Talk:Battle of Jenin (2002)/Archive 8

Proposal on HRW and AI on war crimes
HG analysis and proposal. Having been asked to help find a solution to the AI/HRW "prima facie" disagreement, I've asked q's and read the thread above. Here's my analysis -- I'd apologize for the length, but it's also a credit to the depth of thinking you all have put into this question. I end with recommended wording for your consideration. (Please read the following in a calm mood, thanks!)
 * 1) The average reader needs slightly more context, at the outset, on HRO (human rights orgs) war crimes statements. Whatever wording we choose, editors should be realistic about our ability to strike the perfect degree of fairness. After all, Wikipedia articles shift over time and our resolution of this dispute won't be etched in stone. So, I think it's best to focus on the context and structure of the disputed sentence(s), and not exhaust ourselves over specific word choices.
 * 2) Implicitly or explicitly, both HROs recognize that they are not issuing conclusive findings of war crimes. (Hence the call for official inquiries.) So, the "war crimes" point needs to be somewhat qualified. Granted, the lead already implicitly qualifies the war crime finding by mentioning HROs as the source (rather than merely citing HROs as footnote). For the astute reader, this might be sufficient. For many readers, though, our wording should explicitly reflect the non-definitive aspect of the HRO findings on war crimes. How to do this with the perfect balance that everybody is happy with? (rofl...)
 * 3) For the purpose of informing the average reader, I think the "prima facie" wording has limited value and it seems odd to apply it to AI. (Logically, prima facie could serve to qualify both HROs, just like "claims" or "accusations" might.)
 * 4) Do we say "major human rights organizations" or name HRW and AI? I'd say name both, by which we can provide the most accurate qualification of the claims for astute readers (who will interpret the findings based on their view of the groups). Do we differentiate how we describe their findings? Ideally, no. Their results are quite similar, prima facie wording notwithstanding, and detailed differences can be found in the relevant sections of the article. Failing agreement on the recommended wording below, we could fall back on this wording from the article itself: ... HRW did say that Israel "committed serious violations of international humanitarian law, some amounting prima facie to war crimes,"[55] while Amnesty International similarly alleged evidence that Israel had committed war crimes. This is still fairly concise.
 * 5) Contextualize by focusing on the evidence: The HROs are deemed reliable mainly for their ability to gather and report evidence (HG guess), they are not adjudicating crimes. So, by mentioning the evidence, we emphasize that role. Plus, such evidence comprises much of their sections.
 * 6) Contextualize the findings as charges/claims: I can think of 2 ways to do this. Use a term like "charge" or "claim." And/or, note that they call for official inquiries. //On this vein -- I assume no Israeli or Int'l war crimes inquiry or trial was conducted. Shouldn't we say that in the lead or in the article?
 * 7) Should the "war crimes" sentence be linked, either in the article or in our mediation, to the "massacre" issue? Current WP text combines the massacre and war crime issues. I'm wondering if that close link is a byproduct of our editors' own interests and preoccupations. The HRO reports themselves seem to keep the issues somewhat separate, at least textually? (esp AI, right?) More importantly, the "massacre" issue is more complicated, involves more sources, sparks more heated debate, etc.
 * 8) Presumably, you've already discussed this -- Why isn't the IDF response in the article? Am I going off topic, or is the IDF view part of the context? I've tentatively added in a bit, with a (?).

So, given the foregoing considerations, I would recommend: "Based on testimony and documentation, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch charged that IDF personnel in Jenin committed war crimes. //add(?): Both human rights organizations called for official inquiries; however, the IDF disputed the charges and no war crimes trials were held.// OR:" "Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch charged that Israel had committed war crimes and called for a formal legal investigation. //add(?): However, the IDF disputed the charges and no war crimes trials were held.//" Based on my exchanges with G-Dett and Tewfik, I expect they'll have a positive reaction overall to the above bullet points, though of course they are welcome to clarify disagreements or concerns. Hopefully, we can find common ground by wordsmithing one of the above recommended blockquotes. So, I'd like to offer the analysis and suggested wording for everyone's further comments here. Thanks very much, HG | Talk 16:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * (PS G-Dett & Tewfik -- feel free to copy your comments here or write afresh. Thanks for your input!) HG | Talk
 * Why don't we write the article to policy and report what the secondary sources say about the event? And wouldn't it be a good idea if we treat the reports of observers as if they were much more credible than involved agencies that have behaved in threatening or secretive ways? See this. PRtalk 19:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

That looks good to me HG. How about giving us a proposed wording based on that? We might find a quick consensus. &lt;&lt;-armon-&gt;&gt; 03:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC) Sorry, you did -duh. OK, I think the first option is better mainly because "IDF personnel in Jenin committed war crimes" is more accurate than just saying "Israel" because the charges related to specific incidents during the battle rather that the operation itself. Presumably, the IDF could have entered Jenin without committing any war crimes. I have a slight niggle about the second sentence though -were war crimes trials not held simply because the IDF objected? &lt;&lt;-armon-&gt;&gt; 22:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks Armon. Yes, I noticed that some of the texts refer in various ways to IDF personnel, so I think that phrase is useful. Also, I realize that the two ending clauses (IDF disputed the charges and no war crimes trials were held) leave a somewhat misleading impression, so I welcome a copy edit. Take care, HG | Talk 23:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

There is a difference between X committed crime and there are N (credible) allegations that X commited crime: the difference separating these two assertions is having valid decision on conviction in a court of law. The same should apply to war crimes as well. Therefore in present context the correct wording should be that there are following allegations that IDF commited war crimes in Battle of Jenin: ..., after which there should be itemization of specific instances of allegations, preferrably along with analysis of their credibility.

Going back to HRW's documents there are clauses to effect of having serious evidence that IDF might have commited war crime in case of ... etc. and it is better to analyse those claims one by one. The ADL's critique of HRW's memos was partially based on perceived prejudice on part of HRW team and partially on great reliance of HRW's (and other) memos on interviews with Palestinians which is basically reliance on hearsay. It is Ok as a departure point for a criminal investigation, but the investigation ultimately was not conducted and findings were not legally submitted or contested. I've pointed out elsewhere that PA had means and (ostensibly) should had an impetus to conduct criminal investigations backing their claims with material evidence but has failed to deliver in more than 5 years what logically can be seen as absense of credible evidence. DBWikis 23:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I think you're raising some valid points, but I though we were just talking about the lead at the moment. If so, we need to be concise. &lt;&lt;-armon-&gt;&gt; 02:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I like phrasing #1. It is inline with what the sources say. The reason I held off on voicing my approval is that it leaves a sour taste in my mouth to apply such a stringent standard to HRW and AI while the lede is currently so cavalier when it comes to "pro-Israel" points, like the "suicide bombers" issue. Don't take this as WP:POINT or WP:GAME, but I'd like to suggest that the next disputed phrasing we examine be something which is currently alleged to be biased towards IDF POV. Sharon is on record saying during the run-up to Defensive Shield that the Palestinians needed to be hit, and needed to be made to suffer, so that they would be forced to return to the bargaining table (and, presumably, accept a Bantustan-style solution in line with previous offers). &lt;el eland /talk edits &gt; 17:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Probably it is little bit too much of intepretive liberty to assume that remark to effect of Palestinians must be made to suffer can be presented as an expression of intention to allow small-scale perpetration of war crimes? If we are going into area of intepreting intentions of IDF in Battle of Jenin in operative-tactical sense then I can point out that Central Command explicitly decided not to use strikes by jets or howitzers out of clear recognition that it is civilian area; accordingly Palestinian fighters are on record expressing amazement at seeing infantry entering Jenin camp on foot. I suggest this fact is an indication of true intentions of IDF i.e. sparing civilian lives.
 * Regarding the choices of phrasing and your preference, I do not think that wording of contentious articles should be focus of tug of war or give-and-take bargaining. We should rather aspire to arrive to more defensible formulations and above I've tried to point out that "IDF commited war crime" is much less defensible than (based mostly on hearsay) "Palestinian advocacy groups alleged that IDF commited war crime". DBWikis 19:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi DBWikis. What's both notable and defensible is that HRW and AI levelled these charges (and IDF disputed etc). Allegations by Palestinian groups can be mentioned in the article body, but the Palestinian view is less important for the lead than HRW/AI. Editors from various viewpoints agree on the emphasis on HRW/AI (as you can read from the Talk page above), we were just trying to hammer out our best effort at neutral descriptive wording of their claims. Thanks for your input. HG | Talk 20:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey. We all recognize that Tzahal had the capacity to inflict any level of destruction on Jenin up to and including vapourizing the entire area. They chose to use infantry supported with tanks (main guns mostly silent) and helicopters. You may think this is a reflection of their humanitarian purity of arms; I'm much more inclined to think it's a reflection of their need for the US public to believe in their purity of arms to keep the aid and dipolmatic cover flowing. Neither of our personal views belong in the article. What we should do is report what reliable sources said, without reference to our personal interpretations of their validity. HRW and Amnesty are world-class organizations and not "Palestinian advocacy groups". Their reports are widely cited by the same governments who profess to despise them when reporting on "unworthy" victims. The problem with reporting only what Palestinians said is that Palestinian sources are generally less reliable, often much less reliable. Reliable sources like the BBC reported HRW and AI's criticisms prominently, gave some space to Israeli denials, and to Palestinian affirmations. As should we. &lt;el eland /talk edits &gt; 20:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Headcount of proponents of any idea does not make it any more valid. In lieu of AI/HRW/etc. consider, say, any religious denomination with global scope and wide base of believers or supporters - I really doubt arguments of this sort will succeed in converting you to their particular doctrine.
 * Regarding IDF troops entering Jenin camp on foot - I wouldn't enter polemics whether it was done due to the fact IDF being army of a democratic state or was rather a ploy to curry favor with US public opinion - because even if we are to entertain the latter hypothesis, still I think that PR in this style is preferrable to sending kids to throw boulders on tanks, waging guerilla from built-up area and then drumming up support by flooding news reels with graphic accounts of 500 martyrs etc. DBWikis 04:10, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

editprotected

We've achieved high degree of support among editors, as shown above, about how to revise a disputed sentence in the lede. I'm proposing this revision based on the assumption that all of you who have expressed support, from both sides of the aisle, will "safeguard" the new text against unfriendly emendations -- even if the revision favors your own POV. In other words, don't accept a change from "charged" to "proved" or from "committed" war crimes to "maybe committed." Ok? Nobody gets exactly the wording they want, yet everybody has a responsibility to support the rough-consensus revision.

Anyway, thanks to everyone for putting substantive attention on this dispute and responding in flexible ways.

Please replace this text: Subsequent investigations found no evidence of one, although major human rights organizations found strong prima facie evidence of IDF war crimes.

With this text: ''Subsequent investigations found no evidence of one. Based on testimony and documentation, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch charged that IDF personnel in Jenin committed war crimes. Both human rights organizations called for official inquiries; however, the IDF disputed the charges. No war crimes trials were held.''

Thanks very much. After we finish patting ourselves on the back, let's use this success to tackle some of the other disputed aspects of the article. HG | Talk 18:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * This looks great, HG, thanks again. I would like to suggest two minor tweaks.  Neither has anything to do with NPOV; they are purely for stylistic clarity.  I won't put them in myself, even when the page opens.  I'll leave it you; if you agree they're an improvement and others don't object then you can put them in.  Subsequent investigations found no evidence of one.  Based on testimony and documentation, however, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch charged that IDF personnel in Jenin had committed war crimes, and both called for official investigations.  The IDF disputed the charges, and no war crimes trials were held.--G-Dett 23:14, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * G-Dett, I appreciate your editing suggestions. In terms of the last few clauses, I'd like to keep it as is because, as noted above, combining the last 2 ("IDF disputed... no trials") might leave the reader assuming a causal implicature we don't intend. In terms of adding a contrastive connector ("however") up front, it's fine the way the paragraph is set up. Of course, we might end up revising the order or content of the preceding text, and so need to change it again. HG | Talk 04:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm still not seeing any attempt to deal with the question presented here: Why are we saying: ...major human rights organizations found strong prima facie evidence of IDF war crimes. instead of saying: ...major human rights organizations found that the IDF had carried out war crimes.?
 * For the latter formulation, we've had detailed citations from both major human rights organizations (Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International) making the claim explicitly and categorically. We have an independent statement from the British military expert, David Holley, making the claim explicitly and categorically. (We're elsewhere quoting Holley directly as if his words were definitive corroborated that there was no massacre).
 * For the former formulation, we have one citation from Human Rights Watch. And nothing else. Why would we present multiple organizations as having said something they didn't say? And why would we not present multiple organizations as having said something they did in fact say? PRtalk 07:34, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

