i consider the previously more common way the "consensus" described the israeli battle inside the camp. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

comments and questions

• comment - Can't we slow down on the conflict? The previous one is still smoldering. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1937048.stm The headline calls it a massacre. That's my quick and unfinished research for the moment. Jerseycam 01:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
• comment - The word "massacre" is part of some man's quote. You need reliable sources saying that the battle was indeed previously called "Jenin Massacre". Beit Or 19:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
  • reply comment - we have a number of sources in the article body, both mainstream and official sources, who clearly used the massacre terminology during the battle. p.s. one of them is right above your comment. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
• elements of a massacre did occur. A UN report concluded that mass killings in the range of 500 did not occur but official Israeli source acknowledge that 52 were killed. A significant part of the public will probably remember it as a massacre. News sources quote it as a massacre. Blame them, not WP. Jerseycam 02:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  • perhaps we should say "overstated in the media as a massacre" then, since international rights groups (the UN, HRW, AI) either do not term the battle as a massacre or blatantly state that a massacre did not occur. Yes, it was widely reported by the media as a massacre during the conflict and even until the smoke cleared and investigations actually had the ability to go in and disprove the claims of massacre. Kyaa the Catlord 01:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
• comment - extra talk can also be found here: sep. 9 static
  • i refer you to my "comment/explanation" for a further comment regarding my perspective. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 01:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Take "Jenin Massacre" out of the lead - comment by Sanguinalis, and related talk

I would prefer to take Jenin Massacre out of the lead altogether. If we consider only Western sources, it is not at all clear that "Jenin Massacre" was ever used as a name for the fighting of April 2002, even by the British press. Jaakobou seems to concede this when he writes "'jenin massacre' was never an official name". Compare, for example, Racak massacre. Here is a BBC article three years after the fact that uses the term "Racak massacre" in a plain, matter-of-fact, narrational voice to refer to that incident (in which the death toll was 45, by the way). There has never been an article in the British press that uses the term "Jenin massacre" in a comparable way. The most notorious article, the BBC's Jenin 'massacre evidence growing', does not state as fact that a massacre occured. The article only says that it is the opinion of an expert working for Amnesty International that there might have been a massacre, based on the evidence available at the time. Note that the word massacre in headline is inside a quotation. On the other hand, if we are talking about the Arab press, it seems to be the consensus here that the term Jenin massacre is still being used, so "previously referred to" does not apply. Sanguinalis 02:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The original allegations of a massacre, though, seem to be the reason this little battle gained any notoriety in the West to begin with. 1,539 Palestinians died thru 7 May 2002 during the Second Intifada due to Israeli violence (per UN ref). So, mathematically, this was an above average week, but not by an order of magnitude, as was thought at the time. Compare the 27 February 2002 IDF Operation, for lack of a working title, which the U.N. mentions. It got no international attention (beginning the same week as the U.S. Invasion of Afghanistan oops, I was thinking of Operation Anaconda; there musta been something going on 2002#February?) so no Western source knows what it was called, or how many people died; it's not on the templates we have for it and we have no article for it. We're suffering from WP:RECENT in reverse here. -- 146.115.58.152 05:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that that is a good solution, and hope that you'll be able to convince the rest of us. The only issue which I had with the edits (which were clearly marked and thought out - I'm grateful for that) was inclusion of the previous incursions etc. in the lead. I appreciate the attempt at "balance" as it were, but the previous IDF actions, while relevant, are not directly related in the way that the other "context" is, that is those specific bombings were cited by the Israelis as a direct part of the cassus belli. The information is still valuable to the broader picture, and so I moved it to the "background" section, albeit without the vague and possibly controversial "cycle" phrasing. Tewfik^Talk 08:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The anon's version has made the article worse, not better. Who exactly is it that is supposed to have referred to the subject of this article as the "Jenin massacre" in April 2002? The anon's text implies the term was once "in favor" with "international organizations". Which organizations exactly? AI? HRW? The UN? No one has produced a statement, report, or other document from any of these organizations which refer to the battle/incursion as the "Jenin massacre", and until someone does this text should be removed. Likewise there is no article from the British press during this period that refers to it as such. If the Arab press is meant, that should be said explicitly (and is, later in the article). Sanguinalis 14:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I think Sanguinalis sums it up well. The term "jenin massacre" appears to have been largely an invention of Israeli and pro-Israeli press, who then attributed it falsely to their opponents. In any case, it is not suitable for inclusion in the lead, which should focus primarily on the actual events on the ground, with secondary attention to international reaction. Currently we have a lead which talks more about Palestinian suicide bombings than any other topic; now you want to add information about sporadic reports in non-reliable media outlets? If you replace paragraphs 2 and 3 with a single brief mention that it was part of IDF operation "Defensive Shield", you have something close to the lede I'd prefer. The last thing we should do is stuff in more tangentally relevant information just to make Palestinians look bad, let alone draw false implications about what international organizations did. Eleland 14:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Eleland,

The term "jenin massacre" appears to have been largely an invention of Israeli and pro-Israeli press, who then attributed it falsely to their opponents.

— by User:Eleland, 14:35, 9 September 2007

all i can say is, "wow". Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I put on my tin foil hat as I step away from the microphone to breathe. Wow. Kyaa the Catlord 17:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps Jaakobou or Kyaa can help. In "previously referred to as the Jenin Massacre", who exactly is it who once referred to the battle as "Jenin massacre", and now now longer does? Be specific. Sanguinalis 17:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

the mainstream media reported it either as massacre or possible massacre, the word battle was secondary in the reports. i suggest you go over the linked talk and also the article sources and compare the words in the 6 april - 28 april and the articles that came out afterwards. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

My very first involvement in this talk page was to point out that an Anti-Defamation League screed claimed that world media rushed to embrace this "Jenin massacre" concept, yet none of the quotations given by the world media actually used the term "massacre" except in scare quotes, or attributed with some word such as "allegations" or "claimed". If you Google "Jenin massacre" you will find scores of rightwing media-flak groups, blogs, etc which all attribute this term "Jenin massacre" to supposedly anti-Israel sources, yet never quote them using it.

I have just now noticed that Media Lens made this observation long ago: "As of May 6, 2002, Media Lens found 65 examples in the Guardian and Observer, and 27 examples in the Independent, of articles containing the words 'Jenin' and 'massacre'. Remarkably, we found not even +one+ example of a Guardian, Observer or Independent journalist describing Jenin as a massacre. Instead, we found dozens of references to 'claims' and 'allegations' of a massacre in Jenin."

I don't know what Palestinian officials may have said off-the-cuff during those dark days when the camp was locked down, Israeli generals were estimating "hundreds" or "250 dead", and Ha'aretz was quoting Shimon Peres calling it a "massacre". But as Uri Avnery so aptly put it, "The army wanted to prevent the entrance of eye-witnesses into the camp at any price. The army knew that this would give rise to rumors about a terrible massacre, but preferred this to the disclosure of the truth. If one takes such extreme measures to hide something, one cannot complain about the rumors." Eleland 21:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

"Jenin Massacre" is currently the name of this entry's Arabic version. That phrase in Arabic returns 13,800 hits, none of them to CAMERA et al., while English returns 30,500. Such contemporary gems from the "Israeli and pro-Israeli press" include "Jenin 'massacre evidence growing'", "Arabs press UN over Jenin 'massacre'", and "Expert weighs up Jenin 'massacre'" from the BBC, "Jenin massacre uncovering" and "UN report on Jenin massacre flawed" from ABC (Au), "UN report rejects claims of Jenin massacre" from the Guardian, and others from pro-Israel bastions like Al Jazeera, Democracy Now!, CounterPunch, and more. Tewfik^Talk 09:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

“Weasel words and disruptive spin” in the lead

The weasel word reference, Tewfik, is to the repeated insertion of the word “some” – "some international sources" – on your stated grounds that “only the EU said without qualification” that Israel had used “indiscriminate” and disproportionate force. I don’t where you get this idea and why you keep insisting on it when it’s been shown to be false. The “spin,” of course, is a reference to your continual attempt to frontload, buff up, and even exaggerate those findings you agree with, while muffing or weasel-wording those you don’t. So the fact that human-rights groups “found no evidence of massacres” isn’t enough; you need them to have “disproved” or “overturned" the allegations, and you’re willing to have a syntactically muddled sentence in order to get that extra legalistic ooomph. And while you’re burnishing that finding, you won’t even acknowledge the fact that HRW very clearly described Israeli actions as “indiscriminate,” although it’s irrefutable. I don’t know how to describe this kind of behavior except as disruptive. At any rate, the version you’re edit-warring against is clean, elegant, straightforward, incontestably NPOV, and closely follows the language actually used by the sources. Please stop spinning it.

Now I’m going to give you some sources, most of which you should already have read, in the hopes that you’ll stop once and for all claiming that “only the EU” has described Israel’s use of force as “indiscriminate.” We’ve been through the UN report together; your argument, as I understand it, is that whenever it uses the word “indiscriminate” it’s quoting Palestinians. Even if this were true – and it isn’t – this would still be a very weak argument, because these are findings, and the report is obviously quoting what it finds to be credible. When the UN report says “Witness testimonies and human rights investigations allege that the destruction was both disproportionate and indiscriminate," (i) it is clear that they find the allegations credible, and (ii) while the "witness testimonies" are almost certainly Palestinians, the "human rights investigations" are almost certainly not. At any rate, the reliable sources do not agree with your idiosyncratic argument, and the UN report was widely described as finding Israel to have used “indiscriminate force”: The Toronto Star, for example, reported that “Israel is criticized for "disproportionate and indiscriminate destruction" of civilian property, using Palestinian civilians as human shields during house-to-house searches and for preventing aid and medical workers from staging rescue operations."

The Association for Civil Rights in Israel described in Ha'aretz how the "Jenin refugee camp has been subjected to indiscriminate house demolitions." The detailed Amnesty report "Shielded from Scrutiny: IDF violations in Jenin and Nablus" also focused on the "indiscriminate" use of force. But your most mind-boggling omission is Human Rights Watch's repeated statements on the matter. They say very clearly "Palestinians were used as human shields and the IDF employed indiscriminate and excessive use of force." In their Human Rights Watch World Report, 2003: Events of 2002, they describe the background of Operation Defensive Shield:

During the operation, Israeli soldiers repeatedly used indiscriminate and excessive force, killed civilians willfully and unlawfully, and used Palestinian civilians as humans shields.

