m Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)
|
m Fixing style/layout errors
|
||
Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
| 09 Apr 2002 || perhaps > 120 || Reports from inside camp || [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=5BLHGAFFRI333QFIQMGSFFOAVCBQWIV0?xml=/news/2002/04/09/wmid309.xml Inigo Gilmore for Daily Telegraph] || Reporter in Rummana near Jenin talks to non-combatants arrested and taken from camp. |
| 09 Apr 2002 || perhaps > 120 || Reports from inside camp || [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=5BLHGAFFRI333QFIQMGSFFOAVCBQWIV0?xml=/news/2002/04/09/wmid309.xml Inigo Gilmore for Daily Telegraph] || Reporter in Rummana near Jenin talks to non-combatants arrested and taken from camp. |
||
|- |
|- |
||
| 09 Apr 2002 || a massacre || Foreign Minister Shimon Peres "a massacre" || Ha'aretz [http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2002/04/27309.html quoted by Indymedia] |
| 09 Apr 2002 || a massacre || Foreign Minister Shimon Peres "a massacre" || Ha'aretz [http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2002/04/27309.html quoted by Indymedia] || Peres also quoted saying ''"When the world sees the pictures of what we have done there, it will do us immense damage." [note: Ha'aretz changed story completely the same day.] '' |
||
|- |
|- |
||
| c. 10 Apr 2002 || up to 200 || 'very senior generals' || [http://www.aijac.org.au/review/2005/30-9/jenin30-9.html Australia/Israel Jewish Affairs Council] Sept 2005 || ''"the press quoted Defence officials with numbers ranging as high as 250. These figures made the Palestinian claims of 500 dead seem within the bounds of plausibility."'' |
| c. 10 Apr 2002 || up to 200 || 'very senior generals' || [http://www.aijac.org.au/review/2005/30-9/jenin30-9.html Australia/Israel Jewish Affairs Council] Sept 2005 || ''"the press quoted Defence officials with numbers ranging as high as 250. These figures made the Palestinian claims of 500 dead seem within the bounds of plausibility."'' |
||
Line 67: | Line 67: | ||
|} |
|} |
||
(rm'd table of Jenin killings in July, after Battle of Jenin and unrelated) <tt>< [[User:Eleland|<b><font color="#00A0F0">el</font><font color="#005080">eland</font></b>]] // [[User talk:Eleland|<b><font color="#00A0F0">talk</font></b>]][[Special:Contributions/Eleland|<b><font color="#005080">edits</font> |
(rm'd table of Jenin killings in July, after Battle of Jenin and unrelated) <tt>< [[User:Eleland|<b><font color="#00A0F0">el</font><font color="#005080">eland</font></b>]] // [[User talk:Eleland|<b><font color="#00A0F0">talk</font></b>]][[Special:Contributions/Eleland|<b><font color="#005080">edits</font></b>]] ></tt> 12:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC) |
||
Lastly, estimates and sources who either made mistakes in conflict with their sources, or started rumours identified as such by the reporting sources given: |
Lastly, estimates and sources who either made mistakes in conflict with their sources, or started rumours identified as such by the reporting sources given: |
||
Line 109: | Line 109: | ||
:You'll never succeed in pleasing everyone .... but it is important that rumours spread (eg that the UN said the total death toll was 52) are not repeated (and preferably rebutted). Saeb Erekat suffers massive personal attacks, yet according to one source he only ever claims "up to 500 deaths throughout West Bank" on CNN on the 10th April and didn't then use the word massacre (though he does it later, Israeli ministers having done the same). We're not in the business of [[WP:OR|original research]], but this is an easily falsifiable statement, and if it's true he never used the figure 500 again, some gentle reminder of this is in order. [[User:PalestineRemembered|PR]]<sup><small>[[User_talk:PalestineRemembered|talk]]</small></sup>(New Sig for [[User:PalestineRemembered|PalstinRembred]]) 08:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC) |
:You'll never succeed in pleasing everyone .... but it is important that rumours spread (eg that the UN said the total death toll was 52) are not repeated (and preferably rebutted). Saeb Erekat suffers massive personal attacks, yet according to one source he only ever claims "up to 500 deaths throughout West Bank" on CNN on the 10th April and didn't then use the word massacre (though he does it later, Israeli ministers having done the same). We're not in the business of [[WP:OR|original research]], but this is an easily falsifiable statement, and if it's true he never used the figure 500 again, some gentle reminder of this is in order. [[User:PalestineRemembered|PR]]<sup><small>[[User_talk:PalestineRemembered|talk]]</small></sup>(New Sig for [[User:PalestineRemembered|PalstinRembred]]) 08:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC) |
||
:HG, I'm afraid that the UN is almost useless as a source for Palestinian deaths. Their New York-based "investigation" did in fact only repeat the conclusions of on-the-scene investigations like HRW and Amnesty, and various & sundry press reports. Nor can I tell where you get "no other Palestinian deaths confirmed". Amnesty reported 54, and the UN reported 2 more killed by UXO during the period Israel was blocking demining access to the camp. 56 sounds like the most credible number to me. We should state HRW found "at least 52", Amnesty reported 54, and the UN based on press reports stated 2 more killed by UXO. The "battle box" at the top should say "52-56", maybe with an asterix to the effect that some Arab sources continue to put the toll in the hundreds. <tt>< [[User:Eleland|<b><font color="#00A0F0">el</font><font color="#005080">eland</font></b>]] // [[User talk:Eleland|<b><font color="#00A0F0">talk</font></b>]][[Special:Contributions/Eleland|<b><font color="#005080">edits</font> |
:HG, I'm afraid that the UN is almost useless as a source for Palestinian deaths. Their New York-based "investigation" did in fact only repeat the conclusions of on-the-scene investigations like HRW and Amnesty, and various & sundry press reports. Nor can I tell where you get "no other Palestinian deaths confirmed". Amnesty reported 54, and the UN reported 2 more killed by UXO during the period Israel was blocking demining access to the camp. 56 sounds like the most credible number to me. We should state HRW found "at least 52", Amnesty reported 54, and the UN based on press reports stated 2 more killed by UXO. The "battle box" at the top should say "52-56", maybe with an asterix to the effect that some Arab sources continue to put the toll in the hundreds. <tt>< [[User:Eleland|<b><font color="#00A0F0">el</font><font color="#005080">eland</font></b>]] // [[User talk:Eleland|<b><font color="#00A0F0">talk</font></b>]][[Special:Contributions/Eleland|<b><font color="#005080">edits</font></b>]] ></tt> 12:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC) |
||
::Thanks for both comments. Really, I don't have a stake in 52, 54, 56 or "52-56". I wrote the UN and "at least 52" because it's in the article, and your previous discussion[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Battle_of_Jenin/Archive_5#UN_report] accepted the data as long as we don't leave out "at least." I know there's been some debate here about the credibility of HRW and AI, too. Eleland, if you don't mind my nudging you a bit, the question over the UN source isn't what we personally think is "almost useless" or "like the most credible" but rather how the UN source is treated by other (or more) reliable sources. So, if you accept the "2 more killed by UXO" from the UN, it would seem consistent to add that to the previous 52 from the UN and maybe arrive at 54? In other words, stick w/the UN and not mix & match different sources (e.g., AI + UN). I've quoted both the 52 and +2 in the next Talk section. What did you think of the outline and subheadings I've suggested? thanks! [[User:HG|HG]] | [[User talk:HG|Talk]] 14:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC) |
::Thanks for both comments. Really, I don't have a stake in 52, 54, 56 or "52-56". I wrote the UN and "at least 52" because it's in the article, and your previous discussion[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Battle_of_Jenin/Archive_5#UN_report] accepted the data as long as we don't leave out "at least." I know there's been some debate here about the credibility of HRW and AI, too. Eleland, if you don't mind my nudging you a bit, the question over the UN source isn't what we personally think is "almost useless" or "like the most credible" but rather how the UN source is treated by other (or more) reliable sources. So, if you accept the "2 more killed by UXO" from the UN, it would seem consistent to add that to the previous 52 from the UN and maybe arrive at 54? In other words, stick w/the UN and not mix & match different sources (e.g., AI + UN). I've quoted both the 52 and +2 in the next Talk section. What did you think of the outline and subheadings I've suggested? thanks! [[User:HG|HG]] | [[User talk:HG|Talk]] 14:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC) |
||
:::I don't wish to make a nuisance of myself, but I'm here because I'm moderately interested in accurate reporting. I've checked the UN report carefully and I've [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Jenin&diff=158242758&oldid=158241992 previously posted] exactly what it says on this subject. Unless we have reasons for rejecting them entirely, we should be stating that the death toll was in "several hundreds" - though probably well short of 500. |
:::I don't wish to make a nuisance of myself, but I'm here because I'm moderately interested in accurate reporting. I've checked the UN report carefully and I've [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Jenin&diff=158242758&oldid=158241992 previously posted] exactly what it says on this subject. Unless we have reasons for rejecting them entirely, we should be stating that the death toll was in "several hundreds" - though probably well short of 500. |
||
Line 118: | Line 118: | ||
I've added emphasis to highlight their body count estimate. I also found the following at item #69, which I believe Eleland refers to, above. "Negotiations carried out by United Nations and international agencies with IDF to allow appropriate equipment and personnel into the camp to remove the unexploded ordnance continued for several weeks, during which time '''at least two Palestinians''' were accidentally killed in explosions." This supports Eleland on 2 more deaths, though I can see that we might write these up as ancillary or subsequent deaths, as proposed in redraft above. Thanks for reading this. [[User:HG|HG]] | [[User talk:HG|Talk]] 14:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC) |
I've added emphasis to highlight their body count estimate. I also found the following at item #69, which I believe Eleland refers to, above. "Negotiations carried out by United Nations and international agencies with IDF to allow appropriate equipment and personnel into the camp to remove the unexploded ordnance continued for several weeks, during which time '''at least two Palestinians''' were accidentally killed in explosions." This supports Eleland on 2 more deaths, though I can see that we might write these up as ancillary or subsequent deaths, as proposed in redraft above. Thanks for reading this. [[User:HG|HG]] | [[User talk:HG|Talk]] 14:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC) |
||
:::As long as we agree that the mainstream view places the death toll in the mid fifties, I think the exact phrasing can be ironed out (and I don't have a particular stake in "at least 52" vs 54 vs 56 either). We ''have'' seen debate over the credibility of HRW and AI, but the debate lacked substance or evidence. Even HRW & Amnesty's critics seem to ignore the ''factual content'' of their reports, and focus instead on the ''relative proportion'' given to various human rights abusers. You do raise a good point (or nudge) about how the UN report was treated by the media at large. This being said, I don't think it's original research to treat the UN report on its own terms - it described its own "very limited findings of fact". I think it is self-evident that the main portion of the UN report is a [[tertiary source]], a compilation of others' findings, like an encyclopedia. As such, it should not be used to source contentious factual claims about the main issues. It's fine for background information, or for actually discussing the UN report itself. On the last point, I think that the broad outline of your proposed version is a definite improvement, although I have problems with some of the temporary statements you've made. I'll discuss on the workshop page. <tt>< [[User:Eleland|<b><font color="#00A0F0">el</font><font color="#005080">eland</font></b>]] // [[User talk:Eleland|<b><font color="#00A0F0">talk</font></b>]][[Special:Contributions/Eleland|<b><font color="#005080">edits</font> |
:::As long as we agree that the mainstream view places the death toll in the mid fifties, I think the exact phrasing can be ironed out (and I don't have a particular stake in "at least 52" vs 54 vs 56 either). We ''have'' seen debate over the credibility of HRW and AI, but the debate lacked substance or evidence. Even HRW & Amnesty's critics seem to ignore the ''factual content'' of their reports, and focus instead on the ''relative proportion'' given to various human rights abusers. You do raise a good point (or nudge) about how the UN report was treated by the media at large. This being said, I don't think it's original research to treat the UN report on its own terms - it described its own "very limited findings of fact". I think it is self-evident that the main portion of the UN report is a [[tertiary source]], a compilation of others' findings, like an encyclopedia. As such, it should not be used to source contentious factual claims about the main issues. It's fine for background information, or for actually discussing the UN report itself. On the last point, I think that the broad outline of your proposed version is a definite improvement, although I have problems with some of the temporary statements you've made. I'll discuss on the workshop page. <tt>< [[User:Eleland|<b><font color="#00A0F0">el</font><font color="#005080">eland</font></b>]] // [[User talk:Eleland|<b><font color="#00A0F0">talk</font></b>]][[Special:Contributions/Eleland|<b><font color="#005080">edits</font></b>]] ></tt> 17:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC) |
||
::::Sounds like we have converging views on sources with a few exceptions. Even if you feel a debate lacks substance, if AI/HRW are critiqued by reliable sources (I don't know) then that could be mentioned. You make a good point -- we should note the UN's qualifications of its own data (in a concise way, like your quote). However, I don't think it's correct to view UN as a tertiary source. We can raise that specific question elsewhere, if need be, but the UN is serving at least implicitly as an ''authoritative'' negotiator of facts & reports, so it is quite different than Brittanica. Press and academic coverage of the UN vs Brittanica, among other things, shows that the U.N. is quite different. In my judgment, the UN report is a secondary source, to be distinguished from, say, interview transcripts, hospital records, etc. [[User:HG|HG]] | [[User talk:HG|Talk]] 19:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC) |
::::Sounds like we have converging views on sources with a few exceptions. Even if you feel a debate lacks substance, if AI/HRW are critiqued by reliable sources (I don't know) then that could be mentioned. You make a good point -- we should note the UN's qualifications of its own data (in a concise way, like your quote). However, I don't think it's correct to view UN as a tertiary source. We can raise that specific question elsewhere, if need be, but the UN is serving at least implicitly as an ''authoritative'' negotiator of facts & reports, so it is quite different than Brittanica. Press and academic coverage of the UN vs Brittanica, among other things, shows that the U.N. is quite different. In my judgment, the UN report is a secondary source, to be distinguished from, say, interview transcripts, hospital records, etc. [[User:HG|HG]] | [[User talk:HG|Talk]] 19:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC) |
||
Line 175: | Line 175: | ||
:can anyone explain to me why the intro is being repeatedly changed and then the number three keeps popping up? <b>[[User:Jaakobou|<span style="font-family:Arial; color:teal;">Jaakobou</span>]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|<sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk</sup>]]''</b> 02:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC) |
:can anyone explain to me why the intro is being repeatedly changed and then the number three keeps popping up? <b>[[User:Jaakobou|<span style="font-family:Arial; color:teal;">Jaakobou</span>]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|<sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk</sup>]]''</b> 02:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC) |
||
::Perhaps it's because nobody has ever provided a citation to back their "series of suicide bombings" version, preferring instead to cite a source which ''very specifically and unequivocally'' references ''three'' bombings. I am getting quite exasperated with this persistent use of inappropriate citations which do not verify the text, despite all efforts to explain the problem. <tt>< [[User:Eleland|<b><font color="#00A0F0">el</font><font color="#005080">eland</font></b>]] // [[User talk:Eleland|<b><font color="#00A0F0">talk</font></b>]][[Special:Contributions/Eleland|<b><font color="#005080">edits</font> |
::Perhaps it's because nobody has ever provided a citation to back their "series of suicide bombings" version, preferring instead to cite a source which ''very specifically and unequivocally'' references ''three'' bombings. I am getting quite exasperated with this persistent use of inappropriate citations which do not verify the text, despite all efforts to explain the problem. <tt>< [[User:Eleland|<b><font color="#00A0F0">el</font><font color="#005080">eland</font></b>]] // [[User talk:Eleland|<b><font color="#00A0F0">talk</font></b>]][[Special:Contributions/Eleland|<b><font color="#005080">edits</font></b>]] ></tt> 03:28, 23 September 2007 (UTC) |
||
::Because that is the number per the reference? Did you even ''try'' reading [[WP:WEASEL]]? I would be happy with removing this even this partial back history from the lead, as it's only presenting one side. But as it stands now, I will continue revealing the correct number (3) here until I am on my deathbed, and then I will have my children carry this on. So save us all time and stop removing this. Thanks. -- [[User:146.115.58.152|146.115.58.152]] 03:36, 23 September 2007 (UTC) |
::Because that is the number per the reference? Did you even ''try'' reading [[WP:WEASEL]]? I would be happy with removing this even this partial back history from the lead, as it's only presenting one side. But as it stands now, I will continue revealing the correct number (3) here until I am on my deathbed, and then I will have my children carry this on. So save us all time and stop removing this. Thanks. -- [[User:146.115.58.152|146.115.58.152]] 03:36, 23 September 2007 (UTC) |
||
Line 240: | Line 240: | ||
::::If you have a source that claims that the attack on Jenin was the result of all the suicide bombings, then reference it to the passage in the article. |
::::If you have a source that claims that the attack on Jenin was the result of all the suicide bombings, then reference it to the passage in the article. |
||
::::In the meantime, we're using a reference that refers to just three suicide bombings, and that's what the article should say. |
