Talk:Battle of Jenin (2002)/Archive 9

message: Source for balancing the background to the operation with fair reference to Israeli and Palestinian civilian casualties leading up to the bombings in Israel and the Operation following.
::The UN report on Jenin notes:
 18. From the beginning of March until 7 May, Israel endured approximately 16 bombings, the large majority of which were suicide attacks. More than 100 persons were killed and scores more wounded. Throughout this period, the Government of Israel, and the international community, reiterated previous calls on the Palestinian Authority to take steps to stop terrorist attacks and to arrest the perpetrators of such attacks.
19. During this same period, IDF conducted two waves of military incursions primarily in the West Bank, and air strikes against both the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. The first wave began on 27 February 2002 and ended on approximately 14 March. Those incursions, which Israel stated were in pursuit of Palestinians who had carried out attacks against Israelis, involved the use of ground troops, attack helicopters, tanks and F-16 fighter jets in civilian areas, including refugee camps, causing significant loss of life among civilians.
20. Over the course of two days, 8 and 9 March, 18 Israelis were killed in two separate Palestinian attacks and 48 Palestinians were killed in the Israeli raids that followed.
21. Israeli military retaliation for terrorist attacks was often carried out against Palestinian Authority security forces and installations. This had the effect of severely weakening the Authority's capacity to take effective action against militant groups that launched attacks on Israelis. Militant groups stepped into this growing vacuum and increased their attacks on Israeli civilians. In many cases, the perpetrators of these attacks left messages to the effect that their acts were explicitly in revenge for earlier Israeli acts of retaliation, thus perpetuating and intensifying the cycle of violence, retaliation and revenge.
22. It was against this backdrop that the most extensive Israeli military incursions in a decade, Operation Defensive Shield, were carried out. The proximate cause of the operation was a terrorist attack committed on 27 March in the Israeli city of Netanya...
2. Intro - Calling the events a battle while allowing reference to perceptions of a massacre. (the arguments around this issue are listed in prior discussions above)
LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 22:38, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi LamaLoLeshLa. I think Elonka has in mind brief pts, like #1 above, without going into the accompanying evidence. HG | Talk 23:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Correct.  Also, I'm noticing that there are several places in the article where tags have been placed, requesting sources or whatnot.  Some of these tags have been on the article for a long time, so I recommend some cleanup.  Specifically:  Any statement that has been  tagged for over 30 days, should just be deleted.  Also, rather than placing a "weasel" template at the top of the page, I recommend either changing text that is of concern, or using  templates at the specific locations of the words that are problematic.  And again, anything that isn't addressed within a reasonable amount of time, let's just delete out of the article.  Thanks, --Elonka 23:11, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Hi again. It might also help if bullet #1 more specific. As I recall, the archives will show much discussion of Palestinian casualty numbers and a table of sources. Does #1 reflect a dispute above about Israeli civilians and, if so, what reference are editors seeking in the article? Thanks. HG | Talk 10:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: User talk:HG - I think LamaLoLeshLa is attempting to point us to another very significant factor, well covered in the RS but not included in the points I've identified above. Viz, that all the time Israel was calling on the PA to control terrorists, it was destroying Arafat's security apparatus. Recent (anonymous) confessions by IDF soldiers collected here demonstrate that Israel also set about the mass killing of Palestinian policemen on an exclusively ethnic basis. This is not OR on my part, the UN specifically links cause and effect with "This had the effect of severely weakening the Authority's capacity to take effective action against militant groups that launched attacks on Israelis". Perhaps your good sense can decide if this is such a significant factor that it has to be prominently included alongside all mention of suicide and other terrorism. PRtalk 11:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this article neds to focus on the Battle of Jenin, not a whole range of factiors which might be impossible to reflect in one article. We can focus on each side's statements of their reasons for acting, withoput trying to describe the entire conflict here. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 13:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

