Talk:Battle of Jenin (2002)/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

---

The fat lady sings about facts, structure, and tone

The revised-casualty-statistics narrative as presented by the top-tier journalistic sources and human rights groups is roughly as follows: Jenin was completely sealed from the outside world – both from the media and from relief organizations – for the duration of the siege. During this time, human rights groups were constantly telephoning residents of the camp, and what they could glean – killing of defenseless civilians, the flattening of large sections of the camp, bodies piling up in the streets, people being used as human shields – was more or less the only eye-witness information the media had to go on. These accounts were very grim, and the international community – including even the US government – voiced grave concerns. There were rumors of massacre; the media reported these rumors, but largely described them as such and put the word "massacre" in quotes. When outsiders were finally admitted to the camp, they described the devastation as appalling. Israel's refusal to cooperate with the UN and other investigations heightened suspicions. When the reports from the international investigations were completed, they found strong evidence of war crimes – including willful killing of civilians, "indiscriminate and disproportionate" use of force, and the blocking of medical aid and other emergency necessities – but no evidence of massacres, and significantly lower casualty numbers than had initially been estimated. The mainstream international discussion shifted from one invoking Sabra and Shatila to one invoking the ethical dilemmas of urban warfare, asymmetrical warfare, counter-insurgency and collective punishment.

Here, however, partisans on each side go in different directions, picking different cherries and cropping their pictures in different ways. Pro-Palestinian partisans of course emphasize the destruction, the war crimes, etc., but they also emphasize the atmosphere of suspicion, fear, and outrage in the early days – the shock of the first outside observers to enter the camp, for example, or the demands from the international community to end the siege, rebuffed by Israel; meanwhile they tend to gloss over the significant contrast between what was feared to have transpired and what did in fact transpire. If they're very pro-Palestinian, and not terribly scrupulous, they'll insinuate a coverup and emphasize rumors of refrigerated trucks bearing off hundreds of corpses, etc., and try to give them credibility without overtly endorsing them. Pro-Israel partisans, by contrast, emphasize the revised body count and the finding of "no evidence of massacres," present these as an acquittal of sorts, and tend to present the other findings as if they were miscellaneous addenda to a not-guilty verdict – addenda moreover hesitant, qualified, inconclusive, not terribly significant and probably biased anyway. If they're very pro-Israel, and not terribly scrupulous, they'll insinuate a hoax and emphasize state-sponsored rumors of staged atrocities, humanitarian aid rebuffed because of "Jews' blood," and snicker about "pallywood" and fake funerals and deliberate exaggeration and the complicity of the international media in same.

The NPOV problem with this article is that we've adopted this second propaganda version as the structural, factual, and tonal basis for our overall presentation of source material.--G-Dett 23:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

P.S. My edit summary, which was cut short when a chubby pinky chubbily hit "Shift" and "Enter" together, was meant to apologize to Steve for the brusqueness and arrogance with which I asked him not to reformat my comments. HG is in the process of breaking me; give him time.--G-Dett 13:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. thanks for your comment to me. I'm being broken of some habits of my own too, by various people in various ways! :-) that's fine. thanks a lot. --Steve, Sm8900 14:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, G-Dett, your synopsis makes some sense (though straying from our topic, eh?!). But I'm not sure characterizing Wikipedians as partisans is so helpful since we need to encourage everybody to see themselves as neutral editors. (The new you could strike your 2nd para, ;-> ) Anyways, I did notice some structural similarity betw the Camera approach and our "Body count estimates" section, which isn't necessarily wrong per se except that the section is mislabeled. Ideally, the section would start off with a simple statement of the body counts as known today. (Or a range, if disputed or unknown.) Later, there can be a section like what we have now, which shows the chronological development of the controversy over the 'massacre' designation and the death toll. Personally, I think the ups and downs of the reporting is of less general interest, and arguably less notable in the long run, but anyways it should be labeled differently. See what I mean? Thanks. HG | Talk 01:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Whoa whoa whoa, HG, the pro-Palestinian and pro-Israel "partisans" I'm referring to aren't Wikipedians! I'm talking about opinion-oriented source material, that has produced two competing meta-accounts: one for which no-massacre was a whitewash, the other for which no-massacre is the narrative climax and the central significance of the siege of Jenin. Neither of these meta-accounts is the mainstream account, but our article is weirdly in thrall to the second of them, and that's the main POV problem.

