User:HG1/workshop/Clarify Jenin editing battle

HG draft comment on war crimes in lede
''G-Dett and Tewfik -- Partial draft of my response. Please comment here and don't flip out, my ideas aren't set in stone, just want you to see where I'm headed so far. Thanks.'' HG | Talk 15:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm willing to give my initial view about how to satisfy various editors' concerns, from which we might iteratively reach consensus. But if folks feel I'm missing the point(s) or biased, etc., perhaps I could help draft an RfC. Here's my view:

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, they can find common ground by wordsmithing one of the above recommended blockquotes. So, I'd like to offer the analysis and suggested wording for further comment here. Thanks very much,

Sweet and persuasive closing remarks. Brilliant editing to make the above fit into 3 concise bullet points.

Ideas for HRW & AI on war crimes
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?)

What kind of context is needed for HRO war crimes statements? e.g., that they call for official or juridical inquiries? To whom do the HROs address their call for a Geneva Convention inquiry? HRW: Israel to bring "criminal proceedings" and intl to "ensure respect" for Gen Conv

Current AI section: "the report asserts that war crimes were committed by Israel." Current HRW section: gives 2 "war crime" quotes, but why not any summary/encyclopedic mention of war crime issue?

Why doesn't article provide IDF view of war crimes issue?

"Life and Health during the Israeli Invasion of the West Bank, The Town of Jenin" May 22nd, 2002 Rita Giacaman and Abdullatif Husseini, Institute of Community and Public Health, Birzeit University pdf copy "...where war crimes appear to have been committed by the Israeli army, including grave breaches of the Fourth Geneva Convention and the laws of war, as attested in the reports of Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, reports which also call for an international inquiry." (my emphasis)

Nexis (Jenin + Human Rights Watch + Amnesty + war crime = 30 major, mostly unhelpful) "There is "clear evidence" that Israeli soldiers and their commanders committed war crimes against Palestinian civilians -- including unlawful killings and torture -- during a three-month campaign last spring in two Palestinian cities in the West Bank, the human rights group Amnesty International charges in a report to be released Monday." from "Israel Committed War Crimes in West Bank, Rights Group Says" John Ward Anderson, Washington Post Foreign Service (my emphasis) FYI: "Amnesty, in a July report, also described the Palestinian suicide attacks as crimes against humanity and war crimes." (I found this confusing, is this official/technical or casual use of the term "war crimes"?)

Pro-Israel critiques: "JENIN AND OTHER PALESTINIAN CITIES: OPERATION DEFENSIVE SHIELD" Israel Action Center html version cites an IDF justification vs war crime (Geneva Conv) Jewish Political Studies Review 16:3-4 (Fall 2004) Abusing the Legacy of the Holocaust: The Role of NGOs in Exploiting Human Rights to Demonize Israel, Gerald M. Steinberg (critique of HRO reports)

Lexis: Buffalo Human Rights Law Review 2004 10 Buff. Hum. Rts. L. Rev. 261 "WHO WILL WATCH THE WATCHDOGS? HUMAN RIGHTS NONGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS AND THE CASE FOR REGULATION" Robert Charles Blitt "Ultimately, a Jenin-type scenario effectively exposes the overarching flaw in Weissbrodt's paradigm, which posits that when the consequences are serious: /q/ An NGO should more closely follow the quasi-adjudicative procedures that ensure more accuracy and more respect. In descending the scale of the seriousness of the consequences of its actions, an NGO may effectively rely on less direct evidence and less rigorous procedures. n388 /q/ The bottom line is that this operating principle leaves HROs as the sole arbiter of what evidentiary standard is to be applied. As witnessed by the Jenin case, even when the allegations are as serious as mass murder, some HROs choose to ignore the "seriousness of the consequences" and attendant need for "quasi-adjudicative procedures" in favor of political expediency and sensationalism."

San Diego International Law Journal Spring, 2005 6 San Diego Int'l L.J. 341 "When Caterpillars (R) Kill": Holding U.S. Corporations Accountable for Knowingly Selling Equipment to Countries for the Commission of Human Rights Abuses Abroad. ZAHA HASSAN. n72 "See e.g., Human Rights Watch, supra note 7 (calling Israel's destruction of large swathes of the Jenin Refugee Camp purportedly conducted for security reasons "war crimes"); Amnesty Int'l, Israel and the Occupied Territories Shielded from Scrutiny: IDF Operations in Jenin and Nablus (2002) (finding Israel guilty of war crimes during incursions in Jenin and Nablus where property wantonly destroyed)"

Is it realistic/wise to make a decision on "war crimes" based on expectations about how to write up the "massacre" issue? (G-Dett's idea) Doesn't strike me as realistic, since WP doesn't easily support multi-stage negotiations -- plus, who would prepare to defend against such 'war crime' litigation?

