This article is more poorly-spelled propaganda than information. I'm cleaning it up. Mprudhom 18:23, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Pure propangada, no effort toward NPOV.
Ericd 19:37, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Should be better now. Needs some more details, though. Mprudhom 19:49, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC)
It's much better. BTW can you have a look to Talk:JeninEricd 19:54, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Might as well take a look at ALL articles 212.199.148.17 has managed to lay his fingers on. -- 212.127.214.105 20:19, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC)
212.199.148.17, continually seeding this article with biased content like "According to Israel the IDF have captured a lot of illegal weapons and documents that proves Yasser Arafat link to terrorism" is only going to get your edits reverted. I recommend that you read some of the discussions on NPOV, as well as the talk pages about Israel and Palestine. In general, bandying around terms like "murdered" and "terrorist" when discussing the Israel-Palestine conflict helps no one to get a sober and well-reasoned view of the issue. If you want to contribute to the article, please help flesh out the timeline, factual evidence, the propaganda battle that was fought on both sides, and world reaction to the operation.
On the other hand, not using the term "terrorism" when it is clearly applicable (such as in the case of the Passover Massacre), doesn't help either. The truth should not be avoided only because it offends someone. uriber 20:50, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC)
The Passover Massacre was clearly a terrorist act, but were the Palestinians killed in Jenin terrorists or resistants ?
Ericd 20:56, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC)
I agree that the usage of the term in that context is problematic - although it is highly likely that at least there were terrorists among them: Somebody did send out and supply whoever carried out the terrorist attacks. These "somebodies" are terrorists, and they weren't living on the Moon - but much more likely, in Jenin. However, since it's hard to say exactly which of the Palestinians involved in the battle of Jenin was a terrorist, I would, in this context, use the term "militants", which is neutral. uriber 21:18, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC)
More than a month has past since this discussion. I propose removing the NPOV tag within a week unless discussion resumes. Lance6Wins 15:28, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Where are the details of Palestinian casualties?
As usual, this article is written from an Israeli perspective and as if Palestinians do not exist except as perpetrators of violence against innocent Israelis. Where are the details of the casulaties due to Israeli attacks on Palestinian cities? Where is the discussion of the martial law conditions that the IDF subjects millions of innocent Palestinians? Like most Wikipedia articles, this one has a huge Zionist blind spot to the mass Israeli oppression and provocation against Palestinian society ongoing for 37 years and focuses entirely on incidents of violence against Israelis so as to frame Israeli atrocities against Palestinians as if they are always justified responses to Palestinian attacks that occur without provocation and in isolation. The 37 year Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza is not viewed as state terrorism, instead it is portrayed as if it is reasonable, neutral and benign while Palestinians who resist or seek retaliation against Israelis are panted as terrorists. If the shoe was on the other foot, the Israelis would be calling Palestinians Nazis and they would be cheering the "terrorists" as brave partisans warriors. The relentless hypocrisy continues. --Alberuni 22:25, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I agree that this article has not reached NPOV yet, needs more 'palestinian viewpoint'Pedant 18:28, 2004 Oct 25 (UTC)
Jenin false allegations of massacre
Allegations, althought widely reported by western media outlets quoting statements of thousands dead by PA officials were found to be baseless by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. Alberuni please fact check and provide citations if you disagree. Then let's discuss the citations here. Lance6Wins 14:36, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Human Rights Watch has confirmed that at least fifty-two Palestinians were killed as a result of IDF operations in Jenin. This figure may rise as rescue and investigative work proceeds, and as family members detained by Israel are located or released. Due to the low number of people reported missing, Human Rights Watch does not expect this figure to increase substantially. At least twenty-two of those confirmed dead were civilians, including children, physically disabled, and elderly people. At least twenty-seven of those confirmed dead were suspected to have been armed Palestinians belonging to movements such as Islamic Jihad, Hamas, and the al-Aqsa Martyr's Brigades. Some were members of the Palestinian Authority's (PA) National Security Forces or other branches of the PA police and security forces. Human Rights watch was unable to determine conclusively the status of the remaining three killed, among the cases documented. (Human Rights Watch)
According to hospital lists reviewed by Amnesty International there were 54 Palestinian deaths between 3 and 17 April 2002 in both Jenin refugee camp and Jenin city as a result of the incursion and subsequent fighting. This figure includes seven women, four children and six men over the age of 55. Six had been crushed by houses. The body of one person known to have died by being crushed in his house has not been recovered.(5) Amnesty International)
A U.N. report released Thursday found no evidence to support Palestinian claims that Israeli forces massacred up to 500 people in the Jenin refugee camp, but it criticized both sides for putting civilian lives at risk. USAToday on United Nations report
"What we have got here is possibly 54 bodies found so far, with possibly 20 or 30 unaccounted for but we can't really verify these figures until the whole site is cleared.
