Talk:Battle of Jenin (2002)/Archive 4

message: I have had my changes to this article persistently reverted, and the best explanation I have received is that the current version has bee previously explained. Something more categorical than that is needed. What is the excuse for the reversion of the following edits I have made.
*Change in the order of the sentences in the into, prioritizing an outline of the battle, as is customary, ahead of the Israeli reasoning for the assault.
*Removal of the assertion that it was "previously referred to as the Jenin Massacre", which is plainly inaccurate, as many still regard it as a massacre.
*Reversion of my changing of the image caption. The current wording is POV.
There are many other problems with this extremely POV article, which others have raised and are raising. The resolution of the discussion on Eleland's proposed paragraph replacement, a significant and timely improvement to the current version, is also, I think, relevant to my concerns. But I'd personally like to have these minor matters resolved first before considering the rest of the article.Nwe 17:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The order is significant and properly mirrors that of the rest of the article. I agree with point two, the wording needs to be changed to reflect that this is still called the Jenin Massacre by those who believe it to have been one or have not had the opportunity to peruse the evidence refuting the claims. Eleland's proposal needs a lot of work, imho. Kyaa the Catlord 17:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Update: I've made some changes to the revision by Eleland which causes it to more accurately reflect her sources. Please review it. The original is still available in the history and I hope he/she does not mind that I was BOLD and directly editted the revision rather than duplicating the block of text.) Kyaa the Catlord 17:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

text: As far as point two, I've several times asked for sourcing showing that it is still referred to as a massacre by mainstream sources.  TewfikTalk 19:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Into and Image Caption Changes 

message: i'd like to note that User:THF gave a few 3rd party comments also if you scroll up. as for the suggestion body, i find it odd that a possibly pro-palestine editor (basing this statement on our past interactions) claims neutrality and talks about his edit on a group often used to promote anti-isral sentiments.
to the suggestion itself, i'd prefer a 3rd side commentary who could perhaps review each side's claims to each dispute, rather than a full rewrite to a really long article, which i firstly find unnecessary and secondly believe will lead to a step backwards in the article's consensus status rather than a step forward. JaakobouChalk Talk 14:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "pro-Palestine" editor? I am a neutral. Whilst you may not think this as your and my opinions on issues are very far apart, I am very much a Zionist, but I am not one that is willing to cover up bad behaviour by the Israeli establishment when it happens. Would you care to point out any "anti-israel" bits which I inserted into the Kach and Kahane Chai article to justify your accusations of POV? Number 57 14:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: my opinion regarding you (that you might not be as neutral as you state) is based on the arguments around the map of israel, when you supported having the change "occupied" added to the original UN map whose original did not include the word - if my statement here is wrong, i'll apologize but this is what i remember. and also based on your "NPOV" statement that Ariel is not in Israel. i have no position to your claim of being 'very much a Zionist' (which can be interpreted in so many ways these days), and if you read my words carefully you'll notice i did not say you were anti-israel but said you were 'possibly pro-palestine'. i add that i have not read the Kach article or your changes on it, but i also note to you that most people who are anti-israel love to mention them as proof to their bogus zionism=racism narrative. JaakobouChalk Talk 15:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ariel is obviously not in Israel, or it would not be called an Israeli settlement. If you have evidence that Israel has annexed that part of the West Bank I may be open to compromise. As for saying that the WB and Gaza are occupied territories, that is not POV, it is NPOV. POV is saying that they are part of Israel or part of the State of Palestine. NPOV is the middle view (and the international law version) that they are occupied. Even some Israeli government websites call them occupied territories! Number 57 15:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: i'm fairly sure you can find the word "occupied" in ALL (not some) of the arab knesset parties if you look for it. JaakobouChalk Talk 15:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not talking about Arab parties in the Knesset. The Knesset website profile of Ezer Weizman describes how he was "in confrontation with Arik Sharon, the Agriculture Minister, regarding settlements in the occupied territories". Number 57 15:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: are we really turning this page into a forum about how certain terminologies can mean different things to different people? do i really need to remind you how the knesset website described esterina tarticman's biography and the public outrage that followed? JaakobouChalk Talk 16:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are the one that started this discussion by accusing me of POV. Before then I was making a suggestion to stop the messy argument that this article is causing. I didn't see how my background is relevant to the suggestion, as I was not putting forward myself for the job, but I am not going to stand by and let accusations go unanswered. Feel free to delete our whole conversation (including your accusation that I am "possibly pro-palestine") so that we can go back to the original suggestion. Number 57 16:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: off topic babble by Jaakobou and Number57

