Talk:Battle of Jenin (2002)/Archive 5

message: :in continuation with the complaint that the presentation of death toll presentation is "is systematically mis-stated" (per PR) dispute, i hope this subsection will resolve the issue.
please go over the notes and leave your commentary here. JaakobouChalk Talk 13:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: the following is a generic assembly of the related texts from 13:03, 7 September 2007.
there are probably a couple left outs, but in general it is, i believe, a fair representative of the majority of related text. JaakobouChalk Talk 13:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  UN and other death toll reports 

message: :the following is a generic assembly of the related texts from 13:03, 7 September 2007.
there are probably a couple left outs, but in general it is, i believe, a fair representative of the majority of related text. JaakobouChalk Talk 13:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: current article texts

message: * personally, i disagree that the death toll is systematically mis-stated. JaakobouChalk Talk 13:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: death toll commentary

message: :::Ze'ev Schiff said "the army sent three large refrigerator trucks into the city. Reservists decided to sleep in them for their air conditioning. Some Palestinians saw dozens of covered bodies lying in the trucks and rumors spread the Jews had filled trucks full of Palestinian bodies." The Telegraph said that "allegations last week that the Israeli army had staged an indiscriminate massacre of the Jenin camp's inhabitants were reverberating around the world ... the Israeli authorities unwisely contributed to the confusion by announcing that terrorists killed in the camp were to be spirited away in refrigerated trucks". We should neither hint nor monger, but simply state something like "...this decision contributed to the confusion, as Palestinians saw Israeli soldiers asleep in the trucks and spread rumours that they were full of Palestinian corpses".
:::Furthermore, G-Dett's point to the "staged funeral" information and the "Jewish blood" story is spot on as usual. I'm not really sure what a "staged funeral" is, since all funerals are staged events. If the implication is that it was a funeral for someone who wasn't dead, then we need more information than just that a guy was standing in for the corpse. Aren't Israeli soldiers ever given funerals when their bodies can't be recovered? And the "Jewish blood" information is presents as objective fact the unverified claims of a combatant who has been "was close enough to hear the screams of the wounded" and "wondered if a few targeted F-16 strikes earlier in the day ... might not have saved some of the friends with whom he had served for years." Furthermore it's sourced to a free weekly that at the least, comes very close to failing WP:RS. Eleland 21:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Read the source, its in the article. (Its either 61 or 62, I believe). Kyaa the Catlord 21:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: More bluff and bluster, O Catlord. The article is titled "IDF: Tape shows Palestinians faked funeral", and notes that "the Israel Defense Forces has released a videotape showing what it calls 'a phony funeral'". Every statement about the funeral being phoney or staged is attributed to the IDF. CNN could not verify that it even showed a funeral, or that it took place in Jenin! Eleland 22:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't bother with the IDF statement.  Just watch the great, seminal documentary film Pallywood.  There's some colorfully blurry satellite footage of a crowd bearing a coffin aloft; it falls a couple of times and the corpse stands around and gets back in.  That's it, no context, no nothing.  No evidence that this happened in or near Jenin, or that the event was filmed on the ground, much less distributed to news agencies, nor even any evidence that this was intended to deceive anyone as opposed to being some sort of pageant.  Next time you're flying a helicopter over rural Italy on a saint's day, film one of those "fake funeral" thingies and send it to the Boston Youtuber to see what he makes of it.--G-Dett 22:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoah. Off-topic much? Kyaa the Catlord 22:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I forgot all the hand-holding that's sometimes needed.  The "faked funeral" rumor has been circulated by two sources – a medieval history professor/amateur youtuber and an Israeli state official – and verified by nobody.  The RS you gave held the story at arm's length.  You've made this big pronouncement about how rumors aren't encyclopedic.   I am providing examples of the silliest sorts of rumors and rumor-mongering that you actively endorse.  And you've helpfully rounded out the illustration by reiterating your endorsement.  Following?--G-Dett 22:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Translation: "I see its on a reliable, verifiable source. I still don't like it and since CNN did not say anything about whether or not they verified the authentity of the tape, it must not be real since it does not support my POV." Kyaa the Catlord 22:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Kyaa, you chose the subject of this digression.  Now just answer – no more non sequiturs – are you or are you not in favor of including rumors in this article?--G-Dett 22:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear G-Dett, reports from government officials provided by sources which meet the WP POLICY for reliable sourcing and verifiability are more than rumor. I ask again, do you have a problem with the policies by which we create articles on wikipedia? If so, maybe you should find another encyclopedia to edit. Kyaa the Catlord 22:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unsubstantiated rumors advanced by government officials aren't rumors?  