::::In the meantime, we're using a reference that refers to just three suicide bombings, and that's what the article should say. |
||
::::Here it is again: ''"[http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Government/Speeches%20by%20Israeli%20leaders/2002/Statements%20by%20PM%20Sharon%20and%20DM%20Ben-Eliezer%20at%20presJerusalem, March 29, 2002 - PM Sharon]: Good morning, In the past few days we have witnessed horrific terrorist attacks - the attack during the Pesach Seder in Netanya, where 21 people were killed, tonight's events in Elon Moreh, resulting in 4 deaths, and the incident which is currently taking place in Netzarim where so far two people have been killed. [[User:PalestineRemembered|PR]]<sup><small>[[User_talk:PalestineRemembered|talk]]</small></sup>(New Sig for [[User:PalestineRemembered|PalstinRembred]]) 20:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC) |
::::Here it is again: ''"[http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Government/Speeches%20by%20Israeli%20leaders/2002/Statements%20by%20PM%20Sharon%20and%20DM%20Ben-Eliezer%20at%20presJerusalem, March 29, 2002 - PM Sharon]: Good morning, In the past few days we have witnessed horrific terrorist attacks - the attack during the Pesach Seder in Netanya, where 21 people were killed, tonight's events in Elon Moreh, resulting in 4 deaths, and the incident which is currently taking place in Netzarim where so far two people have been killed.'' [[User:PalestineRemembered|PR]]<sup><small>[[User_talk:PalestineRemembered|talk]]</small></sup>(New Sig for [[User:PalestineRemembered|PalstinRembred]]) 20:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC) |
||
::Those three attacks are quite sufficient as justification. thanks. --[[User:Sm8900|Steve, Sm8900]] 20:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC) |
::Those three attacks are quite sufficient as justification. thanks. --[[User:Sm8900|Steve, Sm8900]] 20:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC) |
||
:::Jaakobu, don't bother trying to reason with them. It's hopeless. Just accept that they think that somehow there is no basis for believing there was onoing incitement and supprot for terrorist attacks. if they want to make a big deal over this three attack thing, let them. the key to successfully editing these articles is realizing that to soem degree, we must take some note of the prevailing views of the conflict within the media, and try to work within that context to spread the facts. --[[User:Sm8900|Steve, Sm8900]] 20:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC) |
:::Jaakobu, don't bother trying to reason with them. It's hopeless. Just accept that they think that somehow there is no basis for believing there was onoing incitement and supprot for terrorist attacks. if they want to make a big deal over this three attack thing, let them. the key to successfully editing these articles is realizing that to soem degree, we must take some note of the prevailing views of the conflict within the media, and try to work within that context to spread the facts. --[[User:Sm8900|Steve, Sm8900]] 20:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC) |
||
Line 246: | Line 246: | ||
::Well, actually I agree with you here. I don't see why it is such an isue to say "three attacks." of course, I also think it's insane to write the entry that way, but I am willing to accept it as a compromise. --[[User:Sm8900|Steve, Sm8900]] 20:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC) |
::Well, actually I agree with you here. I don't see why it is such an isue to say "three attacks." of course, I also think it's insane to write the entry that way, but I am willing to accept it as a compromise. --[[User:Sm8900|Steve, Sm8900]] 20:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC) |
||
:It is really remarkable how little attention has been paid to the sources here. Jaakobou & Steve's preferred version cites a CNN article from April 13th which notes that "Friday [the 12th]'s terror attack was the sixth suicide bombing targeting Israeli civilians since [27 March Netanya bombing]". Defensive Shield started on the night of the 29th. In other words, the current article states that '''Defensive Shield was "prompted by" events which occured after it started.''' <tt>< [[User:Eleland|<b><font color="#00A0F0">el</font><font color="#005080">eland</font></b>]] // [[User talk:Eleland|<b><font color="#00A0F0">talk</font></b>]][[Special:Contributions/Eleland|<b><font color="#005080">edits</font> |
:It is really remarkable how little attention has been paid to the sources here. Jaakobou & Steve's preferred version cites a CNN article from April 13th which notes that "Friday [the 12th]'s terror attack was the sixth suicide bombing targeting Israeli civilians since [27 March Netanya bombing]". Defensive Shield started on the night of the 29th. In other words, the current article states that '''Defensive Shield was "prompted by" events which occured after it started.''' <tt>< [[User:Eleland|<b><font color="#00A0F0">el</font><font color="#005080">eland</font></b>]] // [[User talk:Eleland|<b><font color="#00A0F0">talk</font></b>]][[Special:Contributions/Eleland|<b><font color="#005080">edits</font></b>]] ></tt> 21:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC) |
||
::At this point, I'd prefer to let some other editors take a try at adding further comments. thanks. --[[User:Sm8900|Steve, Sm8900]] 02:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC) |
::At this point, I'd prefer to let some other editors take a try at adding further comments. thanks. --[[User:Sm8900|Steve, Sm8900]] 02:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC) |
||
:::Yes, I can see why you would. <tt>< [[User:Eleland|<b><font color="#00A0F0">el</font><font color="#005080">eland</font></b>]] // [[User talk:Eleland|<b><font color="#00A0F0">talk</font></b>]][[Special:Contributions/Eleland|<b><font color="#005080">edits</font> |
:::Yes, I can see why you would. <tt>< [[User:Eleland|<b><font color="#00A0F0">el</font><font color="#005080">eland</font></b>]] // [[User talk:Eleland|<b><font color="#00A0F0">talk</font></b>]][[Special:Contributions/Eleland|<b><font color="#005080">edits</font></b>]] ></tt> 03:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC) |
||
that was really uncalled for. try reading [[WP:CIVIL]] and try to actually understand it this time. --[[User:Sm8900|Steve, Sm8900]] 13:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC) |
that was really uncalled for. try reading [[WP:CIVIL]] and try to actually understand it this time. --[[User:Sm8900|Steve, Sm8900]] 13:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC) |
||
:The matter seems to be settled (after the most enormous amount of fuss), we now agree that the justification for the attack on the camp was (at least according to the source we're using) three suicide bombings. Thankyou everyone, I trust we've all learned something useful about the use of references and not inserting OR. [[User:PalestineRemembered|PR]]<sup><small>[[User_talk:PalestineRemembered|talk]]</small></sup> 07:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC) |
:The matter seems to be settled (after the most enormous amount of fuss), we now agree that the justification for the attack on the camp was (at least according to the source we're using) three suicide bombings. Thankyou everyone, I trust we've all learned something useful about the use of references and not inserting OR. [[User:PalestineRemembered|PR]]<sup><small>[[User_talk:PalestineRemembered|talk]]</small></sup> 07:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC) |
||
Line 274: | Line 274: | ||
inferring by [http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Government/Speeches%20by%20Israeli%20leaders/2002/Statements%20by%20PM%20Sharon%20and%20DM%20Ben-Eliezer%20at%20pres this single ref] to have us believe that 3 events, mentioned as a preface or [[foreword]] to the defense cabinet meeting's media statement, caused the operation is mistreatment to the topic and represents a coarse mis-connection between an introduction condolences notice and between the operation defensive shield, prompted by the events of "Black March" which culminated with the netanya bombing - using three would be a serious stretch ([[WP:SYN]]). <b>[[User:Jaakobou|<span style="font-family:Arial; color:teal;">Jaakobou</span>]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|<sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk</sup>]]''</b> 00:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC) |
inferring by [http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Government/Speeches%20by%20Israeli%20leaders/2002/Statements%20by%20PM%20Sharon%20and%20DM%20Ben-Eliezer%20at%20pres this single ref] to have us believe that 3 events, mentioned as a preface or [[foreword]] to the defense cabinet meeting's media statement, caused the operation is mistreatment to the topic and represents a coarse mis-connection between an introduction condolences notice and between the operation defensive shield, prompted by the events of "Black March" which culminated with the netanya bombing - using three would be a serious stretch ([[WP:SYN]]). <b>[[User:Jaakobou|<span style="font-family:Arial; color:teal;">Jaakobou</span>]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|<sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk</sup>]]''</b> 00:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC) |
||
:Your 1 through 3 don't seem to have any relevance to the discussion. Yes, Sharon et al made reference to terror, and to dismantling the "terror infrastructure" in the West Bank. We already note that Israel considered the operation to be counter-terrorist. Your 4 is a nonreliable source which, even if were is reliable and says what you say, would be completely irrelevant. We know there were lots of attacks. The question is which attacks were officially cited as the cause of Defensive Shield. Your 5 is apparently a Hebrew translation of an English text (unhelpful, that). Again even if it says what you say, that's not relevant to the line at issue, which relates to the publicly announced reason for the incursion. <tt><[[User:Eleland|<b><font color="#00A0F0">el</font><font color="#005080">eland</font></b>]]/[[User talk:Eleland|<b><font color="#00A0F0">talk</font></b>]][[Special:Contributions/Eleland|<b><font color="#005080">edits</font> |
:Your 1 through 3 don't seem to have any relevance to the discussion. Yes, Sharon et al made reference to terror, and to dismantling the "terror infrastructure" in the West Bank. We already note that Israel considered the operation to be counter-terrorist. Your 4 is a nonreliable source which, even if were is reliable and says what you say, would be completely irrelevant. We know there were lots of attacks. The question is which attacks were officially cited as the cause of Defensive Shield. Your 5 is apparently a Hebrew translation of an English text (unhelpful, that). Again even if it says what you say, that's not relevant to the line at issue, which relates to the publicly announced reason for the incursion. <tt><[[User:Eleland|<b><font color="#00A0F0">el</font><font color="#005080">eland</font></b>]]/[[User talk:Eleland|<b><font color="#00A0F0">talk</font></b>]][[Special:Contributions/Eleland|<b><font color="#005080">edits</font></b>]]></tt> 18:02, 28 September 2007 (UTC) |
||
::i was about to completely disagree with your statement until you stated what you are looking for, i.e. ''"The question is which attacks were officially cited as the cause of Defensive Shield."''. the response to that one of the main contributors to the decision was [http://dover.idf.il/IDF/About/history/2000s/2002/032901.htm the cassus belli of the netanya bombing], the "number three" however has nothing to do with it. |
::i was about to completely disagree with your statement until you stated what you are looking for, i.e. ''"The question is which attacks were officially cited as the cause of Defensive Shield."''. the response to that one of the main contributors to the decision was [http://dover.idf.il/IDF/About/history/2000s/2002/032901.htm the cassus belli of the netanya bombing], the "number three" however has nothing to do with it. |
||
Line 560: | Line 560: | ||
You may remember that some time ago there was an attempt to summarize issues previous to mediation; this more or less fell apart after it became clear that Jaakobou, Kyaa, and others did not wish to seek mediation, and preferred to attack the credibility and neutrality of the mediator (who, if I'm not mistaken, is a fairly pro-Israel Conservative or Orthodox Jew...) Anyway, the point is that I got pretty far along on a submission to [[User:HG/workshop/Clarify_Jenin_editing_battle|his "clarify editing battle" page]], and it occurred to me lately that it might be useful to post it anyway. Do note that the specific references made are to the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Jenin&oldid=157435575 version that was protected some weeks ago]; although specific quotes may have changed, my intention all along was to "discuss broad issues with reference to specific narrow examples", and all of these broad issues are still at play in this article, to its severe detriment. |
You may remember that some time ago there was an attempt to summarize issues previous to mediation; this more or less fell apart after it became clear that Jaakobou, Kyaa, and others did not wish to seek mediation, and preferred to attack the credibility and neutrality of the mediator (who, if I'm not mistaken, is a fairly pro-Israel Conservative or Orthodox Jew...) Anyway, the point is that I got pretty far along on a submission to [[User:HG/workshop/Clarify_Jenin_editing_battle|his "clarify editing battle" page]], and it occurred to me lately that it might be useful to post it anyway. Do note that the specific references made are to the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Jenin&oldid=157435575 version that was protected some weeks ago]; although specific quotes may have changed, my intention all along was to "discuss broad issues with reference to specific narrow examples", and all of these broad issues are still at play in this article, to its severe detriment. |
||
See [[User:Eleland/JeninSandbox]]. Thanks, <tt><[[User:Eleland|<b><font color="#00A0F0">el</font><font color="#005080">eland</font></b>]]/[[User talk:Eleland|<b><font color="#00A0F0">talk</font></b>]][[Special:Contributions/Eleland|<b><font color="#005080">edits</font> |
See [[User:Eleland/JeninSandbox]]. Thanks, <tt><[[User:Eleland|<b><font color="#00A0F0">el</font><font color="#005080">eland</font></b>]]/[[User talk:Eleland|<b><font color="#00A0F0">talk</font></b>]][[Special:Contributions/Eleland|<b><font color="#005080">edits</font></b>]]></tt> 16:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC) |
||
:# who are you adressing here? |
:# who are you adressing here? |
||
Line 569: | Line 569: | ||
::# I'm addressing whoever reads the post. |
::# I'm addressing whoever reads the post. |
||
::# I didn't mean to imply that you attacked HG. I stated that you and your cohorts preferred attacks over mediation, which is my impression of the case. Feel free to clutter up my user talk page with more irrelevant warnings; perhaps I'll even create a special sandbox for you. This focus on real or imagined incivility really is a marvelous way to avoid discussing reasoned and supported arguments, but I don't appreciate it in the slightest. |
::# I didn't mean to imply that you attacked HG. I stated that you and your cohorts preferred attacks over mediation, which is my impression of the case. Feel free to clutter up my user talk page with more irrelevant warnings; perhaps I'll even create a special sandbox for you. This focus on real or imagined incivility really is a marvelous way to avoid discussing reasoned and supported arguments, but I don't appreciate it in the slightest. |
||
::# Huh? I don't understand what you're saying. <tt><[[User:Eleland|<b><font color="#00A0F0">el</font><font color="#005080">eland</font></b>]]/[[User talk:Eleland|<b><font color="#00A0F0">talk</font></b>]][[Special:Contributions/Eleland|<b><font color="#005080">edits</font> |
::# Huh? I don't understand what you're saying. <tt><[[User:Eleland|<b><font color="#00A0F0">el</font><font color="#005080">eland</font></b>]]/[[User talk:Eleland|<b><font color="#00A0F0">talk</font></b>]][[Special:Contributions/Eleland|<b><font color="#005080">edits</font></b>]]></tt> 20:16, 5 October 2007 (UTC) |
||
::::(belated fyi) Well, not sure you need me to chime in here. I didn't take the hesitancies expressed about me (or mediation) as very problematic. While I have tried to play a facilitating role here, I haven't characterized myself as a "mediator" here in the Wikipedia sense (i.e., wherein both sides consent to the role) though I'm honored by the term in its common usage (per Eleland, above). [[User:HG|HG]] | [[User talk:HG|Talk]] 14:28, 9 October 2007 (UTC) |
::::(belated fyi) Well, not sure you need me to chime in here. I didn't take the hesitancies expressed about me (or mediation) as very problematic. While I have tried to play a facilitating role here, I haven't characterized myself as a "mediator" here in the Wikipedia sense (i.e., wherein both sides consent to the role) though I'm honored by the term in its common usage (per Eleland, above). [[User:HG|HG]] | [[User talk:HG|Talk]] 14:28, 9 October 2007 (UTC) |
||
Line 591: | Line 591: | ||
::::Let's review: Jaakobou declares his intention to place summary of a stated reason for the attack into the lede. PR points out that another stated reason was reported, and suggests that both reasons be listed for balance. He even provides a direct quote. Jaakobou declares that he is misrepresenting the source. He provides no evidence for this assertion and offers no alternative reading of the source. PR responds that he's puzzled, and provides ''another'' good source making similar assertions, as well as reviewing the standard, accepted timeline of events. Jaakobou then makes more personal accusations, which he does not support with evidence. Steve jumps in with a useless "IAWTP". |
::::Let's review: Jaakobou declares his intention to place summary of a stated reason for the attack into the lede. PR points out that another stated reason was reported, and suggests that both reasons be listed for balance. He even provides a direct quote. Jaakobou declares that he is misrepresenting the source. He provides no evidence for this assertion and offers no alternative reading of the source. PR responds that he's puzzled, and provides ''another'' good source making similar assertions, as well as reviewing the standard, accepted timeline of events. Jaakobou then makes more personal accusations, which he does not support with evidence. Steve jumps in with a useless "IAWTP". |
||
::::Now, is anyone going to actually address the legitimate point PR is making here? <tt><[[User:Eleland|<b><font color="#00A0F0">el</font><font color="#005080">eland</font></b>]]/[[User talk:Eleland|<b><font color="#00A0F0">talk</font></b>]][[Special:Contributions/Eleland|<b><font color="#005080">edits</font> |
::::Now, is anyone going to actually address the legitimate point PR is making here? <tt><[[User:Eleland|<b><font color="#00A0F0">el</font><font color="#005080">eland</font></b>]]/[[User talk:Eleland|<b><font color="#00A0F0">talk</font></b>]][[Special:Contributions/Eleland|<b><font color="#005080">edits</font></b>]]></tt> 17:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC) |
||
