Talk:Battle of Jenin (2002)/Archive 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No. al-manar, a TV station banned in Europe for incitement of racism is not a

reliable source. The only place it might be used is in an article about al-Manar itself. Isarig

02:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

You are wrong, Isarig. Here are two Wikipedia articles that are not at all about al-Manar, but nonetheless use material from al-Manar to illustrate a POV:

September 11, 2001 attacks timeline for September. The posture of many Wikipedia editors seems to be: We can't use sources from radical Arab groups, except when useful to prove what wicked anti-Semites they are. Sanguinalis

02:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Eleland 19:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There was no citation for the Independent quote, and its placement appeared to be

WP:V, which doesn't say at all what you seem to think it does. Jayjg ^(talk)

22:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Nickhh

08:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

The infobox is hardly the place to discuss naming, but in this case the '50 neighbours' were mostly armed combatants killed in battle, while the 30 in Netanya were civilians killed by a suicide bomber with the stated aim of killing civilians. I'll grant you that there isn't currently an explicit source for the outcome listed, but I believe that can be easily remedied, and a {{

cn}} tag would be far more reasonable in such a situation. Tewfik^Talk

09:02, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nickhh

16:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Nickhh

17:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nickhh

17:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Nickhh

18:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

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

22:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

it is simply the current reference to a known fact/nickname, there are links with a scans of documents written in arabic and references - try inspecting them please. this is a fairly

WP:RS for referencing a known fact that has been noted on several other sources also.. i don't mind more citations being added, however, there's no reason to feel the given source is unreliable in this matter. secondly, while there is no room to expand on this in the intro, i think it certainly merits a mention. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk}

23:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

the text is referenced to a

WP:RS source. did you inspect the scanned documents? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk}

01:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(forgot to log in for the above post due to lack of time - when i have more will consider how to pursue the blatant abuse being perpetrated here --

Nickhh

12:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC))

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

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

Nickhh

15:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

Nickhh

17:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

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

Nickhh

18:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

The battle attracted widespread international attention due to Palestinian claims of

war crimes and genocide

and also due to vastly inflated reports on body counts by Palestinian officials.

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

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

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

Nickhh

20:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Nickhh

07:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Nickhh

11:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Nickhh

14:38, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Kalisto89: I agree with Jaakobu

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

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

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

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

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

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

the current text:

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

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

It's cited in the body text to an Australian newspaper [13]. Eleland 11:43, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

Nickhh

14:48, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

(1)

WP:NPA

.

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

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

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

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

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

And yet, we can, when the information is something you want known ("martyrs' capital"). Here [14] is Ha'aretz approvingly quoting an Arab-Israeli filmmaker on the IDF estimate of 250, without printing any kind of correction or retraction. Here [15] and [here www.aijac.org.au/review/2005/30-9/jenin30-9.html] is a soul-searching "why does the world hate us" editorial of an IDF Captain published by The National Review Online ("Worse still, the IDF was releasing what turned out to be erroneous, highly inflated estimates of Palestinian casualties ... While our office was saying around 150 Palestinians were killed, I heard very senior generals say up to 200, and the press quoted defense officials with numbers ranging as high as 250. These estimates made the Palestinian claims of 500 dead seem reasonable.")

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

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

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

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

seems to me that the current phrasing of:

The battle attracted widespread international attention due to Palestinian claims that

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

Two problems with this line. Firstly, the destruction was an objective fact rather than a "report". Everyone involves agrees that about 1/10 of the camp was bulldozed to the ground. Israel proudly reported this to the world! Their spokesmen went on TV to tell us about it! [16] [17]

Secondly, the houses were indeed "systematically razed to the ground" not "destroyed in the fighting". Destroyed in the fighting is, frankly, a lie. Most of the bulldozing was done after the fighting [18]. The current wording falsely implies some kind of "crossfire" or "collateral damage", and misrepresents what the sources actually say. Eleland 03:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You might also note that both the UN and HRW state that "at least 52" were killed, not "52 in total". The UN weren't allowed in atall - but one group of International observers discovered[19] that "bodies were still being recovered from under the rubble as late as early August", over 3 months later. PalestineRemembered 20:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Israel was founded to be "A Light unto the Nations", this from Ha'aretz[20]. PalestineRemembered 16:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

i remind you both to keep it

civil, there's obviously many ways to look at things, but i don't think that i should use the talk page as a blog or an ideological discussion forum. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk}

18:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To take an extreme example,

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

Just noted this conversation as a link to the Buffalo Grove article linked above. I came upon the article as

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

.

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

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

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

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

User:PalestineRemembered,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wait, are you saying that the main title should be "Jenin massacre"? I don't agree. While you are correct that Kurdi Bear's actions met the Merriam-Webster definition of a massacre by any logical standard, making this association ourselves is

WP:OR#SYN, I have learned this elsewhere the hard way. Virtually the entire English-language professional media denies that a massacre occurred, so we should not contradict them outright. Sadly, the fact that their denial was transparently a pernicious, propagandaistic device designed to obscure war crimes — doesn't matter. We should just report the various viewpoints, and the readers can figure it out for themselves. Eleland

17:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC) (belatedly)

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

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

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

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

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

Jaakobou 16:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)