Wikipedia

Talk:Children in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict/Archive 2

< Talk:Children in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict

Picture Controversy

The following picture is causing a debate following are the points on debate

  1. Picture shouldn't be shown directly
  2. Picture should not be linked as a reference.
  3. Name of picture should be changed.

So to help in debate I am showing the picture in question here. (Please don't remove it until we finish this issue).

Click here to see photograph of a dead Palestinian infant
Palestinian infant possibly killed by Israeli bullet (See talk for details for other possible causes)

So Please give your comments after my comments and don't edit my comments in between.

Thanks for your anticipated cooperation.
Zain 03:09, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Some people do not like pictures of Palestinian children killed by Jews but they do not say why? They want to hide the pictures from Wikipedia readers. Is there a good reason? --Abdel Qadir 16:04, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Qadir you have to use the logic. See they say that title doesn't suggest that. So if you make a version with name Israeli violence against Palestinian children with (pictures included) No body can put pictures out from that version. Only way they have is to ask for deletion. But this can be countered by asking to put pics here if that is deleted. Because they have to go some where. argument they are using is relocation of the pictures. So make that article and put direct pictures in it. No body can remove it from there. Unless it is voted for deletion. So make it Please.
Zain 16:35, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
a. I have replaced the image above with the link we are working with. I want to vomit when I see this image.
b. The description of the image is literally bullshit, and is akin to putting "Israeli infant possibly killed by Palestinian bullet (See talk for details for other possible causes)". It is insulting to the family of the victim and to Palestinian civilians and families as a whole.
c. Using this image in this article is wrong. If the Palestinian human rights struggle did not have behind it volumes of human rights law, international law, statistics, historical record and analysis, perhaps such a picture might be appropriate or necessary. As the situation and article currently stand, this picture is not necessary.
d. Please stop putting the picture in the article. Instead of mining the pictures, I encourage you to mine more statistics and try to incorporate them appropriately.
Tarek 01:06, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The picture is simply propaganda intended to evoke an emotional response. Should we put up some of these images as well [1]? Let's have the article be as encyclopedic as it can be, the title itself is already propagandistic enough. Jayjg 01:18, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Jayjg presents an obvious point. To follow it up, the only condition under which I would ever personally agree to such a picture is if beside it we would put up one of the pictures from Jayjg's disgusting link. Tarek 01:25, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Then we have to create a picture include version
simple?
Zain 01:32, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I think that's a terrible idea still.. How about finding a factual source that perhaps has all pictures related to child deaths (perhaps including after death)? Preferably, this would be a site that carries such information on Israeli-Jewish, Israeli-Palestian and Palestinian deaths, just as with http://rememberthesechildren.org . That source could then be linked at the bottom under "External links", but perhaps with a graphic content warning. Tarek 01:40, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
May be but will be deleted not encylopedic. so one pic link is enough at the page. OK let's hit a compromise. ok just give one pic link in this article. and put whatever caption u want. Right? it is just debate of caption. So give your caption i wont object.

Do you know wikisource? on that you can make such list. And another thing which you may kindly do is that provided the link of the site which you mentioned in external link of this article but put warning in it.

ok now put the pic link with your desired caption. and I am not editing it further Zain 01:49, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Suggestion to re-merge and move article

Hopefully we won't see another revert war right away. I'd like to see gauge possible consensus on two things:

This gives us a single article, which is preferable in my opinion. Cool Hand Luke 04:56, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm all for it. Jayjg 02:25, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Support. --Viriditas 08:03, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Is there actual evidence that children are especially targeted by either side? If not, why are we having a special article on this? --Improv 05:55, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Becuase it narrowly survived VfD, and I think approaching this stepwise is easier than getting consensus to merge to some article in one step. Some editors found proposed targets of a merge unacceptable. Furthermore, at least one editor made the case that these sorts of violence-against-children claims are politicized enough in the conflict to make for a full article. Cool Hand Luke 06:29, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • I think it's obvious that if policies of specially targetting children existed on either side, they wouldn't be overtly articulated. Regardless of whether it is due to systematic orders or otherwise, "323 Palestinian children under the age of 14 have been killed by IDF fire" [2]. That is pretty serious, and I think warrants discussion. How is this title inappropriate for that type of discussion? It's an appropriately named title which to me is NPOV, since it doesn't mention loaded terms such as 'terrorist' or 'state terrorism' or the like. Tarek 18:22, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Out of curiosity, why not have this article as part of Violence against Palestinian children? Shouldn't the merge be from specific to general? The second merge I don't particularly agree with, as I'm almost certain it will create more problems that it solves in the future. Tarek 18:29, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • Well, I support both merges, but note that, barring evidence of particular targeting of children in the conflict, I feel that it should all eventually be merged into the general page on the conflict. When it comes to the politicization of violence against women and children, all that can go under either "Politicization of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict", or under a subheader of the conflict page. --Improv 16:47, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • If you'd prefer, you can think of it as both articles being moved to "Violence against children in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict" which is certainly a more general topic. The current title is loaded because it implies there's something special about Israeli-to-Palestinian violence against children when all that can be shown impartially is that chidren have been killed and that this violence is used toward political ends. Because this politicization is true on both sides (see the VfD talk page), it's better to have one contentious article than dueling versions hurling claims in the opposite direction. Cool Hand Luke 22:06, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
        • The more general the topic, the better, as it will provide context. And the more neutral the title, the better, because NPOV is the rule here. :-) Jayjg 04:48, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This article talks specifically about Israeli violence, so most contents belongs here, with perhaps some subarticles on long subjects.

P.S. There is nothing POV about this factual title. It does not state "Israeli violence targeted at children", does it. HistoryBuffEr 05:32, 2004 Dec 6 (UTC)

What a coincidence, the title and the text leave exactly that impression. Violence against children in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict sounds neutral, Israeli violence against Palestinian children is clearly not. This stalling game must stop. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 09:50, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Now that we have a neutral title, the article needs to be rewritten from NPOV. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 11:11, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This article is being hijacked by Zionist revisionists

They want to hide the Israeli atrocities against Arab children from Wikipedia readers by redirecting it to a "neutral title" where they can wweave their deceitful hasbara apologetics for the Jewish state and blame the Palestinian victims for allowing their chidlren to be killed by Israeli soldiers. --Alberuni 04:13, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