I note that SM8900 has adopted Jaakobou's disconcerting habit of reformating and subheading the comments of other editors. I think this is a problematic practice in general, but I have to ask both of you to refrain altogether from doing it in my case. This is not a "colloquy on tone," and your mislabeling it as such is a good illustration of why it isn't wise to presume to divine the essence of other editors' contributions to the talk page.--G-Dett 03:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Point taken. I may still do so in the future, but I will try to always respect your concerns, and use very neutral headings, to avoid any appearance of intrusion. By the way, any sub-headings which I add are almost always only for convenience, and not for any other reason. I respect your point of view, and would not wish to misrepresent your comments, or to distort or slant your viewpoint or contributions in any way. thanks, --Steve, Sm8900 13:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok I'm reined in. Just delete 'Here' at the outset of your soliloquy <smile>. But really, your point is that the q of the Wash Times sources is moot. So you are off-topic and maybe you should put in a subheading. HG | Talk 04:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I see the validity of the points from both of you. however, the only way to handle this is to list the allegations of both sides, and then to label them as that--allegations. I know you probably think we can attain some understanding or conception of what should be the objective tone or content of the article. however, i feel that really, we will simply go in circles on this, since the two sides are more or less irreconcialable. I am opening to listing Palestinian allegations if they are well-sourced. i am rather tolerant of some sources which some might seek to call fringe, as the partisan sources of either side might always seem somewhat fringe to some other people or to some other editors. --Steve, Sm8900 02:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

page move

It appears the article was recently moved from it's previous title at "Battle of Jenin," to "Massacre of Jenin,"^[1],[2] without discussion, and by an editor who has previously not edited this article. Could we hear what the arguments are for this name change, or if (as I suspect,) most others agree with me that the name change was not a good idea, can we move it back soon? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

note: it appears someone also blanked out the redirect page.^[3]. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I have requested reversion of the page move. I hope that an admin will look into this matter soon. — Indon (reply) — 08:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Staying focused with an agenda

Hi. I know that folks here care about a number of disputed issues, including the use of 'massacre' to describe the events. I suggest that we stay focused for now on the good progress being made on the body counts dispute. Let's try to reach some small mutual agreement (aka consensus) on body counts, build confidence in the efficacy of our Talk discussions, and then move on to 'massacre' and other topics. Would folks like things to unfold in such a step-by-step fashion?

If so, it might be easier to stay focused if you all are confident that other issues will be addressed. Let me toss out an idea. You can shoot it down, but please recommend a constructive alternative, ok? What if we think about breaking the existing "Body count estimates" section into three or four pieces? You all could then work on them in this order:

• 1st, an intro about the importance of body counts to understanding the impact of Jenin as a battle and as a controversy within the broader Israeli-Palestinian conflict. (Actually, intros I tend to write last.)
• 2nd, a piece on the best, up-to-date data on body count estimates. I suspect this will emphasize confirmed counts, e.g. UN source. But it could also take note of differences of opinion, such as current Palestinian concerns with deaths before or after the battle, as well as suspected deaths that may not have been accounted for. (Please forgive me if this isn't POV-balanced enough.) So keep working on the documentation table, ok?
• 3rd, a subsection about the Reporting of Casualties -- this would aim to describe the chronology, the ups and downs, of body count reports and the consequent investigations and media coverage. Much of the current section lays out the sources/quotes/facts. If you don't mind my saying so, the current section reads a bit too staccato and might be condensed into more of a narrative. (Are there any fairly neutral secondary sources that already give this narrative about competing PA-IDf reports, the media scramble, the investigations?) It would conclude, of course, by arriving at our up-to-date data (in the 2nd piece).
• 4th, tied to the Reporting of Casualties narrative, we need to deal with controversial Reporting of such descriptors as "massacre" and "war crimes" etc. I'd recommend that we write about this reporting in stages. Later, maybe with the help of uninvolved editors, we might weave the Reporting of XXX units together.

Well, please let me know if you understand what I'm suggesting and if you think it has legs to stand on. Thanks for hearing me out. HG | Talk 12:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I think even a rough idea of the death toll isn't known and never will be known. For reasons that are basically very clear to anyone who examines the sources (and as should be clear to anyone who reads our account).

The best we can say is something along the lines of "The bodies of around 50 Palestinians are known to have passed through the hospital during the attack, only the briefest examination being possible by observers and the forensic scientist. Remarkably few (if any) badly injured people were presented for treatment when the siege was lifted, and there was no organised (let alone mechanised) search made in the rubble. It is impossible to say how many were killed and Palestinian sources seem to have only quite sketchy estimates. However, a figure between 200 and 300 seems reasonable according to these 2 tables. The early estimate of 500 is not supported, and the eye-witness accounts of mass shootings presented by at least one major British newspaper were never corroborated."