Likewise, is it realistic/wise to make a "minimalist" interpretive choice about "war crimes" based on expectations about be consistent with "minimalist" readings? Again G-Dett

Divide up HRW and AI? Easiest but weak style. Plus, the nuance gained will be lost on the vast majority of readers (and future editors).

Find compromise language that will serve as a stable resolution? Plausible.

Frame a question for an RfC? Plausible, but could be repetitive/frustrating at this point.

Work first on the HRW and AI sections, and only afterwards prepare the summary? This makes sense but it's too process-oriented, hard to get WP Users to proceed this way.

Maybe work off both a "minimalist" description of the HRW/AI conclusions, but preface with a more "maximalist" description quality of their evidence. Idea: Based on eyewitness testimony and other documentation, hro's found sufficient evidence of war crimes at Jenin to demand /what?/ official inquiries into violations of the Geneva Convention /?/.

Clarification of editing issues to be proposed for mediation
Please only edit this page if you've been involved with the recent editing disputes at Talk:Battle of Jenin, were invited, or otherwise can assume HG would welcome your input.

Recommended guidelines:


 * Please do NOT mention any user conduct issues, for now. Try to avoid mentioning other Users at all.


 * Please do NOT comment on the lists of issues by other Users, at least for now.


 * You are welcome to shamelessly copy other User's listed issues as your own.

Sample List for MyUserName
Ordered from easier to more difficult issues to resolve:


 * 1) Fact about the XXX and YYY, based on source ZZZ.
 * 2) Sentence describing XXX. Should the sentence contain a quote from YYY or a precis of ZZZ?  (My second priority.)
 * 3) Structure of section "ABC". This section is set up as POV vs. POV. Can it be set up as a neutral description?
 * 4) Repeated reverts over the inclusion or deletion of section "DEF".   (My top priority.)
 * 5) Bias in the selection of source WWW rather than VVV throughout section DEF.

//end of sample//

Factual (errors)

 * 1) The death toll in our article is systematically mis-stated - eg the UN report is quoted as saying "52 dead in total" when it actually says "at least 52" Palestinians were killed. The UN report continues that the claim of 500 dead is "a figure that has not been substantiated in the light of the evidence that has emerged". note: issue opened for discussion here.
 * 2) The article treats as definitive a "Palestine Authority claim" of 56 dead which only appears in (or is only referenced to, anyway) CAMERA and a Washington Times mirror site. Neither of these sites can possibly be RS for such a "surprising" claim (see 'Bias in RS selection' below). note: issue opened for discussion here.
 * 3) Yet a real PA estimate (provisional as at 7th May 2002) contained in the UN report is 375 dead for all of the West Bank (2nd most deadly incursion at this time is Nablus with 80 Palestinians and 3 soldiers dead) is left out of the article!
 * 4) Sharon says (immediately before the incursions) "Palestinians must be hit and it must be very painful ... We must cause them losses, victims, so that they feel a heavy price." The fact that these incursions were intended to be punitive ("communal punishment" maybe?) has been entirely glossed over.
 * 5) An adviser to Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon (Zalmon Shoval) told the BBC on 18th April that the United Nations special envoy, Terje Roed-Larsen "has no business whatsoever to tell us what is right or wrong". This is while the UN is preparing to come and before it's barred from doing so. (Shoval also says 65 bodies recovered!).
 * 6) Three refrigerated trailers were driven into the camp during the period that all observers (and medical attention) were excluded from the camp for 4/5/6/7 days. Israel announced it according to one of the few newspapers in the UK not lashed by watch.windsofchange.net. And an Israeli newspaper confirmed the three trailers story. It's possible the trailers were indeed only used so that soldiers could sleep there in comfort - but an NPOV article would mention them and hint at the suspicion engendered.
 * 7) A widely testified allegation of a trench filled with 30 bodies has been left out. (though it is possible that this is the desperate response of the hospital, under total lock-down for 9 days and under siege for 14 days).