So the title Israeli violence against Palestinian children was NPOV and Violence against children in the Israel-Palestine conflict is not? I suggest for those who use WP exclusively for fiery hate speech to learn the principles of Wikipedia:NPOV and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. See the VfD vote. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 05:21, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The VfD vote was about deletion - and it failed. The Talk page is the place to reach consensus on redirect. There was no consensus on redirecting the page. It is being hijacked by Zionist revisionist hasbarists who intend to conceal the brutal facts about Israeli atrocities against Palestinian children. You are even the one who claimed that a stray bullet killed Ghadeer Mkheemer. I don't see you complaining about Terrorism against Israel in 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, Violence against Israelis, Partial list of Palestinian terrorist acts etc. Why not? Because they are not offensive to your POV. Yoshiah has already begun deleting case examples from the new article and calling for the inclusion of cases that will deflect attention from the primary problem, Israeli violence. If Wikipedia existed during WWII, there would be Nazis complaining that the description of the concentration camps was POV and should be balanced with descriptions of Jewish crimes against other Jews and Jewish crimes against Germans. The incessant Zionist propaganda on Wikipedia is truly nauseating. --Alberuni 05:40, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
If Yoshiah is doing what you claim he is doing, then you would be justified in reverting his deletions and making note of your reasons on the talk page. However, I haven't had time to confirm your claims at this point. --Viriditas 05:58, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I agree that pro-Israel POV editing is bad, but this topic is overly sectarian (POV-inpiring). A strong plurality of non-Zionists said it ought to be merged—many more than voted to straight keep it. Humus sapiens may be pushing a POV, but these people were not. Is there a reason this material can't exist under Violence against children in the Israel-Palestine conflict? (Also, I do agree HS should not have moved the page. It came as a shock to me because we were still discussing it, but I do think that this is ultimately the best solution.) Cool Hand Luke 06:01, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Luke, I hope that was a typo and you are able to distinguish between "pro-Israel" and "anti-Palestinian". I am shocked that the libelous title was allowed to stay here for this many weeks. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 10:11, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Not a typo. We shound give sympathetic tone, but any pro- or anti-POV is not NPOV. Cool Hand Luke 22:38, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Perhaps by saying "pro-Israel", we mean different things? I don't ask for preferential treatment, concealment of proven facts or suppresion of legitimate criticism. No need for everyone to become a Zionist either. As a starting point, I suggest we unilaterally apply Sharansky's "3D" test to articles about Israel, as well as any other state. Unreasonable? ←Humus sapiens←Talk 03:11, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Sure, we should use sympathetic tone (but by that definition we ought be pro-Israel and pro-Palestine). I'm not sure if you're getting this, and maybe I'm being overly diplomatic, but I don't approve of the current state of this article.
I don't have strong sympathies either way—at least not as strong as most people who edit these—and I feel you misunderstand where I'm coming from. I agree that opinions shouldn't masquarade as fact, and this is why I'm anti-POV—all POV. By reading an article, one shouldn't be able to deduce what the authors' opinions are. I don't think there's anything wrong with being pro-Israel, but it should not be obvious that the article was written by someone with this point of view. That said, this debate is irrelevant. Alberuni implies this article should be tolerated because of pro-Israel editing that goes on. That's just wrong. Making a mirror image of POV articles from the other persepctive is not a solution. No, we should clean them up and NPOV them. I think it's tremendously obvious what this article's POV is, and I've been suggesting cleanup since is survived VfD. I would love for you to give it a go (this is not my area of expertise). Cool Hand Luke 06:11, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
According to what I have learned from the Ziopedians, consensus does not mean majority and voting does not reflect consensus. Consensus means everyone agrees. Therefore, there was no consensus to redirect the page even if a majority voted to to delete or redirect in the VfD. The VfD is about deletion, not redirection. Talk page is for reaching consensus on redirection. I do not agree with redirection. Therefore there is no consensus. --Alberuni 06:08, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I didn't say otherwise. In fact, you'll notice I resolved the VfD with the explicit explaination that votes for merge were not binding. I'm merely showing that the move is not POV according to a cross-section of wikipedians outside of these topics. So if you would answer my question: is there a reason this material can't or should not exist under Violence against children in the Israel-Palestine conflict? Cool Hand Luke 06:49, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
There is nothing inherently POV about discussing Israeli violence against Palestinian children. It is a fact. It is a recognized problem as the data in the article reflects. We don't balance articles about Nazi concentration camps by renaming it "Violence in the Nazi-Jewish conflict" and then inserting sections about Jewish uprisings against the Nazis in order to deflect attention from Nazi atrocities and paint the deaths of oppressed Jews and oppressing Nazis as if they are equivalent. [3] That is what the WikiZionists intend to do. They want to rename this article to something "neutral" (i.e. something that doesn't reflect the facts about Israeli atrocities against Palestinian children) and then pad it with sensationalized Zionist POV sections about Palestinian resistance to Zionist aggression. They already have plenty of Zionist POV articles smearing all palestinians as fanatic terrorists rather than victims of Zionist terrorism. This is one article devoted to documenting the facts about Israeli violence against Palestinian children. --Alberuni 18:09, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
There is nothing inherently POV about discussing Israeli violence against Palestinian children, just as there is nothing inherently POV about discussing Palestinian violence against Israeli children. They are both facts. Including them both provides necessary context. And POV warriors who continually and speciously attempt to equate Israelis with Nazis do harm to the project. There are no "Zionist POV articles smearing all palestinians as fanatic terrorists" on Wikipedia, and creating an opposite biased article to counteract this imaginary bias is not an NPOV solution. I recommend you work on the article with the NPOV title. Jayjg 23:49, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I would like to note that it does not appear to me that the page move occurred out of consensus. 1) Am I missing the consensus somewhere? 2) why is it that it is repeatedly being moved? Tarek 00:08, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Major reedit

Hey! I majorly reedited the article to conform to what I perceive to be a higher standard. It turned out that somebody had put a redirect in while I was editing it, so I overrode the redirect and also pasted a slightly modified copy in the redirected page.. The article as it is now is not fully suitable for Violence against children in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but is quite suitable for this title.. So, what's the deal? Tarek 00:01, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Excellent work, very well done. Thank you for your effort! --Alberuni 00:14, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Great improvement. Article is no longer a glorified medical journal column, but do we really want faction articles? Apparently you think so—the introduction says other configurations of violence will be linked. I believe that's a very bad precedent. Cool Hand Luke 00:30, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The article itself is much better, but Cool Hand Luke's points are equally valid. Jayjg 00:38, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I don't particularly believe that it is a "faction article". I was simply trying to improve what I thought was a poor article on a worthy topic, and, I think it is unwise in this case not to overtly state the scope of the article (dictated by the title) and try to give people the opportunity to broaden their scope as necessary. I am sufficiently inexperienced that I'm willing to defer to you on that aspect, if you would like to rewrite the intro paragraph. My personal vision is to model this sort of article after the Medicine articles that I have seen and worked on. So, ophthalmology speaks about other things where necessary, but its main device for putting Ophthalmology into a 'context' is the 'ring' at the bottom ({{medicine}}) to link them together instead of muddling the millions of things involved.. Doing the research for this article, I realized that each of these articles can easily hit the Kilobyte limits, but really won't so long as they are amalgamated ad infinitum. For example, to make the article 'relevant' or 'readable' in Violence against children in the Israel-Palestine conflict, the 'specific incidents' section was taken out, though specific instances like Iman Al Hams may serve as case studies of how Palestinians and Israelis deal with these situations and their fallout.
In any case, can we pursue the 'ring' idea? It would likely serve the same purpose as a 'scope declaration', which Cool Hand Luke appears not to like (or may even be against policy?). I don't want or intend for POV articles (As Jayjg noted, neither title is inherently POV), but I ask you guys to consider how much clarity and subject analysis will be lost if/when we amalgamate this under a more general title.
A more general question is: How could we get rid of the 'faction' perception or reality? Tarek 01:01, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I agree these are interesting cases, but wonder how many articles will have to be patrolled because of such relatively narrow scope. Incidentlly, it appears the incidents have already been taken out (see List of Palestinian children killed by Israelis in 2000, ect). This gives me headaches. I'm taking a wikivacation; it's finals anyway. Cool Hand Luke 01:14, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Tarek, my point was that discussing the issue was not inherently POV, but that it should be discussed in a context. Jayjg 01:17, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Title doesn't match contents