Then in the next paragraph they focus specifically on the siege of Jenin:

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

It then goes on to describe a 57-year-old man in a wheelchair "equipped with a white flag" being shot to death and run over by IDF tanks, and a 37-year-old quadriplegic being crushed to death when his father was not permitted to evacuate him from their family home. Tewfik, an entire chapter of HRW's lengthy report on Jenin is called "Disproportionate and Indiscriminate Use of Force Without Military Necessity by the IDF." A sample passage:

The destruction in other areas of the camp was indiscriminate in its effect on the civilian population, and disproportionate to the military objective obtained... Human Rights Watch concludes that the Israeli military actions in the Jenin refugee camp included both indiscriminate and disproportionate attacks. Some attacks were indiscriminate because Israeli forces, particularly the IDF helicopters, did not focus their firepower only towards legitimate military targets, but rather fired into the camp at random. This indiscriminate use of firepower added significantly to the civilian casualty toll of the fighting and the destruction of civilian homes in the camp. The Israeli offensive in Jenin refugee camp was also disproportionate, because the incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, and damage to civilian objects was excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.

This chapter then has a subsection on "Indiscriminate Helicopter Fire":

Although missiles had been used from the beginning of the incursion, their use became particularly intense in the early morning hours of April 6. Testimony collected by Human Rights Watch indicates that many areas of the refugee camp were fired upon at that time, catching many sleeping civilians unaware. Many of the rockets used were U.S.-made wire-guided TOW missiles. The evidence gathered by Human Rights Watch suggests that many of the TOW missiles indiscriminately hit civilian homes and in at least one case a civilian was killed when she was struck by a helicopter missile. The number of solely civilian objects hit in the helicopter attacks the early morning of April 6 suggests that insufficient care was taken by Israeli forces to target only military objects. Due to the dense urban setting of the refugee camp, fighters and civilians were never at great distances. Nevertheless, such proximity does not provide a valid excuse by Israeli forces' action in firing upon the entire area as if it were a single military target... Indiscriminate attacks were most intense on April 6, but they did not entirely abate afterwards... Some of the helicopter missile fire was so indiscriminate that it nearly killed IDF soldiers.

Tewfik, can you please, please stop saying that among international sources, only a Spanish official of the U.N. described Israeli actions as “indiscriminate”? And will you please leave in place a neutral version of the lead, one which doesn’t muffle or disguise one set of HRW findings while foregrounding and burnishing another?--G-Dett 14:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

To your thorough and unimpeachable demolition of Tewfikstery I add only that Peter Beaumont of The Observer specifically described "helicopters ... firing indiscriminately into the city's crowded refugee camp"; he was an international journalist and a direct eyewitness. Tewfik argued previously that because Beaumont in another paragraph also said that Palestinians alleged indiscriminate helicopter fire, his direct objective-voice statements didn't count. It's in Talk:Battle of Jenin/Archive 3#The neutrality and factual accuracy of this article are disputed.. Eleland 14:46, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Instead of an essay justifying your allegations of bad faith, G-Dett, you could acknowledge that comments should be limited to the edits, and not the editors. The same goes for you, Eleland, since poison like Tewfikstery is just as wrong as me talking about some hypothetical "Elelandery". No one has the right to suspend WP:CIV because they believe that their position is the correct one, and I'm certainly not going to begin taking seriously comments that ignore it just because their frequency is increasing.

As for the actual substance, the above comments omit that the UN report still refuses unqualified use of the word in reference to Jenin, that the AI report still refuses any use of the word in reference to Jenin, and that despite its section documenting the cases it considered indiscriminate, HRW still makes the charge twice in its introduction, once in regard to the Israelis ("At times, however, IDF military attacks were indiscriminate"), once to the Palestinians ("using indiscriminate tactics such as planting improvised explosive"). Whether you agree that HRW is qualifying or not, none of this substantiates the idea that the objective position of all of these parties was that "Israeli actions were indiscriminate", nor are these the sum of relevant "international organisations" (the US being a notable example). Hence, "some international organisations". Tewfik^Talk 07:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

No, Tewfik.--G-Dett 10:07, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The cites which are there support "Palestinian sources" but not "International". The UN report is based on Palestinian accounts. As for the NGOs and HR groups, that's in the next sentence. <<-armon->> 13:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

All the international findings – including that there was "no evidence of a massacre" – were based on Palestinian accounts, in this strict and tendentious construction. The Israelis refused to cooperate with the investigations, remember?--G-Dett 13:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Well I guess it's not surprising that the allegations were from Palestinian sources then. <<-armon->> 13:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

We should not be labelling sources by their ethnicity. That's the kind of thing that the South Africans used to do. PalestineRemembered 14:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree. So we won't change it to "Arab sources". <<-armon->> 15:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Armon, the minor problem with saying "Palestinian sources" is that it's well-poisoning, as well as patronizing in the way that PR accurately suggests. The major problem is that it's incredibly misleading, because the very sources whose findings of "no evidence of massacre" we're presenting as definitive, also very explicitly found Israel's use of force to be "indiscriminate." That's what's exhaustively demonstrated above, in the section you claim to have read.--G-Dett 15:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually no, it clearly and correctly identifies who made the claims. Adding in "International sources" is a way of "buffing up" the accusation which is misleading and not supported by the cites. <<-armon->> 15:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International are international sources, Armon, not Palestinian ones. Again, please the relevant material.--G-Dett 15:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

...who also investigated, and later stepped back from the massacre claims. The very next sentence makes that clear. <<-armon->> 16:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the very next sentence makes that clear, so why are you tooling around with this one? The major international human-rights organizations found Israel to have used "indiscriminate" force, but your edit attributes this claim to Palestinians. Why?--G-Dett 16:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Because it was their claim. I thought I made that clear. <<-armon->> 16:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Good G-d, man, read the damn sources already. If you can't be bothered with that, read the damn section you're commenting in. "Indiscriminate" is HRW's claim; they reiterate in their conclusions again and again and again and again and again and again. HRW is international; HRW is not Palestinian; HRW says "indiscriminate." I'm in Boston, Armon, where are you? If you're not too far, I'll make the trip and read the sources out loud to you, if you can't bring yourself to drag your eyes over them.--G-Dett 17:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

That goes for you too, Kyaa. Read the damn sources. An edit like this, after all the foregoing, is disruptive.--G-Dett 18:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

HRW attributes their statement to Palestinian sources. WP:IDONTLIKEIT much? Kyaa the Catlord 22:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't like these calculated misrepresentations of source materials much, and I'm tiring of these assembly-line ".....much?" quips as well. HRW doesn't attribute their statements about Israel's "indiscriminate and disproportionate" use of force to Palestinians any more than they attribute their finding of "no evidence of massacre" to Palestinians. Read the sources, Kyaa, and stop lying to readers and other editors.--G-Dett 23:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm rather concerned that PR is accusing us of being racist. I certainly hope he refactors his statement to avoid that accusation. Kyaa the Catlord 15:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Par for the course. <<-armon->> 16:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

When you two are finished licking each other's wounds, note that PR is clearly talking about the patronizing tone of the text, not about the flawed souls of editors.--G-Dett 16:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

PR is lucky to have you to "translate" for him. <<-armon->> 16:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

No, he's unlucky to have other editors misrepresenting him. It's been a problem in his time here, you will recall.--G-Dett 17:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Hmmm, my custom-made Personal vs. Substance meter seems to be blinking. Nudge, nudge. HG | Talk 02:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm at a loss, HG. HRW's findings re "indiscriminate" are very clear, as are their findings about "no evidence of massacre." Armon and Kyaa like the latter, dislike the former, and are whitewashing accordingly.[2] [3]I've given voluminous evidence above, which I shouldn't have had to do, because it's their responsibility as editors to know the sources and not misrepresent them. Yes, we are to assume good faith, but even WP:AGF makes an exception when editors are evidently lying.--G-Dett 02:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see how the very next sentence which summarizes the HRGs' findings as "Major human rights organizations subsequently conducted extensive investigations and found no evidence of massacres, but strong prima facie evidence of IDF war crimes." is whitewashing. <<-armon->> 03:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The part you're whitewashing is the part about "indiscriminate," which – despite an avalanche of source material to the contrary – you keep falsely attributing to "Palestinian sources."--G-Dett 04:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Again, because they made the initial allegations. The HRGs' findings are a different issue, so there's no reason to conflate them. <<-armon->> 04:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

And yet what you just deleted was not a conflation.[4] And the edit you've left in place makes it look like only Palestinian sources described the Israeli attack as indiscriminate.--G-Dett 04:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

It certainly is a conflation. It's an attempt to piggyback what has been shown to be a less-reliable source, onto what's regarded as a more reliable one. This is an example of biased writing. The solution is to clearly attribute who said what. <<-armon->> 05:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you know what "conflation" means – or "piggyback" for that matter – but there's only one source we're discussing here, HRW. You're alternately suppressing their finding of "indiscriminate" use of force, or misrepresenting it as coming from as a "Palestinian source." Now Tewfik has returned to edit-warring to have it say massacre claims "were overturned by outside sources." So HRW is a "Palestinian source" or an "outside source" depending on whether you're trying to burnish/exaggerate a finding or to suppress/well-poison it. Way to go, team spin. The contempt you show for your fellow editors' intelligence, not to mention WP:NPOV, never ceases to appall.--G-Dett 11:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I'm now going to ignore your tantrums. If you have anything of substance to say, try not to conflate it with personal attacks and incivility -otherwise it will just be drowned out by the background noise. <<-armon->> 00:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, nonsense. My "tantrums" are the one thing you pay attention to. What you steadfastly ignore, as demonstrated above, is the actual source materials.--G-Dett 00:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Hear, hear. Enough punctilios. If, as Tewfik claims, he has read the sources, then he knows that HRW calls Israeli actions in Jenin "indescriminate" again and again and again. He knows that the EU describes "an indiscriminate use of force, that goes well beyond that of a battlefield", and that Amnesty describes "documented cases in Jenin and Nablus where people were killed or injured in circumstances suggesting that they were unlawfully and deliberately targeted". To claim that these statements do not represent allegations of indescriminate action can prima facie be regarded only as conscious distortion of the facts. I would welcome any information which dispels this perception, but I'm not holding my breath. Eleland 03:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. At some point it just becomes degrading to keep discussing this.--G-Dett 03:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Ultimately employed

Well, here's another narrow and clear-cut dispute which we can all spill some ink on.

