Jump to content

Talk:Operation Defensive Shield

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Palestinian Casualties[edit]

The number of Palestinian casualties in operation "Defesive Shield" is grossly inaccurate.

According to the Report of the Secretary-General prepared pursuant to GA resolution ES-10/10 (Report on Jenin) (A/ES-10/186)[8] "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". Alas, Operation "Defensive Shiled" was conducted from 29 March to 10 May 2002.

According to B'tselem report [9], 244 Palestinians were killed between 29 March to 10 May 2002.

Niksage (talk) 17:51, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Background violence[edit]

I changed the section "background", which is quite vague, to "Background violence", which is what the section was about anyway. I added two subheadings, separating out the Israeli and Palestinian experiences of violence. Even though they are related, it does not seem that people can agree about "who started it," which is a pointless venture after all, so maybe each 'side' needs its own space to relate experiences of violence. There is now a section with a solid paragraph dealing with attacks on Israelis, and at least a few sentences on attacks on Palestinians are now due for balance.

It can be argued that Sharon's statements to the press, reported by Time, do not belong in "stated goals," but they also do not belong in "criticism," because they refer to a statement that Sharon did indeed make. Some of the charges of 'synthesis' were vaguely correct, but when I tried to go in and contextualize Sharon's statement so that it was no longer synthesis, but background, it got deleted again. Thus, I have moved the comment to the Background violence section, and if it gets deleted, well that's just undeniable POV-pushing.
I must add, that, God this is unpleasant (no surprise to any of us, is it?). I am doing my best, as many others have done before me, to try to accommodate the perspective of those I disagree with, and I have yet to see them reciprocate. This is, after all, a page about a month-long Israeli offensive, with multiple attacks, not about a month of bombings in Israel. If you want such a page, create it somehow, don;t delete basic facts from this one. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 05:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, its presence in "criticism" was profoundly ridiculous. Was Sharon criticizing himself — for something he hadn't yet done?? <eleland/talkedits> 09:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Right, for some, the position seemed to be that the purpose of the report was only to criticize him, not to report on his statement and the actions following. This too, is a synthesis approach to the issue, however. Other people just wanted to use Time as a source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LamaLoLeshLa (talkcontribs) 17:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm restoring the previous "background" label - becuase the current structure is inappropriate and misleading - the content of the "violence against Palestinians" section is the Sharon quote, and no matter what your position is regarding this quote, it is not, in and of itself, violence. The article also implies that Palestinian suicide attacks in Cafes and restaurants are attacks against Israeli military targets. We can continue to discuss where, if at all , the Sharon quote belongs, but the current section structure is worse than before. Canadian Monkey (talk) 15:38, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Sharon quote belongs in "Stated goals" where it used to be. And there are no NPOV issues about it, so I fail to understand how it comes to be tagged.
Meanwhile, there are severely POV problem with the lede, which states "the Palestinian Authority did not manage to fully address damaged infrastructure for approximately two years after the invasions" - as if this had nothing to do with the IDF shooting dead 13 UN workers in the camp, along with Iain Hook, the UNWRA leader of the reconstruction (Nov 2002). PRtalk 08:57, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The only things that belong in a section titled ‘Stated goals’ are official statements, made at the beginning of the operation, as to its aims. If Sharon had said at the start of ODS that “The goal of ODS is to hit Palestinians...cause them losses” – it would be appropriate for that section. It is not appropriate to put in that section an offhand comment made in a cafeteria a month before the operation, under different circumstances (i.e: before a majority of the suicide bombings whose prevention was the stated goal), which was only dragged up in the aftermath of the operation, by some sources who in retrospect wanted to tie that statement to the operation. That statement can be mention in the criticism section – but not anywhere else in the article. Canadian Monkey (talk) 15:18, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It must be questionable whether an "official statement" explaining the intentions of a heavily criticised lead actor deserves any prominence atall. Otherwise we'd think that WWII started because the Polish attacked a German border post.
And the fact that Sharon made statements which some people read as being an invitation to communal punishment before the most serious suicide attacks on Israel makes his stated intentions more significant and not less.
Meanwhile, we have a statement in the lead that extends the time-scale of the article to cover an extraordinary 2 years - and yet, make it appear that the delays in reconstuction were caused by inefficiencies in the PA. Again, it's like making the fire that drove the defenders of the Warsaw Ghetto into the hands of the Germans was caused by them playing with candles. PRtalk 20:10, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The stement was not made as an official claim of the goals of the operation, so it can't go under the heading of "stated goals". It's as simple as that. I agree the official justifications are not always the full story, and perhaps we can just eliminate this 'stated goals' section altogether. Canadian Monkey (talk) 22:22, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whether Sharon's statement is in Background or stated goals really should not continue to be a sticking point, at least in my opinion. It deserves to be in this entry. I'm still waiting to see those who say that attacks towards Palestinians prior to the Operation have been continually deleted, re-insert them. Please do. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 20:45, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is some info offered up by Eleland:
The UN report on Jenin notes:
  • 18. From the beginning of March until 7 May, Israel endured approximately 16 bombings, the large majority of which were suicide attacks. More than 100 persons were killed and scores more wounded. Throughout this period, the Government of Israel, and the international community, reiterated previous calls on the Palestinian Authority to take steps to stop terrorist attacks and to arrest the perpetrators of such attacks. 19. During this same period, IDF conducted two waves of military incursions primarily in the West Bank, and air strikes against both the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. The first wave began on 27 February 2002 and ended on approximately 14 March. Those incursions, which Israel stated were in pursuit of Palestinians who had carried out attacks against Israelis, involved the use of ground troops, attack helicopters, tanks and F-16 fighter jets in civilian areas, including refugee camps, causing significant loss of life among civilians. 20. Over the course of two days, 8 and 9 March, 18 Israelis were killed in two separate Palestinian attacks and 48 Palestinians were killed in the Israeli raids that followed. 21. Israeli military retaliation for terrorist attacks was often carried out against Palestinian Authority security forces and installations. This had the effect of severely weakening the Authority's capacity to take effective action against militant groups that launched attacks on Israelis. Militant groups stepped into this growing vacuum and increased their attacks on Israeli civilians. In many cases, the perpetrators of these attacks left messages to the effect that their acts were explicitly in revenge for earlier Israeli acts of retaliation, thus perpetuating and intensifying the cycle of violence, retaliation and revenge. 22. It was against this backdrop that the most extensive Israeli military incursions in a decade, Operation Defensive Shield, were carried out. The proximate cause of the operation was a terrorist attack committed on 27 March in the Israeli city of Netanya..." LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 19:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Public support: citations please[edit]

Hello all, we are still in need of citations for the claim that bombings dropped by 50% after the operation. Someone motivated to do so, please locate it or we'll have to delete that info at some point soon. Thanks, LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 20:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Issue fixed. JaakobouChalk Talk 14:06, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


regarding the following diff [10].

While it is correct that many people were arrested and a lot of damage was inflicted to Palestinian property during the operation. It is certainly not "the result" of the operation. The result of the operation is not a matter of what the operation did in fiscal action but the outcome as in "victory/defeat" and as such, notes about Palestinian loss of property - which could also be attributed to other factors btw - are improper for listing in that section. JaakobouChalk Talk 20:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So it is "correct" that people were arrested, and damage was inflicted on Palestinian property, but it was not a "result" of the military assault? You need to either adjust your glasses or buy a new dictionary. And what is "fiscal action" anyway? Both results, if verifiable and properly sourced, should be noted and listed in the main infobox. As they were until reverted. With respect and cordially etc. I came here via the Jenin link btw, not through stalking you Jaakobou. --Nickhh (talk) 22:45, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Infobox Military Conflict says the result section of the infobox should summarize "the outcome of the conflict (e.g. "French victory")", not write everything that happened during and after it. This is what the casualties section and the text prose is for. I'll change it. -- Nudve (talk) 09:57, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually that's much better all round - you're right that there's no need to repeat detail in the infobox which can all be found elsewhere on the page. It was just the one-sidedness of what was there originally that was bothering me, ie that it listed all the benefits for Israel (and in a somewhat triumphalist manner) but nothing about the debit side for the Palestinians ... --Nickhh (talk) 10:25, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Current result section, noting "IDF pullback" is incorrect.[11] IDF secured what is considered a victory before 'pulling back'. For example, approx. 200 Palestinian militants surrendered in Jenin before the IDF moved out. The second operation was just a complementary one in a long term effort to stop the suicide bombings of civilians. JaakobouChalk Talk 12:57, 27 July 2008 (UTC) add link 16:12, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Victory" is a difficult term to attribute to such counterinsurgency operations, in part due to the vagueness of the objective. The second operation was indeed complementary, which is why I put it down as a result. How would you describe the outcome of the battle? -- Nudve (talk) 14:53, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Victory is not difficult to attribute here since the smaller objectives were well defined as well as achieved. This Operation was part of (a) a successful campaign and (b) it was a successful operation within the successful campaign. Battle of Normandy, for example, is declared a "Decisive Allied victory" even though it was only a phase in Operation Overlord during WWII and did not end the war on its own. JaakobouChalk Talk 16:09, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but the objective of the battle of Normandy was to conquer the coast of Normandy from Germany, which was achieved. Defensive Shield's objective was something like "elimination of Hamas infrastructure". I suppose "Israeli victory" is an option, but those statistics describing a decline in suicide bombings are really undue. Let's wait a while for further input from other users. -- Nudve (talk) 16:28, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's a fairly clear difference between the government stated goal for the whole campaign -- i.e. fighting terror (initiated mainly by Fatah actually, not Hamas) -- and the actual goals of Operation Defensive Shield, which were taking over the militants and their operation in certain places. The operation was successfully achieved with an Israeli victory against the Palestinian gunmen who surrendered themselves after being targeted at their intentionally selected, civilian base of operation.
I don't mind leaving out the statistics. The main point though, is that the Israeli pullout from Jenin was certainly not backtracking in order to regroup, it was pulling out after the Palestinian militants surrendered, so there's no other way of describing this other than an Israeli victory.
We don't deem Allied movement of forces from Normandy a "pullout" because they moved on to overtake Germany as well. JaakobouChalk Talk 17:26, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - whatever the outcome of this debate about victory/defeat/whatever, I'd just like to add that IMO the result absolutely must be short and concise. You can't write down everything that happenned in the operation, especially damage to infrastructure, which is never cited as a 'result' on Wikipedia (see Battle of Stalingrad, or something smaller like 2006 Lebanon War or Operation Changing Direction 11, all of which were devastating for infrastructure). As for the above debate, I'd personally write: Israeli success, launching of Operation Determined Path. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 17:50, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have no problem with that. -- Nudve (talk) 13:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Public perceptions[edit]