Descriptive (omissions)

 * 1) One of the bulldozer drivers gave an interview to an Israeli newspaper describing what he'd done (including bringing houses down with people inside). Although the newspaper concerned is not still publishing this account, there is a Hebrew version and an English translation provided by an Israeli organisation on the web. Pro-Israeli editors to this article have confirmed the account (and the translation) are genuine and not seriously problematical. See inclusion of the information reverted here, along with other POV damage.
 * 2) There was a third "international observer/human rights" group that made a visit and presented a "Jenin Investigation" - that's been completely white-washed out.
 * 3) There was an Irish woman who knew Jenin well. She got herself trapped in Ramallah while the worst of the attack was on, but returned to Jenin, put herself at great risk and was eventually shot and badly injured by the IDF. (Ian Hook was shot and killed about the same time). Accounts like this were not particularily well documented, but mention of them, with links most certainly belong.
 * 4) The article treats Jenin as having been being the hotbed of suicide attacks on Israel ("martyrs capital" etc), when the IDF first attacked Nablus a few days earlier (80 killed there, 3 soldiers died). Tricky to write it in, but signifiant.
 * 5) There were earlier and later armed incursions, and there is sufficient recorded in RS to date these and mention how the IDF was shooting people (including internationals) and medical staff/vehicles throughout the period.

Structural (flaws)

 * 1) The article is structured around a "No Massacre Thesis" beloved of the defenders of Israel, and it is true that no Nazi-style mass-shooting took place, despite alarming reports coming from top Israeli politicians and IDF spokesmen.
 * 2) However, at least one small massacre is credibly reported. Amnesty International (and the Independent newspaper) allege that three unarmed and unresisting men were gunned down in an alleyway by IDF soldiers. We have the first names of two of these soldiers and confirmation from a named Israeli source that this incident did occur. (Israel is said to have refused to investigate this incident or many others that were carefully documented). The 3 victims in this case seem to have been cowering in a house, they were ordered out, shot in cold blood in the street and then allowed to die - it seems unlikely that most people would dispute this was a massacre (it might help to mention the Boston Massacre (5 dead) and the Kent State Massacre (4 dead) somewhere in the article).
 * 3) We have a time-line under "Body Count estimates", and we need such a record - but not one calculated (by title and by edit-warring) to erect a straw-man argument and then knock it down.

Reverts (unhelpful)

 * 1) I'd have trouble adding much to this section, since I refuse to edit-war. (I could point to some appalling edits that have been made, but only at the risk of damaging the collegiate atmosphere we're trying to engender).
 * 2) Weasel words (been edit-warred back into the article, I'm fairly sure): "Allegations were aired widely ... inciting extreme antipathy toward Israel". Encyclopedic wording anyone?

Bias in RS selection (observed)

 * 1) Huge over-emphasis is given to the Time Magazine "investigation" (which appears to be an uncritical publishing of the Israeli position) - yet the considered responses of the PA, the EU, Qatar and Jordan are completely missing (been removed).
 * 2) The reports of human-rights organisations have not been properly presented. The Amnesty section (in particular) has mysteriously shrunk to a pale shadow of its former self. Amnesty is something of an expert on the region/conflict, having made 15 visits and presented 8 reports in the previous 2 years.
 * 3) As detailed under "facts" (F1 above), two terrible sources have been edit-warred in as sole evidence for the PA estimate of deaths. The better of the two is CAMERA, but we know what the RS position is on that, because we have the RfC raised on CAMERA. Not easy to make sense of that discussion, unfortunately, since highly experienced editors from this article went straight over and proceeded to carry on exactly as they'd been doing in the article. However, 3 uninvolved editors appeared to agree that CAMERA cannot be treated as an RS for "surprising" claims (or perhaps for anything, other than it's own opinion).
 * 4) The second reference for F1 is said to be the "Washington Times" (someone tried to claim it was the "Washington Post", but that's a completely different paper). I refuse to believe the encyclopedia should use a mirror site that hosts (and even a page that links to!) this kind of incitement to religious hatred "Back to the Moslem Terrorist's Page".
 * 5) Our article says: "Journalists and international groups were banned by the IDF from entering the camp during the fighting on safety grounds" (ie accepting the Israeli account). This despite the fact that at least 40 foreign journalists have been shot and one killed by Israeli live or rubber bullets in the previous 18 months, according to Reporters Without Borders.

comments by jaakobou
i've opened a new subsection which addresses PR's Factual (errors) first point. feel free to remove this issue from this talk once you go over the material.

