Talk:List of Israeli civilian casualties in the Second Intifada/Archive 3

Reason for article move to List of major attacks on Israeli civilians during the Second Intifada

This was my full edit summary, which was cut off: Inappropriate for WP to create its own ad hoc definition of "massacre," in order to express our outrage about what RSs call "suicide bombings." When neutral & non-neutral phrases both yield the same list, you go with the former, per NPOV. --G-Dett 18:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

A bold improvement, but "civilians" is problematic. Uniformed but unarmed soldiers on a civilian bus (Megiddo Junction bombing) are non-combatants, armed civilian security guards in downtown Hebron may be combatants. I also wonder about the "more than ten" criterion leading to the "major"; it seems so arbitrary that it could be original research. Oh well, we'll hash it out eventually. <eleland/talkedits> 18:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, the list is built around "deliberate attacks against civilians in which ten people or more have been killed," so using the word "civilian" in the title shouldn't itself be a problem. If including attacks on unarmed soldiers or civilian security guards is a problem, then it's a problem for the contents of the list, not its title. Armon and Tewfik have objected to moves that "redefine the list." My move leaves the list's definition and criteria 100% untouched; all it does is modify the title so that it reflects that definition and that criteria in a neutral and transparent way. Now, is it OR to define attacks killing more than 10 people as "major"? Perhaps. But only insofar as the criteria "more than 10 people" is arbitrary and therefore original research to begin with. If we accept that a useful list can be created around an arbitrary cut-off point, then the only question is, what's the most neutral, non-contentious way to name this cut-off point? "Major" is the best I can think of, but I'm open to suggestions.--G-Dett 18:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Saying that you left "the list's definition and criteria 100% untouched" while limiting the list to only one side is inconsistent. How massacre is ad-hoc while "major attacks on civilians" is okay I don't understand, but I'll take you at your word. Tewfik^Talk 22:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'm following you Tewfik; I thought you wanted to keep attacks on Palestinian civilians off this list. I'd like to keep them off, because I don't relish the idea of a POV-war over the thorny question of intent – a POV-war that will be truly unmanageable, because RSs describing Israeli attacks as "deliberate" and "willful" are as plentiful as those denying that charge. Regarding the semantic distinction between "massacre" and "major attacks on civilians," do you really not understand? If this is a mother-tongue vs. second-language issue, forgive me for pointing out the following: the word "massacre" is one of the most emotionally and ethically charged terms in the English language, as well as one of the most slippery.--G-Dett 23:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm also puzzled how a list of attacks on Israeli civilians would be a "POV-fork."--G-Dett 23:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Well if the "POV-war" that you are threatening is "unmanageable", perhaps I should accede. Tewfik^Talk 23:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Tewfik, this isn't a grudge match, and I've all but promised not to edit-war with you over the contents of this list! Look beyond you and me; if this list doesn't designate that we're talking about attacks on Israeli civilians only, there will be no end of editorial dispute. And both sides of that dispute will be well stocked with reliable sources. There is simply no need to do this. Everyone here wants this to be a list of major attacks on Israeli civilians; but you want to tweak the title to make a point, to convey your belief that whatever the reliable sources may say, in your view Israelis haven't/don't attack Palestinian civilians. Building that POV into the title does not enhance this list as a source of information, it does no service for the reader, and it's a violation of WP:NPOV. By the way, a POV-fork is "content fork deliberately created to avoid neutral point of view guidelines"; how does giving this list a neutral and indisputable title do that?--G-Dett 00:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Tewfik, you are not acting with good faith here. An article with this title and content is a pamphlet. I agree with keeping the content as it is but the fact that it only refers to Israeli deaths must be reflected in the title. As G-dett says, this article currently reads as someone trying to make a point.

The article is a POV fork since it refers to only deaths on one side. We are all being extremely flexible in allowing it to remain that way, so please do not cross the boundaries of what is reasonable.