Does this apply to Palestinian officials or only Israeli?  Oh, never mind, I know the answer.--G-Dett 22:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A government official speaking on behalf of the government he works for on an interview show is a statement, not a rumor. Seriously, I'm tired of arguing this. Regardless of your, my or Superman's opinion, the policies of Wikipedia trump POV and require us to present the article in a NPOV manner. If you want to fill it with POV, I don't think Wikipedia is the right place for you. Kyaa the Catlord 22:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I'd appreciate not having my words "translated" in the manner above. CNN did not report that the tape was authentic, that it showed a funeral procession, that it took place in Jenin, or indeed that it even showed Palestinians. They attributed Israeli claims to that effect, which is a very different thing. It's important to read sources closely and examine what they actually said. Failure to do this has been a major cause of the numerous problems with this article. Eleland 22:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not even going to try to explain to you how to read news articles or wikipedia policies. I've cleaned up the statement on the main page providing the words and attribution of the material in question from the IDF press agent who discussed the pictures on CNN and not challenged by the host. Kyaa the Catlord 22:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Edit conflicts galore here - just wanted to note - "IDF officials stated X" is not a rumour; however "X" may or may not be a rumour, simply being repeated by Israeli officials doesn't elevate a tendentious claim. Eleland 22:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The video or pictures or whatever, on an Israeli government web site, commented about on CNN by an IDF spokesman is not a rumor based on your own statement. Can we stop mischaracterizing the faked funeral as a rumor now? Kyaa the Catlord 22:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I don't believe we can, Kyaa.  That Eleland has tutored you to the point where you now see fit to present the "faked funeral" rumor as a claim instead of a fact is a good start.  But what are you saying here?  That if an official makes an unsubstantiated claim, and an RS reports that the official made the claim, then it rises out of rumor into the encyclopedic?  Again, does this apply to Palestinian officials?--G-Dett 23:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It isn't exactly a rumor. It is a statement and evidence presented by a government body. If you chose to believe it or not believe it is up to you. Our job, as wikipedians, is to present a NPOV article and allow the reader to make his own choices. If you present the idea that the refrigerated trucks were intended to carry away the bodies of terrorists as has been stated by RS/V sources and do not present it as fact, but as a claim with attribution, I believe it is worthy of inclusion. Maybe. It still seems pretty damn conspiracy theory-y to me. I'm terribly amused by the statement that the trucks were used as AC units by the soldiers tho. (And, if you don't have a sense of humor and don't get my original statement was a joke, I wonder about ya'll. Saddam's nukes? Hello. Noone claimed Saddam had nukes, well, maybe David Icke.) Kyaa the Catlord 23:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You really need to answer the question (well, actually, you really need to participate in the mediation). But in the meantime, you could answer the question - if an official makes an unsubstantiated claim, and an RS reports that the official made the claim, does it rise from rumour to being encyclopedic?  Does this apply to Palestinian officials? PalestineRemembered 23:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Palestinian government officials are included in the death toll with the numbers they claimed. It was a palestinian official who put the "final" death toll tally by them at 56 after all. I'm gonna read your mind. I'll let you know if I get it right after you reply to this... (Oh, and by the way, an official statement isn't ever an unsubtatiated claim. It may be false, but it carries the weight of the government the official is speaking for to "back it up".) Kyaa the Catlord 00:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Kyaa, please stop this nonsense – it's insulting.  Of course you'll permit official Palestinian statements that were later discredited; such statements are central to the propaganda narrative that you're using this article to disseminate – that the central significance of the siege of Jenin is an alleged Palestinian propensity for exaggeration, and the international media's alleged propensity for swallowing it wholesale.  The question I'm asking, and PR is asking, is if your indulgence for official "statements" of unverified claims – an indulgence which sometimes includes your puffing them into "facts" – is one you'd extend to Palestinian officials.  The answer, obviously, is no.  Your approach to the sources, as always, is a la carte.  Is this what you guessed I'd say when you "read my mind"?  Very well, then you knew the fallacy of what you were saying, and were deliberately abusing our patience, intelligence, and good faith.--G-Dett 00:51, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I thought he was going to ask about if I thought that the unfounded claims of massacre made before the smoke cleared and people were able to go in and do their investigations would prove that a massacre occured, despite this massacre only existing in later proven wrong press articles. And I'm striking stuff. Too busy to reply to challenges right now. Kyaa the Catlord 00:55, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  General comments, continued 

