Talk:Battle of Jenin (2002)/Archive 10

'Subsequent investigations' - opening paragraph
I'm referring this here since the issue has led to (effectively) two reverts by different users. The opening paragraph includes the statement "However, subsequent investigations found no evidence to substantiate claims of a massacre(...)" Since this doesn't make clear the identity of the reporting organisations (and their ties to one or other side of the conflict, if any) I added a 'by whom' inline template. Jaakobou then removed the template with his edit summary suggesting that specific identification of report authors be left to the later parts of the article. Jim Fitzgerald then restored the template. Given that such minor things can easily become firestorms in this area, I thought it was best to put it up for discussion before that happens.

Essentially, should the organisations who produced 'no massacre' reports (if I can greatly summarise in that way) be identified in the opening section of the article? In other words, should the passage in question be changed to read "However, subsequent investigations by organisations including International Organisation X and Palestinian Organisation Y found no evidence to substantiate claims of a massacre(...)" or should it merely make a broad (and vague) statement about 'Palestinian and international organisations' without identifying specific ones? Cynical (talk) 20:12, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Jaakobou's edit. There is no reason to go into that much detail in the lead section. AFAIK, there was no official investigation that supported claims of a massacre, or found any evidence for one, therefore it is completely reasonable to say that "subsequent investigations" found no evidence for such a claim. —Ynhockey (Talk) 00:18, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

In regards to the recent edit, The Palestiinan report put the death toll at 54. Let's skip the "Israel didn't play nice with the UN envoy" dramatics in the lead. Ramadan Mubarak sis,  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  01:17, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Its not "dramatics". The current formulation is misleading since it implies that a UN investigation was carried out. It was not. The UN was prevented from acessing the camp. Please suggest an alternate formulation that would address this.  T i a m u t talk 11:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * There's some major POV issues with that. You can view that they did conduct an investigation or that they didn't based on your subjective perception of their mission's activity. Its also a gross POV to make the lead seem like HRW only attacked Israel when they made a huge report about the "crimes against humanity" status of the Palestinian attacks and their usage of condense/highly populated areas for their terror bases.
 * I've addressed your concern, though, by bringing back the version that was stable for a long time, which doesn't go into the details of who made investiagations. I agree that the "UN and HRW" version was flawed since Jenin themselves gave out a final death toll of 54 and declared victory. Just recently, what's-his-name, the al-aqsa commander guy was on a documentary calling it a victory since they killed one for every two of theirs.
 * p.s. it is common curtsy to try and apply WP:BRD rather than edit-war your changes into an article.
 * Warm regards,  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  13:00, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Jaakobou, I have reverted your edits back to Tiamut's version. Why? Jast because the Wiki is Encyclopedae and thus is factual. Your version offers no facts at all.

Your version reads:

However, subsequent investigations found no evidence to substantiate claims of a massacre and the final death toll was set at 52 to 56 Palestinians, of whom 5-26 may have been civilians.

Tiamut's version reads A fact-finding mission sent by the United Nations to determine what had happened was denied entry to the camp by Israel, but issued a report placing the death toll at 52 to 56 Palestinians, of whom 5-26 may have been civilians. A subsequent Human Rights Watch investigation found no evidence to substantiate claims of a massacre, but did accuse Israel of war crimes.