p.s. the "beloved of the defenders of Israel" (Structural (flaws)) style of presentation is not appreciated, at all.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  13:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

i've opened a subsection for the second issue raised by PR.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  17:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * This TalkPage was not provided for notifications of this kind. In fact these notifications look much like an abuse of an area that others have attempted to use properly.
 * User:HG initially seemed to think that the Battle of Jenin article suffered from a content dispute that could be resolved by an uninvolved party providing a strictly controlled area to discuss "the facts" to some kind of rigorous format (rather than the free-for-all of the TalkPage, from which, amongst other things, material has been repeatedly been peremptorily removed by a deeply involved editor). Unwanted and unhelpful additions to the page here rather make it appear that the content dispute could indeed be resolved by an uninvolved outsider, and that it is vested interest, not WP:Policy, that stops this (currently terrible) article from being improved.
 * There is also a request "Try to avoid mentioning other Users at all" by the creator and owner of this private page, it would be nice if editors could try to bear this instruction in mind. PalestineRemembered 09:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * have you found a mentor yet?  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  11:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Kyaa the Catlord
HG is far to buddy buddy in tone with PR for this to be a neutral venue. It has already been shown that PR believes that this will be an avenue for him to force his changes through, based on his statements on the talk page for Jenin. I choose not to accept HG as a mediator. PR's comment also are veiled attacks on the other editors, despite being asked not to do so. This is reason 2 for me not to participate. Thank you for your time however. Kyaa the Catlord 21:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * PR approached HG because HG has proven to be an effective mediator, and has gained the trust of all sides on some incredibly contentious pages. He doesn't patronize PR, and this omission is apparently what you're reacting to, but that's a good thing in a mediator.  Do you know much about mediation, Kyaa?  PR once asked you to write for the enemy, a standard step in dispute resolution, and you accused him of soliciting you as a "meatpuppet" (!), which makes me think maybe you're not.--G-Dett 21:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * PR once asked me to write something he wished included in the article that I had no knowledge of beyond the advocacy groups posting. It was not sourced back to websites which meet the requirements of WP policy and still is not. Kyaa the Catlord 22:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * PR asked you to "write for the enemy," and you cited this as evidence that he was soliciting you as a "meatpuppet."--G-Dett 22:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * G-Dett - you need to know that I did not aproach User:HG - all I did was to tell him 14:07, 30 Aug not to waste the time of the community over an article name-change. HG then engaged me in an argument about it, responding to my talk-page with this 14:51, 30 Aug. We argued on this point and we didn't come to any agreement. (I'm pretty sure we're not going to agree on Battle of Jenin either).
 * However, shortly afterwards (why?), SteveSm8900 invited HG to come to the Battle of Jenin article with this 17:14, 30 Aug. You might wonder why User:HG (and everyone else who dares to deal with me in any kind of collegiate fashion) suffers these outrageous and personal attacks .... something about me must bring down the red mist on some people - but what on earth can it be? PalestineRemembered 23:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the correction PR. It is indeed remarkable that ever since Jay's smearing of you, anyone who – as you aptly put it – deals with you in a collegial fashion gets abused in this fashion.--G-Dett 23:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps if HG corrected PR's mistakes as I posted out above, I'd have more willingness to deal with him. But he hasn't and my lack of faith in his neutrality stem from him not adequately policing the rules he's proscribed. Perhaps it would be best for us not to fight amoungst ourselves and let HG speak for himself and maybe convince me that this, like all the efforts previously, is not a lost cause or even worse, a sympathetic ear to one side of the debate. Kyaa the Catlord 01:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Mediation involves a process by which you set out your evidence on the topic of the article on the basis decided by the mediator. It does not involve the mediator correcting anyone's 'mistakes'. (I'm not aware of you pointing out any 'mistakes', let alone entering them into the mediation process). Do you need training in the ways of resolving legitimate academic disagreements in Wikipedia, or would a glance at Mediation help you?
 * Furthermore (as I've already informed you), User:HG was drawn into this mediation by another editor - (HG .... Palestine remembered posted some quotes which obviously and glaringly dispute the claims of what he himself is saying. This attempt at canvas might appear to be an attempt to bring in a partisan guaranteed to oppose me tooth and claw, since HG and I were then at logger-heads over another discussion right here on the same I-P topic.
 * It seems remarkable indeed that User:HG's attempt to deal with me in a collegiate fashion immediately brings out smears against his even-handedness. It's clearly nothing to do with any actual words he's entered - is he guilty of treating me with normal editorial civility? Should he know better than to deal politely with anyone daring to sign himself, Yours Sincerely, PalestineRemembered 10:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC) ?
 * Kyaa would kindly remind PR that HG has never offered to actually mediate this "dispute" nor has your mischaracterizations of statements by other wikipedians and the media actually added anything to the discussion at large. Please take your ranting elsewhere. Kyaa the Catlord 12:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Bold text