Most of this (all but the last two sentences) have just been deleted: "After Operation Defensive Shield, the number of suicide bombings in Israel subsequently decreased significantly, with the number of attacks in 2003 50 percent lower than in 2002,[citation needed] but it was not clear if the operation was the reason for this decrease. A poll conducted after the end of the operation indicated that 86 percent of Israeli Jews thought that the operation contributed to Israel's security. 54 percent thought the Operation has damaged Israel politically. In the final analysis, 90 percent of those surveyed asserted that the decision to launch Operation Defensive Shield was the correct decision.[citation needed] Views among Arab citizens of Israel were the opposite, with equally high numbers against the Operation.[citation needed]" It was correct to delete all, not some of the data, since no citations have been added for any of the above sentences for three months now. Please find the citations and then you can add this back. But do not cut one portion of the study and leave another portion, without a citation - this strikes one as very inconsistent. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 20:16, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Offtopics 1: I'd request that you please add yourself to the "just been deleted" part of your comment, there's no reason to shy about that edit.
Offtopics 2: I've got other obligations and will probably give this a serious look tomorrow, but the tone of your edit summary felt a bit... well, angry.
Content-wise: Usually material which is reasonable/uncontested and is written in a neutral fashion has a chance of lasting a bit longer even without a source. You've raised a legitimate concern regarding the 50 percent and I've just resolved it fairly easily and within a short period of time from the moment I've noticed it. In general, I somewhat agree with your removal of the Public perception section to the talk page since it has been a bit over a two months. However, it is still a reasonable section with no exceptional claims and it would be best if you try and validate the material and only if unable to, make note of that as you remove it from the article.
Cheers, JaakobouChalk Talk 20:32, 26 July 2008 (UTC) clarify 20:37, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Think I need to look up policy on talk page formatting. I've been tryin to make things more readable this way but I keep getting comments like the above, based on the impression that I am trying to avoid signing my comments. That's not my intent. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 18:08, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my lord[edit]

How many times do I have to quote high-quality reliable sources which explain that the background violence was mutual and killed more Palestinians than Israelis before we can get anything other than suicide bombings into the "Background" section? Why does "Aftermath" apply exclusively to Israelis? Why is Jenin presented as, "Oh, we thought for a second something was wrong there, but hey it was all OK," when this blatantly contradicts the investigations which all found strong evidence of major, dramatic IDF war crimes? Why is anything not recognizable as aggressive hasbara shuffled off into some kind of "criticism section" where it is presented as random, dubious "allegations" or "claims?" And why do normal editing techniques never get the job done on Israeli-Palestinian articles?? <eleland/talkedits> 03:11, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Background: Can you please clarify the sources you brought forward regarding the background changes you are interested in making?
Massacre allegations: The massacre claims were false and the media reported this while repeating the new claims - also unverified just as the massacre claims which turned out to be false:
Cordially, JaakobouChalk Talk 11:28, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think 'background' sections for battles and military operations are meant to provide the reasoning for the battles/operations, not anything that happenned right before the event. That is, the background section for this article should say why the Israelis decided to launch Operation Defensive Shield. Anything else is not relevant. It's really not a question of verifiability at all. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 12:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Jaakobou, the sources which describe the background to the operation are already in the article, they are just being culled for the anti-Israel attacks, with the anti-Palestinian attacks ignored. Simply read paragraphs 14 through 22 of the UN report (which you still have apparently not read, despite often citing it.) You are the one talking about "massacre allegations" and death tolls, not me. If you would only READ THE SOURCES you would know what the actual allegations are, which have nothing whatsoever to do with the meaningless emotive term "massacre" that has become a focus for Israeli propagandists.
I want you both to tell me, right now, whether you have read in full the UN, Amnesty, and HRW reports on Jenin. Because over and over you talk as if you haven't, and if you haven't, you shouldn't be editing this article or even talking about it. <eleland/talkedits> 03:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:PIJ emblem.png[edit]

The image Image:PIJ emblem.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --03:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

POV discussion[edit]

Please raise POV concerns alongside reliable sources that would help expand the content. Relevant content could be added, but I would suggest the edit would first be pasted here for discussion.
With respect, JaakobouChalk Talk 08:45, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hundreds of Palestinians dead???[edit]

The Palestinians claimed in the beginning for hundreds of deaths, but as later revealed, 'only' 54 died. Look at [[14]] where Amnesty says:

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 Tierecke (talk) 13:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the fighting was not limited to Jenin. There were also the Battle of Nablus, the Siege of Bethlehem, and others engagements. -- Nudve (talk) 13:55, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The figure of 54 only refers to the period from 3 to 17 April. The same Amnesty document says that over the whole period of Operation Defensive Shield about 500 Palestinians were killed. MFlet1 (talk) 15:00, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The figure of 54 dead in Jenin comes from "hospital lists", bodies counted in the hospital. It cannot be considered complete. As Amnesty International tells us, "According to hospital lists ... not a single corpse was brought into the hospital from 5 until 15 April". They also say "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." (Amnesty also says "Within five weeks all but one of the residents was accounted for" - unfortunately, I can't tell what this is supposed to mean, and they're not reporting their own observations).
Nor is it the case that the UN restricts the number of dead in the way that's been claimed, since the UN report says that a PA official "alleged in mid-April that some 500 were killed, a figure that has not been substantiated".
All in all, we're in no position to say what the death toll was, the UN report doesn't even exclude the possibility of it being over 500 in Jenin alone. It seems a great shame that a well-referenced section on the only point on which everyone agrees was removed from the main article. PRtalk 13:14, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am sad that the number of deaths is a source of discord here. Whether there was 1 or 1 million means that there was death and that is wrong. Every religion on earth holds life as sacred but I see that people kill for any reason, whether for there safety or for Gods will. Life is life you ever you are or what religion, color, beliefs you have. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:56, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I think it be best to avoid inflating the Erekat narrative to the point where he gives ridiculous replies and is called a liar by the Israeli media. Keep it simple. JaakobouChalk Talk 16:49, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a direct question to Erekat, it is only fair to include his response. Try including both sides of the story, not just the one that fits the narrative of your liking. Nableezy (talk) 16:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like a personal attack to me. I'm ok with adding his narrative response if we also add the Israeli narrative that he is a liar and that the media is suffering from a Jenin massacre syndrome. In fact, I prefer the more complete version that includes the perspective of both sides rather than just a bland text that says he was widely quoted. Let me know which one you like. JaakobouChalk Talk 17:13, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If that sounded like a personal attack you have a questionable understanding of the word attack (or was that one too?). If you want to go this way we can, but it will also include the war crimes allegations that came from many, many human rights organizations. Ill leave the text you inserted in while I compile sources that tears it apart. Nableezy (talk) 18:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And all this because you dont want to include the answer to a question in the references and notes. Nableezy (talk) 19:25, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, could you say where you got this because the only place I can find a record of this story is in various websites not associated with the National Post. Where did you get these quotations? Nableezy (talk) 19:49, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Heyo Nableezy,
I got it from (wait for it) the National Post. I'd be happy to email you a copy of it if you want. Anyways, I think it would be easier on us if we focus on the minor version. Trust me when I say that you won't like the more complete version. Currently the article is already biased against Israel with it's "culture of impunity" and "prima facie". I wouldn't expect the article will get even more pro-Palestinian if we place in some of the Israeli perspectives in there. Anyways, I'd be happy to work in some text from my sources if you're that interested in inflating the Erekat narratives even beyond the current status.
p.s. I suggest you review the WP:NPA policy. Specifically, the part about commenting on content and not on contributors. Saying I prefer a certain narrative is not the best way of working in a collaborative spirit.
Warm regards, JaakobouChalk Talk 08:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You carried on an edit war because of "inflating Erekat" in the friggin references, what do you expect me to say. I prefer not to enable email so Ill just take your word for it. But be careful of long quotations from a copyrighted source, that is a no-no around here. Nableezy (talk) 16:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree about the copyright concerns and thank you for the help. Disagree with your aggressive approach (personal attacks) and changing the meaning of text ato say something different than what the source was saying as you approached the copyright concerns.
Warm regards non-the less :)
-- JaakobouChalk Talk 20:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have yet to make a personal attack, please stop saying that I did. I dont understand why you changed the last edit. Why does it need to say "whispered about" and what is the point of saying the soldiers were listening to Alanis Morisette? What does that have to do with anything? And why is there a need to say he refused to elaborate out of fear of collaborators? What is the point of that? Nableezy (talk) 22:35, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And I made one mistake from reading the convoluted text you had originally inserted, did not make that mistake twice. It was not clear to me that part was a quote from the Palestinian legislature and not from the reporter. So try and assume I was acting in good faith rather then imply some intent in that one mistake in cleaning up a copyvio. Nableezy (talk) 22:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits[edit]

