Talk:Operation Defensive Shield/Archive 1

Article is
This article is more poorly-spelled propaganda than information. I'm cleaning it up. Mprudhom 18:23, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Pure propangada, no effort toward NPOV. Ericd 19:37, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * Should be better now. Needs some more details, though. Mprudhom 19:49, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * It's much better. BTW can you have a look to Talk:Jenin Ericd 19:54, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * Might as well take a look at ALL articles 212.199.148.17 has managed to lay his fingers on. -- 212.127.214.105 20:19, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC)

212.199.148.17, continually seeding this article with biased content like "According to Israel the IDF have captured a lot of illegal weapons and documents that proves Yasser Arafat link to terrorism" is only going to get your edits reverted. I recommend that you read some of the discussions on NPOV, as well as the talk pages about Israel and Palestine. In general, bandying around terms like "murdered" and "terrorist" when discussing the Israel-Palestine conflict helps no one to get a sober and well-reasoned view of the issue. If you want to contribute to the article, please help flesh out the timeline, factual evidence, the propaganda battle that was fought on both sides, and world reaction to the operation.


 * On the other hand, not using the term "terrorism" when it is clearly applicable (such as in the case of the Passover Massacre), doesn't help either. The truth should not be avoided only because it offends someone. uriber 20:50, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC)

The Passover Massacre was clearly a terrorist act, but were the Palestinians killed in Jenin terrorists or resistants ? Ericd 20:56, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * I agree that the usage of the term in that context is problematic - although it is highly likely that at least there were terrorists among them: Somebody did send out and supply whoever carried out the terrorist attacks. These "somebodies" are terrorists, and they weren't living on the Moon - but much more likely, in Jenin. However, since it's hard to say exactly which of the Palestinians involved in the battle of Jenin was a terrorist, I would, in this context, use the term "militants", which is neutral. uriber 21:18, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC)

More than a month has past since this discussion. I propose removing the NPOV tag within a week unless discussion resumes. Lance6Wins 15:28, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Where are the details of Palestinian casualties?
I agree with many of the posters in here. This piece seems awfully one sided towards Israel. I have added a lot to the section on "results" including a casualty number (cited from finklestein). Lets us remember this post is for the whole of Palistine, not just Jenin. I also covered the HRW and AI reports. I tried to cite sources as much as possible. It is hard with both sides pump out as much propaganda as they can. I tried to only use stuff from outside sources like the World Bank, AI, HRW, and non-israeli/palistinian based news sources. Hopefull it will balence things out a bit. -- Pastor M Oct 27th 2005

---> Is there anyway to ban this poster --> "212.199.148.17, continually seeding this article with biased content like "According to Israel the IDF have captured a lot of illegal weapons and documents that proves Yasser Arafat link to terrorism" He has gone through and added phrases in an attemp to "debunk" my cited postings with phrases like " Given the significantly lower death toll than initially cited, the associated claims of massive human rights violations evaporate." He is referrencing a misquote about the causualties of in Jenin vs Operation Defensive sheild that I have already addressed in my edit. He did it again futher up with this "In reality, Palestinian sources grossly exaggerated the death toll:" Fifty-two Palestinian deaths had been confirmed by the hospital in Jenin by the end of May 2002. IDF also place the death toll at approximately 52. A senior Palestinian Authority official alleged in mid-April that some 500 were killed, a figure that has not been substantiated in the light of the evidence that has emerged. " instead of posting it directly next to where I link that it is a misquote.

If you wich to maintain a useful encyclopdia staying on top of these zionist propagandist would do you well. --Pator M, Nov. 5th 2005

As usual, this article is written from an Israeli perspective and as if Palestinians do not exist except as perpetrators of violence against innocent Israelis. Where are the details of the casulaties due to Israeli attacks on Palestinian cities? Where is the discussion of the martial law conditions that the IDF subjects millions of innocent Palestinians? Like most Wikipedia articles, this one has a huge Zionist blind spot to the mass Israeli oppression and provocation against Palestinian society ongoing for 37 years and focuses entirely on incidents of violence against Israelis so as to frame Israeli atrocities against Palestinians as if they are always justified responses to Palestinian attacks that occur without provocation and in isolation. The 37 year Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza is not viewed as state terrorism, instead it is portrayed as if it is reasonable, neutral and benign while Palestinians who resist or seek retaliation against Israelis are panted as terrorists. If the shoe was on the other foot, the Israelis would be calling Palestinians Nazis and they would be cheering the "terrorists" as brave partisans warriors. The relentless hypocrisy continues. --Alberuni 22:25, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree that this article has not reached NPOV yet, needs more 'palestinian viewpoint'Pedant 18:28, 2004 Oct 25 (UTC)

Jenin false allegations of massacre
Allegations, althought widely reported by western media outlets quoting statements of thousands dead by PA officials were found to be baseless by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. Alberuni please fact check and provide citations if you disagree. Then let's discuss the citations here. Lance6Wins 14:36, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Human Rights Watch has confirmed that at least fifty-two Palestinians were killed as a result of IDF operations in Jenin. This figure may rise as rescue and investigative work proceeds, and as family members detained by Israel are located or released. Due to the low number of people reported missing, Human Rights Watch does not expect this figure to increase substantially. At least twenty-two of those confirmed dead were civilians, including children, physically disabled, and elderly people. At least twenty-seven of those confirmed dead were suspected to have been armed Palestinians belonging to movements such as Islamic Jihad, Hamas, and the al-Aqsa Martyr's Brigades. Some were members of the Palestinian Authority's (PA) National Security Forces or other branches of the PA police and security forces. Human Rights watch was unable to determine conclusively the status of the remaining three killed, among the cases documented. (Human Rights Watch)


 * According to hospital lists reviewed by Amnesty International there were 54 Palestinian deaths between 3 and 17 April 2002 in both Jenin refugee camp and Jenin city as a result of the incursion and subsequent fighting. This figure includes seven women, four children and six men over the age of 55. Six had been crushed by houses. The body of one person known to have died by being crushed in his house has not been recovered.(5) Amnesty International)


 * A U.N. report released Thursday found no evidence to support Palestinian claims that Israeli forces massacred up to 500 people in the Jenin refugee camp, but it criticized both sides for putting civilian lives at risk. USAToday on United Nations report


 * "What we have got here is possibly 54 bodies found so far, with possibly 20 or 30 unaccounted for but we can't really verify these figures until the whole site is cleared.