Are home birth and poverty and school closings really violence against Palestinian children? And are they attributable solely to Israeli actions? I think this article is much broader than the title; either the title should be changed to match the contents, or vice versa. Jayjg 03:56, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think that physical violence is important, but only one component of violence as a concept. The wiki article on violence, and most reasoned definitions I have seen include within the definitions of violence all types of violence. Specifically in this case, I would like to pick out structural violence, and quote from the article:
"A third of the 2 [billion] people in the developing countries are starving or suffering from malnutrition. Twenty-five per cent of their children die before their fifth birthday [...] Less than 10 per cent of the 15 million children who died this year had been vaccinated against the six most common and dangerous children's diseases. Vaccinating every child costs £3 per child. But not doing so costs us five million lives a year. These are classic examples of structural violence." (my emphasis)
I am endeavouring seriously to avoid rhetoric in the article. That means remaining factual and always attributing information. Drron's contributions about the births and schools were easy enough to verify (I found and inserted the links), and came from stable, NPOV sources such as Oxfam and the UN. However, if you have more reliable statistics, please feel free to put them in or otherwise post them here for discussion. Tarek 16:39, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The broad and vague use of the word "violence" here doesn't help the article. As well, it attributes all of these actions to Israel; this is hardly NPOV, since these Israeli actions are typically in response to Palestinian actions, particularly the second intifadeh. A child shot by an IDF soldier is one thing, but people having to give birth at home because of checkpoints set up in response to suicide bombings is another. Jayjg 16:46, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I think the accurate use of the word violence does help the article, and properly articulates what's going on. For example, it would be crazy to try to discuss the physical violence against Israelis caused by suicide bombings without discussing the underlying attempts to destroy a certain psychological construct: safety. In the same way, this article would be crippled if it dealt specifically with only one subset (killing with bullets) of one type of violence (physical). The article doesn't really peddle in 'opinion' as much as cited sources. You mentioned that "this is hardly NPOV, since these Israeli actions are typically in response to Palestinian actions", but that doesn't appear to be what's in the literature coming from Amnesty International, the ICRC, Oxfam, UN, etc. It is not my opinion that Oxfam "attributed [the problems with births] to the network of closures, checkpoints and curfews imposed by the Israeli army"; That's what they said. I haven't seen any authoritative sources that have said something different from what Oxfam has been saying, but I would certainly appreciate it you present any meaningful sources that I may have missed. I would hate to think that I am maligning the Israeli government here or anywhere in an unfair and undeserved manner. Tarek 01:24, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
After giving this some thought, I believe the article does not over-extend its scope. "Violence" certainly has a broad meaning. The only thing I would change is the bit of the lead block that says the article concerns only violence committed by Israel and the IDF. The violence by private settlers should also be included in this article (it is, after all, already mentioned). Cool Hand Luke 03:05, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Incidentally, although I think this article is itself not actually terribly biased, I do still think that the title creates the initial perception that it is. At this point, I don't know how to fix that, but I'm open to creative solutions. Cool Hand Luke 03:12, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Alberuni I want to talk with you

Assallam-o-Allaikum,

I am from Pakistan. I want a collaborative effort to improve over all NPOV in the wikipedia. Especially concerning Palestinian and over all Islamic article (and anti-Islamic articles).

I think to do it in a collaborative manner, is a lot better then separate. Waiting for your reply (and reply of other friends who want to help in it).

Thanks Allah Hafiz

Zain 18:33, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Needs cleanup

This article addresses only one specific subset of psychological, physical and political violence: that by the Israeli government, Israeli Defence Forces (IDF), and Israeli settlers against Palestinian children. Please name what policy of any Israeli govt. targeted specifically Palestinian children. And the settlers are not the "landgrabbers" anymore, now they are childkillers? FYI: as an experiment, I am not touching the text on purpose. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 10:38, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I find it absolutely dispicable when Palestinian suicide bombers and their apologists claim that because there is no stated directive that says "kill Jewish children" that there is no further need to discuss their violence against Israeli children or - even more incredibly - that there is no violence. Tarek 23:49, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Whatever the apologists or accusors say, our coverage (if any) of their claims should be merely encyclopedic. The text in question amounts to a blood libel. Please back it up or clean it up. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 01:09, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Sarcasm isn't a good way to build consensus. As for the specific issue, the difference here would be that there is no question that Palestinian terrorists as a matter of policy deliberately target civilians for death, including children. The doctrine that "Israel is a militarized society, therefore no Israelis are civilians" is well known and often used; that, in fact, is what the apologists claim. Jayjg 01:09, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Just like the Israeli government, Palestinian militant groups are aware of the media and public opinion. They understand that they cannot go around saying "We aim to kill Israeli children", so they don't. It's probably not even a matter of policy. Makes no difference, really, because it is evident in the outcome of their actions. Also like the Israeli government and its apologists, the Palestinian militant groups and their apologists come up with whatever sounds digestible. So, "Israel is a militarized society, therefore no Israelis are civilians" works for them, just like "Palestinians are all terrorists / harbor terrorists / are pathologically violent / do not want peace" works for the Israeli government. In reality, there is as much question that Israeli children are targeted "as a matter of policy" as there is that Palestinian children are targeted "as a matter of policy". Still, as it pertains to the article, I think that the sources do place a good deal of culpability at the feet of the Israeli government for some of the types of violence, but that's not something to shy away from. It's something to work on to improve Israel for its citizens, non-citizens (as the Palestinians are) and the world. Tarek 08:06, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Well, the lead block should state that the violence is apparently not targeted or at least clarify that whether the violence is targeted or not is in dispute. The article itself doesn't seem to make the claim (as far as I can tell), but the lead block might give a different impression. Cool Hand Luke 01:40, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The title gives that impression too. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 01:47, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The problem with this article is that it paints Israelis as child killers. It might not say it outright, but it gives a bunch of numbers without saying absolutely anything about the complexity of the conflict or Israeli casualties. Thus to the uninformed person, this makes Israelis look bad. Masterhomer 03:48, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
A problem indeed. We must be very careful not to tarnish the images of the Israeli military or government.. Oh, and for the sake of consistency, let us also not try to make Palestinian militants "look bad" to "the uninformed person". Heaven forbid we condemn breaches of international law and human rights. Tarek 16:45, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Again, Tarek, your edits and points are good, but IMHO sarcasm like this isn't going to help you win over others to your viewpoint. Jayjg | Talk 21:24, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The article is true, the Israeli policies are killing Arab children. --Abdel Qadir 04:02, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Images removed. Wikipedia is not Propaganda or advocacy of any kind, Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and Wikipedia is not a theater of war. --Viriditas | Talk 04:28, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Talk_page “On Wikipedia, ‘’’the purpose of a talk page is to help to improve the contents of the main page’’’, from an encyclopedic point of view. Questions, challenges, excised text (due to truly egregious confusion or bias, for example), ‘’’arguments relevant to changing the text, and commentary on the main page are all fair play.’’’ ”