text: To clarify, there was some talkpage controversy at Operation Defensive Shield a while ago regarding the fact that some people wanted to include detailed information on Israeli casualties leading up to the operation while omitting Palestinian casualties leading up to the operation. The same goes for this set of events. I agree with you Sm that we shouldn't go into too much detail. The truth is, at present, there is very detailed info here on Palestinian assaults on Israel as background to the Jenin incursions. There is nothing about the Israeli assaults on the West Bank as background to the Jenin incursions. Bo0th are relevant, as the violence went both ways, almost constantly in overlap during 2002 - there was no clea start and ending, cause and effect.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 19:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want to describe the so-called Israeli provocations which you feel serve as some sort of rationale for terrorist bombings and attacks, the place to do so is in the articles pertaining to palestinian actions. There is no reason to explain past Israeli actions in an article which itself focuses on an israeli action in Jenin. To do that would be to dilute the Palestinian side, since this article should focus on their concerns and grievances in regards to this attack. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 19:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We have it on excellent authority that Israel's actions had the effect of making it (much?) more difficult for the PA to control militancy. If you think that this information is surplus to the requirements of this article (and I'm entirely prepared to meet you halfway on this as on the other factors), then the obvious solution is to leave out mention of group actions by Palestinians. They can and should be treated as criminal and individual/gang in nature, not as "political". PRtalk 18:40, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

text: I did not say that Israeli offensives served as rationale for Palestinian attacks. Nor do I think there is any rationale for killing civilians. Violence begets violence, the circle - who knows where it begins? That is what I said. Please try to avoid putting words in people's mouths. Thanks LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 19:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  To deal with in a dispute mediation: Israeli/Palestinian casualties leading up to the events 

message: Editors unfamiliar with the processes of the project have sometimes made discussions much more difficult with four obvious mistakes and breaches of process.
#Failure to indent their contributions.
#Insertion of comments into the middle of listings of others in a disruptive fashion.
#Denial on grounds of perceived "truth" of information firmly based on RS reports.
#Moving the comments of others.
For myself, any of these practices may be a breach of AGF requiring adjudication by the mediator. The same for personalising the discussion - if you have real allegations of cheating then make them carefully and in detail in a new section or another well-signposted page. PRtalk 12:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: No re-factoring

message: The image :Image:Fateh-logo.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --04:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with Image:Fateh-logo.jpg

message: Both organizations have been discussed at the RS/N.  Please refer to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_15#Human_Rights_Watch.  Of note especially is the end of the discussion, where consensus is established rather emphatically that both organizations are indeed eminently reliable for information regarding human rights violations.  The rest of the discussion consists mainly of two editors (myself included) trying to argue with a third that "accusations of bias" do not amount to unreliability.PelleSmith (talk) 17:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. Bias has nothing directly to do with reliability as a source. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 17:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes but "accusations of bias" do not equate to proof of bias either.  These organizations are accused of bias by pretty much every country they report on (surprise surprise) -- in the Middle East that includes pretty much every country.  Also please note that you highlighted criticism of "accuracy" above, which would effect reliability were it true.  The RS/N discussion would suggest a consensus there that there is no accuracy issue with these organizations, certainly not one subject to any national bias.PelleSmith (talk) 17:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure the limited discussion on RS/N quite qualifies as consensus, but differentiating between accusations of bias and proof of bias is an academic task, because there's no clear line where such accusations become proof, and it will be disputed by partisans in any event, so there's not much point in the distinction in the first place. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 18:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well consensus during one RS/N discussion isn't the last word on the subject matter.  When I used "consensus" I was simply referring to that discussion.  Perhaps you should start another discussion at the RS/N or at the NPOV/N or another location where uninvolved editors will respond.  Regarding proof vs. accusation -- there is a fairly big distinction between partisan sources accusing some entity of bias and non-partisan sources making similar claims.  There is also a fairly big distinction between accusations supported with a fair amount of evidence and those not so supported.  The sources you name are mostly of the partisan variety, and of course we do not know the exact claims being made or the context of these claims since you have only enumerated critical sources.  Are we talking investigative reportage?  Editorializing?  etc.  I suggest, especially given the previous consensus at the RS/N that you start another discussion there if you wish to re-examine the issue in a forum that isn't as prone to partisanship as an entry talk page.PelleSmith (talk) 18:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Should you take this advice I will gladly stay out of the discussion as well.PelleSmith (talk) 18:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Err, I'm not an "involved editor." I have not edited the article. My only substantive edit to the talk page was a tangent related to the reliability of a source. So Please keep that in mind. Similarly, the statement that the sources I name are "mostly" of the partisan variety is simply not correct, when confronted with sources like The Economist, University of London, and major US newspaper. Some of the other support may have accusations itself of bias a specific direction, but none are explicitly partisan sources, and it's all disputable anyway. But as I said before, it's a tangent, and a deep argument has nothing really to do with the article itself, and in order to remain an uninvolved editor, I'm not intending to pursue it further. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 02:48, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well you and I are both "involved" on the talk page in question -- right here, right now -- whether or not we have any other edits to this entry or talk page.  All I meant by uninvolved was someone not a party to the original conversation we are having or to editing this entry.  I'm not sure The New York Sun was ever a "major US newspaper".  But from the sources you enumerate as certainly non-partisan context is extremely important.  You claim that none of the other sources are "explicitly partisan" in this area.  Eh hem.  Here is the first line of the lead of NGO Monitor: NGO Monitor is an Israeli non-governmental organization with the stated aim of stopping "certain self-declared 'humanitarian NGOs'" from promoting agendas which are perceived as anti-Israel.[1]  I'm not sure you can get more partisan on this subject matter than that.  Discover the Networks is one of David Horowitz's projects.  Horowitz is also clearly "explicitly partisan" on this subject matter, and the same goes for Alan Dershowitz who has a history of public commentary that is completely pro-Israeli.  HRW and AI may in fact have a bias ... against human rights abuses.  They have no nationalistic, ethnic or religious bias however, and that is what you, are alleging through these sources.  Some of these sources themselves have a very clear nationalistic bias, which is in the public record and which by denying or attempting to downplay you make a very odd impression of your own understanding of the issues at stake.PelleSmith (talk) 12:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