:::::it was addressed that he's misrepresenting the source - it is done so when he claims it was a "statement made by Sharon to the world's press" (this cafeteria conversation), and also when he declares he wants this in the intro when it obviously not part of the intro to the battle (unless you want to go all the way back to the attacks of february 27, march 2, 3 and 5 and add them also into the intro. btw, what is exactly valid about not wanting the netanyah bombing in the intro? <b>[[User:Jaakobou|<span style="font-family:Arial; color:teal;">Jaakobou</span>]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|<sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk</sup>]]''</b> 09:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC) |
:::::it was addressed that he's misrepresenting the source - it is done so when he claims it was a "statement made by Sharon to the world's press" (this cafeteria conversation), and also when he declares he wants this in the intro when it obviously not part of the intro to the battle (unless you want to go all the way back to the attacks of february 27, march 2, 3 and 5 and add them also into the intro. btw, what is exactly valid about not wanting the netanyah bombing in the intro? <b>[[User:Jaakobou|<span style="font-family:Arial; color:teal;">Jaakobou</span>]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|<sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk</sup>]]''</b> 09:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC) |
||
::::::::Uh, Jaakobou, the source says that Sharon was "speaking to reporters in an impromptu session at the parliament cafeteria early last week. Explaining the decision of his inner Cabinet to intensify the military campaign..." which seems pretty open-and-shut to me. I'm not aware of any standard which holds that statements to reporters aren't statements to reporters if they're made in a cafeteria. |
::::::::Uh, Jaakobou, the source says that Sharon was "speaking to reporters in an impromptu session at the parliament cafeteria early last week. Explaining the decision of his inner Cabinet to intensify the military campaign..." which seems pretty open-and-shut to me. I'm not aware of any standard which holds that statements to reporters aren't statements to reporters if they're made in a cafeteria. |
||
::::::::You say that it is "obviously not part of the intro to the battle", although [http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMDE150452002 Amnesty International disagrees], and the Palestinians [http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,667715,00.html were expecting the incursions] based in no small part on this kind of rhetoric. Tbe Sharon quote reflects a POV on the Jenin attack, namely that it was a collective punishment aimed at Palestinian civil society (POV of Palestinians, most Arab states, Israeli far-left, Western left, human rights groups). The "martyrs' capital" narriatve reflects a POV on the attack, namely that it was a security operation designed to root out a nest of terrorists (POV of Israeli gov, Western right, US and British governments). I can't think of any more appropriate and balanced way than to include both in the lede. <tt><[[User:Eleland|<b><font color="#00A0F0">el</font><font color="#005080">eland</font></b>]]/[[User talk:Eleland|<b><font color="#00A0F0">talk</font></b>]][[Special:Contributions/Eleland|<b><font color="#005080">edits</font> |
::::::::You say that it is "obviously not part of the intro to the battle", although [http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMDE150452002 Amnesty International disagrees], and the Palestinians [http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,667715,00.html were expecting the incursions] based in no small part on this kind of rhetoric. Tbe Sharon quote reflects a POV on the Jenin attack, namely that it was a collective punishment aimed at Palestinian civil society (POV of Palestinians, most Arab states, Israeli far-left, Western left, human rights groups). The "martyrs' capital" narriatve reflects a POV on the attack, namely that it was a security operation designed to root out a nest of terrorists (POV of Israeli gov, Western right, US and British governments). I can't think of any more appropriate and balanced way than to include both in the lede. <tt><[[User:Eleland|<b><font color="#00A0F0">el</font><font color="#005080">eland</font></b>]]/[[User talk:Eleland|<b><font color="#00A0F0">talk</font></b>]][[Special:Contributions/Eleland|<b><font color="#005080">edits</font></b>]]></tt> 23:10, 10 October 2007 (UTC) |
||
:::::::::Thank you for the civility. I will gladly reply, but this subsection is getting a bit confusing, would you mind reopning a subsection dedicated to this issue? <b>[[User:Jaakobou|<span style="font-family:Arial; color:teal;">Jaakobou</span>]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|<sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk</sup>]]''</b> 23:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC) |
:::::::::Thank you for the civility. I will gladly reply, but this subsection is getting a bit confusing, would you mind reopning a subsection dedicated to this issue? <b>[[User:Jaakobou|<span style="font-family:Arial; color:teal;">Jaakobou</span>]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|<sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk</sup>]]''</b> 23:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC) |
||
::::::::::Is it so confusing, Jaakobou? You objected to the inclusion of the ''ad hoc'' Sharon press conference on the grounds that it took place in a cafeteria; Eleland pointed out that the location of a press conference is neither here nor there. Can we move on without opening up yet another "subsection"?--[[User:G-Dett|G-Dett]] 00:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC) |
::::::::::Is it so confusing, Jaakobou? You objected to the inclusion of the ''ad hoc'' Sharon press conference on the grounds that it took place in a cafeteria; Eleland pointed out that the location of a press conference is neither here nor there. Can we move on without opening up yet another "subsection"?--[[User:G-Dett|G-Dett]] 00:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC) |
||
Line 606: | Line 606: | ||
:Thanks for the kind words, HG. I'll have to take some time to compare my sandbox page (almost a month old) with the current article to see what's most germane, but I'll certainly post something here. |
:Thanks for the kind words, HG. I'll have to take some time to compare my sandbox page (almost a month old) with the current article to see what's most germane, but I'll certainly post something here. |
||
:On a more general note, how do you feel about the prospects for moving into mediation? It seems that your offer of "pre-mediation-mediation" has been declined, which casts doubt on the prospects of ever getting an RfM accepted by all parties (by my count, that would include you, me, Tewfik, Jaakobou, PR, and G-Dett at the least). But (achingly slow) progress has been made over the last two months here, and it might be worth further exploration. <tt><[[User:Eleland|<b><font color="#00A0F0">el</font><font color="#005080">eland</font></b>]]/[[User talk:Eleland|<b><font color="#00A0F0">talk</font></b>]][[Special:Contributions/Eleland|<b><font color="#005080">edits</font> |
:On a more general note, how do you feel about the prospects for moving into mediation? It seems that your offer of "pre-mediation-mediation" has been declined, which casts doubt on the prospects of ever getting an RfM accepted by all parties (by my count, that would include you, me, Tewfik, Jaakobou, PR, and G-Dett at the least). But (achingly slow) progress has been made over the last two months here, and it might be worth further exploration. <tt><[[User:Eleland|<b><font color="#00A0F0">el</font><font color="#005080">eland</font></b>]]/[[User talk:Eleland|<b><font color="#00A0F0">talk</font></b>]][[Special:Contributions/Eleland|<b><font color="#005080">edits</font></b>]]></tt> 02:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC) |
||
== Moving forward with restructuring == |
== Moving forward with restructuring == |
||
Line 637: | Line 637: | ||
:# [[IAWTC]]. |
:# [[IAWTC]]. |
||
:# The persistent references to user-conduct disputes, often disputes which are unrelated or tangentally related, has gravely injured the prospects for productive dialogue here. It appears that both Jaakobou and PR have sunk to copy-pasting summaries of their charges against each other into almost every discussion in which they are involved. A cease-fire s most assuredly in order. I would ask that each editor agrees ''not'' to discuss user conduct claims on each other and to scrupulously ensure that their talk page comments here are ''always'' phrased as discussion of ''contribu'''tions''''' rather than ''contribo'''tors'''''. In other words, "the proposed phrasing 'XYZ' is a misreading of the cited source which actually says 'ZYX'", rather than "your constant insistence on misinterpreting sources is preventing us from moving forward to improve the article". I have probably been guilty of this kind of thing too, and will endeavour to stop. |
:# The persistent references to user-conduct disputes, often disputes which are unrelated or tangentally related, has gravely injured the prospects for productive dialogue here. It appears that both Jaakobou and PR have sunk to copy-pasting summaries of their charges against each other into almost every discussion in which they are involved. A cease-fire s most assuredly in order. I would ask that each editor agrees ''not'' to discuss user conduct claims on each other and to scrupulously ensure that their talk page comments here are ''always'' phrased as discussion of ''contribu'''tions''''' rather than ''contribo'''tors'''''. In other words, "the proposed phrasing 'XYZ' is a misreading of the cited source which actually says 'ZYX'", rather than "your constant insistence on misinterpreting sources is preventing us from moving forward to improve the article". I have probably been guilty of this kind of thing too, and will endeavour to stop. |
||
:# Just an idea. If PalestineRemembered is willing, I'll set up a sock - call it PalestineRefactored - by which he can send me comments related to user conduct issues, and I'll try and rephrase them as productive, polite, soothing, dharmic, etc. <tt><[[User:Eleland|<b><font color="#00A0F0">el</font><font color="#005080">eland</font></b>]]/[[User talk:Eleland|<b><font color="#00A0F0">talk</font></b>]][[Special:Contributions/Eleland|<b><font color="#005080">edits</font> |
:# Just an idea. If PalestineRemembered is willing, I'll set up a sock - call it PalestineRefactored - by which he can send me comments related to user conduct issues, and I'll try and rephrase them as productive, polite, soothing, dharmic, etc. <tt><[[User:Eleland|<b><font color="#00A0F0">el</font><font color="#005080">eland</font></b>]]/[[User talk:Eleland|<b><font color="#00A0F0">talk</font></b>]][[Special:Contributions/Eleland|<b><font color="#005080">edits</font></b>]]></tt> 01:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC) |
||
:::Thanks for your replies and interesting ideas. Among other pts, I note that you'd prefer formal mediation. Ciao. [[User:HG|HG]] | [[User talk:HG|Talk]] 14:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC) |
:::Thanks for your replies and interesting ideas. Among other pts, I note that you'd prefer formal mediation. Ciao. [[User:HG|HG]] | [[User talk:HG|Talk]] 14:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC) |
||
Line 677: | Line 677: | ||
Why do we have such utter nonsense as this: ''"Whilst considering these press and news reports, it is important to consider the date. At first, many international newspapers reported the possibility of a massacre, whereas 3-4 weeks on, they often describe the massacre as particularly unlikely"'' in the article? As admitted [http://www.jfednepa.org/mark%20silverberg/middleeastmedia.html by the bloggers], none of this happened. Can I remove it, please? [[User:PalestineRemembered|PR]]<sup><small>[[User_talk:PalestineRemembered|talk]]</small></sup> 17:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC) |
Why do we have such utter nonsense as this: ''"Whilst considering these press and news reports, it is important to consider the date. At first, many international newspapers reported the possibility of a massacre, whereas 3-4 weeks on, they often describe the massacre as particularly unlikely"'' in the article? As admitted [http://www.jfednepa.org/mark%20silverberg/middleeastmedia.html by the bloggers], none of this happened. Can I remove it, please? [[User:PalestineRemembered|PR]]<sup><small>[[User_talk:PalestineRemembered|talk]]</small></sup> 17:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC) |
||
:Blogs are not reliable sources. Please go fish. [[User:Kyaa the Catlord|Kyaa the Catlord]] 00:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC) |
:Blogs are not reliable sources. Please go fish. [[User:Kyaa the Catlord|Kyaa the Catlord]] 00:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC) |
||
::Got any [[Jack (playing card)|Jacks]]? I don't think PR is advocating the use of the blog source. The information which he quotes is unsourced, and appears to be a [[WP:OR#SYN|synthesis]] of various primary and secondary sources advancing a POV without attributing it. And anyway it's part of the External Links section, which has been relatively free of edit-warring and condemnation but is nonetheless way, way too big and clearly out of line with [[WP:EL]]. <tt><[[User:Eleland|<b><font color="#00A0F0">el</font><font color="#005080">eland</font></b>]]/[[User talk:Eleland|<b><font color="#00A0F0">talk</font></b>]][[Special:Contributions/Eleland|<b><font color="#005080">edits</font> |
::Got any [[Jack (playing card)|Jacks]]? I don't think PR is advocating the use of the blog source. The information which he quotes is unsourced, and appears to be a [[WP:OR#SYN|synthesis]] of various primary and secondary sources advancing a POV without attributing it. And anyway it's part of the External Links section, which has been relatively free of edit-warring and condemnation but is nonetheless way, way too big and clearly out of line with [[WP:EL]]. <tt><[[User:Eleland|<b><font color="#00A0F0">el</font><font color="#005080">eland</font></b>]]/[[User talk:Eleland|<b><font color="#00A0F0">talk</font></b>]][[Special:Contributions/Eleland|<b><font color="#005080">edits</font></b>]]></tt> 00:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC) |
||
:::so now you're disputing that when this battle was first reported, many news sources asserted that it was a massacre, but then, after a while, the news reports discounted those allegations? I actually think this has been proven pretty squarely, and is consistent with the factual record. --[[User:Sm8900|Steve, Sm8900]] 01:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC) |
:::so now you're disputing that when this battle was first reported, many news sources asserted that it was a massacre, but then, after a while, the news reports discounted those allegations? I actually think this has been proven pretty squarely, and is consistent with the factual record. --[[User:Sm8900|Steve, Sm8900]] 01:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC) |
||
:::Mmmm, Jack. I am not an alcoholic. Really. :P But seriously, questioning that the reporting of the attack shifted from "omgmassacre" to "no massacre" is rather unbelievable. [[User:Kyaa the Catlord|Kyaa the Catlord]] 03:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC) |
:::Mmmm, Jack. I am not an alcoholic. Really. :P But seriously, questioning that the reporting of the attack shifted from "omgmassacre" to "no massacre" is rather unbelievable. [[User:Kyaa the Catlord|Kyaa the Catlord]] 03:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC) |
||
Line 683: | Line 683: | ||
::::: Quite right. Here you go: [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2165272.stm UN says no massacre in Jenin], 8/2/02, BBC. I got this from here: [[Talk:Battle_of_Jenin/Archive_5#Both_were_complicit]]. I would gently note that we have covered this before. Thanks. --[[User:Sm8900|Steve, Sm8900]] 13:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC) |
::::: Quite right. Here you go: [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2165272.stm UN says no massacre in Jenin], 8/2/02, BBC. I got this from here: [[Talk:Battle_of_Jenin/Archive_5#Both_were_complicit]]. I would gently note that we have covered this before. Thanks. --[[User:Sm8900|Steve, Sm8900]] 13:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC) |
||
::::::Steve, I know you've provided that link before. The problem is, that article is ''not'' an example of the BBC "describing the massacre as particularly unlikely." It reports the UN's conclusions that Israel did not in fact kill hundreds, and then it reports the ensuing war of words between Palestinian and Israeli officials over what constitutes a "massacre." Is this really your source for a sentence saying ''"Whilst considering these press and news reports, it is important to consider the date. At first, many international newspapers reported the possibility of a massacre, whereas 3-4 weeks on, they often describe the massacre as particularly unlikely"''? If so, then PR and Eleland are quite right that it's original research.--[[User:G-Dett|G-Dett]] 13:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC) |
::::::Steve, I know you've provided that link before. The problem is, that article is ''not'' an example of the BBC "describing the massacre as particularly unlikely." It reports the UN's conclusions that Israel did not in fact kill hundreds, and then it reports the ensuing war of words between Palestinian and Israeli officials over what constitutes a "massacre." Is this really your source for a sentence saying ''"Whilst considering these press and news reports, it is important to consider the date. At first, many international newspapers reported the possibility of a massacre, whereas 3-4 weeks on, they often describe the massacre as particularly unlikely"''? If so, then PR and Eleland are quite right that it's original research.--[[User:G-Dett|G-Dett]] 13:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC) |
||
::::::I would add that newspaper headlines are designed for concision and punch, and are not written by journalists. The only "UN says no massacre" claim is in the headline, and the article as a whole actually says that "A United Nations investigation has rejected claims that hundreds of Palestinian civilians were killed in Israel's attack on the Palestinian refugee camp in Jenin...the report offers few conclusions and merely reports allegations that have already been made...Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat [asked] 'How many civilians must be killed to speak of a massacre?'" In other words, it has little or no bearing on this discussion, especially since the BBC in fact never reported a massacre - they reported that ''allegations'', or ''claims'', or sometimes ''reports'' of a massacre existed. <tt><[[User:Eleland|<b><font color="#00A0F0">el</font><font color="#005080">eland</font></b>]]/[[User talk:Eleland|<b><font color="#00A0F0">talk</font></b>]][[Special:Contributions/Eleland|<b><font color="#005080">edits</font> |
::::::I would add that newspaper headlines are designed for concision and punch, and are not written by journalists. The only "UN says no massacre" claim is in the headline, and the article as a whole actually says that "A United Nations investigation has rejected claims that hundreds of Palestinian civilians were killed in Israel's attack on the Palestinian refugee camp in Jenin...the report offers few conclusions and merely reports allegations that have already been made...Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat [asked] 'How many civilians must be killed to speak of a massacre?'" In other words, it has little or no bearing on this discussion, especially since the BBC in fact never reported a massacre - they reported that ''allegations'', or ''claims'', or sometimes ''reports'' of a massacre existed. <tt><[[User:Eleland|<b><font color="#00A0F0">el</font><font color="#005080">eland</font></b>]]/[[User talk:Eleland|<b><font color="#00A0F0">talk</font></b>]][[Special:Contributions/Eleland|<b><font color="#005080">edits</font></b>]]></tt> 17:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC) |