 * "Talking to people and talking to witnesses, even very credible witnesses, it just appears there was no wholesale killing. (BBC)

No massacre. please do not change page till you support your statements. Lance6Wins 18:19, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * What does it take to call it a "massacre"? my dictionary says: " A savage and indiscriminate killing of human beings, as in warfare, acts of persecution, revenge, etc. ... a a massacre is the killing of those who are defenseless or unresisting, as in barbarous warfare... "  would you prefer the term "slaughter"? which is " ...frequently applied to any great loss of life in battle, riot, etc. ...?  Probably not, as the loss of life wasn't great enough to satisfy you that it was a slaughter, I think... perhaps "butchery" stressing the "ruthlessness and wantonness" of the killing, but which "compares the killing of men to the slaughter of cattle."  Maybe the term "carnage" which "retains much of its original sense as heaped up bodies of the slain, and refers to the result, rather than the process of a massacre or slaughter"Pedant


 * slaughter would be more accurate than massacre...the British attacking at the First Battle of the Somme where slaughtered as were the Federal troops attacking Marye’s Heights at the Battle of Fredricksburg. These are sometimes referred to as the attacking troops were massacred but that is a incorrect usage of the word.  In battle, rendering your opponent unable to oppose your actions is the goal.  The best can achieve this outside of warfare (Sun Tzu), the rest at times resort to battle in an attempt to impose a set of conditions upon the other side.  Lance6Wins 17:48, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You do agree, do you not, that people were killed? That at least some of those were defenseless and unresisting? That there were bodies? What would YOU prefer to call it? Are you saying it didn't happen at all? That there is no NPOV way to include it except to link to external reports? (none of which will likely be neutral, taken one-at-a-time) I think it deserves a mention, and that it deserves it here, in this article.Pedant


 * The United Nations special envoy to the Middle East, Terje Roed-Larsen, described the scene as "horrific beyond belief." He said Israel's actions were unjustifiable, no matter what the military objective. He told Israeli Army Radio, "Jenin will forever be a blot on the history of the state of Israel." Aid workers and human rights monitors have started to call the destroyed refugee camp "Ground Zero." from Friday, April 19th, 2002: A Live Report From the Third Ground Zero: A Massacre Revealed As Palestinians Search for Their Loved Ones Amidst the Wreckage of Jenin Refugee Camp


 * Why is there no content on this event whatsoever on this page except external links?Pedant 19:09, 2004 Oct 25 (UTC)

Because it is false. There was no massacre. Please take a look at Malmedy massacre, Wounded Knee, and many others including the killing of 49(?) Iraqi soldiers/recuits/trainees listed in Current Events for October 24, 2004..taking people out, laying them on the group in rows, and shooting each one in the head. From this we can see that massacre has certain basic elements (unarmed victims, non-combat situation, etc.) which did not obtain in Jenin. Human Rights Watch says no massacre. Amnesty International says no massacre. Arabs claimed 3000 dead. The western media echoed the claim till they noticed it was false. Armed fighters killed in battle are casualties, not victims of a massacre. Civilians killed in battle are not victims of a massacre. Larsen was speaking while the 3000 dead lie was still rampant. He made the mistake of believing the claims. The battle started on 3 April 2002, Larsen did not see the battle. He may not have been there at all in the month of April 2002. Yet he says "horrific beyond belief." based upon accounts which have been found to be false. Please see these UPI articles Documenting the Myth, Why Europeans bought the Jenin Myth and How Europe's Media Lost Out. Lance6Wins 21:36, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Well something happened. We have no content on that event, except links.  And some of the links in the Battle of Jenin are POV just by the label, and by the content.   Do you not see the inherent POV of listing these links under the heading 'Battle of Jenin' ?  Do you not see a problem in not having any local content in this section?:


 * 1) List of suicide bombings originating in Jenin (http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH0llu0)
 * 2) Israel Defense Forces' briefing on terrorist activity in Jenin (http://www.idf.il/english/news/jenin.stm)
 * 3) Jenin - The Suicide Bomber Capital (http://www.idf.il/newsite/english/capital.stm)
 * 4) "Jenin Al Kassam" A Hothouse of Terrorism (http://www.ict.org.il/articles/articledet.cfm?articleid=441)


 * When these links 'go dead' or when the content at the referenced locations changes, will YOU notice? I'm not comfortable with using only external links to tell the story.  That section should be written, here on wikipedia, not just pointed to 'out there' somewhere.


 * Whatever the facts are, or there are facts. Even if only that "A" claims "x", but "B" claims "y".  "K" characterises the reports of "A" and "B" as "(something)".  This article has a distinct Anti-Palestinian, Pro-Israeli bias as it stands.  Please note that I have not ever edited any of the content in this article.  I'm only pointing out the bias, and trying to help you find a good way to word it so that it doesn't read like propaganda.  I have no vested interest in either the Israeli or Palestinian point of view.  I do have a devotion to the Wikipedia itself, and as it stands this article is not sufficiently neutral in tone, and poorly reflects on all of us.  Let's clear this up quickly, as the 'dispute tag' also reflects poorly on us.


 * I'm quite certain the people who are working on this article can do better in terms of neutrality, and that the external links are better suited as references than as a substitution for local content. If you like, I'll edit the article.  I would prefer that it be done by those already acquainted with the material.  I believe you can fix it, it might just be that you can't see that there's anything wrong with it.  Please try to take a look at this article with the eyes of someone who doesn't know anything about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, that came here to find out about this "Operation Defensive Shield" they heard of.  What would they learn from this article?  Would it be accurate?  Would it seem to be accurate to someone who fought in the battle?  Would it seem to be accurate to someone who fought on the other side?


 * This statement, from the article Documenting the Myth:
 * The U.S. and Western European media coverage of the Battle of Jenin last month raises troubling and far-reaching questions about the reliability of the modern mass media and press in conflict situations. And the answers to them are both complex and surprising.


 * Is a good example of neutral tone. It also refers to what is most important, in my opinion, about the "Battle of Jenin" (if that's what we're going to call it.):  The reliability of mass media in conflict situations.  Maybe 'False claims of massacre' might  be better worded 'Death toll exaggerated'  or 'Media manipulated by false reports'.  Massacre is a suitable word for what happened, saying 'False claims of massacre' implies that there was no event (the event we are discussing, whatever it was that happened)  similarly to a headline like: "Piltdown Man never existed", because the Piltdown Man was found to be a fraud.  The headline implies the artifact called the Piltdown Man did exist.  Does that make any sense to you?  I would have written a shorter explanation but I didn't have enough time.Pedant 00:56, 2004 Oct 28 (UTC)