message: :previous chatter found here - static version - Sep.6.
since we seem to have quite a few versions on how to phrase the "jenin massacre" name i request people, rather than revert and change to their preferred version, list down the version they prefer 'and the reasoning. if you wish to ask questions or make commentary please do it on the comments and questions section. JaakobouChalk Talk 15:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  previously referred to as the Jenin Massacre - round II 

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: * comment - Can't we slow down on the conflict?  The previous one is still smoldering.  http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1937048.stm The headline calls it a massacre.  That's my quick and unfinished research for the moment. Jerseycam 01:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  comments and questions 

message: Ha'aretz has since removed the following article from their web site. There are many posts on usenet which reprint this article starting on April 9, 2002, and at the time no usenet responsers contested its contents. 
Tuesday, April 09, 2002 Nisan 27, 5762 Israel Time: 11:17 (GMT+3) 
Peres calls Jenin a massacre
By Aluf Benn and Amos Harel, Ha'aretz Correspondents 
Foreign Minister Shimon Peres is very worried about the expected international reaction as soon as the world learns the details of the tough battle in the Jenin refugee camps, where more than 100 Palestinians have already been killed in fighting with IDF forces. In private, Peres is referring to the battle as a "massacre." 
IDF officers also expressed grave reservations Monday over the operation in Jenin. "Because of the dangers," they said, "the soldiers are almost not advancing on foot. The bulldozers are simply 'shaving' the homes and causing terrible destruction. When the world sees the pictures of what we have done there, it will do us immense damage." 
"However many wanted men we kill in the refugee camp, and however much of the terror infrastructure we expose and destroy there, there is still no justification for causing such great destruction."  Blindjustice 05:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Blindjustice - with all due respect, 1 of your refs doesnt work, the 2nd one is a propaganda website and the third link looks like a post on a forum. it's quite possible that haaretz newspaper wrote this down, however, you have to find a normative source and also to write it down in a more newtral way such as stating that haaretz reports that in back rooms peres said... and used the term massacre .. and if you can give the hebrew he used, it would be even a more credible source but enlish would be fine if you just find a proper source. in short, please start out by finding what is considered a WP:RS and we will include the information. JaakobouChalk Talk 07:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Full text of Ha'aretz article, "Peres calls Jenin a massacre" 

message: Jaakobou, nothing's "unclear about 'prima facie' is cherry picked weasel term" – it's just stupid and deceptive irrelevant inaccurate and misleading, that's all.  You should revert. your latest stupid propaganda edit if you wish to be taken seriously.--G-Dett 04:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: warning issued. JaakobouChalk Talk 10:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Jaakobou, WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA are important, but core content policies are even more so, and your the edits in question are openly and systematically contemptuous of these.--G-Dett 11:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: you'll pardon me if i don't drag myself down to this type of personally oriented WP:SOAP conversation. it would be in excess to squander time on such statements and in all honesty, i have better things to do than look for references on "openly and systematically contemptuous" edits of yours. JaakobouChalk Talk 18:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Jaakobou, I don't care one way or another if you continue this discussion.  The point is your talk-page discussions are carried out in bad faith, and are a deliberate waste of everyone's time.  You open up little sections like the one on "war crimes," invite all to participate, and then when it's thoroughly established that there were no findings of Palestinian "war crimes," and strong "prima facie evidence of Israeli war crimes," you simply ignore what emerged from your own discussion, and go back to edit-warring over your propaganda version.  Then you open up a discussion on "Pallywood," and when faced with critiques you cannot answer – such as a detailed demonstration of the obscurity of both the "film" Pallywood (in actuality a youtube video) and the conspiracy theory the film helped to disseminate through the right-wing pro-Israel blogosphere – you simply abandon the discussion and ignore it.; you go back to inserting your promotional link flogging the racist little video, "per talk."  Engagement with you on this page has been a absolute waste of time.  If you have something better to do, then by all means do it, but if that something is to continue inserting propaganda into the article, expect to find it reverted without further comment.--G-Dett 18:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: please go over WP:NPA. JaakobouChalk Talk 20:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Jaakobou, when you begin to edit in compliance with core policy, and to use talk page discussion in a good-faith way to work toward consensus through serious engagement, you'll find that tempers cool.--G-Dett 20:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead 

