Talk:Battle of Jenin (2002)/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Bodies decompose under rubble.

Two IPs and one registered editor have attempted to add the following passage, and it's been removed without satisfactory reason ("removing contradictory text" and "The sources proving this wrong are in the article, in the aftermath section" and "these claims were proven false") and without, that I can tell, any discussion. All the reports appear to be contemporaneous and validly cited from good RS. (I have checked all references and updated the "verified" entry).

The reason that this entry is important is that the current article describes the uncertain fate of bodies removed from the camp, but not the quite well documented fate of uncollected bodies within the camp.

(Bodies decompose under rubble)

According to ex-MK and campaigner Uri Avnery in a commentary piece on 20th Apr "There is full agreement ... on only one thing. ... foreign journalists and IDF soldiers ... all report that a terrible stench of decomposing bodies lingers everywhere."

From the New York Times (16th Apr) "the smell of decomposing bodies hung over at least six heaps of rubble", the Guardian (16th) "permeated with the stench of rotting corpses", an Amnesty delegate (17th) quoted in the UN report "there is a smell of death under the rubble", the BBC (17th) "the smell of death pervades the Jenin refugee camp", the UN Coordinator, Roed-Larsen on CNN (18th) "decaying corpses below the rubble." and the BBC (18th) "the stench of death is horrible", and the Telegraph (21st) "stench of decaying bodies hung over the Jenin refugee camp",,

Templar98 (talk) 12:01, 8 June 2010 (UTC) _{- banned user}

As fair as I can tell, the reason for the repeated removal of this section is Ynhockey (talk · contribs) and Breein1007 (talk · contribs) possessing obvious POV issues and pushing them under the guise of objectivity, as demonstrated here: 'anti-Israel fanatics', But I can't bring myself to give up and allow the propaganda to win the war here, even if they have worked up quite the impressive system and have won their fair share of battles.' (Breein1007), and by Ynhockey's support for the ultra-nationalist Yisrael Beiteninu party. —Andrensath

All the articles are irrelevant, as they written during the time that claims about a massacre of hundreds in Jenin were common, and Jenin was closed and so no one knew what's happening there, and all information was based on rumors and Palestinian lies. It took some time until investigtation by the UN and human right organizations found that no massacre occured and that stories of hundreds of rottening bodies were incorrect. As such, all articles that say that was massacre are incorrect, and therefor not a RS. MathKnight 17:27, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Concur with MK. Cited articles were written at a time when facts were sketchy at best. Later accounts debunked allegations of hundreds rotting corpses.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 17:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

MK, please stop pushing your POV about 'Palestinian lies'. The articles are RS that accusations of a massacre existed, and that Israel didn't allow journalists, the UN, or human rights NGOs in to prove or disprove it until their PR machine was well set up to broadcast their version of events. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 20:51, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Andrensath, please cease your personal attacks against other editors, such as Breenin1007, MathKnight and myself. If you have any content- or policy-based arguments to make, please do so. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 20:07, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) I find it rather telling that you choose to completely ignore the content-based argument I did make in my previous comment, in favour of a false accusation of 'personal attacks'. Please cite where I made any (and no, whichever IP editor accused you of being a 'war criminal' is not me)? --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 20:41, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Saying that "Ynhockey and Breein1007 possessing obvious POV issues and pushing them under the guise of objectivity" is a personal attack. As for content argument, your comment is interesting but it is not based in reliable sources; MathKnight's comment is backed by many sources currently in the article and the timing of the events. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 21:07, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Fair cop; I apologise for accusing you and Breein1007 of pushing your POV under the guise of objectivity. However, my argument is based on RS, for starters the very first article linked by Templar98. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 22:34, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Apology accepted. As for the argument; first of all, Uri Avnery is not an RS—he's a well-known pro-Palestinian activist, generally considered far-left. Secondly, as MathKnight pointed out, "all the articles are irrelevant, as they written[sic] during the time that claims about a massacre[sic] of hundreds in Jenin were common". Basically, everything that was published before some basic facts were known should be discounted, although if it's notable enough, I have no objection that it goes into the Massacre allegations section. The problem is, the section is already too large (possibly undue weight) so maybe some of these allegations need to substitute current text in the section. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 17:06, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah; I didn't know that, I was just going off the ex-MK part. However, I disagree that being pro-Palestine, far-left, or both should disqualify somebody from being RS; it just means you have to be more careful about taking them at face-value, just like you would for a pro-Israel and/or far-right activist.