||
:::::::Ok. here are some links where repuitable newapapers describe a massacre as unlikely and such reports as overblown. I got these from [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Jenin&oldid=155458468#Western_media_accept_.22massacre.22 here]. |
:::::::Ok. here are some links where repuitable newapapers describe a massacre as unlikely and such reports as overblown. I got these from [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Jenin&oldid=155458468#Western_media_accept_.22massacre.22 here]. |
||
Line 699: | Line 699: | ||
::::::::Third linked source again actively contradicts the argument you are trying to support. It says that the "mendacious claims" (ie, massacre) were never retracted by the liberal European press - that's exactly the portion which you have quoted. |
::::::::Third linked source again actively contradicts the argument you are trying to support. It says that the "mendacious claims" (ie, massacre) were never retracted by the liberal European press - that's exactly the portion which you have quoted. |
||
::::::::Fourth source is a blowhard blogger; who cares. Fifth source doesn't contain the word "massacre". Sixth source accuses Israel of massive criminality while noting that "the Palestinian leadership ... without proof, declared that a massacre had occurred in which as many as 500 died. Palestinian human-rights groups made matters worse by churning out wild, and clearly untrue, stories." Doesn't have anything to say about the media response to those stories. |
::::::::Fourth source is a blowhard blogger; who cares. Fifth source doesn't contain the word "massacre". Sixth source accuses Israel of massive criminality while noting that "the Palestinian leadership ... without proof, declared that a massacre had occurred in which as many as 500 died. Palestinian human-rights groups made matters worse by churning out wild, and clearly untrue, stories." Doesn't have anything to say about the media response to those stories. |
||
::::::::In summary, you've shown that yes, some sources, particularly Israeli sources and conservative Western sources, do adhere to the "false massacre blood libel conclusively debunked" narrative, and that many other sources, particularly Palestinian sources and liberal Western sources do not. I don't think that supports what you're trying to do here. <tt><[[User:Eleland|<b><font color="#00A0F0">el</font><font color="#005080">eland</font></b>]]/[[User talk:Eleland|<b><font color="#00A0F0">talk</font></b>]][[Special:Contributions/Eleland|<b><font color="#005080">edits</font> |
::::::::In summary, you've shown that yes, some sources, particularly Israeli sources and conservative Western sources, do adhere to the "false massacre blood libel conclusively debunked" narrative, and that many other sources, particularly Palestinian sources and liberal Western sources do not. I don't think that supports what you're trying to do here. <tt><[[User:Eleland|<b><font color="#00A0F0">el</font><font color="#005080">eland</font></b>]]/[[User talk:Eleland|<b><font color="#00A0F0">talk</font></b>]][[Special:Contributions/Eleland|<b><font color="#005080">edits</font></b>]]></tt> 17:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC) |
||
::::::::Steve, with the exception of Sullivan's blog, these are all good solid reliable sources, but they're also all op-eds. Op-eds are fine sources for presenting a ''point of view'', and as I've said, the view that the mainstream media "uncritically" disseminated exaggerated accounts of Jenin is a notable one and should be included. But the claim we need citations for is the claim that ''"many international newspapers reported the possibility of a massacre, whereas 3-4 weeks on, they often describe the massacre as particularly unlikely"''. The subject is the ''reporting'', not op-ed analysis and commentary about that reporting. At any rate these op-eds manifestly ''do not'' support the statement; indeed, as PR has pointed out repeatedly, they flatly contradict it: ''"None has since retracted the mendacious claims nor tried to find out how they were misled,"'' says one. Says another: ''"One would hope that some honest reflection about their reporting by those European and American journalists who are genuinely motivated by a desire to help Palestinians (as opposed to those whose primary motive is demonizing Jews), will enable them to realize that propagating the falsehoods of Arafat's propagandists does nothing to further the legitimate aspirations of ordinary Palestinians, any more than parroting the lies of Stalin helped ordinary Russians."'' In short, these op-eds do not see the about-face in reporting that the disputed statement claims as fact. These are not examples of mainstream newspaper reports "describing the massacre as particularly unlikely"; they are examples of op-ed pundits opining that Palestinians and Palestinian spokesmen are liars and the international media are dupes or closet antisemites; this is a very different thing. The fact that you've offered these op-eds as support for the statement is a perfect illustration of what's wrong with this article. Instead of presenting a notable partisan analysis of the reporting on Jenin ''as'' a notable partisan analysis, we've simply ''absorbed'' that analysis and let it shape our presentation of fact. |
::::::::Steve, with the exception of Sullivan's blog, these are all good solid reliable sources, but they're also all op-eds. Op-eds are fine sources for presenting a ''point of view'', and as I've said, the view that the mainstream media "uncritically" disseminated exaggerated accounts of Jenin is a notable one and should be included. But the claim we need citations for is the claim that ''"many international newspapers reported the possibility of a massacre, whereas 3-4 weeks on, they often describe the massacre as particularly unlikely"''. The subject is the ''reporting'', not op-ed analysis and commentary about that reporting. At any rate these op-eds manifestly ''do not'' support the statement; indeed, as PR has pointed out repeatedly, they flatly contradict it: ''"None has since retracted the mendacious claims nor tried to find out how they were misled,"'' says one. Says another: ''"One would hope that some honest reflection about their reporting by those European and American journalists who are genuinely motivated by a desire to help Palestinians (as opposed to those whose primary motive is demonizing Jews), will enable them to realize that propagating the falsehoods of Arafat's propagandists does nothing to further the legitimate aspirations of ordinary Palestinians, any more than parroting the lies of Stalin helped ordinary Russians."'' In short, these op-eds do not see the about-face in reporting that the disputed statement claims as fact. These are not examples of mainstream newspaper reports "describing the massacre as particularly unlikely"; they are examples of op-ed pundits opining that Palestinians and Palestinian spokesmen are liars and the international media are dupes or closet antisemites; this is a very different thing. The fact that you've offered these op-eds as support for the statement is a perfect illustration of what's wrong with this article. Instead of presenting a notable partisan analysis of the reporting on Jenin ''as'' a notable partisan analysis, we've simply ''absorbed'' that analysis and let it shape our presentation of fact. |
||
Line 715: | Line 715: | ||
== "Allegations of a massacre" section == |
== "Allegations of a massacre" section == |
||
''The battle attracted widespread international attention due to Palestinian allegations that a massacre had been committed and due to inflated reports on body counts by Palestinian officials and Jenin residents.[43] Journalists and international groups were banned by the IDF from entering the camp during the fighting on safety grounds, and at one point the IDF itself reported casualties as high as 250,[44][7] [45][46][47] yet many journalists reported that a massacre of Palestinian civilians may have taken place during the fighting,[48][6][42] and unconfirmed "eyewitness" claims that hundreds, or even thousands, of bodies had been secretly buried in mass graves by the IDF were spread.[6][49][50][51][43] These allegations were aired widely in the Arab world and European media (most prominently in the British media), inciting extreme antipathy toward Israel.[6][50] Critics in conservative American publications responded by alleging a "Big Jenin Lie".[52][53] |
''The battle attracted widespread international attention due to Palestinian allegations that a massacre had been committed and due to inflated reports on body counts by Palestinian officials and Jenin residents.[43] Journalists and international groups were banned by the IDF from entering the camp during the fighting on safety grounds, and at one point the IDF itself reported casualties as high as 250,[44][7] [45][46][47] yet many journalists reported that a massacre of Palestinian civilians may have taken place during the fighting,[48][6][42] and unconfirmed "eyewitness" claims that hundreds, or even thousands, of bodies had been secretly buried in mass graves by the IDF were spread.[6][49][50][51][43] These allegations were aired widely in the Arab world and European media (most prominently in the British media), inciting extreme antipathy toward Israel.[6][50] Critics in conservative American publications responded by alleging a "Big Jenin Lie".[52][53]'' |
||
'' |
|||
''According to the Anti-Defamation League, International organizations, non-governmental organizations, and many foreign governments prematurely attacked Israel for committing atrocities during its military operations and before the facts were in. But while a massacre of hundreds was alleged, reported and condemned, it is now essentially certain that no such massacre occurred.[54]'' |
''According to the Anti-Defamation League, International organizations, non-governmental organizations, and many foreign governments prematurely attacked Israel for committing atrocities during its military operations and before the facts were in. But while a massacre of hundreds was alleged, reported and condemned, it is now essentially certain that no such massacre occurred.[54]'' |
||
Line 757: | Line 756: | ||
First, let me note that "prima facie '''X'''" does not mean, "Ghee whiz, we took a quick glance, and it just looks to us like '''X'''." It means, "Evidence of '''X''' which is so strong that, barring some unanticipated counter-explanation, it's sufficient to prove '''X'''." Read the page [[prima facie]], which notes that "It is used in modern legal English to signify that on first examination, a matter appears to be self-evident from the facts. In common law jurisdictions, prima facie denotes evidence that (unless rebutted) would be sufficient to prove a particular proposition or fact." Wiktionary [[wikt:prima facie|notes]] that the adjective means, "apparently correct; not needing proof unless evidence to the contrary is shown". |
First, let me note that "prima facie '''X'''" does not mean, "Ghee whiz, we took a quick glance, and it just looks to us like '''X'''." It means, "Evidence of '''X''' which is so strong that, barring some unanticipated counter-explanation, it's sufficient to prove '''X'''." Read the page [[prima facie]], which notes that "It is used in modern legal English to signify that on first examination, a matter appears to be self-evident from the facts. In common law jurisdictions, prima facie denotes evidence that (unless rebutted) would be sufficient to prove a particular proposition or fact." Wiktionary [[wikt:prima facie|notes]] that the adjective means, "apparently correct; not needing proof unless evidence to the contrary is shown". |
||
Second, I actually don't mind the language "strong prima facie evidence". It's true that the Amnesty International report flatly stated that IDF committed "unlawful killings", and that "Grave breaches of Article 147 of the Fourth Geneva Convention constitute war crimes.(24) Some of the acts by the IDF described in this report amount to grave breaches of the Fourth Geneva Convention. These acts include some of the unlawful killings described in this report; the torture and ill-treatment of prisoners; wanton destruction of property after the end of military operations; the blocking of ambulances and denial of humanitarian assistance; and the use of Palestinian civilians to assist in military operations." If this is the objectino, we should say something like "HRW found strong prima facie evidence of war crimes, Amnesty listed several categories of war crimes it found committed by the IDF." IIRC, I inserted the "prima facie" language myself, and G-Dett commended me for it, so I'm a bit confused by what's going on now! <tt><[[User:Eleland|<b><font color="#00A0F0">el</font><font color="#005080">eland</font></b>]]/[[User talk:Eleland|<b><font color="#00A0F0">talk</font></b>]][[Special:Contributions/Eleland|<b><font color="#005080">edits</font> |
Second, I actually don't mind the language "strong prima facie evidence". It's true that the Amnesty International report flatly stated that IDF committed "unlawful killings", and that "Grave breaches of Article 147 of the Fourth Geneva Convention constitute war crimes.(24) Some of the acts by the IDF described in this report amount to grave breaches of the Fourth Geneva Convention. These acts include some of the unlawful killings described in this report; the torture and ill-treatment of prisoners; wanton destruction of property after the end of military operations; the blocking of ambulances and denial of humanitarian assistance; and the use of Palestinian civilians to assist in military operations." If this is the objectino, we should say something like "HRW found strong prima facie evidence of war crimes, Amnesty listed several categories of war crimes it found committed by the IDF." IIRC, I inserted the "prima facie" language myself, and G-Dett commended me for it, so I'm a bit confused by what's going on now! <tt><[[User:Eleland|<b><font color="#00A0F0">el</font><font color="#005080">eland</font></b>]]/[[User talk:Eleland|<b><font color="#00A0F0">talk</font></b>]][[Special:Contributions/Eleland|<b><font color="#005080">edits</font></b>]]></tt> 18:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC) |
||
:Hi Eleland. Of course you're right that "prima facie" does not mean "at first blush." It does not indicate significant hedging, but it is nonetheless a qualification. But the simple fact is neither Amnesty International nor the British military expert retained by AI ever mention "prima facie evidence"; both attested unambiguously to Israeli war crimes. (Tewfik says that "AI does not drop it," meaning the phrase "prima facie," but this is only trivially true in the sense that they never said it in the first place). Now, HRW ''did'' write that "Israeli forces committed serious violations of international humanitarian law, some amounting ''prima facie'' to war crimes." They wrote this the month after the siege. In their final, end-of-year bound and published report, HRW specifically mentioned the May report and its its finding of "prima facie" evidence, but then used different language in the report itself: "In Jenin, Human Rights Watch documented twenty-two civilian killings during the IDF military operations in April. Many of them were killed wilfully or unlawfully, and in some case constituted war crimes." What Tewfik is inexplicably calling "[[WP:NOR|OR]]" is simply quoted directly from HRW's annual report. These are precisely the sources – HRW, AI, and the British military expert David Holley – whose consensus on the question of massacre Tewfik regards as definitive. Their consensus on war crimes is equally clear. "Prima facie" has a technical meaning and is not a weasel word, but it is misleading in this case. Only HRW ever said it, in the summary of their initial May report, and they dropped it afterwards. |
:Hi Eleland. Of course you're right that "prima facie" does not mean "at first blush." It does not indicate significant hedging, but it is nonetheless a qualification. But the simple fact is neither Amnesty International nor the British military expert retained by AI ever mention "prima facie evidence"; both attested unambiguously to Israeli war crimes. (Tewfik says that "AI does not drop it," meaning the phrase "prima facie," but this is only trivially true in the sense that they never said it in the first place). Now, HRW ''did'' write that "Israeli forces committed serious violations of international humanitarian law, some amounting ''prima facie'' to war crimes." They wrote this the month after the siege. In their final, end-of-year bound and published report, HRW specifically mentioned the May report and its its finding of "prima facie" evidence, but then used different language in the report itself: "In Jenin, Human Rights Watch documented twenty-two civilian killings during the IDF military operations in April. Many of them were killed wilfully or unlawfully, and in some case constituted war crimes." What Tewfik is inexplicably calling "[[WP:NOR|OR]]" is simply quoted directly from HRW's annual report. These are precisely the sources – HRW, AI, and the British military expert David Holley – whose consensus on the question of massacre Tewfik regards as definitive. Their consensus on war crimes is equally clear. "Prima facie" has a technical meaning and is not a weasel word, but it is misleading in this case. Only HRW ever said it, in the summary of their initial May report, and they dropped it afterwards. |
||
:The other part of the dispute has to do with how to attribute the claim that Israel used indiscriminate and disproportionate force. Both Amnesty and HRW describe it this way. So does the EU. And the UN report cites other "human rights investigations" as describing it this way. I don't know of any human-rights group that ''doesn't'' describe it this way. Having previously insisted that the description be attributed to "Palestinian sources" (!?), Tewfik is now arguing that we should say "some human rights organizations," as if there were a lack of consensus. His argument, so far as I can follow it, is that the UN report attributes the charge to others and therefore doesn't give it its own imprimatur. Whatever. Debatable but irrelevant. The UN is not a "human rights organization." The UN report ''cites'' human rights organizations, and it cites them very clearly as describing the Israeli use of force as "disproportionate and indiscriminate": ''"Witness testimonies and human rights investigations allege that the destruction was both disproportionate and indiscriminate."'' HRW and AI – as has been demonstrated exhaustively, and exhaustingly, and repeatedly, with copious direct quotation, in response to previous wikilawyering on this page – both describe the Israeli use of force as "disproportionate and indiscriminate."--[[User:G-Dett|G-Dett]] 19:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC) |