editprotected

Per my comment below, I suggest you put the requested version in a sandbox, and get general agreement for a version there, so that it's completely clear to everyone what wording has agreement. It's good to see the discussion seems to be making progress. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 16:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Carl, as you requested, I've (belatedly) created Talk:Battle of Jenin/Sandbox with the proposed requested edit and copies of the supporting comments. Thanks very much. Please let me know on my Talk if you have any questions. HG | Talk 00:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * OK. Everyone who is watching this page, please look at the suggested change in Talk:Battle of Jenin/Sandbox and comment there (especially if you disagree). Please try to keep the comments on that page directly focused on the suggested edit. Other comments still go on this page. Feel free to suggest changes to the wording on the sandbox page, or to say why you do or don't support it. Giving reasons that are clear to me will help; remember I am not deeply familiar with the issues here. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 14:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposal: Use B'Tselem's data
Basically their tally of lives lost by the Palestinian side corroborates "27 militants + 22 non-combatants" cited as HRW figure and on the same time seem to be not as skewed as AI or HRW (which are based primarily on Palestinian interviews conducted in 2002 and read almost as Nasser Al-Qidwa's paper submitted to UN) in part of "possible war crime" allegations. The main problem with their stats is that majority of the dates are defaulted to April 1st, but overall this source is reasonably reliable and under no circumstances can be seen as sympathetic to IDF's press office. DBWikis 18:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Do you meant to mention B'Tselem's data, or to use it to the exclusion of others as somehow definitive? Keep in mind that the B'Tselem numbers are not intended to be a count of Jenin deaths specifically, in the same way that HRW and AI are. Your comments about the authoritative or non-authoritative nature of their data seems like original research, and according to most sources I've seen, Israel did not dispute the numbers given in their reports. 52 seems like the minimum figure given by reliable sources, and reportedly accepted by Israel as definitive. 56 seems like the maximum figure substantiated by reliable sources (and reported by a non-RS as being the official number counted by the P.A.). This 49 figure is lower than anyone else has reported, and Google News does not seem have any secondary sources reporting the 49 figure at all. &lt;el eland /talk <font color="#005080">edits &gt;</tt> 18:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * No, I am not disputing the total figure between 52 and 56. I was arguing in favor of moving away from linguistic analysis of what the WP article should say concerning what HRW has said concerning what interviewed Palestinians have said concerning all Zionist crimes and massaacres; and rather to get closer to more substantiative analysis how many civilian deaths could warrant criminal investigation in case Palestinian Authority or organizations like AI or HRW did indeed bother to proceed from interviews to collection of material evidence i.e. autopsies, in situ re-enactment, ballistic data,  etc. My point is that this way their risked that the list of crimes which already shrank from Mr Erekat's "more than 500" to 56 individuals would loose even more entries. User Burgas00 has lamented that Palestinian deaths do not mean as much as if going wholesale - but unfortunately it looks like it is  Palestnian side is more interested in heaping deaths, gore and "martyrdom" accounts. So my proposal to use of B'Tselem's data was to get as close to the facts as possible and review all available information on lost civilian lives. You are right it would be clearly OR so I am not pushing it into the article - I just suggested that if someone engages in discussion as loaded as this one then getting acquainted with pertinent information usually helps. DBWikis 20:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I really don't think I'm following you here. You've said that AI and HRW's data are "skewed" because they didn't conduct extensive forensic investigations, re-enactments, autopsies, etc, and because their conclusions substantiate some of the allegations made by the Palestinians. Did B'Tselem conduct these forensic investigations? And how do you conduct forensic sluethery and in situ re-enactment when most of the crime scenes were since bulldozed and most of the victims were hastily buried?
 * Oh, and I checked up on the B'Tselem numbers. They recorded 53 deaths, not 49. You excluded deaths of non-residents of Jenin who were killed in Jenin. (And Mr Erekat never said more than 500. He said that according to his information, the total could reach 500 for the entire West Bank. He was widely misquoted, but nobody has ever said where and when he allegedly made this "500 in Jenin" statement.) <tt>&lt;<font color="#00A0F0">el <font color="#005080">eland /<font color="#00A0F0">talk <font color="#005080">edits &gt;</tt> 00:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * eleland, let's not try to play the 'Erekat end game' - it would be an impressive leap of faith to take all of his quotes and shift them as you did.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  10:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * eleland, my point in proposal for all parties in this discussion was to tabulate all civilan deaths in Jeinin camp and around from first two weeks of April 2002 and then review them instance-by-instance to estimate to what extent the allegations of war crimes can be substantiated in each case. Instead of it we are dealing here with allegations of massacres because the focus is consistently shifted from real figures and real lost lives to imaginary figures - this way instead of the table with names of real victims (which in case of civilians will have less than 30 entries) we have tabulation of claims having hundreds of killed and this ultimately appears to be tabulation of propaganda (where the list can be endless). I was (and is) arguing in favor of de re approach while many contributors here are engaged in de dicto discussion. There is nothing wrong in linguistic re-hashing of formulations but here it became point of contention almost as a conduit to settle consensus regarding what happened there really, and it is wrong. Again, insisting there was a massacre because BBC reported that HRW concluded based on what Palestinians have said etc. is and will remain recycling of hearsay and will not establish facts even after Nth repeating. The maximum it can achive will be enshrining of propaganda in form of WP article and finally will be detrimental to WP and BTW I believe to Palestinians too.
 * Now, I've never said B'Tselem concluded there was "only" 49 killed on Palestinian side. What I have said was their stats "corroborate 27 militants + 22 non-combatants cited as HRW figure" (please have a look in the caption box in the article itself where the numbers stay as "at least 27 militants and 22 civilians according to HRW") and my point was on corroboration of the count of civilian deaths. And I have stressed above that "I am not disputing the total figure between 52 and 56" only to read your charge "You excluded deaths of non-residents of Jenin...".
 * Also regarding Mr Erekat being misquoted - this very page contains a table with some of the body count estimates churned in 2002 and inter alia it contains a reference to April 17th transcript from CNN where he confirmed "we say the number will not be less than 500". But probably it should belong not to Battle of Jenin but rather to History of allegations of massacre in Battle of Jenin. DBWikis 18:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

UN Report
The section on the UN report currently begins with criticisms of the report, rather than with the report itself. Such criticisms should be placed in a separate section, entitled "Criticism of the UN Report." The section on the UN report should begin with the UN's confirmation that a massacre had not taken place -- which is of greater importance to readers than the number of reported casualties --, citing the following sources: ← Michael Safyan 08:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * UN says no massacre in Jenin by the BBC
 * U.N. report: No massacre in Jenin by the USA Today
 * Michael, hi. I've temporarily removed the "protected edit" request because I think you'll need to be more specific about exactly what text you would modify or add. If it's to add a subheading, that may not be controversial. If it's to shift how we cover the "massacre" question, that probably will need some conversation and feedback. Thanks, Hope you don't mind. HG | Talk 08:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Understood. Detailed changes shown below.

Allegations of a massacre
The UN report confirms that a massacre had not taken place; it finds that "at least 52 Palestinians" deaths were reported by the Jenin hospital by the end of May 2002 and that Palestinian reports of 500 dead had not been substantiated.
 * The UN report gives the death toll as 52, and says the figure of 500 was unsubstantiated by the evidence. It does not use the word "massacre," or weigh in on the question of its aptness.--G-Dett 22:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Context of events
The report explains the rising violence of the first two years of the Second Intifada, with particular reference to the suicide bombings that had been carried out. It describes all the operations carried out in the West Bank.

Tactics
On the subject of Jenin, it says the "IDF urged civilians in Arabic to evacuate the camp. Some reports, including of interviews with IDF soldiers, suggest that those warnings were not adequate ..... Estimates vary on how many civilians remained in the camp throughout but there may have been as many as 4,000." Following the ambush of April 9 the IDF changed tactics and began bombardment with tanks and missiles, and demolished parts of the camp using armored bulldozers. The report says "Witness testimonies and human rights investigations allege that the destruction was both disproportionate and indiscriminate, some houses coming under attack from the bulldozers before their inhabitants had the opportunity to evacuate." According to the report, supplies of food and water were delivered to the camp starting on April 16th but this was impeded by the large amounts of explosives present. Negotiations began to bring in specialist equipment and workers to remove the explosives, but in the several weeks it took to negotiate the entry of these teams, at least two Palestinians were killed in explosions.

Criticism of the UN report
Human Rights Watch criticized the report as "flawed" due to a lack of first-hand evidence. The report, itself, states that a fact-finding team led by Martti Ahtisaari was unable to visit the area as planned due to concerns of the Israeli government. The report relied on papers submitted by different nations and NGOs, and on other documents.
 * ← Michael Safyan 23:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Michael Safyan - can I ask you to please attach your sig into the end of your message like everyone else. Starting new lines and (especially) indenting your signature differently is disruptive.
 * In the meantime, I cannot understand what edits you want to make, and you've not responded to or corrected the clear error I believe you've made over the UN saying there'd been no massacre. PRtalk 12:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Michael Safyan - the BBC is wrong, the UN did not confirm that a massacre had not taken place. It's hardly surprising the BBC made such a gross mistake (and refuses to correct its reports) since we know it to be pro-Israel (though it does not admit as much in the summary of its own report - you have to go to section 4.7). The BBC wrongly quotes other parts of the report in a "pro-Israel" fashion, such as the total death toll. USATODAY is almost certainly far more biased.

And it shouldn't be necessary to tell you this - have a look at the UN report yourself. If you read it, you could even be excused for thinking the UN had stated there was a massacre. Contained therein are the statements of various governments such as eg "it is probable that a massacre and a crime against humanity might have been committed in the Jenin refugee camp" and "Direct eyewitness accounts by survivors of the massacre at the Jenin refugee camp" and "eyewitness accounts by casualties who survived the massacre" and so on an so forth. The UN report also contains quotes such as the Chinese journalist Shu Suzki ... stated ... "... All of the victims were civilians. ... I say again that a huge massacre was committed" Chips, the United States volunteer "... It was a real massacre and the scenes were terrible". PRtalk 13:32, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It is of note to show that PR once again is alleging that the words of the reports by Palestine and Jordan which were attached as appendices to the UN report are the words of the UN which is NOT THE CASE. The blatantness of his falsehood here is troubling. Kyaa the Catlord 13:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I do not insert falsehoods into articles or Talk (it's rare I even make a mistake, and when I do I apologise for it). I've plainly stated that "Contained therein are the statements of various governments". It would appear that the allegation made against me is an attempt to cover-up an attempt to introduce a distortion into the article, carried out on behalf of someone who (at best) has not read the material refered to. Behavior like this reflects badly on those who do it and cannot possibly improve articles. PRtalk 18:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * On the BBC and "no massacre" reportage: a headline on their website read, "UN says no massacre in Jenin", but the actual article only said the UN "rejected claims that hundreds of Palestinian civilians were killed". Headlines are generally written by copy-editors and not journalists, and I'm not sure if we can count information which appears only in a headline as RS. This is especially true when the headlines use the word "massacre", which does not appear anywhere in the UN report. <tt>&lt;<font color="#00A0F0">el <font color="#005080">eland /<font color="#00A0F0">talk <font color="#005080">edits &gt;</tt> 15:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Statement by G-Dett on 'criticism of the UN report'. I'd suggest that editors actually check out HRW's criticism of the UN report. Michael Safyan writes that they "criticized the report as 'flawed' due to a lack of first-hand evidence." This is a rather peculiar summary of HRW's statement. What their press release actually says is that the report is flawed because it "largely limits itself to presenting competing accounts of the events during the Israeli military operations." That's the first sentence, and here's what follows: While the report describes some general allegations that have been made about the conduct of the Israeli and Palestinian sides during the Israeli operation, it draws almost no conclusions on the merits of those claims. It makes only limited reference to the obligations of the parties under international law, makes few clear conclusions about violations of that law, and does not raise the issue of accountability for serious violations that may have been committed, some of which rise to the level of war crimes. Its information and analysis are strongest when dealing with the blockage of humanitarian and medical access to the camp. Noting their hampered mandate, Mogelly is quoted as saying, "Even with what they had, they could have done more."

HRW's statement wraps up by giving five examples of the UN report's "failings": It refers to the fact that civilians died in the operation, without examining the circumstances of their deaths. It makes no mention of the strong evidence suggesting that some were willfully killed, such as Jamal Fayid, a 37-year old paralyzed man, who was crushed in the rubble of his home on April 7 after Israel Defense Forces (IDF) soldiers refused to allow his family time to remove him from their home before a bulldozer destroyed it.

The U.N. report mentions that missiles were "at times" fired from helicopters, minimizing evidence suggesting that their use was intense and indiscriminate in Jenin camp, particularly on April 6 when missiles caught many sleeping civilians.

In its section dealing with abuses outside Jenin, the report fails to consider the systematic targeting of the offices of Palestinian media organizations, as well as the serious impediments faced by international journalists and human rights monitors attempting to document events.

It does not discuss what, if any, steps the parties have taken to investigate credible allegations of violations of international humanitarian law raised in the report-vital for ensuring accountability and discouraging future violations. Here's the link to HRW's statement.--G-Dett 22:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

UN Report (second try)
I would like to replace the "UN report" section with the one posted below. ← Michael Safyan 23:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC) editprotect

Allegations of a massacre
The UN report confirmed a body count of 52 Palestinians, up to half of them civilians, and found earlier claims of hundreds of deaths to be unsubstantiated. These findings were widely reported and interpreted as rejecting claims of a "massacre." .