That said, I take the point about not making the Massacre allegations section even larger. Maybe spin it out into a separate article titled Massacre accusations in Battle of Jenin or something similar? --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 21:30, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

A word of caution Andrensath, WP:POVFORK--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 00:46, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) I am aware of that guideline. In case clarification is needed, my suggestion was intended to be inclusive of both the allegations that a massacre occurred and the articles refuting said allegations. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 01:09, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Andrensath, please have a look at these;

• How Jenin battle became a “massacre”
• The big Jenin lie
• Urban warfare and the lessons of Jenin

--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 02:59, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

...I'm not sure what you're trying to say here? --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 03:20, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Great care was taken not to harm civilians at risk to IDF personnel. The operation could have been preceeded by heavy aerial bombardment but that option was removed from the table. Palestinian deaths were limited to between 52 and 56 and the majority of these were combatants. No massacres. No decomposing bodies. No war crimes. Just tough urban combat that ended with a hard-fought Israeli victory. BTW, you also might find this from TIME magazine interesting.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 03:46, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and? I never said that a massacre took place. What I did say was that there were allegations that one did and that we should document those allegations, not just the debunking of said allegations. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 04:24, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Andrensath, we do document those allegations, in the introduction to the article. Kaisershatner (talk) 00:44, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

This part of the story has nothing to do with "allegations of a massacre", it concerns the aftermath of a battle in which it is reported by many witnesses that some numbers of bodies were left to decompose under the rubble. These reports are amongst the very most direct and personal witness evidence we have and obviously need inclusion. If this was not a battle with large numbers of Palestinian fighters killed then it is difficult to understand why the article says there was a battle. Templar98 (talk) 14:49, 20 June 2010 (UTC) - _{banned user}

Hi Templar98. I am trying to understand your argument; it may be "obvious" to you that these reports "need inclusion," but it isn't to me, so help me out. This was a battle in which about 50 Palestinians and 25 Israelis were killed, according to several independent counts. How does including the allegations improve the article, in your opinion? Best, Kaisershatner (talk) 16:24, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

There are no independent sources for the death toll being this low, while there are numerous independent sources for the death toll being much higher - there is even an Israeli claiming he carried out undocumented killings. Even if we prefere not to believe there was a mass killing, the story is hopelessly incomplete if we censor the first words of the BBC, NYT, UN etc when they finally got into the camp. 91.84.34.202 (talk) 11:31, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

There is no reliable source (RS) that claims that hundreds Palestinian corpses decomposed under the rubbles. All sources, including Palestinian ones, agreed on death toll of around 52-56 people. It was explained that the reports from the end of April 2002 were based only on rumors and missinformation, and that evantuallt retracted they claims and concured with UN and other organizations reports. Time Magazine concluded it explicitly: "There was no massacre in Jenin." Since you insist on inserting wrong facts (and against concensus in the talk page). MathKnight 12:45, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

It's difficult to AGF an editor who claims on his UserPage that a specific D9 bulldozer "saves many lives" - when observers call it an instrument of terror that Caterpillar is under pressure not to sell to Israel. Cumbria4 (talk) 13:31, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

1. Your Ad hominem is not related to this discussion. 2. The armored D9 do saves lives: when it goes over a 500 kg IED capable of destroying tanks or gets a direct hit by an AT-3 Sagger ATGM and Israeli crewmen survive these encounters unscratched - I definitely call these "saving lives". 3. I know the D9 actions in the Second Intifada were controversial. The Israelis think they were justified, the Palestinian think otherwise. The boycott attempts againt Caterpillar Inc. never managed to lift themselves and were flatly rejected by a very large majority (over 96%) of the share-holders. 4. The D9 did killed Palestinians, the vast majority of them were armed terrorists and not innocence civilians. MathKnight 21:04, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Lets have some proportion, and remind editors that whilst some war crimes were committed, there was no planned genocide. Period.--Cymbelmineer (talk) 12:58, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Why does the article claim there was no massacre when everyone knows there were several? Shootings went on for days (at least until the 12th) when the last surrenders were on the 10th. 80.40.225.228 (talk) 13:50, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Please provide a reliable source for what "everyone knows." Thanks. Kaisershatner (talk) 01:19, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Casualty figures