:The other part of the dispute has to do with how to attribute the claim that Israel used indiscriminate and disproportionate force. Both Amnesty and HRW describe it this way. So does the EU. And the UN report cites other "human rights investigations" as describing it this way. I don't know of any human-rights group that ''doesn't'' describe it this way. Having previously insisted that the description be attributed to "Palestinian sources" (!?), Tewfik is now arguing that we should say "some human rights organizations," as if there were a lack of consensus. His argument, so far as I can follow it, is that the UN report attributes the charge to others and therefore doesn't give it its own imprimatur. Whatever. Debatable but irrelevant. The UN is not a "human rights organization." The UN report ''cites'' human rights organizations, and it cites them very clearly as describing the Israeli use of force as "disproportionate and indiscriminate": ''"Witness testimonies and human rights investigations allege that the destruction was both disproportionate and indiscriminate."'' HRW and AI – as has been demonstrated exhaustively, and exhaustingly, and repeatedly, with copious direct quotation, in response to previous wikilawyering on this page – both describe the Israeli use of force as "disproportionate and indiscriminate."--[[User:G-Dett|G-Dett]] 19:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC) |
||
::Looks like solid case, then. I didn't notice that the language you suggested had different sources than I'd previously brought up. AI and the EU called them war crimes right away; HRW called it a strong prima facie case, then called them war crimes after a little while (presumably because no Israeli refutation or counter-evidence was presented). Thus, your new language is more accurate. <tt><[[User:Eleland|<b><font color="#00A0F0">el</font><font color="#005080">eland</font></b>]]/[[User talk:Eleland|<b><font color="#00A0F0">talk</font></b>]][[Special:Contributions/Eleland|<b><font color="#005080">edits</font> |
::Looks like solid case, then. I didn't notice that the language you suggested had different sources than I'd previously brought up. AI and the EU called them war crimes right away; HRW called it a strong prima facie case, then called them war crimes after a little while (presumably because no Israeli refutation or counter-evidence was presented). Thus, your new language is more accurate. <tt><[[User:Eleland|<b><font color="#00A0F0">el</font><font color="#005080">eland</font></b>]]/[[User talk:Eleland|<b><font color="#00A0F0">talk</font></b>]][[Special:Contributions/Eleland|<b><font color="#005080">edits</font></b>]]></tt> 20:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC) |
||
Moved here from my talk: |
Moved here from my talk: |
||
=== Jenin / Prima Facie === |
=== Jenin / Prima Facie === |
||
Hey, I think you need to look more closely at the text [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Jenin&curid=92493&diff=165302386&oldid=165245642 you are reverting]. The source is actually not the same HRW report from before, it's a year-in-review piece which flatly states, "In Jenin, Human Rights Watch documented twenty-two civilian killings during the IDF military operations in April. Many of them were killed wilfully or unlawfully, and in some case constituted war crimes." I would have agreed with you, until I noticed that it wasn't the same report I saw earlier. <tt><[[User:Eleland|<b><font color="#00A0F0">el</font><font color="#005080">eland</font></b>]]/[[User talk:Eleland|<b><font color="#00A0F0">talk</font></b>]][[Special:Contributions/Eleland|<b><font color="#005080">edits</font> |
Hey, I think you need to look more closely at the text [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Jenin&curid=92493&diff=165302386&oldid=165245642 you are reverting]. The source is actually not the same HRW report from before, it's a year-in-review piece which flatly states, "In Jenin, Human Rights Watch documented twenty-two civilian killings during the IDF military operations in April. Many of them were killed wilfully or unlawfully, and in some case constituted war crimes." I would have agreed with you, until I noticed that it wasn't the same report I saw earlier. <tt><[[User:Eleland|<b><font color="#00A0F0">el</font><font color="#005080">eland</font></b>]]/[[User talk:Eleland|<b><font color="#00A0F0">talk</font></b>]][[Special:Contributions/Eleland|<b><font color="#005080">edits</font></b>]]></tt> 00:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC) |
||
:The full paragraph [http://www.hrw.org/wr2k3/mideast.html states]: |
:The full paragraph [http://www.hrw.org/wr2k3/mideast.html states]: |
||
::Our early May report, Jenin: IDF Military Operations, documented Israeli Defense Forces' extensive violations of international humanitarian law, '''some amounting prima facie to war crimes'''. During the April offensive on the Jenin refugee camp, Israel committed violations including the unlawful or willful killing of civilians, use of Palestinian civilians as human shields, obstruction of emergency medical and humanitarian assistance, and destruction that appeared to exceed that which could be justified on the ground of military necessity. We pressured Israel to allow access to the Jenin refugee camp by humanitarian and human rights organizations and strongly criticized its decision not to allow a U.N. fact-finding mission. We welcomed the IDF decision in May to forbid the use of hostages and human shields, and to "examine" the forced use of civilians in response to a petition from seven human rights organizations. The petition was drafted by Adalah's staff attorney and drew on the April and May Human Rights Watch reports noted above. |
::Our early May report, Jenin: IDF Military Operations, documented Israeli Defense Forces' extensive violations of international humanitarian law, '''some amounting prima facie to war crimes'''. During the April offensive on the Jenin refugee camp, Israel committed violations including the unlawful or willful killing of civilians, use of Palestinian civilians as human shields, obstruction of emergency medical and humanitarian assistance, and destruction that appeared to exceed that which could be justified on the ground of military necessity. We pressured Israel to allow access to the Jenin refugee camp by humanitarian and human rights organizations and strongly criticized its decision not to allow a U.N. fact-finding mission. We welcomed the IDF decision in May to forbid the use of hostages and human shields, and to "examine" the forced use of civilians in response to a petition from seven human rights organizations. The petition was drafted by Adalah's staff attorney and drew on the April and May Human Rights Watch reports noted above. |
||
:emphasis mine. Anyway, I think it's safe to say that the major HR orgs consensus view was that there were "prima facie war crimes" so if we keep it short, and to the point, there's less to argue about ;) [[User:Armon|<<-armon->>]] 00:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC) |
:emphasis mine. Anyway, I think it's safe to say that the major HR orgs consensus view was that there were "prima facie war crimes" so if we keep it short, and to the point, there's less to argue about ;) [[User:Armon|<<-armon->>]] 00:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC) |
||
::I can't follow your reasoning for the life of me, Armon. In their annual review, HRW writes the paragraph you've quoted and therein describes their May report. Then in their year-end report itself, they write: |
::I can't follow your reasoning for the life of me, Armon. In their annual review, HRW writes the paragraph you've quoted and therein describes their May report. Then in their year-end report itself, they write: |
||
::<blockquote>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 wilfully or unlawfully, and in some case constituted war crimes. |
::<blockquote>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 wilfully or unlawfully, and in some case constituted war crimes.</blockquote> |
||
</blockquote> |
|||
::I do not understand how (a) you've concluded that the quote on p.418 of their annual report, which uses the phrase "prima facie" in summarizing their May report, somehow trumps the language on 460 of that annual report, where they describe killings without qualification as having "constituted war crimes"; or (b) how you've concluded that a phrase used once and only once by Human Rights Watch, and never by Amnesty International, constitutes "the major HR orgs consensus view." The major HR orgs consensus view is that the IDF carried out war crimes. We know because they both said this. Amnesty's military expert (whom we've quoted as authoritative when he says no massacre occurred) also agreed on war crimes, and never does he say "prima facie." Something makes me think you haven't read the sources or followed the debate on this page.--[[User:G-Dett|G-Dett]] 00:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC) |
::I do not understand how (a) you've concluded that the quote on p.418 of their annual report, which uses the phrase "prima facie" in summarizing their May report, somehow trumps the language on 460 of that annual report, where they describe killings without qualification as having "constituted war crimes"; or (b) how you've concluded that a phrase used once and only once by Human Rights Watch, and never by Amnesty International, constitutes "the major HR orgs consensus view." The major HR orgs consensus view is that the IDF carried out war crimes. We know because they both said this. Amnesty's military expert (whom we've quoted as authoritative when he says no massacre occurred) also agreed on war crimes, and never does he say "prima facie." Something makes me think you haven't read the sources or followed the debate on this page.--[[User:G-Dett|G-Dett]] 00:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC) |
||
:::I'm sure I may have missed something in the debate, but it's a summary of the major HR org's position for the lede. I thought we had a consensus on the phrase "prima facie", and HRW ''does'' use it in summarizing their own position. If you think it would be better to say: "major human rights organizations ''alleged'' that the IDF had carried out war crimes." -which is true and neutral, fine, but I think that the "prima facie" phrasing is a bit stronger and more accurate. [[User:Armon|<<-armon->>]] 02:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC) |
:::I'm sure I may have missed something in the debate, but it's a summary of the major HR org's position for the lede. I thought we had a consensus on the phrase "prima facie", and HRW ''does'' use it in summarizing their own position. If you think it would be better to say: "major human rights organizations ''alleged'' that the IDF had carried out war crimes." -which is true and neutral, fine, but I think that the "prima facie" phrasing is a bit stronger and more accurate. [[User:Armon|<<-armon->>]] 02:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC) |
||
Line 782: | Line 780: | ||
Another logical fallacy that keeps getting presented is the idea that if the NGOs confirm one point that the Israelis argued [regarding "no massacre"], that they then achieve some status of "definitive" [regarding war crimes]. I'm not sure where people have gotten that idea, but your agreement with someone on ''one point'' would hardly force you to then agree with everything that person argues. '''[[User:Tewfik|<span style="color:#22AA00;">Tewfik</span>]]'''[[User Talk:Tewfik|<sup style="color:#888888;">Talk</sup>]] 08:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC) |
Another logical fallacy that keeps getting presented is the idea that if the NGOs confirm one point that the Israelis argued [regarding "no massacre"], that they then achieve some status of "definitive" [regarding war crimes]. I'm not sure where people have gotten that idea, but your agreement with someone on ''one point'' would hardly force you to then agree with everything that person argues. '''[[User:Tewfik|<span style="color:#22AA00;">Tewfik</span>]]'''[[User Talk:Tewfik|<sup style="color:#888888;">Talk</sup>]] 08:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC) |
||
::I don't think any of what you've written above makes any sense, Tewfik. Much of it in fact seems willfully nonsensical. We don't need "proof" that HRW's position has changed because we're not saying it has changed. We're simply saying the major human rights organizations agree that the IDF carried out war crimes. We have quotes from both where they say this unequivocally. It is inappropriate for you to keep deliberately misleading the reader into thinking that AI tempered their findings of war crimes with any language about "prima facie." Your wikilawyering about "indiscriminate" is likewise dead in the water<s>, Tewfik, and has seriously eroded my belief in your good faith</s>.--[[User:G-Dett|G-Dett]] 14:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC) |
::I don't think any of what you've written above makes any sense, Tewfik. Much of it in fact seems willfully nonsensical. We don't need "proof" that HRW's position has changed because we're not saying it has changed. We're simply saying the major human rights organizations agree that the IDF carried out war crimes. We have quotes from both where they say this unequivocally. It is inappropriate for you to keep deliberately misleading the reader into thinking that AI tempered their findings of war crimes with any language about "prima facie." Your wikilawyering about "indiscriminate" is likewise dead in the water<s>, Tewfik, and has seriously eroded my belief in your good faith</s>.--[[User:G-Dett|G-Dett]] 14:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC) |
||
''Page protected. Pls let me make 2 suggestions. (#1) You all have identified and debated the issues, without much repetitiveness, so how about we '''open a [[WP:RFC|Request for Comment]]'''? If you can't agree on how to describe the dispute, you can let some mythically fair-minded editor write the RfC (humble me?) or share it. (#2) You all should check to see if you're satisfied with the '''AI and HRW sections'''. This part of the lead should only reflect/summarize the content below, right? So your discussion could help get buy-in for those sections, too. How's that? [[User:HG|HG]] | [[User talk:HG|Talk]] 12:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC) |
''Page protected. Pls let me make 2 suggestions. (#1) You all have identified and debated the issues, without much repetitiveness, so how about we '''open a [[WP:RFC|Request for Comment]]'''? If you can't agree on how to describe the dispute, you can let some mythically fair-minded editor write the RfC (humble me?) or share it. (#2) You all should check to see if you're satisfied with the '''AI and HRW sections'''. This part of the lead should only reflect/summarize the content below, right? So your discussion could help get buy-in for those sections, too. How's that? ''[[User:HG|HG]] | [[User talk:HG|Talk]] 12:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC) |
||
::I think if we're going to open an RfC, it should be on substantive issues where reasonable people who have read the sources could conceivably disagree. <s>Tewfik's equivocations about "indiscriminate" and "disproportionate" (and his disruptive editing of same) are not examples of this. Equally absurd is his argument that it is appropriate to sift through the findings of HR organizations, and present some of them as definitive facts and others as allegations. Sophistries like this are an insult to the intelligence, and deserve to be ignored or flatly rebuked by any editor of good faith.</s>--[[User:G-Dett|G-Dett]] 14:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC) |
::I think if we're going to open an RfC, it should be on substantive issues where reasonable people who have read the sources could conceivably disagree. <s>Tewfik's equivocations about "indiscriminate" and "disproportionate" (and his disruptive editing of same) are not examples of this. Equally absurd is his argument that it is appropriate to sift through the findings of HR organizations, and present some of them as definitive facts and others as allegations. Sophistries like this are an insult to the intelligence, and deserve to be ignored or flatly rebuked by any editor of good faith.</s>--[[User:G-Dett|G-Dett]] 14:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC) |
||
:::''For heaven's sake, G-D! Your edit summary was fabulous but.... Scratch everything (and I mean it!) after your 1st sentence and tell us, affirmatively and constructively, how to do the RfC. Can you concisely and fairly describe the substantive issues? Or how will an RfC be submitted?'' [[User:HG|HG]] | [[User talk:HG|Talk]] 15:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC) |
:::''For heaven's sake, G-D! Your edit summary was fabulous but.... Scratch everything (and I mean it!) after your 1st sentence and tell us, affirmatively and constructively, how to do the RfC. Can you concisely and fairly describe the substantive issues? Or how will an RfC be submitted?'' [[User:HG|HG]] | [[User talk:HG|Talk]] 15:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC) |
||
Line 800: | Line 798: | ||
:anything human right groups say is only their opinion. what about palestinian terrorists? is it a war crime when they attack busloads of civilians? that's relevant, and you know it. --[[User:Sm8900|Steve, Sm8900]] 21:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC) |
:anything human right groups say is only their opinion. what about palestinian terrorists? is it a war crime when they attack busloads of civilians? that's relevant, and you know it. --[[User:Sm8900|Steve, Sm8900]] 21:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC) |
||
::Excuse me, but anything anybody says is "only their opinion". Climate change, evolution, the theory of gravity - all mere opinions. If that's the best you can do, you really haven't anything to add to the discussion. HRW and Amnesty are eminently credible, and they ''do not'' rush to judgment when Israel is involved - far from it, they hold themselves to a higher standard, and they use more careful language, because they know that scores of well-funded advocacy groups will be scrutinizing their every statement. As for Palestinian terrorists, HRW and Amnesty have condemned them repeatedly and unequivocally, as you would know if you bothered to read their reports. <tt><[[User:Eleland|<b><font color="#00A0F0">el</font><font color="#005080">eland</font></b>]]/[[User talk:Eleland|<b><font color="#00A0F0">talk</font></b>]][[Special:Contributions/Eleland|<b><font color="#005080">edits</font> |
::Excuse me, but anything anybody says is "only their opinion". Climate change, evolution, the theory of gravity - all mere opinions. If that's the best you can do, you really haven't anything to add to the discussion. HRW and Amnesty are eminently credible, and they ''do not'' rush to judgment when Israel is involved - far from it, they hold themselves to a higher standard, and they use more careful language, because they know that scores of well-funded advocacy groups will be scrutinizing their every statement. As for Palestinian terrorists, HRW and Amnesty have condemned them repeatedly and unequivocally, as you would know if you bothered to read their reports. <tt><[[User:Eleland|<b><font color="#00A0F0">el</font><font color="#005080">eland</font></b>]]/[[User talk:Eleland|<b><font color="#00A0F0">talk</font></b>]][[Special:Contributions/Eleland|<b><font color="#005080">edits</font></b>]]></tt> 22:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC) |
||
::If you are serious about this, Steve – i.e., if you want to present the finding that no massacre of Palestinians occurred as just another "opinion" – then let me know, and I'll tell you why I disagree. In the meantime, please note the subject of discussion here. We're debating how to present, concisely and accurately, the consensus view of human-rights organizations regarding war crimes. Their views have been expressed with varying formulations and varying levels of nuance. I want to present the consensus view with a formulation all the relevant sources have used; Tewfik wants to present the consensus view with a formulation only one of the sources has used. Both formulations are in boldface above, Steve. They await your scrutiny. I await a serious explanation of Tewfik's reasoning.--[[User:G-Dett|G-Dett]] 23:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC) |