Tell me which one is more factual?--Jim Fitzgerald (talk) 14:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Heyo Jimbo,
 * The problem is that of balance and conservative style in the lead paragraph. It would be correct to write that Israel was accused by HRW of several instances of war crimes but it is an unnotable issue in comparison with the main accusation/modern blood-libel that was fully refuted. Also, the Palestinians were accused by HRW of committing crimes against humanity but you won't see me trying to insert it into the lead since this is a relatively less notable issue in regards to the Battle in Jenin. Tiamut wrote it up with serious POV since the Israeli POV (subjective matter as well) is that the Palestinians were rightly accused of war crimes and the UN tried to send a bullshit committee and ended up accepting the Israeli perspective on that. We should stick to the basic version that clarifies that the blood libel was refuted and let the interested reader go into the article to read further details on how that happened (which includes Qadoura Mousa putting out a low casualty figure leading to the UN disbandment)
 * Warm regards,  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  14:30, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It is extremely notable that the UN was refused access to Jenin by Israel, as attested in international media coverage of that fact and the fallout. T i a m u t talk 14:47, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It is also relevant to mention that even though no evidence was found to support a claim of massacre, that evidence of war crimes were found. The rumors were not a "blood libel" (as you keep repeating), they were a function of the fog of war.  T i a m u t talk 14:49, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Dear Tiamut,
 * All due respect, the charges against the Palesitnians are not irrelevant to the conversation and this minute point (where Israel had arguments against the consistency of the mission) is not "extremely notable". It is just as notable, for example, that the terrorists called the fighting a "victory" and that Qadoura Moussa gave 54 as the final death toll - this being the reason the UN disbanded the mission and not anything else. If you insist, we can add exactly that - that Israel complained against the consistency and after Qaddoura published the low-ball number, the UN disbanded. Your version is just a huge mess and is not even remotely close to an candid presentation of events.
 * Cordially,  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  19:10, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Well Jaakobou, I'm afraid I'm not following you. Jim seems to like my version and I do too. If you have a bold edit to make that offers an example of the improvements you seem to want to introduce, go ahead and make it. I reserve the right to revert, build upon it, or accept it, whatever the case may be, contingent upon its quality and relevance. What I won't accept is a restoration of what was there, because it was misleading and devoid of necessary details.  T i a m u t talk 19:20, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think I'm following you either. Jim likes your edit so it's correct to make no matter what Jaakobou says? What kind of dispute resolution is that? Jaakobou made a fairly strong argument about the dispute surrounding the UN fact-finding mission. Do you have a response to the argument, or will you just continue with the "I am right, you are wrong" line? —Ynhockey (Talk) 20:01, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I explained why I though my edit was an improvement above, so did Jim. I honestly don't understand Jaakobou's critique or the solution he is proposing, so I suggested he be WP:bold and make an edit introducing what is he is talking about, so that instead of spending time explaning it to me, I can simply see it and understand. Is there something wrong with that request Ynhockey? Or are you just picking on me again?  T i a m u t talk 20:09, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Jaak may (I dont think he did) have made a strong argument if we were actually debating the real world issues, but he did not make a strong argument as far as the content of the article. Jaak is arguing against the findings, that they were incorrect. That may be, but it has no relevance to the question as to what should the article say. Also, Tiamut is correct in saying that just saying "no evidence of a massacre" is only playing up one aspect and ignoring the others (accusations of war crimes). Is there a response to that somewhere?  nableezy  - 20:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't have a problem with Jakobou's version, which was long standing. Trouble started when another user started adding citation tags to the lead, insisting that the "investigations" in question be attributed. So I mentioned the UN and HRW, because they are the most famous. Actually, there were others as well, as is mentioned in a separate section, and the lead does not have to be entirely specific, only a summary of the article. I would support a compromise that would remove the word "investigation" on one hand, but on the other hand would not imply that it issued its report because it was barred. -- Nudve (talk) 07:47, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Jaakoboo, this is not a forum to discuss the issues around alleged massacre, we are taking about Facts. UN mission was refused entry to Israel, by the way, while being a member of that authoritative organization. And this is fact.--Jim Fitzgerald (talk) 10:42, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you replied to the wrong person. Not everyone is Jaakoboo[sic]. Anyway, the argument is simple: the NPOV version would include all facts, including the clear UN bias and the fact that the UN accepted the version both Israeli and PNA officials agreed on. However, that's a version for the article's body. The lead should summarize it. The long-standing version (not Jaakobou's version, but everyone's, i.e. the previous consensus) does not say anything that's not a fact:
 * However, subsequent investigations found no evidence to substantiate claims of a massacre and the final death toll was set at 52 to 56 Palestinians, of whom 5-26 may have been civilians.
 * Where does this simple summary say "UN" or "United Nations"? I think you have been misreading it. —Ynhockey (Talk) 11:01, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, really? I do not think so. Again, the facts, facts and facts only important, not something else in Wiki.--Jim Fitzgerald (talk) 12:11, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I apologize in advance for being a little thick-headed, but I didn't really understand your argument from that one-liner. Can you please elaborate? —Ynhockey (Talk) 00:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, your were asking where the summary say UN, I would like to refer you to the initial version of the lead section where the refusal to let the UN fact-finding team is timely mentioned, with no prejudice to either sides.--Jim Fitzgerald (talk) 13:13, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yaakobou, what do you exactly mean by "Discussion has a soft consensus", why are you reverting the last edit, while acknowledging that discussions are not fully complete? I would kindly ask you to revert your lastest edit and wait until other finanlize their opinions on article improvements.--Jim Fitzgerald (talk) 13:13, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Because Wikipedia policy (WP:CONSENSUS and WP:BRD) suggest that when a revision is rejected, a consensus needs to be reached before it is reintroduced. -- Nudve (talk) 13:20, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I've made the following edits to the the so-called "soft consensus" version. I see no such conensus here. Three editors have raised concerns regarding the lack of balance. My edits tried to address those concerns while avoiding the level of detail that others found problematic. I hope it meets with everyone's satisfaction.  T i a m u t talk 15:45, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I am fine with your edits Tiamut.--Jim Fitzgerald (talk) 20:18, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Some good effort in your edit Timut, tough, it should have been done on the talk page and not on the article--as has been pointed out by two different editors now. I'm still unconvinced, due to basic facts, that only the IDF was charged with war crimes as was suggested with the phrasing you chose to (again) insert into the article against the majority of active contributors of this page, so I brought it back to a more conservative version until you decide if you want to mention that both sides were accused or violations of the war rules (albeit, the Israelis were accused of several instances, while it was deemed an intentional Palestinian tactic) or if you want to only write that Israel violated them. Personally, as was supported by two other editors, I believe its best to leave these (Palestinian and Israeli) crimes against humanity details for the body of the article rather than play up the dramatics in the lead. Best avoid further inflation of the lead with details/accusations of lesser notability such as those made against the Palestinians or the media.
 * Warm regards,  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  23:51, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Jaakobou. The paragraph is about the massacre allegations, and it's undue to add the war crime accusation through the back door. Some compromise can be considered. I would also prefer that this be done on this talk page rather than an edit war. -- Nudve (talk) 05:54, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I respectfully disagree. The same report that exonerated the Israelis of an massacre, indicted that there was evidence of war crimes and the targeting of unarmed civilians. This is evident in the report (a primary source) and many other secondary sources. This one for example says organizations such as HRW were accusing the IDF of war crimes and civilian massacre. I think its undeniable that this is a notable fact. Its mentioned in the body of the article. We have a whole section devoted to debunking the claim of a massacre. But we should have more information about the war crimes that took place. A couple of words in the intro mentioning that such an accusation was made is not WP:UNDUE, its WP:NPOV. If people doubt the importance of this, there are many other high quality secondary sources mentioning it that can be provided.  T i a m u t talk 07:09, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Section entirely consisting of primarily sourced government propaganda
What's the dealio? -- 209.6.238.201 (talk) 01:50, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, the Israeli sources are highly based on the Arab ones where they claim responsibility/"the glory" for making the attacks. The source, btw, is mentioned by name and it is of high notability so there's really no issue here.
 * Warm regards,  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  10:49, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Based on Arab sources according to whom? Please don't remove the tag until this matter is resolved. WP:NPOV frowns upon the use of one-sided primary sources, fyi. -- 209.6.238.201 (talk) 00:20, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You're new here, so allow me to explain. NPOV frowns upon use of a one sided source for telling the story when there are conflicting notable versions. However, the text is attributed to its main source and this source collected data from the mukawama bodies themselves as they proclaim their responsibility after every attack. If you review the body of the citation you will note that the origins of each attack is usually known through intelligence.
 * p.s. Israeli sources are not considered propaganda.
 * Warm regards,  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  07:23, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the current and recent clarifications added have eased any possible confusion as to the immediate source of our information, which is the most important thing we can provide to our readers. -- 209.6.238.201 (talk) 03:18, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * p.p.s. Never trust the government. Anything any government says anywhere without second party verification is propaganda, as far as I am concerned. It's really nothing personal against Israel for me, per se. -- 209.6.238.201 (talk) 03:18, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Government body or foreign funded NGO with a political agenda, we're not planning on writing up "äccording to" after each and every body making a statement on the article when they were already mentioned as the reporting/alleging party.
 * p.s. I don't know how many times I should repeat this, but Fatah, Hamas, and other militants claim the "glory" after each attack so this is not just an Israeli subjective comment on events.
 * Warm regards,  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  11:00, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Query to Nableezy:
 * Adding "according to" at the end of testimonies on top of at the beginning is something I can't see as following the standard way we write here so I'd appreciate some policy based note on the new style.
 * Warm regards,  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  00:08, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It is making things clear so that there is no confusion as to who "attributed" these attacks to Jenin. Pretty basic. While the beginning says that the IDF spokesman attributed whatever number of attacks to Jenin the next sentence says "The following major attacks and suicide bombings were linked to the Jenin militancy infrastructure" as a statement of fact. It needs to sat who linked the attacks to the "Jenin militancy infrastructure". Again, pretty basic. I really dont know what you are complaining about here.  nableezy  - 00:14, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a matter of rudimentary reading skills really. The paragraph starts with the body who gives the report and then details the content of the report. Imagine every reporting body in this article (and on Wikipedia) would have "X says.... according to X". This is a no brainer my brother. Anyways, Nudve's rephrase puts us back into encyclopedic MOS so I'm happy enough with that one.
 * Ramadan Mubarak,  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  01:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I am fine with that edit. Thank you.  nableezy  - 02:20, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