 * Your statements are accurate and clear but it won't matter. Even if there was a massacre, the Zionist hasbara campaigners will spin the description of events until it bears no resemblance to reality. See what they did to Muhammad al-Durrah. To these extremists, Arab civilians killed by the Israeli military do not constitute evidence of a massacre. Like the Nazis who said "the Jew is a parasite, the only good Jew is a dead Jew", the extremist Zionists believe, "'Palestinians' are terrorists, they hide in refugee camps, Israel is just defending herself." All crimes are absolved. Destroy the enemy. Blame the victim. Repeat until death. It's the nature of the conflict. --Alberuni 01:20, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Is there any factual information regarding this matter, preferably with reputable citations, you wish to relate to the other participants in Wikipedia? Lance6Wins 14:00, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Pedant, one way of dealing with the alleged massacre in Jenin is to use a timeline format...preserving dates is important so that one can relate the statement to the start/end dates of the operation. We could report your thoughts? Lance6Wins 14:00, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * the IDF entering Jenin as part of Operation Defensive Shield launched after the Passover Seder terrorist bombing.
 * use a quote and date with the name of the speaker for the claims of Palestinians of thousands massacred (3,000 if i remember correctly) stating that the claims were unfounded, as we now know. noting that the claims are unfounded is important, lest we lead someone to believe the contrary.
 * relate the western media acceptance of these claims using quotes and dates from, say, the BBC
 * relate Roed-Larsen(sp?) statement using a quote and date
 * relate the HRW findings of 520-60 arab dead
 * relate the AI findings of about 50-60 arab dead
 * relate the western media corrections issued...if we can find any

There. That works (assuming factual info, etc..) that seems a suitable form to present this that preserves the NPOV, I have no problem with that whatsoever. That seems far superior to sending the reader away to an external link.Pedant 00:51, 2004 Nov 9 (UTC) _____

On the "suppossed massacre" and media distortions:

Palestinian cabinet minister Saeb Erekat was widely misquoted by the press as saying there were 500 deaths in the assault on Jenin, when in fact he had been referring to the entire scope of Operation Defensive Shield. Israeli foreign minister Shimon Peres is quoted (in Haaretz)

I have no problem leaving out the words Massacre (even though I believe indesciminate killing always = massacre) however an inclusion of the deathtoll 52 for jenin 500 for the operation seems higly appropriate as well as an the above explaination to avoid confusion - Pastor M 11-10-2005


 * True enough, but he did claim that he suspected there were 300 dead in Jenin alone within hours of that statement. Besides, 2 days later another two ministers claim numbers of 900 (specifically Jenin) and "thousands" (between Jenin and Nablus) dead. The Battle of Jenin 2002 article covers it well. -- Tomhab 20:23, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Exactly - the entire insertion, including the material about Erekat, is a POV re-cap of material that is already covered better elsewhere. Jayjg (talk) 20:42, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Remove NPOV pending Specific Items Cited
Please cite specific items that are NPOV. If the article is NPOV, lets improve it by editing the specific items. Ten days since last call for specific items. Jenin Massacre allegations demonstrated to be false. New item required. Lance6Wins 11:25, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * This article is still fully pro-Israeli propaganda, as expected considering that Israelis are editing it. It might as well be written by the Israeli government. This article's bias is like writing about the Holocaust and forgetting to mention its effect on Jews. Under results, it's all about Israel, of course. Where are the accounts of Palestinian casualties, civilians killed and injured? The mass detentions? The mass destruction of Palestinian property? The police abuse at checkpoints? The collective punishment? The road closures and curfews? The denial of Palestinians access to their jobs in Israel? The economic effects on Palestinian society? Where is the mention of any of these effects on millions of Palestinians? NOTHING. --Alberuni 23:45, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Please address these within the context of Operation Defensive Shield. As general events within the current round of violence they can be address in the Second Intifada. Please provide specific examples directly bearing upon Operation Defensive Shield. Lance6Wins 17:01, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * There is no information in the article about the effects of this Israeli military "operation" on the Palestinian victims. The information presented is all from the Israeli POV. --Alberuni 17:07, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Do you have some specific additions you would like to propose for the article? Jayjg 17:52, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Here are some sources for the NPOV challenged. I don't have time to edit this POV Wikimess (as you call it) right now.,       --Alberuni 18:46, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I know it's a big job, if nobody better qualified steps up, I'll do it, but I am unfamiliar with alll this material. Leave me a note on my talk page if nobody else is ready to do it.  I like the timeline format that User:Lance6Wins suggested, about 6 inches above this comment.  That allows a clear statement to be made about events as they progressed, from the operations start, to the claims, the counter claims etc.. he explained it better.Pedant 00:55, 2004 Nov 9 (UTC)

Merge: The shooting on Gilo
The article The shooting on Gilo is really small and unlikely to get larger or more informative. I am suggesting that we merge it into this article, Operation Defensive Shield, Gilo and al-Aqsa Intifada were more readers will encounter the information. It seems like a straight forward merge to me. --Abnn 02:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

background
i'm not following this article, but this background might be related and doesn't seem to be currently included.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  06:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

input
From the beginning of March until the first week in May 2002, there were approximately 16 bombings in Israel, mostly suicide attacks, in which more than 100 Israelis were killed and scores wounded. During the same period the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) led two waves of incursions into Palestinian towns and villages in the West Bank. The first wave, from 27 February through 14 March, had caused significant loss of life.

After 18 Israelis were killed in two separate Palestinian attacks on March 8 and March 9, and a terrorist attack in Netanya killed 30 and injured 140 on March 27, Israeli PM Ariel Sharon said No sovereign nation would tolerate such a sequence of events. while DM Ben-Eliezer stated a massacre of this nature is something that no nation can live with. and within 24 hours Israel called up 30,000 reserve soldiers and launched Operation Defensive Shield in Ramallah and Bethlehem, entering Tulkarm and Qalqilyah a day later.