::If you are serious about this, Steve – i.e., if you want to present the finding that no massacre of Palestinians occurred as just another "opinion" – then let me know, and I'll tell you why I disagree. In the meantime, please note the subject of discussion here. We're debating how to present, concisely and accurately, the consensus view of human-rights organizations regarding war crimes. Their views have been expressed with varying formulations and varying levels of nuance. I want to present the consensus view with a formulation all the relevant sources have used; Tewfik wants to present the consensus view with a formulation only one of the sources has used. Both formulations are in boldface above, Steve. They await your scrutiny. I await a serious explanation of Tewfik's reasoning.--[[User:G-Dett|G-Dett]] 23:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC) |
||
Line 881: | Line 879: | ||
:H5 is a good point. The problem with "found" is that it implies authority and accuracy. While I, personally, attribute such authority to HRW, Amnesty et al, not all POV's do. I dislike "claimed", per [[WP:WTA]] and more specifically the lightweight, dismissive nature of the word. I prefer "concluded", since the war crimes allegations resulted from intensive and extensive investigation. |
:H5 is a good point. The problem with "found" is that it implies authority and accuracy. While I, personally, attribute such authority to HRW, Amnesty et al, not all POV's do. I dislike "claimed", per [[WP:WTA]] and more specifically the lightweight, dismissive nature of the word. I prefer "concluded", since the war crimes allegations resulted from intensive and extensive investigation. |
||
:H6 I don't understand. Frankly, it is verifiable and self-evident that HRW explicitly stated that Israel had committed war crimes, without qualifying language. In some cases the "prima facie" wording was used, in others (G-Dett has helpfully provided bold-faced quotes). I don't see where interpretation enters into it. |
:H6 I don't understand. Frankly, it is verifiable and self-evident that HRW explicitly stated that Israel had committed war crimes, without qualifying language. In some cases the "prima facie" wording was used, in others (G-Dett has helpfully provided bold-faced quotes). I don't see where interpretation enters into it. |
||
:H7 is another good point, tied to H5. What's important for me is not presenting HRW, AI, et al as "just another opinion", comparable to that of the ADL or CAMERA. This is an absurd violation of [[WP:UNDUE]]. The mirror of ADL and CAMERA are Palestinian and Arab groups, or possibly elements of the Israeli left. HRW and AI are straight-down-the-middle reliable sources and their carefully considered findings shouldn't be paired up with the rantings of the Israel lobby. <tt><[[User:Eleland|<b><font color="#00A0F0">el</font><font color="#005080">eland</font></b>]]/[[User talk:Eleland|<b><font color="#00A0F0">talk</font></b>]][[Special:Contributions/Eleland|<b><font color="#005080">edits</font> |
:H7 is another good point, tied to H5. What's important for me is not presenting HRW, AI, et al as "just another opinion", comparable to that of the ADL or CAMERA. This is an absurd violation of [[WP:UNDUE]]. The mirror of ADL and CAMERA are Palestinian and Arab groups, or possibly elements of the Israeli left. HRW and AI are straight-down-the-middle reliable sources and their carefully considered findings shouldn't be paired up with the rantings of the Israel lobby. <tt><[[User:Eleland|<b><font color="#00A0F0">el</font><font color="#005080">eland</font></b>]]/[[User talk:Eleland|<b><font color="#00A0F0">talk</font></b>]][[Special:Contributions/Eleland|<b><font color="#005080">edits</font></b>]]></tt> 20:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC) |
||
'''Tewfik.''' Hello HG, (H1) Yes. Indeed, David Holley is not a Human Rights organisation, but rather was an agent of AI, and his views were incorporated into AI's report. "Wait," you say, "he is 'quoted as authoritative' elsewhere." So what is the dilemma being posed? Must we either accept his soundbyte as proof that there is another opinion distinct from AI (despite his views already being incorporated in AI's report) or else remove his uncontested observation that there was no mass killing? I don't see the parallel. (H2) Perhaps, but good secondary sources would just mirror the reports' strong desire to say something while explicitly stopping short of it. (H3) Yes, though being as AI hasn't changed their position, and being that HRW's ambiguous language existed in both its original and new reports, and thus it hasn't changed its position, why is there suddenly now a problem with [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Jenin&diff=152062423&oldid=152029194 Eleland's "elegant fairness"]? (H4) Yes. I understood G-Dett to be saying that the end-of-year report only uses ''prima facie'' regarding the May report. As far as I can tell that is not the case, and while HRW uses mixed language in its report bodies, it employed ''prima-facie'' in both report summaries. (H5) So I'm flexible, and G-Dett is flexible, and we're communicating through you :-) As the dispute is about the nature of the "claims", I'm not sure that would really help (i.e. are they alleging war crimes, or are they alleging likely war crimes). (H7) Much of what you say seems evident in their desire to say certain things without saying them. I'm not sure as to whether your suggestion would actually resolve the problem though. |
'''Tewfik.''' Hello HG, (H1) Yes. Indeed, David Holley is not a Human Rights organisation, but rather was an agent of AI, and his views were incorporated into AI's report. "Wait," you say, "he is 'quoted as authoritative' elsewhere." So what is the dilemma being posed? Must we either accept his soundbyte as proof that there is another opinion distinct from AI (despite his views already being incorporated in AI's report) or else remove his uncontested observation that there was no mass killing? I don't see the parallel. (H2) Perhaps, but good secondary sources would just mirror the reports' strong desire to say something while explicitly stopping short of it. (H3) Yes, though being as AI hasn't changed their position, and being that HRW's ambiguous language existed in both its original and new reports, and thus it hasn't changed its position, why is there suddenly now a problem with [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Jenin&diff=152062423&oldid=152029194 Eleland's "elegant fairness"]? (H4) Yes. I understood G-Dett to be saying that the end-of-year report only uses ''prima facie'' regarding the May report. As far as I can tell that is not the case, and while HRW uses mixed language in its report bodies, it employed ''prima-facie'' in both report summaries. (H5) So I'm flexible, and G-Dett is flexible, and we're communicating through you :-) As the dispute is about the nature of the "claims", I'm not sure that would really help (i.e. are they alleging war crimes, or are they alleging likely war crimes). (H7) Much of what you say seems evident in their desire to say certain things without saying them. I'm not sure as to whether your suggestion would actually resolve the problem though. |
||
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
N.B. Only add a source if you consider it reliable to use in body count estimate(s) for the article, or for the article's narrative about reporting of the body count (assuming notability of such a narrative, for now). Thanks to all contributors and to Eleland for starting us off! HG | Talk 14:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Date (dd mon yyyy) |
Count & type of count |
Attributed source | Reporting source(s) | Notes |
09 Apr 2002 | perhaps > 120 | Reports from inside camp | Inigo Gilmore for Daily Telegraph | Reporter in Rummana near Jenin talks to non-combatants arrested and taken from camp. |
09 Apr 2002 | a massacre | Foreign Minister Shimon Peres "a massacre" | Ha'aretz quoted by Indymedia | Peres also quoted saying "When the world sees the pictures of what we have done there, it will do us immense damage." [note: Ha'aretz changed story completely the same day.] |
c. 10 Apr 2002 | up to 200 | 'very senior generals' | Australia/Israel Jewish Affairs Council Sept 2005 | "the press quoted Defence officials with numbers ranging as high as 250. These figures made the Palestinian claims of 500 dead seem within the bounds of plausibility." |
10 Apr 2002 | 'could reach 500' | Saeb Erekat on CNN | 17.00pm | "the numbers I am receiving today is that the numbers of killed could reach 500 since the Israeli offensive began" (hence, throughout West Bank.) |
10 Apr 2002 | 'more than 500' | Unidentified male, Saeb Erekat repeats | 20.00pm | UNIDENTIFIED MALE: They have committed a major crime today in the old city of Nablus and the (UNINTELLIGIBLE). The number killed, more than 500 people there. SAEB EREKAT: "number of Palestinian dead in the Israeli attacks have reached more than 500 now. ... number may increase ... massacres committed in ... Jenin refugee camp and ... Nablus." |
11 Apr 2002 | 500 | Palestinians | CNN correspondent Ben Wedeman | "The Palestinians are reporting 500 dead." |
11 Apr 2002 | possibly as much as 200 | International relief sources | CNN correspondent Ben Wedeman | "International relief sources are saying possibly as much as 200." |
12 Apr 2002 | about 100 estimated | IDF | BBC News | "According to the Haaretz newspaper, military sources said two IDF infantry companies were scheduled to enter the camp on Friday to collect the dead" |
12 Apr 2002 | 100 to 150 | Israeli Foreign Ministry | CNN | between 100 and 150, 95% being Palestinian gunmen |
12 Apr 2002 | 200 - 500 | Israel, Palestinians and Red Cross | CNN correspondent Ben Wedeman | "Israeli officials .... say around 200. Palestinians say 500. The Red Cross is somewhere in between." |
12 Apr 2002 | around 200 | IDF | Ha'aretz | "IDF intends to bury ... Around 200 Palestinians are believed to have been killed ... those identified as terrorists will be buried at a special cemetery in the Jordan Valley." {Israeli Supreme Court blocks then allows this.) |
13 Apr 2002 | some 250 killed | Israeli military sources | South African BC | "The Israeli army says it lost nearly two dozen of its own and military sources have estimated some 250 Palestinians were killed." |
13 Apr 2002 | 100s, Israel preparing to bury 900 | Yasser Abed Rabbo, Palestinian information minister | South African BC | "The Palestinians say hundreds more were killed and Yasser Abed Rabbo, the Palestinians' information minister, yesterday accused Israel of digging mass graves for 900 Palestinians in the camp." |
14 Apr 2002 | "had estimated 150-200" | Israeli army | Capt Dallal in New Republic reprinted AIJAC | Captain Jacob Dallal is former Deputy Director of the International Press Office of the IDF Spokesperson’s Unit. |
14 Apr 2002 | dozens not hundreds | Defence Minister Ben Eliezer | Australia/Israel Jewish Affairs Council | "Sunday morning [14th] when then-Defence Minister Binyamin Ben Eliezer reported to the cabinet that "dozens not hundreds" were killed." |
17 Apr 2002 | not less than 500 | Saeb Erakat | on CNN | "to have an international commission of inquiry to get the results (ph) and to decide how many people were massacred. And we say the number will not be less than 500." |
17 Apr 2002 | No more than 45 | Ben-Eliezer | on CNN | "No more than 45, sir. That's what we have counted. And, you know, the amazing thing that we have found among them, more so than, by the way, were uniformed. And two of them, just recently we found them, with -- as a suicide bomber." |
18 Apr 2002 | c. 65 bodies recovered | Zalmon Shoval, aide to Ariel Sharon | BBC News | Zalmon Shoval, adviser to Sharon "defended Israel's actions, saying it was fighting for its life ... only about 65 bodies had been recovered, of which five were civilians. " |
18 Apr 2002 | at least 52 | HRW | HRW | "This figure may rise as rescue and investigative work proceeds...Due to the low number of people reported missing, Human Rights Watch does not expect this figure to increase substantially." |
18 Apr 2002 | 54 | Palestinian hospital lists | Amnesty International | "According to hospital lists ... there were 54 Palestinian deaths between 3 and 17 April 2002 ... not a single corpse was brought into the hospital from 5 until 15 April" |
23 Apr 2002 | 40 + 120 | Derek Pounder, Forensic Scientist | Guardian | "Even if one accepts the Israeli claim that "only" 40 Palestinians died, there ought to be another 120 lying badly wounded, in hospital. But they are nowhere to be found. We draw the conclusion that they were allowed to die where they were" |
3 May 2002 | 53 + 22 | Palestinian medics, UN officials | SMH | "Palestinian medics in Jenin have so far recorded 53 corpses, including 21 civilians, and UN officials have estimated 22 others are missing." |
7 May 2002 | c. 375 in all West Bank | PA | PA figure included in UN report | " While the exact number of Palestinians killed is still not final ... as of now reports indicate that 375 Palestinians were killed from 29 March to 7 May 2002" (Nablus included, thought to have 80 Palestinians and 3 soldiers dead). |
7 May 2002 | 497 Palestinians in West Bank | UN | UN report | "A total of 497 Palestinians were killed in the course of the IDF reoccupation of Palestinian area A from 1 March to 7 May 2002 and in the immediate aftermath" |
Additional deaths and bodies not in the original counts:
Date (dd mon yyyy) |
Additional deaths & bodies found |
Attributed source | Reporting source(s) | Notes |
Early May 2002 | at least 2 more | Witnesses | UN Report | Bomb-disposal teams refused entry for 'several weeks' in which time at least two Palestinians were accidentally killed in explosions from remaining Palestinian ordnance and mines allegedly laid by the IDF according to Jordan in UN report. |
4/8 Aug 2002 | 4 bodies found | 12 Internationals | Jenin Inquiry | 12 from the US, UK, Ireland, Canada, Norway, including an international lawyer. 3 bodies 4th August, 1 body 8th August from under rubble. |
(rm'd table of Jenin killings in July, after Battle of Jenin and unrelated) < eleland // talkedits > 12:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Lastly, estimates and sources who either made mistakes in conflict with their sources, or started rumours identified as such by the reporting sources given:
Date (dd mon yyyy) |
Rumour | Attributed source | Source reporting rumour | Notes |
11 Apr 2002 | 500 | "Saeb Erekat has told CNN" | Ali Abunimah on ElectronicIntifada (or) claims misquote | Jpost allegedly misreported Saeb Erekat saying "told CNN that Israel had 'massacred' 500 people in the Jenin camp" not "the numbers I am receiving today is that the numbers of killed could reach 500 since the Israeli offensive began" (ie West Bank generally). |
12 Apr 2002 | no estimate | "IDF general staff meeting" | Captain Jacob Dallal on AIJAC | "talk at the IDF general staff meeting on Friday [12th] of removing the bodies of Palestinian gunmen and burying them elsewhere proved to be the nail in the coffin of Israel’s PR effort." |
?? Apr 2002 | 52 in UN report | misquote of the UN report | Captain Jacob Dallal on AIJAC | Captain Jacob Dallal, former Deputy Director of International Press Office "I gathered the press together and went over the Palestinian body count. According to the final UN Report on Jenin, 52 Palestinians were killed in the fighting, a figure Israel accepts as definitive" |
Please expand the above table; also please document properly and read your sources carefully. Be sure to distinguish between (say) "37" and "at least 37 recovered at Hospital X"; if there are ambiguities document them in the notes. Eleland 13:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Greetings. Regarding body count estimates, let me try something. I've looked at the article text/data and the table, above, you all have done on body count estimates. I've read much relevant discussion of body counts. For Palestinian deaths, it seems that the U.N., followed by HRW (and others), is a highly regarded source for confirmed deaths, though some divergences may need to be footnoted. In addition, Palestinian/PA sources are talking about higher suspected deaths (but I'm not sure how to nail down the latest or most reliable sources on this). I also see there are some deaths that may be relevant, though perhaps tangential, to which the article can allude (and detail in footnotes). The Israeli death count does not seem to be disputed. So I'm proposing a redraft of a key paragraph. Now, where to put it?
Let me suggest a somewhat restructured outline with subheadings. Here's what I'd do. Put the key paragraph on body counts at the end of the "Aftermath" section. Then place a subheading for "Reporting" about the battle, including much of the bullet points about PA/IDF/media reports of the body count, and then a subheading for "Investigations" of the battle. Here's roughly what the whole thing would look like:
Ok, if you're not too annoyed and want to see more how I might implement this, here's a somewhat fuller version of the redrafting idea. I am certain that most everybody will have complaints about the redrafted paragraph above and the outline subheadings. Well, I'm not trying to please everybody. Instead, I'd aim to navigate a course that, in my attempt to be neutral, would likely disappoint both "sides" in the dispute here. I welcome you feedback -- but besides being critical, please tell me where I might be on the right track and where you might be able to live with the wording or outline, even if it's not your first choice. Thanks for giving this some patient and calm consideration. HG | Talk 21:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
In the early hours of 3 April 2002, as part of Operation Defensive Shield, the Israeli Defence Forces entered the city of Jenin and the refugee camp adjacent to it, declared them a closed military area, prevented all access, and imposed a round-the-clock curfew. By the time of the IDF withdrawal and the lifting of the curfew on 18 April, at least 52 Palestinians, of whom up to half may have been civilians, and 23 Israeli soldiers were dead. Many more were injured. Approximately 150 buildings had been destroyed and many others were rendered structurally unsound. Four hundred and fifty families were rendered homeless. The cost of the destruction of property is estimated at approximately $27 million.
I've added emphasis to highlight their body count estimate. I also found the following at item #69, which I believe Eleland refers to, above. "Negotiations carried out by United Nations and international agencies with IDF to allow appropriate equipment and personnel into the camp to remove the unexploded ordnance continued for several weeks, during which time at least two Palestinians were accidentally killed in explosions." This supports Eleland on 2 more deaths, though I can see that we might write these up as ancillary or subsequent deaths, as proposed in redraft above. Thanks for reading this. HG | Talk 14:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
The citation for HRW estimate of the Palestinian death toll from the following link:
http://hrw.org/reports/2002/israel3/israel0502-01.htm#P49_1774
reads: "Human Rights Watch has confirmed that at least fifty-two Palestinians were killed as a result of IDF operations in Jenin." These are the words HRW uses.
Yet, someone is removing the words "at least," in the box, "Battle of Jenin", "Part of the al-Aqsa Intifada, Operation Defensive Shield" (located at the top of the page).