text: As to why CAMERA is not considered reliable you may wish to familiarize yourself with this: Committee_for_Accuracy_in_Middle_East_Reporting_in_America#Wikipedia.  Of course there are more substantive issues that transcend that little fiasco but after that happened I'm not sure Wikipedia can or will ever consider them as credible.  NGO Monitor is quite possibly the most partisan organization within the context of this discussion.  They are basically an organization with the political goal of discrediting human rights organizations that come out with statements critical of Israel.PelleSmith (talk) 12:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm very familiar with the case and I don't think CAMERA did anything wrong to try to get volunteers involved with WP to help in the extreme bias against Israel readily found here because of these very issues.  There sanctions against those involved were completely unfair while the folks working with the Electronic Intifida seem to have gotten off with no problems.  Typical "wiki justice."  --Einsteindonut (talk) 01:09, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

text: I think we don't need to go very far with the credibility issues. The problem with the Jenin 2002 incident is that non of these human rights organizations took measures to validate claims which were later found to be bogus blood-libels. This is really not about general reliability but about reliability towards the discussed event - which is clearly lacking. JaakobouChalk Talk 14:08, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point, Jaakobou.  I do think it's important to consider that HWR and AI have only helped to fuel a lot of the blood-libels.  It would be helpful if more WP editors could pay more attention to legitimate sources like CAMERA, HonestReporting, and NGO Monitor when looking at these issues rather than slanted left-wing sources which only help fuel misinformation on complex situation in the Middle East for their own biased political reasons.  I have found so much of these RS material is from the extreme fringe left.  I would hope that more editors at least make an attempt for neutrality, but those who are honestly after it seem very few and far between (maybe b/c of the CAMERA case where WP sanction people for trying to get involved?)  Pathetic.  Trust me, there's quite a lot of evidence of organized pro-Palestinian campaigns behind the scenes as well. --Einsteindonut (talk) 01:09, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Can I assume that an editor who suggests that avowedly partisan and nationalist campaign groups like CAMERA, HonestReporting and NGO Monitor are "legitimate sources" but implies that mainstream human rights groups, and presumably certain mainstream media sources as well, are the "extreme fringe left" is having a little joke? Neutrality does not mean "agrees with my political viewpoint" you know. --Nickhh (talk) 08:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Regarding the Reliability of Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International