message: article title: "Arabs set terms for meeting with Powell"
published by: Deutsche Presse-Agentur
Date of Publication: April 6
Quote Validation: checked.
source availability: only for purchase - cost: 25 euro.
validating editor - JaakobouChalk Talk 09:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Validation notes - result:source validated

message: :the following was made in continuation to 'verify credibility tags' (Sep. 4 static version).
in this section, we're trying to validate this part as much as possible, to alleviate concerns regarding it's factuality. JaakobouChalk Talk 10:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ´This is not fighting between armies, but a massacre in Jenin camp,´ chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat said yesterday on CNN, comparing the situation to the 1982 massacre of hundreds of Pakestinians [sic] in Lebanese refugee camps Sabra and Shatila.
source availability: first 3 paragraphs free, the rest for purchase - cost: 4.95 USD: - link.
validating editor - JaakobouChalk Talk 00:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

text: PR, please stop using WP as a soapbox, i'm starting to lose my patience. JaakobouChalk Talk 20:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment - this is the problem you're up against. The Western news media has indeed paid scant attention to reports that this was not a massacre. That's why this article should be entitled Jenin massacre and entire POV sections removed. I've made lists of really serious problems with this article, I've just never got round to pointing out the serious problem with the name of the article itself. PalestineRemembered 21:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  April 7 

message: article title: "Israel warns Lebanon, Syria they risk a new border war"
published by: Betsy Pisik, THE WASHINGTON TIMES 
Date of Publication: April 7
Quote Validation: checked.
full quote text:
:´This is not fighting between armies, but a massacre in Jenin camp,´ chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat said yesterday on CNN, comparing the situation to the 1982 massacre of hundreds of Pakestinians [sic] in Lebanese refugee camps Sabra and Shatila.
source availability: first 3 paragraphs free, the rest for purchase - cost: 4.95 USD: - link.
validating editor - JaakobouChalk Talk 00:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Validation notes - result:source validated 

message: ====offtopic====
User:Jaakobou - the problem you have is exactly what you've described - reports that "a massacre did not occur have received scant attention in the Western news media".
In other words, most of the world still thinks of it as the "Jenin massacre", and that phrase should be prominently in the article (in fact, it should be the title of the article). Note - I've listed the really severe problems of this article, and I didn't even bother pointing out the serious POV of the current title! Are you now prepared to agree to this article being edited to WP policy? PalestineRemembered 20:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: PR, please stop using WP as a soapbox, i'm starting to lose my patience. JaakobouChalk Talk 20:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment - this is the problem you're up against. The Western news media has indeed paid scant attention to reports that this was not a massacre. That's why this article should be entitled Jenin massacre and entire POV sections removed. I've made lists of really serious problems with this article, I've just never got round to pointing out the serious problem with the name of the article itself. PalestineRemembered 21:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  discussions/notes 

message: User:Jaakobou - the problem you have is exactly what you've described - reports that "a massacre did not occur have received scant attention in the Western news media".
In other words, most of the world still thinks of it as the "Jenin massacre", and that phrase should be prominently in the article (in fact, it should be the title of the article). Note - I've listed the really severe problems of this article, and I didn't even bother pointing out the serious POV of the current title! Are you now prepared to agree to this article being edited to WP policy? PalestineRemembered 20:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: PR, please stop using WP as a soapbox, i'm starting to lose my patience. JaakobouChalk Talk 20:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment - this is the problem you're up against. The Western news media has indeed paid scant attention to reports that this was not a massacre. That's why this article should be entitled Jenin massacre and entire POV sections removed. I've made lists of really serious problems with this article, I've just never got round to pointing out the serious problem with the name of the article itself. PalestineRemembered 21:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: offtopic