--Burgas00 18:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it squeaks by the POV fork problem. The last AfD discussion was closed with the conclusion, "the actions of one group are represented; this is not necessarily, however, a NPOV violation ... The division of casualties by group-affiliation in a conflict is not arbitrary, though it is sure to be contentious what to call these groups in a conflict of this kind ... Division of the casualties by partisanship is permitted for reason of economy." I think this is basically correct. If it was an article, and not just a list, the question of POV forking would be more serious. <eleland/talkedits> 19:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Then the issue is whether the division by national affiliation should be pointed out in the title. I think a RfC is called for on this issue.--Burgas00 21:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Third opinion

I've just discovered this article, and have played no part in the disputes over it thus far. Here are my immediate thoughts:

• 'Massacres' is undoubtedly a POV word to use, and the ad hoc definition used here is arguably original research. The title definitely needs to change.
• Before it can be changed, though, it needs to be worked out what the scope of this list actually is. Is it meant to cover all attacks on civilians during the Second Intifada? Only intentional attacks on civilians, ruling out those killed in crossfire/'collateral damage'? Only attacks on civilians by Palestinian groups? Only suicide bombings? Any of those would be a perfectly legitimate choice for a list, but at the moment it is simply not clear what this list is intended to cover.
• If it's only meant to be a list of Palestinian attacks on civilians, then the title ought to reflect that. I'm not personally aware if there were any 'massacres' committed by Israelis against Palestinians in the Second Intifada; but at the moment, it's not clear whether the absence of Israeli 'massacres' from the list is because this list isn't meant to cover them, or because no such thing ever actually happened. Which is it? Terraxos 03:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Terraxos, thank you for weighing in here; third opinions are most welcome. Given that "massacre" is an highly charged, emotional word with no technical definition, the question of whether Israeli massacres have occurred is predictably contentious and probably moot. With a consensus emerging that "massacre" is inappropriate for this list, a better question might be, has the IDF targeted civilians in the second intifada? In some instances, the answer is pretty clearly yes; that is, there are documented instances where civilians were deliberately targeted, willfully killed, etc. In other instances, the debate gets very thorny, with some RSs claiming that the IDF's goal is always and everywhere to minimize civilian casualties, and other RSs claiming that civilian casualties in fact form part of the Israeli calculus of collective punishment. For example, when the IDF detonated a one-ton bomb in a densely populated residential neighborhood, killing one Hamas leader and 15 civilians, including 9 children, and Sharon declared the operation ""one of the most successful actions ever," some saw the 15:1 ratio of civilian to militant casualties as within the definition of "collateral damage"; others interpreted the devastated neighborhood as an Israeli warning to Palestinian civilians not to give comfort and quarter to militants.

The debates about intent are way too thorny to be managed successfully by a Wikipedia list of "major attacks against civilians." The editors who want that generic title for a list that only includes attacks on Israelis want to foreclose the RS-debate through insinuation, by endorsing the view that Israel never "intends" to kill Palestinians. The (hypothetical) editors who would then respond to such a list by adding major Israeli attacks with high civilian:militant kill ratios would be trying to foreclose the RS-debate in the other direction.

But there is absolutely no need to foreclose this debate either way. Doing so is a violation of WP:NPOV, and anyhow provides no service whatsoever to the reader. This list is useful as an information reference, not as an ethical argument. There are two ways to organize the material: either a single list for Israelis and Palestinians, or separate lists. Either way we need a neutral title that doesn't invite dispute. For a single inclusive list, something like "Major attacks involving civilians in the 2nd Intifada," where the criteria could be specified as 10 or more. For separate lists, something like "Major attacks on Israeli civilians" and "Major attacks involving Palestinian civilians." The different emphasis between the latter two would reflect that the RS-debate about intent is settled with regards to one list but not the other. The inclusive approach on the other hand would avoid the question of intent entirely, while leaving the reader no less informed, which is the goal of such lists. Both approaches are acceptable; the present list is not.--G-Dett 16:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Talk page redirects resolved

A number of moves created more than double level redirects. All corresponding talk pages redirect here. Best wishes choosing the final name. – Conrad T. Pino 03:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Third Opinion

‘Massacre’ is definitely POV and should be removed; that will also add those incidents with less than 10 dead. There is no real way to equate deaths as a result of suicide bombs with those from ‘collateral damage’, except by body count, and that is the way it should be. They are all dead and bled red. A human rights perspective should be used and RSs are available. In any case, an encyclopedic article must cover deaths on both sides and in approximately equal length/detail.

I note the following comment under ‘Deliberate Ommission’ from nearly a year ago: “The figures dont seem to add up here. Over 3500 Palestinians were killed by Israeli forces during the Al Aqsa intifada, compared to 1000 Israelis by Palestinian militant groups. Does none of those 3500 deaths qualify as a "massacre"? Or where they all accidents or "incidents"? I think Israeli military action against civilians should be also included in this article lest it seem POV and politically motivated.” I totally agree.