message: (struck my comment, I didn't notice the Google translations - will comment again shortly) Eleland 11:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  g-comments 

message: i'm starting up a section regarding this dispute over the "see also" inclusion/exclusion of the Pallywood article.
feel free to give your commentary regarding your position on this issue in the following subsections, try to keep it short and to the point. for generic commentary/questions leave your comment on the proper subsection. JaakobouChalk Talk 23:49, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Pallywood" is not an accepted or encyclopedic term for the kind of alleged exaggeration you're talking about.  And the movie Pallywood, which Kyaa is referring to, isn't notable per WP:NOTFILM, unlike Jenin, Jenin, which is.--G-Dett 20:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the film Pallywood satisfies WP:N in general because it has been noted many times by independent sources. Whether it satisfies the further criteria in WP:NOTFILM is arguable, but it is not relevant. Even assuming Pallywood as a film is not notable, that only means that there shouldn't be a separate article about it. This does not however prevent it from being mentioned in other articles. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 08:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

text: What are the "independent sources" in which the film Pallywood has been "noted"?  Just name three. Sanguinalis 12:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: comment - this is not the AfD page. JaakobouChalk Talk 19:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

text: i believe i explained the reason, and i find your commentary for this in an unrelated subsection unhelpful. JaakobouChalk Talk 03:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  pallywood 

message: * i'm surprised someone is contesting that "the big jenin lie" 75,600 hits is not referred to as events (allegedly) staged by Palestinians to portray Israel in an unfavorable light. JaakobouChalk Talk 23:49, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Pallywood" is not an accepted or encyclopedic term for the kind of alleged exaggeration you're talking about.  And the movie Pallywood, which Kyaa is referring to, isn't notable per WP:NOTFILM, unlike Jenin, Jenin, which is.--G-Dett 20:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the film Pallywood satisfies WP:N in general because it has been noted many times by independent sources. Whether it satisfies the further criteria in WP:NOTFILM is arguable, but it is not relevant. Even assuming Pallywood as a film is not notable, that only means that there shouldn't be a separate article about it. This does not however prevent it from being mentioned in other articles. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 08:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

text: What are the "independent sources" in which the film Pallywood has been "noted"?  Just name three. Sanguinalis 12:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: comment - this is not the AfD page. JaakobouChalk Talk 19:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  include pallywood 

message: *comment by Eleland 1 - Please learn to use Google. The search "brutal+Israeli+terrorism" returns 1.52 million GHits; "brutal Israeli terrorism" as a phrase returns 289. Similarily, the search "big jenin lie" as a phrase return 245 GHits, almost all of which trace back to a single opinion editorial in an extremely partisan magazine. It is difficult to see how "Pallywood", the supposed phenomenon of Palestinians staging events in front of world cameras, could apply to an event which became subject of great consternation specifically because no international press were there to record it. Eleland 01:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  p - comments / questions 

message: Please stop re-structuring the discussion, moving comments around, and adding headers to comments. I am becoming progressively more upset with this behavior. I do not believe you intend to manipulate opinion by this procedure, but it nonetheless could have the effect. There is no reason for it. Please stop. Eleland 02:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: i believe i explained the reason, and i find your commentary for this in an unrelated subsection unhelpful. JaakobouChalk Talk 03:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  offtopic 

message: Hi Tewfik and Jaakobou.  Here are the two disputed versions of the lead:
#Palestinian and international sources described the Israeli actions as indiscriminate and raised allegations of massacre and war crimes. Major human rights organizations subsequently conducted extensive investigations and found no evidence of massacres, but strong prima facie evidence of IDF war crimes.
#Palestinian and some international sources described the Israeli actions as indiscriminate and raised allegations of massacre, initially reported in the international media and subsequently disproven by outside observers, although major human rights organizations maintained that there was strong prima facie evidence of IDF war crimes.
Tewfik, you continue to insert "some" before "international sources," arguing that the EU report is the only international source that describes Israeli actions as indiscriminate.  This is false, as we've gone through together pretty exhaustively here.  Both the Amnesty investigation/report and the HRW investigation/report (as well as the latter's response to the U.N. report) stressed indiscriminate and disproportionate use of force by the IDF.  I'm not sure why you're still edit-warring over this.
Secondly, your version ends on a wordier, more syntactically tangled note, and it falls back into the trap of beefing up one aspect of the findings of human-rights organizations while minimizing the other.  My version follows their wording: they found no evidence of massacre, but prima facie evidence of war crimes.  Your version keeps elevating the former to a "disproof."  I trust it's clear why that's a violation of WP:NPOV?  The choices are (i) presenting the massacre as "disproven" and the war crimes as "confirmed"; or (ii) using the language sources use, and say they found no evidence of massacre, but prima facie evidence of war crimes.  I much prefer the latter, but I'll leave it you.  Understand, however, that the days of picking and choosing and selectively enhancing are over.--G-Dett 13:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If so, knock it off. Not a battlefield, friend. Kyaa the Catlord 13:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Would you consider rethinking your response here?--G-Dett 13:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I take it you aren't a fan of Beavis? It certainly sounded like you threatened to do "something" if we do not accept your OWNership of the article. If that wasn't your intention, I'll apologize for taking your words "the days of picking and choosing and selectively enhancing are over" as a threat to disrupt the article. Kyaa the Catlord 13:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know Beavis and Butthead, and am finding many of your responses incomprehensible.--G-Dett 14:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The way you ended your statement made it sound like you were hinting that you were fed up and about to go on a spree of edits that would piss off your perceived "enemies". Kyaa the Catlord 14:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I've gone through with my red pen and all, could I ask you to stop trolling and discuss the issues, Kyaa?--G-Dett 14:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I disagree with G-Dett's choices. "Massacre" refers to a specific alleged event. "War crimes" refers to a whole set of allegations about various events and different times. If you need this, can you please change to "HRW found evidence of war crimes in Israel's actions during (for example) its infantry operations in the refugee area." That makes the text more specific, and allows you to present the material you wish. --Steve, Sm8900 13:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: These aren't compelling or accurate distinctions, Steve. Both terms – "war crimes" and "massacre" – are used with equal specificity in the findings of human-rights organizations.  The "massacre" allegations, moreover, did not refer to a "specific alleged event," but rather to the (rumored) large scale of indiscriminate killing over the period of the siege.--G-Dett 14:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: lead again