I'm open to discussion to possible changes. But you can't make large changes to the article in one swing that change some of the natural and neutral reading of it. Discuss. JaakobouChalk Talk 07:28, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss. JaakobouChalk Talk 11:05, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Discuss what? You keep removing relevant background information, in contra WP:PRESERVE and WP:NPOV. Add whatever you want, but stop deleting material. -- (talk) 06:09, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jaakobou is right. If you want to revamp the entire article, be open to discussion and explain your changes. -- Nudve (talk) 08:13, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, that is not how the project operates. -- (talk) 15:55, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please point to the policy that supports your view on how the project operates? JaakobouChalk Talk 01:05, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That or register an account ;) —Ynhockey (Talk) 10:15, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the problems with the IP edit. Looks good to me. Introduces some much needed balance to the article which prior to those additions provided no information on the violence sustained by Palestinians under the occupation. The article (like the one on the Battle of Jenin) provides ample space to detailing Israel's concerns about suicide bombings, but no or little space to detailing Palestinian concerns about the occupation and Israeli violence. I support the additions and would like to see the same thing at other articles. Tiamuttalk 08:56, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I already mentioned WP:NPOV and WP:PRESERVE. I don't understand, Jaak, what other policies you would have me cite. Are not those two enough? -- (talk) 04:35, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question for Jaakobou and Ynhockey - did you take part in this operation, have you carried weapons in the geographical area, and have any members of your family, or close acquaintances, carried weapons in the area or trained to carry weapons potentially to be used in this area? Please examine Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and treat its advice as a non-involved Wikipedia outsider might consider reasonable. One useful part of the guide might be this: "Friedrich Engels would have had difficulty editing the Karl Marx article, because he was a close friend, follower and collaborator of Marx.[2] Any situation where strong relationships can develop may trigger a conflict of interest. Conflict of interest can be personal, religious, political, academic, financial, and legal. It is not determined by area, but is created by relationships that involve a high level of personal commitment to, involvement with, or dependence upon, a person, subject, idea, tradition, or organization." (talk) 07:59, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would figure that the whole "I don't see the problems with the IP" thing would be done with by now. I've reintroduced the long-standing version and reinserted the removed holocaust survivors matter as well. Its not a joke that people without families found their death at a Passover dinner and if some of the content seems inaccurate, I'd expect some sensitivity and possibly the usage of discussion and a 'fact' tag.
p.s. I'm fond of working with IPs who ask personal questions that seem politically motivated. I'd suggest the IPs review the Final decisions section at WP:ARBPIA first and then consider logging into their username.
Warm regards, JaakobouChalk Talk 14:12, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment does not address why you restored "the longstanding version" which you have reverted to restore 6 times now in the last two weeks, without explaining once why it is preferable. I addressed the issue of the Holocaust survivors in my comment below, and I don't think I was disrespectful in any way. I don't appreciate you ignoring my comments below in crafting your response above or the attempt to make it look as though your comment above predates mine below. Please stick to article content and respond to my comments below. Tiamuttalk 14:23, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jaakobou has now reverted the material, without discussing, once again [15]. I'm not sure if he is trying to be deliberately provocative or is simply incapable of understanding basic instructions. Uninvolved admins who commented at ANI indicated that reverting and asking people to discuss without discussing yourself (i.e. identifying what can be improved in the text or changed to make the article better) is unproductive. Please Jaakobou, stop trying to instigate edit wars. Self-revert and explain yourself. Tiamuttalk 13:30, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And by the way, your edit summary Tag-teaming aside, I point Tiamut to WP:BRD. e.g. if you think that holocaust survivers were not among the dead, you can place a tag. no? is not an explanation. I have not tag-teamed and I edited the text that I restored. If your problem was with this edit, as you can see, it was made alone. You could have simply undone it and retained the other changes. And if you have a source that says the majority of those killed were eldery Holocaust survivors, I would be happy to restore it and discuss whether its inclusion is relevant or not. The one cited didn't say that, and as I'm unsure as to the relevance of its inclusion anyway, I was bold and removed it. You should not use that as an excuse to throw babies out with bathwater or to evade discussion of the other things you have reverted a number of times now without ever explaining why. Tiamuttalk 13:55, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other than saying "npov" and retrieving a version that wasn't on the article since 2007, the IP hasn't made an effort to explain the value of their edit. The problems with the edit, begin with the misapplied time frame for the used sources and, as a result, there is a misrepresentation of chronological order and historical facts. As I've said early on, I'm open to discussion to possible changes. But you can't make large changes to the article in one swing that change some of the natural and neutral reading of it. It also removed information and sources and makes for a sorts of misdirection on an Israeli cabinet decision. I'll give the IP or their buddy a little while to explain before reverting back to the version that included the, now removed, info and sources. JaakobouChalk Talk 12:48, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other than making vague allusions to so-called chronological problems in the additions, you have not articulated what the issue is in any way that allows for your fellow editors to understand and improve the text. If you do not provide a detailed, specific outline of what is wrong with the text that I copy edited after restoring, I will be restoring it again shortly. Please read WP:PRESERVE and WP:REVERT thoroughly, since it seems you do not understand how editing Wikipedia works. Thanks. Tiamuttalk 14:12, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also Jaakobou, would you mind providing a link to the ref that says that "the majority of those killed were eldery Holocaust survivors"? I couldn't find the ref for that and you restored it in your blanket revert. I don't mind keeping it for the time being if there's a ref for it, but I'd like to veify that the ref says that. Thanks. Tiamuttalk 14:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have a source and if you don't even know what edit you were supporting, that is indicative of the very problem which is raised on ANI. I'm still waiting for the IP to respond on the origins of the version they brought into the page and the explanation on why content was removed. I won't be waiting much longer though. JaakobouChalk Talk 21:08, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Waiting for what Jaakobou? You long ago reverted to your preferred version that you've restored a bunch of times without explaining why. You still haven't explained why. Nor have you answered my my simple request for a source for a specific phrase in the article. Please stop stonewalling. Tiamuttalk 21:17, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Tiamut,
I'm honestly not following what you're doing here. It feels as though you've taken up a "defender of wikipedia" role rather than an editorial role. And, if you notice, you're "defending" someone who suspiciously inserted a copy-paste from 2 years ago (Nov. 2007) six times without discussion and their "did you take part in this operation" friend.
The content changes remove existing content. I think this is an easy enough to grasp explanation as to one of the reasons I disagree with the edit. I'm still waiting for the IP to explain their activity, which is a more decent response than asking editors for their level of participation in fighting activity.
Warm regards, JaakobouChalk Talk 11:38, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jaakobou, please provide a source for the statement "the majority of those killed were eldery Holocaust survivors".
Please also explain explain exactly which information was removed in the edit that you would like to see restored so that we can forge a compromise version that incorporate the changes made in the IP's edit while addressing your concerns. This cannot be done if you are not clear about what you want. And if you are not clear about what you want, I wills imply reinstate the text, since I see no problem with it. Tiamuttalk 11:50, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It seems the IP has already restored the text. I have made some copy edits again, moved refs to the end of sentences, etc, etc. I expect that you will not be blanket reverting again. If you wish to reinclude information you think is relevant and reliably sourced that has since been omitted, please do. Tiamuttalk 13:14, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Tiamut,
I wanted to give the IP the benefit of the doubt and see if they respond to the issues. It seems they are not doing that. Now, considering that the IP removed content and that current citations (despite your copy edit effort) no longer fit the text, I am still waiting a little longer to hear the IPs explanation and then, might reconsider the bringing back of the the long standing and stable version. I have a source for the holocaust survivors and will introduce it when bringing back the long standing version and I have no special issues with real article concerns that don't delete long standing information and make a mess of the sources. I've seen nothing wrong with the long standing version and it shouldn't have content removed without explanation and/or discussion by an IP, esp. if they use a version they unearthed from 2 years ago which makes this endeavor feel stranger than fiction.
p.s. I'd expect any compromise discussions to include the IP and not just their canvassed buddy. Certainly, were not going to take the old edit as is and start a compromise from there, but rather we'd start from the long standing version (see also WP:BRD and WP:Consensus).
Warm regards, JaakobouChalk Talk 14:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You just evaded the two questions I posed to you once again. I ma going to look at the text even more closely to see if I can determine what it is that is inaccurate (as you claim without detailing). If I find things that need to be improved, I will improve. I will consider any blanket reversion of this text to be disruptive on your part. I've asked a number of times for you to be specific, and you are not being specific. Failure to substantively engage your interloctuors on content while blanket reverting is vandalism Jaakobou. What IP editors choose to do is their concern. I'm talking to you here now and I'd appreciate you respond to my concerns substantively. Tiamuttalk 14:14, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since you are unwilling to go through the two versions point by point, I have at User:Tiamut/breakdown. It is clear that the IP/new version is more in line with our core policies of WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. I would say that I am surprised by your multiple reversions to the very problematic version, despite the many and major problems with it, but unfortunately, I'm not. Tiamuttalk 17:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted to the earlier version. I replaced the background from 2000, which was used in a WP:SYNTH fashion because the sources don't really connect it to this subject. The cites to UN reports and Palestinian advocay groups were not that either that compilable with wp:rs. In its stead, I moved back the info regarding the attacks that were more contemporaneous to the attacks. Its these attacks that preceded the Sharon qutoe. The removal by the IP is wrong and its enablement by established editors is surprising. WP is also very disapointed that other established editors did not protest when the IP troll began harassing editors it decided were Israeli. An indication of good faith collaboration is made when editing opponents stick for each other in the face of this nonsense. The enablemet of this nonsense creates a battlefield mentality. The text stating "and saw two waves of incursions by the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) into Palestinian towns and villages in the West Bank" is neither supported by the cited BBC or PMW.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:25, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've sadly been forced to do the same since, Nableezy seems to cherish edit-warring rather for the great contributions of removing any mention of the Palestinian militancy and the placing of false information in regards to the IDF incursions... it can't get much worse in the WP:TE department. Anyways, I'll add in the holocaust related ref now to respond to the valid concern raised by Tiamut in this diff.[16] JaakobouChalk Talk 02:58, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In retrospect, while I have a source for the holocaust survivors issue[17], it is probably not the most prominent thing and can be skipped from the background section. The outrage factor is not needed in this article so much and can be spared to the massacre article. JaakobouChalk Talk 03:04, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jaak, how many times have you reverted this edit? You really expect me to take your admonishments about edit warring seriously? Take a look at the history of the article. But I really hate working on the same thing as you so I dont plan on dealing with your inane accusations anymore. nableezy - 03:28, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Brewcrewer and Jaakobou. You are both restoring a WP:SYNTH version not supported by the sources cited. I went to considerable trouble to do what you should have long ago: analyze the sources and construction of the IP edit. Its fine. Your old version is not, for many of the reasons I outlined at User:Tiamut/breakdown. Until you provide sources that say that those attacks were related to Sharon's statement and the undertaking of the second incursion, you should not be restoring it. I want to see quotes from the articles in question making those links. Not you cutting and pasting a bunch of random attacks together and making the OR conclusion that they are related. And Brewccrewer, the source that supports the info on the two incursions and their dates is the UN report. It is a reliable source, despite your strange opinion that it is not. Please read the things I take time to write. It would help greatly in forging a compromise version. (I even isolated the relevant quote at User:Tiamut/breakdown.) No compromise is possible if editors do not edit in good faith. Please do. Tiamuttalk 09:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Brewcrewer, this is your second revert today to a version that is clearly SYNTH and POV. You have not addressed the concerns I raised at User:Tiamut/breakdown. Pretending that you have by referring me to the talk page in your edit summary is disingenuous in the extreme. Self-revert, and join in a substantive discussion, please. I am not against modifying the new text. I will not, however, have it thrown out based on falsehoods. A close examination of the text and sources shows it is relevant, reliably sourced and fair, though there is always room for improvement. So work on improving it.
Specifically, in response to your muddled justification for your revert above: There is no SYNTH in the new text. The UN report is certainly an WP:RS and it is the one that frames the operation in the backdrop of a mutual cycle of violence. The version you are reverting to is one-sided. It uses the UN report as a source while ignoring mention of the incursion launched by Israel prior to ODS. It focuses totally and completely on the Israeli POV, describing only suicide bombings, with no mention of the violence sustained by Palestinians at the hands of the IDF. Further, if by "Palestinian advocay groups" you mean the source that was cited to Palestinian Media Watch, that's not a Palestinian advocacy group - its an Israeli one. And I removed that reference in my followup edits (which you also reverted). Note that its pasted in the section below for unreliable and irrelevant sources. In other words, you just reinstated a source that you took issue with. Are you even paying attention to what you are doing? Tiamuttalk 13:58, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I reinstated the first sentence on the cycle of violence as the violence was not all on one side and pretending the background to this is only the suicide bombings is bogus. I also brought back the Btselem numbers on casualties for both sides and the information on the Israeli incursions into the West Bank. No content was removed in my edit so if you challenge it please say exactly what is wrong with the additions. nableezy - 20:28, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I copy edited the text after that. I also changed some words to avoid ("terror attacks" as a descriptor for 9 attacks by militants, which include things like a qassam rocket launch), removed how many Israelis were killed in March (once, because it was mentioned twice after Nableezy's addition), cut out some emotive and redundant language, and made the different pieces fit together a little better (I hope). There are still many things that could be added, and there are still some problems of OR that need to be addressed. But I hope we have moved beyond the blanket revert stage that has plagued this section for almost two years now. Tiamuttalk 22:13, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's several issues that I've corrected so that we can discuss them but this thread is a tad too long already so I'll see if we can summarize the issues in better form and, if necessary, include an RfC to the ones we can't resolve. JaakobouChalk Talk 16:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References removed - not related or not reliable[edit]

This section is for links being removed from the article, either because they are not related, or not reliable.