The current list is absolutely one sided; I could find nothing equivalent for the other side. This approach is absolutely POV and not encyclopedic. If Wikipedia can’t come up with an equal way to deal with ongoing-death on both sides, then I don’t see much chance of Wiki-success. --CasualObserver'48 06:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

All of these arguments have been repeated ad nauseam, but Tewfik continues to revert. What is the next step to solve this situation? --Burgas00 22:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, given that the page is protected, maybe we could continue to discuss here – with the third parties involvement if possible – which is preferable: a single list with a noncontroversial title (a la Major attacks involving civilians in the 2nd Intifada), or separate lists with titles reflecting the difference in RS-consensus regarding the two (say Major attacks on Israeli civilians vs. Major attacks involving Palestinian civilians). We could open a wider RfC if necessary. When we come to a reasonable conclusion with strong support, if the page is still protected we could ask the protecting editor to instate the change.--G-Dett 23:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I personally am not going to repeat myself indefinitely. The issue is far too straightforward. Can someone open a wider RfC please?--Burgas00 14:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I understand and share your frustration. My hope is that Terraxos and CasualObserver will continue to contribute to the discussion, and that we can now move forward. I think there's a solid consensus emerging that the title should be neutral and non-insinuating – that is, designed to name the contents of the list(s) in a non-contentious way rather than building a tacit ethical argument around them. (The point of lists is to organize information for the reader in a helpful way, not to teach the reader a lesson about right and wrong.) The question before us is whether we should have separate lists or a single comprehensive lists for all attacks with significant civilian casualties. I incline towards the former, because the reliable sources by and large are agreed that suicide bombings and the like target civilians, but they are divided on whether (and to what extent) soldiers in tanks shooting stone-throwing youths, or F16s and Apache gunships bombing and rocketing residential neighborhoods, constitutes targeting of civilians. Given that the RSs view the two kinds of attacks differently with regards to intent, the wisest solution seems to me to be separate lists, with titles reflective of their certainty on one side of the ledger, and their ambiguity/ambivalence on the other – i.e. List of major attacks on Israeli civilians and List of major attacks involving Palestinian civilians. For what it's worth, I personally agree with CasualObserver that "there is no real way to equate deaths as a result of suicide bombs with those from ‘collateral damage’, except by body count," but the consensus wisdom of reliable sources, which is what we're bound by here, is somewhat different.--G-Dett 17:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I have been watching the Israel/Palestine/Jerusalem/Mideast situation for over 30 yrs, starting when I ended up on that side of the world in October’73. The continuing non-peace/war leads to death on both sides; the common denominator, on the most basic human rights level is body count, period. I believe that that should be the encyclopedic view. I understand this is hard for some to accept, because the numbers are truly asymmetric.

It is asymmetric warfare and thus people die in varying numbers and ways, but not in degrees, because death is permanent. The method of death in this conflict depends largely on which side you reside. Concerning whether Israeli actions constitutes targeting of civilians really doesn’t matter; the question is whether civilians died as a result of Isreali actions. Until all editors accept the fact that life is the sacred yardstick and a Palestinian life is as valuable as an Israeli life, the perfect article either can not be written or will not be allowed.

I am of the opinion that all Israeli civilian/unarmed deaths should be included in this article, major incident or not. I ran across one article (but lost it) that listed annual tolls with a lot of other ‘stabbed in the street’ and ‘found dead in car’ fatalities. There is certainly no lack of involvement and RS on the Israeli side. I have no objection with their inclusion, as long as it doesn’t end up as the repository for every unsolved murder. There is also the continuing problem of rockets out of Gaza which so far have killed in smaller but unending numbers.

For titles, I like List of fatalities from attacks on Israeli civilian during the Second Intifada and List of Palestinian civilian fatalities during the Second Intifada. I can not come up with a parallel wording because the one side has real attacks and the other just has real deaths. But it also indicates the difference between big blasts and an endless stream of single bullets.

So let Tewfik have his pique, another article we should seek. I will be interested to see the level and volume of his involvement

The future job is to write a companion article to report fatalities on the Palestinian side. I haven’t found one in Wiki, have you? Once that is done maybe the two can be melded; I’d like to see it put in an historic context with the summary ‘list’ at the end. It is probably best to keep this page locked, except for likely updates and a link to the new ‘Palestinian civilian fatalities’ article. I believe that the discussion has been stabbed sufficiently (January 2004 to November 2007) to allow, and in fact, make necessary the POV fork.