definitions and date of events
A number of issues need to be considered. Our article didn't even mention these things until I added them today. I feel we need to more explicitly define the invasion and the setting up of a closed military zone which lasted from April 3rd to April 16th (or April 18th) and the battle itself which ended on the 11th. Thoughts?  T i a m u t talk 23:23, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This source says the invasion began April 3rd, and fighting ended April 11th. But it describes the event as a "13-day assault", noting the first independent observers were not allowed into Jenin until April 16th.
 * This source says that Israeli troops remained inside Jenin until the 18th.
 * I'm not sure how to reconcile those sources. I think the battle should be defined as starting with the ground invasion and ending with the Palestinian surrender. Israeli troops did remain there for a few more days, partly in order to remove the bodies, as detailed in the article. -- Nudve (talk) 06:06, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Don't you think we should define the battle as it is defined by reliable sources? We have one that says it was a "13-day assault", as indicated above. This one says the IDF operation in Jenin was conducted between April 4 and 15th. This one says there were fierce battles between April 3 and 9th, but that sporadic battles continued until the 15th. This one says the most extreme acts of Israeli state violence occurred between April 3rd and 16th in Jenin refugee camp.
 * In other words, the emerging consensus evident in these sources is that the events in question took place between April 3rd and April 15th (with some saying they began on April 4th, and other saying they ended on the 16th or maximum 18th, with the withdrawal of Israeli trooops). Our article picks the date of April 11th as the end date. Based on which sources, I am not quite sure. Do you know?  T i a m u t talk 07:24, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The sources generally say that "operations" and "violence" continued until the 16th, but do not describe a battle. The Time article says the body count started after Day 9. We could mention those "sporadic fightings". -- Nudve (talk) 07:57, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Nudve. In this edit summary, you say you have removed unneeded melodrama. What do you mean by that exactly?  T i a m u t talk 12:05, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Not sure if this belongs in this thread, but I do think it is irrelevant and unencyclopedic. Why is this person important? how is the fact that he is a paraplegic relevant to the course of the battle? was he targeted because he was a paraplegic? did the Israelis know he was a paraplegic? This is not an obituary. -- Nudve (talk) 11:04, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * But why term it "melodrama"? I was citing the source, who names him by name and describes what happened to him at length. Clearly the source found it significant, as did others. I have in any case added more information about his case and another one mentioned in the HRW report to the section on casualties. I trust you will not be removing those citing "melodrama".  T i a m u t talk 11:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the word "melodrama" was wrong, but I still think it is not encyclopedic or relevant. The subtext is "they even kill paraplegics!" I'm sure a similar tearjerker could be produced for the suicide bombings before the battle, and many pro-Israeli accounts were probably happy to throw them in, but that does not mean we should do the same. -- Nudve (talk) 11:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for recognizing that your word choice was probably ill-advised. I disagree with your conclusion that this information is not encyclopedic however. The sad fact is that "they even kill paraplegics". A man in wheelchair was shot and run over by a tank and a quadraplegic was buried alive in his home. These facts are documented by Human Rights Watch and other secondary sources. Given that they are represented inn reliable sources and are directly relevant to the issue of casualties, it is in fact encyclopedic information that should be represented in our article.  T i a m u t talk 11:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Every civilian casualty has a story. We cannot, and should not, bring every one. The source, which certainly has an agenda, thinks this particular story is important, but a neutral encyclopedia article does not have to follow suit. -- Nudve (talk) 13:31, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not asking to mention every civilian casualty and its circumstances. These two cases are mentioned in multiple reliable sources and are considered to be significant by those who discuss them. A neutral encyclopedia should present all significant POVs on a given issue.  T i a m u t talk
 * Again, sources tend to focus on human drama. I'm sure many similar stories like have been told about the Battle of Stalingrad, for instance. But they only serve to raise sympathy to the victim, and are not really relevant to the course of the battle. This is similar to telling the stories of victims of suicide bombings. If it does not help us understand how the battle was fought, it should be avoided. -- Nudve (talk) 07:28, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * These two cases are currently mentioned in the section on "Casualties" and not in the section on the battle. I think their inclusion, and a broader discussion of the circumstances under which civilians were killed, is totally appropriate and relevant to a section on casualties. Are you asking that they be removed?  T i a m u t talk 11:40, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * A broad discussion might be in order, if it can be sourced and presented neutrally. In a way, this is similar to the discussion currently taking place in another thread about the preceding suicide bombings. We need to know how many were carried out, but not excessive detail about the misery of the casualties. -- Nudve (talk) 14:57, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Lies and Crimes
The Palestinians were charged as being liars, using false propaganda for events that never happened and have gained a reputation for having an "unfortunate track record ... trying to distort information so as to demonize Israelis" (JPOST article,Israeli stance,extra, ) as well as charged with crimes against humanity. The media was charged with hypocricy and a "Jenin massacre syndrome".(sample 1. sample 2) I'm not sure we should add this content to the lead to balance it saying that only Israel was accused of war crimes (Tiamut edit). We could, instead, put the text back to the long standing version that keeps the lead away from less notable issues... (see also WP:LEAD) just a suggestion. Warm regards,  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  01:15, 31 August 2009 (UTC) fixups 01:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If you want to add more detail to the lead, then I suggest we discuss adding more about the refusal of Israel to allow anyone in for 5 to 7 days after the battle had finished. That was what lead to the rumours and speculation about what had happened inside the camp, and there was much international criticism of Israel for this. I don't think adding that Israelis view Palestinians to be liars to the introduction is a good idea.  T i a m u t talk 07:14, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe we should consider adding another paragraph to the lead? -- Nudve (talk) 07:58, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yaakoboo, saying honostly, your suggested edits are only one-sided and unbalanced. I am too, as Tiamut, concerned about it. As mentioned in the article, the refusal of IDF to allow anyone into Jenin for 5 days, and the IDF's inability to cooperate with media and human rights orgnisation, might have caused the "demonization of Israel", but the misconduct was on both sides and as Kofi Annan has correctly mentioned in the UN report (the source that you have referenced to Israeli stance:   Jim Fitzgerald   post  08:05, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I would hope that both parties will draw the right lessons from this tragic episode and take steps to end the cycle of violence which is killing innocent civilians on both sides."