Sharon intended collective punishment of the Palestinians
C'mon guys, we know that this operation was aimed at hurting "The Palestinians", not just at terrorists. Here's a clip from Time magazine (hardly Israel-hating!), amongst many others, quoting Sharon on 5th March 2002, a month before this operation: "The Palestinians must be hit and it must be very painful. We must cause them losses, victims, so that they feel the heavy price",  but that had led to criticism by the US's Colin Powell. PRtalk 14:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * a little heavy on the WP:OR.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  07:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The quote was specifically cited - used as an epigraph, in fact - in the P.A. submission to the U.N. Jenin report. Thus, it can be taken as indicative of the Palestinian view on the aims of Defensive Shield. Furthermore, Amnesty International also used the quote as an epigraph on their report on IDF actions culminating in Defensive Shield. So obviously, there are significant POV's which find the quote relevant. Jaakobou, you need to kick this habit of linking to policy pages without the slightest explanation of how the policy is being violated. We cannot edit the article from the point of view that the operation was aimed at Palestinians generally, but we can and should accomodate that POV, which was heard from the Palestinians, international human rights groups, and the Israeli and Western left. &lt; el eland / talk  edits &gt; 21:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * the PA using it for propaganda, and amnesti echoing this propaganda (i wonder who made the unsigned report), does not mean it's the stated goal, esp. if you consider the date it was given and the events leading to the statement, i.e. terror attacks on 2,3 and 5 of march.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  01:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * What are you even talking about? &lt; el eland / talk  edits &gt; 01:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * if the palestinians are using it to promote their exaggerations, it doesn't automatically mean it can be stated out of the 2,3 and 5th of march bombing context, in "one month earlier" prelude to the defensive shield operation.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  01:22, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * How is it "stated out of the 2, 3 and 5th of March bombing context"? It's preceded by a description of March and April 2002's "dramatic increase of suicide bomb attacks against Israelis by Palestinian groups". The fact that you think anything Palestinians say is "propaganda", and that if neutral observers agree, they're only "echoing this propaganda", is not a basis for editing a Wikipedia article. Obviously, Defensive Shield was planned weeks if not months in advance. You don't call up 20,000 reservists and just ad lib it.
 * Anyway, this is irrelevant. I'm sorry to keep harping on this, but you haven't addressed it, so here goes. Significant sources of opinion, including the Palestinian government and international human rights organizations, treat the "it must be painful" quote as central to understanding the Operation. Whether it was an officially stated rationale or not, whether it was taken out of context or not, simply doesn't matter. Wikipedia is not here to pass judgment on complicated controversies, only to summarize the judgments of reliable sources in rough proportion to their significance. When will you accept this, Jaakobou? &lt; el eland / talk  edits &gt; 01:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * you are free to write that the palestinains claimed the goal of the operation to be the annihilation of the palesinian people (a correct phrasing) and to justify this claim they cited a quote made by sharon on march 6th, which came after attacks on israelis on march 2,3 and 5. any other phrasing suggested until now (i.e. just using the quote as a POV attempt to "prove" sharon is evil) is not remotely close to NPOV.
 * p.s. i suggest you avoid your current justification since it could be used for arafat and second intifada also.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  01:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Cite sources to back your "annihilation" claim, please, and not machine-translations from random Arabic websites, I want something good. Other than that, I don't understand the point you're trying to express - can you elaborate? &lt; el eland / talk  edits &gt; 01:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * the point was well explained, there were large terror attacks on march 2,3 and 5 and the sharon quote is taken from a single non-binding cafeteria talk made march 6th which has little non-WP:OR direct connection to defensive sheild. the quote is not going in as background to the goals to the operation of 29 of march regardless if the palestinians used it for effect on their UN submission or not.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  04:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Explain how presenting the conclusions of the Palestinian Authority and a world-class human rights org is "original research", with specific reference to the policy. Explain, with specific reference to policy, what makes a "non-binding cafeteria talk" reported in reliable sources unusable. Explain how you know the quote is not relevant to Defensive Shield, and thus how you know that both the Palestinians and Amnesty are wrong. Otherwise, you're doing nothing but re-stating your personal opinion while simultaneously insisting that the opinions of reliable, significant sources are WP:OR. &lt; el eland / talk  edits &gt;</tt> 04:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The conclusion of the Palestinian Authority or human rights organisations would read something like " the Palestinian Authority concluded xyz based on abc speech". Right now you are just including a noncontextual quote.  Tewfik <sup style="color:#888888;">Talk 14:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It's tricky to state the PA position, because anyone who speaks for them (look at Saeb Erekat) is hounded and villified for so doing. However, Western RSs also consider the words of Sharon before the operation to be representative of his intentions. On the 18th March, the very pro Israel Time Magazine had a story "Streets Red With Blood Monday" opening with this paragraph "Ariel Sharon has never been one to pussyfoot. .... Explaining the decision of his inner Cabinet to intensify the military campaign against the Palestinians, he used language that was unusually bald. "The Palestinians must be hit, and it must be very painful," he said. "We must cause them losses, victims, so that they feel a heavy price." He went on to do just that, unleashing a broader military offensive than anything seen so far in the past 17 months of fighting. Under these circumstances, removing the words is pure WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and editors should be ashamed. PRtalk 08:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, if it is "tricky to state the PA position", we shouldn't be synthesising one for them. Leaving aside that the Time article and itsquotes were published almost two weeks before this operation happened, they are still not stating anyone's position. I accept that the placement of the quote in the AI report grants it some weight, but then it is hardly the only quote there, and we need "published" context. What we don't need is a columnist's editorial - something that I thought was clear to the experienced editors here.  Tewfik <sup style="color:#888888;">Talk 00:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * We have excellent RS saying that Sharon told us what he wanted to do and then proceeded to do it - most graphically Time magazine which is/was supportive of the Israeli position. Their 18th March article is entitled "Streets red with blood" and links Sharon's statements directly to the attack in progress, the biggest in the 17 months of the Intifada (presumably the biggest in 35 years). At least two other good sources (AI and the PA) considered the statement and the event directly related. It's not as if Sharon doesn't have a record for this stuff - the US wanted him "brought to account" on a previous occasion when he demolished, as a punitive action, Palestinian property with civilians inside (69 dead that occasion).
 * This business has been doggedly opposed for 6 weeks now - and there's no reason for it, this is a perfectly straightforward edit of material central to the article. PRtalk 16:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That is a convincing "argument" - which is something that our policies on no synthesis deal with. An the AI release from the midst of battle is taken out of context, which is to rebut those claiming "massacre" - their position is again made clear in their final report.  Tewfik <sup style="color:#888888;">Talk 18:51, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm seeing nothing that deals with the three RS sources that clearly consider the Sharon statements as highly signficant and directly related to the Operation. With Sharon's previous form it's a no-brainer to have it in. PRtalk 14:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Prior history in Background section
I've seen all mention of the prior history of the intifada removed from the background several times now. It makes sense here to provide information as to where this operations fits in the wider context of the Second Intifada, much like the backgrounder in the UN source provides. -- 67.98.206.2 20:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree. Most articles on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict end up far too long and we need to do what we can to prevent that. Readers don't need to have the same information presented to them in article after article. All that should be required is a prominent link to the al-Aqsa intifada page. Gatoclass 21:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I don't know about the entire conflict. The template suggests this is only one of two operations in the West Bank during the entire Intifada. There are details relevant to the background of this particular operation that aren't even mentioned in the Second Intifada article, which up merging would make that long article even longer. -- 67.98.206.2 01:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, all prior Israeli attacks were disappeared from the article again? NPOV demands we present a balance background here. There were attacks on both sides leading up to this operation. -- 67.98.206.2 18:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * And again. C'mon people, there's a talk page. Right here. Hello? -- 67.98.206.2 20:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Repeated deletion of Israeli attacks from background
OK, I'm getting tired of the edit warring. As the last section gained no response, let's try this again. Here's the version which keeps getting reverted:

The cycle of violence between the Israelis and Palestinians had been steadily escalating during the Second Intifada. March and April of 2002 saw suicide bomb attacks against Israelis by Palestinian groups, such as Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades, increase in frequency, and saw two waves of incursions by the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) into Palestinian towns and villages in the West Bank. The first wave, from 27 February through 14 March, had caused significant loss of life. Killing and counter killings began coming so fast that locals could barely absorb news of one outrage before the next took place. Suicide bombings on on 8 and 9 March, followed by a larger attack on 27 March, an event known as the Passover massacre where 30 Israeli civilians were killed and about 140 were injured (20 seriously), prompted the Israeli government to deploy the IDF to conduct a second wave of incursions, what it considered a large-scale counter-terrorist offensive beginning on 29 March. The Israel Defense Forces had issued emergency call-up notices for 20,000 reserve soldiers, the largest such call-up since the 1982 Lebanon War.