The Israeli force consisted primarily of infantry supported by armoured vehicles and ultimately employed attack helicopters and armoured bulldozers as their casualties mounted,[6][7][8]

Note six is a scholarly opinion piece by an Israeli grad student, seven is Peter Beaumont in the Observer, and eight is the Jafee Centre conference report.

6 says nothing of the sort about helicopters; just that they were used, and that the IDF officially stated their use was "carefully controlled". It does say that D-9s were used after the April 9 ambush. 7 says nothing about the timing of various weaponry; just that "Dr Zaid Ayasi, director of the [Jenin] hospital, tells us that many of the civilian victims that he knows of were hit by helicopter fire in those few days [after IDF casualties mounted]." 8 has a reprint of BBC's Jeremy Cooke saying "And so for days now [on April 10] the Israeli helicopter gunships have been carrying out wave after wave of attacks against Jenin,"of HRW saying "Civilian residents of the camp described days of sustained missile fire from helicopters hitting their houses...Firing was particularly indiscriminate on the morning of April 6, when missiles were launched from helicopters", and of the UN recounting that "Interviews with witnesses conducted by human rights organizations suggest that tanks, helicopters and ground troops using small arms predominated in the firsttwo days ... There are reports that during [5-9 April] IDF increased missile strikes from helicopters".

So that's what the currently used sources have to say; nothing about helicopter fire being "ultimately employed" after Israeli casualties. Armored bulldozer use was greatly stepped up, of course, after the IDF penetrated Hawashin around 9 April but this appears to have happened after their casualties had stopped, rather than "as their casualties mounted". I propose:

The Israeli force consisted of infantry and armored vehicles, supported by attack helicopters. Towards the end of operations armored bulldozers were used heavily. Eleland 13:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Kyaa the Catlord 13:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree. That was quick ;) <<-armon->> 13:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree. Sounds good to me. --Steve, Sm8900 20:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose - my understanding is that gunships were used extensively in the first few days, before it was clear there was going to be much resistance and before there were too many IDF engaged. They did this all over the camp, causing extensive damage before the militants were forced back into one smallish area, the one that was flattened. The helicopters "swarmed", fired bullets "like rain" and used a considerable number of TOW-missiles.

I should really provide the references for this, but it's all been in the article before, and been edit-warred out. In the meantime, the most important thing is to take out the "Body Count Estimates" section and put in place a structure from which a good article could eventually emerge. PalestineRemembered 14:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

PR, I think what Eleland, Kyaa, and Armon are saying is consistent with what you're saying, unless I'm missing something.--G-Dett 15:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I've made the edit, keeping the the 10% of the camp destroyed bit. OK? <<-armon->> 03:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks good. Tewfik^Talk 07:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Burgas00's edits

Armon why do you disagree with my edits to the lead section?--Burgas00 14:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

You reverted under me while I was still editing out the background you objected to. Anyway, this introduces weasel words. And I think the death toll is better at the end. If you want to highlight it, and I tend to agree, it's the human cost, placing it at the end is good. It's the end result. <<-armon->> 14:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if I accidentally reverted you. The really problematic bit for me is the martyrs bit, that many other editors seem to have objected to and seems overtly POV and inadequate for the lead section.

Taking the main elements of my edits:

Eliminating the phrase in the lead that claims that Palestinians know Jenin RC as a "Martyrs Capital It seems to say: "before you read on, don't forget that the people who live here are just a bunch of terrorists, so its ok if they get killed".

Any source which shows evidence of Martyrs capital being used does not prove that such a term is of general use among the Palestinian population and I am sure, as I recall a Palestinian editor expressing, many find it distateful. I would also understand that they find such a statement offensive since it would indirectly say that all Palestinians condone violence.

Eliminating the bit on past terrorist attacks from lead section

That information is already in the background as I have already expressed. I appreciate you have slightly shortened it. My point is that, Background sections exist for a reason, i.e. to offer facts which lead up and explain the described event (in this case the battle of Jenin. Including the terrorist attacks on Israel in the Lead points to an unexpressed urge to justify the Military Operation inmediately and is thus NPOV. I understand we are all politiced and edit these articles from a strong position. However, it would be better if all explanations on why things occur were in the section which serves that purpose.

My edits regarding the term massacre

I may have unwittingly introduced weasel words in this edit as you claim, but the rationale here is that we should not judge whether there was a massacre or not. It is not a court of law and there is no clear definition of massacre. What must be conveyed is that the term massacre was initially used to describe the event, and then dropped by most mainstream media. This is better than saying that initially it was thought that there was a massacre, and then it turned out that there wasn't.

Moving up the paragraph on deaths

Its not only a question of highlighting the human cost. Its more about logical coherency. The lead section should contain firstly what happened and then about the media/international reaction, not vice versa.

That sums up my position, pretty much. I won't edit the article again until some constructive dialogue is established. --Burgas00 15:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Burgas00, there might be a cultural difference here. the reason palestinians use the term martyrs capital is because it's a sign of pride and respect among what they call resistance. if you consider the resistance terrorism, then you also consider "martyrs" to be suicide bombers and terrorists... however, if you subscribe to the culture that calls their activity "resistance" and "jihad" m then martyrdom has only good connotation and nothing bad with it... do you think posters of suicide bombers are in children's bedrooms because they consider "martyrdom" a bad word? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

p.s. we're here to report the facts, not judge which culture is better/worse and who's language bears what POV with other people. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

If we're to insert material of dubious provenance that Palestinians (apparently) find offensive, I wonder what other material we should be inserting into articles. Some youtube videos of settlers are so shocking I'm reluctant to write the key-words to help people find them. PalestineRemembered 10:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

read my comment again, your reply here doesn't make any sense. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Jaakobou, yes we are here to report the facts, but to put relevant information in the right places. That X number of Palestinians refer to the Jenin refugee camp as the City of martyrs is not relevant in the lead section of this article. Its sole purpose is to present the camp as "a bunch of terrorists."

Your cultural argument is irrelevant. I'm sure you know as well as I do that the term "martyr" or "shaheed" is associated in the non-muslim world (and english speaking world) with religious violence and suicide bombing. In Arabic, however, the term is applied in all sorts of senses, including, for example, for victims of assasinations.

Therefore this phrase is what you would call "poisoning the well". This article is on English wikipedia and the aim is to present the refugee camp as terrorists immediately in the lead section, hoping for the reader to immediately associate the term "Martyr's capital" with "Terrorist Capital". It is a rather sinister form of editing. --Burgas00 18:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

When one of those sources is the government of Palestine, it becomes important to describe the city in "their own words" and that even the government of Palestine referred to the camp that way is rightfully telling. Kyaa the Catlord 20:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I see no link to the government of Palestine website. That a Fatah memorandum (according to an Israeli website) calls Jenin the capital of martyrs, bombers or whatever is not sufficient to attribute such a name to the palestinian people. It is neither the official name nor commonly used by Palestinians according to any credible source.

I stand by my above statement, which has not been addressed that this is simply an exercise of well poisoning and word twisting so as to make Jenin's citizens appear as terrorists and collectively responsible for their own deaths.

In any case, it is absolutely unnacceptable that such an irrelevant point be included in the lead section.

Im erasing this until some valid response to my arguments is offered. By the way, setting up a politicised clique in this article, stifling debate is not the way to proceed in wikipedia. --Burgas00 20:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

look into the "israeli source", the appendiges have the original documents in arabic. i'm pretty surprised at how you ignored 2 other editors and just did as you felt without waiting on a response. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

You do realize that in 2002 the Fatah WAS the ruling government of Palestine? Kyaa the Catlord 23:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I fear that assertions like this are deceptive. Many Middle Eastern nations (perhaps all of them, other than Israel) don't operate with "one government". Palestine barely operates/operated with any government whatsoever - they couldn't even coordinate counting their dead. Articles such as this one will be severely compromised if we apply Western norms to other societies with very different cultures. PalestineRemembered 11:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok maybe I'm being hasty. I'll look into the source in next few days and discuss.--Burgas00 23:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The sole evidence that Jenin is called the "capital of martyrs" is a single document, an internal memorandum written by officials of the local Fatah branch in Jenin, which the Israeli Defense Forces say was captured by Jenin. Besides the fact that it is open to question whether the IDF is presenting an authentic document, the fact that something is written an internal memorandum, meant to be kept secret, by some Fatah members does not make it the official position of Fatah, much less the Palestinian government. Sanguinalis 02:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Burgas is spot-on. The biased presentation of background information in the lede was designed to "soften up" the reader and predispose them to agree with the Israeli assault. And the free use of lurid terminology whenever it impugns the Palestinians is totally uncalled for. We have not quoted, for example, Peter Hansen expressing his "pure horror" at the results of the attack, which was extensively reported, but we're shoving this disputed and less notable claim right into the lede! Eleland 02:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

You're not being hasty, Burgas, and Sanguinalis' post is exactly right. Assuming it's authentic, the document in question was an internal memorandum sent by members of the Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigade, which is secular and linked to Fatah, to Marwan Barghouti, trying to solicit more support for secular militant groups in Jenin to offset the Islamist influence. The point of the "martyrs' capital" rhetoric was to impress upon Barghouti/Fatah the strategic importance of Jenin for intra-Palestinian politics. A rough equivalent for purposes of illustration would be a private memorandum from a West Coast liberal lobby group, say a gay-rights group, to DNC headquarters, saying hey look we need more support here, don't you know the San Francisco Bay Area is widely known as the "Gay Area," and this is in your interest – libertarians are horning in on our territory, and we're crucial to your political base. This is intra-party political talk, not "reliable source" information about how Jenin is "known among Palestinians." According to one pro-Israel academic source, the document had "clear propaganda value" for Israel, and its discovery was described by one Israeli intelligence official as "the wettest dream I've ever dreamed." It was circulated by the sort of pro-Israel blogs, lobby groups and so on that some editors here depend upon for their understanding of history and contemporary politics, and their enthusiasm for it rivals that of the quoted intelligence official. The relevant policy violation is WP:UNDUE. The editors opposing you will never admit that, of course, but that is neither here nor there. The question to ask yourself is, if an internal memorandum sent to the IDF describing Operation Defensive Shield or the Jenin siege in unflattering terms were leaked and circulated by a small handful of pro-Palestinian sources and appeared once in the BBC, would we put that in the lead? Would Jaakobou, Tewfik, Kyaa et al insist that we do? Would they allow anyone to do that? Would they even allow it in the article at all? To ask these questions is to answer them.--G-Dett 02:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

comment - i suggest you go over all the refs for this instead of trying to defame a single source and claim, in unison, that it's a false presentation. as for the rest of your uncivil comment, User:G-Dett, i note you that it is inborderline soapbox and i do believe that i've already issues a last warning on such activity.^[5] should i understand that this assertion that i'm "enthusiastic about pro-Israel blogs and lobby groups" to be an honest mistake or should i pursue the case on the AN/I considering i've given due notices ? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 04:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

We can understand and sympathise with your anger at being challenged in this fashion by what looks like excellent research and sound encyclopedic logic. Pity you've not responded in a similarily persuasive fashion.