 * The lead section is already too "fat". It already grown as a snowball - and is not a ideal lead section for Wiki.  Jim Fitzgerald   post  08:12, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Finally we have agreement between Jim, Jaakobou, Ynhocky and Nudve about how much less notable details should be in the lead. Tiamut, seems to be the sole proponent of mentioning both sides of the war crimes allegations as well as the Israeli search and rescue efforts and the allegations against Palestinians and the media.
 * Is there a way to convince you, Tiamut, that it's better to note these points in the body rather than in the lead?
 * Warm regards,  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  13:31, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Again, I don't understand what you are saying, nor do I see a consensus for anything in the comments above. Please try to articulate what it is that you would like to see happen more clearly so that I can follow. Thanks.  T i a m u t talk 13:40, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Four editors agree that the misconduct was on both sides as well as that the lead is too fat. Ergo, there's an understanding that the prior balance is the preferred version to the one that your recent change (i.e. "Israel was accused of war crimes") would call for. You're the only one who disagrees with this.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  13:49, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I think you are misunderstanding various people's positions and drawing inappropriate conclusions as a result. I also see nothing "fat" about this sentence: "Subsequent investigations found no evidence to substantiate claims of a massacre, but did find evidence of war crimes." Its shorter than what was there before and its entirely accurate. One cannot cite reports that absolved Israel of a massacre without mentioning that the same reports said there was evidence of war crimes. That's not NPOV at all.  T i a m u t talk 13:58, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Tiamut,
 * Maybe we need a word count window to settle this debate (per "Its shorter than what was there before"), but the previous version was clearly shorter. I trust we can at least agree on that or do we need an RfC and for someone to interpret the results? *dies*
 * p.s. you're repeating the same old argument which sounds like: "Israel was accused of war crimes so it must be in the lead of the article". This is the same approach that would have us calling the Palestinians liars and violators of crimes against humanity in the lead and four editors, myself included, agree that this is not the preferred approach.
 * Cordially,  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  14:17, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Jaakobou, I think the reason I have trouble understanding your comments is that you mix together a bunch unrelated points. The issue at hand is really quite simple. There were allegations that a massacre occurred in Jenin. Investigations conducted by human rights organizations set out to determine if this was true. The reports they issued indicated that here was no wide-scale massacre, but that war crimes had been committed. Our article discusses this fact.
 * In the lead before my additions, we made no mention of the fact that war crimes were determined to have committed. In other words, we only mentioned half of the reports findings. In order to have an NPOV lead, we either a) mention the other half of the reports findings concerning evidence of war crimes or b) do not mention that the reports which exonerated Israel of the massacre allegations. Its your choice.  T i a m u t talk 14:25, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I generally support conciseness in lead sections. However, since this is a very controversial case, maybe we can extend it to say something about the "war of words" surrounding this event. Again, this should be done through discussion, not edit war. -- Nudve (talk) 11:00, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I am fine with the intro the way it is currently. If others want to discuss changes here, I am fine with that too.  T i a m u t talk 11:10, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Since Jaakobou showed the strongest objection to it, I will let him draft an alternative, and then voice my opinion. -- Nudve (talk) 11:22, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

About the civilians in the lead
Our lead reads: The final death toll was set at 52 to 56 Palestinians, of whom 5-26 were civilians. I would like to propose that we either a) not mention how many civilians were killed, b) we use the phrasing and estimates used by the UN ("at least" 52 "confirmed", "about half" of whom were civilians). Please note that the UN estimates were not "final". They were based on IDF figures and what little information could be provided by the Jenin hospital under the difficult circumstances they were operating under. What do others think?  T i a m u t talk 17:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, since the article is about a battle, the lead should say something about the death toll. We have sources that accept those figures. We should not suggest that seven years after the battle (and counting) nobody knows how many died. -- Nudve (talk) 13:34, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * We will never know exactly how many died. We do know that at least 52 Palestinians and 23 Israelis died. If you could address the options presented, would you say that b) is acceptable to you? Or do you have another suggestion?  T i a m u t talk 13:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * We have sources, such as Time and Harel and Issacharoff and others, who put the death toll at 52. We have allegations that an indeterminate number of others may have died as well. We should not display this death toll as a mere guess. If you want, I an willing to accept option A. -- Nudve (talk) 14:33, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not denying that the generally cited figure is 52. What I am saying is that that number is the lowest possible number. The UN report acknowledged that it was at least that many. They did not describe it as a "final death toll" as we do (unless I missed that?).
 * I've thought about this some more and I think we should mention that at least 22 of those killed were civiilians . That's what HRW says and that's the figure given in most reliable sources. The figure of 5 civilians is one rarely ever mentioned and I think its undue for us to give it such prominence in the lead. We can add after 22 civilians that Israel disputes that.  T i a m u t talk 13:48, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Some more examples of what I mean:


 * "of the 52 recorded dead, 22 'were civilians"
 * "Human Rights Watach estimated at least 52 Palestinians had been killed during the incursions; 22 of them were civilians, many of whom were killed willfully and unlawfully"  T i a m u t talk 13:55, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This applies if we accept HRW unequivocally. Again, we could drop the civilians estimate. Or we could say something like" 52 were confirmed dead, although some suspect there may have been more." This sounds bad, but it could be a possible direction. -- Nudve (talk) 07:02, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess we could do something like that. By the way, do you know where the figure of 5 civilians comes from? I think its being taken from this: On April 18, Zalman Shoval, adviser to Sharon, said that only about 65 bodies had been recovered, five of them civilians. I haven't seen it anywhere else. Official Israeli estimates of civilian deaths (according to the UN report) was 14, though the UN itself cites HRW's estimate of 22 or about half. Its strange that our intro says 52-56 total, and 5-26 civilians, when the lowball estimate for civilians comes from a guy who said 65 bodies were recovered, no?  T i a m u t talk 11:47, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Harel and Issacharoff say the Palestinians had 53 killed, 5 of them civilians, according to the IDF's count. IIRC, this is what the lead was best on. -- Nudve (talk) 14:53, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