Please explain why removing every mention of Israeli attacks isn't POV pushing. -- Kendrick7talk 21:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I suggest you read Gatoclass's comments above. As he is someone who often agrees with you, I hope you don't believe he is POV-pushing.  Tewfik <sup style="color:#888888;">Talk 13:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * He's not the one who keeps reverting this. Gatoclass seems to support having no background whatsoever, using a strange argument involving article length -- not, mind you, this article's length, but that this article shouldn't have a background because other articles in Category:Israeli-Palestinian conflict are too long. I don't find that at all convincing, and that doesn't seem to be your own position as you seem to want a background, just one that only presents a version of events leading up to the operation that only includes the violence against Israelis. -- Kendrick7talk 17:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Considering that Gatoclass improved upon the "directly related" version, and then argued with "the IP"'s inserting bits of general background, I find that to be highly unlikely. Your allegation of partisan editing has been noted.  Tewfik <sup style="color:#888888;">Talk 00:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * i have a few reservations regarding the suggested paragraph. the main one being that the UN document which includes operation defensive shield (and has zero input from the israeli officials) doesn't really fit for "background" stories on israeli incursions... unless you want to copy non-UN, unvalidated accusations.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  16:43, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what to make of Tewfik's vague non-responses here, but Jaakobou presents a valid concern. However the Time Magazine article from 18 March dovetails with background presented by the UN in regards to an ongoing escalation of violence on both sides, including Israeli attacks: "The Israelis, with their superior firepower, did take more lives (113) than the Palestinians did last week (49), the bloodiest week since the Palestinians unleashed their new uprising in the fall of 2000." The UN source simply ties all of this together, which to my mind seems perfectly reasonable. I don't believe any of our sources support starting the clock on 27 March with the Passover massacre while leaving out prior events, and we're already using a U.N. source in the current version to support pushing the clock further back. There may be salient issues missing from my version, e.g. I seem to recall Israel had declared some sort of unilateral ceasefire prior to the hotel bombing, though I don't have a source for that. Sharon did come out and declare prior to the operation that Israel had been holding out an olive branch of peace, though it had at most been doing so for only two weeks. We shouldn't pretend otherwise. -- Kendrick7talk 19:31, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Repeated deletion of any information not from Israeli officials
I am getting progressively more upset by the decision of some editors that any information on Defensive Wall which does not come directly from Israeli government sources, on their terms, is inadmissible here. Notable reports from significant figures, reports specifically about Defensive Shield, are being removed on the basis that they are "synthesis". This appears to translate to, "I disagree with the reasoning that reliable opinion sources used". That's not WP:OR. Synthesis is connecting sources to advance a previously unpublished position, which is totally different from reporting what sources were connected by secondary or tertiary reports to advance their arguments. This type of chicanery is unacceptable. <tt>&lt; el eland / talk  edits &gt;</tt> 19:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Background section
The current background section starts as follows:

The cycle of violence between the Israelis and Palestinians had been steadily escalating during the Second Intifada.[2] March and April of 2002 saw suicide bomb attacks against Israelis by Palestinian groups, such as Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades, increase in frequency,[2] and saw two waves of incursions by the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) into Palestinian towns and villages in the West Bank.[2] 

This gives the impression that the increase in violence was initiated by Palestinian suicide bombings, when in fact the opposite is the case. Arafat got the various Palestinian militant factions to sign up to a unilateral ceasefire in Jan/Feb in which they agreed not to carry out any terrorist attacks in Israel proper. It was the IDF that initiated the escalation in violence, with massive incursions into Palestinian towns and villages in March that killed dozens. The resulting wave of suicide bombings came in retaliation for those incursions, so the intro as it currently stands is quite misleading. Gatoclass (talk) 23:27, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The impression given is vague and nonspecific. If you want to specifically mention the cease-fire, and the incursions as being the escalation, with the renewed bombings being the response, then you should cite good sources, and be sure that few or no significant sources disagree with that narrative. <tt>&lt; el eland / talk  edits &gt;</tt> 23:34, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * You're right, I should do that. However, I've got a lot of other projects I'm working on ATM, and trying to fix this section is a relatively low priority. But I just thought it's time someone pointed out the problem. Gatoclass (talk) 23:48, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Rather idealistic, Gatoclass, considering any sourced mention of the Israeli attacks keeps being removed from the background; in fact your own earlier comments are being used to justify this. Having better sources can't possibly improve this situation if they will just be removed as well. -- Kendrick7talk 00:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, the thugs are afoot here. Notice how all of the removed content here is referenced and expresses a non-Israeli or Israeli dissident POV, and in many cases it's next to content which is not referenced and expresses an official Israeli POV. The removing editor, Armon, has never once commented on this talk page and gave only a vague and nonspecific rationale. Interesting that he showed up right after Tewfik's third revert, too. <tt>&lt; el eland / talk  edits &gt;</tt> 01:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I probably overstated the case a tad in my original post on this matter above - however, I'm still pretty sure that the major IDF escalations occurred before the renewed wave of suicide bombings, and that the bombings came as a response, not the other way around. Obviously though, I would have to find appropriate sources to confirm that. But basically, I don't think either version being proposed here gives an accurate or NPOV account. Gatoclass (talk) 01:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit skeptical that "major IDF escalations occurred before the renewed wave of suicide bombings" because the Israelis say it was to "dismantle the terrorist infrastructure" and the UN said the "proximate cause" was the Netanya bombing. &lt;&lt;-armon-&gt;&gt; (talk) 02:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I probably wasn't all that clear in my comments. I am not talking about what occurred in March. I'm talking about the wave of IDF incursions that occurred in February. They came before the wave of suicide bombings. The way the article is currently written, it sounds as though the IDF incursions in Feb. were a response to suicide bombings and that is not the case. Gatoclass (talk) 02:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The way the article is currently written, there were no IDF incursions in February. -- Kendrick7talk 04:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually I was referring to the version that just got reverted, not the current one. That version at least mentions the Feb. incursions, but the way it's written it sounds as though the suicide bombings came before the incursions, when it's the other way around. Gatoclass (talk) 05:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * If the Feb. incursions weren't part of Operation Defensive Shield then it's off topic. I still don't really understand what the problem is. &lt;&lt;-armon-&gt;&gt; (talk) 05:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Having a background section to explain a military action, especially during the middle of an ongoing conflict, is pretty typical. I can't support having no background whatsoever here, Armon, -- Kendrick7talk 05:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, exactly. A "background" section is there specifically to provide context, and I doubt you'll find too many historical articles without one. Gatoclass (talk) 06:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Well OK, I see both your points re: background. In that case we just need cites to support the events which are background to this topic. Otherwise, we could easily slip into OR. &lt;&lt;-armon-&gt;&gt; (talk) 20:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That would be the UN report. -- Kendrick7talk 21:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * as i've stated, the main problem with the UN report (besides no israeli input) is that it meshes the background and the event itself. these two incursions mentioned in the suggested text for example, are they including the operation or not? i tend to think they do.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  21:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * You are correct, it takes the whole escalation as a whole, which I believe makes sense. But, I concede you have problems with the UN source, and I will start looking for other sources which take this same approach. -- Kendrick7talk 20:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, there were IDF incursions before this one, and those too were preceded by suicide bombings. How far back exactly are we supposed to take this? Saying that this was part of the Second Intifada should suffice for anyone interested in the indirectly related prior events.  Tewfik <sup style="color:#888888;">Talk 17:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * So you are saying we should only include the hotel bombing as the proximate cause in the background, and should move the February incursions to the background of the hotel bombing as the proximate cause for that, and so on? Until better sources come forth, I could agree with that proposal. --
 * It was the month's spike in suicide bombing casualties at >100 reaching a pitch at the hotel, but otherwise yes. We don't mention the previous year of suicide bombings and incursions, but rather defer to Second Intifada.  Tewfik <sup style="color:#888888;">Talk 00:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The point is you cannot begin this account with the wave of suicide bombings because it is totally POV. The IDF killed 75 Palestinians in February compared to only one Israeli civilian killed in that month. How can one possibly ignore this? The IDF actually killed more Palestinians in February than there were Israelis killed in Palestinian attacks of all kinds including suicide bombings in March. So starting the "background" section from the wave of suicide bombings is kind of like starting an account of World War II from the Anglo-French declaration of war on Germany in September 1939, it gives a completely misleading picture. Gatoclass (talk) 01:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Except that we shouldn't be including material in an attempt to "balance" one side's negative actions with the other side's negative actions. No one claims that the Israeli operation was a response to previous Israeli operations, but Israel claims that the Israeli operation was a response to the spike of >100 killed in suicide bombings, capped with the hotel bombing. A more detailed discussion of the general background is held at Second Intifada, where we also mention the previous year of Palestinian attacks either.  Tewfik <sup style="color:#888888;">Talk 21:15, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * There is no "more detailed discussion" at "Second Intifada", if anything the description is even briefer than at this page.


