Talk:Battle of Jenin (2002)/Archive 3

message: should we somehow insert the information about the term jeningrad and why it was used by very few people to describe the events? JaakobouChalk Talk 00:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Jeningrad"

message: I took out this Time Magazine quote because I thought it was unreferenced (I was wrong). Time reported that while houses were knocked down by the bulldozers, they could not have buried the amount of people alleged by Palestinians since it takes a half-hour to fully wreck a building, and because Israeli soldiers say they always called any residents to leave in advance. In this form, it sounds as if someone has investigated how long it takes to "fully wreck" a building, that this is significant, and hence another Palestinian claim is disproved.
But it still needs more work, because our re-write has (quite accidentally) exaggerated the impact of the article. The "time to fully wreck a building" is no more than an assertion. Read the actual words of the article, they come across much like an op-ed. "Undoubtedly, the D-9s destroyed houses, but they certainly didn't bury as many people as Palestinian officials have alleged. It takes the D-9 at least half an hour to fully wreck a building. Israeli soldiers say they always called to residents to come out before the bulldozers went in. But even if the innocents were too frightened initially to leave, most would surely have done so as soon as the D-9 started its work." Time magazine is an RS, but we shouldn't imbue the article with more credibility than would be gained from reading the article. (Compare this with the Kurdi Bear clips I used, reading the entire article makes it more credible and thought-provoking, not less).
I'd propose "Time magazine asserts that the demolitions could not have buried as many people as Palestinian officials have alleged, due to the time needed to fully wreck a building. Israeli soldiers say they always called any residents to leave in advance". However, in that form, it's barely worth including atall. Perhaps we should bring out the real significance of this clip, and say "Time magazine breezily conceded that people were crushed alive in their homes, but disputes the numbers who could have died in this way" PalestineRemembered 09:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Time quote

message: :link to older talk about this here:  (note: static Sep. 3 link before archiving)
This is blatant copyvio from http://www.un.org/peace/jenin/ and needs to be removed. Taking portions of the section and using the firefox "find" feature, you can find the exact same sentances in different orders on the UN webpage. This is not acceptable. Kyaa the Catlord 07:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Copyright infringing text has been removed. Kyaa the Catlord 07:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a drastically new reading of copyright law, and (if it were generally applied) would gut the encyclopedia. It's completely unsupported by anything in policy, and flies in the face of all previous handling of quotations. I trust you're not being disruptive, removing material that you don't like for bogus reasons. PalestineRemembered 09:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You know, I'd be following proper protocol if I reported this article for copyvio, PR. You really, really don't want that. Kyaa the Catlord 10:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

text: You can quote some sentences if they are clearly attributed, but some parts of this section were really copied verbatim from  without attribution. The current version (reworded and pruned) should be OK though. Regards, High on a tree 10:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I rewrote what you rewrote for POV and some grammar problems. :P Kyaa the Catlord 10:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks (although I don't know what you mean by "some grammar problems", except maybe that "April 16" is more elegant than "16 April"). Of course the section was not meant to be complete yet, it should still be expanded to provide more context, especially about the events during the first two weeks of April. Regards, High on a tree 11:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To be completely honest, I subscribe to the "less is more". We should not be recreating the report here in different words, rather we should have a concise summary of their findings. We currently have more than that.... Kyaa the Catlord 11:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We need a lot more than "a concise summary" if we're attempting to write a good encyclopedia article. We need actual information from Reliable Sources. Israel's claims, given the heavy-handed concealment, and given the multiple serious accusations against it from most/nearly all observers, belong a long way down the page. PalestineRemembered 12:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We need to follow Wikipedia's rules. It certainly seems that everyone who has weighed in on this issue other than yourself agrees that what I've removed has been copyvio material. Even High on a tree agreed and reworded the statements, albeit worded it in a way that made it sound like the only day that food was delivered to this camp was April 16. Kyaa the Catlord 15:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Our work is made much, much more difficult by applying a ferociously exclusionary version of "Fair Use", such as doesn't apply anywhere else in the project (and would gut 100s of 1000s of articles if we tried to apply it generally). But in the meantime, we need to include the considered verdicts of the PA, Jordan, the EU (and likely something from Qatar). All those sources are vastly better than that of those who blocked outside observers, right up to and including the UN. And vastly better than a magazine which appears to have done no "investigation" worth speaking of, and is only parrotting the words of denial from the perpetrators. PalestineRemembered 22:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: UN Report section