This unjustified modification changes HRW's meaning significantly. Why are HRW's words being misrepresented in the "Battle of Jenin" box?Blindjustice 08:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
The person who misrepresented the correct wording by removing the words 'at least' was Tewfik at 07:22 on 10 September 2007; the comment made by Tewfik was, "the year is 2007, not 2002; lets not revise history." How is correctly stating HRW's actual words 'revising history?'Blindjustice 23:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
I am having trouble following you. Why is misrepresenting HRW's report OK in the introduction but not in the body? Shouldn't the goal be no misrepresentation at all? Are you condoning the misrepresentation of HRW's report in the introduction? Blindjustice 05:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Blindjustice, I didn't misrepresent anything. HRW's section says explicitly what HRW reported. As an estimate, the number in the lead inherently is not exclusively based on HRW. Moreover, it would be inappropriate to imply that there were more casualties than there were by using 2002 language when five years later none have surfaced. I'd also like to kindly request that you not make edits like this; WP:NPOV does not mean say bad things about both sides. TewfikTalk 21:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
This is getting silly. Please stop re-weaseling this sentence in the lead by obscuring the number of attacks in the reference, which being words from the PM of Israel himself, is basically the most accurate reference we could have on what prompted his decision to launch this attack. See WP:WEASEL and cut it out. -- 146.115.58.152 02:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
A series of suicide attacks by Palestinian militantsonIsraeli civilians, which culminated in the March 27, 2002 Passover massacre in which 30 Israelis were killed,[5] followed by six other suicide bombings in a span of two weeks,[6] prompted the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) to conduct what it considered a large-scale counter-terrorist offensive.[7]
1) Passover suicide bombing at Park Hotel in Netanya - 27-Mar-2002:
2) [http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/04/12/mideast/index.html Israel enters West Bank villages]:
3) Letter from Israel Ambassador Lancry to the United Nations Secretary-General - 14-Feb-2001:
4) Suicide bombing at Cafe Moment in Jerusalem - 9-Mar-2002
5) Suicide bombing in the Beit Yisrael neighborhood in Jerusalem - 2-Mar-2002
6) Embassy Briefing March 29, 2002:
7) [http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/03/28/mideast/index.html Israel declares Arafat 'enemy']:
8) Embassy of Israel, Washington DC - statment made April 1:
that was really uncalled for. try reading WP:CIVIL and try to actually understand it this time. --Steve, Sm8900 13:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
It is important to describe as exactly as posible what the sources say and who is saying it thus I would suggest something along the following lines
On29 March Israel began Operation Defensive Shield. In giving his reasons for the action Ariel Sharon listed 3 suicide bombings.[4] A briefing released by the Israeli embassy in Washington claimed the scale of attacks by the palatines combined with the lack of cooperation on the part of Yasser Arafat made the operation necessary.[5] Geni 01:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
it's a very nice attempt, but i believe it to be a mistake for the following reasons:
"we cooperated with the american embassador anthony zinni - and we received in terror response. we worked together with US vice-president dick chany - and we received in terror response. i've decided, in order to promote the possibility for a truce, to relinquish my claim for the seven days of quite and we received in terror response. we took the IDF out of the cities - and we received in terror response. everything we received in response to our efforts was terror, terror and more terror."..."the israeli government have decided in it's meeting last thursday to go out on a wide campaign to uproot the infrastructures of terror within the territories of the palestinian authority."
inferring by this single ref to have us believe that 3 events, mentioned as a preface or foreword to the defense cabinet meeting's media statement, caused the operation is mistreatment to the topic and represents a coarse mis-connection between an introduction condolences notice and between the operation defensive shield, prompted by the events of "Black March" which culminated with the netanya bombing - using three would be a serious stretch (WP:SYN). JaakobouChalk Talk 00:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
DM Ben-Eliezer: At the outset I would like to extend my condolences to the families of the recent victims. The sheer number of people, and a massacre of this nature is something that no nation can live with. On the eve of Passover we witnessed the Passover massacre. Yesterday evening, an entire family was slaughtered. This morning, a laborer, who usually works in Netzarim, went in and killed two people.
Consequently, the security forces decided to initiate extensive operational activity aimed at a conducting an all-out war against terrorism
Hi, Eleland,
-- JaakobouChalk Talk 23:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi, PalestineRemembered,
in your recent edit you've mentioned that you believe the name of the battle to be "also Jenin Massacre" based on a google search.
considering you are insisting on this version.[7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14] i request you make a serious case to why the battle is "also (still) called" jenin massacre (in the mainstream media), rather than just a basic count of the number of times the phrase "jenin massacre" is listed (which includes articles that attack the press for using the terminology). JaakobouChalk Talk 00:14, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Request: User:PalestineRemembered requests[15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22] that the title of the article will include what he believes to be the more common name for the topic. and his assertion for this is based on results of a google search - "Jenin massacre" is 3 times more popular than "Battle of Jenin" and should be the title of the article.
response (by Jaakobou): i thought that i reached some type of possibly acceptable version when i simply registered the names given to the event both in hebrew and in arabic,[23] to portray the obvious contrast among the two.
i submit the following previous discussions that i find relevant (this is my own personal linkage to this issue and others may feel it appropriate to link to other previous talks):
1) [24] - 'previously referred to as the Jenin Massacre - round III', one (old) suggestion and commentary by a number of editors.
2)
[25] - PalestineRemembered statement/evidence and responses by other editors.
in any regard, my response to the google search (as seen above) was that the problem with it is that it does not observe the usage within' the articles -
google search for "jenin massacre":
following that inspection, i was more leanning towards changing my position regarding the - also known as the Jenin Massacre - to not remove the text but to change it to: also known as the Jenin "Massacre". JaakobouChalk Talk 19:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I have archived everything older then ~2 weeks. If I have archived something that should not be archived, just pull that section back out. Congratulations to all for discussing the matters on the talk page, I will continue to monitor this article. —— Eagle101Need help? 21:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
hi burgass00,
1) if we agreed on something and i've missed it, i apologize, however - i'd appreciate a link to the proper location on where we agreed on this change you wish to achieve.[26]
2) regardless, i reverted your change (and the info blanking by g-dett) because it broke 2 references in the article.[27]
-- JaakobouChalk Talk 18:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi Jaakobou, aren't those references already repeated when the martyrs capital is sourced once more in the main body of the article?--Burgas00 16:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
This section will have to either (i) go; or (ii) be expanded to include a more representative sampling of unverified and largely unreported rumors. From refrigerator trucks to concealed mass graves, there is no shortage of this kind of material. I prefer (i), obviously, because I want this to be a quality article.--G-Dett 19:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
seems to me we can report both the israeli report, and the denial from "LAW", i disagree with the undue claim.
p.s. the film Jenin, Jenin is an impressive case of propaganda/pallywood. JaakobouChalk Talk 01:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
A popular video footage of a fake burial procession, occurring between the destroyed area in the Jenin refugee camp and the nearby cemetery and shot by an aerial drone on April 28, showed Palestinians acting as pallbearers carrying a green blanket-wrapped "corpse" who repeatedly falls and then stands up and places himself back in the blanket. At some point they are joined by a crowd who runs away as the man falls, according to Richard Landes, perhaps startled when the "corpse" comes to life.,[1][2][3](VIDEO) On Sunday, May 5, a Palestinian advocacy group called 'LAW - The Palestinian Society for the Protection of Human Rights and the Environment' denied the story and compared the evidence with images shot by Mohammad Bakri's, (Palestinian actor and film producer) latest project who was filming at the same location, they pertained that what was perceived as a staged 'burial' was actually a group of children playing "funeral" near the cemetery in Jenin. They add that the footage shows no flags which are usually seen at many Palestinian funerals, and the children were running, which is not common for an actual funeral. According to them, the Israeli and foreign media quoted the Israeli army representative, Colonel Miri Eisen stating, "the film speaks for itself," adding "they tried to fabricate evidence of funerals to inflate the number of their dead." without criticism or investigating to what the footage actually shows.Cite error: A<ref>
tag is missing the closing </ref>
(see the help page).
outdent outdent... thank you for that link - so now our source list for the event includes: CNN, IsraeliInsider, Chicago Sun-Times, richard landes (seconddraft.org), LAW, the new editor, and the IDF website - 7 sources by my count - how many would you require to allow for this material - if i come up with a haaretz article would you back down? JaakobouChalk Talk 04:47, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
seems from the second link you gave seems to corroborate the story, not refute it. considering the story by the reader is hearsay (and that the writer is not agreeing with it but only keeps an opening to the possibility that it might be true), i'm not sure it's worth much of a mention. JaakobouChalk Talk 01:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I've seen the editwarring that went on, I"m going to protect this page for 1 day. Please sort out your differences here. Also a warning to all participants, restrict yourself to one revert per day on this article. Any more will be viewed as disruptive. Being disruptive means being blockable. Consider this a warning and friendly reminder that revert wars don't solve anything. —— Eagle101Need help? 15:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
You may remember that some time ago there was an attempt to summarize issues previous to mediation; this more or less fell apart after it became clear that Jaakobou, Kyaa, and others did not wish to seek mediation, and preferred to attack the credibility and neutrality of the mediator (who, if I'm not mistaken, is a fairly pro-Israel Conservative or Orthodox Jew...) Anyway, the point is that I got pretty far along on a submission to his "clarify editing battle" page, and it occurred to me lately that it might be useful to post it anyway. Do note that the specific references made are to the version that was protected some weeks ago; although specific quotes may have changed, my intention all along was to "discuss broad issues with reference to specific narrow examples", and all of these broad issues are still at play in this article, to its severe detriment.
See User:Eleland/JeninSandbox. Thanks, <eleland/talkedits> 16:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
User:Eleland, each warning i've listed on your page, you've more than earned and anyone going over them can verify this statement. User:PalestineRemembered, your mentor has noted me to stop working to resolve the issues raised on that page. -- JaakobouChalk Talk 21:13, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
comment - while we're on the subject of various issues, i intend to readmit the notes regarding the netanya bombing, the stated casus belli, to the intro of the article. JaakobouChalk Talk 21:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Eleland, wow, I really commend you on your sandbox page to clarify your concerns. (To be honest, I didn't read it carefully enough to comment on the substance, but it's a serious analysis.) If you're up to it, I'm wondering if you might want to put a short list at top of a few discrete items that either could be addressed singly, or one or two procedural/policy items that require discussion and consensus-building. Thanks. HG | Talk 14:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Greetings. I thought that, before it gets archived, this might be a suitable time to implement some of the Proposed partial rewrite and outline. Granted, it doesn't resolve the various nuances discussed in meantime. However, the rewrite effort on the user page didn't get much comment, so perhaps it will be more constructive here.
I'll try some of the edits in stages, so people can discuss and/or revert in orderly fashion. (I may edit this entry to clarify what I've tried. This may take 1-4 days.) Thanks. HG | Talk 16:15, 7 October 2007 (UTC) Rather than revert, I would prefer that folks first try editing specific little pieces to find more neutral or factual wording, where necessary, or raise specific points in this section. I especially encourage people to improve the wording and factual basis for the footnotes in the summation paragraph now in Aftermath. Thanks again! HG | Talk 17:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
To be clear, there are some problems in the recent edits preceding yours:
Perhaps, HG, you might suggest some method of dealing with these issues. TewfikTalk 11:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Questions about disputed issues. Well, Tewfik, thanks for asking! Perhaps we can all put our head together and think about your question -- that is, focus on what method might help folks deal with such editing disputes. Unfortunately, I don't have an easy answer to your 3 specific issues because my intuition would be to first agree on which issues to tackle. Giving my training, of course, I simply want to ask you back some related questions:
My thoughts for now. Tewfik, sorry if this isn't the response you wanted. Still, I'd appreciate your giving serious consideration to at least some of my questions. Thanks for hearing me out. HG | Talk 15:14, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Compare this article to Nahr al-Bared, the refugee camp which was 90% destroyed by the Lebanese army, who killed 40 civilians and left most the inhabitants without homes or possessions – pathetic! In fact so was the international response! Chesdovi 15:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Why do we have such utter nonsense as this: "Whilst considering these press and news reports, it is important to consider the date. At first, many international newspapers reported the possibility of a massacre, whereas 3-4 weeks on, they often describe the massacre as particularly unlikely" in the article? As admitted by the bloggers, none of this happened. Can I remove it, please? PRtalk 17:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- Readers should bear in mind in each case the date of these press and news reports. As Jenin was sealed for the duration of the siege, early reports of body counts and other battle details varied considerably, and in some cases were significantly revised in the light of subsequent investigations.
The battle attracted widespread international attention due to Palestinian allegations that a massacre had been committed and due to inflated reports on body counts by Palestinian officials and Jenin residents.[43] Journalists and international groups were banned by the IDF from entering the camp during the fighting on safety grounds, and at one point the IDF itself reported casualties as high as 250,[44][7] [45][46][47] yet many journalists reported that a massacre of Palestinian civilians may have taken place during the fighting,[48][6][42] and unconfirmed "eyewitness" claims that hundreds, or even thousands, of bodies had been secretly buried in mass graves by the IDF were spread.[6][49][50][51][43] These allegations were aired widely in the Arab world and European media (most prominently in the British media), inciting extreme antipathy toward Israel.[6][50] Critics in conservative American publications responded by alleging a "Big Jenin Lie".[52][53]
According to the Anti-Defamation League, International organizations, non-governmental organizations, and many foreign governments prematurely attacked Israel for committing atrocities during its military operations and before the facts were in. But while a massacre of hundreds was alleged, reported and condemned, it is now essentially certain that no such massacre occurred.[54]
Many Arabs and Palestinians continue to use the term "Jenin Massacre".
This section has a number of minor problems, and one major one. The major problem is that it passively accepts and relays a highly partisan narrative. That narrative can be loosely summarized as follows: Jenin was notable primarily for allegations of "massacre." Those allegations began as Palestinian rumors and exaggerations and then were spread far and wide by a credulous international media, but were ultimately disproved. In fact, both the massacre rumors and the international outrage were a direct result of Israel's complete sealing-off of Jenin from the outside world – from medical help; from international observers, NGOs and human-rights organizations; from food, electricity, and water; and from journalists. The "massacre allegations" came from panicked residents under 24-hour curfew who had seen missile attacks on homes, non-combatants willfully gunned down, crippled men with white flags on their wheelchairs being crushed by bulldozers, etc.; these panicked residents were communicating by phone with human-rights organizations, who were calling into the camps for the duration of the siege. Jenin remained in the international spotlight after the siege ended, in large part due to Israel's resistance to an international investigation. When the major international human-rights organizations found "no evidence of massacre," partisan sources (blogs, the ADL, the Weekly Standard, various usenet threads) seized upon the finding as a vindication of Israel, and tended to present that finding in isolation, not in the context of the other war crimes the HR groups found Israel had carried out. These partisan sources also completely disregarded the HR groups' account of the origins of the "massacre" claims. Amnesty International, for example, gives a very detailed account of exactly how concerns about a "massacre" came into being:
During the fighting Palestinian residents and Palestinian and foreign journalists and others outside the camp saw hundreds of missiles being fired into the houses of the camp from Apache helicopters flying sortie after sortie. The sight of the firepower being thrown at Jenin refugee camp led those who witnessed the air raids, including military experts and the media, to believe that scores, at least, of Palestinians had been killed. The tight cordon round the refugee camp and the main hospital from 4-17 April meant that the outside world had no means of knowing what was going on inside the refugee camp; a few journalists were able to slip into the area at risk to their lives after 13 April, but only saw a small portion of the camp, including some dead bodies before leaving. Those within the camp reachable by telephone were confined to their homes and could not tell what was happening. It was in these circumstances that stories of a "massacre" spread. Even the IDF leadership appeared unclear as to how many Palestinians had died: General Ron Kitrey said on 12 April that hundreds had died in Jenin before correcting himself a few hours later saying that hundreds had died or been wounded.
When Amnesty International delegates went to Jenin Hospital on 17 April they found only "walking wounded" - those who had managed to make their own way through the IDF cordon. Doctors and diplomatic or other military experts who visited the scene, aware that in armed combat there is usually a ratio of three or four seriously wounded people to one dead person, wondered where were the heavily wounded. Stories of bodies buried in secret places or carried away in refrigerated vans spread. After the IDF temporarily withdrew from Jenin refugee camp on 17 April, UNRWA set up teams to use the census lists to account for all the Palestinians (some 14,000) believed to be resident of the camp on 3 April 2002. Within five weeks all but one of the residents was accounted for.
The partisan sources completely jettison these accounts, and replace them with speculations about a perfect storm of gullible-anti-Israel-international-media meets Palestinian exaggeration, inflation, and duplicity. Some of these partisan accounts are content to insinuate ("The Big Jenin Lie"); others cross the line into full-blown "Pallywood"-type conspiracy theories.
Our article lamentably adopts the view of these partisan sources, joining them in their separate and foregrounded treatment of "massacre" findings vis-a-vis findings about other war crimes, joining them in their a la carte approach to HR investigations, and joining them in ignoring the best and most authoritative explanations of the initially higher body counts and subsequently revised massacre claims. We've muted the rhetoric somewhat (but not much, in many instances), but we're going with that narrative. This really needs to change.--G-Dett 13:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
(later). ok now i understand. I guess if you want to add more factual details to depict a little more about the genuine well-founded concerns of people who were there at the time, that can't be too bad. obviously all material may be subject to some debate later. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 13:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Tewfik, I have left in place your edit changing "three" to "numerous." I have reverted only the disruptive edits, i.e. those that misrepresented source materials on the basis of arguments systematically and exhaustively discredited.--G-Dett 17:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
First, let me note that "prima facie X" does not mean, "Ghee whiz, we took a quick glance, and it just looks to us like X." It means, "Evidence of X which is so strong that, barring some unanticipated counter-explanation, it's sufficient to prove X." Read the page prima facie, which notes that "It is used in modern legal English to signify that on first examination, a matter appears to be self-evident from the facts. In common law jurisdictions, prima facie denotes evidence that (unless rebutted) would be sufficient to prove a particular proposition or fact." Wiktionary notes that the adjective means, "apparently correct; not needing proof unless evidence to the contrary is shown".
Second, I actually don't mind the language "strong prima facie evidence". It's true that the Amnesty International report flatly stated that IDF committed "unlawful killings", and that "Grave breaches of Article 147 of the Fourth Geneva Convention constitute war crimes.(24) Some of the acts by the IDF described in this report amount to grave breaches of the Fourth Geneva Convention. These acts include some of the unlawful killings described in this report; the torture and ill-treatment of prisoners; wanton destruction of property after the end of military operations; the blocking of ambulances and denial of humanitarian assistance; and the use of Palestinian civilians to assist in military operations." If this is the objectino, we should say something like "HRW found strong prima facie evidence of war crimes, Amnesty listed several categories of war crimes it found committed by the IDF." IIRC, I inserted the "prima facie" language myself, and G-Dett commended me for it, so I'm a bit confused by what's going on now! <eleland/talkedits> 18:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Moved here from my talk:
Hey, I think you need to look more closely at the text you are reverting. The source is actually not the same HRW report from before, it's a year-in-review piece which flatly states, "In Jenin, Human Rights Watch documented twenty-two civilian killings during the IDF military operations in April. Many of them were killed wilfully or unlawfully, and in some case constituted war crimes." I would have agreed with you, until I noticed that it wasn't the same report I saw earlier. <eleland/talkedits> 00:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
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 wilfully or unlawfully, and in some case constituted war crimes.