 * And just as Israel claims that Defensive Shield was a response to the suicide bombings, so the Palestinian factions claimed the suicide bombings were a response to the killings of Palestinians that went before. Where this story begins is in the partial hudna which Arafat engineered in December 2001, where the factions agreed not to carry out suicide bombings against Israeli civilians. The "escalation" referred to in this text occurred after the breakdown of the hudna thru Jan/Feb, not from mid-March when the suicide bombings began. Gatoclass (talk) 02:27, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Mis-translation
Homat Magen should not be translated to Defensive Shield. A more appropriate translation would be Defensive Wall or maybe Shield Wall or Shielding Wall. Anyway, there is no way you can translate Homa much of anything that is not "Wall". Those who mind don&#39;t matter, and those who matter don&#39;t mind. 16:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It is true that Magen (מגן) means wall, but the operation was officialy named 'Operation Defensive Sheild' even though it is not a word for word translation. AviLozowick 20:50, 23 February, 2008

Bogus quote?
Well, Jaakobou reverted me with the edit summary "rv, same issue with the bogus quote" after I reverted Armon who had removed all non-official-Israeli information saying only, "rv".

I'd like to give Jaakobou an opportunity to explain: <tt>&lt; el eland / talk  edits &gt;</tt> 09:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) In what way is the quote "bogus"? Do any sources whatsoever dispute the accuracy of the quote, or its relevance to Defensive Shield? If so, how reliable and significant are those sources? Do they compare to Amnesty and the P.A. in terms of significant weight of opinion?
 * 2) Since both the Palestinian Authority and Amnesty International drew attention to the remark when offering their analysis of the motive and goals for Defensive Wall, why would it even matter whether the quote was "bogus"? Wouldn't it be important to mention anyway that some notable sources alleged it to be relevant?
 * 3) How does an issue raised with one single quote, mentioned in exactly one sentence, justify a blanket reverting of all content from the article which does not express information on official Israeli terms? For example: Why was all information about recent incursions and attacks by Israel removed, while leaving the Palestinian attacks? Why was the rest of Amnesty's analysis of Defensive Shield's motives removed? Why was mention of Amira Hass's analysis (she's one of the most prominent Israeli sympathizers of the Palestinians) removed? Why was the suggestive and misleading language "Amnesty International's report did not contain accusations that a massacre had occurred" restored, replacing a specific disclaimer from the group's Secretary-General "that there is no legal definition in international law of the word 'massacre' and that its use in the current circumstances is not helpful"?


 * (1) i've already explained this quote issue a handful of times. feel free to go over this thread again.
 * (2) i believe you drive-by edit-warred on your edit in-question yourself after the conflict issue was more than clear, so i'm not overly impressed by the accusation.
 * --  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  10:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * No, Jaakobou, you didn't "explain" anything. You entirely ignored the fact that Amnesty used the quote, you lied about what the Palestinians said about it, you insisted that it was a "non-binding cafeteria quote", whatever the hell that is, and you provided an oh-so-unhelpful link to WP:OR. Yes, you think the quote is non-contextual. Amnesty and the Palestinians don't think so. Provide substantive answers instead of hand-waving assertions. And of course, your second point is non-responsive, not to say incoherent. <tt>&lt; el eland / talk  edits &gt;</tt> 20:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * amnesty used what the Palestinians told them to use in a disgusting attempt to rev up the massacre propaganda. still, being that it's amnesty we must treat it with a touch of respect for material that is not WP:OR or WP:SYN - let me know when amnesty claims operation defensive sheild's goal was to "hit the palestinians". p.s. you should give a look again to the sources about this quote - it was taken from cafeteria talk... not a press conference.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  18:35, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


 * considering we are going nowhere with this, i suggest you start an RfC about this if you really feel the quote belongs in the background.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  18:49, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


 * If you bothered to read the source about which you've made such a sweeping declaration, you'd know that that was precisely what Amnesty claimed. "The IDF acted as though the main aim was to punish all Palestinians." The fact that you can ignore that even after I've specifically quoted it several times on this talk page exposes just how unserious your participation here really is. Take your fingers out of your ears, stop shouting "I CAN'T HEAR YOU", and act like an adult instead of a grubby kid in his personal backyard sandbox. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 03:32, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * well then, we can use amnesti's claim (without the quote) in a criticism section after the description of the event. i've no issues with a fair presentation of the notable perspectives.
 * p.s. civility is a good thing even when the other side annoys the hell out of you. trust me, when i make an official complaint about PR and suddenly you make your first ever edit on the page mimicking his "work", is not a joyful thing to encounter (this is not the first time now).  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  14:07, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * We have it on excellent authority that Sharon set out to punish the Palestinians. He told the world's press that's what he was going to do, and Time Magazine linked the attacks directly to what he'd said. What will it take for articles to be written to the sources? PRtalk 22:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

NPoV
The third paragraph in the part "The Operation" :


 * Notable events were the battle of Jenin and the siege of Yasser Arafat's compound. In the fighting in the Jenin refugee camp, there were false allegations of a massacre of Palestinians by IDF forces, as well as allegations of Palestinians militants using civilians as human shields. The events on the battle of Jenin are still disputed, although most of the Palestinian allegations were proved to be false (such as the Jenin massacre allegation that was refuted).

is not neutral. The two sentences suggest the false claim that only the Palestinian allegations were false.