“Wikipedia is not a soapbox, it's an encyclopedia. In other words, talk about the article, not about the subject.” • “Archive rather than delete: When a talk page's content has become extremely large or the discussion of the issue in hand has simply died down and no one has a reasonable chance of adding to it. Then create a new page. “

Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not “Wikipedia is not a theater of war. Every user is expected to interact with others civilly, calmly, and in a spirit of cooperation. Do not insult, harass or intimidate those with whom you have a disagreement. Rather, approach the matter in an intelligent manner, and engage in polite discussion."

(Wikipedia is not) Propaganda or advocacy of any kind. But of course an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view.”

[4] “UNICEF said today it is deeply concerned about the impact on children of the ongoing military operation in the Gaza Strip, particularly a missile strike Wednesday that claimed the lives of at least 10 Palestinians, many of them children. …UNICEF calls on the State of Israel to abide by its obligations to the Convention on the Rights of the Child by protecting children from direct exposure to violence, and providing those who have lost their homes with alternative housing,” Bassiouni said. "The injudicious use of force where children are present can only bring about the deaths of innocent youngsters. We urge the Israeli authorities to reconsider the impact these incursions are having on Palestinian children." --Abdel Qadir 05:30, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Images removed. This is a discussion page for discussing an article, not for promoting propaganda. Again, I point you to Wikipedia is not Propaganda or advocacy of any kind, Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and Wikipedia is not a theater of war. Discuss the article and stop promoting propaganda. --Viriditas | Talk 05:41, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Use of ‘offensive’ pictures in article?

User of ‘offensive’ pictures can be done in article itself. Please see Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse So I’ll think you should add it ‘directly in article’ and if some body removes it ‘only then’ put in talk page so it can be easily be discussed by users.

If any body disagrees he can create a picture supressed version as done in Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse.

Zain 05:54, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I added picture of 1 Israelis killed baby to article from[5]. --Abdel Qadir 06:18, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I'm very fond of that solution, but this case is different. The image is more unexpectedly graphic and does not constitute a gallery of images. This case is more like Nick Berg where a single graphic image is linked to. I'm making it a prominent pricture-like link to the dead infant. Also, I re-uploaded the image under "Image:BabyKilledByIsraeliBullet.jpg" and deleted "BabyKilledByJews.jpg", which was not an appropriate title.Cool Hand Luke 08:59, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
hmm Let's create two version give user choice that which version he wants to choose. some users might expect graphic some might not. so giving them choice in very start of article is important. Let's user decide what he expects a graphical version or non-Graphical version. In picture supress version we can provide links like you have done.
Zain 09:20, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Left in (for now), but behind a link as I revised the article. I'm probably against new images. I doubt that additional images of physical violence would add much to the article; indeed, I suspect (because of the image's original title) that even this addition was merely for POV polemic shock value. One characteristic bullet wound should suffice, unless additional images of gore truly add something to the article. Again, I view this article as fundamentally different from Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse—these images are much more unexpected given the title and add dubious value to the article as it is. Please wait for more commentary before reverting the article. Cool Hand Luke 09:27, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I havne't done a single edit on this article! it wasn't even on my watch list. Talk Page got on my watch list when I saw 'vote for deletion' for first time linkes followed here. I added talk page to my list just to see debate of delete of related article. when I saw some fight over talk page. I gave a suggestion.
now about picture presence.
  1. Opinion 1, picture(s) should be provided
  2. Opinion 2, No Picture.
Now please note both are opinions. We won't be able to find 'correct' method even if we debate for years. So best solution. Two versions.
  1. One without any direct pictures.
  2. One with direct picture.
Now which page should be 'default page' here.
  1. Current (picture supress version) with Disambiguation banner, leading to version with pictures.
  2. Add direct pictures to this version. with Disambiguation page leading to picture supressed version (current version).
  3. No Page is default here. Only a Disambiguation banner with offering user choices. User is free to choose which one he want to chose.
Zain 09:53, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)


Add picture supress version

First the section is about 'death of palestenian children Adding a picture supressed stub can reduce the disagreement on pictures in this article and any body who don't want to see pictures can click that picture supressed version Zain 06:24, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The Abu Ghraib abuse cases have names and evidence. What do we have here? A picture that came from an openly anti-semitic website full of hate speech. What were the circumstances of the baby's death? Was the killing intentional? The title "BabykilledByJews" reflected the reason why this "article" was created in the first place: to ostracize and demonize Jews and Jewish state. If your goal is to create another William of Norwich, WP is the wrong place. Learn Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 10:08, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
See he did half of the work he provided his references which supported his claims about the picture. You should provided your references which should clearly state
  • Some other cause of death then he referred. Specifically to child in question.
  • This killing was not international but 'local'. In context of that specific child.

His claim is further supported by following reasons.

  • Children have always died in conflicts (including this conflict)
  • Palestinian groups will very much like to take there pictures. In order to show what they see as illegitimate actions.
  • Palestinian websites will likely to show these pictures to their viewers in support of what they see as illegitimate actions.
So I think these arguments are more then enough to tell that actual pictures are very likely to be brought up in wikipedia.
So if you deny any specific picture refer your sources related to that specific picture.
If some picture has double claims of 'actual cause'. both claims should be written in comment part of the picture.


I think we should now waste no time in creating two versions. if we can't get agreement we will simply put picture version for deletion.
So please let's get a collaborative afford to create these two versions. Lets corporate rather then debate in order to improve wikipedia further. 'Vote for deletion' is only way under which a picture include version can be denied. And that can't take place until it is created. So first step. Create picture include version and let community to decide.


Zain 10:29, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Oh lord, am I being punished for Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse (no pictures)?