All due respect, the number of casualties has been counted a tad different by a couple sources doesn't mean we can write the number is not known. That just leaves room to silly speculations. The UN source uses 56, while a newspaper citing Jenin governor Qadoura Moussa states 54. I don't know what source was used for 52 but both the original phrasing of "at least 52" and the current one, suggested by CJCurrie, of "not known" are irresponsible writing considering we have clear cut reports with enough time away from the incident and the odious rumor mill. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 00:46, 8 July 2011 (UTC) From the current article body:

Subsequent investigations and reports by the United Nations, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Time Magazine, and the BBC all concluded there was no massacre of civilians, with estimated death tolls of 46–55 people among reports by the IDF, the Jenin office of the United Nations, and the Jenin Hospital.[75] A team of four Palestinian-appointed investigators reporting to Fatah numbered total casualties of 56,[63] as disclosed by Kadoura Mousa Kadoura, the director of Yasser Arafat's Fatah movement for the northern West Bank.

I'm open to suggestions on how to summarize this into the lead. I got the numbers mixed a bit -- Qadoura said 56, and the UN said 'at least 52'. EU said 55 on the same report. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 00:59, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

What I actually wrote is that the exact number was not known. I stand by this, and I completely reject the suggestion that it constitutes "irresponsible editing." Anyway, I'm going to try another alternate wording in a moment. CJCurrie (talk) 23:56, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

CJCurrie,

I detailed above three main sources and you've made a faulty mix and match between the EU and the UN where you took the highest number (EU) and the worst civilian estimation (UN). Are you sure that taking the worst case estimations and painting a picture that there's allegedly a plethora of bodies left -- which is surely why a Palestinian ended up with 56 as their final toll -- is the proper way of summarizing the 3 sources in the lead?

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:22, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I Also note that you removed the word 'massacre' and wrote things as though the UN was the only one who found no evidence. "Around 52 Palestinians were killed, mostly gunmen, despite false claims of a massacre." - Jpost 2010 It's been enough time after the 'massacre' and there were no hundreds of bodies or a massacre. Let's write this properly please, not giving undue credence to blood libels. That is irresponsible editing.

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:50, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Result in infobox

I've removed it for now. It's an unsourced statement of fact in the encyclopedia's voice. It needs to reflect what a reasonable sample of RS say and cite sources that support the view (or diversity of views) so that readers can verify it. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:19, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Improving neutrality in introduction/Unjustified undo made by AndresHarutJaim

Recently my re-write of the introduction to this article was "undone" without any attempt at explanation. I re-wrote the introduction to this page in a way that I intended would point the reader to the detailed discussions of the massacre claims in the main body of the article. This is important because as it stands, the introduction gives no hint of the massive question-marks that still stand around this issue. Instead, it presents the official Israeli stance as "the stance," with subsequent analysis framed as possibilities. This is a similar style to the structure of Wikipedia pages that are maintained by the PR personnel of large institutions, which frame the entire article according to their point-of-view, then marginalise all the other opinions in a section labelled "Criticism."

I also think it's undisputable that there should be a phrase along the lines of "The Battle of Jenin, also known as/known to some as the Massacre of Jenin/Jenin Massacre." I personally had never heard of the "Battle of Jenin" before I came to this page, although I admit that I respect that perspective having read through all the information that's here.

My proposed introduction is below. References are omitted for clarity. Please note that I am making no claim to holding definitive information. "The Battle of Jenin (April 1–11, 2002), also known as the Jenin Massacre, took place in the Jenin refugee camp in the West Bank. Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) entered the camp, and other areas under the administration of the Palestinian Authority, during the Second Intifada, as part of Operation Defensive Shield. The Jenin camp was targeted after Israeli intelligence reports that it had "served as a launch site for numerous terrorist attacks against both Israeli civilians and Israeli towns and villages in the area."

The IDF employed infantry, commando forces, and assault helicopters. Palestinian militants had prepared for a fight, booby trapping the camp, and after an Israeli column walked into an ambush, the army began to rely more heavily on the use of armored bulldozers to clear out booby traps laid inside the camp. On April 11, Palestinian militants began to surrender. Israeli troops began withdrawing from the camp on April 18.

With Jenin sealed for several days after the events, massacre (Massacre of Jenin) claims began to circulate in the media. Stories of hundreds or thousands of civilians being killed in their homes as they were demolished spread throughout the international media. Subsequent investigations found no evidence to substantiate claims of a massacre, though the initial refusal of the Israeli government to allow a UN investigation means that the true nature of the events remains in question. Official totals indicated that between 52 and 54 Palestinians, mostly gunmen, and 23 IDF soldiers were killed in the fighting."