Can I ask why you're not threading your comments in a regular fashion? We trust you're in favour of meaningful discussions taking place - and we'd hate you to get a reputation for disrupting TalkPages now, wouldn't we? PalestineRemembered 11:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Jaakobou, I've removed the reference to specific editors. Note that the "enthusiasm" I described is for the leaked document, not for blogs, etc. I gathered that you're enthusiastic about it from your speeches above, my favorite being the one about "cultural difference": "we're here to report the facts, not judge which culture is better/worse and who's language bears what POV with other people". I have to admit that made me smile.--G-Dett 13:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

indeed you've removed the specific editors' names^[6] but i'm not sure on how the reset of your explanation fits into my request that you refrain from making statements about what you allege i think, feel or do. to be frank, the suggestion that i'm thrilled at some reference could be regarded as an attempt to take a jab on my credibility; and i note you that there are other references also. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

FYI on process. I analyzed some of the strengths and weaknesses of this section's discussion. (Partly I'm giving PR a critique, so cut him some slack and don't use my words against him.) In short, Burgas and Jaakobou had a good, reasoned exchange that has gotten sidetracked, inch by inch (no individual to be blamed), so it ends up as a dispute about user conduct. HG | Talk 15:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I took Jaakobou's suggestion to read the cited source, and oh my! how interesting! Source 1 doesn't make the claim at all! The string "martyr" appears thrice, in the following contexts: "Under the slabs of fallen masonry in Jenin is a new legend of martyrdom and heroism," "the camp's activists, drawn from the Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, Islamic Jihad and Hamas," and "they were interred together in Jenin's Martyrs' Cemetery." And the other source is a single sentence tacked on to the end of a BBC report, "according to Israel's count". We know very well where they got the claim from - the single document already cited. Thanks for playing, kids. Eleland 15:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm back after that brief arrest.:-) As far as I'm concerned, the credibility and validity of sources is of little importance regarding my qualms with the phrase in the lead section. I have already expressed as clearly as I can why I am against it. However, if objections to credibility do exist, all the more reason to eliminate it.

I honestly think that its now time that we eliminate this line, considering such widespread and reasoned opposition to it. Jaakobou, I think recommend rather than responding by accusing me of sockpuppeteering and "suspicious behaviour" on my talk page, that you are flexible on this point. We all have political agendas on wikipedia, but we have to set limits on ourselves regarding what is fair and what is rational. --Burgas00 20:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

it's a bit difficult to negotiate your points when other editors jump in with what you called "such widespread and reasoned opposition to it", you'll pardon me if i completely 100% disagree with that assessment of the commentary by other editors. as to your point that it should not be in the lead, i tend to agree if only we can address the issue of what should and shouldn't be in the lead (btw, i've just recently archived that section due to lack of interest).

my point is that, if we are to explain that israel attacked indiscriminately, then it must be added that palestinians called the city by it's martyr nickname - if we are to remove the indiscriminate charge, then we can eliminate the "martyr capital" title from the 28 suicide bombers charge. however, the war crime allegation and the charge that thousands have been killed, makes it difficult to remove this "martyr's capital" charge since it POV's the intro against israel. i suggest we start a new subsection and deal with possible suggestions on how to treat this issue of what each side is allowed to say about the other in the intro. do you feel i should re-factor the old intro subsection, or would you prefer a new one? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 04:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with any attempt to resolve disputes. But I dont remember the word "indiscriminate" being used in the lead section. --Burgas00 22:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

perhaps you should pay more attention to the versions you edit then - it's in the fourth paragraph. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Blocks for disruption

I have blocked the following users for 24 hours for disruption on this article and others, each user should have a message on there talk page explaining why they were blocked:

1. User:146.115.58.152 - blocked for 3RR on Jewish_Defense_League
2. User:67.98.206.2 - Also blocked for 3RR on Jewish_Defense_League both IPs belong to the same user and have made at least two edits to this article (hence why I am mentioning him/her here)
3. User:Armon for disruptive editing on this article. (defined by continued editwarring.)
4. User:Burgas00 for disruptive editing on this article. (defined by continued editwarring.)

Folks, you guys should know better then to revert war all day, please discuss the issues here rather then trying to get your chosen version to be the top revision. As you all seem to have a decent grasp on the english language, I expect that we all are mature enough to discuss here on the talk page rather then disrupting the article. I would suggest that all of you look at WP:1RR as a possible ideal that may help you folks come to a compromise. Failure to stop editwarring will result in longer blocks. I wish you all best of luck in resolving this issue, and remind all of you that there are alternatives such as WP:MEDCAB and WP:MEDCOM and even a request for comment, use them. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 03:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Did you completely miss the section above where Burgas00 and Armon etc are discussing the edits you blocked them for? Kyaa the Catlord 05:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes I did, but in any case the revertwarring is disruptive, and has been going on for over a day. Let this serve as a reminder to everyone working on this article to discuss rather then revert. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 22:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I think this is blowing out of proportion. First Armon and me are blocked and now the page is blocked for 4 days? --Burgas00 20:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

As far as the protection, that was not done by me. In any case I think you all should take some time away from reverting each other and discuss here. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 22:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Protection

In response to a request at WP:RFPP and an ongoing edit war, I've protected the page for 4 days. Please use the time to try to reach a consensus on disputed issues. If a consensus is reached before the 4 days are up, you can request un-protection at WP:RFPP. As always, the article was protected without regard to its existing state, and the protection in no way endorses the current version as "correct". MastCell ^Talk 18:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I've received a couple of requests via various channels to "adjust" the protected version to a more stable one. I can't do that. I just can't. The protection policy is very clear that admins cannot pick and choose which version of an article to protect, with specific and very limited exceptions which do not apply here. While this might be one of the more frequently ignored aspects of admin-related policy, it's policy nonetheless. I realize that the protected version incorporates a controversial, non-consensus edit, but that's the deal. You can try the {{editprotected}} template to propose a specific edit, but these generally require something like consensus to be enacted. MastCell ^Talk 22:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

{{editprotected}}
"Palestinians refugees" in lede to "Palestinian refugees", please.

Of course, the whole exposition of Deir Yassin, etc is just a misguided WP:POINT attempt to expose the undue weight on suicide bombing in the next sentence, but we can work with that after the protection expires. Eleland 12:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

 Done - Nihiltres^(t.l) 13:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Now that we're all on enforced break...

...is anyone going to take up the task of stopping this edit war permanently? The most serious effort I'm aware of is HG's attempt to clarify editing issues, so we can move smoothly into formal mediation, but it seems to be a little stale right now.

So let me ask a few basic questions.

1. Are there many serious disputes relating to neutrality, factual accuracy, proper citations, fair and encyclopedic language, etc etc here?
2. Have these disputes been ongoing for weeks, become heated, and involved a large number of editors with different viewpoints? Have they resulted in blocks, page protection, WP:ANI, WP:WQA, and WP:RSN postings, and even an attempted community ban?
3. Is there any reasonable basis to believe that this dispute will just resolve itself without outside intervention? Have previous efforts to resolve the dispute through more "light-weight" means had any success?
4. If you answered "yes" to 1 and 2 and "no" to 3: Doesn't this show the need for formal mediation pretty clearly?

Eleland 13:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the main problem with this article is the editor Jaakobou. He is a relentless POV pusher who has no understanding of the need to provide reliable sources. Just recall the enormous time and effort it took to get him to stop inserting "Palestinian claims of genocide" into the article. Anytime someone tries to fix one of the many unsourced statements or pieces of blantant POV he has inserted into the article, he just reverts and says "if there's a problem, take it to the Talk page". He then ignores or pretends not to understand whatever is said there, no matter how well reasoned. He's had a stranglehold on this article for a long time. I tried to fix some of the worst parts a few months back and got nowhere. Ramallite and other users had frustrations with him before me. The article is a little better now, thanks to the efforts of you, G-Dett, Nickhh, Palestine Remembered, and others, but it has been a long a difficult struggle, and there are still a lot of issues. And the stupid comment/reply comment structure he is arrogantly trying to impose on this page just makes everything worse. Banning Jaakobou from this article would remove the single biggest obstacle to improving it. It will take time, however, to build a case against him. We can start keeping track of his bullying behavior. In the meantime, we should all refuse to go along with his "refactoring" of this Talk page. From this point on, all edits by Jaakobou of other users Talk page contributions need to be immediately reverted. And someone else needs to take over the archiving. Sanguinalis 02:17, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

that's an impressive breach of WP:NPA... could this be a spill from the Hussam Abdo incident where i did not allow you to WP:SYN information not mentioned in the reference?^[7] Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 02:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

No, it wasn't spillover. You have certainly commited enough tendentious and disruptive editing in this article alone to justify what I wrote. But I'm glad you brought up the Hussam Abdo article, editors who have encounterd your style may want to take a look and draw their own conclusions. Sanguinalis 03:09, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

by all means, i invite everyone to see just how "tendentious and disruptive" i've been there -> "tendentious and disruptive". Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 03:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

A good example of tendentious disruption would be continually increasing the font size of your comments. Could you please stop shouting? Eleland 13:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

if only people would stop the bullshit accusations which i don't quite appreciate. font size tags removed. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - I sincerely hope that a really determined mediator could rescue this article (the alternative doesn't bear thinking about, areas of human knowldedge that WP cannot document, as I don't think has never happened before!). But it will need someone willing to stand up and vigorously defend the policies of the encyclopedia.