 * So why does the UN report say Israeli officials placed the number at 14? Anyway, I've decided to remove mention of civilian casualties per our discussion above. It now reads, "At least 52 Palestinians and 23 Israeli soldiers were killed." Hope that's okay with everyone for now, until we can find a better way to discuss civilians (if at all) in the intro.  T i a m u t talk 13:38, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Mass deletion
Jaakobou deleted over 4,000 bytes of additions made to the article by User:Nudve and myself. I restored the edit since it amounts to vandalism. If Jaakobou would like to address which parts are problematic, he is more than welcome to. He is also welcome to add material of his own, reliably sourced and cited. He is not, however, entitled to mass revert the work of others because he doesn't like it.  T i a m u t talk 14:36, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Jaakobou is entitled to remove information he objects to. The thing to do in this case is to discuss, not immediately revert. Describing another user's reverts as vandalism does not help to create a fruitful discussion. Considering the mass of information inserted into this article in the past couple of days, drafting the objection can take time. I would be happy if Jaakobou listed exactly what he does not like, and see if he has a point. -- Nudve (talk) 10:56, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Please read WP:REVERT. Jaakobou is not entitled to mass revert the work of others without giving a coherent explanation as to why. That kind of behaviour leads to edit-warring. He offered no such explanation here and his edit summary said only that he was "unhappy", referring to "misrepresentations" without outlining anything in particular. That's just provocative Nudve. That you don't see that is strange.  T i a m u t talk 11:08, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Nudve, I find it wrong when someone with just a simple one-click reverts all the edits made by fellow wikipeadians for days. It is unethical WP:AGF, and amounts to vandalism, WP:VAN and WP:ROWN  Jim Fitzgerald   post  19:50, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I have read the policies and guidelines, and have found nothing that suggests Jaakobou's editing was vandalism. I see he has not yet commented, and I don't know why, but that still does not make it vandalism. -- Nudve (talk) 13:39, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Really? Blanking: Removing all or significant parts of a page's content without any reason, or replacing entire pages with nonsense. Sometimes referenced information or important verifiable references are deleted with no valid reason(s) given in the summary. However, significant content removals are usually not considered to be vandalism where the reason for the removal of the content is readily apparent by examination of the content itself, or where a non-frivolous explanation for the removal of apparently legitimate content is provided, linked to, or referenced in an edit summary.
 * No explanation given, nearly 5,000 bytes of material sourced to various books and articles blanked. Sounds like vandalism to me.  T i a m u t talk 14:07, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * There was an edit summary with an invitation to discuss. Seriously, this was not blanking. -- Nudve (talk) 14:35, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm unhappy with most of this mass edit. Especially with misrepresentation of several of the facts. Use the talk page and get consensus for the changes - nobody likes edit ninjas. Do you view this as a substantive explanation or invitation to discuss?  T i a m u t talk 14:57, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It may not be what I would have said, and I would have started a discussion myself, but you could have started a thread and give Jaakobou a chance to explain what is wrong with your edit. Again, this was neither vandalism nor blanking. -- Nudve (talk) 15:25, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Reverting without explanation or discussion is only justified when faced with vandalism. If you think Jaakobou's revert without explanation or discussion of just under 5,000 bytes was justified ("neither vandalism or blanking"), you are implying that my edits (and yours) were vandalism. You are entitled to that opinion. Needless to say, I disagree.  T i a m u t talk 16:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'm implying it's a content dispute. -- Nudve (talk) 12:13, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * A content dispute? No content has been identified as problematic. Instead, the edit summary referred to me as an editor and made some vague unsupported accusations, rather than identifying what content is supposedly at issue. Sorry Nudve, but fom my perspective, you are defending rather indefensible behaviour on Jaakobou's part, while at the same time holding me to a much standard. Forgive me if I'm not inclined to view your position as fair.  T i a m u t talk 12:55, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, this is going nowhere. Besides, Jaakbou has already commented. -- Nudve (talk) 07:22, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Jaakobou commented on something else. He has never addressed the reasons for this mass revert. Thankfully, as he has not since repeated the revert, the matter can now be dropped. But let's be under no illusions. Pretending his comments were about this when they were not, is to enable such behaviour in the future. Not good.  T i a m u t talk 12:17, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Sourcing to foreign language book
Much of this article is sourced to:

Harel, Amos; Avi Isacharoff (2004). The Seventh War. Tel-Aviv: Yedioth Aharonoth Books and Chemed Books. pp. 431. ISBN 9655117677. (Hebrew)

I'd like to find English replacements for this source if possible. Where not possible, I'd appreciate it if whoever added it (or whoever has access to it) can translate the relevant portions cited here.  T i a m u t talk 18:35, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Can someone please provide a translation for the text pertaining to this section?:

''Many of the Jenin camp's men were residents of Gaza and Tulkarm who moved into the area in the late 1970s. Many of the residents came from Jordan after the Palestinian Authority (PA) was established. Israel considered the Islamist organizations' influence in Jenin relatively mild, compared to other camps. The camp was separate from the city in that ideological differences between the various organizations hardly played a role and affiliation was mostly based on financial support. The militants repelled takeover attempts by PA seniors. In February 2002, camp residents burned seven vehicles, sent by the governor in a show of force, and opened fire on the PA men. The organizations made Ata Abu Roumeileh the chief security officer. He oversaw the entrances, placed roadblocks, investigated suspicious people and kept strangers away from the camp. ''