  • Palestinian Authority funds go to militants, BBC, November 7, 2003
    • While BBC is uncontestably reliable, this article, cited in the background section, is not really related. At least, not explicitly so. If someone wants to reinclude this article, please note what information you are using it for and how it is related to the leadup to the incursion. Tiamuttalk 13:12, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Where is the source used exactly? I'll give it a look (a little later today) and see if it could be removed. JaakobouChalk Talk 18:55, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Its not hard to find Jaakobou. Its in the background section you keep restoring. Are you so unfamiliar with the material there that you need that much time to find it? Why have you restored six times if that's the case? Tiamuttalk 19:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • If an IP comes on the page and restores a shit version from 2 years ago and removes content you can expect any decent Wikipedian to restore the article content. If you wish to collaborate and show me where the source was used - I'd be happy to inspect its value for the text. As of now, I can't find it and its possible that now, after you've removed it, that some content is missing its citation. JaakobouChalk Talk 16:13, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Original research - example #1[edit]

Following nine terror attacks between March 2-5[1] the Israeli cabinet decided to massively expand its anti-terrorist activity.

Which of the sources cited here says that the Israeli cabinet decided to massively expand its anti-terrorist activities following these attacks? Tiamuttalk 18:01, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the UN report says that a wave of IDF incursions took place between 27 February and 14 March, indicating this way underway before these attacks took place. Why are Brewcrewer and Jaakobou restoring a version of the background that obfuscates this basic fact? Its not even mentioned the text they are restoring. In its place, we have this WP:OR. Tiamuttalk 18:07, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heyo Tiamut,
There does seem to be a hole in details here with the UN note about an incursion on 27 Feb. I started to search for related details and found the following[18],[19] (note section B), [20]+[21]+[22] leading to this -> [23], [24] (important) +[25] leading to this -> [26].
According to this information, I'm not sure the UN got the phrasing right. Closure of the Orient House is not exactly an incursion. Anyways, there could be more info but I don't think this info (about Palestinian militancy in February) should be written into the stable article without some thought and discussion. In early March, the Israeli cabinet sat down for an emergency meeting right after nine attacks which occurred within 3 days and decided to further increase deployment in the the PA controlled areas. Anyways, there is no original research here.
Warm regards, JaakobouChalk Talk 18:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Heyo Jaakobou! You gave me a bunch of links in Hebrew. You know I don't read it well. So why would you do that? What I can possibly learn from them? How is that engaging me on the material presented above.
Can you please isolate the sentence(s) in the sources cited for the current text that supports the phrasing of the sentence above? That's all I want. I'm willing to have a discussion about what other things to add, but first I'd like you to support the sentence that is there or concede that it needs work and agree to removing it so that we can formulate sentences you would like to see replace it, based on reliable sources. Tiamuttalk 19:12, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I figure first we must decide on whether we want to keep this article's violence background section to begin in March or earlier than that. These sources all relate to violence in February and, while they are interesting (esp. the closure of the orient house), I can't say I'd be inclined to translate them all without some framework on whether or not we want anything this early included. I hope this makes sense. JaakobouChalk Talk 16:16, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  1. ^ New York Jewish Times, 4 March 2002, 'Weekend of terror leaves 23 Israelis dead'
    - On March 4, the first Qassam rocket attack of March 2002 was made into Israel; there were no casualties. (Source: IDF Spokesperson Statistics).
    - [1] Palestinian gunmen took up a position on a pedestrian bridge above Petah Tikva Road at the center of Tel Aviv and attacked two restaurants below, "The Steak Gathering" and "Sea Food Market" killing 3 Israelis and injuring 31 (four severely).
    - [2] suicide bomber detonated in an Egged No. 823 bus.
    - [3][4] Bethlehem bypass "tunnel" attack.
    - [5][6][7] Qassam rocket attack on Sderot injured a 16 month-old baby.

Some issues for discussion[edit]

According to[edit]

I feel it is over-wikifying, to place an "according to" note for the statistics on attacks on Israelis by the institute that does these statistics. I don't believe there's anyone else with conflicting evidence and it feels redundant. Esp. when they are registered as if they are a blog. They are not. JaakobouChalk Talk 16:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer this info remain attributed to the source. Can you provide info on who the source is? Its in Hebrew, which I have told you many times, I will not read. Tiamuttalk 16:59, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Its a major institute for researching terrorism and intelligence. I can't say I see the value in naming it other than a percieved desire for wikipedia to giveless credence to the source. This wouldwork for me if there were other sourceswith conflicting numbers or some sources criticising this institude... but there aren't any.
Warm regards, JaakobouChalk Talk 12:04, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Right, and its name is ....? I'm asking you to provide the name in English so that I can assess who or what it is better. At present, I remain of the opinion that it should be attributed to its author. Can you please tell me who the author is? Tiamuttalk 14:05, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Intelligence & Terrorism Information Center[27]. Are there any other statistics into attacks into Israel that you're insisting on the naming names concept? I guess I can compromise with you on this point and add in the name if it matters so much to you to point out that the statistics for attacking into Israel was collected by an Israeli source (even though no one has conflicting data).
Warm regards, JaakobouChalk Talk 02:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If we were using a Palestinian NGO as a source for Israeli attacks on Palestinians, we would mention its name when presenting the information. Same thing applies here. Tiamuttalk 09:00, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the compromise suggestion:
  • The effects of Operation Defensive Shield, as recorded by the Israeli Intelligence & Terrorism Information Center, were...
Let me know if this works for you. JaakobouChalk Talk 11:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jaakobou, does the source even mention Operation Defensive Shield? I ask because when I look at it, all I see is a breakdown of information on attacks between 2000 and 2005. Does it say that this reduction in bombings is due to the Operation that is the subject of this article? Tiamuttalk 18:52, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It does. JaakobouChalk Talk 01:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Where exactly? Because I asked someone to read it for me and they could not find it. I also cut and paste "מבצע חומת מגן " and searched for it in the link you provided again, after you said it is mentioned, and nothing comes up. Would you mind copying and pasting the relevant text in Hebrew here and then providing a translation? Thanks. Tiamuttalk 17:44, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the body of the chart, it is noted as a major operation and contributor to the shift in Palestinian attempts to success ratio as well as to the drop-down of the numbers. Btw, there's no reason to keep your translator anonymous. JaakobouChalk Talk 20:58, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No reason for me to remain anonymous either, and yet it is so, for the time being at least. Tiamuttalk 21:40, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And there is no reason for you to inquire as to who it is. But would you mind complying with the request to post the relevant Hebrew from the source with an English translation? nableezy - 21:00, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I answered the question. Give it a rest. JaakobouChalk Talk 21:58, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well then, I guess I don't accept your re-phrasing. Until I see evidence that the source reported on Operation Defensive Shield, I cannot. I'd ask in the future, that you cease using Hebrew sources, since you are unwilling to comply with requests for translations. Tiamuttalk 22:17, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You may think you answered the question but you did not. The request was for you to provide the original Hebrew that relates the drop to the operation and if you are willing an English translation. Can you do that or not? It is common practice when using foreign language sources to provide such information. Please do. nableezy - 22:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what your problem is. I should be the upset one considering how you're pushing the outrageous narrative that the militants did not surrender. JaakobouChalk Talk 12:15, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is you keep using Hebrew sources, which you know none of us can read, and you refuse to translate the relevant text, despite repeated requests that you do so. Failure to translate the text in question will result in the removal of this material altogether. Tiamuttalk 14:13, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You can be upset if you wish, that doesnt change the fact a simple request was made here for you to provide the relevant quotes from the source. And it doesnt change the fact that below the only thing asked of you is to provide a source. nableezy - 18:39, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I already answered the request. If you're unhappy with my answer, that it appears on the cahrt as a turning point affecting future militant activity, I'm sure there are other editors out there you hold in higher regard. JaakobouChalk Talk 02:06, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


issue resolved -- JaakobouChalk Talk 21:01, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see the value in repeating "unequivocal" twice within the same paragraph. Please explain. JaakobouChalk Talk 16:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because the first time, its the chief military officer who uses the term, The second its Milton-Edwards herself. Makes perfect sense to me. Tiamuttalk 16:54, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't see it as an encyclopedic addition. Sure, the chief might have madesome bombastic note prior to going to anoperation but its enough to use that wordone time alone. I guessI'm opento rephrase suggestions but I would really prefer it if they'd be made on the talk page. JaakobouChalk Talk 11:54, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, how about: Beverly Milton-Edwards, Professor of Politics at Queen's University in Belfast, writes that while aspects of Palestinian militancy were reduced after the operation, Israel's objective of ending the Al-Aqsa Intifada remained unmet. Israeli destruction of institutions belonging to the Palestinian Authority (PA) and the "emasculation" of the PA and its President, Yasser Arafat, opened a vacuum in the social and welfare system that was rapidly filled by the Hamas, whose popularity grew. Palestinians claimed the event as a symbolic victory. Milton-Edwards notes that, "The unequivocal victory [sought by Israel] eventually remained elusive and the Israelis and Palestinians resumed a variety of forms of low intensity warfare with each other." Tiamuttalk 14:16, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Better. Needs repositioning/better incorporation of the "Palestinians claimed the event as a symbolic victory." text. JaakobouChalk Talk 02:31, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed it for now since it only deals with the "Jenin Massacre" and not with the general discussion of how unequivocal the victory was.
Warm regards, JaakobouChalk Talk 02:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fine with me. I didn't add the sentence to begin with, you did. Tiamuttalk 08:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cheryl Rubenberg[edit]