message: Kyaa, I'm trying to understand this edit.  I get it that you're mimicking me, but I don't understand the WP:POINT you're making.  "Jenin, Jenin" is not a left-wing blog term, and Jenin, Jenin is not a video, nor is it obscure.  It was film produced and directed by a major Arab-Israeli actor and filmmaker, had a major distribution deal, screened theatrically, featured in a number of prominent international film festivals and won major prizes in two, including "best film," became the focus of a censorship controversy when the normally dormant Israeli Censorship Board banned it (a decision subsequently reversed by the Israeli high court), and generally attracted a large amount of international attention and became a prominent prop in ongoing disputes about what happened in Jenin.   Though originally projected as a film, Jenin, Jenin is now available on VHS and DVD through Netflix, Amazon.com, and Blockbuster, and is housed in most major university research libraries.  
Pallywood was an 18-minute video edited together out of TV footage by a medieval historian in Boston, who then posted it streaming on his blog.  You can also watch it on youtube.  It was never screened, distributed, or reviewed.  It is flogged by right-wing pro-Israel bloggers (who found in it the conspiracy theory they needed) and by Wikipedians (who link to it wherever they can and call it a "film" even though it isn't because that makes it sound more important).  "Pallywood" – both the youtube video and the blog-slang – went, however, all but completely unnoticed by the mainstream media.--G-Dett 16:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Response unnecessary. Kyaa the Catlord 16:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I see, you self-reverted.  Thanks,--G-Dett 17:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Pallywood...Jenin Jenin?

message: Look, all this striking out of comments is getting exhausting.  I can barely keep up with the whack-a-mole, and then to have to un-whack every mole that then goes to ground....
Let's concentrate on the mainspace shall we?  We are all pissed off.  Tone is important, but it ain't everything.--G-Dett 01:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm playing with fire! Fire! Good! :P Kyaa the Catlord 01:34, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You go girl, I guess.--G-Dett 02:12, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Striking out 

message: to resolve the dispute about who did what and how the war crimes should be attributed i open this subsesction so that we can handle this dispute properly.
please add all sources relating to who did what either to Israeli war crimes, Palestinian war crimes, or Both were complicit, make your comments on the comments section.
note: please pay careful attention to who says what on your provided sources, don't misrepresent, and try to keep it short and easy to follow. JaakobouChalk Talk 10:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  war crimes 

message: * Palestinian report submitted to the Secretary-General - 
** http://www.un.org/peace/jenin/
*** relevant quote: Many credible sources have reported about atrocities committed... prima facie evidence of war crimes... it is probable that a massacre and a crime against humanity might have been committed... enhanced by the statements made at some point by the occupying forces... and their reported attempts to move bodies from the camp to what they referred to as the graveyards of the enemy.
*** note: if you wish to expand/discuss on the palestinian part of this source in length, please start a new subsection. JaakobouChalk Talk 10:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Israeli war crimes 

message: * An bomb-maker from Jenin refugee camp gives testimony about his activity.
** http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2002/582/6inv2.htm
*** relevant quotes:
**** "We cut off lengths of mains water pipes and packed them with explosives and nails. Then we placed them about four metres apart throughout the houses -- in cupboards, under sinks, in sofas.".."everyone in the camp, including the children, knew where the explosives were located so that there was no danger of civilians being injured." 
****** bomb factories in UNRWA managed refugee camp, see: 2.8 Using civilians as shields
**** "We all stopped shooting and the women went out to tell the soldiers that we had run out of bullets and were leaving." The women alerted the fighters as the soldiers reached the booby- trapped area."...'"When the senior officers realised what had happened, they shouted through megaphones that they wanted an immediate cease-fire. We let them approach to retrieve the men and then opened fire."
****** see: Ruse_of_war#Prohibited_ruses
**** note: if you wish to expand/discuss on the palestinian part of this source in length, please start a new subsection. JaakobouChalk Talk 14:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Palestinian war crimes 

message: * http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2165272.stm
* UN - Report of the Secretary-General 
**http://www.un.org/peace/jenin/
*** relevant quote:  32. Of particular concern is the use, by combatants on both sides, of violence that placed civilians in harm's way. Much of the fighting during Operation Defensive Shield occurred in areas heavily populated by civilians, in large part because the armed Palestinian groups sought by IDF placed their combatants and installations among civilians. Palestinian groups are alleged to have widely booby-trapped civilian homes, acts targeted at IDF personnel but also putting civilians in danger. IDF is reported to have used bulldozers, tank shelling and rocket firing, at times from helicopters, in populated areas.
*** note: if you wish to expand/discuss on the Secratery-General part of this source in length, please start a new subsection. JaakobouChalk Talk 12:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Both were complicit 