I see some real problems with the new article. Some may revolve around the suggested title. Others will be general lack or inequality of coverage and a relative lack of RS in English. Another will be terminology, which will become obvious. I am willing to include all fatalities on both ides because the Palestinians tend to die in continuing small numbers, rather than in specific big blasts. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. The point is to make the articles representative of the fatalities. Currently, they do not add up to the truth.--User:CasualObserver'48 06:19, 4 November 2007 --CasualObserver'48 06:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

It would be worth reading the discussion at the last afd. It's unfair to say "let Tewfik have his pique" when he's only defending the decision reached there. It's quite obvious that the "pique" is being exhibited by those who didn't get their way. <<-armon->> 12:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I have not been involved before, so it is the way it is as a result of other people. I never asked or voted for AfD; the article should stay. I just have real trouble with the word 'massacre' in this title and there are no no similar articles which represents the death toll on the other side. I did not read the archived previous Afd and saw no link to it, sorry, I'm a newbie, but since the current page is already too lengthy, I felt I had gotten the gist. --CasualObserver'48 13:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)--CasualObserver'48 13:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, but if you read over the AFD, you'll get a distilled version of the debate pro and con with more people involved. What you're seeing here is just the overlong repetition of was was asserted there -as if it never happened. <<-armon->> 22:58, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Whatever Tewfik is doing, he's clearly not defending the decision reached at the last AfD. Firstly, what survived that AfD was a List of attacks committed during the Second Intifada, not the List of massacres during the Second Intifada, which is what Tewfik keeps edit-warring in. Pretty big difference there, which Armon would realize if he read and understood the discussions he variously invokes, ignores, enters into, or waves off. Secondly, Tewfik keeps claiming that a clear division of casualties by nationality is a violation of WP:POVFORK, whereas the AfD Armon refers to explicitly decided the opposite: "The division of casualties by group-affiliation in a conflict is not arbitrary, though it is sure to be contentious what to call these groups in a conflict of this kind. It is a neutral (though very sad) fact that Palestinians and Israelis have killed each other. Division of the casualties by partisanship is permitted for reason of economy." Tewfik needs to explain his edit-warring, which far from "defending" the last AfD decision, flies directly in the face of it.--G-Dett 15:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

As Eleland pointed out in his nom, This article was recently moved from List of massacres committed during the al-Aqsa Intifada, an even more clearly POV title; now it's just a better disguised POV fork. The word "massacres" is not the problem you guys have with it. If it were, then my suggestion to rename it to List of attacks on noncombatants during the Second Intifada would have settled the issue. <<-armon->> 22:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Propagandistic use of the word "massacres" is one of the problems we've identified here, and it is certainly the main problem with the version of the list Tewfik has edit-warred into place. For the problem with List of attacks on noncombatants during the Second Intifada, see my comments time-stamped 16:31, 2 November 2007 and 23:11, 31 October 2007 above. As a general rule, you'd do well to read and understood the debates you participate in.--G-Dett 23:34, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Except it's not a debate -the correct term for what you're doing is filibuster. <<-armon->> 03:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Armon, I don't think these kind of accusations add anything to the discussion. And I'll also ask that you not make comments which give the impression that you think you understand our motives better than we do. My position is that an article titled "list of massacres/attacks/etc during the Intifada," which only lists one side of the conflict, is a POV fork. I think this is true even if the list criteria are designed so that theoretically, attacks by the other side could be listed, but in practice won't be. However, as I clearly stated in my AfD nom from August, "There's nothing inherently wrong with those articles [which] list attacks of a specific group, and are honest about it." Hence, I would accept either a list which includes all major incidents involving noncombatant casualties, or two lists which list those incidents in relation to one side or the other. This is not some pre-planned subterfuge or co-ordinated conspiracy, this is a good-faith effort by good-standing Wikipedians to reach a neutral and verifiable set of articles. And so far as I can see, it's supported — with varying degrees of enthusiasm — by everyone here, including editors with no discernible POV on Middle East issues, and opposed by Tewfik and yourself. A filibuster is, by definition, an effort by a vocal minority to prevent resolution of a debate. If there's any filibustering going on here, it's not by myself or G-Dett. <eleland/talkedits> 04:23, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Armon, I want to understand you. You said, "The word "massacres" is not the problem you guys have with it", then please explain what you think "we guys" do think. I will say that I do not think that your proposed alternative title "List of attacks on noncombatants during the Second Intifada" will work well, because the word "noncombatants" will be endlessly debated. The equal, neutral and human measure is body count.