 – Needs more eyes to get a wide consensus.

planning on opening this up for an RfC. -- JaakobouChalk Talk 17:59, 30 September 2009 (UTC) [reply]

All due respect to Cheryl Rubenberg's "analysis" of the IDF's intentions, she is fronting a fringe, politicized pro-Palestinian organization. I fail to see her notability as one that would require her fringe analysis to be included without some weaselish terms noting her very strong political affiliation. In any event, I must insist that she will not be introduced (again) without discussion and some form of communal resolution. JaakobouChalk Talk 16:25, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Info is attributed to her. She is an WP:RS for her own opinions. Tiamuttalk 16:55, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure she is reliable for her own opinions, but considering how partizan she is, I'm not sure she is a great source to be used here. On the same level, I wouldn't dare using the opinions of Baruh Marzel to make criticism on the Palestinians. What's her notability and value exactly? Howcan welist her by name only if she is the head of a commemoration of a Palestinian memorial project. That she thinks the IDF was indiscriminate is of the same value as that of any person working with a Jewish advocacy group saying Israel is humane and just... it's not encyclopdic.
Cordially, JaakobouChalk Talk 11:59, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Her opinion is as noteworthy as that of Amira Hass, and they both basically say the same thing: that the IDF targeted archives and databases. I don't see the problem here. Tiamuttalk 14:08, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Amira Hass is a jouranlist for a major Newspaper. Rubenberg is the head of a Palestinian commemoration organization. What exactly makes Rubenberg an authority on judgement calls on the IDF's modus operandi? The fact that she commemorates Palestinain deaths dones't seem like a major qualifier as a reliable source for these matters. If she were a Palestinian official, she could be cited for criticizing the Israeli army, but she's a nobody activist.
Warm regards, JaakobouChalk Talk 02:09, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jaakobou, Rubenberg was a professor and is the author of six books on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. That's what is relevant to her RS status here. Plus, the book she authored which we are citing from provides information that complements what Hass and the UN report have to say, providing detail on which institutions were affected by the targeting of databases. We can ask for feedback at the RS noticeboard if you want, but I'm quite sure she is a an RS for this information and its attributed to her anyway, just to be safe. Tiamuttalk 08:53, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are we in an agreement that she holds an official position at a Palestinian commemoration project? JaakobouChalk Talk 11:41, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your question is irrelevant. Do you want me to post at the RS noticeboard or not? Tiamuttalk 18:53, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RSN has a consensus for adding 'a pro-Palestinian advocate' as a descriptive. I would have preferred a moreneutral source but Ican live with this compromise. JaakobouChalk Talk 01:23, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There was no such consensus. People said you can attribute it to the author, that is already done. There was no agreement at all about adding "a pro-Palestinian advocate" as a descriptive. nableezy - 01:26, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jaak, nobody besides yourself supported the idea of poisoning the well by calling her a "pro-Palestinian advocate", they said attribute it to Rubenberg. We do that. Please dont readd that without both a citation and consensus to do so. I dont see you adding "pro-Israel polemicist" to any mention of Dershowitz or Karsh. nableezy - 02:04, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the issue is anti-Palestinian criticism, then of-course there is room to note that he is a pro-Israel advocate. JaakobouChalk Talk 22:00, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jaak, again, not a single person agreed to adding "pro-Palestinian activist", they said to attribute it to the author. We do that. nableezy - 22:13, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What kind of attribution do you think would be a fair for this case? Considermy above response to your question. JaakobouChalk Talk 22:26, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The name of the author, which is what we do everywhere else. And I disagree with your response, I just want to see consistency in your position, even if it is an inane position to take. We do not poison the well by using such descriptives when providing attribution. nableezy - 22:30, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You have misunderstood the objective of yet another policy. We're not using "who supports the destruction of Israel" before her name but rather adding a very basic and relevant attribute to the position she holds, which is an activist for a pro-Palestinian commemoration center. We've established on the RSN that she's not the best source and that relevant attribution must be used unless you can come up with a better source to replace her. JaakobouChalk Talk 12:13, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, you misunderstood the outcome of the RSN debate. It was decided that for controversial claims, material should be atributed to its author, in this case Cheryl Rubenberg. No one said we should describe who she is, just to attribute to her. Tiamuttalk 14:12, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you insisting so much on this political activist as a source anyways? It would seem that her "analysis" is quite fringe to begin with. JaakobouChalk Talk 16:30, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
if more than her name is needed, a neutral description would be "writer and researcher specializing in the Middle East" untwirl(talk) 16:35, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We are using a book published by a professor, editor of a major reference on the topic, published by respected presses. Your calling her an "activist" doesn't change any of that. And you what "pro-Palestinian commemoration center" is she an "activist" for? Deir Yassin remembered (she is not)? And her "activism" is irrelevant. Poisoning the well with such statements is not what we do. nableezy - 18:08, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And you established no such thing. One person agreeing with you does not mean anything at all. nableezy - 18:09, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) I will open an RfC to this issue at a nearby date. JaakobouChalk Talk 17:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two incursions[edit]

The UN source used for this is perplexing in it's lack of input and apparent false chronology. The BBC video has no background input and not every action into Palestinian areas is considered an incursion, otherwise we'd have a much higher number here than just two. I've no objection to some listing on the Israeli operations but it can't be made out of synthesis and without the relevant Palestinian background (see sources mentioned above in regards to Orient House operation). The UN document covers a time-frame of 3 months, only one of them (March) is agreed upon for the background information and we need to come to an agreement if we want to change the length and details of the background input. i.e. with or without content from February. JaakobouChalk Talk 16:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First wave of Israeli incursions began on 27 February and ended March 14. Its in the UN report. There is no synthesis involved. Tiamuttalk 16:55, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I've mentioned above, there were many military actions as well as terrorist attacks on civilians in February as well as March. The UN document provides a false chronology as it makes a generic, and false, statement. There was an Israeli incursion-of-sorts upon the closure of the Orient House (late February), which followed 4 major attacks in a very short time span (also late February). Following this, the Palestinians made 9 attacks in 3 days (early March), spurring the stupid Ariel Sharon quote that PalestineRemembered insisted on promoting. I actually think all this is too much detailing for the lead but if you insist we can work out a more detailed version that goes into the Orient House incident as well. Meantime, the source can't be used spuriously to promote the one sided story the UN remembered to mention in its investigation of the alleged genocide of April.
Btw, I don't see you making any note about the BBC video. I assume you accept that using that source does in fact amount to synthesis.
Warm regards, JaakobouChalk Talk 02:21, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nableezy, if you are interested in adding the text about the two incursions, it would be helpful to discuss the matter here. Please review the above discussion points and let me know what you think. I'd be happy to add input on the Orient House, but it really seems like its too much history. Please also review the Beverly Milton-Edward source as it is of higher accuracy and detail than the UN source in regards to actual operations and relevant background.
Warm regards, JaakobouChalk Talk 07:18, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The UN report is perfectly fine as a source, if the Milton-Edward source contradicts it then also include that. Censoring out the UN report is not the answer though. nableezy - 07:31, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is more of a level of detail issue. You're interested in the UN source being included and I'd rather not add in all the relevant details that the UN neglects to add. Sure, I can add more input but you might be upset at all the less relevant terrorist attacks that will be added in the proccess. To prevent this, I'm asking for a final note on whether you want to include the history of February and more text from sources such as Milton-Edward or not. If you say yes, then I'll do the rewrite in a day/two and will allow the non-contextual datato remain. If you'd rather not, however, I would suggest that the UN note about Feb 27 as a stand-alone is unacceptable just as was the quote PalestineRemembered insisted on pushing in out of its original context.
Let me know. JaakobouChalk Talk 11:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unrelated casualties[edit]

The Btselem source seems to be between 2000-2007. This is certainly not the right way to write info that I'm not even certain is relevant to the location it was written in. Please place the directly related to the background of the operation source and we'll review it and consider the proper way to list this input down. JaakobouChalk Talk 16:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While Btselem may collect casualties for the whole period (2000-2007), we use them only the month of March 2002, directly preceding the invasion. I see no problem here. Tiamuttalk 16:58, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Putting aside Betzelem's reliability issues, that doesn't come out of the used link. Its generic and doesn't explain at all how the count was made. This needs to be fixed prior to reinsertion. I'd preffer you link it here first rather than just make a partial revert. JaakobouChalk Talk 12:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Btselem is an WP:RS of course. And the statistics are clear. I don't see the problem here. Perhaps you could explain more what your objection is? Tiamuttalk 14:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have you looked at the link? It doesn't go to the statistics of March 2002. Please see my initial note above. JaakobouChalk Talk 02:25, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
source. nableezy - 06:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to follow Tiamut's lead (18:52, 23 September 2009) and ask the following: does the source even mention Operation Defensive Shield in regards to the deaths of March 2002? Let me know. JaakobouChalk Talk 01:28, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That isnt exactly the same, there you are using a source to say that attacks went down as a result of the Israeli operation. Here we are giving background information on the violence that preceded the operation. You are claiming causality which the source needs to do. nableezy - 01:32, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You have a point but we do have a policy. Otherwise we can use whichever source you want about Palestinian casualties from 1830 and up to the days of the operation. JaakobouChalk Talk 01:57, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And what policy says we cannot provide statistics on background? nableezy - 02:01, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And it mentions specific incursions, not "operation" names. nableezy - 02:07, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you find a note that makes it clear on which incursion belongs to which operation? That might be helpful to determine relevance. JaakobouChalk Talk 21:15, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just to make things clear, I'm not rejecting the general content, but rather the way it is presented with shoddy sources and shoddy linkage. JaakobouChalk Talk 21:24, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you stop parroting the requests made of you elsewhere? You've done it at least twice now. Tiamuttalk 21:26, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not following you. Are you complaining that I'm asking for clarifications in the same manner that you are doing for a while now? I'd be willing to change the level of detail if I see a similar commitment from other compatriots. As of now, I see a ridiculously POV source pushed to be portrayed in a manner that suggested as if they were balanced an an outrageous POV push to claim that somehow the Palestinians could claim real victory here. JaakobouChalk Talk 21:49, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When you are ready to return to a discussion of the article content, I will reply. Until then ... Tiamuttalk 22:19, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the meantime, the attribution for these figures in relation to the relevant background for the Israeli operation is insufficient. JaakobouChalk Talk 22:22, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How so? nableezy - 22:31, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Simple. Palestinian casualties in March are unrelated to the Israeli Operation. Maybe they are related to Palestinian operations (maybe) but they are not related to the Israeli Operation. If you have a source that says they are related, I'd be willing to change my perspective on the matter. For now they cannot be included from a generic source that includes irrelevant deaths from 2007. JaakobouChalk Talk 12:18, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jaakobou, this is the background section of the article. Events predeing the operation are discussed here. If we include only Israeli casualties and not Palestinian ones, that is not WP:NPOV. I realize you have been fighting this inclusion for over two years now, but its time to let Wiki policies prevail. Tiamuttalk 14:10, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No. I've been arguing against various POV issues which are non-germane to the current conversation. I've decided, however, that I can compromise on this issue (of missing directly linking sources) in exchange for an overall compromise on the Israeli success/victory issue. Fair enough?
p.s. there are many sources for the 'success' so don't abuse this kind offer.
With respect, JaakobouChalk Talk 18:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is not "fair". If you wish to call this an Israeli victory get a source. That is all that has been asked of you. Instead of side stepping and trying to bargain OR into the article, get a source that supports what you want to put into an article. nableezy - 18:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jaakobou, the comparisons you are trying to make with other issues are specious. The issue with the terorism-info sourced material is that you are attributing causality, that the operation led to the drop in attack, that is what is asked for you to source properly (and properly in this context means complying with WP:NONENG which states that you need to quote the relevant section and provide a translation). The issue with the "victory" is that you, for some strange reason, seem to think that you do not have to provide sources for statements in the article. You do. This is not synthesis, this is cited to a single source supporting only what that source supports. It is provided as background data, no other link is asserted in the article. Sources discuss the events of March and this is used to provide information on the events of March. You do not have a case here; all this hand waving is meant to prevent the inclusion of Palestinian deaths in the month preceding the operation. The information is reliably sourced, to a single source that supports the sentence, and there is no cause to remove it. nableezy - 07:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jenin and Bethlehem surrendered[edit]