message: When claims are made of "hundreds of people massacred", but subsequently only 50+ bodies are found, and 5 years later, the number is still 50+, and when Amnesty reports that "Within five weeks all but one of the residents was accounted for.", the claims have been refuted. Isarig 21:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The initially higher numbers have been refuted, yes, but that is decidedly not what you've written in the lead.  What you've written in lead is that the "allegations of war crimes and massacre" have been refuted, which the body of the article does not support.  The relevant section in the article quotes British military expert David Holley (quoted by the BBC) saying "it just appears there was no wholesale killing"; what you leave out is that Holley goes on to say the "hard fact" is that "war crimes" took place (that "cannot be disputed"), and he moreover cites "very credible witnesses" attesting to the following: "They have seen snipers cutting people down in the streets with clear views of civilians trying to get away from the fighting. These are individual killings that need to be investigated."  Please don't make edits that suggest that a casualty estimate revised downwards amounts to a "refutation" of war crimes allegations generally; I'll revert it.--G-Dett 22:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My focus was on the inflated body counts. Some POV-pushers still want the article to insinuate that the 52-56 confirmed dead are just a minimum - it's "at least 52", only 52 were "confirmed" etc.. - and that he "real" toll could yet, someday, be as high as the baseless fabrications tossed about by the Palestinian leadership and embraced whoelheartedly by the international media. Check the recent edit history to see what I mean. I should have made the clearer in my edit. Isarig 22:14, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You seem to have neglected the fact that both Palestinian sources and the international media were led to understand there were 100s of deaths by the Israeli sources too. PalestineRemembered 07:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I tried to point this out a week or so ago, and make sure it was included for the sake of proper balance .. but had to give up because partisan editors would simply keep removing the info.  And of course, the fact that the IDF kept the camp closed to journalists merely encouraged media speculation about the extent of the death toll (ie "what are they trying to hide?") --Nickhh 14:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

text: In case my edit-summaries were unclear, I changed the key bit to only stating a refutation of the "massacre" allegation, which the main NGOs etc. have stated did not happen, while clarifying that they still maintain the "war-crimes" allegation, as Amnesty and HRW do. I am not aware of any continuing mainstream reference to the events as a massacre, and I've perused most of the sources here, as well as many elsewhere, so I restored the previous wording. As far as a "international sources" alleging indiscriminate attacks, I discussed above the one qualified mention and why I believe that a broad statement is problematic. As for providing a range, there is only a single claim of 56, while the consensus among the UN and NGOs (and even the Israelis) is 52. The Palestinian claim is discussed below, but creating such a range in the lead grants that claim undue weight. I hope that explained my entire rationale. TewfikTalk 05:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the business of "Was it a massacre" needs a proper discussion in here. The current setup is confused, with this topic untidily draped across three section, Body count estimates, Allegations of a massacre, Post-fighting investigations. If it was treated as one topic, the article would read much better. PalestineRemembered 07:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Keep in mind that we are not conducting an investigation that should be asking questions, but rather presented verifiable and previously-published reports etc. I do agree that the information could be organised well, but I think the main issue is the extensive quoting from rather than summary of certain documents, and so per Kyaa, that should be a major focus before we embark on other changes. TewfikTalk 18:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The verifiable and previously published reports say a large number of things that are still not properly in the article. They say that substantial war-crimes were committed, they say that helicopters "swarmed" over the camp, they say that the Israeli estimate of people remaining is a severe underestimate, they say that the camp was sealed off for about 5 days after the end of shooting (though some parts of it were opened to conducted tours after only 3 days). The sources say that the devastated camp was extremely dangerous after Israel withdrew, but Israel blocked the bomb-disposal people going in for weeks afterwards. The sources say that Israel made at least two further incursions in the weeks that followed. All of this needs to be refered to before we can say this article is a half-way proper description of these events. PalestineRemembered 20:45, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Refuted

message: is there ANY source for this edit? (as opposed to the CNN source given)
:What exactly is the CNN rush transcript supposed to prove?  CJCurrie 05:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: are you planning on referencing your direct accusation at sharon, or can we go back to rely our text on the validated sources? JaakobouChalk Talk 05:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't believe you've provided a validated source for your preferred version.  CJCurrie 05:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: are you planning on providing a reference? JaakobouChalk Talk 06:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: btw, since when is CNN not a valid source? JaakobouChalk Talk 06:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No-one's saying CNN is not a valid source, generally.  It is simply being pointed out that this particular transcript is irrelevant to the issue at hand (which of course it is).  And not for the first time, you are going round in circles about a citation issue, after having - and transparently "losing" - exactly the same debate with other editors some months previously.(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Battle_of_Jenin#widspread_hatered) --Nickhh 09:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: i don't see a "loss" in the link you provided, i see some one valid point about the first issue and an invalid reasoning on the second one. JaakobouChalk Talk 16:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