Casualties
The report finds that fifty-two Palestinian deaths were reported by the Jenin hospital by the end of May 2002 and that Palestinian reports of 500 dead had not been substantiated. The report places the IDF death toll at twenty-three.

Context of events
The report explains the rising violence of the first two years of the Second Intifada, with particular reference to the suicide bombings that had been carried out. It describes all the operations carried out in the West Bank.

Tactics
On the subject of Jenin, it says the "IDF urged civilians in Arabic to evacuate the camp. Some reports, including of interviews with IDF soldiers, suggest that those warnings were not adequate ..... Estimates vary on how many civilians remained in the camp throughout but there may have been as many as 4,000." Following the ambush of April 9 the IDF changed tactics and began bombardment with tanks and missiles, and demolished parts of the camp using armored bulldozers. The report says "Witness testimonies and human rights investigations allege that the destruction was both disproportionate and indiscriminate, some houses coming under attack from the bulldozers before their inhabitants had the opportunity to evacuate." According to the report, supplies of food and water were delivered to the camp starting on April 16th but this was impeded by the large amounts of explosives present. Negotiations began to bring in specialist equipment and workers to remove the explosives, but in the several weeks it took to negotiate the entry of these teams, at least two Palestinians were killed in explosions.

Criticism of the UN report
Human Rights Watch criticized the report as "seriously flawed" due to its limited mandate and to a lack of first-hand evidence. The report, itself, states that a fact-finding team led by Martti Ahtisaari was unable to visit the area as planned due to concerns of the Israeli government. The report relied on papers submitted by different nations and NGOs, and on other documents.

Michael Safyan 23:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think it makes sense to report what the UN report "refrains" from saying, accompanied by our speculations about how that omission was interpreted. I don't think the BBC and USA Today were building on what the UN didn't say; rather, their headline writers were using their own terminology to summarize the UN's findings; but the important thing to realize is that both my speculation and Michael's are OR.  Given the enormous ensuing controversy around the word "massacre," I think we need to report sources in their own words.  Depending on how deep in the weeds we want to go, it would be accurate to say that several sources interpreted the UN's report as rejecting claims of "massacre," but that is very deep in the weeds indeed, and is probably a violation of WP:UNDUE.  At any rate, Michael's proposed phrasing runs afoul of both WP:NOR and WP:NPOV.


 * The proposed summary of HRW's criticism of the UN report is still woefully inadequate and misleading.--G-Dett 03:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, this part is basically copied verbatim from the existing version. This part is not critical; only that it go into its own section. The HRW page supports this interpretation: "Human Rights Watch said part of the report's problems stems from the terms of its mandate. Set up by a U.N. General Assembly resolution after the Secretary-General was forced by Israel's objections to disband a U.N. fact-finding mission, the report was collated from existing sources." However, feel free to add to it if you think it is inadequate. ← Michael Safyan 03:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * HRW's principle criticism of the UN report was directed at "its watered-down account of the very serious violations in Jenin," to wit: it limits itself to presenting competing claims and "draws almost no conclusions on the merits of those claims," it "minimizes evidence" that helicopter attacks were "intense and indiscriminate," it refers to civilian deaths but "makes no mention of the strong evidence suggesting that some were willfully killed," and it "fails to consider the systematic targeting of the offices of Palestinian media organizations as well as the serious impediments faced by international journalists and human rights monitors attempting to document events." HRW's statement says that these shortcomings reflect in part "the risk of compiling a report without any first-hand information," but concludes that "even with what [the UN] had, they could have done more."


 * Any summary of HRW's criticism that underscores the 5% about a lack of first-hand information, while omitting the 95% about an egregious whitewash, is cherry-picked and misleading.--G-Dett 14:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Again, this part is basically copied verbatim from the existing version. Make whatever changes you want to my proposed version. My primary edit with respect to the topic was placing the criticism in its own section. ← Michael Safyan 20:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry Michael, I read This part is not critical; only that it go into its own section but misread "critical" and didn't understand what you were saying. I get it now.--G-Dett 21:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * As for the section on "allegations of a massacre," that three mainstream newspapers claimed that the UN claimed no massacre took place is significant enough that it violates neither WP:UNDUE nor WP:NPOV. ← Michael Safyan 03:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, it could be construed as promoting either POV. The statement could be viewed as pro-Israel for claiming that the UN document implies, albeit not explicitly, that a massacre did not take place. On the other hand, it could be viewed as pro-Palestinian for addressing misperceptions that the document explicitly rejects the claim that a massacre took place. Hence, it certainly does not violate WP:NPOV. ← Michael Safyan 03:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The proposed sentence, "The UN report refrains from using the term 'massacre' to describe the events of the Battle of Jenin, which the New York Times, the BBC, the USA Today, and others have interpreted as confirming that a massacre did not take place," is awkward and calls attention to itself, as well as calling undue attention to interpretations of the UN's findings. It also engages in original research, by speculating that the BBC and USA Today were interpreting the UN's failure to use the word "massacre," as opposed to merely summarizing the UN's body-count findings with maximum brevity for the purposes of a headline.  Out of curiosity, can you give me the reference where the New York Times interprets the UN report with regards to "massacre"?  The only NYT article on the UN report that I know of is David Rohde's from May 3, 2002, headlined "Rights Group Doubts Mass Deaths in Jenin, but Sees Signs of War Crimes."  The word "massacre" appears nowhere in the article.  Is this the article you're referring to?