message: *comment - I will not enter a pseudo-vote on the grounds that it is ridiculous to subject clear questions of fact to such a process. It is abundantly clear that credible third party observers (Amnesty, HRW) only used the words "war crimes" or the legalistic equivalent "grave breaches [of international humanitarian law or the laws of war]" when describing Israeli actions in Jenin. Palestinian fighters were criticized for putting civilians in harm's way, but that is not the same as saying they were accused of war crimes. Much like the earlier "genocide" discussion, there seems to be a persistent confusion between editors' personal interpretations of claims made, and the actual claims. For example, the  report listed under "both were complicit" simply doesn't use the phrase "war crimes" in any context at all. After several fairly deep Google searches (getting in to obscure Likudnik blogs and the like) I simply haven't found any accusations of "war crimes" or "grave breaches" by Palestinians during the battle, even by extremist partisans of Israel. In summary, there is no objective reason to discuss this at all. Eleland 12:31, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  war crimes comments 

message: :previous related talk can be found here round I - sep. 11 static]
:link to previous related talk: 
the following is an attempt to resolve the long standing dispute of the inclusion/exclusion of the  tag at the top of the article. 
for now, there are three subsections - 
(1) opinions about the tag - keep/exclude
(2) issues i'd like to see resolved
(3) questions and notes
-- JaakobouChalk Talk 08:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: please state your opinion in a brief and short manner, this is just a declaration of position - not an evidence section of full discussion - for questions and discussions go here:
* exclude - a few (tiny) snippet problems can be discussed and fixed, i believe that the article is well factual and referenced, and i don't see how any of the issues justifies such an inclusive tag. JaakobouChalk Talk 08:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

text: please state issues that you would like resolved, be brief, this is only for mentioning/declaration of perspective, not for resolving:
* (1) issues by PR stated here. JaakobouChalk Talk 12:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, I'd like to see this article be presented in an NPOV manner as well. I'd be happy to see that actually. Kyaa the Catlord 13:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then you'll want to see the death-toll reported properly, along with all the other problems detailed here. PalestineRemembered 20:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: PR, half your claims there violate NPOV. You really need a mentor to go over your ideas and help you learn to use the wikipedia. This isn't a taunt, just a suggestion. Kyaa the Catlord 00:38, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of <nowiki>{{TotallyDisputed}}</nowiki> - round II 

message: :please state your opinion in a brief and short manner, this is just a declaration of position - not an evidence section of full discussion - for questions and discussions go here:
* exclude - a few (tiny) snippet problems can be discussed and fixed, i believe that the article is well factual and referenced, and i don't see how any of the issues justifies such an inclusive tag. JaakobouChalk Talk 08:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: opinions about the tag - keep/exclude

message: :please state issues that you would like resolved, be brief, this is only for mentioning/declaration of perspective, not for resolving:
* (1) issues by PR stated here. JaakobouChalk Talk 12:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: issues i'd like to see resolved

message: Please note that nobody has actually addressed this issue properly. The tag denotes that "The neutrality and factual accuracy of this article are disputed". It doesn't say "This article is neither neutral nor factually accurate". Those who are expressing their opinion of the article's neutrality are missing the point. The discussion should be about whether the dispute exists. Myself, and (I believe) G-Dett and PalestineRemembered also, say that the article is highly POV and contains factual inaccuracies and misrepresentations. Jaakobou, Tewfik, and Kyaa do not seem to agree. Prima facie that is an NPOV and accuracy dispute; nobody has explained why it isn't one. Rather than removing the notice of the dispute, why don't we try and remove the cause of the dispute. Eleland 13:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I'd like to see this article be presented in an NPOV manner as well. I'd be happy to see that actually. Kyaa the Catlord 13:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then you'll want to see the death-toll reported properly, along with all the other problems detailed here. PalestineRemembered 20:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: PR, half your claims there violate NPOV. You really need a mentor to go over your ideas and help you learn to use the wikipedia. This isn't a taunt, just a suggestion. Kyaa the Catlord 00:38, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: TotallyD - questions and notes

message: * 'previously referred to as the Jenin Massacre - i was a tad conflicted about "previously dubbed as" because "jenin massacre" was never an official name albeit the way the fighting was presented. i've decided to support the mellower and more encyclopedic version, to what i consider the previously more common way the "consensus" described the israeli battle inside the camp. JaakobouChalk Talk 15:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  preferred version 

