Talk:Battle of Jenin/Consensus

suggested edit 2007-12-6

Please replace this text: Subsequent investigations found no evidence of one, although major human rights organizations found strong prima facie evidence of IDF war crimes.

With this text: Subsequent investigations found no evidence of one. Based on testimony and documentation, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch charged that IDF personnel in Jenin committed war crimes. Both human rights organizations called for official inquiries; however, the IDF disputed the charges. No war crimes trials were held. (bold added to highlight the revision text)

comments

Note: This page puts together sections of the proposal and the agreements collected by those who had commented: Armon, Eleland, G-Dett, PR and Tewfik. The specific editing change is in bold. Thanks. HG | Talk 00:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NB Excerpt from the proposal, with HG here listing option #1:

So, given the foregoing considerations, I would recommend:

Based on testimony and documentation, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch charged that IDF personnel in Jenin committed war crimes. Both human rights organizations called for official inquiries; however, the IDF disputed the charges and no war crimes trials were held.

NB Slightly later in thread, here HG is pulling together the final wording based on option #1:

We've achieved high degree of support among editors, as shown above, about how to revise a disputed sentence in the lede. I'm proposing this revision based on the assumption that all of you who have expressed support, from both sides of the aisle, will "safeguard" the new text against unfriendly emendations -- even if the revision favors your own POV. In other words, don't accept a change from "charged" to "proved" or from "committed" war crimes to "maybe committed." Ok? Nobody gets exactly the wording they want, yet everybody has a responsibility to support the rough-consensus revision.

Anyway, thanks to everyone for putting substantive attention on this dispute and responding in flexible ways.

Please replace this text: Subsequent investigations found no evidence of one, although major human rights organizations found strong prima facie evidence of IDF war crimes.

With this text: Subsequent investigations found no evidence of one. Based on testimony and documentation, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch charged that IDF personnel in Jenin committed war crimes. Both human rights organizations called for official inquiries; however, the IDF disputed the charges. No war crimes trials were held. (bold added to highlight the revision text)

Thanks very much. After we finish patting ourselves on the back, let's use this success to tackle some of the other disputed aspects of the article. HG | Talk 18:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NB Here are comments by the involved parties. Collected and placed here by me, HG | Talk 00:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That looks good to me HG. How about giving us a proposed wording based on that? We might find a quick consensus. <<-armon->> 03:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC) Sorry, you did -duh. OK, I think the first option is better mainly because "IDF personnel in Jenin committed war crimes" is more accurate than just saying "Israel" because the charges related to specific incidents during the battle rather that the operation itself. Presumably, the IDF could have entered Jenin without committing any war crimes. I have a slight niggle about the second sentence though -were war crimes trials not held simply because the IDF objected? <<-armon->> 22:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I realise that this isn't the subpage you had in mind, but I'm reasonably satisfied with your first attempt, and I could buy it right now. Too easy? TewfikTalk 22:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC) Tewfik's approval from my Talk page. HG | Talk 00:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like phrasing #1. It is inline with what the sources say. The reason I held off on voicing my approval is that it leaves a sour taste in my mouth to apply such a stringent standard to HRW and AI while the lede is currently so cavalier when it comes to "pro-Israel" points, like the "suicide bombers" issue. Don't take this as WP:POINT or WP:GAME, but I'd like to suggest that the next disputed phrasing we examine be something which is currently alleged to be biased towards IDF POV. Sharon is on record saying during the run-up to Defensive Shield that the Palestinians needed to be hit, and needed to be made to suffer, so that they would be forced to return to the bargaining table (and, presumably, accept a Bantustan-style solution in line with previous offers). <eleland/talkedits> 17:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

This looks great, HG, thanks again. I would like to suggest two minor tweaks. Neither has anything to do with NPOV; they are purely for stylistic clarity. I won't put them in myself, even when the page opens. I'll leave it you; if you agree they're an improvement and others don't object then you can put them in. Subsequent investigations found no evidence of one. Based on testimony and documentation, however, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch charged that IDF personnel in Jenin had committed war crimes, and both called for official investigations. The IDF disputed the charges, and no war crimes trials were held.--G-Dett 23:14, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