I'm not following the changes here. While a few militant fringes claimed a victory, no one really takes this operation to be anything but a victory, even if not "unequivocal" since militancy continued afterwords. In this respect, WWI was a victory for the allied forces even if Nazi Germany forced them to engage it in WWII. Yes? JaakobouChalk Talk 16:35, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources please. Add the information you think supports the terminology "Israeli success" in the infobox to the section on Military outcome before restoring it again. The request in the edit summary was clear. You have no source supporting the info. Therefore, it does not belong. Tiamuttalk 16:57, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Jenin militants surrendered and the Bethlehem ones as well. I'm not following this new concept of proving Israel won at all. Its no problem to find a source saying 'victory', but I don't see where this is even a prerequisitefor this case. Are we indisagreement that the Jenin militants surrendered?
Warm regards, JaakobouChalk Talk 12:06, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Operation Defensive Shield took place in six cities. You need a source that describes the outcome of the operation as a victory to write that in the infobox. Concluding that because militants surrendered in Bethlehem and Jenin, that the overall operation was a victory or success is classic WP:OR. I expect that you will not readd this information without a reliable source that uses "victory" to describe the operation as a whole. Tiamuttalk 14:11, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is basic common sense really and I'm quite surprised at this demand to reinsert text that sat unchallenged on the article for quite some time now. Please review the linked policy and ley me know if you're unclear as to why the operation is considered an Israeli victory over the militants in the camps. Let me know if you have anything to for a mere consideration that the militants were the victorious ones or that they achieved a stalemate or something similar.
Warm regards, JaakobouChalk Talk 02:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ignore all rules does not allow for you to insert your own original research. You again removed and two waves of incursions by the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) into Palestinian towns and villages in the West Bank for no reason at all as for some reason you are attempting to remove any Israeli attacks pretending that only one side has a reason for violence. You also introduced terrible sentences (writes that the Palestinians writes that) and use terrible sources (http://www.pmw.org.il/Latest%20bulletin.html#july12). Why did you remove the following:

Overall, in March 2002, some 130 Israelis including approximately 100 noncombatants were killed by Palestinians,[1][2] while a total of 238 Palestinians including at least 83 noncombatants were killed in the same month by the IDF.[3]

? Why did you remove this:

and two waves of incursions by the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) into Palestinian towns and villages in the West Bank

? Why did you re-add victory without a source? Why do you think that "victory" is less of a problem than "success"? nableezy - 03:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I reintroduced those pieces of text but kept many of your changes. Examine the diff carefully before blanket reverting, you use of the present tense and other grammatical issues and general cleanup that were addressed should be without any issue. Also, I did not remove any of your text, I think. Please explain why the restored sections are an issue and why you feel IAR entitles you to introduce OR into an encyclopedia article. nableezy - 03:40, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Issue 1: I note the issue with the UN report in its relevant section above. You can also try to compare their efforts with that of Beverly Milton-Edwards who does a far better work at listing the clashes.
Issue 2: A small error intext (per: writes that the Palestinians writes that) is certainly no justification for a near-full revert and reinsertion of the bad and undiscussed edits made by the IP.
Issue 3: PMW is backing up the BBC. Not only are they a reliable research institude but they are not standing alone. I'm really not following your argument here.
Issue 4: Israelicasualtiesare mentionedinmy text and the Betzelemcount issues are noted in a section above, opened 10 days ago.
Issue 5: Israeli victory, discussed in this section, is commonsense here really. Do you have, for example, any reason to believe that the militants in Jenin did not surrender?
Warm regards, JaakobouChalk Talk 03:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The section above dealing with the UN is nothing but your own OR in an attempt to replace WP:V with WP:TRUTH. Israeli casualties are also mentioned in my text, and your feeling that they casualties are unrelated are just that, your feeling. What you think is common sense does not allow you to not provide a source that backs it when others dispute it. Victory means a certain things, the accomplishing of the strategic goals. A source has been presented that states unequivocolly that Israel did not achieve its strategic goal, your "common sense" does not trump a reliable source. nableezy - 03:56, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
provided btselem source that backs up the number for specifically march 2002. Though it is 238 Palestinian fatalities only in the occupied territories by Israeli security forces, an additional 7 were killed by Israeli security forces in Israel, and 1 was killed by an Israeli civilian in the occupied territories. nableezy - 04:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not following you. Can you calrify what source "states unequivocolly that Israel did not achieve its strategic goal"? JaakobouChalk Talk 05:58, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
p.s. this sectionis about the victory/not issue, so I'll beg your pardon and focus on that. If you want to discuss the other issues, I humbly request that you do it on the designated sections since putting it all in one spot makes for non productive discourse. Breaking it down already allowed me and Tiamut to resolve a couple of the issues at hand, and I'm sure we can resolve more if we're all really interested in that. JaakobouChalk Talk 06:01, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Specifically about "victory" the Milton-Edwards source says the following:

Although aspects of Palestinian militancy did diminish in the immediate wake of the operation the overall Israeli objective of ending the al-Aqsa Intifada was not achieved. Bloodied and unbowed, besieged but defiant, the Palestinians and their leadership vowed to continue in their attacks against Israel. --The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: A People's War, p. 158

nableezy - 06:56, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing any comment about a victory or not and certainly, it doesn't "states unequivocolly that Israel did not achieve its strategic goal". The source does say that, "the overall Israeli objective of ending the al-Aqsa Intifada was not achieved." The same could be said about the Battle of Normandy, a Part of World War II. Just as I'm sure you wouldn't demand a source to prove allied victory in any of the operations related with that battle, common sense is that - after the Palestinians did not resist in 4 of the six places (Tiamut) and surrendered in the other two - the Israelis won.
Warm regards, JaakobouChalk Talk 07:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The source says the overall Israeli objective of ending the al-Aqsa Intifada was not achieved, what about that is not clear? And as a matter of fact if somebody were to ask for sources attesting to an Allied victory at the Battle of Normandy a thousand could be provided. Just for fun here are a few: Allied victory in Normandy, crushing Allied victory, the Germans observed a defeat from which they would never recover, the Allied victory in Normandy. And that was just for fun, imagine if I really wanted to look for sources on that. nableezy - 07:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jaakobou, I never said Palestinians in four cities "did not resist". I said militants in two cities surrendered. Tiamuttalk 09:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Heyo Tiamut,
I'm sorry if this was unclear, but I wasn't quoting you but rather explaining where you missed some highly germane input that should resolve this discussion.
Warm regards, JaakobouChalk Talk 11:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can also muster up plenty of sources about the Israeli Operation. The overall objective in WWII is to defeat the Germans - which was obviously not done in a single Battle. However, each Operation was either a success or failure based on who surrendered and who took control over the area. Israel took control over each and every area they went into and retired from combat zones after capturing/killing most everyone on the Israeli list. If you would argue that someone must include a source to support a claim that the Allied forces one, that would indeed be an easy task - but its easy here as well. Its really the principle that counts here. Is there anyone claiming that the Israelis did not take control over the territories? Anyone suggesting the Mukawama did not surrender as a result of the Israeli operation? Sure, there were other battles, but ending the al-Aqsa Intifada is the global goal and not the immediate goal, which was to take control over the area and root out terrorist infrastructure.
With respect, JaakobouChalk Talk 11:55, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you can get sources then get sources, stop just saying WP:IAR allows you to insert "common sense" into the article. nableezy - 18:16, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The issue for me here is the argument that was raised, which I insist on proving as inherently bogus. I've taken the time to clearly show this in my above comment and I expect that you accept that you've made an error in judgement or at the very least not insist on wasting my time just because you want legalism to trump all other common sense issues. The iserali victory in Betlehem and Jenin is unequivocal and that resistance in other placeswas non-existant is just as unequivocal. This makes for a victorious and/or successful operation considering the direct goals (which are differnt than the overall objective). Basically, if I give you this, then I'd need sources for every Israeli action that you might feel like you want to annoy me over and you'd need to defend every time Egypt won an operation against Israel for similar conduct by nuisance editors.
With respect, JaakobouChalk Talk 01:37, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No Jaak, you did not prove anything. You are using OR to try to insert something into an article that an actual source says is not true. You can insist on proving anything you want, but actually doing so takes sources. A source was given that Israel did not achieve its aims in "Operation Defensive Shield". You are arguing against a RS, and while it is good for some chuckles it has no meaning to the article. And yes, you need sources. And let us not forget that you are attempting to insert that Operation Defensive Shield itself was an Israeli victory, not just any of the specific battles. When a source says that "Operation Defensive Shield" did not achieve its aims that contradicts your supposed "common sense". Besides that your comment did not address any of the issues, and the disrespect shown in the comment is not magically washed away with a bogus "with respect" at the end. nableezy - 20:12, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