"Talking to people and talking to witnesses, even very credible witnesses, it just appears there was no wholesale killing.(BBC)
No massacre. please do not change page till you support your statements. Lance6Wins 18:19, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
What does it take to call it a "massacre"? my dictionary says: " A savage and indiscriminate killing of human beings, as in warfare, acts of persecution, revenge, etc. ... a a massacre is the killing of those who are defenseless or unresisting, as in barbarous warfare... " would you prefer the term "slaughter"? which is " ...frequently applied to any great loss of life in battle, riot, etc. ...? Probably not, as the loss of life wasn't great enough to satisfy you that it was a slaughter, I think... perhaps "butchery" stressing the "ruthlessness and wantonness" of the killing, but which "compares the killing of men to the slaughter of cattle." Maybe the term "carnage" which "retains much of its original sense as heaped up bodies of the slain, and refers to the result, rather than the process of a massacre or slaughter"Pedant
slaughter would be more accurate than massacre...the British attacking at the First Battle of the Somme where slaughtered as were the Federal troops attacking Marye’s Heights at the Battle of Fredricksburg. These are sometimes referred to as the attacking troops were massacred but that is a incorrect usage of the word. In battle, rendering your opponent unable to oppose your actions is the goal. The best can achieve this outside of warfare (Sun Tzu), the rest at times resort to battle in an attempt to impose a set of conditions upon the other side. Lance6Wins 17:48, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
You do agree, do you not, that people were killed? That at least some of those were defenseless and unresisting? That there were bodies? What would YOU prefer to call it? Are you saying it didn't happen at all? That there is no NPOV way to include it except to link to external reports? (none of which will likely be neutral, taken one-at-a-time) I think it deserves a mention, and that it deserves it here, in this article.Pedant
Why is there no content on this event whatsoever on this page except external links?Pedant 19:09, 2004 Oct 25 (UTC)
Because it is false. There was no massacre. Please take a look at Malmedy massacre, Wounded Knee, and many others including the killing of 49(?) Iraqi soldiers/recuits/trainees listed in Current Events for October 24, 2004..taking people out, laying them on the group in rows, and shooting each one in the head. From this we can see that massacre has certain basic elements (unarmed victims, non-combat situation, etc.) which did not obtain in Jenin. Human Rights Watch says no massacre. Amnesty International says no massacre. Arabs claimed 3000 dead. The western media echoed the claim till they noticed it was false. Armed fighters killed in battle are casualties, not victims of a massacre. Civilians killed in battle are not victims of a massacre. Larsen was speaking while the 3000 dead lie was still rampant. He made the mistake of believing the claims. The battle started on 3 April 2002, Larsen did not see the battle. He may not have been there at all in the month of April 2002. Yet he says "horrific beyond belief." based upon accounts which have been found to be false. Please see these UPI articles Documenting the Myth, Why Europeans bought the Jenin Myth and How Europe's Media Lost Out. Lance6Wins 21:36, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Well something happened. We have no content on that event, except links. And some of the links in the Battle of Jenin are POV just by the label, and by the content. Do you not see the inherent POV of listing these links under the heading 'Battle of Jenin' ? Do you not see a problem in not having any local content in this section?:
When these links 'go dead' or when the content at the referenced locations changes, will YOU notice? I'm not comfortable with using only external links to tell the story. That section should be written, here on wikipedia, not just pointed to 'out there' somewhere.
Whatever the facts are, or there are facts. Even if only that "A" claims "x", but "B" claims "y". "K" characterises the reports of "A" and "B" as "(something)". This article has a distinct Anti-Palestinian, Pro-Israeli bias as it stands. Please note that I have not ever edited any of the content in this article. I'm only pointing out the bias, and trying to help you find a good way to word it so that it doesn't read like propaganda. I have no vested interest in either the Israeli or Palestinian point of view. I do have a devotion to the Wikipedia itself, and as it stands this article is not sufficiently neutral in tone, and poorly reflects on all of us. Let's clear this up quickly, as the 'dispute tag' also reflects poorly on us.
I'm quite certain the people who are working on this article can do better in terms of neutrality, and that the external links are better suited as references than as a substitution for local content. If you like, I'll edit the article. I would prefer that it be done by those already acquainted with the material. I believe you can fix it, it might just be that you can't see that there's anything wrong with it. Please try to take a look at this article with the eyes of someone who doesn't know anything about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, that came here to find out about this "Operation Defensive Shield" they heard of. What would they learn from this article? Would it be accurate? Would it seem to be accurate to someone who fought in the battle? Would it seem to be accurate to someone who fought on the other side?