 * No. I was referring to DEATH ON THE CAMPUS: JENIN; U.N. Report Rejects Claims Of a Massacre Of Refugees. ← Michael Safyan 20:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link, Michael. The New York Times is about as mainstream a source as you could get, and James Bennet is a first-rate journalist, so this is significant.  I note here what Eleland noted regarding the BBC, that the headline writer is making summative conclusions that the article itself doesn't make; the only mention of "massacre" in the article is the following:
 * "Today, Israeli officials seized on the conclusions as validating their version of the fighting in Jenin, a battleground of the 22-month conflict now accorded nearly mythic status by both sides. The Israeli Foreign Ministry issued a statement saying that the report 'overwhelmingly negates this Palestinian fabrication' of a massacre."
 * Ultimately, as I indicate in my comment below, I'd like to see the article present these competing "versions" in a clear and organized fashion, showing how different sources interpreted key reports like this and built them into their respective narratives about the significance of Jenin. But for now, you've convinced me that mentioning how the UN report was covered by the media would not be a violation of WP:UNDUE, and would in fact be interesting and relevant.  I still think the proposed phrasing was awkward and stumbled unnecessarily into OR.  How about something like this: The UN report confirmed a body count of 52 Palestinians, up to half of them civilians, and found earlier claims of hundreds of deaths to be unsubstantiated.  These findings were widely reported and interpreted as rejecting claims of a "massacre."--G-Dett 21:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The word "massacre" appears once in the headline, but the only place it shows up in the article is in paraphrasing an Israeli statement. As with the BBC piece and many others, the NYT does not dismiss a massacre, whatever a massacre is, but does dismiss unspecified "Palestinian claims" (which likely were never made) that 500 were killed in Jenin. Headlines are not written by journalists and are designed for brevity and impact over strict accuracy. I do not believe that a headline constitutes a reliable source in itself, when the article text does not replicated. I don't think we can rely on a layout artist's précis of an article as a reliable indicator of a newspaper's stance on Jenin events as a whole. <tt>&lt;<font color="#00A0F0">el <font color="#005080">eland /<font color="#00A0F0">talk <font color="#005080">edits &gt;</tt> 20:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * If I could interject a comment on the NYT. (1) Differing w/Eleland, I believe that the headlines of the NYT are not made by a layout artists but rather someone notably more senior. This is probably verifiable. (2) The headline is merely paraphrasing the lead sentence, by subtituting "rejects" for "dismissing as unsubstantiated" and "massacre" for "Palestinian claims that 500 people were killed." We may disagree with the paraphrase (i.e., maybe it's a bad editorial judgment and maybe a bad reading of the UN report) but the NYT is saying that (it thinks that) the UN rejects the "massacre" claims. (3) Another plausible, though unnecessary, indication of the NYT's view is that, in paraphrasing the Israel response, the word 'massacre' is outside the direct Israeli quote. Curious but unmistakeable. To be emphatic, I am only commenting on the NYT, not on my own view of whether it was a massacre. HG | Talk 22:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Regarding this last, HG, note that the NYT is summarizing a longer statement from the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs in which the word "massacre" appears earlier and is the clear grammatical antecedent of the quoted bit: "The UN Secretary General's Report on Jenin, released today, came about as the result of false Palestinian propaganda regarding an alleged 'massacre' in the Jenin Refugee camp during the course of Israel's Defensive Shield counter-terrorist operation of April, 2002. The report overwhelmingly negates this Palestinian fabrication and repudiates the malicious lies spread regarding the issue. In other words, "massacre" fell outside the direct Israeli quote as a result of NYT simplifying and condensing the syntax of the statement.  Note, however, that I now agree with Michael that the UN report was widely seen as countering the claims of 'massacre' and that it's appropriate to mention this.  Indeed, it's a step in the direction of exactly where I think this article should go; we should be explicitly tracing the evolution of competing narratives about the significance of Jenin, rather than haggling over wording in an effort to bolster or counter these narratives.--G-Dett 23:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Good. It nows seems that we 100% concur. So,... what changes do you propose to the article to achieve this? ← Michael Safyan 00:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, see my comment above. I suggested something like, The UN report confirmed a body count of 52 Palestinians, up to half of them civilians, and found earlier claims of hundreds of deaths to be unsubstantiated. These findings were widely reported and interpreted as rejecting claims of a "massacre."--G-Dett 03:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok. I've merged your changes into the proposed edit. Now, what about the changes to the criticisms section? ← Michael Safyan 07:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * There are multiple RSs stating that the UN report cleared the IDF of the massacre charge. It simply did not happen. It's not our job to argue with RSs. The fact is, the UN report, not to mention every other RS, has "cleared" the IDF of the massacre charge. It's therefore inappropriate to phrase it as "interpreted as rejecting claims of a 'massacre.'" as though this fact is somehow in dispute -it's not. Even the PA backed off the claim. &lt;&lt;-armon-&gt;&gt; 09:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The claim that "every RS has cleared the IDF of the massacre charge" is demonstrably false. Arabic sources as well as some Western ones still refer to the "Jenin massacre"; are all Arabic sources by definition non-reliable?  Amnesty International moreover issued an explicit public statement explaining why their report avoided the word "massacre" ("there is no legal definition in international law of the word 'massacre'," therefore "its use in the current circumstances is not helpful.").  Though the UN did not explain why they avoided it, the fact is they did avoid it.    In short the controversy surrounding that word is complicated and ongoing, and there's no good reason to present the UN's findings in terms different from the ones they chose.  I remain however convinced by Michael's argument that how those findings were interpreted by some prominent RSs is relevant and interesting, and deserves mention.--G-Dett 18:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Any "source", whether "western" "Arab" or "Martian" which propagates the massacre claim in opposition the to the facts is by definition unreliable. The fact that WP:FRINGE views exist, doesn't mean we present, for example, flat-earthers as a "having a point". &lt;&lt;-armon-&gt;&gt; 22:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * As "massacre" is an emotionally and rhetorically charged word with, as Amnesty International carefully pointed out, "no legal definition in international law," the question of whether an "indiscriminate and disproportionate" attack on a refugee camp leaving 25+ civilians dead constitutes a "massacre" is a question that can't easily be settled by "the facts," no matter how imperiously and talismanically that phrase is invoked.  Especially when "the facts" include an unspecified number of civilians killed "deliberately" and "willfully."  Amnesty understood this and therefore avoided the term.  The UN also chose to avoid it, a decision you evidently regret and would like to reverse now by rewriting their conclusions, replacing their emphasis on "the facts" with your emphasis on a subjective and emotional word they chose not to use.  By the way, arguments by assertion (all reliable sources cleared the IDF of the charge of massacre) backed up by tautological definitions (a reliable source is by definition one that clears the IDF of the charge of massacre) consistently fail to impress.--G-Dett 23:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It's all well and good to accuse me of logical fallacies, but it's easy to settle. Show me the RS (or what you're prepared to argue is a RS, anyway) which states the "hundreds dead" massacre claim is a fact. &lt;&lt;-armon-&gt;&gt; 13:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That's an easy one - the New York Times on 2nd Aug 2002 said: "The United Nations concluded that 497 Palestinians were killed during Israeli actions in Palestinian-controlled territory from the beginning of March until May 7, a far higher toll than previously reported." Whether that means there was a massacre is debatable - but the only RS dispute of there having been a massacre apparently comes in these three headlines, New York Times, BBC and USATODAY (of the 100s that say there was a massacre). However, none of the articles at those URLs actually say what the headlines claim, that "there was no massacre". By all the regular definitions of the word, there was a massacre - but nobody here is pressing for that to be included except as an "also known as" name. What's happening is that an insistence on going backwards and forwards over this fairly trivial part of the discussion is needlessly preventing us from documenting everything else about this incident. PRtalk 16:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * If you fact check the quote from the UN report that is being reprinted by the NYT, you'll find this number is NOT a count of the deaths in Jenin, but the whole of the occupied territories, despite PR's attempt here to portray these as evidence of a massacre and a much higher death toll in Jenin than that which is actually reported. Kyaa the Catlord 13:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Or people could simply read what I've entered, which appears fully in context and covers the exact same ground you've presented. There was no intention to mislead - more than that, it's difficult to see how anyone could possibly be misled by the way I've presented this rather striking information, never before seen in this article or in Talk. Did someone really come to my TalkPage and tell me "Start making serious, productive contributions to the encyclopedia rather than complaining constantly about your imagined persecution please" a moment ago or was that in my fevered imagination too? PRtalk 14:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Armon challenged you to "Show me the RS (or what you're prepared to argue is a RS, anyway) which states the "hundreds dead" massacre claim is a fact." Your response was "that's an easy one" and carried on to show that the NYT's said that the UN reported on 497 dead as a direct response to his challenge. And now you're trying to weasel that you did not intend to show that it was "easy" to find evidence of a "hundreds dead" massacre using a source that does not make any such claim. *rolls eyes* You're killing me here, PR. Kyaa the Catlord 14:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Armon and G-Dett, it is objective and verifiable fact that:
 * The UN rejected claims of 500 Palestinians killed.
 * The UN confirmed 52 Palestinian casualties.
 * The UN limited Palestinian civilian casualties to a maximum of 26.
 * The UN does not explicitly state "no massacre occured"; rather, it leaves the reader to interpret the above as a "massacre" or "not a massacre".
 * G-Dett, the lack of an explicit statement is sufficient; explaining the absence of such an explicit statement is -- in my opinion -- purely speculative (unless an UN source can confirm the reason for such an absence). ← Michael Safyan 02:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Armon, while I happen to agree with the interpretation that the UN report rejects the claims of massacre (albeit implicitly rather than explicitly), this interpretation is admittedly subjective. Wikipedia policy requires that content be both objective and verifiable. For this reason, I endorse G-Dett's proposed edit. ← Michael Safyan 02:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * OK but what you're forgetting here is that there are multiple, reliable, secondary sources who have stated that the UN report rejected the massacre claim -we need only to follow what they've explicitly stated. It is a common tactic of pov-pushers to cast doubt on the facts as presented by RSs. This is unacceptable. If this particular fact is in dispute, we need other RSs which establish that it IS disputed, not just talk page rhetoric. Please see WP:ASF and also WP:V. The standard is verifiability, period, not whatever "Truth" an editor attempts to argue. &lt;&lt;-armon-&gt;&gt; 13:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * OK but what you're forgetting here is that there are multiple, reliable, secondary sources who have stated that the UN report rejected the massacre claim -we need only to follow what they've explicitly stated. It is a common tactic of pov-pushers to cast doubt on the facts as presented by RSs. This is unacceptable. If this particular fact is in dispute, we need other RSs which establish that it IS disputed, not just talk page rhetoric. Please see WP:ASF and also WP:V. The standard is verifiability, period, not whatever "Truth" an editor attempts to argue. &lt;&lt;-armon-&gt;&gt; 13:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * There is absolutely nothing to indicate that "multiple RS's" eventually decided there was no massacre. The Israel-defending blogosphere is at it's wits end precisely because the RSs refused to do anything of the kind. Here is one of the more thoughtful ones: "The systemic building up of a false, biased picture of Israel as an aggressor and the deliberate murderer of Palestinian babies and children by the British/European media is slowly chipping away at Israel's legitimacy. Because the Big Lie works. After all, how can ordinary people the world over not end up hating such a country? Contrary to the perceptions of some, Israel is not a major power that can withstand such international antagonism indefinitely. It cannot. More importantly, it should not have to. As history has taught only too well, acts of wholesale destruction and genocide do not just spring forth in a vacuum. They are the product of a climate of cultivated, calculated libels, false legends and unforgiving hatred." Although reports like this often target the whole of the Western world other than the US, in fact, the US media were not much better as far as Israel was concerned. PRtalk 19:58, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * At any rate, there will be a proper place for interpretations of the UN report when the article is improved. What we need is a properly demarcated section for competing critical commentaries on the significance of Jenin.  One significant critical commentary/narrative, put forth by The Weekly Standard, the Anti-Defamation League, CAMERA, and others is this: Palestinians exaggerated and fabricated, as part of a general pattern of deceiving the international media, and the media bought in hook line and sinker into the idea of a "Jenin massacre," which subsequent investigations disproved.  The other significant narrative, put forth by mainstream media and international human-rights organizations, is this: because Jenin was under 24-hour curfew and sealed from journalists, international observers, and even medical aid for the duration of a devastating siege, rumors arose of massacres and body counts in the hundreds; subsequent investigations dispelled these rumors, but revealed evidence of war crimes and indiscriminate use of lethal force on the part of the IDF.  If those advancing the first narrative have used the BBC and USA Today headlines to make their case, then it might be appropriate to mention this in a section devoted to these competing narratives and the ongoing controversies associated with them.--G-Dett 14:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Editprotected request It's great to see a good discussion here about the proposed changes. As a neutral admin responding to the editprotected tag, I suggest that you start a sandbox (e.g. Talk:Battle of Jenin/Sandbox) and construct the proposed addition there. Once there is agreement about it, it will be easy for an admin to copy that to the main article. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 16:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I am going to place the edit at Talk:Battle of Jenin/UN-Report. ← Michael Safyan 07:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that's an excellent idea. Have you been warned that a previous attempt to do this, enthusiastically participated in by some editors, was effectively torpedoed by irrelevancies inserted? Are you willing to aggressively keep the Sandbox on track, and stop it turning into the rambling kind of discussion we're seeing here?
 * In addition, someone else created, but I've built on, a table that lists all the claims of the number of deaths (it's about to get archived off the top of this page). Would it be possible to have this table easily accessible somewhere, along with other "cited facts", perhaps linked from the Sandbox page? I'd like to do more of this kind of work, it seems sad to see people's time wasted with some of the easily falsifiable statements that regularily appear in TalkPages. PRtalk 12:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The table on the current top of this Talk page is rather tabulation of claims on purported body count and should belong to article History of allegations of massacre in Battle of Jenin not the account of the battle itself. If we are to start bothering with facts and defensible statements not with tabulation of propaganda then the real table will contract to 50+ entries and I've suggested above to start with B'Tselem's data; that will be WP:OR of course but nevertheless still seems to be sine qua non at least in educational sense of getting close to the factual reality which ostensibly should be the WP's objective. DBWikis 19:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The listing of various claims about the death toll probably does not need its own article, it just needs to be accessible somewhere (I thought a template would be a good idea, I don't understand the objection). The listing is important because quite nasty allegations were made against one of the people in that list, and it's clear that some of his claims are actually true, and the remainder no more than exaggerated. (The allegations of lying do not appear in any RSs, but a lot of people seem to think they did and that a top Palestinian negotiator is some kind of mendacious fool). Lies presumably were told (an overstatement of 380% ceases to be merely an exaggeration), but they all come from the perpetrators, not from the victims. It would be OR to draw any conclusions from the table - and we don't set out to disprove circulating falsehoods anyway. But the table does keep the discussion on track to a certain extent.
 * Perhaps you'd be able to tell me which falsehoods must remain in the article, and I'll tell you which vital elements of the account can be left out. For instance, perhaps we could leave out: "I had no mercy for anybody. ... Many people were inside houses we started to demolish. ... I am sure people died inside these houses." PRtalk 17:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Anyone else notice that the protection boils down to PR holding the article hostage until all of his demands are met. This is very anti-wikipedia. One user being able to disrupt consensus is unacceptable. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 15:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

And then there are mundane things too....
...except that they are not truly mundane if we are trying to make an article half way decent. General improvements which are not germane to the POV to-ing and fro-ing can/should be made to this article. The intro for instance, would be improved IMMHO if changed to:
 * The Battle of Jenin took place between April 3-11 2002 in the West Bank Palestinian refugee camp of Jenin as part of Operation Defensive Shield, during the Second Intifada. In Arabic it is called مجزرة جنين (Jenin Massacre) and in Hebrew, הקרב בג'נין, (Battle in Jenin).

But I guess that even a general copyedit like that might cause a POV pusher to imagine a slight, so maybe it's not worth my while bothering with it. Sigh. Moriori 08:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, you've made a fine copyedit. We'll try to implement it. Unfortunately, so much else is contested, I wouldn't encourage you to spend much time copyediting here yet. Sigh. HG | Talk 08:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC) Your presence here is most welcome! Thanks. HG | Talk 13:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Gotta disagree with you HG. More eyes, and especially copywriters, should always be encouraged. &lt;&lt;-armon-&gt;&gt; 12:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I support this edit. ← Michael Safyan 23:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Regarding IDF investigations
HG, you were discussing in a section how to present HR orgs recommendations for IDF investigations, and the fact that none took place. This from HRW's statement on the UN report may be relevant: Human Rights Watch researchers spent three weeks on the ground, including in Jenin camp, immediately following the operation. Researchers gathered detailed accounts from victims and witnesses, carefully corroborating and independently crosschecking their accounts with those of others to reconstruct a detailed picture of events in the camp in April 2002. The findings were published in a 52-page report, "Jenin: IDF Military Operations." In early May, the Israel Defense Forces made a commitment to investigate every incident documented in the report. To date, Human Rights Watch has had no response from the IDF as to the progress of any such investigations. I wonder if anyone has a source for the IDF's "commitment"?--G-Dett 22:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't it be suitable to have a subsection on IDF's view and response? Though I wonder, where in the order should it be placed? (Alternatively, the IDF view could be split up, maybe some on Investigations and some on Reporting, etc.) Anyway, maybe somebody could workshop this and then put a draft here? For what it's worth, my rule of thumb would be for maybe 3/4 of the section to neutrally/charitably present the IDF view, about 1/8 on substantive criticism of the IDF view from major players, with 1/8 (or less needed?) a wrap-up on the outcome. Thanks. HG | Talk 23:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * As I told you, I'm pleased to see mediation, but I won't put my name to (and thereby promise to defend) statements that still contain known falsehoods. If my obduracy has brought the mediation to a shuddering halt then I'm sorry. How about taking out the known falsehoods first, before concerning ourselves with re-wordings and the re-insertion of all the good information that belongs in the article? PRtalk 12:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Need protection lifting and re-write article
We need the protection of this article lifted and write the real story of what happened in 2002. Because it looks as if Israel is planning a much, much bigger version of the same thing in Gaza, Israeli columnist forecasts 1000s dead. PRtalk 18:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * And what is it that you are going to write? Also, in the battle templet we should change outcome to "Israeli victory". After the D9s came roaming through all the terrorists surrendered and their head, Mahmoud Tawalbe, was killed (by a D9).  M ath  K  night  Gothic Israeli Jew 19:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * There's a huge amount of very-well sourced information available about this incident - our article currently reads like denial. Here are a few of the most glaring omissions, note that that all of this material comes from the regular Western media - and much of it from Israeli or pro-Israel sources. There appears to be no reliable source or neutral point of view objection to including every part of it. Much of the material currently in the article is both less well-sourced and given undue weight. Some of our material (like the death-toll) is simply false.
 * Ariel Sharons told the world's media that "Palestinians must be hit ... must cause them losses, victims - 5th March 2002, a month before the incursions, before the surge of suicide bombings. This statement was criticised by Colin Powell and Time linked it directly to the military action that followed.
 * Sharons advisor told the UN special envoy, Terje Roed-Larsen that he "has no business whatsoever to tell us what is right or wrong".
 * Three refrigerated trailers in the camp while all observers were excluded - there's no secret, Israel told us about them.
 * Israel told us it would bury up to 200 bodies in a "special cemetry in the Jordan valley" (ie closed military zone).
 * Clips from the interview given by the bulldozer driver to an Israeli newspaper - he boasts of not caring for the civilian deaths he believe he caused.
 * Ian Hook, chief of the reconstruction project, killed by the IDF in suspicious circumstances on 22nd Nov 2002. Reference the Irish woman who returned to Jenin and was shot in the thigh by the IDF.
 * Account of the third "international observer/human rights" group that made a visit and presented a "Jenin Investigation", still finding complete bodies in August.
 * Massacre reported in careful detail, with soldiers identified, Amnesty and the Independent newspaper.
 * Allegations included in the UN report that the Israelis mined the refugee camp before they left.
 * Mention that this particular action in Jenin refugee camp was only part of a series of armed incursions. Israel was killing people in and around Jenin camp even when long curfews were supposedly lifted.
 * Small improvements have sometimes been made - some of the most glaring of these omissions have sometimes been corrected, and their presence accepted even by those who've previously deleted them. However, at this moment in time, each of the improvements I've spotted seems to have been undone again. PRtalk 16:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * What you are doing is to fabricate the facts and try with brutal force to tell that was a massacre in the camp even though it was discover a crude lie, and POVing the article toward the Palestinian claims, which were proven untrue. The IDF did not left mines in Jenin and the Palestinian witness probably confused with Palestinian booby trap (the Pals made 15,000 explosive charges and planted them around the camp to stop the IDF, or made up the strory to demonize Israel. I oppose your proposed changing.  M ath  K  night  Gothic Israeli Jew 17:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:D9R-idf.jpg
Image:D9R-idf.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Ariel Sharon quote
Please explain why a cafeteria quote made March 5th is mentioned after a suicide bombing made the night of March 27th.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  22:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The quote is important in showing Sharon has always favored the use of excessive military force, which has never brought about peace in the Arab-Israeli conflict. After all, Sharon was found by an ISRAELI investigative panel, the Kahan commission, as being "directly responsible" for the massacre at Sabra and Shatilla. Sharon would not even start peace talks, which Barak halted, when he was Prime Minister. If you don't talk to your enemies, you will never make peace with them.