Again, this articles is different from that one. The Abu Ghraib photos are integral to the phenomenon—reporting on the abuse as well only came out because of the pictures, they're very famous, and they illustrate known soldiers committing various kinds of abuse—as several editors remarked, the pictures are the story, and there are too many pictures to place behind links (as was suggested on that their talk page). With this article, there is no reason to include multiple graphic pictures, and they should generally not be used unless they are illustrating something informative (Holocaust, for example, is a very constrained article this way). Pictures such as the one posted have little encyclopedic value, but very high POV value. Cool Hand Luke 10:40, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

As one of the people who has contributed to this article, I want to say that I really disagree with the inclusion of this picture or any picture like it. Though I think it is important for us not to sterilize the consequences of inhumanity and war, the picture encourages an irrational and visceral response, instead of encouraging people to look at the matter academically and try to come up with ways to stop it. So, I disagree that it should be displayed on the page, even if an Abu Ghraib-like thing happens. Tarek 07:19, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Incidentally, please don't take my link version as an endorsement for that version. Upon reflection, I do believe this has no place in this article in any form. I was not prepared to assert that initially, hense the link. Please don't have a revert war. Work it out on the talk page. Cool Hand Luke 03:37, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Very straight case for 'picture include version'

Alleged similarity to Abu Gharib

  1. Both were seen as 'incorrect'. (by many/some/few/overwhelming/rare)
    • The myths of the IDF using DU bullets, poisoning Arab wells, booby-trapping children toys, mass graves in Jenin, etc. were seen as (and proven to be) 'incorrect'. Does it make them correct? ←Humus sapiens←Talk 21:30, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  1. Both cases pictures 'shock' the viewers. (to many/some/few/overwhelming/rare)
    • By design. That's their only value: to stir emotions. Last time I checked, WP is not in that business. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 21:30, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If my points are invalid (which they might be) no body will click on picture version. So what does it matter??

    • Unless proven that the picture is indeed what you present it to be, that this is a typical case (the IDF policy is to shoot infants), the picture has nop place in an encyclopedia, other that in propaganda. Side comment: Isn't it funny how all the "NPOV anti-hasbara police" suddenly fell silent. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 21:30, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

And if it is not worth creating. It will be voted delete.

Simple!

(Please note I am not talking about any changes in this page, in this talk section. But creation of a new page. Which is only subjected to discussion After it is created!)

Zain 11:31, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Abu Gharib is different because proposals were made to link to the pictures and remove them first. Only later (in November) did editors resort to an alternate version. However, it was almost universally agreed upon (even by those that wanted a censored version) that the pictures belonged in the article. At least one editor here believes this picture has no place in Wikipedia, and I believe inline inclusion is nothing more than a shock tactic; it does not seem to illustrate the article well (unlike Abu Gharib where the pictures were a story unto themselves). Like Holocaust and Nick Berg, we should not include photos just for shock value. Cool Hand Luke 23:43, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I agree it is different. But what's wrong with providing a link?
  • if it is no use no body will click it.
  • If it is not worth on wikipedia. it will be deleted?
(sorry for late reply got off the net because I got bored no body editing any pages or on talk :-(
Zain 01:27, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Abdel Qadir you should talk too

Abdel Qadir as you were the original provider of the pic you should talk too here. Plus I am seeing my watchlist gone too quite. Almost all of the changes I did today got to their places. getting kind of bore, no body discussing my changes any more in any page :-( Any ways please add some comments on the page. I'll like to listen your side too. As 'both sides' should be listened.

Zain 12:37, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Visual propaganda does not belong here

Please read the above discussion, instead of engaging in a counterproductive edit war. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 02:58, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Problem of 'work harder' in context of list of groups

I think there is some dispute here. With two different piont of views.

  1. Common in all these groups suggestions is 'work harder.
  2. Common in all these groups suggestions is 'protect children'.

Now please note that this groups include [Derek Summerfield] whose position is.

"The Israeli army, with utter impunity, has killed more unarmed Palestinian civilians since September 2000 than the number of people who died on September 11, 2001". He also speculated that the killing of Palestinian children might be deliberate, since "Two thirds of children killed died from small arms fire, directed in over half of cases to the head, neck and chest — the sniper's wound"

So I believe option2 is 'technicall correct'.

Zain 11:02, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Format guideline from Wikipedia manual of style

For the question of how to format the quote. I think following will be useable to understand my edit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style

"quotations may be better rendered in an indented style by starting the first line with a colon"

Zain 17:51, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You somehow left out the full sentence. Here it is: "Longer quotations may be better rendered in an indented style by starting the first line with a colon.". I'll restore the article to the Wikipedia Manual of Style standard now. Jayjg | (Talk) 18:03, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
First definition of long is always difficult. Plus wikipedia manual of style says nothing that if quote is small then you shouldn't indent!. But in the case of longer quote indent is even more suitable.
Let me show you the example from the article Quotation mark which is reffered in the manual of style. check the size of quotes and their indent.
Third if we quote more from the same person it will make the quote longer easier. Will have the same effect.
Zain 18:16, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I hadn't looked at the manual of style before I made my revert, but I agree that it just isn't long enough to warrant a block quote.. Many other style guides specify the length, so I'm surprised the guide doesn't apparently have a "rule of thumb" number.. However, if one reasons it out, one sees that the indentation interrupts the aesthetic of what should be a flowing sentence.. Tarek 18:30, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
You should have a look at article Quotation mark it is reffered in 'Manual of style', So more long a quote is more need there is of indent. But this doesn't mean that short sentences shouldn't be indented. Please see the article Quotation mark it will give you some idea.
Zain 18:36, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Zain. Please take a moment and meditate on these changes. What do you know that everybody else doesn't? To me, the article's aesthetic is impeded by the indentations, and the point is being changed. This is not Wikiquotes, so analysis is desirable. Truthful interpretation and extension is the goal of the article. Analyzing D.S. and quoting where his delivery is critical is good.. Why are you wasting your time (and ours) on this? The article could use ten thousand other things, like a good look at the UNICEF updates coming out of gaza. Tarek 19:10, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)


I am not giving any example from wikiquotes but Quotation mark which is an encylopedic article refered in 'Manual of style'. Ok I compromise with you here too but remember I am compromising with you then you will have to compromise with me too.
It isn't a "compromise" to allow proper style as per the Wikipedia style guide. And a part of a sentence is not a "Longer quotation" Jayjg | (Talk) 22:22, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)


Following are the reasons I supported indent
  1. Style says nowhere that if quotation is small then don't use indent.
  2. If quote is more then one line long it is a candidate for long.
  3. Breaking a quote by commenting between the quote, in attempt to explain what responder 'actually' wants to say is not NPOV. Responder himself is in the best position to say that what he 'actually' wants to say.
  4. I gave the example of article Quotation mark where smaller quotes then currently in focus quote are written in indented form. And that article is referred in 'wikipedia style manual'
Zain 22:52, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)


Reverts without explanations

I explained my change that best way to express a person opinion in an NPOV manner is to quote him exactly. What was attempted was to unquote a person to interpret what he 'actually' said. Best way is to quote him exactly no that we should try to explain what he said. Zain 19:01, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The quotation mark article only uses that style to clearly set off examples of usage. You are not doing that. One sentence is not long, and your deviations from the style guidelines made the article look bizarre. Jayjg | (Talk) 23:17, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
So you agree that article indents the small quotes too. But you only disagree with 'actual purpose'. Second u didn't any guide about 'small' quotes. Third you didn't answer 'breaking of quote to explain'. Fourth you did not give any definition of 'long' line.
Zain 23:27, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Killing of children is NOT propoganda

If it was anyone other than the Jews doing this, nobody would stand for it. I still fail to see how the Holocaust, whether it happened or not, justifies this.