I see several things that are blocking progress. First there is a massive problem of ownership, coupled with pretty blatant disruption. The mediator might wish to control the influence of certain editors, either by their edits to the MainSpace or by their overwhelming of the TalkPage. The mediator might choose to control the TalkPage (or another page set up for the purpose), setting out the structure of it and sending back any excessive contribution (along with fielding anything badly worded, badly spelled, in inappropriate fonts, personalising etc).

The second problem is the trampling of reliable sources that has gone on. We've had an RfC on the use of one of these resources - despite the disruption of this discussion, the contribution from 3 uninvolved editors was tolerably clear, the particular source should not be used in the way it's been done. So what is it doing still being inserted into the article?

There is a third area where there is rampant breach of a core principle of the project, verifiability. It cannot be right that foreign language sources are introduced with no translation atall. Instead of accessible third-party translations, we get only assertions as to what they contain. It cannot be right that versions inaccessible to us are claimed to trump the translation that we have access to. PalestineRemembered 09:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Palestine Authority claim 56 dead?

after the massive success of closing the first issue raised on the dispute tag conflict^[8] in this subsection.

i'm opening a second subsection regarding the second complaint about the reliability of the definitiveness on the statement that the Palestinin Authority claimed 56 were dead.

please leave your commentary regarding the source/s on the related discussion section. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

new: opened a RSN here. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

sources for the statement

• [9] - Paul Martin, The Washington Times, 5/1/2002 (papillonsartpalace.com) , (also on CAMERA) (also here)

comments/support/object reliability

• support reliability - best i can see, the source fits my understanding of WP:RS. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

• The Washington Times is a fringe paper controlled by a religious cult. Paul Martin was accused of fabricating false quotations of Arab militant groups by Canada's national broadcaster, an accusation which has not been retracted. The P.A.'s official website alleges 380 missing, and that "the Israeli forces, during the massacre, transferred the bodies of the dead to be buried away from the refugee camp in order to conceal the evidences of the massacre." Eleland 20:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  • comment - regardless of all the figurative language and the mistaken records in this PA official document (last i checked, between the The Canaanites naming it “Janim” and the Romans calling it “Jenai” - the Israelites called it Ganim), i find nothing in this source about real investigation, nothing about the battle itself (of 3-11 of april) apart from some declarations of steadfastness, and i do see some very much rejected claims about body snatching - i do believe you've found a source regarding how this rumor was spread^{Ze'ev Schiff article} so i'm very much surprised at your double standard in choosing your sources. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  • p.s. i appreciate you taking a step back from the allegations of talk page manipulation.^[10] Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
    • That last accusation was just a silly mistake on my part, I thought for a second that you'd done the "Support / Oppose / Comment" structure again. I tried to self-rv it before anybody noticed. There are still outstanding problems regarding your selective and premature archiving of threads, which I urge you to respond to. Moving on to the actual allegation: I do not believe the PA claim I linked to is credible, but we're asking what the Palestinian Authority claim is, not whether it's credible. An official PA website is a better source for the official PA position than a disgraced fraudster writing in a Mooninite paper. Eleland 21:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
      • i don't see any claim regarding the bodies from the battle of jenin, only statements of steadfastness. i note you that the numbers cited are from 31/05/2002 and later, not from the time of the battle, to be frank, i believe it to be a purposeful omission so that the "massacre" myth can live on, mass graves and all.Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
        • It's a poor translation which is difficult to understand, but the full quote (beneath the unrelated table) is, "The initial estimations confirm that the previous statistic is not the final since there are many others (380 people) are still unaccounted. The Israeli forces, during the massacre, transferred the bodies of the dead to be buried away from the refugee camp in order to conceal the evidences of the massacre." Clearly referring to the April 2002 events. Eleland 22:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
        • The "official death toll" is 380, and that is the only figure that should appear in the lead of the article. This figure is not confirmed by anyone in the international community, but it comes from the PA, which is what makes it "official". We can and should mention the problems around it in a subsequent section, but there is no RS for the figure of 56. The figure/s given by Israel should be included, but must be juxtaposed with statements regarding its obstruction of *all* investigations and the statements it made about burying bodies elsewhere. PalestineRemembered 22:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
          • comment - this argument is really going in the wrong direction, i'm not discussing the reliability of this source (there is non) in comparison with the one of the washington post (they have some). unless you have a notice by the PA that the post was misquoting qadoura mousa and the events of the day, then we will have to agree to disagree. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

This is the second time that the Washington Times has been mis-characterised as the Washington Post. Over and above what we were told above, this is a truly notorious paper, utterly unsuitable to use for anything, let alone a claim as "surprising" as this one. The Columbia Journalism Review said of the Washington Times "because of its history of a seemingly ideological approach to the news, the paper has always faced questions about its credibility." and details a number of very non-RS incidents. Clearly, there are serious problems here with referencing - we don't even have the Washington Times article, we have a re-posting of the article by a race-hatred site that links to "Back to the Moslem Terrorist's Page" - immediately above this very story! Meanwhile, we have the PA, on it's own web-site, telling us that 380 people are/were missing. That's the official figure we have and the only one we should use in the lead. PalestineRemembered 07:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

reply:

(1+2) it matters not to me if this is the washington "times" or "post", i take it to be more credible than the PA website... even when regarding PA public statements. (i can muster some attacks on pretty much any news source, BBC, CNN, etc.)

(3+4) it matters not where the Washington article is hosted as long as we believe it to be true to the source (and we have camera as a second validation - we've already established them to be fairly credible for citing other sources).

(5) this 380 missing figure is not directly connected in the article to the april battles, in fact, it's more associated with the may 2002 and newer battles. please go over WP:SYN.

-- Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

We are actually using a copy of the Times piece in the article already; the copy hosted at that appalling hate site seems to match this copy hosted by a communist mailing list. Eleland 12:34, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

thank you, added to the top. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comments on sources by HG:

1. The Washington Times is a generally acceptable RS. Yes, there are editorial biases and problems, arguably linked partly to its ownership, but such flaws merely place it in a tier lower than higher quality US newspapers (e.g., Wall St Journal, Wash Post, NYT, Chi Tribune, LA Times etc). It is not a fringe paper.
2. CAMERA is a biased source, to be sure. I checked the Wash Times quote in Nexis, and the quote itself stands.
3. The number '56' does not seem implausible, given how many sources use 52 or 54 during that time period, based on my Nexis search. Interestingly, Wash Times Betsy Pisik the following day gives a somewhat different use of the number, writing: "...the Jenin hospital yesterday had confirmed only 56 deaths in eight days of pitched fighting ..." (The Washington Times. May 02, 2002, p.A01). The '56' was also used in: May 14, 2002, Tuesday "Hard-linders Blast Arafat. Palestinian chief target of angry chants near Jenin camp" By Bazinet and Siemaszko in New York Daily News. So, while I have no info about Paul Martin, absent stronger evidence to the contrary, I would be inclined to accept the Wash Times -- at least to put into the documentation mix.
4. For the PA. However, I'm not sure how strongly the source should be used to establish the views of PA/Fatah itself. If the PA continues to claim much higher numbers, I'm not sure that a single, even reliable exception can serve as more than a footnote about PA/Fatah's discourse. Ideally, it would be best to find a fairly academic, secondary source that can shed light on the apparent gap (sorry if I've misunderstood) between the PA's more speculative rhetoric and any PA statements that focus on confirmed deaths (presumably in the 50-60 range). HG | Talk 18:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

HG, I think this may be a moot point, as the PA document in question does not address Jenin casualties during the siege. Your point about the Washington Times being lower than top-rung journalism but not quite with World Weekly News at the supermarket checkout line is well-taken. I think however that the provenance of final death toll statistics is a bit of a red herring here. The NPOV problem, as PR has correctly and repeatedly pointed out, is our adoption of the massacre/no-massacre narrative. I address this in my aria below.--G-Dett 13:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Further comments by other users

• Comment - the source seems fine. Do we have any other officials that are not Saeb Erekat with some actual figures from the battle, other than Abu Mousa? -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 14:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The sources offered here are appalling - and represent a miniscule "Minor View". The "Major View" remains that this was a massacre (as the likes of the windsofchange.com and the Washington Times tell us themselves). Furthermore, we have an "official death-toll", and it's 380 (though we're not sure quite what dates or location is refered to), and that's what belongs in the lead. Meanwhile, there are massive other problems (as User:HG discovered when he set up his clarify Battle of Jenin page) and attempted to set out ground-rules to solve some of these content issues). PalestineRemembered 16:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Jaakobou is correct that the PA statistics represent Jenin from the end of May to the end of September; so they probably don't belong here. The 380, moreover, appears to represent the number that are missing, whereas the number of dead is given as 204. That said, I find unacceptable Jaakobou's reasoning that in principle, a PA statement is a non-reliable source, even as he treats official Israeli statements as not only notable, but as unquestioned and unquestionable fact (see last part of this edit).--G-Dett 20:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, despite what I said earlier, I'm actually not sure now what those particular numbers are supposed to refer to. The .ps sites are frankly all over the place and inconsistent. Here is one .gov.pa site which lists 99 alleged massacres from the Irgun days up to late 2005, but does not describe anything in Defensive Shield as a massacre. Here is another .gov.ps site which says, "the Israeli forces demolished the Camp completely on the heads of hundreds of its inhabitants women, children and elders using all their devastating weapons". Another .gov.ps site recounts "595 persons their names were not known and were killed in Jenin massacre and in Nablus", but the dates given are well after the Jenin/Nablus massacres which is very confusing. In additon, Hamas' terrorist wing says here that "More than 200 Palestinian were killed in the Massacre of Jenin." It's worth noting that absolutely nothing comes up for the number 56; you get a lot of news postings made at "11:31:56 AM" and the like, but nobody saying the total number was 56. Eleland 03:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

User:G-Dett - one of the significant problems with this article as it stands is that it ignores the fact that the events of April 2002 are only the high point of an ongoing campaign by the IDF. There were at least two more incursions into the camp with many Palestinian deaths, an Irish woman was shot and badly injured and Ian Hook was killed in November. Israeli killings only stopped for a brief time while there were reporters and observers present in Jenin in late April (and the bomb-disposal effort to protect them was blocked). I'm not sure how the article should deal with this, but the PA figures (subject to qualification based on time and location and difficulties) belong in the article first anyway. PalestineRemembered 09:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

• Suggestion. Here's an idea, it's not intended to favor any particular side here. Since there still seems to be disagreement here on how to report Jenin deaths, I'm wondering if you might put together a concise table of the various contested sources and their data? The table would be for Talk or a Talk subpage -- I doubt it's needed for the article, though here's an example of such a table. The table could list the Source, Publication Date, Other citation info (e.g., author & page #), Data on deaths/casualties, Basis for data (e.g., interviews), Notes (e.g., key quotes, a note about other reports by this Source elsewhere in the Table). Even if you all come to a quick resolution for now, such a Table might provide documentation to inform future generations of Wikipedia editors. Move or refactor this idea as needed. Thanks. HG | Talk 03:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC) NB -- Belated move by HG, sorry. See next section. HG | Talk 18:49, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back, HG. Your idea is great, it might even be a requirement of resolution. However, it is not going to work if reliable sources is to be trashed as has been happening here. For starters, the claims of CAMERA and the Washington Times are totally unacceptable in this article (when presenting "surprising" results, anyway, but probably in any case).