I find the terminology here needs work and cannot do so if I don't know what the source actually says.  T i a m u t talk 10:41, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This is pretty much my translation, although it was a long time ago. What exactly do you think needs clarification? -- Nudve (talk) 10:51, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * To begin with, the first two sentences use the vague word "Many" to describe amounts of people in the camp hailing from two different areas at two different times. I find this wording to be unsatisfactory to say the least. Particularly when UNRWA, who is responsible for servicing this camp, makes no mention of these groups and says the population is made up mostly of refugees from the Carmel region.
 * The rest of it is rather unclear. A more important reason for the any split between the camp and the city is the fact that the camp is made up of refugees who receive services from UNRWA (schools, clinics, etc., there are managed by UNRWA) while the city's infrastructure is managed by the PA.
 * I also don't follow whose vehicles were burned, who the "governor" refers to, and who Ata Abu Roumeileh is. I can't find information about any of this in any other english language source. Given Harel's being wrong about the camp's residents not being 1948 refugees (I removed that bit and replaced it with correct info from UNRWA), I am suspicious about the credibility of this other information as well.
 * A translation of the relevant sections might help to clear up some of these issues.  T i a m u t talk 11:05, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Truth is, this is pretty much a translation. They do not say who the governor was or how many were from those places. Ata Abu Roumeileh is my transliteration, and I could be wrong. Amos Harel and Avi Issacharoff are both Haaretz corespondents, and I think they are reliable. I won't reinsert it right now, but I think you were wrong to remove it. -- Nudve (talk) 11:15, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I didn't remove what I pasted above. I removed this, which I replaced with information from UNRWA that dirctly contradicted what Harel and Issacharoff said. UNRWA, being the body reponsible for the camp, probably know better than they do who lives there. This inaccuracy in their work prompted me to question the accuracy of other things sourced to them. If the work is so vague as to not to provide sufficient details to make the text comprehensible to even readers knowledgeable in the subject, I don't think we should use it. I do recommend that we not include this section above for those reasons.  T i a m u t talk 11:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure. The UNRWA website does not really contradict them. Maybe the men mentioned by Harel and Issacharoff did not return after Defensive Shield. Their book is about the Second Intifada, not the history of the Palestinian refugees, which is perhaps why they don't go into details except for introducing the Palestinian order of battle. -- Nudve (talk) 11:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * According to your translation, Harel et al., wrote "Unlike other camps, whose residents had come from villages depopulated in the 1948 Palestinian exodus, many of the Jenin camp's men were residents of Gaza and Tulkarm who moved into the area in the late 1970s." UNRWA says: "Most of the camp's residents came from the Carmel region of Haifa and the Carmel mountains. Due to camp’s close proximity to the refugees’ original villages, many of the refugees still maintain close ties with their relatives inside the Green Line." In other words, Harel et al., are saying that Jenin camp is not made of refugees of the 1948 but rather migrants who came to camp in the 1970s and 1990s. UNRWA says "most of the camp's residents" are refugees from the Carmel region. How is this not a contradiction?  T i a m u t talk 11:33, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * A literal translation: "Jenin was not a typical refugee camp. In other camps in the [West] Bank lived residents most of whom came from villages they had to abandon inside Israel in 1948. But in Jenin many of the people in the camp were residents of Gaza and Tulkarm who moved to the area in the late seventies..." -- Nudve (talk) 12:10, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * So they don't mention the 13,000 plus registered refugees from the Carmel region at all, eh? Well, do they give an estimated figure for what "many" means as it applies to the people from Gaza and Tulkarem (or Jordan, as the text we have says)? How many people do they say are living in this camp?  T i a m u t talk 13:37, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * They don't say exactly where "inside the Green Line" they are from, no. They did not say how many people live in the camp. -- Nudve (talk) 13:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Bloated section on UN fact-finding mission, especially considering that there wasn't one
Our article devotes an incredible amount of space to detailing the UN fact-finding mission that never happened. Most of it is a lengthy explanation of Israel's reasons for not wanting the team to come. I would like to radically reduce this material. Any objections?  T i a m u t talk 15:18, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it is notable (I am the one who added it). This has diplomatic and historical importance. -- Nudve (talk) 13:46, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not denying that the fact-finding mission that never happened is notable. What I am questioning is why we devote so much space to it. I believe it can be edited down. Do you object to having it edited down?  T i a m u t talk 13:51, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * What would you remove? -- Nudve (talk) 14:28, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm not quite sure yet. Perhaps the easiest thing to do would be for me to make a WP:BRD edit (write that it the edit summary) let you see it and then if you have problems, you can revert and we can discuss.  T i a m u t talk 14:59, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe, but what exactly do you think is redundant? -- Nudve (talk) 15:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Its not so much an issue of redundancy. Its more an issue of too much detail. The incredibly detailed play by play, peppered with lots of quotes, pertaining to the 36-hour period between the announcement of the UN team and the announcement of Israel's refusal to let it in, seems like overkill. But if you are incredibly attached to it, I'll just copy edit for flow.  T i a m u t talk 16:50, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Alright, copy-edit it. I don't have too much time right now to go over the whole revision. -- Nudve (talk) 12:12, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Already copy-edited. I removed nothing. I did one sentence from a Palestinian speaker for balance. I have to say the section gives incredible prominence to Israel's views, positions, hopes, concerns, etc., etc. To achieve real balance might mean adding even more from other perspectives. But I don't want to contribute to further bloating so I've abstained for now. When you do have time, I would appreciate it if we could look at how to make it just a bit more succint and balanced.  T i a m u t talk 13:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll look at it again. Since Israel was the one trying to block the UN commission, not the Palestinians, I think it's understandable that this section would discuss Israeli decision making, not Palestinian. -- Nudve (talk) 07:05, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Recent changes
I'm quite concerned with a number of the recent changes, the most notable of which is the removal of the section on the attacks attributed to Jenin. Nobody likes edit-ninjas, and I request that changes be addressed properly. I plan on reviewing the changes when I get around to it and you can expect the section I mentioned as improperly removed being reintroduced into the article until proper reasoning and consensus for its removal are reached. Warm regards,  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  17:59, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Stop calling other editors "edit ninjas". Wikipedia is not the place for replaying the Israeli government narrative on every event. We say they say the Israeli MfA says these attacks happened, and the only one notable enough for an article is specifically mentioned. Giving that much space to the words of the MfA is undue. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 18:40, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The list of attacks was overkill. If Jaakobou wants to restore them, we need an equally detailed list of Israeli attacks on Jenin over the same time period. I don't think the article needs either.  T i a m u t talk 19:07, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If you have such a list about Israeli attacks into Jenin prior to this one, there's room to consider it. It is hardly overkill to list the attacks attributed to Jenin considering this article is about (wait for it) a military operation where Israeli forces entered Jenin. Anyone reading with a curious mind would be interested in knowing a little bit more into the who/which/where of the 28 attacks mentioned as successful/unsuccessful and we have this information. I'd be interested actually, in some content in regards to what you've mentioned, but this doesn't mean that there's any way that the removed content should be taken out. I hope there's no other "overkill" that needs reinsertion, but this one is fairly clear. Please reinsert it.