I'm prepared to compromise and leave out the "massacre of 3, 1 survivor" allegation, firm though it is, in order not to make waves. It should really be amongst the "other allegations" section somewhere. PalestineRemembered 16:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

comment - with all due respect to the honest attempt at getting some concensus, i think the currect usage of the chart has become a sad display of inability to stay NPOV. when deaths that occur 2 months after the battle are listed, i honestly don't know what is the point of participating in this chart. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

All we are doing at this stage is putting all the cards on the table, so to speak. Let's not fold our hand yet. We'll clarify what data we have, then we'll discuss where we agree and where we disagree (both about the sources and their use in the article). Hopefully, we can narrow down the points of disagreement. (E.g., as you comment, what time period should be used for the article's subject matter?) Then we're editing the article to fairly present the disputed points in an appropriate way. Make sense? HG | Talk 19:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

MEMRI etc. sources

i know you're trying your best to keep things going, but if i were to play with the same hand, we'd be getting videos that memri collected from the arab and iranian world about 9-11... sometimes people have no sense of the basic rules, and this is the reason for my comment above. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

MEMRI is credibly accused of cheating, eg "Every time I wrote Zionism, MEMRI replaced the word by Jew or Judaism. Now, I don't know what Barakat actually wrote - but MEMRI's translation is here. They've made no reference to the fact that the author contests the translation. That last factor, just on it's own, makes them dishonest. If the article is indeed mis-translated then the intention was presumably to incite race-hatred. It should be obvious that we don't use such sources, even if some of the less careful do use them. (Incidentally, MEMRI is also credibly accused of mass copyright violation - western media would not take kindly to their words being translated and distributed for free). PR^talk(New Sig for PalstinRembred) 18:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

since when is the muslim brotherhood a credible source for anything? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate you have real problems with these people, but then you've previously told us you have real problems with practising Jews and secular Israelis when I've quoted those people. For the moment, the Muslim Brotherhood claim that a writer of Arabic has been badly misquoted to make him appear anti-semitic. I've no way of knowing who is right - but I know that, if an author objects to a translation of his work, it is dishonest to continue to publish it without some kind of explanation. (And I suspect it's dishonest to publish a translation of his work without paying him). There are other accusations of serious misconduct aimed at MEMRI, including a report commissioned by the Greater London Council.

You've told us before you can make allegations against any RS - I don't think you can make a credible case against any of them as good as the one just made against MEMRI. (Or the ones made earlier against CAMERA and the Washington Times, since I don't recall you ever challenging the case made against them. Nor have I seen a justification for "International media initially reported the fighting as the Jenin Massacre." being in the article). PR^talk(New Sig for PalstinRembred) 19:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Seems like folks on a different topic here, so I added a guess of a section heading. HG | Talk 20:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Extremely frustrating

We've been showing for months how international media did not, in fact, report that a massacre took place in Jenin. They reported that reports of a massacre existed, and gave them varying degrees of credibility and emphasis depending on the outlet and the phase of events. And yet still I'm seeing flat falsehoods editing into the article; it currently reads "International media initially reported the fighting as the Jenin Massacre." At this point I'm of half a mind to just give up, and leave this article to the Likudniks. Eleland 21:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

seeing that no one is suggesting Hamasniks are trying to take over the article with weasel tags, i wonder what you are expecting to achieve with this Likidniks hyperbole.

i disagree with your content point, i very much think that the massacre claims were the frontward of how this issue was reported, and as a perfect example we just had a drive by editor who renamed the article to "massacre of jenin".^[4] another perfect example is a quick run through on the titles of articles. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Eleland's objection sounds as if it is spot-on. By the Hated Google Test, there are far more references to "Jenin Massacre" (34,000) than there are to "Battle of Jenin" (13,000). But calling it the "Jenin Massacre" is (I'm fairly certain) only something that came about after the reporters had been into the camp, seen the destruction and smelt the decomposition.

Still, if we're both wrong, then you'll be able to prove to us that "International media initially reported the fighting as the Jenin Massacre". I don't think you'll be able to do that, in fact, I strongly suspect it's a terminological inexactitude that's been inserted into the article and needs to come out again. PalestineRemembered 22:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Fine, rather than get into an argument about whether you're a Likudnik and whether I'm a Hamasnik, let's just ignore that last. And yes, I already saw the move, Jaakobou. My point is that nobody has been able to provide a single mainstream source "reporting the fighting as the Jenin Massacre"; all we have is a bunch of articles saying things like "Jenin 'Massacre Evidence Growing'", a headline properly read as, "In Jenin, somebody who we find reasonably credible says that evidence of a massacre is growing." I have not seen in major Western media a single straight report of a Jenin Massacre, as distinct from a report of allegations, rumours, reports or statements of a Jenin massacre, and I don't believe one was ever made. Eleland 22:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

(Dropping in with: Public service announcement here. I suggested above that we focus on 4 stages, beginning with Body counts and only later move to the reporting with 'massacre' terminology. Should I take the argument above as a sign that you guys don't like my suggested order? Or that you'd like an agenda to keep from butting heads? <friendly tone of voice> Anyway, let me know if I can be useful here. Thanks. HG | Talk 00:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC) )

I've worked hard on the Body Counts, and I want something like the table we've created above to be permanently accessible to readers of the article (eg via this template). However, it's a detail, and the way w're handing this part of the discussion is a major part of the unbalanced problem we have with this article. We need a time-line of events, not the weirdly prominent "Body Count Estimates" section we have now, funnelling down to "Allegations of a massacre" and "Post-fighting investigations".