message: I consider the current version of the "Report" section to be a copyright violation.  It contains many sentences taken word-for-word from the source, without quotation marks; so many that I think even if we were to put them in quotation marks it would still be a copyright violation.
I'm not trying to suppress any information.  The most important parts of the source can be summarized, paraphrased, even quoted to some extent.  And the reader is of course free to look at the source itself if they want to get the full story.
Maybe we can find some other sources to flesh out the section without quoting too much from any one source.
I paraphrased, reworked and shortened the section to a version which in my opinion is not a copyright violation.  However, my edit was reverted.
Please discuss.  We need to arrive at a version that is not a copyright violation.
I'm listing this at the WP:Copyright problems noticeboard, and I've blanked the section and displayed a copyright template.  Please leave the section blanked until an admin handles it (normally in about a week).  Meanwhile, we can discuss and negotiate a new version of the section (without actually displaying it).  The text is still there, it's just not visible due to the template, so it can still be edited. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 19:08, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've done some rewriting to this section. Tell me what you think. -- Nudve (talk) 19:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry I didn't have time to look at it yet.  However, I may have told you the wrong procedure: maybe the copyrighted text is supposed to stay under the blanking template, and new text developed elsewhere e.g. Talk:Battle of Jenin/Temp.  See instructions on the template itself and at WP:CP. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 12:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, the procedure isn't very clear. I'm not sure whether a report can be retracted or not. I really with you had asked me before doing that. Now it's going to take at least a week before an admin looks at it, and the section may not be touched until then. This really sucks. -- Nudve (talk) 13:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright violation 

message: I have reviewed the temporary page and addressed a few phrases of minor ongoing concern. I have suggested that Nudve copy that material to the article, overwriting the copyright problem, as he or she is the only substantial contributor other than my few words and I am waiving my right to attribution to my contribution there. I believe that the changes made eliminate copyright concerns as relate to the identified source. Thanks. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:11, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Temporary page

message: Hamas was attributed attacks from September 9, 2001 (a suicide attack in Nahariya), March 19, 2002 (a shooting attack in Hamam Al Maliach), and March 31, 2002 (a suicide attack in Haifa that left, 15 casualties).[3]
Palestinian Islamic Jihad was attributed attacks from July 16, 2001 (a suicide attack at the Binyamina Railway Station), October 28, 2001 (a shooting attack in Hadera), November 29, 2001 (a suicide attack near Pardes Hanna), January 25, 2002 (a suicide attack at the old central bus station in Tel Aviv—in cooperation with Fatah), January 5, 2002 (a suicide attack in Afula), March 20, 2002 (a suicide attack in Wadi Ara), April 10, 2002 (a suicide attack at the Yagur junction).[3]
Fatah was attributed attacks from February 1, 2001 (a shooting of an Israeli civilian visiting Jenin), April 28, 2001 (a shooting at near Umm al-Fahm), June 28, 2001 (a shooting near Ganim), September 11, 2001 (a shooting at "Bezeq" workers near Shaked and detonation of a charge at an IDF force in the area), March 9, 2001 (a shooting near Yabed), October 4, 2001 (a shooting in Afula), October 27, 2001 (Infiltration to Me Ammi and laying of an explosives charge), November 27, 2001 (a joint PIJ and Fatah suicide attack in Afula), February 8, 2002 (a joint PIJ and Fatah suicide attack aimed at Tel Aviv, intercepted), March 12, 2002 (a shooting on the road to Katsir), March 21, 2002 (a suicide attack in Jerusalem), March 30, 2002 (a suicide attack in Tel Aviv).[3]''
all to go unless you can find the 6 or 23 for Jenin....so far you haven't shown that these belong in an article about Jenin unless of course you are thinking of adding in all the IDF and settler activity in the area?....Otherwise you are just trying for demonisation.....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 20:54, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a "demonisation" issue since the activities were linked to the Israeli assault on the Jenin infrastructure for these activities. JaakobouChalk Talk 21:11, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: so which ones are pertinent to Jenin?

message: POV starts from the introduction, It must be the only article that describes the reactions to a massacre allegations before even saying there was a incident.....The section on the Israeli reasons for going in is named yet the information about those reasons is interspersed throughout the article....that or start a section on why there were bombs being set off in Israel something on the lines of ..."Israeli Oppression causes Backlash"...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 10:05, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That is almost funny.  That headliner is the rationale for virtually every attack on Israel and Israelis by Palestinians, as well as Israeli attacks on Palestinians.  Why did the Intifada start? ""Israeli Oppression causes Backlash" Why was there a suicide bombing? "Israeli Oppression causes Backlash"  Why was there a Battle of Jenin? "Israeli Oppression causes Backlash" AK et al would be happy if Wiki were one big article that says "Israeli Oppression causes Backlash"-- that is all Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.' Right?  Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:54, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

text: One of the problems that would be easiest to fix is the trivial summary we have of the UN report. It's the "official report", compiled after agreement and promises of cooperation from all parties, and it includes the considered responses of the EU, the PA and Jordan (along with mention of material from Qatar). PRtalk 10:53, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: POV sectional issues