 * You are mass deleting revelent information. You do not deny Sharon was quoted correctly, nor do you deny the Sharon quote expressed his true feelings. You could have moved the quote to a different location, instead you deleted it entirely and also deleted three other direct quotations from the UN report for no given reason. It seems as if only quotes from the UN report which are favorable to Israel are to be included in this article. Important information which is not favorable to Israel, especially the UN quote on a possible Jenin massacre by Israel and Israel's removing bodies of Jenin victims to unmarked mass graves, seems to always be deleted, even if it comes from a reliable source.


 * Also, the incorrect statement:


 * "The UN report stated that fifty-two Palestinian deaths had been confirmed by the end of May 2002"


 * keeps reappearing in your editing. The quote you removed, a direct quote from the UN report, includes the words "AT LEAST" (52 deaths.)


 * Why do you keep taking out correct information and replacing it with incorrect information?Blindjustice (talk) 23:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Jaakobou, you do not contest that you take correct information out of the article and replace it with incorrect information.Blindjustice (talk) 20:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Jaakobou, since a month has gone by and you failed to comment, I assume you do not disagree with my comments, and I intend to make the necessary changes. Blindjustice (talk) 02:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Blindjustice, you have improperly attributed the Ariel Sharon quote to the UN Report on Jenin. If you look carefully at the report, you will note that this quote is part of an attachment to the UN report, entitled Palestinian report submitted to the Secretary-General. Since the quote does not come directly from the UN report, using the quote requires proper attribution. For example: "According to the 'Palestinian report submitted to the Secretary-General' of the UN, ...". ← Michael Safyan (talk) 01:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Michael, thank you for your input.Blindjustice (talk) 02:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with the use of the quote out of it's proper March 5 context.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  02:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * And yet you won't even allow it to be cited in the form of, "Both the Palestinian Authority and Amnesty International drew attention to an off-the-cuff remark made by Ariel Sharon in March 2002 that 'The Palestinians must be hit and it must be painful. We must cause them losses, victims, so they feel the heavy price.'"
 * Jaakobou, you don't get to decide what the proper context in which to cite that quote is. You can have an opinion, we all have opinions, that's why we should report on notable opinions rather than asserting them as facts. (WP:ASF) &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 03:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Dear Elalnd,
 * (a) Was there something unclear in my previous comment?
 * (b) What's the deal with all the personal "you don't get to decide" hostility?
 * Cordially,  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  03:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Dear Jaakobou,
 * Your pro-Israeli bias has seriouly distorted this article.Blindjustice (talk) 20:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * So you're suggesting we insert this Ariel Sharon quote out of it's original context to make Ariel Sharon look like he's running an evil Gulag and balance the article a little?  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  20:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a cover-up
It should be obvious to everyone that this was a major event, and that the word "massacre" probably describes what took place - the BBC says "Palestinians claim hundreds of bodies are buried beneath the rubble, but Israel says the numbers of dead are far fewer. An independent forensic expert says evidence suggests that a massacre has taken place."

The BBC also reports the words of the UN Special Co-ordinator for the OPT: "Terje Roed-Larsen, who toured the Jenin refugee camp on Thursday, said it was "morally repugnant" that Israel had not allowed emergency workers in for 11 days to provide humanitarian relief." 86.159.186.70 (talk) 18:36, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Looks like a blood libel if you ask CNN.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  20:36, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Definition of "massacre" and "civilians"

 * Note: Title change performed by at 20:23, 17 July 2008 -  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  16:14, 18 July 2008 (UTC) (From Definition of "massacre" to definition of "massacre and civilians")LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 03:41, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I am surprised that nowhere in this entry is there a discussion of the meaning of the term "massacre" in relation to events in Israel and Palestine. Consider the Hebron massacre and other massacres of Jews which remained in the dozens, didn't reach the hundreds (in particular, consider the wiki entry, the Passover massacre, a more recent case). The term massacre does not need to refer to a concerted and explicit policy of killing reaching into the hundreds. It can be a spontaneous result of disorder within the context of battle as well, leading to the deaths of several dozen innocents, as in this case. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 22:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Suggestion 1 - Beyond ourselves debating whether this was or was not a massacre (not that I disagree that there is a need to debate) perhaps it's now time to shift towards inserting a paragraph summarizing some of the main debates around the term in relation to this case. Such a section should mention that, as G-Dett notes, the word "massacre" has "no legal definition in international law," and that "the question of whether an "indiscriminate and disproportionate" attack on a refugee camp leaving 25+ civilians dead constitutes a 'massacre' is a question that can't easily be settled by "the facts." What is most important about the term "Jenin massacre" is what it reflects about Palestinian and international perceptions of Operation Defensive Shield and the escalation of offensives in 2002. The fact that the killings were and are still perceived as such (a massacre) by Palestinians, most of the Arab world, and many in the international community, in itself warrants highlighting of the term 'massacre.' In my opinion, in terms of public perception the killings in Jenin certainly constituted as at least as much of a massacre as the Passover massacre-LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 22:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC) LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 23:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

LamaLoLeshLa, The fighting in Jenin was a battle, not a massacre and the sources are quite clear on this when they criticize the Palestinian (Blood Libel) exaggerations from the early days of the clashes. Please review the article sources before giving undue weight to the Islamic Jihad/Saeb Erekat version of occurrences in your "summary of events". As a side note, connections to other similar events would be a proper addition to the see also section, but only if those have some real similarity. As for adding a section on the "public perception the killings in Jenin", that would actually be interesting to see if it were based on reliable sourcing. I hope that answers the majority of your questions/suggestions. Cordially,  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  05:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I think my main point got buried in all my other musings: The term massacre does not need to refer to a concerted and explicit policy of killing reaching into the hundreds. It can be a spontaneous result of disorder within the context of battle as well, leading to the deaths of several dozen innocents, as in this case. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 20:49, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't call 45 militants and 7 civilian casualties in an explosives ridden territory "several dozen innocents" or "massacre". The PLO dropped their massacre charges and your information and personal interpretation of the sources are clearly incorrect. The fighting in Jenin was a battle, not a massacre and this is supported by a slew of reliable sources.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  21:37, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I can't continue with a back and forth, but for the record I will insert here the text from our dear wiki entry:


 * HRW and IDF differ over combatant deaths, with the IDF counting 38 "armed men" and the HRW counting 30 "militants." In general, Palestinian officials have spoken of significantly higher unconfirmed deaths,[25] though one Palestinian Fatah official reportedly put the death toll at 56.[26]
 * The UN report confirmed a body count of 52 Palestinians, up to half of them civilians, and found earlier claims of hundreds of deaths to be unsubstantiated.
 * No one has said that 45 militants were killed. Modest estimates point to 26 civilian deaths, while IDF estimates still point to 18. Again, in the passover massacre, 30 people were killed.
 * My point here, however, is not to argue about numbers. Dead innocents are dead innocents, unquantifiable, on both sides. But for the record, I thought I'd remind you here. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 22:02, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Please don't lecture me about alleged innocence of the "capital of suicide bombers" population. I'd add a few more words but I'm fairly disgusted at how you're first promoting the "massacre" blood libel and are now passing judgment, accepting the Palestinian interpretation of "innocent". War crimes were committed during those 10 days by use of these "innocent" "civilians" .  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  02:15, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I should have known better than to reply to your last message. It was an attmept at a discussion, however, here you take it to another level. Please try to return to your, "cordially" state of being. thanks, LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 05:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Pardon me then for considering your "highly moral" comparison -- between the Passover massacre victims (suicide bombing at a hotel lobby full of elderly people eating dinner) and the battle in Jenin casualties (urban battlefield filled with explosives where "civilians" were used in violation of war codes to kill both IDF soldiers and civilians) -- to be an objectionable insult but it is what it is.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  09:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, everyone. I thought I would step in and give some input. I think we should turn to Wikipedia's policy vis-a-vis the use of the term "terrorism" as a precedent for the use of the term "massacre." It is not consistent with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy to describe an event as an "act of terrorism" or "not an act of terrorism." It is permissible, however, to write that "According to _____, _____ constituted an act of terrorism." It seems, then, that Wikipedia policy requires the use of the term "massacre" to be accompanied by explicit attribution. For example, "According to Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, a massacre did not take place." I believe this, or something similar, is already the phrasing used in this article. As for titles in which the term "massacre" appears, the title should be based on the most frequently used term in reliable sources. It was already discussed whether this article should be titled the "Battle of Jenin" or the "Jenin Massacre"; the result of the discussion was that -- ignoring instances of "Jenin Massacre" where "massacre" was placed in quotes or where an article stated that a massacre had not taken place -- the term "Battle of Jenin" was used more frequently in reliable sources than "Jenin Massacre". I hope that helps. Good luck and have a good day. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 17:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * <off-topic question: Following this logic, would you be receptive to changing the title of Passover Massacre then, as well?>LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 08:13, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I would be receptive to changing the title if there were an alternative title which was used more frequently by reliable sources. However, the article provides five reliable sources which refer to the event as the "Passover massacre." Two of these sources -- one from CNN and one from The Daily Telegraph --, as mainstream news sources, are indicative of this title's prevalence. Furthermore, the matter has already been discussed at length on the article's talk page, and -- without my intervention or interference -- "Passover massacre" was chosen as the most suitable title. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 09:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Off the specific topic perhaps, but nonetheless relevant to the concept of civilised and grown up debate, could I also add that it is neither helpful nor interesting for editors here to start using mock inverted commas (eg "civilians"), and language such as "alleged innocence" when talking about people who happened to live in a particular place, who were killed in a military assault. Ascribing collective guilt to entire populations is a rather unpleasant game to engage in. --Nickhh (talk) 20:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * A civilized and grown up debate is one where insults are not made to suggest one's defense from the most disgusting war tactic of possibly all time (see Hussam Abdo, Wafa al-Biss) was actually a massacre of dozens of innocent civilians (as the propaganda suggested during the early days of the assault). Regardless, if it offends you that I don't call the people who violated war rules (i.e. committed war crimes) -- by acting like civilians and leading the Israeli soldiers into a death trap -- when I use double quotes around their "civilian" description, then I apologize. That doesn't, however, mean that the term civilian applies to their activity or that the (now dropped) massacre claims have any footing.
 * Cordially,  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  22:46, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Why is pointing out that (genuinely) innocent people were killed apparently some sort of personal insult to you? You are also continuing to pass some sort of bizarre collective judgement on everyone who was killed in the assault as well as engaging in some pretty hardcore WP:SOAP which has no relevance to attempts to improve this article. Some simple advice - when you are in a hole, stop digging. Its not merely offensive (to the victims, not to me) but simply wrong-headed and borderline racist to keep on claiming that Palestinians are somehow all war criminals. And no, that's not a breach of WP:NPA, it's fair comment on what you yourself are on record as saying. --Nickhh (talk) 23:12, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't consider the casualties of the Battle of Jenin, where "civilian" militants in the refugee camp have committed numerous war crimes, as "victims". I have no idea on why you suggest this has anything to do with racism, it doesn't. There's plenty of honest working Palestinians who did not booby-trap their homes with 20,000KGs of explosives outside the Jenin camp. If it weren't you (my fav stalker) I'd go further to explain the difference between terrorists and the rest of the Palestinian population. Regardless, suggesting my comment has anything to do with race/racism and following with hyperbole/ad-hominem is a personal attack so I request you don't repeat it.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  03:31, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Jaakabou - One question, because I really do not understand your meaning: Are you saying that the civilians who were killed were not really civilians because they were used as human shields by Palestinians (a claim you have yet to offer a citation for)? Or, even, are you suggesting that the (what you call 'quote') civilians were actually voluntary human shields? LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 06:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I think Jaakobou is right. Both sides exchanged fire and both sides suffered casualties, which makes it a battle. Many battles in history resulted in civilian casualties, but that doesn't make them massacres. -- Nudve (talk) 06:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I still hope Jaakabou answers my question. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 06:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Jaaka is a student and is in exams so I wouldn't wait. Besides, your question is loaded. I'd not answer such a question if I were Jaaka. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 07:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok: a reminder to assume good faith. My question may seem loaded, but seriously, the above is what I understood from his/her comments. Thus I welcome his/her clarification.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 07:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * AGF is not a suicide pact. Sorry. You bait and make accusations, there's not good faith to assume here, friend. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 07:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Jaakobou and Nudve, above. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 16:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Huh? did you read what your friend wrote? I simply do not understand what s/he writes, here: "Regardless, if it offends you that I don't call the people who violated war rules (i.e. committed war crimes) -- by acting like civilians and leading the Israeli soldiers into a death trap -- when I use double quotes around their "civilian" description, then I apologize. That doesn't, however, mean that the term civilian applies to their activity". S/he seems to imply not simply that s/he does not recognize that a bit less than half were civilians - s/he seems to imply that those killed were disguised as civilians. I genuinely want to understand if this is what s/he meant and, if so, where s/he got her/his information. I have never seen this before, have only heard it in the rumor-mill, and if indeed this is what Jaakabou is asserting, I want to see substantiation, plain and simple. I am not hiding my lack of comprehension of his/her charge, here, rather, am addressing ti directly. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 07:19, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Wait, you mean you do not realize that the terrorists militants who act with impunity in Palestine do not wear uniforms, rather they attempt to blend in with the civilian population as they wage their "war" against Israel and victimize even those who they purport to be fighting for? These aren't uniformed soldiers, rather they are angry armed men who bear the trappings of civilians in an effort to hide themselves within the population from which they plot their ambushes. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 07:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The fact that most Palestinian fighters/militants/terrorists/whatever do not wear full uniforms and are not part of an official army is well known, and is also already taken into account in the casualty figures for Jenin. Jaakobou's comments appear - pretty explicitly - to go beyond that and cast doubt on whether those recorded by official accounts as having been civilians rather than gunmen, were in fact civilians, seemingly on the basis of some sort of collective guilt which brands all Palestinians as terrorists, even elderly men in wheelchairs. This is not the first time such comments have been made, on this talk page and elsewhere. On the "massacre vs battle" point, it's possible that something can be both, and the definition of massacre is of course subjective - there's no set threshold (based on numbers, who was killed and how etc) at which point something suddenly becomes a massacre. Different people will take different views, and no one view is necessarily conclusive. --Nickhh (talk) 08:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Further discussion