cup a tea here, jaak. you do need to provide a source when information is challenged. that's the way things work around here, right? untwirl(talk) 02:45, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and no. Here, we have a clear case of pushing an astonishing POV and I'dlike to resolve this issue before it escalates any further. Nableezy, do we need to take this to a relevant mediation forum. I'm afraid it will only turn out like the BLP case on Gideon Levy. Let me know. JaakobouChalk Talk 21:18, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you just provide a friggin source? Is that possible? Just provide a source. nableezy - 21:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is it possible to admit you are wrong here and move along to other issues? That Israel did not end the al-Aqsa Intifada in a single operation is no reasoning to change history like this. JaakobouChalk Talk 21:43, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jaakobou, you either show a serious commitment to improving this article by providing an WP:RS to support the wording you are suggesting, or you stop engaging us in discussing this point any further. Tiamuttalk 21:47, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd hate to use this platform to attack your recent activity so I won't. However, I'm certain that this issue is over-the-top in pushing a POV as though Israel didn't accomplish its immediate goals here prior to removing the troops form the town centers. Are at least in agreement that both Jenin and Bethlehem surrendered? Are we in agreement that the other places didn't provide significant resistance to the IDF? JaakobouChalk Talk 22:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jaak, if you refuse to provide a source that says that Operation Defensive Shield was an Israeli victory there is no point in continuing here. Either provide a source or dont. Up to you. But without a source the article will not say that is was an Israeli victory given we have a source, a source that you seem to give credibility to in other sections, that says the IDF did not accomplish its objectives. nableezy - 22:10, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mean to be rude, but do you have a problem with English? The source does not say the IDF did not accomplish its objectives. It says that the ultimate objective of ending the war was not fully achieved. This could be said over practically each and every operation in WWII. Are we in agreement about the facts... that Israel sought to regain control in territory A and that Jenin and Bethlehem and the Mukataa surrendered and that the other places didn't give much resistance? JaakobouChalk Talk 12:28, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are being rude. Provide a source that supports the wording you seek to include. Period. Tiamuttalk 14:09, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He's twice in the same thread misrepresented the source so it's not an entirely invalid question. I'm actually concerned that he's been doing that in good faith and not in bad faith so I have to ask.
p.s. you need to present a source connecting that Palestinian casualties from March 2002 are connected with an operation that started in April. If it makes you feel any better, I'll add a source to this issue but you will need to add a source as well.
Warm regards, JaakobouChalk Talk 16:27, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is a lie. The source says, again, the overall Israeli objective of ending the al-Aqsa Intifada was not achieved To then say that the source says the Israeli objective was not achieved is not "misrepresenting" the source. Provide a source that supports the wording you wish to use in the article. nableezy - 18:04, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And no I dont have a "problem with English" (you made me laugh again, keep saying stupid things, it is funny). I can read an English sentence that says Israel's overall objective was not achieved. Can you read that sentence? Can you comprehend what it means? Or are you just playing dumb? nableezy - 18:12, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care to make commentary on your English but you have indeed misrepresented the sources twice in a short time period. Ending the war is not equal to not getting the Jenin militancy to surrender and the latter was unequivocally achieved.
p.s. I'd appreciate some response to the compromise suggestions.
Warm regards, JaakobouChalk Talk 18:11, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on my English as you are only slightly more qualified to do so than I am to comment on your Hebrew. But to the point. The source says "the overall aims (of Operation Defensive Shield] was not achieved". If you cannot understand what that means it is not my fault. Stop playing these games and actually provide a source that supports what you want to put into the article. nableezy - 18:30, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strategic vs. Military[edit]

 – issue resolved

JaakobouChalk Talk 12:30, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can we agree on this small change or do we need to debate its value or lack-there-of? JaakobouChalk Talk 11:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  1. ^ Victims of Palestinian Violence and Terrorism since September 2000, Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs
  2. ^ 'Major Ziv: A new wave of attacks is coming' (YNET)
  3. ^ Source: Btselem casualty statistics. Note that the combatant status of many of the Palestinian dead is unknown. It is only known that they were killed during IDF operations in Palestinian population centres. Btselem however has determined that at least 83 of the Palestinians killed during March 2002 were noncombatants.

Page protected[edit]

Given the instability of this article in the recent past, I have fully-protected it to prevent further disruptive editing rather than block any of those concerned. This is not an exoneration of any editor responsible, and I would urge all concerned to participate constructively to the nascent discussions in the above sections, and if that does not produce consensus, pursue other means of dispute resolution.  Skomorokh  21:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Problematic edit[edit]

Jaakobou, this edit introduces three problems:

  • Palestinian Media Watch is not an WP:RS.
  • The sentence fragment, "pointing to the the bloodiest week against Israelis since the start of the Second Intifada," is needlessly wordy and seems to be unsourced or WP:SYNTH. Again, we have a list of Hebrew language sources which have not been translated and it is unclear what they are being used for. Additionally, Sharon's speech does not need this level of synthesized contextualization.
  • There is a grammatical error in the "prompted" and to "to announce" bits you added. It also makes it sound like less a neutral description of Israel's take on events and more like the adoption of Israel's premise of casuality behind the incursions in Wikipedia's netural voice. I prefer it as it was.

You have restored these pieces of information more than once now and they are problematic for the reasons I outlined above. Please self-revert. Tiamuttalk 00:55, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the issue at hand, your rejection of Hebrew-language sources is alarming. Jaakobou is under no obligation to translate entire referenced sources into English. If you have something specific you want to know, please ask, and as you have already seen multiple times, there will always be a Hebrew-speaking editor willing to translate the relevant parts of the texts. —Ynhockey (Talk) 01:30, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please review the discussion above. Perhaps you can translate the text in question? Tiamuttalk 01:35, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed Yn, nobody has asked Jaak to translate the entire source, only provide us with the section in Hebrew and a translation. That is not asking too much. nableezy - 02:35, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Heyo Tiamut,
A) PMW are reliable for translations from Palestinian Media. Multiple news-groups and publishers used them for just that and removing a long standing source, that is supporting another (BBC) is not the right way of resolving this dispute.
B) That phrase is indeed sourced. You probably missedit after you moved the other sources to the end of the sentence.
C) Let me know if I missed something.
With respect, JaakobouChalk Talk 18:17, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Contradiction in Bethlehem section[edit]

The Bethlehem section that describes the siege of the church of the nativity seems to be very definitive about uncontested facts. This seems to contradict the article about that siege that shows that what happened during the siege is not uncontested, but, in fact, controversial. That the dozens of people that sought refuge in the church cannot be easily lumped together as "wanted armed gunmen". That the authority and the IDF actions in this protracted standoff are very controversial. Of the 8 people killed by IDF snipers under their blanket shoot to kill on sight orders, one was an Armenian monk. Another was Samir Ibrahim Salman the bellringer of the Church was shot several times in the chest by an Israeli sniper. This seems to contradict the bold statement in this article that "Israeli snipers killed seven militants inside the church". In addition, the summary in this article states that hostages were held. This presumably comes from a statement made by the IDF during the siege, but has been denied by the people that were in the church.TeeTylerToe (talk) 23:25, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The link cited in the first paragraph of the bethlehem section, according to google translate, is a hebrew article about daud abdullah being deported from cyprus to mauritania. It says he was one of 13 people barricaded in the church. As the only part of the first paragraph that that (tangentially) supports are the last 5 words of the paragraph, "the rest exiled to Cyprus", and, because the previous version was supported by numerous sources more respected than ynet.co.il, I am reinstating the previous version with the correction that the armenian monk was seriously wounded when the IDF shot him and not killed. Can people stop saying that the ynet article in hebrew about one guy getting deported from cyprus to mauritania supports an, in this case ironically NPOV factually inaccurate story?TeeTylerToe (talk) 03:25, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but newspapers like CNN and Ynet are better than the Jewish Virtual Library, which it doesn't even say what you put in the text ("to deny it to the people of Bethlehem as a place of refuge as it had been in the past" Seriously? Can't you be more POV?), while you were removing important sources and information.--AmirSurfLera (talk) 03:44, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you read the references in the first paragraph that you have placed in this article three different times, you would know that not only is most of that paragraph not supported by the references but it is actually contradicted by the references. The ynet article is about someone being deported from cyprus to mauritania, the cnn article is about the release of children, and the fox news article is about the end of the siege and contradicts the statement that anyone was held hostage. Of the 5 sentences in the first paragraph, one is contradicted by the references, including that one, 4 are unsupported by the references, only one of the sentences is supported by the references. Why have you inserted this non neutral point of view unsupported and contradicted paragraph into this article three times? And I wasn't referring to the jewish virtual library when I was saying there were better references than the ynet article about someone being deported from cyprus to mauritania. And you were just warned by admins to seek consensus in the talk page BEFORE editing.TeeTylerToe (talk) 05:38, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed text: IDF forces including the Jerusalemite Reserve Infantry Brigade entered Jerusalem with infantry, warplanes, and tanks while a special forces Shaldag unit targeted the Church of the Nativity to deny it to the people of Bethlehem as a place of refuge as it had been in the past. In response to the IDF offensive hundreds of Bethelemites including Bethlehem's Governor sought refuge in the church, the helicopters of the Shaldag unit arriving half an hour too late.