The Jews treat the Palestians far worse than they themselves were treated by Nazis in the ghettos. Still, it's probably the most ironic repetition of history that's ever likely to happen.

I really hate the media when it comes to this sort of thing. Not only do they rarely show the stories when they happen (whereas suicide bombing is front page news) but the way they present it or cast dispersions on it as Palestinian propoganda is riduclous. They're not making up the fact that Israeli soldiers shoot Palestinian children.

And it annoys me that articles like this would be marked for deletion. This is what I see everywhere. There is always desperate effort to cover up Jewish acts of slaughter and terrorism. Why the hell is this? Hysteria over anti-semitism?

Unfortunately anti-semitism is now used as a moral shield to both attack opponents of the Jews (arabs, Germans, muslims, Cathalics and so on) and defend themselves from criticism. Like "whatever we do, it doesn't compare to the holocaust".

I just don't understand it. The ironic thing is that this behaviour gives everyone all the reasons in the world to hate Jews. Unsigned by User:Merrick.

And your point is... JFW | T@lk 21:15, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
His point is that he's a Nazi fuck (or whatever shorthand you want to use for Holocaust deniers; all he had to do was use the term "holohoax" once to make it clear for all to see what he is.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:34, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
And your point is? Plenty of intelligent, well informed people question the holocaust. That doesn't make them ignorant on every subject under the sun. I could just as easily say you are biased TOWARDS Jews. You really are incapable of not looking at things purely in black and white, aren't you?
Anyway, let me see if I can get your method down (by the way, calling someone a "Nazi fuck" isn't abuse? Would expect better from administrators...).
Me: I find the idea of wanting to remove a page on Israeli forces killing Palestinians on the basis of it being "propoganda" appaling.
You: You contributed to the Holocaust Denial page! You must be a NAZI! Therefore what you say isn't true, and there are no Palestinians being killed by Israelis. PROOF! Now I'll go an revert all your other edits too, because nobody who thinks revisionism holds any water at all can even be SANE! They are wrong about EVERYTHING!
Me: Uh, yeah...User:Merrick
I am sorry to observe that my earlier prediction turns true and this article attracts all kinds of scum here. Expect more with such a libelous POV title. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 06:11, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Why is this title POV but, say, Islam and anti-Semitism isn't? OneGuy 19:30, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
A perfect example. The title Islam and anti-Semitism doesn't imply that Islam is anti-Semitic. Compare with this title, suggesting that big bad Israelis routinely and intentionally use violence against poor, cuddly, peace-loving Palestinian children. Compare with neutral Violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, or Children in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, or Violence against children in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, etc. BTW, 95% of Palestinian fatalities are male. Why don't we create Israeli violence against Palestinian males? Here's a 11-year old attempted "victim" of "Israeli violence": [6]. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 04:12, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Well, I seriously doubt you will be happy if I create an article with the title Judaism and racism. Anyway, what about other pathetic POV titles like List of massacres committed during the Al-Aqsa Intifada? Where are your complaints about that? OneGuy 22:59, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Nazi fuck and now scum. Interesting.User:Merrick

I read all these comments but not getting what change in the content is asked for. Is it POV banner or any thing else? Can we be more specific?

Zain 20:18, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

==Psychological morbidity==

Either the article should be renamed, or the following text should be moved elsewhere:

As is the norm internationally, it is very difficult to assess psychological morbidity among Palestinian children. In one report, the Canadian Journal of Psychiatry estimated the rate of psychological morbidity in the southern region of Bethlehem in the West Bank, to be 42.3% among Palestinian children [7].
The rate for boys was 46.3% and for girls, 37.8%. This rate, the study reported, was twice the rate of psychological morbidity in the Gaza strip.
The study concluded that "Palestinian children in the southern Bethlehem region of the West Bank, Palestine, have an unusually high rate of emotional and behavioural problems", and would require "large-scale interventions ... to overcome the deleterious effects of these levels of psychological morbidity".
The study also noted that all data was collected in July, 2000, two months before the commencement of the Al-Aqsa intifada, and the accompanying significant upsurge of violence.

AFAIK, the IDF withdrew from these areas years before 2000 (please correct if I'm wrong). Perhaps the morbidity should be attributed to the Palestinian Authority-sponsored jihaducation? Or perhaps we should mention somewhere that under the PA, Bethlehem's Christian population almost disappeared? ←Humus sapiens←Talk 20:47, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That's not correct. Israel has several times invaded and occupied Bethlehem since then

Estimated losses in the Bethlehem District caused by the Israeli Invasion.

http://www.bethlehemassoc.org/beth_econdam_oct31.htm

OneGuy 08:58, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"The study also noted that all data was collected in July, 2000", your bill is for Oct 2001. Tough luck. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 09:46, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Here's the section, One Voice. Jayjg | (Talk) 20:52, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

DISPUTED NONSENSE

What does disputed POV nonsense about why new hospitals are not build and Israelis not being able to set a "foot" on Palestinian territory (except hundreds of thousands of illegal settlers of course) have to do with the topic??? OneGuy 08:13, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Another confirmation that this "article" is aimed only to demonize Israel and Israelis. An accusation was made that Israelis engage in deliberate and intentional vilence against Pal. children. An attributed quote of doctors involved with those children responding to that accusation were butchered on the "POV nonsense" grounds. Why the accused people aren't allowed to respond? To express POV is to cut out relevant parts of a quote that don't fit someone's agenda. B'Tselem's agenda is clearly not neutral. Any better source? Sidenote: I'd like to see the same level of vigor from the same contributors to defend Israeli children really targeted by terrorism in schoolbuses, discos and restaurants. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 08:45, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
To add irrelevant POV disputed nonsense that Israelis are not allowed to set a foot on Palestinian territory or why new hospitals were not build has nothing to do with the Israeli response to the topic .. do not insert irrelevant POV disputed claims that are not relevant to the topic OneGuy 08:45, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Here is the treatment of Israelis (including children) who entered the PA-ruled areas, most by mistake, some by stupidity (to trade or to shop): lynching, stoning, being fired at. I can bring the list if you'd like. Compare. Where is the article about that? ←Humus sapiens←Talk 09:17, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
There are already enough anti-Palestinian articles on wiki. You are free to create more, but do not insert irrelevant disputed claim in this article about whether or why new hospitals were built and whether Israeli can or can't enter Palestinian territory o. That's not relevant to the topic OneGuy 09:26, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Let's fix bad articles, but we can't do it by making another bad article. "That's not relevant to the topic": does this mean that this article is only to abuse one side without giving them a chance to respond? If you want to know, I consider myself both pro-Israeli and pro-Palestinian. I think that inciting violence, demonizing any one side or condemning anyone to continual misery and warring is wrong. I'd like both sides to live in peace and prosper. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 10:45, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
LOL. An authoritative source like B'Tselem's can't be cited on wiki and the quotes you posted can? You got to be kidding me OneGuy 08:47, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
No I am serious. I understand you don't have a better source? Go fish. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 09:11, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I won't even look for another source (even though there are many) because B'Tselem is far more authrotative source than all your quotes combind OneGuy 09:26, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
You are entitled to your opinion. In the spirit of good faith, I'm offering a compromise: I'll leave B'Tselem alone, you please leave alone the doctors' responses. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 09:35, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