I'll give several days for respones from AndresHarutJaim and anyone else following this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.89.107 (talk) 04:26, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

You were justfully reverted. In your re-write you implied (hinted) that there was a massacre in Jenin, and that Israel and the UN covered it up. That there was no massacre is a known fact, trying to imply otherwise is inserting wrong information. Wrong information should be removed. MathKnight 11:51, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I started this section, and I'll continue... In hindsight, I accept that I did not understand the semantics of "massacre" and "war crimes" in use. To me, personally, summary executions, civilians killed by bulldozers and numerous rockets fired into civilian areas (as documented by Human Rights Watch) resulting in dozens of people being killed constitutes a massacre. That's my understanding of the term. At the same time, it's obviously valid to differentiate the account from the claims that hundreds of innocent civilians were gunned down and buried in mass graves. I accept that this was the way the term "massacre" was used in the context of Jenin Nonetheless I stand by my original criticisms of the tone of the introduction. It presents the operation as textbook and morally flawless, when this is clearly not the case, which is precisely the reason the events became so widely known. I believe that the war crimes committed at Jenin need to be included in the introduction because they are a definitive fact about the "...... of Jenin." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thectexperience (talk • contribs) 14:51, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

As Time Magazine concludes: "Time investigation concludes that there was no wanton massacre in Jenin, no deliberate slaughter of Palestinians by Israeli soldiers. But the 12 days of fighting took a severe toll on the camp." [1], [2] What was going there was a battle of a western army against armed militants who used civilian people and infrastructure as cover. As such, it is natutal that civilians might be hurt during the battle. No urban warfare battle has ended without civilian casualties. The events were widely knowns because of three main reasons:

1. The false allegations of massacre.
2. The use of IDF Caterpillar D9 armored bulldozers to win the battle by detonating booby traps and bulldozing buildings.
3. The April 9 2002 ambush which killed 13 Israeli soldiers.

I think the lead is OK as it is. MathKnight 19:06, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I've made a very small revert that acknowledges that this event is often called the "Jenin Massacre"--as evidenced by the discussions here, as well as the fact that "jenin massacre" has enough searches to be tracked on Google Trends[3], while "battle of jenin" does not[4]. "Jenin massacre" redirects to this page, so clearly there is a significant association, disagreements about its applicability notwitshtanding. This should not be controversial; it is not a commentary on disputes about what happened, but a neutral recognition of common usage. I made sure to use conservative language to this end ("sometimes referred to as" rather than "also known as"). Skadowski (talk) 20:59, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are guided by reliable sources. No reliable sources use the name "Jenin Massacre". You are saying that it is "often called the "Jenin Massacre" yet providing no reliable source backing this fact. The lead already discusses the massacre allegations. Marokwitz (talk) 22:54, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I've provided a citation to support this revert, from Israeli historian Ilan Pappé, professor of history and director of the European Center for Palestine Studies at the University of Exeter. I believe that qualifies as a reliable source.--Skadowski (talk) 00:15, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Battle?

I wondered if the word battle should be used in a conflict between the IDF, one of the most powerful armies in the world, and a refugee camp, even if 2-300 of the inhabitants were armed. I see that Arafat has called it a a battle, and I do understand that the hawks on the Israeli side would like to call it a battle, but for those who try to remain objective in this highly emotional conflict, there might be a better word? I will leave it up to more creative spirits to come up with a suggestion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Henrikha (talk • contribs) 15:47, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

The term "Battle" should be replaced by a neutral descriptive term (not "Massacre"). Maybe "Jenin Incident" or something similar. ---Dagme (talk) 17:25, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Even asymmetrical warfare is warfare. The Palestinian militants there used thousand of explosives and booby traps (which were successufuly countered by the IDF Caterpillar D9 armored bulldozers), hundreds of armed militant and a supporting enviorment in civilian infrastructure. That was a battle, the Palestinians fought back, they lost. MathKnight 19:09, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Of course it was not a battle - this was a cold blooded massacre of refugees. Numerous journalists and the special rapporteur of the UN reported that the camp stank of unburied and decomposing bodies when the IDF eventually allowed them in. From the New York Times (16th Apr) "the smell of decomposing bodies hung over at least six heaps of rubble", the Guardian (16th) "permeated with the stench of rotting corpses", an Amnesty delegate (17th) quoted in the UN report "there is a smell of death under the rubble", the BBC (17th) "the smell of death pervades the Jenin refugee camp", the UN Coordinator, Roed-Larsen on CNN (18th) "decaying corpses below the rubble." and the BBC (18th) "the stench of death is horrible", and the Telegraph (21st) "stench of decaying bodies hung over the Jenin refugee camp",