In the meantime, we need an answer to the question - "Which parts of the International media initially reported the fighting as the Jenin Massacre?". If terminological inexactitudes are being deliberately edited into this article, then we have an bigger problem than we thought we had. PalestineRemembered 08:32, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Colin Powell a massacre denier?

the latest edits on this article have crossed WP:NPOV^{"Evidence of a massacre"} to the point where it's verging on WP:SOAP.^{" However, when Powell served in Vietnam"} please consider that such editing will most probably be contested and consider discussing the changes first on talk. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 01:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

It would seem pretty obvious that evidence from a sources with a known propensity to deny massacres should come with a "health warning". The following diff might also bear some small relation to this discussion. PR^talk(New Sig for PalestineRemembered) 10:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

you already know that this edit is inappropriate.^[5]

please avoid such playful adjustments in the future as they are not contributing to the conversation.

to the issue, we can do quite a lot of research and smear all the sources in the article, however, that is not common practice on wikipedia unless you have a direct article criticizing his statements regarding the event. for example, i'm sure it would be objected to if i were to add a list of terror organizations and regimes (including one you took upon yourself to represent) that they condemn and we chalk them down next to the amnesti international report. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I've provided rather good evidence that CAMERA distorts things and it's certainly angry with it, as we'd not expect to use in a work of reference. I've provided evidence that MEMRI's reputation is decidedly tainted, in some cases amounting to acting dishonestly.

Now we discover that Colin Powell was guilty of at least one blatant case of denial (though perhaps not exactly the one we were told).

If you see me or others quoting unreliable sources in this article, by all means call us for it. Meanwhile, there is another question urgently to be answered - which "International media initially reported the fighting as the Jenin Massacre" as it says in the lead? Why does the lead state "subsequent investigations found no evidence of one (massacre)" when we know at least one is definitely alleged, and the specific incident has been confirmed by Israel? PR^talk(New Sig for PalstinRembred) 16:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know whether it violates NPOV, but it's a case of original synthesis. It would be more appropriate to simply state what Powell did and said at the time, and then possibly add opinions from various sources. If any notable points of view brought up Powell's past history, then we can attribute that information to them rather than presenting it ourselves. I do wish that the hugely POV language and presentation of facts sprinkled throughout this article could be addressed, rather than only the POVs that impugn Israel / America. Eleland 14:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way, poorly thought out, POV, or original research-ey edits are not vandalism, and I ask that they not be described as such. Eleland 14:29, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

It is a fact that Powell was assigned by his superior to investigate My Lai, and it is a fact that he reported that he found no evidence that a massacre took place. How is this POV? How is this not applicable to Powell's ability to investigate massacres? Blindjustice 08:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the sources I'm seeing don't seem to say that. Glen was reporting atrocities (massacres?) that had occured in the same period as My Lai, but he'd only heard of it, he didn't know the details. Colin Powell denied the accusations but not My Lai specifically. Well, unless you can show me differently, of course. I'm on a learning curve, I didn't realise quite how much of this denial went on - if Colin Powell was really guilty of what you claim, then we should know about it and it is bound to colour our impressions of him and will affect how we use his testimony. PR^talk(New Sig for PalstinRembred) 16:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I hear you, BlindJustice, and I personally have nothing but contempt for the man. But it comes down to whether sources have made this connection from Powell's past role in Vietnam investigations / coverups, and in the Iraq WMD fraud, to his role in the Jenin events. If this argument is as important as you think, then I'm sure some acceptable source has made it. WP:OR#SYN is pretty clear on this matter, and represents an established consensus. < eleland // talkedits > 16:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Ahem - established policy may operate on this principle, but if it does, then I've never noticed it. Here's what reliable sources says: "Sources with a poor reputation for fact-checking or with no editorial oversight should only be used in articles about the sources themselves. Articles about such sources should not repeat any contentious claims the source has made about third parties, unless those claims have also been published by reliable sources." As best I know, it's down to editors to pick their sources and other editors to object if they're flakey. PR^talk(New Sig for PalstinRembred) 17:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Colin Powell is not really being used as a source here. I think we're reporting his statements as part of the story, rather than as a viewpoint on it. In any case, the choice is to leave him in, or take him out - but not to make original arguments about his reliability which are not found in sources. < eleland // talkedits > 17:58, 21 September 2007 (UTC)