The HRW report overview does not say "we once said prima facie, and now we don't" - it just says prima facie. Reading the part that does not say prima facie while ignoring the part that does as proof that their position had changed is original research and not the conclusion of the report. Attribution of "indiscriminate" to 'Human rights organisations' instead of the previous 'Palestinian and international organisations' was a limitation introduced by this edit, but even so, along with the UN, Amnesty does not make such a declaration. Moreover, to revert to your language, including in the introduction the charge of war crimes along with selected examples of said war crimes only serves to buff up the charge through undue emphasis. Another logical fallacy that keeps getting presented is the idea that if the NGOs confirm one point that the Israelis argued [regarding "no massacre"], that they then achieve some status of "definitive" [regarding war crimes]. I'm not sure where people have gotten that idea, but your agreement with someone on one point would hardly force you to then agree with everything that person argues. TewfikTalk 08:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Page protected. Pls let me make 2 suggestions. (#1) You all have identified and debated the issues, without much repetitiveness, so how about we open a Request for Comment? If you can't agree on how to describe the dispute, you can let some mythically fair-minded editor write the RfC (humble me?) or share it. (#2) You all should check to see if you're satisfied with the AI and HRW sections. This part of the lead should only reflect/summarize the content below, right? So your discussion could help get buy-in for those sections, too. How's that? HG | Talk 12:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
No, Tewfik, you need to explain why this article should say –
...major human rights organizations found strong prima facie evidence of IDF war crimes.
instead of saying –
...major human rights organizations...found that the IDF had carried out war crimes.
For the latter formulation, I've provided citations from both major human rights organizations (Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International) making the claim explicitly and categorically. We also have an independent statement from the British military expert, David Holley, whom AI retained as an advisor to their investigation, making the claim explicitly and categorically.
For the former formulation, you have one citation from Human Rights Watch. And nothing else. And yet you want the text to say "major human rights organizations," plural, even though that is false. Why, Tewfik? Why would we present multiple organizations as having said something they didn't say? And why would we not present multiple organizations as having said something they did in fact say? Why, in a summary sentence presenting the consensus view of human rights organizations, would we not present the consensus view of human rights organizations? Please keep your answer simple and direct. We can deal with the second issue (why you think there's no consensus among major human rights organizations that Israel used indiscriminate and disproportionate lethal force) in a subsequent section.--G-Dett 21:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Steve, both major international HR groups have documented Palestinian atrocities extensively. I can give you links to reports if you like. I am not certain offhand if they refer to terrorist attacks as "war crimes," as I think that term applies to violations of the Geneva conventions by standing armies. I wish you would raise these questions in a different section, or even perhaps on a different page, given that there were no exploding buses or pizzerias in the siege of Jenin, and this side-discussion is becoming a distraction.
Tewfik, um, sure I'll answer your questions about an edit summary of mine, but then can we return to the subject at hand – i.e., what is the most accurate and concise formulation for the consensus opinion of the major human rights organizations regarding Israeli "war crimes"? I hope so.
OK, to the edit summary you've asked about. It read in full: Language was firmer in HRW's annual report; "prima facie" qualifier dropped. AI also was very clear about war crimes, as was the AI military advisor quoted later in the article. In asking me about it just now, you left out the last two-thirds of the summary, where I indicate AI's opinion and that of the British military adviser. You quoted only the third about HRW. This omission is rather telling, and symptomatic of the whole problem here. We're discussing how to represent consensus opinion of human-rights sources who carried out on-site investigations, and you keep steering the discussion to only one of those sources – the one that has sometimes used a phrasing that you prefer. So that's the first problem: we're talking about how to represent multiple sources, but in our debates about source material you refuse to talk about multiple sources.
Now, you wanted to know why I said the "language was firmer in HRW's annual report." I'm glad we've all become such philologists. Here's the history. HRW's original May report focused a great deal on war crimes; sometimes they used the phrase "prima facie" and sometimes not; regarding some incidents they called for further investigation, regarding others they stated categorically that a war crime had been committed. In the following exhaustive list, I have bolded the instances where their language was categorical and unqualified.
- Israel also has a legal duty to ensure that its attacks on legitimate military targets did not cause disproportionate harm to civilians. Unfortunately, these obligations were not met. Human Rights Watch's research demonstrates that, during their incursion into the Jenin refugee camp, Israeli forces committed serious violations of international humanitarian law, some amounting prima facie to war crimes.
- Some of the cases documented by Human Rights Watch amounted to summary executions, a clear war crime, such as the shooting of Jamal al-Sabbagh on April 6. Al-Sabbagh was shot to death while directly under the control of the IDF: he was obeying orders to strip off his clothes. In at least one case, IDF soldiers unlawfully killed a wounded Palestinian, Munthir al-Haj, who was no longer carrying a weapon, his arms were reportedly broken, and he was taking no active part in the fighting.
- 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.
- Rufaida Jammal was adamant that there was no Palestinian fire in the immediate vicinity where she and her sister were wounded, and that they were "far away from the battle" between IDF soldiers and Palestinian militants.25 The wounding of a member of the medical personnel away from the combat area requires a war crimes investigation.
- The shooting in broad daylight of an unarmed civilian, Imad Musharaka, requires a war crimes investigation. Establishing the true circumstances of the death of Palestinian militant Ziad Zubeidi warrants a separate investigation.
- After he was shot and no longer armed, al-Haj became hors de combat, meaning that he was no longer taking an active part in the fighting. Wounded combatants who are no longer taking part in fighting should not be denied medical care, nor are they legitimate military targets. The killing of al-Haj after he was wounded and no longer armed amounts to a case of willful killing, a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions, and, as such, a war crime.
- During the time of the incident, there was no active combat or firing in the neighborhood. The remorseless murder of `Afaf Disuqi, an unarmed civilian, constitutes a war crime.
- The death of Mariam Wishahi appears to have been due to the deliberate denial of medical assistance and as such warrants investigation as a possible war crime. Information about the death of Munir Wishahi suggests he was shot while running away unarmed and requires investigation.
- Human Rights Watch researchers closely inspected the Abu Khorj home, and did not find any suggestion, from sandbags or spent cartridges for example, that Palestinian militants had used the home. The killing of an unarmed civilian in a situation where no combat was taking place requires a war crimes investigation.
- It is difficult to see what military goal could have been furthered or what legitimate consideration of urgent military necessity could be put forward to justify the crushing to death of Jamal Fayid without giving his family the opportunity to remove him from his home. This case requires investigation as a possible war crime.
- Inad Zaiban was shopping at the market when he heard his son had been shot and taken to the hospital. He rushed to the hospital, but soon was informed that his son was dead. Human Rights Watch visited the scene of the shooting, which is in a street with good visibility. The soldiers had a clear line of fire from where their tank was parked in the middle of the road. The use of lethal force against a group of civilians following the lifting of a curfew, and where no fighting is taking place, constitutes a deliberate attack on unarmed civilians and is a war crime.
So that's the May report. Though in several instances, obviously, HRW concluded categorically that war crimes had been carried out and said so without qualification of any kind (not even the weak prima facie evidence qualifier), it is true that they used the prima facie language twice in their summary. It is also true that once in that same summary they used unqualified and categorical language: "Some of the cases documented by Human Rights Watch amounted to summary executions, a clear war crime." In their end-of-year report, they referred to the May report: "Our early May report, Jenin: IDF Military Operations, documented Israeli Defense Forces' extensive violations of international humanitarian law, some amounting prima facie to war crimes." This is the sentence (the only sentence) you're referring to when you say "the annual report in question clearly uses the phrase." It would have been more precise for you to say, the annual report in question uses the phrase when it summarizes the contents of the earlier May report. But the annual report does not merely compile HRW's various early reports; it summarizes, synthesizes, and reformulates its findings. The annual report in this case has an entirely new synthesis/summary section called Israel, the Occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip, and Palestinian Authority Territories: Human Rights Developments. It is in this new, rewritten end-of-year report that the language is "firmer":
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 wilfully or unlawfully, and in some case constituted war crimes.
I hope that answers your question, Tewfik. It is a painstaking explanation of an edit summary. I think we should be discussing content, not edit summaries, and to be very frank I think you ought to have read the sources closely enough by now that you wouldn't need to be walked through them in this way, at such cost of time and effort to me. With respect, this is not the first time you have forced me to practically read source materials aloud to you.
At any rate, now that I've done that, I do hope you will be so good as to take two minutes and answer the question I've put to you several times now: Why do you think the article should say
...major human rights organizations found strong prima facie evidence of IDF war crimes.
instead of saying –
...major human rights organizations...found that the IDF had carried out war crimes.
For the latter formulation, I've provided citations from both major human rights organizations (Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International) making the claim explicitly and categorically. We also have an independent statement from the British military expert, David Holley, whom AI retained as an advisor to their investigation, making the claim explicitly and categorically.
For the former formulation, you have one citation from Human Rights Watch. And nothing else. And yet you want the text to say "major human rights organizations," plural, even though that is false. Why, Tewfik? Why would we present multiple organizations as having said something they didn't say? And why would we not present multiple organizations as having said something they did in fact say?--G-Dett 16:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, I sense that some arguments are being repeated, though maybe folks feel that you're drilling down to precise points that will settle the debate. At the risk of repeating myself, let me invite discussants to say (here or on my Talk) whether you'd like to open a Request for Comment? Or other ways to resolve this? Thanks. HG | Talk 17:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
HG, if it's OK with you I'd like to wait for Tewfik's answer to my question before opening an RfC.--G-Dett 19:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Tewfik: G-Dett, if I understood you correctly, you are saying that HRW's end of year report only uses prima facie in regards to its previous May report. To rephrase what both Armon and I have said above, in the paragraph, which is an overview of the section dealing with Jenin etc., the prima facie line is the only mention of an accusation of war crimes, and there is no indication that they limited the usage to the past and/or subsequently changed their position. They could use more consistent language in the extended discussion, but I do not think it proper to cite a line from within the report's body as evidence that they've adopted a position that they clearly refuse to take in its summary.
Regarding the May report quotes, most call for investigation or say prima facie. The four cases (2, 6, 7, 11) where they seem to level an unqualified charge still result in a report conclusion of "some amounting prima facie to war crimes", just like in the end of year report. I don't understand what Holley's quotes in a news piece prove, but as AI's position hasn't changed, and considering Eleland's drafting of the language and your commendation of it, I share the earlier confusion; I wouldn't object to more specific representation of both organisations' positions if that is what your objection boils down to, though I'm not sure of how the lead could practically fit it all.
As far as HG's suggestion, I have no objection to an intermediary.// An RfC has the disadvantage of attracting editors with no knowledge of the minutiae in dispute, though that is often exactly why one should be called, and so I also welcome that course if it will help fix the situation here, though I would rather it be authored by someone like HG, since the above mentioned charges and their already stricken ilk leave me doubtful as to whether anyone else could accurately represent my position. TewfikTalk 22:50, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
HG questions: Gee, not sure if I should be honored or worried by you both having unrealistic expectations of me. In anything I'm about to say -- at great length, sorry -- please comment & correct me kindly. (#H1) For the lead, you all agree to summarize a set of reports that deal with war crimes. Are you agreed that this set consists of AI and HRW? Also, Holley? And you agree that the summary call this set "major human rights organizations"? (H2) However, you aren't using any secondary sources to accomplish this summation. Why not? No reason we can't do our own descriptive recap, but it might be easier if we could work off NYT/WSJ/etc versions. (H3) You seem to mostly agree about describing Amnesty's view on war crimes, which is apparently unqualified. Right? (H4) You disagree about HRW. The sticking point seems whether HRW's view should be described as qualified or unqualified. You're wrangling mostly over the "prima facie" wording, which shows up, hmmm, sometimes but not always in the May report and in the later overview cited by Tewfik just now. Have I gotten the gist of the disagreement? (H5) For Tewfik (Armon, et al.), you strike me as generally a flexible editor. Even if the lead didn't use the term "prima facie" would you accept some other way to qualify the HRW view? For instance, instead of "found, maybe something like "...organizations claimed that the IDF committed war crimes." I mean, look, isn't prima facie just another way of HRW saying that they're pretty certain they've seen war crimes committed? (H6) G-Dett (et al.), you also strike me as flexible. If you folks don't end up agreeing on a way to combine AI and HRW, would you consider splitting up the description? Regardless, G-Dett, I don't know if there's a sweet way to say this, but I think you're arguing pretty hard for your interpretation. Really, I sympathize with the desire to get a straightforward encyclopedic description into these annoying disputed articles. And I feel like you might be pretty convincing about why "prima facie" type language is trumped by the overall HRW view of the IDF. But why should we have to be convinced? Shouldn't this kind of thing be a bit more verifiable and self-evident? Look, you probably trust my judgment somewhat, and I think the HRW Overview linked by Tewfik (w/"prima facie") gives them enough of a hedge that you should help me look for some compromise language here.
(H7) Finally, I'd like to step somewhat out of a mediating role and offer my own view of what "prima facie" means. Granted, this results in me leaning more toward one side, but I can't help that. Let me phrase it as a question esp for G-Dett. Do you think it's possible that HRW (and maybe Amnesty) recognizes -- as a significant distinction -- that they are identifying but not actually sitting in judgment on war crimes? I mean, aren't there legal mechanisms, supported by HRW (if not IDF) to add finality to any war crime claim? If so, then doesn't HRW recognize this distinction as contextualizing all their work? Sure, they may use "prima facie" or they may just flatly say they found a war crime, but they believe that the definitive answer should be adjudicated. (I dealt with a mildly analogous q at Talk:Legal status of Hawaii over the distinction betw a legal scholar view and a juridical determination.) If so, then I think it would be appropriate for Wikipedia to be astute about this context and find encyclopedic wording that qualifies HRW findings. Indeed, I'd presuppose the same context for AI's utterances. Hope you'll consider this perspective. Anyway, I hope these q's and suggestions will help move you closer together. HG | Talk 03:57, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- Rohde: There is a truth, I think, to what happened in Jenin. I think the Human Rights Watch report essentially captured it.
- Power: I have a question for David about working for the New York Times. I was struck by a headline that accompanied a news story on the publication of the Human Rights Watch report. The headline was, I believe, "Human Rights Watch report massacre did not occur in Jenin." The second paragraph said, "Oh, but lots of war crimes did." Why wouldn't they make the war crimes the headline and the non-massacre the second paragraph?...
- Rohde: I think there is more pressure writing about Israel than any other place in the world. At the New York Times you feel as if you're being watched by a hawk.
Tewfik. Hello HG, (H1) Yes. Indeed, David Holley is not a Human Rights organisation, but rather was an agent of AI, and his views were incorporated into AI's report. "Wait," you say, "he is 'quoted as authoritative' elsewhere." So what is the dilemma being posed? Must we either accept his soundbyte as proof that there is another opinion distinct from AI (despite his views already being incorporated in AI's report) or else remove his uncontested observation that there was no mass killing? I don't see the parallel. (H2) Perhaps, but good secondary sources would just mirror the reports' strong desire to say something while explicitly stopping short of it. (H3) Yes, though being as AI hasn't changed their position, and being that HRW's ambiguous language existed in both its original and new reports, and thus it hasn't changed its position, why is there suddenly now a problem with Eleland's "elegant fairness"? (H4) Yes. I understood G-Dett to be saying that the end-of-year report only uses prima facie regarding the May report. As far as I can tell that is not the case, and while HRW uses mixed language in its report bodies, it employed prima-facie in both report summaries. (H5) So I'm flexible, and G-Dett is flexible, and we're communicating through you :-) As the dispute is about the nature of the "claims", I'm not sure that would really help (i.e. are they alleging war crimes, or are they alleging likely war crimes). (H7) Much of what you say seems evident in their desire to say certain things without saying them. I'm not sure as to whether your suggestion would actually resolve the problem though.
In response to G-Dett's repeating that I'm advocating "an approach that is maximalist on one side of the ledger, and minimalist on the other", I refer her to my previous post to this page, which I reproduced on her Talk the last time she raised it with me. I'll only point out the continuing implication that I'm somehow biased ("always go with the more conservative formulation") in the hope that it may have been a slip on her part, since /such/ remarks don't contribute to constructive discussion. TewfikTalk 23:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Tewfik:. As in I am intentionally favouring one interpretation over others, along the lines of the previous charge of maximalist on one, minimalist on the other. Your //claim// is crystal clear.//TewfikTalk 23:47, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Tewfik:. /G-Dett, your/ repeating to me that you believe the end-of-year prima facie is limited to discussion of May obviously won't move the discussion forward, since I've twice stated that I know you believe as much, and still disagree that that is the meaning. TewfikTalk 02:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)