But of course, the actual reports of people who actually verified this massacre are not going to be allowed to appear in the article, are they? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.104.102.71 (talk) 17:06, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Read the talk page and the above paragraphes. The quotations you brought were early reports when nothing was known and the rummors of massacre were spread by the Palestinians. Evantually, everyone of them retracted these reports and issued corrections that there was no massacre in Jenin. Even the UN and Amnesty International and HRW, not fonders of Israel but hostile to it, concluded that there was no massacre in Jenin. Even the Palestinian leadership evantually admited in that and lowered the death toll to 56 people. MathKnight 17:34, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Again, MathKnight, you are using the defence that there was no massacre without mentioning the important caveat that your definition of "massacre" requires hundreds of people being shot. You are right to say that Amnesty and HRW agreed there was no "massacre". They did, however, report indiscriminate rocket fire, unannounced demolitions of homes with bulldozers, and summary executions. These events were rightly termed "war crimes" rather than a "massacre." I reiterate my claim that the introduction needs to be rewritten with mention of the war crimes that occurred at Jenin. The only rebuttal you have offered thus far to this argument is a quote from Time Magazine. Time is a major establishment publication in the United States, the most consistently partisan player in the Arab-Israeli conflict behind Israel itself. Time is not a reliable source and does not stand against the first-hand reports of both Amnesty and HRW — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.89.107 (talk) 06:30, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

To massacre is "to kill indiscriminately or in large numbers" (Collins Online but all dictionaries will say something similar). Neither criterion was met here, and the most likely source of the story was planned misinformation by parties who wish Israel ill. Owing to the enthusiastic support given to the allegations by sections of the Western media, the term "Jenin Massacre" is in the public consciousness, so the current position is about right - if a user looks up "Jenin Massacre" s/he is directed to this page which calls it a "battle" (I would have no problems with "incident" either) and discusses the massacre allegations in detail. BTW after leaving office S-G Kofi Annan (quoted in this article) acknowledged that the UN was anti-Israel, and MathKnight is also correct in questioning the impartiality of AI and HRW, at least at that time. The unpalatable fact is that there are NO absolutely trustworthy sources for Israel/Palestine in the period under discussion, including so-called "newspapers of record" and major supranational organisations and NGOs. IMHO the article presents the Palestinian case more strongly than the Israeli, but is about as good as can be achieved. Chrismorey (talk) 23:38, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Neutral POV

1. Given that the international consensus is that no "Jenin massacre" took place, excessive space has been given to those who continue to insist it did and I've tried to correct that. While WP tries to cover all POVs it surely isn't necessary to give equal space to discredited ones. There are those who believe the earth is flat, or that we live on the inside of the globe, but they don't get equal space for their POV, and that is as it should be. Ditto insistence on a massacre in the face of all the evidence.

IMHO the article is still written primarily from the Palestinian-Arab POV, but it does makes some attempts to be fair.

2. Numerous references are cited to an article in the UK Independent by one Justin Huggler. The Independent is not a reliable source on any matter to do with the Middle East, and on a number of other subjects on which it holds extreme views, since it is prone to intrude editorial opinion into ostensibly-factual articles. It has fallen foul of UK media regulators for this on several occasions. Its opinion, background or feature articles make no pretence of balance, and do not need to under UK rules which allow titles to hold "partisan" viewpoints. Chrismorey (talk) 03:01, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

The Independent is regarded as reliable source in Wikipedia including on issues related to the Middle East. Do not remove citations to the Independent based on your personal views of the source if you would like to continue editing Wikipedia. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:31, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I didn't know that you was appointed to tell what are reliable sources we may use on Wikipedia, when was that? --aad_Dira (talk) 17:37, 31 July 2013 (UTC).