text: this transcript is from the CNN coverage of the clashes in israel, this news segment concentrated on the arab reactions to the israeli incursions into palestinian militant hotbeds. the word jenin is a redundant unnecessary considering all the people interviewed that day and considering that 10 minutes before they were talking about a suicide bomber ripping through central jerusalem, right along jaffa road (by the al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade) and about colin powell's visit to try and negotiate a cease fire. what makes you contest that this source is not connected to the action?? (p.s. note that the source ends with "We will get more coverage here in a moment, live from Jerusalem") JaakobouChalk Talk 20:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  sharon 

message: the following is my current moment concerns about this "in the works" version.
1) obviously an Israeli Foreign Ministry Spokesman cannot discern between 6 percent destruction and 10 percent destruction.. he also did not say "the IDF razed 10 percent" but said it's a result of the battle. same goes for the washington times... which also goes with the assertion that 33 Israeli soldiers were killed in the incursion.
2) i really don't see how you can compare the "500-3000/sabra-shatila" casualty estimates with the "as high as 150" and expect it to pass.
-- JaakobouChalk Talk 18:13, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Apologies for joining in the lovefest, but I agree as well that Eleland's proposal for the introduction (as above) is a far more accurate and neutral exposition.  Disputes around who is to "blame" for inaccurate casualty figures, what is actually meant by the word massacre, what the impact was on world opinion etc are better discussed in the body of the article.  The intro should simply point out in a very broad and balanced way - without selectively using information to push one side or the other or making judgements about either side - that "X said A" .. "Y said B" .. "the investigations said C" and so forth, and in particular on what can be shown to have actually happened in the camp.  I am surprised that this is proving so difficult.  --Nickhh 18:47, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  current status estimate 

message: the "inciting extreme antipathy toward"->"eliciting strong criticism of" change i'm not sure why the reference about the CNN telethon was removed and i don't see how unfound allegations of massacre and telethons for "martyrs" fall under "criticism". JaakobouChalk Talk 17:49, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: antipathy