 * Prof Derrick Pounder and his fellow "we've been given testimony of civilian deaths.. looks like a massacre to us!" teams of Human Rights Inspectors certainly listed all the people which were not holding a rifle as civilians. However, there's other versions as to the "civilian" activity.
 * Samples of the Palestinian "civilian" war crimes:
 * An bomb-maker from Jenin refugee camp gives testimony about his activity.
 * The 'engineer' Al-Ahram Weekly Online 18 - 24 April 2002 Issue No.582.
 * relevant quotes:
 * "We cut off lengths of mains water pipes and packed them with explosives and nails. Then we placed them about four metres apart throughout the houses -- in cupboards, under sinks, in sofas.".."everyone in the camp, including the children, knew where the explosives were located so that there was no danger of civilians being injured."
 * bomb factories in UNRWA managed refugee camp, see: 2.8 Using civilians as shields
 * "We all stopped shooting and the women went out to tell the soldiers that we had run out of bullets and were leaving." The women alerted the fighters as the soldiers reached the booby- trapped area."...'"When the senior officers realised what had happened, they shouted through megaphones that they wanted an immediate cease-fire. We let them approach to retrieve the men and then opened fire."
 * see: Ruse_of_war
 * These are just examples and don't quite yet tell the full story of the Capital of Suicide bombers' "civilian" militancy. The fact that Israel could not prove the militancy of 14 people (out of the 56 Palestinian killed in the fighting) does not give credence to any of the insulting "let's talk about why we should call it a massacre (of dozens)" language applied by LamaLoLeshLa (or the racism allegations by Nickhh). Fact remains that a blood libel was spread during the days of the fighting and the "civilians" spreading this hoax couldn't back up their claims which started with "3000 Palestinians butchered! Sabra and Shatila again!!!" and later turned to a victory declaration, "56 of our glorious martyrs inflicted unprecedented damages to the evil Zionists!".
 * Cordially,  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  10:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Note to Nickhh: I request you desist from violating WP:NPA, repeatedly suggesting I apply a racist "collective guilt which brands all Palestinians as terrorists".  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  10:19, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Note in reply: I have not explicitly accused you of racism and have not made any sort of personal attack on you. I have simply called you out on what you have written here, for example your constant used of inverted commas around the word civilians when referring to people who were killed and were officially described that way by the UN and others (this figure may be as high as 26, although you wouldn't know it from reading the introduction as it stands). See also your comments about "the alleged innocence of [Jenin's] population"; that you "don't consider the casualties .. as victims"; and the suggestion that those counted as civilian casualties were only classified that way because "Israel could not prove [their] militancy". Anyone else can read all this and make their own judgement. It is not only offensive, but is soapboxing and is irrelevant to any attempt to improve this article. I'm vacating this spot now. --Nickhh (talk) 13:57, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * To clarify the quote from the source:
 * "may have been civilians" != "are civilians". Just because the UN did not want to call the Palestinians on their gross exaggerations does not remotely give credence to this statistic.
 * On Highs and Lows:
 * They are brilliant statistics and I have no objection to someone citing the UN secretary general portion of the report as long as it's done with accuracy. However, the highs in casualty figures "estimations"(/allegations) for this battle reached 3000 with a famous Palestinian official/TV-persona going on record promising over 500 "massacred" Palestinians in Jenin while repeating blood libel claims of hidden graves and a cover-up. The lows tell a different and far more accurate story though.
 * On how this discussion got started:
 * Suggestions that we should debate whether or not this battle was a "massacre" while calling the gunmen of Jenin "victims" clearly fall under WP:SNOW and are quite an insult as well considering the number "28" to be among the "lows" for suicide bombers dispatched from the camp's alleyways.
 * On the Nickhh WP:NPA issue:
 * LamaLoLeshLa's reply regarding "Modest estimates"(false) and "passover massacre"(abusive comparison) were a reason for my reminding/noting him of the Jenin camp nickname and the war crimes committed by "civilians" in the camp. If you believe calling the Palestinian "innocent" statistics from the Jenin battle 'bogus' to be a clear sign of racism towards the entire Palestinian population (of 11 million) then I'm afraid we disagree.
 * Cordially,  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  16:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC) clarify 16:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * calling it a massacre is a sign of overt, excessive and completely needless politicization of Wikipedia. there is no need to use such a volatile and politically loaded word in regards to any historical event or political or historical topic. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 16:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * At no point did I argue for the exclusive use of the word massacre to describe these events, please do not put words in my mouth, Jaakabou. This 'began' when I tried to suggest that the perception of the fact that this was a massacre is worthy of highlighting in and of itself, as would be a short discussion of the debate around the term "massacre" in this context. I never said anything else, except to offer that what is a battle for one side can be a massacre for the other. I don't know how one can argue with that - in boston, during the revolutionary war, they used the term 'massacre' when the brits won in battle and few civilians were killed. I too, am leaving this page now. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 19:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * There is a subsection on the reports of a massacre at this battle here . I do not believe that this article is the place to have such a broad discussion on the use of the term massacre in the context of the broader IP conflict. Maybe there is an article on the press coverage of the IP conflict out there? Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 06:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

second section break

 * A broad discussion did take place on exactly this a while ago, in terms of naming pages here. If anyone's got a couple of minutes to go through it - to be honest I haven't and am not sure what the conclusion (if any) was. As for a page/article itself, there's Media coverage of the Arab-Israeli conflict. I would add as well that I am not arguing that Jenin was a massacre, nor am I saying that Western sources generally say that it was. The issue I have with this page (and have had for a long time) is that I think it's too simplistic to say people who did - or still do - claim it was a massacre are somehow definitively wrong, or are/were deliberately perpetrating some form of blood libel. Even as currently written, the article gives too much emphasis to suggestions of that, as if that were tha main issue here. Ooops, I wasn't meant to be here .. but did think I should at least drop that link in. --Nickhh (talk) 08:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Nickhh, I feel it is unfair for you to use the term "racist" to describe Jaakobou. As I hope you realize, we do not issue personal attacks here. You may or may not have intended it as one, but people are entitled to have their own feelings and sensibilites when comments are about them personally. In this case, you are unfairly labeling Jaakobou's actions and motives, when he is making legitimate comments about article contents. I will ask you use a little more care. As you know, discussions here can proceed positively, even on the most contentious issues, as  long as we all try to show some respect. I appreciate if you could please try to give this some more thought. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk)14:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well I didn't of course describe him as a racist, I said making assertions of collective guilt was an "unpleasant game" and also said that for him to continue insisting - as he had appeared to do - that Palestinians were all war criminals was "borderline racist". You might see that as semantics, but in turn I saw his words as being pretty clear in suggesting that no Palestinian who was killed in Jenin was a civilian, or a genuine victim, or uninvolved in war crimes somehow - ie that they were all guilty of something by virtue of being Palestinian and having homes in Jenin. And nor do I know what those kind of rants have to do with improving the article to be honest. (Still not meant to be here ...) --Nickhh (talk) 15:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I do appreciate you replying. I understand your point. However, I still see a problem here. I do hope you'll try to keep these concerns in mind. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Subscript text
 * massacre there are some commonly accepted perameters here. 1) massacre always implies multiple murders, although I am not aware of a minimum number. 2) massacre always implies that at the time the killing occurred, it is a matter of armed people killing unarmed people.  Not innocent people.  Just unarmed people.  The Katyn massacreis a good example.  Innocence or guilt are really not relevant. LamaLoLeshLa is introducing a red herring.Elan26 (talk) 21:48, 18 July 2008 (UTC)Elan26
 * Ok. sounds good. please prepare to start the article rename discussion on the Hiroshima massacre, Dresden massacre. By the way, is there some reason we do not have articles for 9-11 massacre? Could it be that "Massacre" is deemed too volatile a word even in these clear unambiguous examples? --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 03:28, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * By the way, based on your example, it appears that maasacre refers not to any violence involving the death of civilians, but rather the prearanged execution-style killing of people, especially if based on nationality, ethnicity, or political affiliation. For example, see this excerpt:


 * Katyń massacre, also known as the Katyń Forest massacre (Polish: zbrodnia katyńska, 'Katyń crime'), was a mass execution of Polish military officers, policemen and civilian prisoners of war ordered by Soviet authorities on March 5, 1940.


 * Just wanted to mention that. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 03:36, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Elan26, thanks for your view on the matter of defining 'massacre'. As far as my introduction of the idea of 'innocence', I'm not at all fixated on whether people are innocent or not - who are we too know and how can we know unless we were there and witnessed every single killing, or there was a proper trial? As you properly emphasized, what is actually important is to clarify the idea of the civilian vs. combatant, in terms of being armed or unarmed. It sounds to me like, by your definition, this was a massacre, by the way - did you mean to give that impression? The irony is that I personally don't care whether what happened at Jenin is here defined as a massacre or not - what is really important is:


 * 1. To represent the debate around the use of the term in this case, which is as important as what actually happened those three days.
 * 2. To clearly represent the difference between combatants and civilians. Jaakabou's arguments remind me directly of the arguments made byu those Palestinians who view all Israelis who serve in the army as combatants, even when sitting unarmed and hardly on active duty, on the beach. (my two cents: The fact that 'they' -- the 'other', whether Israeli or Palestinian -- are not viewed as civilians, when unarmed, is why the violence has spiralled for so long). LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 03:40, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Dear LamaLoLeshLa,
 * Please avoid making uncivil commentary. I'm referring to this policy: CIV, and my concern is specifically the judgmental tone directed at me in person -- comparing me with extremist Palestinians (see also WP:NPA), rather than a civil inquiry regarding the content issue which you are unclear about (i.e. Jenin being a battle rather than a massacre). Judgmental commentary directed at fellow editors detract from an ability to discuss your concerns in a calm manner (see also: Erosion_of_critical_thinking).
 * The golden rule, in my opinion, is "Comment on content, not on the contributor." (from the NPA)
 * With respect,  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  11:41, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * That is what your argument reminded me of, no offense intended. I will try to describe the argument and not mention your name, next time. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 18:04, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Entire world calls it a massacre
All of this has been discussed before, and there's actually no room for doubt - the incident is generally known as the "Jenin Massacre" - and overwhelmingly so amongst informed non-partisan observers. How can I be so confident? Well, lots of pro-Israeli sources tell us so themselves eg: There are many, many other angry Israeli defenders telling us how unfair it all is - but the last of the above is perhaps most significant - clearly, at some point the defenders were comforting each other that their "no massacre" version was going to be accepted. Four years out, their hopes had been dashed (except at Wikipedia, where administrative action has still not been taken against those who would distort the record).
 * 1) A US group, JFEDNEPA - "How Did the Massacre Myth Become Fact"? (this is 6 weeks after the incident).
 * 2) CAMERA - "... the credibility of these spokesmen with the American press is apparently unaffected". (14 weeks after the incident).
 * 3) An Israel group, AISH - "The myth of the massacre endures to this day" (2 years after the incident).
 * 4) YnetNews - "After a lot of hesitancy and a short-lived attempt to take balanced positions, the worldwide left-wing has returned in full force to the 'Jenin massacre syndrome'." (4 years later).