message: The weasel word reference, Tewfik, is to the repeated insertion of the word “some” – "some international sources" – on your stated grounds that “only the EU said without qualification” that Israel had used “indiscriminate” and disproportionate force.   I don’t where you get this idea and why you keep insisting on it when it’s been shown to be false.  The “spin,” of course, is a reference to your continual attempt to frontload, buff up, and even exaggerate those findings you agree with, while muffing or weasel-wording those you don’t.  So the fact that human-rights groups “found no evidence of massacres” isn’t enough; you need them to have “disproved” or “overturned" the allegations, and you’re willing to have a syntactically muddled sentence in order to get that extra legalistic ooomph.  And while you’re burnishing that finding, you won’t even acknowledge the fact that HRW very clearly described Israeli actions as “indiscriminate,” although it’s irrefutable.  I don’t know how to describe this kind of behavior except as disruptive.  At any rate, the version you’re edit-warring against is clean, elegant, straightforward, incontestably NPOV, and closely follows the language actually used by the sources.  Please stop spinning it.
Now I’m going to give you some sources, most of which you should already have read, in the hopes that you’ll stop once and for all claiming that “only the EU” has described Israel’s use of force as “indiscriminate.”  We’ve been through the UN report together; your argument, as I understand it, is that whenever it uses the word “indiscriminate” it’s quoting Palestinians.  Even if this were true – and it isn’t – this would still be a very weak argument, because these are findings, and the report is obviously quoting what it finds to be credible.   When the UN report says “Witness testimonies and human rights investigations allege that the destruction was both disproportionate and indiscriminate,"  (i) it is clear that they find the allegations credible, and (ii) while the "witness testimonies" are almost certainly Palestinians, the "human rights investigations" are almost certainly not.  At any rate, the reliable sources do not agree with your idiosyncratic argument, and the UN report was widely described as finding Israel to have used “indiscriminate force”:
The Toronto Star, for example, reported that “Israel is criticized for "disproportionate and indiscriminate destruction" of civilian property, using Palestinian civilians as human shields during house-to-house searches and for preventing aid and medical workers from staging rescue operations."
The Association for Civil Rights in Israel described in Ha'aretz how the "Jenin refugee camp has been subjected to indiscriminate house demolitions."  The detailed Amnesty report "Shielded from Scrutiny: IDF violations in Jenin and Nablus" also focused on the "indiscriminate" use of force.  But your most mind-boggling omission is Human Rights Watch's repeated statements on the matter.  They say very clearly "Palestinians were used as human shields and the IDF employed indiscriminate and excessive use of force."  In their Human Rights Watch World Report, 2003: Events of 2002, they describe the background of Operation Defensive Shield: 
During the operation, Israeli soldiers repeatedly used indiscriminate and excessive force, killed civilians willfully and unlawfully, and used Palestinian civilians as humans shields.  
Then in the next paragraph they focus specifically on the siege of Jenin: 
Israeli security forces continued to resort to excessive and indiscriminate use of lethal force, causing numerous civilian deaths and serious injuries.  In Jenin, Human Rights Watch documented twenty-two civilian killings during the IDF military operations in April.  Many of them were killed willfully or unlawfully, and in some cases constituted war crimes.  
It then goes on to describe a 57-year-old man in a wheelchair "equipped with a white flag" being shot to death and run over by IDF tanks, and a 37-year-old quadriplegic being crushed to death when his father was not permitted to evacuate him from their family home.  Tewfik, an entire chapter of HRW's lengthy report on Jenin is called "Disproportionate and Indiscriminate Use of Force Without Military Necessity by the IDF."  A sample passage: 
The destruction in other areas of the camp was indiscriminate in its effect on the civilian population, and disproportionate to the military objective obtained... Human Rights Watch concludes that the Israeli military actions in the Jenin refugee camp included both indiscriminate and disproportionate attacks. Some attacks were indiscriminate because Israeli forces, particularly the IDF helicopters, did not focus their firepower only towards legitimate military targets, but rather fired into the camp at random. This indiscriminate use of firepower added significantly to the civilian casualty toll of the fighting and the destruction of civilian homes in the camp. The Israeli offensive in Jenin refugee camp was also disproportionate, because the incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, and damage to civilian objects was excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.
This chapter then has a subsection on "Indiscriminate Helicopter Fire":  
Although missiles had been used from the beginning of the incursion, their use became particularly intense in the early morning hours of April 6. Testimony collected by Human Rights Watch indicates that many areas of the refugee camp were fired upon at that time, catching many sleeping civilians unaware. Many of the rockets used were U.S.-made wire-guided TOW missiles. The evidence gathered by Human Rights Watch suggests that many of the TOW missiles indiscriminately hit civilian homes and in at least one case a civilian was killed when she was struck by a helicopter missile. The number of solely civilian objects hit in the helicopter attacks the early morning of April 6 suggests that insufficient care was taken by Israeli forces to target only military objects. Due to the dense urban setting of the refugee camp, fighters and civilians were never at great distances. Nevertheless, such proximity does not provide a valid excuse by Israeli forces' action in firing upon the entire area as if it were a single military target... Indiscriminate attacks were most intense on April 6, but they did not entirely abate afterwards... Some of the helicopter missile fire was so indiscriminate that it nearly killed IDF soldiers.
Tewfik, can you please, please stop saying that among international sources, only a Spanish official of the U.N. described Israeli actions as “indiscriminate”?  And will you please leave in place a neutral version of the lead, one which doesn’t muffle or disguise one set of HRW findings while foregrounding and burnishing another?--G-Dett 14:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To your thorough and unimpeachable demolition of Tewfikstery I add only that Peter Beaumont of The Observer specifically described "helicopters ... firing indiscriminately into the city's crowded refugee camp"; he was an international journalist and a direct eyewitness. Tewfik argued previously that because Beaumont in another paragraph also said that Palestinians alleged indiscriminate helicopter fire, his direct objective-voice statements didn't count. It's in Talk:Battle of Jenin/Archive 3#The neutrality and factual accuracy of this article are disputed.. Eleland 14:46, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