"battle" of Jenin

Oh, now it is "the battle" of Jenin. This is the Orwell's neo-language I suppose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.8.94.253 (talk) 18:22, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Massacre

This article has been linked to at Template:Massacres against Palestinians. If you have an opinion about it, please participate in the discussion.“WarKosign” 06:03, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

As per RS/N suggestion

the article seems entirely lacking in perspectives of the camp residents. There are some potential starting points at Al Jazeera

• Peter Lagerquist, 'In Jenin, history blows back from Baghdad,' Al Jazeera, 20 April 2003
• 'Israeli censors lift Jenin film ban,' Al Jazeera 12 November 2003
• Sousan Hammad, 'A culture of exchange or elitism?,' Al Jazeera 11 May 2010
• Dan Cohen, ‘Interview with a suicide bomber, Israel/Palestine,’ Mondoweiss June 25, 2015

If you use Mondoweiss, I'll use StandWithUs or something similar per balance and NPOV. Deal?--Averysoda (talk) 20:01, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

This is not a trading post, and you are openly admitting that you approach these issues not in terms of substance but in terms of a queer notion of retaliatory rights. I do not use 99% of the articles I read on Mondoweiss or other similar sites. I am not arguing that Mondoweiss is reliable for facts or reliable per se. I am a contextual reader. If I find material on a borderline site that is informed, insightful, not ridden with POV language, I usually put it into an article, where it is invariably automatically reverted by editors like yourself. This is not an ideological warfare area. This is an encyclopedia built on careful assaying of sources, technical judgements and commonsense. Advocacy organs are of no use for encyclopedic writing: concrete investigative journalist reportage is.Nishidani (talk) 20:49, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

The Mondoweiss article you want to use here is indeed ridden with POV language. And commonsense tells me that this journalist would be publishing with a much more discerning publication if they would accept his output. He went to a blog for exactly the reason we shouldn't be using him here.

It's pretty obvious that what Averysoda meant is that you would never in a million years allow an "interview" from one of the organizations he mentioned into an article without doing your utmost to have it disqualified. He's saying those sources are as bad as Mondoweiss (for Wikipedia purposes), but you would never acknowledge that. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:59, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

What is 'obvious' to one editor is not ipso facto obvious to others. Do not speculate what I would or would not do, surmise of another's intentions is not a basis for preemptive editing. And I note for the umpteenth time that you appear unable to address technical issues in which I participate without a violating WP:AGF by personal insinuations. This too is duly noted.Nishidani (talk) 10:18, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I've seen you regularly remove such sources before, so it's hardly speculation. And AGF is not a suicide pact. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:21, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

"If I find material on a borderline site that is informed, insightful, not ridden with POV language..." follow your own advice and stop using trash from anti-Israel NGOs. Find reliable sources or make yourself a blog. This is a serious encyclopedia (or should be).--Averysoda (talk) 04:09, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Nish just use the first three, aint no point in inviting this argument. nableezy - 07:16, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks but no. This place is run by rules, which are established by community consensus. Mondoweiss is advisedly not to be used for 'facts', RS/N has said: it can be used for other things, depending on context. I didn't invite an argument. But I judge the material I introduce in terms of informative quality, and that article by Dan Cohen is informative, it is an interview. In interviews versions of a reality are given,. not facts. What NMMGG, Averysoda, Brad Dyer et all are tagteaming to do is systematically suppress from Wikipedia any use of prominent Liberal-Zionist journalism, which is widely read in the American Jewish community, and constitutes a significant if minor voice for Israel and Palestine. It's mechanical, thoughtless and POV-ridden, censorous in intent and indifferent to encyclopedic concerns. Nishidani (talk) 07:38, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

UN committee problem

Not sure this controversy is fully and adequately explained in the article. The Israeli government was perfectly willing to welcome a UN team in the beginning, when they thought it would be composed of practical technical military and forensic types, who would confine themselves to reconstructing the details of the battle (who fired what munitions from what position at what time etc), but were strongly taken aback when none of Kofi Annan's appointees fit this description, but instead were all political retread hacks from the closed world of the mandarinate of international organizations -- and at least one of them (Sommaruga) was personally completely unacceptable to the Israeli government. Annan refused any compromise at all with respect to his appointments to the committee, and as the evidence piled up that the fight in Jenin had been more two-sided than one-sided, the Israeli government felt more and more justified and safe in refusing cooperation... AnonMoos (talk) 21:47, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Battle of Jenin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080911045522/http://www.un.org/peace/jenin/index.html to http://www.un.org/peace/jenin/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080911045522/http://www.un.org/peace/jenin/index.html to http://www.un.org/peace/jenin/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:25, 28 October 2016 (UTC)