I have never been thru an RfC, so will await what happens.CasualObserver'48 05:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)--CasualObserver'48 12:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm only going by what's been stated here. It's not the word "massacres" in itself, but the fact that there aren't any Israeli ones to add to the list. As it's survived 2 afds, the only thing the delete voters can hope to do is to redefine the list into something else -a deletion by other means. Here is what I said at the afd: Keep it's a list, it has clear criteria, it's cited. In fact, it has the same criteria as List of massacres committed during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war. The problem seems to be some editors think it makes Hamas, al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades, and Islamic Jihad "look bad". Killing civilians makes them look bad. This is obviously the problem. As for the total "body count" issue, I do tend to to see your point, but that's out of the scope of this list. That's what the main Second intifada article is for. Even so, at that article, I'm having to insist that some of the same editors as here stick to the source about what's presented in the causalities infobox. I don't care what people's opinions on the conflict are, everybody has some, what irritates me is when that gets in the way of our mission: a WP:NPOV encyclopedia. WP should be where you go to get facts, not "spin". There are a million blogs for that. Rant over. <<-armon->> 11:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

You're not "going by what's been stated here," Armon. You're alternately ignoring and misrepresenting what's been stated here, same as you've misrepresented the AfDs, and even misrepresented the position of your ally Tewfik. As for the high-minded boilerplate, it all sounds well and good but there's just no evidence that you sincerely subscribe to any of it.--G-Dett 15:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I do not understand your reticence to open a RfC, G-Dett. Trust me, there is no way you are going to acheive consensus or come to any agreement no matter how conciliatory or reasonable you show yourself. --Burgas00 18:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, Burgas, I'll open one.--G-Dett 19:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

My reticence about opening an RfC is that I'm not clear what we'd be asking. The only serious discussion on this page is whether to present separate lists by nationality (along the lines of my suggestions of CasualObserver's) or a single list with a non-tendentious title. There is a very small minority – consisting of two editors – who don't like these options but can't/won't say why or otherwise engage discussion. One edit-wars when the page is open and goes AWOL when it's not, and the other meanwhile fills the page with trolling non sequiturs, bad-faith red herrings and strawman arguments, and systematic misrepresentations of everything from the positions of other editors to the outcomes of AfDs. Would an RfC simply address the serious question, or would it rather try to break up the impasse brought about by Armon's ideological filibuster? If the former, it's hardly necessary; the shades of difference between Burgas00, Eleland, Terraxos, CasualObserver, and myself can be easily worked out. If the latter, it's not clear to me what it would accomplish; Armon has not understood or engaged the discussion thus far, and I don't see how his behavior would change if the discussion were widened.--G-Dett 15:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I have trouble assuming good faith with Armon and Tewfik so Ill keep my opinion to myself.--Burgas00 18:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I would also add user User:Okedem to the list of users who have been reasonable and tried to resolve this dispute in good faith.--Burgas00 18:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

When the "delete faction" is done patting themselves on the back about how easy it is for them to come to agreement, and how obvious everyone else's bad faith is maybe they could read the closing admin's rationale, and offer some constructive suggestions in line with that. <<-armon->> 22:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

We're not a faction but an overwhelming majority, we are not going to delete this article but rename it, we've read the closing admin's rationale and in fact had to explain it to you after you repeatedly misrepresented it, and finally, we've been discussing a number of suggestions, all of which you've misrepresented and/or failed to engage, and one of which will happen with or without your approval. Troll's veto will only take you so far, Armon. Opting out of the discussion is your prerogative, but it isn't imcumbent upon any editor here – as Burgas has pointed out – to keep reiterating elementary points for the benefit of a troll who doesn't read or understand them.--G-Dett 00:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

There is a world of difference between consensus and agreement between four users who came from another page in which they were also in agreement, the SPA discounted. There is a world of difference between "discussion" and the stream of incivility that has been hurled at anyone who dares disagree, and which I'll be shocked if even this post isn't met with. Tewfik^Talk 02:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I find your post downright offensive, Tewfik. Burgas, Terraxos, IP198, TheFEARgod, CasualObserver, Eleland, DBWikis, Okedem, and I have all raised valid points about the neutrality of this title and made productive alternative suggestions, all the while engaging opposition from each other and other editors directly and in good faith. There has been plenty of disagreement between the editors named, even deep-rooted ideological disagreement, and yet discussion has continued – with civility, honesty, probity, and assumption of good faith all around, so unsurprisingly we've made genuine progress. Two or three feet up this page DBWikis and I were engaged in one such serious discussion, one that was getting somewhere, when Armon interrupted with a series of inane insults. He has been trolling ever since, with post after post engaging in faked strawman arguments, obnoxious pseudo-suggestions ("list of mass murders" etc.), condescending non sequiturs, and misrepresentations of past decisions and present positions the collective point of which is to shove his middle finger incessantly in the eye of his interlocutors. If you are genuinely concerned with the "incivility hurled at anyone who dares disagree," take it up with Armon. We have been begging him to stop trolling to no avail; you might find you have greater influence with him. In the meantime there are decisions to be made about this page, and troll's veto has run its course.--G-Dett 03:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Intersubjectivity is not objectivity (J.L.Mackie in Ethics. Inventing Right and Wrong) Assuming we are here only bunch of subjectives trying to hash out something informative with semblance of NPOV there probably should be need to partition the contention pertaining to the present article along the divides outlined by Terraxos above - i.e. whether it should apply to both sides, whether it should emphasize the means used by perpetrators (e.g. suicide bombing, Kassam rocket, etc.), whether suspect cases like Battle of Jenin should be forced into the list while the jury is still out. I personally sided with List of attacks involving non-combatants during the Second Intifada (thus avoiding major and related quantitative criteria) and also proposed to sort Battle of Jenin controveries out in its dedicated place not here. Addition Notes column will be of good use here to qualify cases like killing of Shehada i.e. operations with significant collateral toll.