text: No, Tewfik.--G-Dett 10:07, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

text: All the international findings – including that there was "no evidence of a massacre" – were based on Palestinian accounts, in this strict and tendentious construction.  The Israelis refused to cooperate with the investigations, remember?--G-Dett 13:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I guess it's not surprising that the allegations were from Palestinian sources then. <<-armon->> 13:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We should not be labelling sources by their ethnicity. That's the kind of thing that the South Africans used to do. PalestineRemembered 14:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. So we won't change it to "Arab sources". <<-armon->> 15:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Armon, the minor problem with saying "Palestinian sources" is that it's well-poisoning, as well as patronizing in the way that PR accurately suggests.  The major problem is that it's incredibly misleading, because the very sources whose findings of "no evidence of massacre" we're presenting as definitive, also very explicitly found Israel's use of force to be "indiscriminate."  That's what's exhaustively demonstrated above, in the section you claim to have read.--G-Dett 15:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually no, it clearly and correctly identifies who made the claims. Adding in "International sources" is a way of "buffing up" the accusation which is misleading and not supported by the cites. <<-armon->> 15:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International are international sources, Armon, not Palestinian ones.  Again, please the relevant material.--G-Dett 15:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ...who also investigated, and later stepped back from the massacre claims. The very next sentence makes that clear. <<-armon->> 16:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the very next sentence makes that clear, so why are you tooling around with this one?  The major international human-rights organizations found Israel to have used "indiscriminate" force, but your edit attributes this claim to Palestinians.  Why?--G-Dett 16:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because it was their claim. I thought I made that clear. <<-armon->> 16:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good G-d, man, read the damn sources already.  If you can't be bothered with that, read the damn section you're commenting in.  "Indiscriminate" is HRW's claim; they reiterate in their conclusions again and again and again and again and again and again.  HRW is international; HRW is not Palestinian; HRW says "indiscriminate."  I'm in Boston, Armon, where are you?  If you're not too far, I'll make the trip and read the sources out loud to you, if you can't bring yourself to drag your eyes over them.--G-Dett 17:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That goes for you too, Kyaa.  Read the damn sources.  An edit like this, after all the foregoing, is disruptive.--G-Dett 18:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: HRW attributes their statement to Palestinian sources. WP:IDONTLIKEIT much? Kyaa the Catlord 22:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't like these calculated misrepresentations of source materials much, and I'm tiring of these assembly-line ".....much?" quips as well.  HRW doesn't attribute their statements about Israel's "indiscriminate and disproportionate" use of force to Palestinians any more than they attribute their finding of "no evidence of massacre" to Palestinians.  Read the sources, Kyaa, and stop lying to readers and other editors.--G-Dett 23:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm rather concerned that PR is accusing us of being racist. I certainly hope he refactors his statement to avoid that accusation. Kyaa the Catlord 15:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Par for the course. <<-armon->> 16:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When you two are finished licking each other's wounds, note that PR is clearly talking about the patronizing tone of the text, not about the flawed souls of editors.--G-Dett 16:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: PR is lucky to have you to "translate" for him. <<-armon->> 16:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, he's unlucky to have other editors misrepresenting him.  It's been a problem in his time here, you will recall.--G-Dett 17:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, I'm at a loss, HG.  HRW's findings re "indiscriminate" are very clear, as are their findings about "no evidence of massacre."  Armon and Kyaa like the latter, dislike the former, and are whitewashing accordingly.  I've given voluminous evidence above, which I shouldn't have had to do, because it's their responsibility as editors to know the sources and not misrepresent them.  Yes, we are to assume good faith, but even WP:AGF makes an exception when editors are evidently lying.--G-Dett 02:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I fail to see how the very next sentence which summarizes the HRGs' findings as "Major human rights organizations subsequently conducted extensive investigations and found no evidence of massacres, but strong prima facie evidence of IDF war crimes." is whitewashing. <<-armon->> 03:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The part you're whitewashing is the part about "indiscriminate," which – despite an avalanche of source material to the contrary – you keep falsely attributing to "Palestinian sources."--G-Dett 04:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, because they made the initial allegations. The HRGs' findings are a different issue, so there's no reason to conflate them. <<-armon->> 04:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And yet what you just deleted was not a conflation.  And the edit you've left in place makes it look like only Palestinian sources described the Israeli attack as indiscriminate.--G-Dett 04:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It certainly is a conflation. It's an attempt to piggyback what has been shown to be a less-reliable source, onto what's regarded as a more reliable one. This is an example of biased writing. The solution is to clearly attribute who said what. <<-armon->> 05:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure if you know what "conflation" means – or "piggyback" for that matter – but there's only one source we're discussing here, HRW.  You're alternately suppressing their finding of "indiscriminate" use of force, or misrepresenting it as coming from as a "Palestinian source."  Now Tewfik has returned to edit-warring to have it say massacre claims "were overturned by outside sources."  So HRW is a "Palestinian source" or an "outside source" depending on whether you're trying to burnish/exaggerate a finding or to suppress/well-poison it.  Way to go, team spin.  The contempt you show for your fellow editors' intelligence, not to mention WP:NPOV, never ceases to appall.--G-Dett 11:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to be clear, I'm now going to ignore your tantrums. If you have anything of substance to say, try not to conflate it with personal attacks and incivility -otherwise it will just be drowned out by the background noise. <<-armon->> 00:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, nonsense.  My "tantrums" are the one thing you pay attention to.  What you steadfastly ignore, as demonstrated above, is the actual source materials.--G-Dett 00:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Hear, hear. Enough punctilios. If, as Tewfik claims, he has read the sources, then he knows that HRW calls Israeli actions in Jenin "indescriminate" again and again and again. He knows that the EU describes "an indiscriminate use of force, that goes well beyond that of a battlefield", and that Amnesty describes "documented cases in Jenin and Nablus where people were killed or injured in circumstances suggesting that they were unlawfully and deliberately targeted". To claim that these statements do not represent allegations of indescriminate action can prima facie be regarded only as conscious distortion of the facts. I would welcome any information which dispels this perception, but I'm not holding my breath.  Eleland 03:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  At some point it just becomes degrading to keep discussing this.--G-Dett 03:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  “Weasel words and disruptive spin” in the lead 