 * Warm regards,  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  20:18, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Its an Israeli claim that the invasion of Jenin was to address the suicide attacks. Giving a detailed account of those bombings makes it seem as though it was the actual reason, particularly when we don't discuss other reasons for the invasion and the suicide bombings themselves. In fact, what is missing from our article is any mention of the occupation. The UN report states clearly: "Israel, the occupying Power, has tried to justify its actions during the last two months, as well as during the preceding 18 months, as actions against 'terrorists', with the aim of destroying the 'terrorism infrastructure'. It should be pointed out that no argument and no reasoning can justify serious violations and grave breaches of international humanitarian law. Further, the record shows clearly that the nature of the actions taken, the amount of harm inflicted on the population and the practical results prove completely different political goals, as noted above. In this regard, the Israeli occupying forces have consistently targeted the Palestinian police and security forces, instead of 'terrorists', and have consistently tried to destroy the Palestinian Authority and declared it an 'enemy', instead of groups hostile to peace in the Middle East. Further, Israel, the occupying Power, cannot, under any circumstances, be allowed to conceal or distort the fact that it exists in the Palestinian Territory, including Jerusalem, as an occupying Power and that the origin of all the problems is the existence of this occupation. This applies to the degree of frustration, despair and hopelessness that has greatly contributed in the creation of suicide bombers." This kind of information is required for NPOV. A listing of suicide bombings is not. Mentioning them, how many Israel says there were from Jenin, and describing a couple of the more important and directly relevant ones will suffice.  T i a m u t talk 20:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Jaak, it is not overkill to say the MfA says these happened, but listing each individual one is. Unless you would like to list each individual day the West Bank has been under military occupation, or each individual military action Israel has taken against the Palestinians during that time period. Why should we list each individual attack? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 20:32, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, Nableezy, these events really happened and its not just the MFA who made them up. Tiamut, I'm sure I misunderstood you, but it read to me as if you said that the suicide bombings were not the real reason to enter the Jenin camp. Please clarify.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  20:45, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * p.s. Its not a huge detail, but Jenin was under PA control and not under occupation.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  20:49, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * And while it is not a huge detail, I use the phrase "military occupation" the way the UN, AI, HRW, ICRC, and every other human rights agency of note does, and under that definition Jenin was, and continues to be, under Israeli occupation. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 20:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking that we can list your definition into the article if you insist. This doesn't affect that the attacks attributed to Jenin should be listed.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  20:55, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I never said they did not happen, but could you answer my question? What about listing each individual attack is important or adds anything? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 20:48, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It is of value to readers to be able to follow the events linked with the Battle of Jenin. I'd have no objection, for example, to content relating Israeli offenses into Jenin that are relevant here and educate the reader. If I hear that Fatah was accused of 12 attacks, I'd like to know which and where. Same with the other groups.
 * Warm regards,  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  20:52, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Note to Tiamut: Please avoid soapboxing and return the material back into the article.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  20:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Tiamut didnt remove the material and she is not soapboxing. I removed it because it is unnecessary and without purpose. I would also remove individual listings of every Israeli assault in Palestinian territory. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 20:56, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Tiamut did make a bit of a fringe perspective suggestion but this is not the main issue here. I've explained the purpose of the listing. i.e. that it is of encyclopedic value to know which Palestinian political party/militia was involved in how many attacks, and which attacks. Is there any argument other than "without purpose" that I've missed?
 * Warm regards,  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  21:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * You know, I just noticed in the history that the section was changed into an ugly (no offense) excel style listing, which is certainly not the purpose of the notation. I'm bringing back the stable version and hope that, if you and Tiamut are still interested in its removal, that this would be achieved by discussion and overall agreement.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  21:09, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Jaak, you do that I am going to go through every source I can find and list every single incursion and every single day Jenin has been under occupation and list every single UN resolution affirming the right to resist occupation. We already say which groups how many times. Listing them is just inflating the Israeli government narrative of why this assault happened. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 21:18, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I was originally against adding this section, as I thought it was sufficient to mention the the number of bombings which came from Jenin and that it was called "The Martyrs Capital". This explains Israel's reason for targeting Jenin. Perhaps we could add a link to the relevant section in Second Intifada. Likewise, we should not be citing extensively from the UN report, which obviously has its own narrative, intended to justify its commission. -- Nudve (talk) 07:19, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Almost completely agree, my one issue is I take the UN narrative as a disinterested observer whereas both the statements of Palestinian and Israeli government sources are involved and should be used with greater care. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 23:31, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Can't see how suicide bombings that originated out of Jenin is not relevant to a battle which was initiated with the stated intent of stopping suicide bombings. As this type of intelligence information is not generally known to the mainstream sources, we would have to rely on the IDF. Their claims would have to be attributed of course. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 05:48, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Absolutely, and we do that. But what is wrong with saying x number of attacks from these groups? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 05:55, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That's not what the current version does. It just mentions the group name and doesn't attribute any of the severe attacks. Also, this is not a lead section and should include a little extra detail on the who/what/where of the attacks such as a death toll and injury count of these attacks.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  12:29, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It actually does say 23 suicide bombings from these 3 groups. You want to break it down further fine, say x attacks from X, y attacks from Y, z attacks from Z. But there is no reason to go any further than that. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 18:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Attacks linked with Jenin
I found an interesting article in Bamahane (Issue 3003, p. 31) about the separation barrier. Something caught my attention (my translation):
 * Jenin of the beginning of the 2000s was one of the main stockholders in the Palestinian terror market in the Second Intifada. The mythological "hornets' nest", stronghold of the Islamic Jihad, was responsible for no less than 31 attacks within Israel that claimed 124 victims – more than any other city in the Judea and Samaria Area.