There was also question why term massacre is not tolerated here while List of massacres committed during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war for example seems to be Ok; I personally think it should be avoided everywhere, at least in all places where its use is contentious. Also staying on personal note, I think we should try and remind ourselves that this is not the best forum for settling the historical verdicts regarding various disputes - and in fact WP:OR policy must be quite enough a justification. DBWikis 19:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I again agree with your position, as I believe does Armon. It seems that Okedem, Terraxos, and TheFEARgod also supported use of different language, although Beit Or questioned the inconsistent usage of "massacre". Okedem explicitly opposed inclusion of events such as Battle of Jenin as well. To G-Dett: the incivility that I've seen has been directed at Armon [and myself]. Take a break, invite HG, or call an RfC if you like, but "this" discussion needs to cool down. Tewfik^Talk 01:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

DBWikis, List of attacks involving non-combatants during the Second Intifada is a perfectly sensible suggestion. I have inclined (ever so slightly) to dividing these lists by nationality simply in order to prevent unnecessary edit-warring over gray areas. Note that I've never added Jenin to this list in any of its guises; rather, I've pushed (and continue to push) for a title in which it would be absolutely clear and non-controversial whether Jenin (and similar events) would be included or not included. I've also mildly preferred lists-by-nationality because it would allow for the ethical distinction some editors understandably wish to include between the nature of Israeli attacks and Palestinian attacks. My guide here is not my own opinion (which is pretty close to Casual Observer's, and skeptical of this distinction), but rather the consensus view of RSs, who are agreed that Palestinian attacks involve deliberate killing of civilians, but are divided on whether Israeli attacks fit this description. Separate lists would allow for certainty in one title and ambiguity in the other (i.e. attacks on civilians vs. attacks involving civilians). But I am of course open to an inclusive list with an inclusive title.

Regarding the 1948 list of "massacres," as I made clear in a previous reply to Tewfik, I have not closely scrutinized that list and cannot say if that title is appropriate. If the term "massacre" is not generally accepted currency for the events listed therein, then it absolutely should not be in the title. But I do not see it as automatic that the nomenclature for a list of events from 2000-2007 should be pegged to the nomenclature for a list of events from a half a century before. The obvious distinction being that as events recede into the past, a scholarly and popular consensus nomenclature tends to consolidate. The Boston massacre is the Boston massacre, period; that's how it's known. Same deal with the Deir Yassin massacre. But if the nomenclature has not generally consolidated with regards to the events on the 1948 list, and if the title has been chosen to impart to the reader a moral judgment, then it should be changed. No doubt about it. I will have a look at the list.

Tewfik, Armon has been egregiously trolling this page. I do not owe him any apology for saying as much. On the contrary, he owes me thanks for my patience, and he owes everyone here an apology for wasting our time, misrepresenting our positions and insulting our intelligence. But water under the bridge; let's move on.--G-Dett 04:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Well I'm sorry the WP:CIVIL policy is rarely enforced. You should be thankful for that. When you're done, I'm happy to move on. <<-armon->> 01:45, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I haven't commented here in a while, but I'm just coming back to say I broadly agree with the points made by G-Dett above. Specifically:

• The word 'massacre' may not be appropriate for the title of this page, while it is in the article about the 1948 war, and that's not necessarily a contradiction. We should avoid describing events as massacres until that becomes the widely accepted name for them.
• The best solution here might be to create two lists, one for Palestinian attacks on Israeli civilians, the other for Israeli attacks which caused significant Palestinian civilian casualties (unequal terms, I know, but 'list of Israeli attacks on civilians' would be a blatantly POV and inaccurate title for the latter, since the IDF is not generally thought of as actually targeting civilians).
• Failing that, this should be kept as a comprehensive list with a non-controversial name. The one proposed above, 'List of attacks involving non-combatants during the Second Intifada', works for me; though it would still be necessary to agree on the exact criteria for inclusion, it's broadly clear what would go in that list. Terraxos 01:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I think 'List of attacks on non-combatants during the Second Intifada' would work. "Involving" is nebulous and would never end the arguments about what "counts". <<-armon->> 01:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think many readers or editors will find the phrase "involving civilian casualties" to be nebulous or hard to understand, and it's very hard for me to imagine them fighting over what to include under its rubric. Meanwhile "attacks on civilians" is in fact nebulous, at least with regard to Israeli attacks; both Wikipedians and the reliable sources are sharply divided about which if any should be described that way. This is why a number of editors have suggested separate lists by nationality with slightly different formulations; it's not only a good compromise, but is very much in line with the reliable sources, who are divided about the status of civilian casualties on one side of the ledger but not the other.--G-Dett 02:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

'List of attacks on non-combatants during the Second Intifada' means attacks with the stated and/or clearly intended goal of inflicting civilian casualties. True, you guys are unlikely to find RS support for the Israeli government committing such attacks, but likewise I doubt you'd find support for such attacks from the Palestinian National Authority. The common thread in the entities committing the massacres here, and in the List of massacres committed during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war is that they are non-state actors. If, something like the Cave of the Patriarchs massacre were to happen, there would be no reason not to include it. <<-armon->> 03:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Armon, at 01:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC) you say: “I think 'List of attacks on non-combatants during the Second Intifada' would work. "Involving" is nebulous and would never end the arguments about what "counts".” It would certainly work for you; I have no doubt about that. But it won’t work to document death on both sides. As far as what ‘counts’ for me, it is an equal and just description of the body count on both sides and “involving” will do that for the Palestinian side.

At 03:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC) you go on to say: “True, you guys are unlikely to find RS support for the Israeli government committing such attacks, but [sic] likewise I doubt you'd find support for such attacks from the Palestinian National Authority." I now have an inkling how you think and this is probably why most others disagree with you. I gave your quote the [sic] because the word should be ‘and’. You are right, a suicide bombing/bombing is an attack on civilians; it is called terrorism and you can rightly make your list of death (but massacre cant be maintained).

You are also right about there being no RSs that will back up attacks on civilians for the other side. So why are you pushing other editors into titles that cant be RS’d. I’ll assume good faith, but it is getting harder. I believe that this is why most editors think a parallel list of death and destruction for the other side is an NPOV way to get around the problem at this point.

Everybody assumes that the Israeli government wouldn’t commit such attacks; the army is highly motivated, trained and disciplined. So, why is the death toll on the other side so much higher than on yours? I believe that it is, again, the difference between ‘attacks involving’ and ‘attacks on’. You get your word and we get ours; an encyclopedic account must deal with all facts. Body count is the main one now, but then, there is also the ‘destruction’. --CasualObserver'48 07:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Terraxos, I also agree broadly with G-Dett’s comments on the article and withhold comment on editors. I particularly agree with her later (02:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)) reply (above) to Armon’s suggestion. I generally agree with you too.

“Massacre’ is inappropriate in the title. In my mind, appropriate usage of the word either comes from immediate, wide-spread (and continuing) usage/reportage following the incident, or from older, incidents in a more historical perspective (well after the fact), as is likely with the agreed decision on List of massacres committed during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war. A massacre is also a somewhat unique incident, often within a larger on-going conflict, or some violent attack/retribution from out of the blue (unexpected). The American settlers of the old west were often massacred by the AmerIndians (and vice versa) but every incident wasn’t called a ‘massacre’.

From my review of the previous debate and RfDs, it appears we are at a crossroads (or a fork if you like). One path leads directly to the Wiki-perfect NPoV article, in which case the current article should be re-named; it is currently inflammatory and verging on the defamatory. The other path, based on the many feet of typing (currently 31 ‘page-downs), accepts that a single NPoV article can not currently be written and considers that appropriate, equalizing titling/documentation of Palestinian death during the Second Intifada should be pursued; tit for tat. Making that decision is well over my head, but I tend toward that path at this point, because I consider it will lead eventually back to the NPoV road.