message: In the Background section I came upon this sentence: "Several hundred armed men from the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, Tanzim, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and Hamas had been using the Jenin refugee camp as a base, known as "the martyrs' capital",[6] and of the 100 suicide bombers who had launched terrorist attacks since the Second Intifada began in October 28, 2000 attacks had been launched from there."  Note 6 says 28 'martyrs' came from Jenin.  The way this was written it sounds like 100 suicide bombers launched 2000 attacks, all from Jenin.  So the reference is pretty well screwed up, and no source is given at all for the 2000 attacks.  Will whoever wrote this, please clarify or I will place a  label here in a couple days if someone else doesn't beat me to it.  Tundrabuggy (talk) 05:07, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fact checking 

message: Most of the sources on internet for the interview based on [Gush Shalom translation] therefore I am searching other sources.
Sources Using Gush Shalom English translation of Gush Shalom Hebrew Text as a reference
*Jenin Inquiry Report
*Jenin: A Soldier's Triumph in his own Words
*Shalom Archav
*CENTRAL CONNECTICUT STATE UNIVERSITY BLINDED BY TERROR UNITED STATES POLICY TOWARDS THE USE OF TERROR IN THE ISRAELI - PALESTINIAN CONFLICT THESIS by Steven B. Kramer "Tsadok Yehezkeli, “I Made Them a Stadium in the Middle of the Camp,” Yediot Aharonot, 31 May 2002, translated from Hebrew by Gush Shalom, available from http://www.gush-shalom.org/archives/kurdi_eng.html; Internet, accessed April 8, 2005."
*Lessons in Urbicide Stephen Graham Durham University Department of Geography
*Cover Up on Gaza Beach Israel Spinning Out of Control By RAMZY BAROUD quoting Peter Lagerquist, The Daily Star, 11/22/03
*Quoted in the Book Derek Gregory's The Colonial Present: Afghanistan, Palestine, and Iraq pgs. 114 and 115 forum not reliable source
*Quoted in Surin, Kenneth, 1948- "The Night Can Sweat with Terror As Before": Afterthoughts The South Atlantic Quarterly - Volume 102, Number 4, Fall 2003, pp. 895-913 Duke University Press from the Book Israel/Palestine: How to End the War of 1948, 2nd ed. (Open Media) (Paperback) by Tanya Reinhart professor of linguistics and cultural studies at Tel Aviv University and at the University of Utrecht
*How they bulldozed Jenin By Asma Rashid Pakistan Newspaper
Reference to Moshe Nissim interview
*quoting Twilight zone / Bullets instead of applause By Gideon Levy Haaretz, 11.4.2005404
Medal of Honour Moshe Nissim Receive After Publication of the Interview
*Pravda Washington is pro-Israeli and anti-Arab, whatever excuses it makes for its foreign policy
*The Arab Thought Forum
*Medal of Honour to Moshe Nissim
*
*
Partly Translations of the Interview by Other Parties
*Israel’s Policy of Displacement: PA Interviews Jeff Halper the coordinator of the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions (ICAHD) OR Israel’s Policy of Displacement: Political Affairs Interviews Jeff Halper OR his book "An Israeli in Palestine: Resisting Dispossession, Redeeming Israel (Paperback) by Jeff Halper (Author)"
*Report: The Impending Abyss A Comprehensive Assessment of the Past and Future Trajectory of the Israel-Palestine Conflict by Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed 
*BtSelem Operation Defensive Shield Soldiers Testimonies' Palestinian Testimonies'
Jenin
*
I will add the sources I can find, you can help too, if you can search in Hebrew. Kasaalan (talk) 14:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources and Citation for Moshe Nissim Interview 

message: I'm referring to this. The 2009 conflict, as Nocal100 agreed, is irrelevant. I'm not the ones who added Cremonesi's quote in the first place, and I'm willing to discuss adjusting it.
Amnesty's accusations of "human shields" are already mentioned in the Massacre allegations section (which could perhaps be renamed). Nobody says this is how "the Israelis dealt with this problem". This is a violation of WP:SYNTH. If at all, this belongs in the Battle section.
The quotations from the Haaretz article don't discuss massacre allegations, which makes them completely WP:UNDUE in this section. We have already agreed to cut down on the massive quote farm this article had become.
I'm going to revert it, and I ask that consensus be reached before this is introduced. Thanks, Nudve (talk) 08:00, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent additions