message: Israel attacked the camp using infantry, tanks, combat helicopters, and armored bulldozers,Azure magazine: Urban Warfare and the Lessons of Jenin: "the army deployed tanks, infantry, and attack helicopters" ... "[April 9], the IDF began using D-9 armored bulldozers"The Observer: Ten-day ordeal in crucible of Jenin, Peter Beaumont: "helicopters that swarmed angrily above the city's roofs, firing indiscriminately into the city's crowded refugee camp", "We could see the tanks manoeuvering and shelling ... Most shocking, however, were the Apache helicopter gunships" causing extensive damage,Brig.-Gen. Eival Giladi, Head of Strategic Planning, IDF Policy and Plans Directorate. Communications and Strategy: Lessons Learned from Jenin:"The deployment of armored bulldozers. Because of the extensive damage they
caused and their threatening appearance..." and ultimately razed[ing] at least roughly 10% of the camp.CNN.com Transcripts: American Morning Gideon Meir, Israeli Foreign Ministry Spokesman: "A week ago I was in Jenin and I saw that the devastation out of this first battle was only at 10 percent of the camp."Washington Times                                      : Jenin 'massacre' reduced to death toll of 56 "The destruction, pictured graphically on television ... constitutes only about 10 percent of the housing in the camp" Archived from Washington Times site; as retrieved from  [www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/675752/posts]  Palestinian and international sources called described the assault [as] ["]indiscriminate["]European Union submission to UN Report on Jenin, Paragraph 1: "The massive destruction, especially at the centre of the refugee camp, to which all heads of mission in Jerusalem and Ramallah can testify, shows that the site had undergone an indiscriminate use of force, that goes well beyond that of a battlefield." and alleged war crimes and massacres,BBC News: Jenin 'massacre evidence growing': "Prof Derrick Pounder ... said the Amnesty investigation has only just begun but Palestinian claims of a massacre were gaining foundation as the team continued its analysis."CNN.com - Powell postpones meeting with Arafat, April 12, 2002: "Chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erakat said earlier this week that 500 Palestinians had been killed in Jenin and Nablus alone", "'A real massacre was committed in the Jenin refugee camp,' Erakat said" drawing extensive international media coverage. Both Palestinian and Israeli sources initially gave very high Palestinian casualty estimates,Sydney Morning Herald: Evidence and reality collide in a battle of words (16 April 2002): "First the Israelis talked of scores and then there were dozens. Early yesterday an IDF spokesman said the figure was likely to be "several hundred" dead Palestinians and 23 dead Israelis. Another spokesman put the estimate at a precise 250 Palestinians dead, but by last night the IDF count of dead Palestinians had been wound back significantly to 45."The New Republic Online: Bad Information, the Lesson of Jenin, by Jacob Dallal: "Worse still, the IDF was releasing what turned out to be erroneous, highly inflated estimates of Palestinian casualties ... guessed at by field commanders based on the intensity of the fighting. While our office was saying around 150 Palestinians were killed, I heard very senior generals say up to 200, and the press quoted defense officials with numbers ranging as high as 250. These estimates made the Palestinian claims of 500 dead seem reasonable."Archived from The New Republic: as retrieved from Guardian Unlimited: Jerusalem suicide bomber kills at least six (12 April 2002): "The [Israeli] army's chief spokesman, Brigadier General Ron Kitrey, told Army Radio that there were 'apparently hundreds of dead' ...
But the Israel defence forces later issued a statement that it 'wished to clarify that comments made this morning regarding Jenin refer to casualties - those killed and wounded'." which were subsequently [and markedly] revised downward markedly. [Sources now generally agree 52-56 Palestinians and] 23 Israeli soldiers were also killed in the fighting. Subsequent investigations by major human rights organizations found prima facie evidence of Israeli war crimesHRW: Jenin: IDF Military Operations: "There is a strong prima facie evidence that, in the cases noted below, IDF personnel committed grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions, or war crimes." although "Human Rights Watch found no evidence to sustain claims of massacres or large-scale extrajudicial executions by the IDF in Jenin.""Human Rights Watch has so far found no evidence that Palestinian gunmen forced Palestinian civilians to serve as human shields during the attack. But Palestinian gunmen did endanger Palestinian civilians in the camp by using it as a base for planning and launching attacks, using indiscriminate tactics such as planting improvised explosive devices within the camp, and intermingling with the civilian population during armed conflict, and, in some cases, to avoid apprehension by Israeli forces."  "Throughout the incursion, IDF soldiers used Palestinian civilians to protect them from danger, deploying them as "human shields" and forcing them to perform dangerous work."Amnesty: Shielded from Scrutiny: IDF violations in Jenin and Nablus: "In Jenin and Nablus the IDF carried out ... grave breaches of the Fourth Geneva Convention ... [which] are war crimes.""IDF units frequently forced Palestinians to take part in operations by making a Palestinian camp resident enter a house first and then search it; they also used Palestinians as 'human shields' to shelter behind.", although while casting doubt on allegations of a deliberate massacre. Some investigations also criticized Palestinian fighters for operating in close proximity to civilians, but found that the only deliberate use of Palestinians as "human shields" was by Israel.
:This is superb work Eleland – concise, neutral, comprehensive and thoroughly sourced.  I have made several minor tweaks (mostly for syntax and flow), using brackets and struck-out text so you can easily check what I've done.--G-Dett 21:51, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Very good work. I see only trivial objections, I suggest you put it in as it is. PalestineRemembered 14:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I have a problem with the last statement. The Palestinian forces used the entire camp as human shields by using it as their base. Kyaa the Catlord 17:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, you have a problem with that? Are you a reliable published source, Mr. "Catlord"? This claim was not made by anybody except the IDF and its backers, while credible and neutral human rights organization did indeed "criticize Palestinian fighters for operating in close proximity to civilians, but found that the only deliberate use of Palestinians as "human shields" was by Israel." Read the source material. Eleland 21:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revision 

message: Away from the introduction debate for a while - Tewfik, I genuinely couldn't find your rationale on talk for keeping this phrase in (that's what I meant in my edit summary).  I'm happy to be pointed in the right direction on that, but in the meantime to me it just reads as an attempt to make sure the phrase "SUICIDE BOMBER!" appears as often as possible in this article, for subtle (OK, not so subtle) POV reasons.  It doesn't add much else - suggestions that it helps readers see context is a bit daft, given that most people presumably don't have much of an idea how big a suicide bomber's average payload is.  --Nickhh 06:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: An average suicide bomber explosive is 10 kg and ranges from 5 kg to 20 kg. An IED of 100 kg can destroy a M1A2 Abrams tank (however, Israeli armored Caterpillar D9 bulldozers withstood much larger IEDs). MathKnight 11:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about, "fifteen times larger than a typical anti-tank mine". (Without the wikilink.) Eleland 11:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

text: The discussion is with Eleland, and contains the word "Lidice". I believe the reason that Time used that phrasing was that the explosives were made by the same people who made suicide-bombs, a phenomena which people are familiar with from the massive coverage the events receive. I doubt that any similar level of familiarity or association exists with a "typical anti-tank mine". TewfikTalk 08:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Ten times larger than a typical suicide bomber's charge"