I think there are two choices :
 * the first one is to replace this paragraph by : "For the battle of Jenin, see Battle of Jenin 2002".
 * the secon one, if we want to explain what the both sides said, as a resume of the paragraph "Inflated body counts" in the article Battle of Jenin 2002, we have to talk about the Palestinian allegations but also the Israeli allegations.

--Marcoo 21:19, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes I agree. Reworded it. Should be ok now. I've also done a big clean up that have removed anything that I felt appropriate. Changes aren't binding, but I ask you to consider each of them. -- Tomhab 01:08, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

--- Stop defending the terrorist muslims. Learn some history (www.masada2000.org) before calling them freedom fighters. Nothing was taken from no "Palestinians" since they didn't even exist.

Ugh, apparently neither do you, either that or your courage doesn't exist since you didn't bother to sign this wonderful comment which qualifies as hate speech. (even if it was written in 2005, I couldn't let such a comment pass.)LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 03:40, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Ariel Sharon quote: Continued
The main problem with the use of the Ariel Sharon quote is that it's synthesis (and hate-speech). His quote was made in regards to "Explaining the decision of his inner Cabinet to intensify the military campaign against the Palestinians". i.e. in regards to "intensifying" Israeli counter-terrorist activity back in March  5 , 2002, not in regards to Operation Defensive Shield, which was declared on the morning of March 29 following the Passover Massacre and a month filled with Palestinian suicide bombings, militancy, and incitement to violence.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  05:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC) add ex-link for clarity 06:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Hate speech is an offense in many jurisdictions, Jaakobou. Are you threatening to bring charges? &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 12:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Talk pages are for improving article content, not for taunting other editors. Your above comment is inappropriate. Canadian Monkey (talk) 13:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you talking to me, or Mr. "hate-speech" above me? &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 15:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, putting on my mentorship hat and mediator robes...

Hate speech...let's step away from that phrase. It's one of those hot button terms that tends to heat up a situation rather than help it. The content in question may indeed be objectionable: it's more effective to identify the particular parts that are problematic and parse why. With the exception of Canadian Monkey's insightful post, the replies that followed personalized the dispute without moving editorial discussion forward. Jaakobou's opening post looks to me like it's mostly useful and topical. Suggest judicious strikethrough on both sides and reorienting toward the substantive part of his statement. Durova Charge! 17:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I was referring to the main problem with the use of an Ariel Sharon quote to suggest Ariel Sharon and the Israeli Army's objective was on hurting as many Palestinian civilians as possible. Its misuse of the quote out of its original context -- of 9 terror attacks (8 on civilians, 1 on military) in a span of a few days March 2-5 -- to suggest that "intensify the military campaign" note made on March 5 was allegedly a predetermined decision (WP:SYN) to launch some genocidal operation which was actually a counter-terrorist response, decided on at March 29 following a massacre of elderly people in a Netanya Hotel passover dinner.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  18:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Before stepping away from Hate Speech, I'd like to give Jaakabou a chance to explain why he feels the TIME quote qualifies as: "a term for speech intended to degrade, intimidate, or incite violence or prejudicial action against a person or group of people based on their race, gender, age, ethnicity, nationality, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, language ability, moral or political views, socioeconomic class, occupation or appearance (such as height, weight, and hair color), mental capacity and any other distinction-liability." I don't understand, please explain. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 18:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Jaak has the timeline correct. Israel did increase its already ongoing attacks inside the Palestinian territories on 5 March, per Sharon's comments, in response to the 2 and 3 March suicide bombings, which lasted until Anthony Zinni negotiated the cease fire that began on 14 March. Then you have the 20 / 21 March suicide bombings followed by the Passover massacre on 27 March. Only then do you have the start of Defensive Shield. See We don't have an article on the earlier Israeli operation, although this is covered by the scope of the U.N. report, IIRC. -- Kendrick7talk 19:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, well another source says the prior operation continued until 18 March, not 14 March. Anyway, I'd be happy to start an article on the first operation if anyone can suggest a name. -- Kendrick7talk 19:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * User:Jaakobou is perfectly right to draw our attention to the problem of "hate-speech" and remind us that the project must not contain it. Even suspicion of quoting from "hate-site" sources is a perma-block offense, though WP:POLICY is currently a bit light on exactly where to draw the line.
 * However, I fear he's applied this principle quite inappropriately here - if Arial Sharon really did say this, and if Time Magazine really did comment as claimed, then both parts belong as "Stated goals". The fact that Sharon told everyone he intended to hurt civilians (and was told off for it by Colin Powell) even before the later suicide attacks makes the quote more relevant and not less. PRtalk 07:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * One hardly knows where to start with such a misleading statement. Let's see: (a) Sharon did not say he intended to hurt civilians, that's your spin. (b) He didn't "[tell] everyone" - he made an off hand comment, to a few journalists, in a cafeteria. and (c) he did not say, a month later, at the start of ODS, that the goals of the operation are those that he alluded to in an offhand comment made in a cafeteria, so we can't put them under "stated goals", becuase, quite simply, they were not the "stated goals". Canadian Monkey (talk) 04:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

wrong dates on attacks
8 and 9 March seem to be the wrong dates. I'm assuming the correct dates are 20 and 21 March per Thoughts? -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kendrick7 (talk • contribs)


 * March 9 was the 'Cafe Moment' massacre. March 8 has several incidents, but that date did not have a substantial massacre as far as I'm aware. Your book clearly lacks substantial data on the March attacks though, I was not incorrect when I noted 9 separate attacks between March 2 and March 5.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  19:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's why I wanted to run it by you (or anyone else). Of course, I don't want to start re-arguing about what point in time we should "start the clock" for the background section, but it is nice to see better sources showing up on gbooks, so the day of re-argument will come. So, I don't know how you'd want to clarify the dating here for now. Just remove the 8th? -- Kendrick7talk 19:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Replace the 8th with March 20 (ref: Bus number 823 attack: 'Suicide bombing on the bus from Tel Aviv to Nazarath; 7 dead and approx. 30 Injured - Jews and Arabs' by Yoav Itzhak, Nfc.co.il, 20/03/2002) and add the MFA ref to the March 9 attack, and we'll call it a deal for now.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  20:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC) clarify reference title.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  20:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, all set. -- Kendrick7talk 20:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

POV
I actually haven't read the entire article yet, but the stench of bias and slander is seen even from the top of the page alone. For example, the Israel Defense Forces 'invaded' Palestinian West Bank towns (strange, since Israel was 'occupying' them, so how can they invade?), also, only leading Palestinian 'figures' and 'activists' were arrested (not terrorists or even militants). Damage to property is listed in the 'result' in the infobox, which is never listed for any battles or wars. TheGuardian, an extreme left pro-Palestinian newspaper, is listed as the first source for casualty figures, while other more authorative sources (including the Palestinian Red Crescent) are only listed later.