3RR

OneGuy, you violated 3RR by reverting four times in 24 hours. [8] [9] [10] [11] --Viriditas | Talk 10:29, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

As I told you, I didn't not revert 4 times. The last one was not a revert. In any case, since you jumped in the middle of this edit dispute with a very bogus reason to do the 4th revert for Humus sapiens that the article is only about IDF violence against Palestinian children, I am forced now to create an article Israeli settlers violence against Palestinian children ... even though I wasn't that interested in this article or Israeli-Palestinian topics, but your behavior and unjust threats of banning me for reverts forced me into it OneGuy 10:56, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
And as I told you, you reverted the article four times. Policy is clearly defined. Your personal, pet policy definitions do not have any import, here. I have not "forced" you into doing anything. You are clearly incapable of taking responsibility for your own actions, including violating WP:3RR. --Viriditas | Talk 11:18, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
No, I didn't violate the 3 revert rule. The 4th edit was not a revert. The 4th edit above keeps all the quotes that Humus sapiens asked me on this talk page as a comprise. You are the one who reverted the article twice (to do the 4th and 5th revert for him) with a bogus reason that the article is only about IDF, forcing creation of a new article for settler violence OneGuy 11:25, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Yes, you violated the 3RR. The fourth edit you made was a revert to a previous version. You keep trying to change the subject to the reasons for my edits, which is a separate issue altogether. Blaming me for your inability to follow policy and refusing to recognize that you reverted the article four times shows your inability to comprehend WP:3RR. --Viriditas | Talk 11:36, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I am sure you know you are wrong but you refuse to admit it. Click on the third and fourth links above. They are different! The 4th one has all the quotes that are not in the third one. It's not a revert. You are the one who did the 4th revert for the my edit opponent with a bogus reason that the article is only about IDF OneGuy 11:45, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Complex or mixed reverts are still reverts. That is to say, your fourth edit is still considered a revert. You may insert your apology below. --11:56, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Treatment of Palestinian children in Israeli hospitals

To say that organized treatment of Palestinian children in Israeli hospitals by Israeli doctors doesn't have anything to do with the topic is bad faith. If an accusation was made that Israelis use violence against Palestinian children, we should allow the accused side to respond. If your agenda is to "blame the Jews", pick some hate blog, this is an encyclopedia. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 10:13, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You did not just respond to the accusation. You also inserted an irrelevant accusation about about whether or why not PA has built hospitals OneGuy 20:59, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
If the article insists on counting dead bodies and holding those numbers against the other side, it is very relevant what kind of medical care is being offered by each side.
  • "... the most significant factor in keeping the homicide rate down is... faster ambulances and better care in the emergency room." The letality rate is dropping by 70% in Israel." (The Ambulance-Homicide Theory, NYT Magazine, Dec 15, 2002)
  • Israeli health minister "has several times offered to treat all Palestinians wounded in the current Intifada at Israeli hospitals at Israeli expense", but the PA made a decision not to transfer wounded Palestinians to Israeli hospitals (whose treatment of patients is non-political and non-discriminatory.) (JPost, April 18, 2002)
  • "The Palestinians have mastered a harsh arithmetic of pain... Palestinian casualties play in their favor, and Israeli casualties play in their favor." (NYT, March 18, 2002 by James Bennett).

←Humus sapiens←Talk 22:43, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, one can argue that Israel is responsible for health situation of Palestinian areas because Israel has control over Palestinian economy. I too can post irrelevant quotes in the article like "We shall reduce the Arab population to a community of woodcutters and waiters" Uri Lubrani, PM Ben-Gurion's special adviser on Arab Affairs, 1960. However, this would not lead to anything but more disputes. The article is about Israeli violence against Palestinian children, not disputed claims of whether Palestinians received more foreign aid than Israel or whether or why new hospitals were built. OneGuy 23:00, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

As long as fatalities numbers are cited, the quality of medical care is relevant. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 23:16, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
However, the reason for why the quality of medical care is worse or better is not relevant. That is a separate disputed debate OneGuy 23:47, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

i suppose this is pointless, but

let me suggest: how about moving this to Under-age victims in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict or something similar? It will make the article less incencing at first sight to the pro-Israeli-pov, and the content will of course still make clear that about 6 times as many Palestinian children were killed. We do have the custom to "let the facts speak for themselves" on WP. dab (ᛏ) 11:12, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)


See, 'title wars'. We don't want them. Zain's post here is a threat of disruption in my view. dab (ᛏ) 15:07, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Removing content by OneGuy

OneGuy claims: This article addresses only one specific subset of psychological, physical and political violence: that by the Israeli government, Israeli Defence Forces (IDF), and Israeli settlers against Palestinian. In fact, the article does nothing of the sort. I removed the references to the government and the settlers, and left in the IDF, since that's exactly what the article currently addresses: the majority of injuries happening as a result of Israeli army activity. OneGuy has labeled this editing, "bogus". --Viriditas | Talk 11:40, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Once again you are wrong. The article says:

Children are the most impacted and least deserving victims of war and conflict - a truism that is manifest in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Since the outbreak of the Al-Aqsa intifada in September 2000, which marked the beginning of the most recent upsurge in violence in Israel/Palestine, at least 603 Palestinian and 112 Israeli minors (under age 18) have been killed, according to the Israeli human rights group B'Tselem [12].

If you click on that B'Tselem link, you will find

34 Palestinians were killed by Israeli civilians, including Four minors: Two were age 17, One was age 14 and One was a Two month- old baby girl.