The other problem I see is that your earlier suggestions and work were simply ignored, with accusations totally unsupported dissing of your good faith. I don't see how that can be acceptable - if there are real objections to your contribution, someone has to put together a reasoned case for it. Drive-by assassinations will need to be treated as serious disruption of the project, and acted against. PalestineRemembered 07:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

what is so surprising if the UN gave the figure of 52 ? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

It might be useful for a mediator to demand that editors of this article check the references that they are quoting, and withdraw any falsehoods that get inadvertently inserted.

The UN report actually says "By the time of the IDF withdrawal and the lifting of the curfew on 18 April, at least 52 Palestinians, of whom up to half may have been civilians, and 23 Israeli soldiers were dead" and "Fifty-two Palestinian deaths had been confirmed by the hospital in Jenin by the end of May 2002. IDF also place the death toll at approximately 52. 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". It is astonishing that you can misread your reference to the extent that you've apparently done.

But you have been reminded of this repeatedly - it is difficult to understand how you can still be placing misleading material into both the article and Talk. PalestineRemembered 09:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

i apologize for the short "52" version rather than the longer "at least 52" version. i still don't see why the number of 56 is implausible considering the previous known number was 52. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:38, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

On September 10, 2007, I corrected Human Rights Watch's casualties figure to at least 52 in the "Infobox Military Conflict," conflict=Battle of Jenin. The source is http://hrw.org/reports/2002/israel3/israel0502-01.htm#P49_1774

Later on September 10, 2007, Tewfik changed it back to the incorrect '52' without the 'at least' prefix, and said, "the year is 2007, not 2002; lets not revise history." Blindjustice 10:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Blindjustice, how does this connect to the current topic of the Qadoura Mousa source? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Jaakobou, it is not for you to determine the "current topic" of discussion. Eleland 15:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Eleland, maybe it's my fault. It's fair for the current topic to be defined by the section heading. But I shifted topics. So I'll now move my suggestion to a new topic, below. Continue discussion here for comments about "Palestine Authority claim 56 dead?" please. (And forgive my hindsighted refactor.) Thanks! HG | Talk 18:49, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Table of potential sources

Suggestion. Here's an idea, it's not intended to favor any particular side here. Since there still seems to be disagreement here on how to report Jenin deaths, I'm wondering if you might put together a concise table of the various contested sources and their data? The table would be for Talk or a Talk subpage -- I doubt it's needed for the article, though here's an example of such a table. The table could list the Source, Publication Date, Other citation info (e.g., author & page #), Data on deaths/casualties, Basis for data (e.g., interviews), Notes (e.g., key quotes, a note about other reports by this Source elsewhere in the Table). Even if you all come to a quick resolution for now, such a Table might provide documentation to inform future generations of Wikipedia editors. Move or refactor this idea as needed. Thanks. HG | Talk 03:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC) :Note. This suggestion moved from above. So far, there's been one direct response by PR, excerpted below. Let me know if this slight refactoring isn't clear. HG | Talk 18:49, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back, HG. Your idea is great, it might even be a requirement of resolution. //snipped by HG, see full text above// PalestineRemembered 07:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with the suggestion. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 00:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree, and in fact this goes along with some stuff I said above, before I read all the way down here. well done. thanks for your efforts. --Steve, Sm8900 02:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Good, sounds like positive momentum (!). Who can set up the Table format on a Talk subpage? Hopefully, you all can mostly copy info into the Table from the article, Talk or Talk archives. Originally, I'd have suggested simply ordering all entries chronologically. But if you're willing, perhaps you can format the Table by source types. Not to freak you out, but how about these types (this is not endorsing or ranking them, please!!): (a) the UN, (b) independent watchdog groups, like HRW and AI, (c) Israeli and Palestinian govt sources, (d) other govts like USA, EU, (e) major media, (f) self-identified partisans, eg Camera. Anyway, let's cooperate with putting entries into the table and not worry about the types yet, ok? Thanks. HG | Talk 03:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't wish to be awkward, but I can see at least 3 problems with this: 1) there have been repeated attempts to confuse quite good RS sources with very poor ones - this "fact-finding exercise" will be rendered worthless if it is allowed to be overtaken by such a damaging practice. 2) sources that come with no independent thinking/verification (ie simply repeat what involved parties say or act as mouthpieces for involved parties) need be excluded. 3) sources who have attempted to interfere with the investigations of other sources or have acted as if they have something to hide should be quarantined. If their contribution is so significant that it cannot be left out, then it must come with a "health warning". And ....... 4) it shouldn't need saying, but we should not include any sources that appear to hate one party or the other by "group-fault" reasoning.

I'm prepared to keep out of this exercise if we can agree ground-rules that exclude partisan sources whose good-faith or reliability is questionable. I invite any editors who would appear to be totally partisan to do the same. PalestineRemembered 07:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Your second (2) point is esp useful. We don't need to keep listing redundant sources, except maybe if they add a higher degree of authority or analysis. E.g., once the U.N. is cited by the Wall St Journal, we won't list citations by the Cleveland Plain Dealer etc. Otherwise, though, let's list all the sources folks think might be relevant, for now. After we see the whole picture, then we can decide what to exclude from the Article itself for the various reasons mentioned by PR. Ok? By filling out the table in this way, we can defer your disagreements over questionable sources and gain some perspective first. Thanks for clarifying these, PR. HG | Talk 09:05, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I object. The chances of getting this article into any kind of reasonable shape have been systematically wrecked by the use of sources that are clearly unfit to be used for questions of fact. Not just once, but at every turn and on almost every item of fact and every paragraph in this article. We'll get nowhere if the "mediation/fact-finding" goes down this ludicrous, completely unproductive route. It's not as if part of this hasn't already been decided by the RfC on RSs in this article, see "next section below": PalestineRemembered 10:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

i think it's a good idea for solving issues for the long run. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

PR, this seems like the best routoe to constructive compromise. There are many Palestinian sources whom the world considers fringe, because they consider Israel's creation to be the result of war crimes, theft of Palestinian land, and suppression of Palestinian rights. There are other sources who believe Israel has no right to exist at all. Would you like them excluded completely, since they are extremist groups? or would you like to see some reasonable way to show that there are two very different viewpoints and approaches at work here, both with some valid acceptance, within their own communities? I am trying to be open to a way that reflects that there is another side to this issue, even if I totally disagree with it. --Steve, Sm8900 13:46, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll play by the rules, the ones that say "we don't listen to Palestinians (or any non-Israelis in the ME) under any circumstances". It has nothing to do with them being extreme - electronicintifada and palestineremembered are both much calmer and much closer to being RS than CAMERA, as even a glance will tell you. PalestineRemembered 18:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

calm, huh? hmmm. The official position of the Palestinian Authority is that any suicide attacks which occur are the work of renegades and rogue elements. So I assume you calm sites must be rather vociferous in their condemnation of any such violence? As well as the fact that any jew setting foot in Ramallah is instantly set upon? Oh wait, i forgot, Israel is just as guilty of violence as the Palestinians. That must be why 100,000 of them work in israel, while not one Israeli cans et foot in a single Palestinian town.

Sorry for my rant, but I am trying to indicate that While I am able to comprehend and even repeat the Palestinian position, that does not mean that I agree with it. i know you feel just as much annoyance at Israel's actions, and I am not trying to negate your heartfelt feelings as well. I am also trying to indicate that, yes, I may have genuine objections to these sites, as you probably guessed, and I woiuld not deny that at all, but I am willing to accept them in order to respect your concerns, and to achieve objectivity, regardless of whatever objections I might ordinarily have. --Steve, Sm8900 19:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

If you guys don't mind my saying so, aren't the last two comments veering off topic ("Table of potential sources")? If I had my druthers, you'd each strikeout your own.HG | Talk 20:10, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, if you want. --Steve, Sm8900 20:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

HG -> I'm entirely serious about what I'm saying, and it's entirely on topic - CAMERA and the Washington Times are terrible sources that we should not be using for almost anything, due to the angriness of their presentation and their reputations for distortion. (I knew they were bad, it was only researching this case that brought home to me just how bad they are).

By comparison, the major Palestinian sources would seem to be fairly good - they might even match some regular RS's. Al-Jazeera is world-class, I'd have thought it was better than the BBC since 2003 and the hounding to death of the WMD expert.

But I don't even bother looking at news from those "other" Middle East sources, knowing that referencing them would simply get me hounded out of the project. I want to insert video links into Israeli Settlement - they show actual settlers in their own words, after all, no nasty Palestinian propaganda there. I'd like to quote a Holocaust Survivor and ex-Professor of the Hebrew University at Qibya Massacre, you know I'd never be allowed to do that either. PalestineRemembered 23:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

CAMERA was rejected as an RS by the RfC

This is the summing up (by me, PR) of the RfC on the use of CAMERA. The floodgates of partisan contribution that swamped this RfC were opened by a very experienced editor later found to be running long-standing sock-puppets and using them to edit-war. But two and a half uninvolved editors did participate and were pretty definite about their opinions.