One gets the same thing with a search on "Jenin Massacre" (18,400 hits on Google) vs "Battle of Jenin" (979 hits). At Yahoo the ratio is only 3:1 in favour of "Jenin Massacre" (165,000 vs 25,600) - it's distorted back towards Israel a bit by the angry blogosphere and non-RS, as would never be acceptable in articles at Wikipedia. PRtalk 18:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * PalestineRemembered, I advise you look at the discussion archives. This has already been thoroughly discussed, and the decision was that "The Battle of Jenin" is the term most frequently used by reliable sources and that, while there are more Google hits for "Jenin Massacre", the vast majority of such links state that a massacre did not occur. Case in point, the first source you show does not call it a "Massacre", but a "Massacre Myth" (emphasis added). The second link you provide does not use the term "massacre", and therefore does not support your claim. The third link does not refer to a "massacre", but rather to the "myth of the massacre" (em. added). The fourth link uses the term "massacre" in quotations, which indicates that the words are not the opinion of the source (indeed, the source is speaking of a "syndrome" -- a disease, if you will -- of repeatedly and erroneously referring to the Battle of Jenin as a "massacre"). If anything, your sources are supportive of changing the title of the article to "Jenin Massacre Myth" or "Myth of the Jenin Massacre", not to "Jenin Massacre". Please see this archived discussion, in which -- following an RFC by you to change the title -- several editors supported "Battle of Jenin" while you, alone, supported "Jenin Massacre". ← Michael Safyan (talk) 19:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * PR, there are numerous sources which refute your sources. the entry cites a BBC article in which mainstream expert find that there was no massacre. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 19:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * There are 100s and 100s of articles in the RS on this incident, as best I'm aware there are only 3 which state there was no massacre,, , , all of them seriously problematical to use directly in an article. As the angry blogosphere tells us so graphically, the RSs are around 99% unanimous that something appalling happened. Why do you suppose that Israel banned the documentary of it, and then shot dead the maker producer of the film? PRtalk 23:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * @Michael - I'm badly disappointed in you - that's not an RfC (which I've never raised on this subject, usually stating that the really big problems are in the content of this article and not in it's title). Nor was it raised by me - it was raised by Jaakobou with "in your recent edit you've mentioned that you believe the name of the battle to be "also Jenin Massacre" based on a google search." - so I've clearly not even been asking for the name to be changed, only that the alternative name be included.
 * However, readers of that (rather brief) discussion would almost certainly suppose that I made an excellent case for the article to be entitled "Jenin Massacre", even though I'd not proposed changing it, and that subsequent to my presentation there had been next to no attempt to present an alternative case. PRtalk 23:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Further details, and quotes from PR's links:


 * A US group, JFEDNEPA - "How Did the Massacre Myth Become Fact"? (this is 6 weeks after the incident).

Note: as PR candidly notes, this article is from 6 weeks afterwards, before world media began to retract claims, as noted in articles below.


 * CAMERA - "... the credibility of these spokesmen with the American press is apparently unaffected". (14 weeks after the incident).

Note: dated Aug 2002; well before media began to retract their stories.
 * An Israel group, AISH - "The myth of the massacre endures to this day" (2 years after the incident).

Note: Aish also states: "

"Massacre evidence growing," a headline on BBC's website blared on April 18, 2002.

There was just one small problem. None of that happened.

The truth would come out eventually, Canadian reporter Martin Himel reports in his new documentary, Jenin: Massacring Truth. But the damage was done.

The myth of the massacre endures to this day, even though the BBC was backpedalling within days of the initial reports. Little more than 10 days after accusations of a massacre were posted on the BBC's website, British military expert David Holley, a major in the British Territorial Army and military adviser to Amnesty International, was quoted on the same site saying Israel was right to challenge the UN observers' claims.


 * YnetNews - "After a lot of hesitancy and a short-lived attempt to take balanced positions, the worldwide left-wing has returned in full force to the 'Jenin massacre syndrome'." (4 years later).

NOTE: As per the quote above, that article says syndrome. syndrome. this article is not upholding claims of a massacre at all, but simply drawing parallels between coverage of jenin battle and of conflict in Lebanon.

Note: article states: took months for human rights organizations, even the United Nations, to issue their reports refuting Palestinian claims. There was no massacre in Jenin, no ethnic cleansing, no intentional destruction of hospitals. There was a bloody battle in which soldiers died on each side.

Learning the lessons

The fairytale about the "Jenin massacre" may have died, but were lessons learned? Some were. The European media, especially the electronic media, has given some expression to the suffering of Israeli civilians under attack. It has not (usually) supported Hizbullah. But in other cases, no lessons were learned from the blood libel of the Jenin massacre. During the second week of fighting, Israel's military campaign in Lebanon is currently being portrayed as the total destruction of Lebanon, of essential civilian infrastructure, as a human tragedy on the level of the 2004 tsunami that killed hundreds of thousands of people in Southeast Asia.

Reading reports from left-leaning field reporters, one gets a picture that Beirut has been destroyed at least as badly as Dresden was during the Second World War. Foreign television channels use one section of footage over and over, showing the destruction of one neighborhood in south Beirut, to "show" what has happened throughout the city. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 20:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm getting the same response as I had when I first posted a selection of these clips, people are cherry-picking optimistic words out of these angry and baffled defenders of Israel, and attempting to give credence to their pathetic attempts at bolstering their self-deception, somehow putting a different and optimistic spin on the evidence that stares them in the face.
 * The fact is that all these commentators (and there are many more blogosphere editors ranting like this, particularly in the weeks immediately after the incident) are blowing smoke, they know they're defeated and they're railing at the RSs that refuse to toe the Israeli line.
 * Now then, as WP editors, we're familiar with WP processes and we know that this article must be written to the reliable sources. Fortunately, we don't have to sift through the literally 100s and 100s of mainstream reports in order to figure out what the "majority view-point" is, because the blogosphere editors have done something similar for us already and thrown up their hands in defeat.
 * I note that nobody comments on the other plank of my thesis, that a Google test also proves conclusively that "Jenin Massacre" is the prefered title for this event.
 * However, as I said, until there is administrative action to enforce encyclopaedic standards, this article will continue to be held hostage to POV and will disgrace the project. PRtalk 23:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

PalestineRemembered, I see that you did not consult the previous discussion on this matter. You state that we should rely on the Google test to determine the title. However, in the previous discussion on this matter, I demonstrated that a Google test does not support using the title "Jenin Massacre", since Google Scholar has more hits (44 as of July 22, 2008) for "Battle of Jenin" than hits for "Jenin Massacre" (32 as of July 22, 2008). Furthermore, the vast majority of the hits for "Jenin Massacre" come from papers or articles which reject the claim that a massacre had taken place. (e.g. the first three hits). ← Michael Safyan (talk) 04:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow, PR recycled his material again. Yippee! The press redacted their initial false reports of a massacre. Nothing to see here, just more gaming from PR. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 06:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm going to continue to sit in the middle. I'm not sure anyone can make a definitive judgement either that it was or wasn't a massacre, and we certainly can't say there's any consensus out there on it. The word is just too loosely defined and used (often as a propaganda tool). Yes casualty figures - initially put very high by both IDF and Palestinian spokespeople - were rounded down, and suggestions that there may have been mass indiscriminate killings were also found to be lacking in substance. However the IDF was accused of using Palestinians as human shields and shooting at civilians, flattening large parts of the camp and blocking outside help and observers for several days. Acording to some estimates, as many as half of the Palestinans killed were not combatants. Personally I'm not going to quibble with the "Battle of Jenin" title, but this article should not then go on to simply refer to the "massacre" description as if it were "wrong" or "refuted", and therefore merely an issue of Palestinian lies or media gullibility/hostility to Israel. --Nickhh (talk) 08:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * We already have an inordinately long section devoted to the allegations of massacre. Discussing this over and over again is pointless. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 09:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No need to dive in and have a go at me. I was merely making the general point that in the past (and currently, to a lesser extent), the broad thrust of this page has been that the massacre claim is some sort of mendacious blood libel, rather than merely an alternative description of what happened, depending on where you're coming from. That has nothing to do with whether there is an "inordinately long section devoted to the allegations of massacre", but to what such a section - as well as the lead - actually says. Thanks for your time. --Nickhh (talk) 09:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Calling the event "Sabra and Shatila again! Massacre!" (as did several of the Palestinian officials) could be considered as just a different perspective. However, it is still a blood libel perspective considering the fact that, (A) there is no similarity, (B) almost everyone in the camp was telling the media made up stories of hidden dead bodies (sample: "And all of them, almost all of them, told us stories of mass graves, of bodies being loaded into trucks and driven away.").
 * p.s. The IDF had a short list of wanted terrorists but the Palestinians had other plans (see Thabat Mardawi quotes). Hence, the destruction of 6-10% of the camp (about 0.6-1% of the city itself) is clearly the fault of the Palestinians who planted 20,000Kgs of explosives in their own backyards and kitchens.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  10:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The thrust of this article should be to document what is known, not the outrages claims that made the sensationlist media. I believ the majority of us who have worked on this article and discussed PR's theories that there was a massacre to death repeatedly in the past are pretty much burnt out of arguing about this matter and would like nothing more than getting back to writing about the battle, not the media coverage. This is not a dive at you, if anyone, its a dive at PR for resurrecting his copypasta once more. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 11:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree we should not be spending time here debating whether there was a massacre, or who's fault it might have been. That's not really up to us, and I don't even really have a view. I also agree that the name is probably OK as it is, when one looks at the sources overall. However as I said my concern is that we don't conclude automatically from that - 1) that anyone who raised alarms about what was happening when the camp was closed off (and even IDF spokespeople were talking about 100s killed) is somehow guilty of blood libel; nor 2) that, now more of the facts are in and even though the known death toll is far lower, it is illegitimate to take the view that there was a massacre. Plenty of incidents with lower death tolls that also occurred in wartime are so described. --Nickhh (talk) 12:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

To Nickhh and others - the evidence I placed at the sub-heading above was not intended to discuss use of the word massacre. My evidence refers to the use of the name "Jenin Massacre" which, as can easily be proved, is what's in general use. I've never called for the name of the article to be changed to "Jenin Massacre", only complaining that, after having been included as an "also" for so long, it's been removed. My evidence actually shows that this article is totally at odds with almost everything that's appeared in the RS - as the angry bloggers illustrate so well, nothing was ever retracted by the reliable sources, and there's been no change of emphasis either. PRtalk 10:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, I took your comments to mean that you thought it was, at this time, the majority description. It clearly is not and once the dust had settled, much of the Western media did start running "no massacre" headlines, on the basis of the actual death tolls. The blogosphere took this up and ran with it, hence the number of Google hits for the term. However I agree that it is still widely - and legitimately, in terms of it being an alternative view - known as "the Jenin massacre" because of the killings of civilians, even if there weren't as many deaths as originally feared. Perhaps there could be more sources for that though - I suspect they might be more available in the Arabic media.--Nickhh (talk) 11:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Allow other viewpoints in for the sake of NPOV, or we need to seek mediation
Yesterday I created a brief two-line intro and moved all the tortuous details down to introduce the background section. The intro read:

"The Battle of Jenin (مجزرة جنين, הקרב בג'נין lit. Battle of Jenin) took place between the 3rd and 11th of April 2002 in Jenin's Palestinian refugee camp as part of Operation Defensive Shield during the Second Intifada. The Battle of Jenin has been referred to as the Jenin Massacre by Arab and international sources, although several large international human rights monitors found no evidence of a massacre.

I will be restoring this line, with several citations, in a bit: "The Battle of Jenin has been referred to as the Jenin Massacre by Arab and international sources, although several large international human rights monitors found no evidence of a massacre." (I didn't cite these two aspects because there is ample evidence below)

I will also try to find the citation to HRW's own statement: Human Rights Watch says "the closure of the area severely compromised the ability to conduct a fair assessment after the fact." (I saw this quote in the report and simply did not have time to retrieve it) LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 17:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Here is the relevant citation: The UN report says: 28."As a result of the severe restrictions on movement, human rights workers and journalists were unable to observe the conduct of the parties and provide independent reporting on that conduct."

Furthermore, the IDF obstructed reporting on events and obstructed relief efforts: 28."Some journalists reported being fired at by members of IDF." ''"United Nations and other humanitarian personnel offered to comply fully with IDF security checks on entering and leaving the camp, but were not able to enter the camp on this basis. Furthermore, United Nations staff reported that IDF had granted some Israeli journalists escorted access to the camp on 14 April, before humanitarian personnel were allowed in. United Nations personnel requested similar escorted access to assess the humanitarian condition of people in the camp, but were unsuccessful, despite assurances from senior IDF officials that such access would be possible.