You are wrong that the article is only about IDF. The B'Tselem article it links to has both IDF and settler violence. You unjustly did the 4th edit for my opponent with very bogus claim that the article is only about IDF. After that, you wrongly accused me of 4 reverts and threats of banning OneGuy 11:52, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You can say "you are wrong" as many times as you like, but it's still not true. And I am trying to keep the two issues (reasons for my reverts and your violation of 3RR) separate while you continue to try and distort the issue. You reverted the page four times. Humus never explicitly asked you to revert, quite the opposite in fact. He explicitly warned you not to revert. There was no "wrongful accusation". You clearly reverted the page four times as the edit history demonstrates. --Viriditas | Talk 12:02, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Of course he did ask me for a comprise as anyone can read above, until you came along with your bogus 4th revert for him. If your only problem was with settlers, why didn't you just fix that part instead of reverting the whole article 4th time for him? Can you explain that? OneGuy 12:35, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

but there is also:

3,040 Palestinians were killed by Israeli security forces, including 606 minors, in the Occupied Territories.
34 Palestinians were killed by Israeli civilians, including Four minors
429 Israeli civilians were killed by Palestinians, residents of the Occupied Territories. 78 of them were minors under the age of 18.

so I suppose the number should be updated from 603 to 606 by security forces and four by civilians, i.e. 610 total, and apparently 78 minors were killed by palestinians (according to this source). It appears that some 75 of these 610 palestinians killed were combattants, in spite of being minors. But what is the point of this disgusting body count? Whoever manages to kill more people loses? dab (ᛏ) 12:07, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

OneGuy, please make clear how your fourth edit was not a revert. I understood it was agreed with Humus, but I am not sure I understand any of this correctly now. dab (ᛏ) 12:07, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It's pretty simple. The 4th edit has all the quotes that were deleted from the 3rd edit. It was not exact copy of the 3rd edit. It left all the quotes in the article OneGuy 12:10, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

so it seems your 4th revert only reverted parts of the material reverted earlier. Note that this still makes it a revert. Reverts are defined as reverts even when including other changes. It would seem that you have broken the 3RR after all. I have asked for another admin to confirm that. It does appear that you were under the impression that only identical reverts contribute to the 3RR. This is not the case, and you should consider yourself having received fair warning, even if this particular incident should not result in a block. dab (ᛏ) 12:17, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Besides the 34 death, there many other examples of settler violence. The article also links to CPT article, and CPT usually deal with settler violence against Palestinian ... example of CPT report report

http://www4.alternativenews.org/display.php?id=3650

Several incident have been reported by international eyewitnesses, among them The Ecumenical Accompaniment Program in Palestine and Israel [EAPPI] and The Christian Peacemaker Team [CPT]. The aggressive settler-attacks have been aimed at young Palestinian girl when leaving the school passing by the illegal settlement of Beit Hadassah.

In 3 separate incidents, young Palestinian girls have been targeted by stone-throwing youths. In one case, some 20 young Israeli settlers attacked an 11-year-old girl. The girl was injured and taken to the local medical clinic after being hit by a stone in her neck. Another 15-year-old girl was beaten to the ground and kicked by a settler man. Another settler beat a pregnant staff member with a stick.

Israeli soldiers have showed little interest in preventing these unprovoked aggressions. On the contrary, their indifference has served as a ‘carte blanche’ for the hostile harassments and attacks carried out by settlers against the school children.

On Tuesday and Thursday of last week, soldiers prevented internationals from EAPPI from remaining in area H2 without stating any clear explanation. The deliberate obstruction of international presence and human rights observers from such locales strengthens the ability of settlers to violate and harass young Palestinian schoolgirls OneGuy 12:28, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Lovely. In addition to this "article", why don't we create Israeli settlers who violate young Palestinian schoolgirls? You'll have to make up your mind, are they landgrabbers or babykillers or perverts? And don't forget, they also slaughtered baby Jesus and William of Norwich. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 22:31, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, right. Humus sapiens is trying to play the old "anti-semetism" card again to muffle the criticism of Israel and illegal settlers on Palestinian territory. Sorry but that nonsense is not going to work. OneGuy 22:46, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
As pre-1948 and pre-1967 Arab violence indicates, (and Jordan and Egypt's occupation of WB&GS 1948-1967), the problem is not "the occupation". But even if one accepts this POV:
  1. Is WP somehow insured from anti-Semitism, whose level is rising: even Kofi Annan, EU leaders and US State Dept report that? What do you call accusations that Israel's official policy is systematic and intentional violence against Palestinian children when it is not? Israelis minimize civilian casualties by using high-tech precision weapons, etc.
  2. Explain why only the Jewish state is being singled out for demonization and condemnation, alone from those listed in belligerent occupation? Show me another article about A's violence against B children. Where are Palestinian violence against Palestinian children or Palestinian violence against Israeli children? Not enough humanists here? ←Humus sapiens←Talk 00:54, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Jewish state is not being singled out. There are many articles on wiki that have anti-Palestinian or anti-Arab tone. Above you tried to muzzle any criticism of Israel or illegal settlers by calling it "anti-semetism", but such nonsense won't fly OneGuy 04:46, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
We don't fix "anti-Palestinian or anti-Arab tone" by creating an anti-Semitic article. The problem is, the Jewish state is being singled out: please answer to the questions above. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 05:49, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for providing the link to belligerent occupation. That article needs to be fixed. It has pro-Israel bias, not anti-Israel. Why isn't Israeli occupation of the West Bank, Gaza, and Golan Heights mentioned in Significant contemporary occupations' section in that article? The article clearly has pro-Israeli bias and needs to be fixed OneGuy 06:10, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
YAW. But why still no answer on two questions above? ←Humus sapiens←Talk 06:42, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I wonder whether there's an Islamic violence against women page? SlimVirgin 00:56, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
And where is the article called Violence against women in Jewish Bible? There are numerous articles on Islam and Islamist terrorism, including articles like Islamism with negative tones. There is also an article called Islam and anti-Semitism with a very negative tone. Where is the article called Judaism and racism? Why is that missing and why don't you wonder about that? Don't "wonder" selectively OneGuy 04:46, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Once again, Islam and anti-Semitism doesn't imply that Islam actually is anti-Semitic, whereas this title is clearly accusatory. BTW it was created by a user who's been banned for his hate speech and inability/unwillingness to edit from NPOV. You are welcome to start any other article you want, as long as you comply with the WP policies. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 05:49, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
It's irrelevant whether the title directly implies that or not. An article with the title Islam and anti-Semitism will have negative tone. That's given. If someone creates an article with the title Judaism and racism against non-Jews. Would you be happy? I seriously doubt that OneGuy 06:10, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Go ahead, create it. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 06:42, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Viriditas revert

Viriditas now claims that his bogus 4th revert for Humus sapiens was because the article doesn't cite examples of settler violence. However, Viriditas did not just fix the part that he had a problem with. He reverted the entire article (doing essentially the 4th revert for Humus sapiens --- including removing the entire paragraph about psychological effect on children without a valid justification). His justification for that bogus 4th revert (including removing that paragraph?) .. "the article is about IDF violence". Go figure! OneGuy 12:45, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Everyone is responsible for their own edits, I haven't authorized anyone to edit or "revert for Humus sapiens". Are you implying some kind of consiracy here? Tell us more! ←Humus sapiens←Talk 23:20, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I didn't say you asked him to do the 4th revert. However, Viriditas did the 4th edit for you with a bogus reason given that the article is only about IDF. He did not, however, just fix that part; he reverted the entire article, including removing the entire paragraph on psychological effect on children. Clearly this was a bogus 4th revert by Viriditas for you, whether you asked him or not is irrelevant OneGuy 23:45, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Children_in_the_Israeli–Palestinian_conflict/Archive_2&oldid=1136332966"