• Summary - this section was overwhelmed by people party to the original debate (and I joined in, sorry).
• There were two "un-involved" editors, the sense of their contributions seems to have been as follows: "CAMERA is not serving as a 'convenience link' in the sense in which some advocacy websites host duplicates of print articles from more reliable sources. CAMERA is quoting from secondary sources. Thus it should be used with care, and preferably minimized, with alternative confirmation of those news stories found. User:Hornplease 10:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)"[11]
• And "CAMERA is obviously not a generally reliable source for controversial material. .... the initial question is can be be used for its copy of another source. I think the solution then is to quote the place it copies, e.g. the Jerusalem Post, and then say (as reported by ), But if the original source is accessible, why not find it and cite it? ..... User:DGG 02:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[12]
• There was a third semi-involved editor, User:Number_57 had visited the article 5 days earlier hoping to mediate. His involvement may have led him to make this comment: "Talk about selective interpretation! Yes it might be reliable for quotes, but as Nishidani also points out, it is a completely unreliable source for its meaning. Can you guarantee that the source will only be used for quotes and that it will not be referenced for meaning? I very much doubt it. Number 57 08:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)"[13]
• In conclusion, I believe the community, as discovered from this noticeboard, "finds that CAMERA is a source that should only be used with great care". PalestineRemembered 09:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

comment by jaakobou - (1) i disagree that Number57 is only semi-invovled, but that's not the main issue. (2) i agree 100% that camera should be used with great care, however, in this case, we've validated about 46 out of 50 citations, so there's really no reason to believe anything to be false... if there is a certain unvalidated quote which concerns you, you can bring it up and i'll do my best to validate it. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm missing something obvious, but I have no idea what the "46 out of 50 citations" is meant to refer to. Are we now citing CAMERA 50 times? The article wasn't that bad the last time I checked! Furthermore, I must note that your understanding of what "validation" means is contrary to general understanding of the term. Validating would mean you found the original, read it, and cited it, not that you determined that the article really did exist, but you have no idea what it said. Eleland 12:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

i'm well aware of how you interpret the fact that i made a phone call to the publisher and validated that the quote exists as is on the original and not out of context. in my opinion, that is a solid enough validation - you however, disagree. am i correct? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's do it this way: Only add a source if you consider it reliable to use in body count estimate(s) for the article, or for the article's narrative about reporting of the body count (assuming for now notability of such a narrative). Thus, if as PR pointed out, there's a mutual agreement that a given source is unreliable, then nobody need bother entering such an unreliable source into the Table. If at least one User feels that a source may deserve to be utilized in the Article, he/she may add the source. Clear and fair enough? HG | Talk 14:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid we're not going to get anywhere if we reject (in this case) even the considered opinion of the community as expressed in the RfC, and carry on shoe-horning angry, badly referenced and very "surprising" material from CAMERA

It really would be worth your while reading the CAMERA article "A Study in Palestinian Duplicity and Media Indifference". Then ask yourself whether - "if this was Palestinians so angry would you or I give them any credibility whatsoever?" The answer is "of course not!".

If the title alone didn't give it away then the text does so, trying to persuade us "despite copious evidence of their blatant lying – the latest proof being United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan's August 1, 2002 report refuting their fictitious “massacre”– the credibility of these spokesmen with the American press is apparently unaffected.".

And reading this article would remind you what I said before - our article is written to quite a small "Minority View" (even in the English-speaking world, let alone everywhere else). Here is what CAMERA is trying to persuade us (as of August 2002, 14 weeks after the event): "The fact that the American media (with a few exceptions) seem either unwilling to critically evaluate their facilitating of Palestinian misinformation or unaware of their complicity in the phenomenon underscores the importance of a serious presentation of the nature and scope of the problem."

Please don't spoil my tea by telling me that that the CAMERA article is a "serious presentation" of anything - or that it doesnt confirm what I told you first, Israel was/is near universally condemned over this incident! PalestineRemembered 16:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

PR does have a valid point, even if I do accept CAMERA sources. Can anyoine please find some jpost.com articles or some other sources which indicate that Israel was not deservinbg of being condemned? Surely jpost.com must have covered this in some manner which might be more positive. --Steve, Sm8900 16:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't take much notice of the Jerusalem Post, but I'm not aware of it being angry or appearing to distort things the way that CAMERA does. I wouldn't expect to have any objection to their death estimates appearing - go for it! PalestineRemembered 16:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

first paragraph is TERRIBLE

has nothing to do with the actual battle of Jenin and simply adds to the confusion

"Palestinian refugees living in the camp have been denied the right of return or compensation for the confiscation of their property by Israel. Zionist terrorist groups, such as Irgun and Lehi (group) (also known as the Stern Gang) played a major role in achieving Israeli independence, and the massacre at Deir Yassin and at other locations where civilians were targeted were successful in instilling terror in the indigenous non-Jewish population and which motivated them to flee."

All of that is unnecesary and belongs in a different article Drsmoo 05:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

i agree, this is a case of (what i believe to be vandalism) someone inserting inappropriate material (never introduced into the article before) just before it was locked.^[14] Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

What it is, is a misguided attempt to illustrate the absurdity of the lede's focus on suicide bombing by introducing another issue that is only tangentially releated to be battle of Jenin. While I don't approve of this disruption, calling it "vandalism" is a little rich. Eleland 12:00, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

you call it misguided, i call it vandalism. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

not a big deal, but I call it "misguided". We've all been there, including myself. --Steve, Sm8900 13:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Body Count Table

N.B. Only add a source if you consider it reliable to use in body count estimate(s) for the article, or for the article's narrative about reporting of the body count (assuming notability of such a narrative, for now). Thanks to all contributors and to Eleland for starting us off! HG | Talk 14:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Date (dd mon yyyy)	Count & type of count	Attributed source	Reporting source(s)	Notes
09 Apr 2002	perhaps > 120	Reports from inside camp	Inigo Gilmore for Daily Telegraph	Reporter in Rummana near Jenin talks to non-combatants arrested and taken from camp.
09 Apr 2002	a massacre	Foreign Minister Shimon Peres "a massacre"	Ha'aretz quoted by Indymedia	Peres also quoted saying "When the world sees the pictures of what we have done there, it will do us immense damage." [note: Ha'aretz changed story completely the same day.]
c. 10 Apr 2002	up to 200	'very senior generals'	Australia/Israel Jewish Affairs Council Sept 2005	"the press quoted Defence officials with numbers ranging as high as 250. These figures made the Palestinian claims of 500 dead seem within the bounds of plausibility."
10 Apr 2002	'could reach 500'	Saeb Erekat on CNN	Various, perhaps exaggerated.	"the numbers I am receiving today is that the numbers of killed could reach 500 since the Israeli offensive began" (hence, throughout West Bank. Does not use word 'massacre'.)
11 Apr 2002	500	Palestinians	CNN correspondent Ben Wedeman	"The Palestinians are reporting 500 dead."
11 Apr 2002	possibly as much as 200	International relief sources	CNN correspondent Ben Wedeman	"International relief sources are saying possibly as much as 200."
12 Apr 2002	about 100 estimated	IDF	BBC News	"According to the Haaretz newspaper, military sources said two IDF infantry companies were scheduled to enter the camp on Friday to collect the dead"
12 Apr 2002	100 to 150	Israeli Foreign Ministry	CNN	between 100 and 150, 95% being Palestinian gunmen
12 Apr 2002	200 - 500	Israel, Palestinians and Red Cross	CNN correspondent Ben Wedeman	"Israeli officials .... say around 200. Palestinians say 500. The Red Cross is somewhere in between."
12 Apr 2002	around 200	IDF	Ha'aretz	"IDF intends to bury ... Around 200 Palestinians are believed to have been killed ... those identified as terrorists will be buried at a special cemetery in the Jordan Valley." {Israeli Supreme Court blocks then allows this.)
13 Apr 2002	some 250 killed	Israeli military sources	South African BC	"The Israeli army says it lost nearly two dozen of its own and military sources have estimated some 250 Palestinians were killed."
13 Apr 2002	100s, Israel preparing to bury 900	Yasser Abed Rabbo, Palestinian information minister	South African BC	"The Palestinians say hundreds more were killed and Yasser Abed Rabbo, the Palestinians' information minister, yesterday accused Israel of digging mass graves for 900 Palestinians in the camp."
14 Apr 2002	"had estimated 150-200"	Israeli army	Capt Dallal in New Republic reprinted AIJAC	Captain Jacob Dallal is former Deputy Director of the International Press Office of the IDF Spokesperson’s Unit.
14 Apr 2002	dozens not hundreds	Defence Minister Ben Eliezer	Australia/Israel Jewish Affairs Council	"Sunday morning [14th] when then-Defence Minister Binyamin Ben Eliezer reported to the cabinet that "dozens not hundreds" were killed."
17 Apr 2002	not less than 500	Saeb Erakat	on CNN	"to have an international commission of inquiry to get the results (ph) and to decide how many people were massacred. And we say the number will not be less than 500."
17 Apr 2002	No more than 45	Ben-Eliezer	on CNN	"No more than 45, sir. That's what we have counted. And, you know, the amazing thing that we have found among them, more so than, by the way, were uniformed. And two of them, just recently we found them, with -- as a suicide bomber."
18 Apr 2002	c. 65 bodies recovered	Zalmon Shoval, aide to Ariel Sharon	BBC News	Zalmon Shoval, adviser to Sharon "defended Israel's actions, saying it was fighting for its life ... only about 65 bodies had been recovered, of which five were civilians. "
18 Apr 2002	at least 52	HRW	HRW	"This figure may rise as rescue and investigative work proceeds...Due to the low number of people reported missing, Human Rights Watch does not expect this figure to increase substantially."
18 Apr 2002	54	Palestinian hospital lists	Amnesty International	"According to hospital lists ... there were 54 Palestinian deaths between 3 and 17 April 2002 ... not a single corpse was brought into the hospital from 5 until 15 April"
23 Apr 2002	40 + 120	Derek Pounder, Forensic Scientist	Guardian	"Even if one accepts the Israeli claim that "only" 40 Palestinians died, there ought to be another 120 lying badly wounded, in hospital. But they are nowhere to be found. We draw the conclusion that they were allowed to die where they were"
7 May 2002	c. 375 in all West Bank	PA	PA figure included in UN report	" While the exact number of Palestinians killed is still not final ... as of now reports indicate that 375 Palestinians were killed from 29 March to 7 May 2002" (Nablus included, thought to have 80 Palestinians and 3 soldiers dead).