message: The citation for the Amnesty International report at http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMDE151432002?open&of=ENG-PSE has been changed from the correct title: 
"Israel and the Occupied Territories Shielded from scrutiny: IDF violations in Jenin and Nablus"
to the more innocuous: 
"Amnesty International report on Jenin & Nablus"
The correct list of AI's conclusions was altered by removing or changing the following: 
* Unlawful killings (removed entirely)
* Failure to ensure medical or humanitarian relief (changed to 'inconsistent access to external relief and medical agencies')
* Demolition of houses and property (removed entirely)
* Cutting water and electricity supplies (changed to 'damage to electric and water grids')
* Torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment in arbitrary detention (removed entirely)
* The use of Palestinians for military operations or as "human shields" (changed to 'use of human shields')
In addition, the following text in the first paragraph:
"research included reviewing Israeli High Court cases and examining medical records, statements, and video documentation. Delegates conducted numerous interviews. Testimony and other evidence were cross-checked for accuracy"
is exactly repeated in the third paragraph for no apparent reason. 
The full text of AI's conclusions, located at http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMDE151432002?open&of=ENG-PSE is as follows: 
[Excessively long excerpt removed per WP:NONFREE. Please read at the source page instead. nadav (talk) 21:48, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: that's a pretty long statement you've made there. instead of such a long copy-pasting, could you please keep your points short about the changes you're interested in achieving? JaakobouChalk Talk 20:08, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

text: The correct title should be used, but I suggest we do so using a citation template. Also, isn't that particular source also cited in the lead? nadav (talk) 01:26, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We've had just this kind of discussion several times already. Most notably (to my mind), we discussed what should and should not be in the lead. The changes necessary there to bring the article back into line with policy have still not been made. A succession of thoughtful, careful contributors have disappeared from this article as it's been brought home to them that policy may not apply in this area, and in this article in particular. Perhaps ArbCom can be involved and decide whether there are red-lines in the project or not. PalestineRemembered 07:50, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV changes to Amnesty International report 

message: I request people stop mass reverting based on "red lines", and address the issues properly.
in an attempt to get a little consensus, i open this first section (more will follow) in regards to how the intro should be written in regards to the Israeli reasoning for the operation.
User:G-Dett has suggested the following in regards to this matter:
:a) present the two competing accounts of the "context" for the battle; or b) relegate such contentious material to the "background" section where it probably belongs.
please select your preference pro A or pro B and give a reasoning. remember, this is not a popular vote and reasoning must be stated. In the chance that you have a question/opinion/thought, please state it on Talk:Battle of Jenin#AB comments.
p.s. try to keep it short and to the point. JaakobouChalk Talk 20:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro debate - Israeli explanation 

message: * I totally support giving the Palestinian pretext to the battle in the intro. to be frank, i believed it was already stated that they considered the attack to be indiscriminate and raised allegations of massacre (was there another narrative i'm unaware of?) JaakobouChalk Talk 20:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  pro A 

message: * Even a bare minimum summary would tend to dominate the lede section, which ought to emphasize what actually happened in early April 2002, rather than perceived or proclaimed motives, objectives, etc. We ought simply to note that Jenin was one of many West Bank locales reoccupied in "Defensive Shield" at leave it at that. Issues of motive and justification often descend into "Israel said X, but Palestinians say Y, to which Israeli responded Z, which was countered by A, leading to accusations of B..." which is awkward in a main article section, but totally disastrous for readability of a lede. Eleland 21:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  pro B 

message: * comment - we should probably mention in the background section that the wave of suicide bombings has it's pretexts in the Israeli-palestinian conflict but i don't find this notable enough within' the article to be given a bigger place on the intro than the events which actually led to the attack on jenin. note: i find that people stating the suicide attacks are the "official" reasoning for attacking jenin (in contrast to the conspiracy genocidal/sabra-shatila theories) insulting. JaakobouChalk Talk 20:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  AB comments