On April 3rd the IDF laid siege to the church surrounding it with an elite paratrooper brigade specializing in sniper operations who used tactics including carrying out simulated attacks. In response the Vatican warned Israel not to damage the church, which marks the site of the birth of Jesus. For five weeks the Israelis held the city with periodic breaks, continuing the siege on the church. Israeli snipers were given orders to shoot anyone in the church carrying a gun on sight, shooting and seriously wounding an Armenian monk who the IDF says looked armed, and the mentally impaired church bell-ringer who was shot as he left to ring the bells as he had done for 3 decades. He was left to die, bleeding in the square for hours. Six other men were killed by the IDF during the siege. On March 10 the siege ended, with a deal seeing some militants deported to the Gaza Strip, and the rest exiled to Cyprus.TeeTylerToe (talk) 19:27, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The second paragraph is already there. My objections to the first paragraph are the following:
1) "while a special forces Shaldag unit targeted the Church of the Nativity to deny it to the people of Bethlehem as a place of refuge as it had been in the past [?????]." Besides of the clear POV-pushing, the problem is that the JVL source doesn't mention this at all. IT'S NOT IN THE SOURCE! (not that I think JVL is the best reference in the world, but if you are going to use it at least put more or less what is in that source, don't invent things). On the contrary, the source says "...a force of between 100 and 180 Palestinian gunmen barricaded themselves inside the church and set off a battle and siege that gripped headlines all over the world."
2) "In response to the IDF offensive, hundreds of Bethelemites including Bethlehem's Governor sought refuge in the church, the helicopters of the Shaldag unit arriving half an hour too late." is completely unsourced.
3) This poor edit removes well-sourced information, including how many gunmen and hostages/civilians were inside, the battle that ensued, etc.--AmirSurfLera (talk) 09:00, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The JVL link supports that Muhammad al-Madani, the governor of Bethlehem fled to the church. PBS "Approximately 200 Palestinians fleeing from Israeli troops break into the compound around the Church of the Nativity." The BBC "Local civilians and Palestinian militants alike seek refuge in churches throughout the city, including the Church of the Nativity." Of the "hundreds" your JVL quotes, if I remember correctly, the IDF allowed all but roughly 30, plus the 7 they killed to go free. It doesn't sound like even the IDF believed that the majority were militants. And you yourself argued that CNN and the BBC are better sources than the JVL.TeeTylerToe (talk) 14:42, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't address any of the specific problems of your edit I pointed out, including that POV sentence "deny it to the people of Bethlehem as a place of refuge". Therefore I have nothing else to add. If you want to write a new paragraph truly based on the sources, I'll be pleased to discuss it.--AmirSurfLera (talk) 02:05, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"while a special forces Shaldag unit targeted the Church of the Nativity to deny it to the people of Bethlehem as a place of refuge as it had been in the past [?????]." Besides of the clear POV-pushing, the problem is that the JVL source doesn't mention this at all. IT'S NOT IN THE SOURCE!" Well, no, it is in the source. "The IDF had known from previous incursions into the city that terrorists usually hid from forces in the Christian Church of the Nativity and to head them off sent a force from the Shaldag Special Forces unit to blockade entrance into the holy shrine"... PBS "Approximately 200 Palestinians fleeing from Israeli troops break into the compound around the Church of the Nativity." The BBC "Local civilians and Palestinian militants alike seek refuge in churches throughout the city, including the Church of the Nativity." JVL says that the IDF knew that in the past palestinians hid in churches including the church of the nativity. The BBC says that civilians and militants sought refuge in the church. That also supports most of what your second point covered, with "The barricaded Palestinian force inside the church was led by Colonel Abdullah Daud, head of Palestinian security in Bethlehem, and Muhammad al-Madani, the governor of Bethlehem" supporting the rest. As for references supporting the number of people, the BBC says more than 200, PBS says approximately 200. That covers all of your complaints. And my edit which you criticize added the two BBC references, the PBS reference, the JVL reference, the Chicago Tribune reference, and the CSMonitor reference. Your edit adds a ynet reference in hebrew on the subject of someone being deported from cyprus to mauritania and your unsupported text is contradicted by numerous reputable sources.TeeTylerToe (talk) 22:59, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's not "my text" what I want to keep, but the long-standing version before your unsourced POV-pushing edit. And no, it's not in the source the sentence "to deny it to the people of Bethlehem as a place of refuge as it had been in the past".--AmirSurfLera (talk) 00:01, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request for 3rd Opinion declined[edit]

I am declining the request for a 3rd opinion made at WP:3O, since you have already raised the issue to the wider community in the RfC in the next section. Regards, --Stfg (talk) 09:10, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RFC on Bethlehem section[edit]

I'd like to ask for comments from the community on the Bethlehem section of this article, particularly the first paragraph where user AmirSurfLera seems to argue that the suggestion that the IDF deployed a shaldag unit to "deny [the church of the nativity] to the people of Bethlehem as a place of refuge"TeeTylerToe (talk) 23:09, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, using another rfc as a model I'll make it multi-parted.

  • A:Should the Bethlehem section describe the monks as hostages when the BBC source, the CNN source, Fox News, PBS, CS Monitor, and chicago tribune sources support the monks being there voluntarily, and only the jewish virtual library source supporting them being hostages.
  • B:I don't know where these numbers and descriptions come from in the first paragraph, almost certainly not the ynet source in hebrew which is on the topic of someone being deported from cyprus iirc. Should it be rewritten to support the reliable sources that actually cover the siege?
  • C: Do we support the text: "IDF forces including the Jerusalemite Reserve Infantry Brigade entered Jerusalem with infantry, warplanes, and tanks while a special forces Shaldag unit targeted the Church of the Nativity to deny it to the people of Bethlehem as a place of refuge as it had been in the past. In response to the IDF offensive hundreds of Bethelemites including Bethlehem's Governor sought refuge in the church, the helicopters of the Shaldag unit arriving half an hour too late.

On April 3rd the IDF laid siege to the church surrounding it with an elite paratrooper brigade specializing in sniper operations who used tactics including carrying out simulated attacks. In response the Vatican warned Israel not to damage the church, which marks the site of the birth of Jesus. For five weeks the Israelis held the city with periodic breaks, continuing the siege on the church. Israeli snipers were given orders to shoot anyone in the church carrying a gun on sight. IDF snipers shooting and seriously wounding an Armenian monk who the IDF says looked armed, and killing the mentally impaired church bell-ringer who was shot as he left to ring the bells as he had done for 3 decades, left to die, bleeding in the square for hours. Six other men were killed by the IDF during the siege. On March 10 the siege ended, with a deal seeing some militants deported to the Gaza Strip, and the rest exiled to Cyprus." or some version of that?TeeTylerToe (talk) 22:12, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your version is unacceptable because it removes sourced content, including the part where the Vatican "condemns the Palestinian gunmen who entered the area". The current version is more complete and neutral.--AmirSurfLera (talk) 00:56, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's not in the current version, and what source supports that? If you have a source that supports that it can be added along with any other sources. Your version had 3 sources including the one about someone being deported from cyprus, and included many unsupported claims. Mine adds many sources and is well supported.TeeTylerToe (talk) 01:33, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Read the paragraph and the sources of the article. This is what the source says: The Vatican officially warned Israel to respect the religious site and ensure no damage was caused while Holy See Undersecretary of State, Archbishop Jean-Louis Tauran, condemned the Palestinian gunmen who entered the area. "The Palestinians have entered into bilateral agreements [with the Holy See] in which they undertake to maintain and respect the status quo regarding the Christian holy places and the rights of Christian communities," the Archbishop said on Vatican Radio. "To explain the gravity of the current situation, let me begin with the fact that the occupation of the holy places by armed men is a violation of a long tradition of law that dates back to the Ottoman era. Never before have they been occupied - for such a lengthy time - by armed men."--AmirSurfLera (talk) 01:38, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't noticed you'd slipped that jewish virtual library editorialization into the article. We can add that to the RFC. D: Do you support including the jewish virtual library's editorialization that characterized the archbishop's statement as a condemnation.TeeTylerToe (talk) 01:56, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand your question. The JVL source was already there. I merely added the Archbishop's condemnation per NPOV.--AmirSurfLera (talk) 02:05, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Victory? Discussion of Sources.[edit]

I placed a "Citation needed" tag on the classification of Operation Defensive Shield as an "Israeli victory" about two weeks ago. User:Wlglunight93 provided the following source, published by the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs: "Winning Counterinsurgency War: The Israeli Experience". It's not enough to cite one source and be done with the issue. The standard for calling Operation Defensive Shield an "Israeli victory" should be that there is broad consensus among reliable sources that the operation was, indeed, an Israeli victory. The fact that one Israeli general, writing for an Israeli think tank, says that the operation was a victory, is not enough to establish a consensus on the issue. I went to Google Books and typed in "Operation Defensive Shield victory," the same search term User:Wlglunight93 likely used, and came up with a list of ten sources in the first page of hits, of which "Winning Counterinsurgency War" was the fifth hit. Based on quick skimming the other sources say the following:

  • "Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict" doesn't say directly whether or not Operation Defensive Shield was an Israeli victory (at least in the Google Books preview I have available now), but it does argue that claims about the operation ending terrorism are wrong.
  • "War Without End: Israelis, Palestinians, and the Struggle for a Promised Land" gives a mixed evaluation of Operation Defensive Shield. The operation influenced international public opinion in favor of Arafat, but allowed Israel to find documents possibly drawing a link between Arafat and terror. The IDF made important military gains, but failed to halt the terrorist attacks. As the title of the book suggests, this author doesn't seem to regard either party as the ultimate victor.
  • "The Road Map to Nowhere: Israel/Palestine Since 2003" says that Sharon viewed Operation Defensive Shield "as a big success" because it destroyed Palestinian institutions and militant groups. The author doesn't appear to share Sharon's assessment, repeating the words "success" and "achievements" in scare quotes, and noting that the Palestinians reorganized quickly after the operation.

The sources raise different considerations about the effects of Operation Defensive Shield on terrorism, Palestinian institutions and international public opinion. One of the sources (a former Israeli general) claims the operation was an Israeli victory, another source ("A People's War") argues that Israel was not victorious, and most sources emphasize how complicated the outcome was, without ascribing victory to either side. From this list, there is no consensus among the sources that would justify the label "Israeli victory." -Thucydides411 (talk) 03:08, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like both sides claimed victory, but maybe this would be a good time to call for an expert opinion. Maybe add a section in the main article about what rationales each side used to claim victory.TeeTylerToe (talk) 04:26, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The sources evaluate the outcome differently. In my opinion, there's no point in labeling such an operation "Israeli victory" or "Palestinian victory," especially when most of the sources emphasize how messy and indeterminate the outcome was. The best way to improve the article is to expand the "Strategic Outcome" section of the article. -Thucydides411 (talk) 01:30, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we could put in the infobox "Israeli victory (according to IDF)" like here.--Wlglunight93 (talk) 09:18, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what the point of "Israeli victory (according to IDF)" would be. Should we list each party's view on the outcome of the conflict separately? The outcome of this operation is too complex for a short infobox entry. We should just keep the discussion in the "Strategic Outcome" section. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:53, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The fact is that this operation is widely regarded as a tactical victory for Israel which helped to reduce the number of successful suicide attacks. On the other hand, I'm not aware that this operation is considered to be a "victory" among Palestinians--Wlglunight93 (talk) 15:58, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If that's the fact, then there should be a consensus among reliable sources. From the above list, it does not look like there is such a consensus - some argue for a Palestinian victory, some for an Israeli victory, but the majority argue that the outcome was more complicated than a simple victory for one side. If you want to include a claim of victory in the article, it is incumbent upon you to provide a representative list of reliable sources which support that claim. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:04, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ramallah: IDF reaction[edit]

I have removed the paragraph on the IDF's reaction to Red Cross statements in the Ramallah section since the source given for that paragraph did not mention any IDF reaction. Huon (talk) 12:54, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Israel let me cross the border during the second intifada and I'm a US citizen. If anyone knows if there were other American civilians in Jenin please email me at: christy.mathis82@gmail.com ChristyAwad (talk) 02:57, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Operation Defensive Shield. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 02:04, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Operation Defensive Shield. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 13:14, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hebrew mistransliteration[edit]

The lede transliterates מִבְצָע as mitzvah when it is in fact mivtsa. I don't have permissions to edit this page, so I'm asking someone else to do it for me. Kyoto Grand (talk) 01:37, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]