message: I have blocked the following users for 24 hours for disruption on this article and others, each user should have a message on there talk page explaining why they were blocked:
# User:146.115.58.152 - blocked for 3RR on Jewish_Defense_League
# User:67.98.206.2 - Also blocked for 3RR on Jewish_Defense_League both IPs belong to the same user and have made at least two edits to this article (hence why I am mentioning him/her here)
# User:Armon for disruptive editing on this article. (defined by continued editwarring.)
# User:Burgas00 for disruptive editing on this article. (defined by continued editwarring.)
Folks, you guys should know better then to revert war all day, please discuss the issues here rather then trying to get your chosen version to be the top revision. As you all seem to have a decent grasp on the english language, I expect that we all are mature enough to discuss here on the talk page rather then disrupting the article. I would suggest that all of you look at WP:1RR as a possible ideal that may help you folks come to a compromise. Failure to stop editwarring will result in longer blocks. I wish you all best of luck in resolving this issue, and remind all of you that there are alternatives such as WP:MEDCAB and WP:MEDCOM and even a request for comment, use them. —— Eagle101Need help? 03:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you completely miss the section above where Burgas00 and Armon etc are discussing the edits you blocked them for? Kyaa the Catlord 05:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I did, but in any case the revertwarring is disruptive, and has been going on for over a day. Let this serve as a reminder to everyone working on this article to discuss rather then revert. —— Eagle101Need help? 22:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

text: As far as the protection, that was not done by me. In any case I think you all should take some time away from reverting each other and discuss here. —— Eagle101Need help? 22:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blocks for disruption 

message: In response to a request at WP:RFPP and an ongoing edit war, I've protected the page for 4 days. Please use the time to try to reach a consensus on disputed issues. If a consensus is reached before the 4 days are up, you can request un-protection at WP:RFPP. As always, the article was protected without regard to its existing state, and the protection in no way endorses the current version as "correct". MastCell Talk 18:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've received a couple of requests via various channels to "adjust" the protected version to a more stable one. I can't do that. I just can't. The protection policy is very clear that admins cannot pick and choose which version of an article to protect, with specific and very limited exceptions which do not apply here. While this might be one of the more frequently ignored aspects of admin-related policy, it's policy nonetheless. I realize that the protected version incorporates a controversial, non-consensus edit, but that's the deal. You can try the  template to propose a specific edit, but these generally require something like consensus to be enacted. MastCell Talk 22:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection 

message: 
"Palestinians refugees" in lede to "Palestinian refugees", please.
Of course, the whole exposition of Deir Yassin, etc is just a misguided WP:POINT attempt to expose the undue weight on suicide bombing in the next sentence, but we can work with that after the protection expires. Eleland 12:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: - Nihiltres(t.l) 13:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  <nowiki>{{editprotected}}</nowiki> 

message: has nothing to do with the actual battle of Jenin and simply adds to the confusion 
"Palestinian refugees living in the camp have been denied the right of return or compensation for the confiscation of their property by Israel. Zionist terrorist groups, such as Irgun and Lehi (group) (also known as the Stern Gang) played a major role in achieving Israeli independence, and the massacre at Deir Yassin and at other locations where civilians were targeted were successful in instilling terror in the indigenous non-Jewish population and which motivated them to flee."
All of that is unnecesary and belongs in a different article Drsmoo 05:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: i agree, this is a case of (what i believe to be vandalism) someone inserting inappropriate material (never introduced into the article before) just before it was locked. JaakobouChalk Talk 10:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  What it is, is a misguided attempt to illustrate the absurdity of the lede's focus on suicide bombing by introducing another issue that is only tangentially releated to be battle of Jenin. While I don't approve of this disruption, calling it "vandalism" is a little rich. Eleland 12:00, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: you call it misguided, i call it vandalism. JaakobouChalk Talk 12:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: not a big deal, but I call it "misguided". We've all been there, including myself. --Steve, Sm8900 13:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: first paragraph is TERRIBLE