This statement, from the article Documenting the Myth:
The U.S. and Western European media coverage of the Battle of Jenin last month raises troubling and far-reaching questions about the reliability of the modern mass media and press in conflict situations. And the answers to them are both complex and surprising.
Is a good example of neutral tone. It also refers to what is most important, in my opinion, about the "Battle of Jenin" (if that's what we're going to call it.): The reliability of mass media in conflict situations. Maybe 'False claims of massacre' might be better worded 'Death toll exaggerated' or 'Media manipulated by false reports'. Massacre is a suitable word for what happened, saying 'False claims of massacre' implies that there was no event (the event we are discussing, whatever it was that happened) similarly to a headline like: "Piltdown Man never existed", because the Piltdown Man was found to be a fraud. The headline implies the artifact called the Piltdown Man did exist. Does that make any sense to you? I would have written a shorter explanation but I didn't have enough time.Pedant 00:56, 2004 Oct 28 (UTC)
Your statements are accurate and clear but it won't matter. Even if there was a massacre, the Zionist hasbara campaigners will spin the description of events until it bears no resemblance to reality. See what they did to Muhammad al-Durrah. To these extremists, Arab civilians killed by the Israeli military do not constitute evidence of a massacre. Like the Nazis who said "the Jew is a parasite, the only good Jew is a dead Jew", the extremist Zionists believe, "'Palestinians' are terrorists, they hide in refugee camps, Israel is just defending herself." All crimes are absolved. Destroy the enemy. Blame the victim. Repeat until death. It's the nature of the conflict. --Alberuni 01:20, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Is there any factual information regarding this matter, preferably with reputable citations, you wish to relate to the other participants in Wikipedia? Lance6Wins 14:00, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Pedant, one way of dealing with the alleged massacre in Jenin is to use a timeline format...preserving dates is important so that one can relate the statement to the start/end dates of the operation. We could report
the IDF entering Jenin as part of Operation Defensive Shield launched after the Passover Seder terrorist bombing.
use a quote and date with the name of the speaker for the claims of Palestinians of thousands massacred (3,000 if i remember correctly) stating that the claims were unfounded, as we now know. noting that the claims are unfounded is important, lest we lead someone to believe the contrary.
relate the western media acceptance of these claims using quotes and dates from, say, the BBC
relate Roed-Larsen(sp?) statement using a quote and date
relate the HRW findings of 520-60 arab dead
relate the AI findings of about 50-60 arab dead
relate the western media corrections issued...if we can find any
your thoughts? Lance6Wins 14:00, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
There. That works (assuming factual info, etc..) that seems a suitable form to present this that preserves the NPOV, I have no problem with that whatsoever. That seems far superior to sending the reader away to an external link.Pedant 00:51, 2004 Nov 9 (UTC)
Remove NPOV pending Specific Items Cited
Please cite specific items that are NPOV. If the article is NPOV, lets improve it by editing the specific items. Ten days since last call for specific items. Jenin Massacre allegations demonstrated to be false. New item required. Lance6Wins 11:25, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
This article is still fully pro-Israeli propaganda, as expected considering that Israelis are editing it. It might as well be written by the Israeli government. This article's bias is like writing about the Holocaust and forgetting to mention its effect on Jews. Under results, it's all about Israel, of course. Where are the accounts of Palestinian casualties, civilians killed and injured? The mass detentions? The mass destruction of Palestinian property? The police abuse at checkpoints? The collective punishment? The road closures and curfews? The denial of Palestinians access to their jobs in Israel? The economic effects on Palestinian society? Where is the mention of any of these effects on millions of Palestinians? NOTHING. --Alberuni 23:45, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Please address these within the context of Operation Defensive Shield. As general events within the current round of violence they can be address in the Second Intifada. Please provide specific examples directly bearing upon Operation Defensive Shield. Lance6Wins 17:01, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
There is no information in the article about the effects of this Israeli military "operation" on the Palestinian victims. The information presented is all from the Israeli POV. --Alberuni 17:07, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Do you have some specific additions you would like to propose for the article? Jayjg 17:52, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Here are some sources for the NPOV challenged. I don't have time to edit this POV Wikimess (as you call it) right now. [1], [2][3][4][5][6][7][8] --Alberuni 18:46, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I know it's a big job, if nobody better qualified steps up, I'll do it, but I am unfamiliar with alll this material. Leave me a note on my talk page if nobody else is ready to do it. I like the timeline format that User:Lance6Wins suggested, about 6 inches above this comment. That allows a clear statement to be made about events as they progressed, from the operations start, to the claims, the counter claims etc.. he explained it better.Pedant 00:55, 2004 Nov 9 (UTC)