Additional deaths and bodies not in the original counts:

Date (dd mon yyyy)	Additional deaths & bodies found	Attributed source	Reporting source(s)	Notes
Early May 2002	at least 2 more	Witnesses	UN Report	Bomb-disposal teams refused entry for 'several weeks' in which time at least two Palestinians were accidentally killed in explosions from remaining Palestinian ordnance and mines allegedly laid by the IDF according to Jordan in UN report.
4/8 Aug 2002	4 bodies found	12 Internationals	Jenin Inquiry	12 from the US, UK, Ireland, Canada, Norway, including an international lawyer. 3 bodies 4th August, 1 body 8th August from under rubble.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The fat lady sings about facts, structure, and tone

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

page move

It appears the article was recently moved from it's previous title at "Battle of Jenin," to "Massacre of Jenin,"^[15],[16] without discussion, and by an editor who has previously not edited this article. Could we hear what the arguments are for this name change, or if (as I suspect,) most others agree with me that the name change was not a good idea, can we move it back soon? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

note: it appears someone also blanked out the redirect page.^[17]. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

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

Staying focused with an agenda

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MEMRI etc. sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

Extremely frustrating

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Colin Powell a massacre denier?

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

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

you already know that this edit is inappropriate.^[19]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposed partial rewrite and outline

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

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

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

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

4. Reporting battle casualties

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

5.2 Was the battle of Jenin a massacre?

6. Investigations of the Battle of Jenin

6.1 United Nations //various UN subsections

6.2 Human Rights Watch

6.3 Amnesty International

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

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

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

Thanks for both comments. Really, I don't have a stake in 52, 54, 56 or "52-56". I wrote the UN and "at least 52" because it's in the article, and your previous discussion[20] accepted the data as long as we don't leave out "at least." I know there's been some debate here about the credibility of HRW and AI, too. Eleland, if you don't mind my nudging you a bit, the question over the UN source isn't what we personally think is "almost useless" or "like the most credible" but rather how the UN source is treated by other (or more) reliable sources. So, if you accept the "2 more killed by UXO" from the UN, it would seem consistent to add that to the previous 52 from the UN and maybe arrive at 54? In other words, stick w/the UN and not mix & match different sources (e.g., AI + UN). I've quoted both the 52 and +2 in the next Talk section. What did you think of the outline and subheadings I've suggested? thanks! HG | Talk 14:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

HRW estimate of Palestinian dead being misrepresented

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

the problem is that the HRW's document implies that there could be more casualties and deaths. the introduction to the article is supposed to be a final death toll summary and not a midway estimation. considering that HRW haven't come out with any new reports claiming their previous number was false, i believe that the "at least" statement has room in the article's body, but not in the intros final summary. also on that same note, i saw you removed the number of arrested,^[21] i agree that placing them under "casualties" is a bit inaccurate, however, the removal blanks out information and we should come up with a replacement location rather than just delete it. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:05, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

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

Three

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

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

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

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

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

Synthesis vs. Weasel - About the number three

the following is in continuation to this thread.

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

warred out version

the following is a previous version of the article:

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

extra notes and sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6) Embassy Briefing March 29, 2002:

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

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

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

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

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

comments on syn vs. weasel

• considering theses sources, i request User:146.115.58.152 to please revert back to the more accurate version that doesn't use "A series of three suicide bombing attacks by Palestinian militants on Israeli civilians...".^[22] Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • comment - Let's see. Extra sources (1), (3), (4), (5), (6) and (8) are all Israeli government sites, while (7) is quoting a anonymous Israeli government source. Source (2) is from 13 April, and includes attacks well after the start of the operation. I've given as much ground as I care to here. We're leaving out the last round of Israeli attacks from the lead, after the start of which these first three bombings occurred. We're linking to the entire list of every attack by Palestinians against Israeli during the entire 2nd intifada. So this is already presenting a somewhat one sided POV, so least we can say is what the highest leaders of the Israeli government actually said, in a "spontaneous declaration," as to what prompted the attack, succinctly as possible. Let's take another civil war for an example: would you think an article on the Battle of Gettysburg should link to a list of every attack by the Confederacy on the Union, and insist those attacks were what "prompted" the Gettysburg Campaign. Of course not; this would be obviously biased and ignore all the history of attacks by both sided in the war up to that point. It's perfectly fair, though, to say that this was the Union's immediate response to Lee's incursion into the North after the Battle of Chancellorsville. Exactly same problem with how you want the lead here. Even if I might agree the the terrorists/slave-holders are the bad guys in each case, it's simply not our job to take sides. -- 146.115.58.152 20:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
    • reply - i thought we were discussing the israeli reasoning for operation defensive shield. this is not taking sides, but merely reporting the proper justification for the operation. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:53, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
      • reply - Of course terrorist attacks were the justification for Operation Defensive Shield, just as slavery was, ultimately, the Union's justification for the Gettysburg campaign. Though, to be balanced if we brought up slavery there, we'd have to bring up state's rights -- the Confederate's justification for fighting -- too. However, we don't rehash these justifications, especially not only one side's, within the articles of every single battle of the U.S. Civil War, nor should we, even though these justifications are, in an ultimate way, perfectly true; WP:WEASEL doesn't mean stating a falsehood, so much as a half-truth. There's simply no better source than what the Prime and Defense ministers of Israel said at the time prompted this particular operation and this subsequent battle, within the larger Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Some statement by some minor Israeli diplomats (whose job it is, after all, to present Israel in the most favorable light possible), whether a year prior to these events or weeks afterward, simply don't bear the same weight. -- 146.115.58.152 23:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
        • comment by Sm8900 - to respond to your exact analogy. when dealing with the Union attacks on border states, such as Maryland, Missouri, and Kentucky, the justification is repeated, every time it is necessary to indicate why the Union Army was justified in attacking that city or state and considering it enemy territory. So when the allegiance of a particular geographical area or political area is in doubt, it is totally appropriate to lay out the justifications. Your analogy is more useful than you know. --Steve, Sm8900 00:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
          • reply - The Gettysburg Campaign took place in Maryland in part. I see nothing about State's rights in the lead there. In anycase, we do know exactly what Israel's justification was for Operation Defensive Shield, and we have it from the two of the highest people in the Israeli government. -- 146.115.58.152 00:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
        • comment - at the time = March 29, 2002 -- i.e. same day as most of my references.
        • I believe that your arguments, ultimately come down to the issue of what should the intro/background/article include rather than the "three" vs. "series" issue. if i am correct with this, then by all means, we should open a subsection, but i really don't see how, if the topic of why the IDF went into Jenin to begin with (most certainly a part of the article) should be written in, we base the reasoning for "three" on false synthesis of a single press conference. If this reasoning was the one stated in all the sources, you'd have a valid point, however, this is clearly not the case and clearly not the reason israel went on the operation in jenin (it does fit the "casus belli" though). Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
          • reply - No, your belief is incorrect. It's not a false synthesis to look at the source and see exactly three attacks prompted this. The conflicting justifications (causus belli) of the Israel-Palestinian conflict are usually considered security versus occupation by most sources, however I have no reason to doubt the words of Israel's leaders as to the cause of this particular operation. -- 146.115.58.152 00:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
            • note - please go over the source list, it would appear that you may have missed it. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 01:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
              • reply - None of these sources are superior to the source we already are using, as I've repeatedly stated. -- 146.115.58.152 01:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

second para again

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

On 29 March Israel began Operation Defensive Shield. In giving his reasons for the action Ariel Sharon listed 3 suicide bombings.[23] A briefing released by the Israeli embassy in Washington claimed the scale of attacks by the palatines combined with the lack of cooperation on the part of Yasser Arafat made the operation necessary.[24] Geni 01:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

1. Early 29.3.2002, Ariel Sharon starts the public statement regarding the cabinet's meeting and descision with a usual preface condolences to both the victims and families of the casus belli (i.e. Netanya bombing - March 27) and also happens to mentions two extra events with few casualties (2-4), one of which has not yet resolved. it is customary to start public statements by giving out a word of solace to victims and then proceed with the actual body of the statement. (repeated condolences introduction style here (31.3.2002), 2 days later after another attack that killed 15 more people)
2. these two new events were in progress after the emergency 28.3, 23:00pm meeting was announced,^{press release} - first one among the two started at the end of the holiday^[25] in elon moreh (i.e. only 2-3 hours before 23:00) and the other was going on even later than that.
3. in the statement body, there are clearly two points:
   1. that israel has been repeatedly trying to strive for peace.
   2. the response has repeatedly been terror activity.
   3. these two points are also mentioned (and slightly expanded) in the 31.3 statement (mentioned also above) where sharon retorts the following:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

prompted...

Hi, Eleland,

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

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

NPOV title

Hi, PalestineRemembered,

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

considering you are insisting on this version.^{[26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33]} i request you make a serious case to why the battle is "also (still) called" jenin massacre (in the mainstream media), rather than just a basic count of the number of times the phrase "jenin massacre" is listed (which includes articles that attack the press for using the terminology). Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 00:14, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

out of the first 10 -

1) wiki - excluded.

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

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

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

5) Jeningrad: What the British Media Said

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RfC - NPOV title

Request: User:PalestineRemembered requests^{[34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41]} that the title of the article will include what he believes to be the more common name for the topic. and his assertion for this is based on results of a google search - "Jenin massacre" is 3 times more popular than "Battle of Jenin" and should be the title of the article.

response (by Jaakobou): i thought that i reached some type of possibly acceptable version when i simply registered the names given to the event both in hebrew and in arabic,^[42] to portray the obvious contrast among the two.

i submit the following previous discussions that i find relevant (this is my own personal linkage to this issue and others may feel it appropriate to link to other previous talks):
1) [43] - 'previously referred to as the Jenin Massacre - round III', one (old) suggestion and commentary by a number of editors.
2) [44] - PalestineRemembered statement/evidence and responses by other editors.

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

google search for "jenin massacre":

out of the first 10 -

1) wiki - excluded.

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

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

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

5) Jeningrad: What the British Media Said

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

---

Comments by others:

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