Somebody - please fix these! I could fix them myself easily enough, but believe that this is a disputed article and each change should be discussed. Please leave your thoughts on the matter if you disagree with anything I said above.

-- Ynhockey (Talk) 22:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC) --Ynhockey (Talk) 22:36, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Take it up with the mainstream journalists and human-rights organizations who used substantially similar terminology, rather than with Wikipedia. All of the language that I can see you objecting to comes directly from these reliable sources. Also, your description of the Guardian is utterly nonsensical. Outside of the rightwing blogs, it's seen as a respectable paper with a center-left editorial page and generally responsible news coverage. Your independent analysis and commentary on the terms used by mainstream sources is really not relevant to improving this article. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 23:41, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Reviewing the first source in question, the Israeli MFA, which is used for the 'figures' and 'activists' arrested, I cannot find this terminology. You also haven't addressed the fact that damage to property is listed in the results, which has nothing to do with sources, but more with the Wikipedia policy called WP:NPOV. The only thing which you may be right about is using the term 'invaded', but I'm sure that different sources could be used to find a more neutral term. You might not be aware of this, but on Wikipedia WP:RS does not cancel out WP:NPOV, in other words, even if reliable sources use a certain term which is considered loaded, it should not be used on Wikipedia. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 09:55, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It must be obvious that our article doesn't properly represent the state of knowledge about this event. eg the New York Times on the 16th April said: Saed Dabayeh, who said he stayed in the camp through the fighting, led a group of reporters to a pile of rubble where he said he watched from his bedroom window as Israeli soldiers buried 10 bodies. "There was a hole here where they buried bodies," he said. "And then they collapsed a house on top of it." The Palestinian accounts could not be verified. 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. 86.159.186.70 (talk) 18:16, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Why don't you put that into the article and start a heading called "Media accounts of the Operation." For those who feel the accounts are false, it can always be stated in this section that the reliability of oral testimony is a matter of controversy within academic and legal circles.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 18:32, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It would be difficult to claim this account was false, when it's appeared in a good newspaper, from a named source, told to a number or reporters, and backed by the reporter noting there were at least 6 mass graves (going by smell) in the area. 86.159.186.70 (talk) 18:51, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * My point was that you should put it in the article. However, yes, it is possible to claim that... the point is that in order for oral testimonies to be considered 'facts' they need to be corroborated by some other witness, either an outsider or a perpetrator. Even if they cannot be confirmed, however, such testimony is always worthy of note because it reflects perceptions of a historical event at the time.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 19:01, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Please don't pass opinion as fact. Even the reporter said that the death toll could not be verified. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 18:57, 21 June 2008 (UTC) (the above was a response to anon, not LamaLoLeshLa)

Serious violation of WP:SYNTH
Just commenting on the recent edit war between Jaakobou and LamaLoLeshLa: the section that LLLL re-inserted into the article seems to clearly violate WP:NOR, namely, WP:SYNTH. I'm mostly referring to the second part of the paragraph: "Time and other media outlets interpreted his comment as setting the tone for the Operation launched a little more than a month later, the broadest military offensive since the outbreak of violence in 2000."

Unless this can be sourced by a WP:RS, especially a Time quote actually interpreting this comment as "setting the tone for [Operation Defensive Shield]", the paragraph should be removed with extreme prejudice. The relevancy of the first (sourced) part of it relies on the second part, because without the second part, the first part has nothing to do with Defensive Shield, and connecting the two without a source doing just that would again violate WP:SYNTH.

-- Ynhockey (Talk) 19:24, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it an edit-war. It becomes an edit-war when the edit that has been undone is then reverted as is, without any attempt at good faith editing. As far as I know, the sentence you cite is not synthesis. However, I will look at the source to find the citation you request. (Another way to handle this kind of thing, rather than deleting relevant facts, is to add a tag like  and wait to see if the necessary changes are made, for a month or so, before going the knee-jerk deletion route.) LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 20:09, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, as others have noted before, the article is even more overt than the entry, as written, indicates. The article directly links Sharon's comment with the Operation, saying "he went on to do just that." If you argue with the language as is, that the comment "set the tone" for the Operation, then for accuracy's sake you'd have to say, TIME wrote that "the comment foreshadowed" or that "the comment indicated what was to come" - which isn't really that different, just a bit harsher than what's written.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 20:25, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The article isn't about Operation Defensive Shield. It was written on March 18, 2002, 11 days before Operation Defensive Shield started. Unless you provide another source, I am left to assume that, as I thought before, the article had nothing to do with Defensive Shield. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 20:30, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * For those unfamiliar with this case, Time Magazine is one source of many that quoted Arial Sharon saying: "The Palestinians must be hit, and it must be very painful, ... we must cause them losses, victims, so that they feel a heavy price". Time Magazine added: "He went on to do just that, unleashing a broader military offensive than anything seen so far in the past 17 months of fighting". Colin Powell was another who was horrified at this announced intention to practice communal punishment and told him off for it. It will be interesting to see the obituaries about Sharon's 50 year career of this kind of thing. PRtalk 06:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Not sure what that has to do with Operation Defensive Shield. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 17:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Bold editing and grammar
I want to apologize for some rude comments I made as I edited for grammar today. It's just that it was the second time that I had to go in to edit the same sentences. In addition to other reversions of edits, the sentences repeated the same grammar mistakes which had been carefully fixed earlier (for example, randomly-placed periods mid-sentence as well as other mistakes). We all make occasional grammar mistakes or typos (I know I often do), but please let's all try to copyedit our own work so other do not have to work so hard. Thanks.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 05:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * No problem; earlier personal comments were worse. Just avoid adding factual errors and synthesis to the text as you copyedit.
 * Cheers,  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  05:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC) clarify. 07:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

npov w.r.t Siege of the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem article
see talk page on said article. there's a serious discrepency between the two, i suggest that a centralized discussion take place and a consensus reached. if you find similar articles, please add them as well. as there already is an npov tag, there's no need to add one here. 132.66.201.142 (talk) 13:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)