G-Dett, I appreciate your editing suggestions. In terms of the last few clauses, I'd like to keep it as is because, as noted above, combining the last 2 ("IDF disputed... no trials") might leave the reader assuming a causal implicature we don't intend. In terms of adding a contrastive connector ("however") up front, it's fine the way the paragraph is set up. Of course, we might end up revising the order or content of the preceding text, and so need to change it again. HG | Talk 04:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

There appears to be a mediator on that page and he is asking that we create the Talk:Battle of Jenin/Sandbox page and enter into it edits we'd like made and presumably agree on. I don't mind ignoring him, and going with your mediation (surely you told me you weren't doing a mediation?), but I've not seen your sandbox or definitive statement of what you want to insert either.//Oops, sorry, burrowing down I can find what's being suggested - I'll sign up to defending an agreed compromise. But you'd not ask me to agree to defending something still containing definite falsehoods.// PRtalk 14:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC) PR's from my Talk page. HG | Talk 00:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um... The first sentence is unclear. ~~It should say "subsequent investigations found no evidence of a massacre" not "of one".~~ Acceptable in context, it still does not read right imho, but it is ok. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 14:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment by PalestineRemembered

I'm afraid the layout in this Sandbox isn't helping much, it's difficult to tell who wants what. But I see an attempt to insert "Subsequent investigations found no evidence of one [massacre]" - and I cannot see the point of asking me/us to agree to such a statement. It flies in the face of what little the international community was able to find out - or what little "evidence" was published, anyway. (I would compromise by not mentioning in the lead the well attested evidence of one small massacre, however).

Regarding NPOV, we should not be saying, and giving credence to, "The IDF disputed the charges". We expect perpetrators to deny - and Israel has often falsely denied such actions. (But then glorified those who carried them out, this time round, a commendation to "Kurdi Bear"'s company). We should not imply that the claims are "surprisng" and that this is something Israel'd not do.

Similarily, it is meaningless to say "no war crimes trials were held" - if we're going to expand on the topic, we need to say that Israel blocked the official investigation agreed at the UN and the IDF blocked access to the camp while they bulldozed the scene.

I won't offer any statement I'd think acceptable, because I'm sure there are many different versions which would be accurate and non-insulting to the victims. But don't ask me (or anyone else) to accept statements that a) falsify (as this one is doing) and b) grant the IDF still more space for it's denial.

In the meantime, here's my list of 10 essential items that need to appear in the article somehow before we can claim we're doing what we set out to do. PR^talk 11:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PalestineRemembered, provided that you'll work towards a compromise wording with the other contributors on this page, I'll revert the change to the article.

Everyone, please remember that the goal is to find a compromise wording, not necessarily wording you personally find to be ideal. It may be necessary for some things to go unsaid. It's generally easier to agree that a certain sentence should be included than to agree on why it should be included, and easier to agree on a short sentence than a more detailed one. It will help significantly if references to reliable published sources are used to back up claims. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll work towards (or accept) the content we put into this article. Your suggestion of leaving some things unsaid is very useful and might help us escape some of the unencyclopedic presentation that currently plagues what we've written.

It might be useful for editors to look at Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 which manages not to be to offensive to the perpetrators of the killings while fairly reporting the words of eye-witnesses and observers. Space is granted to official Chinese denial - but space is also granted to documenting how investigations and news reporting of the event were (and are still being) interfered with. PR^talk 16:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PR. I've put the compromise edit into the page. After we had discussed this and I explained that "Subsequent...." was not a change, but merely a continuation of the same text, you were willing to accept the compromise. Please discuss with me again, on my Talk, if you'd like to go over this again. Meanwhile, I do understand that you disagree with the specific sentence "Subsequent...." which precedes the compromise/consensus edit. You are welcome to discuss this sentence and propose a change on the article Talk. Thanks muchly, be well. HG | Talk 11:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]