This is very interesting information and appears to be more specific than the other sources provided. It doesn't specifically mention suicide bombings though, so presumably it talks about all forms of attacks. Does anyone want to add this to the background section? —Ynhockey (Talk) 23:27, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I am a tad confused, is this including the 23 suicide bombings that the MfA attributed to Jenin? How would we phrase the two combined? Just use the 31 attacks or say something like 31 attacks with 124 victims including the 23. That seems a bit synthy. How would you suggest we add this to the current article without giving the impression that it is 31 attacks and an additional 23 suicide bombings? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 06:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The MfA and Bamahane talk about slightly different things, as far as I can tell—the MfA talks about suicide bombings coming from Jenin, and Bamahane talks about general attacks coming from PIJ in Jenin. You are right that it would be quite difficult to merge these two into one sentence without synthesis, therefore I suggest attributing the Bamahane statement and putting it separately from the MfA statement. —Ynhockey (Talk) 07:26, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well I certainly dont object to this being in the article, but as I cannot read the source I would suggest you put it in. I am just worried that the implication will be 31 attacks as well as an additional 23 suicide bombings. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 07:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I just noticed that the entire section was written inappropriately—why was the BBC attack count separated from the IDF/MfA count? I have added the information, although on second though, the entire two last paragraphs in Background need to be re-written in order to have a more coherent flow and organization. —Ynhockey (Talk) 07:44, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * the edit looks fine on its own, and I agree the section could use a rewrite. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 07:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Loudspeakers
I had added the sentence [to the intro] regarding the IDF use of loudspeakers suggesting the civilian population leave prior to the assault. I thought it especially relevant given that one of the distinct occurrences of the Jenin battle were the rumors of massacre that dominated the news (as noted in the intro). I am sure many of you remember those stories, as I do, from that time. I think it would be appropriate to point out that the IDF explicitly took steps to minimize civilian casualties (loudspeakers and not using the air force to annihilate Jenin) in stark contradistinction to the allegations made. Thoughts? Kaisershatner (talk) 13:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think this point should be mentioned in the lead. It is not clear that the warnings were made. Some reported hearing warnings, other say they did not. There is also contradictory testimony about when the warnings were made (was it before the entrance of Israeli troops to Jenin, or before the entrance to the camp itself, or when? depends on the source cited). Also, all of the men who heeded the warnings were stripped naked before being arrested. If we mention the loudspeakers in the lead, we should mention what happened to those who heeded the warnings. There are other issues with it as well, but that's just a few things that come to mind.  T i a m u t talk 13:30, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, I suppose I can see your view of this. However, can you restore the source of allegations of "war crimes" to the intro.  There is IMO a big difference between anonymous "investigations" that found evidence of "war crimes" and UN investigation, Amnesty International investigation, or BBC investigation, etc.  It was more precise and specific before.  I'd also prefer the quotation marks "war crimes" but will settle for restoring the source of the accusations (please). Kaisershatner (talk) 13:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I removed that bit because we don't go into detail about who conducted the investigations which found no evidence of a massacre. (In fact, the wording is rather misleading anyway, since I don't think it said "no evidence", but anyway). I don't think we need that level of detail in the intro. If we did mention that, we would also need to mention (IMO) that the investigations took place some after the events due to Israeli restrictions that prevented people from entering the camp, including the UN team that was set up to investigate the issue. I prefer to leave the wording there vague and general for now, representing both major POVs to come out the investigation without deciding which details to mention and which to omit. I'm willing to discuss other wording options though, that address these concerns, if you have some.  T i a m u t talk 14:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks. One area of wording concern that I do have- the allegations of "war crimes" should not be linked to the sentence about massacre claims.  "Rumors of massacre" should be followed by the simple "no evidence of massacre," not "no evidence of massacre, but evidence/allegations of war crimes."  Subsequent evidence or allegations of "war crimes" is unrelated to the first point and shouldn't be hooked to it in the intro. Kaisershatner (talk) 15:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem with changing it is that reliable sources usually reported it that way. For example, BBC writes: The report says there was no massacre as the Palestinians have claimed, but it does accuse the Israeli army of committing war crimes. I think this is because the report while absolving Israel of "massacre" claims, did accuse of it war crimes. The two ideas seem to be related in most of the sources I have read. I'm not sure another wording would be appropriate actually but am open to considering other formulations based on what reliable sources have to say.  T i a m u t talk 15:21, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Another example of what I mean, referring this time to the Amnesty International report (the other one referring to Human Rights Watch's report above): An Amnesty International military expert said that he had found no evidence of a massacre but did see signs of Israeli war crimes ...  T i a m u t talk 15:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I hear what you are saying, but imo these are just examples of HRW and AI moving the goalposts: "Was there a massacre as widely claimed?!!? No...but there were war crimes!" HRW and AI aren't required to be NPOV.  I am not saying we shouldn't include the allegations of "war crimes," just that they should be separated by a full stop from the allegations of massacre.  There were allegations of massacre.  There was no massacre.  There were accusations of war crimes.  Three separate ideas.  To put it another way, would you want to write, "There were widespread rumors of a massacre but there was never any proof of a massacre."  See how the latter clause influences the former?  To me that is a superior formulation, but if you want to emphasize the significance of the rumors you might disagree.  Similiarly, given the emphasis we place on the notability of the unsubstantiated rumors of civilian massacre in the 1000s, I think we ought to place comparable emphasis on the fact that this was never proven.  Kaisershatner (talk) 15:35, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I also see some of the rationale behind what you are saying. But the fact remains that the reports by AI and HRW are the source for the idea that there was no massacre and both were very careful to emphasize that there were war crimes. You may see that as moving the goalposts. I see it as intentional nuance byt these human rights organizations, which is why I find the coupling of the two ideas so important (because they did). Both Israelis and Palestinians saw what they wanted to see in the report. Israeli officials focused on how it had vindicated them of charges of a massacre, Palestinian officials focused on how it found evidence of war crimes. The verdicts for both come from the same reports, and so, IMO, should be be reported together. I would note also that the BBC choosing to use the same formulation is evidence that this is how the mainstream media sources saw fit to report it.  T i a m u t talk 15:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "Israeli officials focused on how it had vindicated them of charges of a massacre, Palestinian officials focused on how it found evidence of war crimes" is exactly my point. Palestinian officials charged there was a massacre.  There wasn't one.  The finding of "war crimes" is something that Palestinians, AI, HRW, and the BBC chose to focus on because they could not substantiate their (apparently false) claims of massive and deliberate murdering of civilians.  All I am saying is that there should be a period to separate the ideas of massacre and war crimes.  As much as the Palestinian side deserves recognition of the destruction of property and other events noted by these investigations, the IDF deserves vindication against what proved to be unsubstantiated accusations.  In my view, the full stop makes this explicit. Kaisershatner (talk) 16:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The reports were purposefully equivocally phrased. I find our wording of "no evidence of a massacre" to be a little misrepresentative actually, though its tempered by the joining of the two sentences. This source for example says: Palestinian officials claimed that a masacre had occurred in Jenin. Israel denied it. Amnesty International called for a full investigation, having found evidence of war crimes. It was important therefore to establish the facts. The source goes to explain that the UN fact-finding team was formed and was disbanded after agreement with Israel could be secured. It says the UN report relied on secondary sources and offers its opinion that the casualty figures reported therein do not indicate a massacre but point to the problems of urban fighting.
 * In other words, no full investigation into what happened in Jenin has every really been carried out. AI and HRW found evidence of war crimes but no hard evidence to substantiate claims of a massacre true, but both called for further investigations. Given that Israel prevented people from entering the camp throughout the invasion, and prevented the UN from carrying out its mission, we will never really know what happened there. Reports of bodies having been removed before outsider observers were allowed in will forever leave questions in people's minds. We don't allude to any of that POV in the lead. I'm not currently suggesting that we should for the time being. But I think we have to be aware of what allowed the rumors of massacres to spread (i.e. the sealing off of the camp and the widespread use of bulldozers, the curfew, etc, etc.) And I think we need to represent the equivocal nature of the conclusions. Which is why the joining of the sentences is important, besides it being the way that mainstream sources have summarized the conclusions.  T i a m u t talk 16:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Lets have some proportion, and remind editors that whilst some war crimes were committed, there was no planned genocide. Period.--Cymbelmineer (talk) 12:58, 6 October 2010 (UTC)