''68. On 15 April, 12 days after the start of the military operation, IDF granted humanitarian agencies access to the Jenin refugee camp. The Palestine Red Crescent Society and the International Committee of the Red Cross were permitted to enter the camp under military escort but reported that their movement was strictly confined to certain areas and further constrained by the presence of large quantities of unexploded ordnance including booby traps. After evacuating only seven bodies, they aborted their efforts. A United Nations team including two trucks with water and supplies was forbidden from unloading its supplies and was also forced to withdraw. Supplies were distributed to the camp inhabitants only beginning the following day, 16 April. Acute food and water shortages were evident and humanitarian personnel began calls for specialized search-and-rescue efforts to extract the wounded and the dead from the rubble.''

69. Once IDF granted full access to the camp on 15 April, unexploded ordnance impeded the safe operations of humanitarian personnel." LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 17:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of such info violates NPOV in that it promotes IDF views as paramount and dismisses Arab and international perceptions of the event. The way things were phrased yesterday, (before they were reverted) the intro let Israel define the events as a battle while mentioning that many Arabs do not view it that way. If they are deleted again, I will be seeking a mediator's assistance. These are fundamental facts, central ones, and need to be highlighted, period. You've already got the events titled a 'Battle," and the tone of the intro casts doubt on Palestinian claims. What more do you want? You've gotten to define the debate here, and to frame the terminology used. But you cannot silence the fact that Palestinians do indeed refer to those events as a massacre, and a huge flurry of discussion around the issue circled the globe following the fighting/killing. This discussion is as important as the events and must be mentioned in the lead. I will go back up the aforementioned with multiple citations. Best, LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 17:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Unsourced claims may be challenged on sight and if no sources appear, removed as OR. That claim had been there for months. Good luck! I'd be ok with removing the "by Arab and international sources" and removing the comma. There is no need to mention what sources especially since "Arab and international sources" suggests that there is more than "Arab and international sources" (as if there is anyone else) and begs the question "who?" Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 17:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, sometimes Israeli sources (human rights groups) concur. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 17:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Concur with what? Please expound on this sentence since it does not make any sense. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 17:38, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Concur with the findings of international NGOs, the UN, etc. or the testimonies of Palestinians.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 17:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Which findings are you rambling about? The UN and the NGOs found that there was no evidence of massacres. Just because some people believe there to be one and continue to make statements to that does not make it any more true than David Icke's rants about reptiliians. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 17:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You misunderstood me. What I meant was, on "other matters'' (i.e. not the Jenin events) sometimes Israelis, Palestinians, and internationals agree. Please, I don;t want to say more because I won't stand for another accusation that I'm rambling. Let's stick to trying to understand each other/the text, and avoid personal judgments, please. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 18:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I do not misunderstand you. I understand perfectly that you, per your userpage, are here to push a pro-palestinian agenda. This is fine, but trying to give undue weight to a fringe theory that there was a massacre at Jenin will be pointed out as such and evidence will be called for at every attempt. You have not provided any evidence that negates the statements already discussed on the article that the allegation of a massacre at Jenin was investigated and that no evidence was found that one occurred. Repeating yourself again and again, here and on my talk page, does not make your argument carry any more weight. Do you have any evidence that negates the facts presented that the NGOs, the UN and international news organizations stopped presenting Jenin as a massacre once investigation occurred? Bear in mind that biased sources will be scrutinized and exposed. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 18:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Re-read LamaLoLeshLa's user page. It says nothing about pushing a pro-Palestinian agenda - on the contrary they suggest merely that they want to ensure both sides get fair coverage. I know sometimes that is interpreted as being "pro-Palestinian" but of course it isn't, unless the person interpreting it that way believes that neutrality requires us to always favour an official Israeli narrative. Nor is it a "fringe" or conspiracy theory to argue that there was a massacre at Jenin. Yes, there was no mass killing of 100s of people in Jenin as initially feared, but civilians were killed in a violent assault. If someone still wanted to maintain that 100s were killed and their bodies spirited away somehow, that is clearly not the case and would qualify as a fringe theory. By contrast if someone wanted to describe what is now known to have happened as a massacre, that is a legitimate point of view. As I and others have pointed out before, there is no clear definition of what constitutes a massacre, and some incidents where less than 20 people were killed are commonly talked about as being massacres. Determining the numbers that were killed is an issue of evidence, describing what happened as a massacre, battle or whatever is an issue of interpretation. If, as it currently does, the article says "it was determined there was no massacre", it has to say who has made that judgement rather than presenting one viewpoint as incontestible fact. In any event I am not sure for example that the UN report says quite that - from what I can tell, it merely says there was not a massacre of 100s of people. --Nickhh (talk) 21:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * PS: I agree the intro is too long and detailed, and has way too much about prior events in Israel rather than about what happened in Jenin. These should all be moved to a background section in the main article
 * The lead uses summary style to present a brief overview of the contents of the article. If you are interested in the evidence that supports the statement in the lead where it states that no massacre occured, please review this section: Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 08:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I know the lead is meant to summarise briefly (I've made that very point of course, in respect of the "background"). As to the bit you've pointed me to, I was also aware of that. The problem is that if you look at what is actually quoted there, most are not quite as definitive as "no massacre", period. HRW for example say there was "unlawful or wilful killing"; Derek Holley, yes, says there was no massacre on the basis that there was "no wholesale killing", but does talk about apparent executions; Time says there was "no wanton massacre"; the UN report is described as concluding there was no massacre, but apparently only on the basis of one or two sub-editors headlines (for example if you read the actual text of the USA Today piece, it actually - and correctly - says that the UN found no evidence that 500 people were massacred. The NYT piece is similar).--Nickhh (talk) 11:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Drawing conclusions from material in ways that are explicited sourced is original research. Wikipedia policy precludes the synthesis of material present a view that is not verifiable to a reliable source. (Note: Lama has added much text to the original text to which I responded. This additional material seriously changes her original statement. I will now edit my statements so as to not confused the other participants of this discussion.) Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 18:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * What I had to say on your talkpage, as you know, was purely to request that you be civil, and to try to answer your question re: 'who concurs' and 'with what.' LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 18:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Drawing the conclusion that the IDF hindered humanitarian efforts when the original source states: "The Palestine Red Crescent Society and the International Committee of the Red Cross were permitted to enter the camp under military escort but reported that their movement was strictly confined to certain areas and further constrained by the presence of large quantities of unexploded ordnance including booby traps. After evacuating only seven bodies, they aborted their efforts." is drawing a conclusion that is not supported by the text. These journalists and humanitarians left on their own because of "unexploded ordinance" not because the IDF pushed them out. Walking into a battlefield is a DANGEROUS thing afterall. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 18:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Note: I made only one edit, citing the text: ""the closure of the area severely compromised the ability to conduct a fair assessment after the fact" per the UN report which says that journalists and human rights monitors were unable to get in and document much: 28."As a result of the severe restrictions on movement, human rights workers and journalists were unable to observe the conduct of the parties and provide independent reporting on that conduct." (Note that I did not, for a second, edit the entry itself to say that the IDF hindered humanitarian efforts.) Maspik, end of the story, let's stick to the entry edits, please. I need to get off this talk page - nasty nasty atmosphere. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 18:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I quote your statement: "Furthermore, the IDF obstructed reporting on events and obstructed relief efforts: ". You indeed did say that the IDF hindered humanitarian efforts.. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 18:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That was on the talk page. The edit to teh entry (not the talk page) itself only referred to the closure and inability of non-Israeli journalists to get in and document events for alsmots 2 weeks, as a result.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 19:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 4 days != 2 weeks. You're doing your math wrong. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 19:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I quote (UN report): "12 days after the start of the military operation, IDF granted humanitarian agencies access to the Jenin refugee camp." Some journalists were escorted in after 4 days, but the UN and NGOs were not allowed in for a bit less than two weeks.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 19:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Could it have been that the unexploded ordinance was severely restricting their movements? This is actually supported by the text you have quoted, unlike your statements about the IDF. The assumption of the IDF's guilt in this is so obvious. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 19:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * To clarify my personal interpretation (which, again, I did not for a second insert into the text), the ordinance could have been left by either side, but the IDF, with its very skilled bomb squads, had the capacity to clear it, unpleasant a job though it is. And yes, that places more on the IDF's shoulders, but it would have been the ethical thing to do. That's just my opinion, and again, never entered the text, nor will it. The facts, on the other hand, state not that the ordinance was the means by which the IDF hampered relief efforts, but that they hampered relief efforts by denying entry for two weeks. Please, leave this point, until now I have said nothing further about it and it is not what the 'edit-warring' is about. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 19:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The battle ended on April 11th. Humanitarian and journalistic groups were allowed in on April 15th. Four days is NOT two weeks. The insurgents were fighting amidst civilians, cutting off more civilians from endangering themselves is a reasonable action regardless. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 19:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, the IDF has the ability to clear it. However, in the middle of battle with a guerilla army hiding behind civilians such delicate work is placed aside until later. The IDF was busy fighting an insurgent force, not clearing paths for humanitarians to resupply the camp. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 19:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Please do not revert without understanding of the cited reasoning for content removal. Citation had nothing to do with it.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  18:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I will get back to you later abpout your assessment that these were weasel words. I need to do something else. Cheers, LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 19:11, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * They were not weasel words, but a weasly way of trying to say, "these reports are actually incorrect".  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  19:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Mediation proposal - this article might well benefit from mediation. (A previous attempt to do this stopped abruptly in rather unfortunate circumstances). If mediation were to be attempted again, there are a few elements we might choose to discuss and insert in a mutually agreeable form in order that our article covers this incident adequately:
 * 1) Sharon was widely reported to have (perhaps informally?) told the world's media on 5th March that "Palestinians must be hit ... must cause them losses, victims a month before the incursions (and before the surge of suicide bombings that is already mentioned in the article).
 * 2) Sharon's statement (above) was linked by the normally pro-Israel Time Magazine directly to the military action that followed as follows "He went on to do just that, unleashing a broader military offensive than anything seen so far in the past 17 months of fighting." (Colin Powell is also quoted as criticising Sharon over this statement).
 * 3) Sharons advisor told the UN special envoy, Terje Roed-Larsen that he "has no business whatsoever to tell us what is right or wrong".
 * 4) The BBC reported that Israel was putting three refrigerated trailers into the camp (this is while all observers were excluded), and these trailers were indeed observed. An Israeli newspaper presently told us that Israel would bury up to 200 bodies in a "special cemetry in the Jordan valley" (ie a closed military zone).
 * 5) Clips from an interview given by one of the bulldozer drivers to an Israeli newspaper, providing a slightly different perspective on the way that some parts of this operation were apparently carried out.
 * 6) Account of the third "international observer/human rights" group that made a visit and presented a "Jenin Investigation", still finding complete bodies 3 months later. (Needless to say, we should not practice OR on what effect this might have on the death toll).
 * 7) A single (small but) actual "up-against-the-wall-massacre" reported in careful detail, with the two perpetrators identified, Amnesty and the Independent newspaper.
 * 8) Allegations included in the UN report that the Israelis mined the refugee camp before they left.
 * 9) Mention that this particular action in Jenin refugee camp was only part of a series of armed incursions. Israel was still applying curfews and killing people in and and out of curfew for months afterwards. (The UN notes two further incursions). Ian Hook, chief of the reconstruction project, was shot dead, inside the UN compound, on 22nd Nov 2002 and an Irish woman was shot and badly injured in the thigh at almost exactly the same time.
 * 10) Perhaps a new section on the overpowering smell in the camp once it was re-opened, as reported by almost every one of the international observers - eg the New York Times: The smell of decomposing bodies hung over at least six heaps of rubble today, and weeks of excavation may be needed before an accurate death toll can be made. PRtalk 21:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey look, PR rolls out the Kurdi bear crap again. *rolls eyes* Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 08:37, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

''Greetings. FYI, just put a note up at WP:IPCOLL to encourage some uninvolved folks to help out with this dispute. You all might consider getting some facilitator or working through one of the dispute resolution processes. (Not volunteering myself due to other commitments.) You might also try to identify the precise nature of the dispute, e.g. editing options, and the best arguments & sources for the various alternatives. I think there's relevant discussion and evidence in the archives here, too. Thanks and best wishes,'' HG | Talk 22:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Dispute tags
Hiya, popping in as an uninvolved admin. I see that this article has been tagged as disputed for about a year. Are all of the tags still appropriate, or can any be removed? For those which need to stay, could someone please provide a brief list of bullet points, to identify which issues are still in dispute? Thanks, Elonka 22:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Someone just archived most of the discussion, which shows that the disputes have not been resolved. In fact, we are the verge of a mediation process due to a range of issues. Of course, others may feel differently about specific tags. Best, LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 22:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)