I already know that there will be future RfDs with this path, because of the geography, peoples and editors involved; so be it. There also will be endless debate over the word ‘non-combatants’, which I want to avoid and therefore, reiterate my view that the common accounting unit for both sides is the corpse. That unit of measure is equal, unequivocal and undeniable; it doesn’t require additional ‘exact criteria’.

In the final article it only matters if they were unarmed or not; an unarmed corpse seems more tragic. The numbers on both sides will show more non-combatants than combatants. It is tragic; it is the MidEast. The numbers will be based on the RS data.

At the same time, there is a difference between defending your local neighborhood and attacking someone else’s neighborhood, for whatever reason; there is a difference between an offensive ‘incursion’ and defensive resistance to it; there is a difference between an occupying army and the occupied people. If ‘the powers that be’ decide the POV fork is needed, then some leeway must be given while all this is worked out, that leeway has certainly been shown the current article; it should be noted and linked. --CasualObserver'48 03:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Wilfully missing the point

I'm disappointed to see Armon, Tewfik, and possibly others repeatedly offering unhelpful suggestions and attempting to ignore the central objection raised by many editors to this list. Whether this list describes "massacres", "mass murders", "attacks", "suicide bombings", or (for the hell of it), "martyrdom operations", its major problem is its extreme one-sidedness. This list is clearly designed to include only killings of Israelis. When this has been objected to, Armon and Tewfik respond by declaring that only Israelis are killed wilfully, and that each and every Palestinian noncombatant death is an unfortunate and unintended consequence of a legitimate security operation. Now, that claim is certainly made by reliable sources representing notable POVs. But as Armon and Tewfik know well, there are also large sectors of world opinion and many RS's which state that many Israeli actions have amounted to deliberate killing of civilians. To say nothing of those who hold that, whatever the immediate tactical intent of this or that operation, the IDF raids are undertaken in support of an illegal and condemnable military occupation and thus inherently illegitimate regardless of whatever precautions are taken to avoid harming noncombatants.

Bizarrely, Armon has referred to "attempting to redefine the list against consensus" in his justification for keeping the "list of massacres" or "list of attacks" formulation. This ignores the point raised by numerous editors since August that this list is already defined in terms of attacks only against one side. In the AfD which Armon keeps preposterously misrepresenting, I pointed out that the standard the list claimed to apply was transparently not in effect, and that the true standard was "major attacks against Israelis." Since I made that point, I've been met with explicit and implicit accusations of anti-Semitism and terrorism, but not with so much as an attempt to refute it.

To re-iterate; there are two broad possibilities here. One would be to redefine this list to include all discrete incidents with a large civilian death toll. This would necessarily include operations such as the battles of Jenin, Nablus, and Ramallah in '02, not to mention innumerable other IDF incursions. There is a well-founded objection to listing such attacks alongside pizzeria massacres, to wit, that they are inherently dissimilar in quality, and that listing them in paralell implies a moral equivalence which Wikipedia should not make. Fine. That's why I support the second possibility, that of dropping the pretense that this is a comprehensive list of attacks, and explicitly labelling it as a list only of Israeli fatalities. Subsequently, a list of Palestinian fatalities can be created, without any implication that these fatalities are equivalent in quality or intent to Israeli deaths. This was precisely the solution reccomended by the closing admin at the August AfD, which Armon has misrepresented so blatantly that I cannot but deduce bad faith. It's also the best compromise in accordance with Wikipedia policy. <eleland/talkedits> 05:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Look. The closing admin stated explicitly that this list wasn't a NPOV violation or a POV fork. If it was, he would have deleted it in spite of the vote. In this sense the list has "passed". Now, there's a debate about the title -that's a different issue and I'm sure we'd reach a consusus on that. However I regard your insistence that it be redefined into a different list as a failed argument. The only thing to do at this stage is WP:DR, so we should start with a RFC on redefining it. <<-armon->> 04:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

What is the problem then Armon? We all agree that this list of major attacks on Israeli civilians should be entitled as such. Do you and Tewfik oppose this?--Burgas00 12:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Armon, would it be fair to say that by "failed argument" you mean a position that, no matter how many editors share it, has failed to convince you and Tewfik? Secondly, when you rail against editors who would "redefine this into a different list," who do you have in mind? I'm not aware of anyone who proposes to do that. Meanwhile I and about a half-dozen other editors have stressed and re-stressed our proposal to keep this list; as Burgas has put it, "we all agree that this list of major attacks on Israeli civilians should be entitled as such."--G-Dett 14:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

No it wouldn't "be fair to say". A failed argument is one based on clearly incorrect assertions. For example, changing a "list of X" into a "list of Y" and then asserting that you are "keeping" list X. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to discern that a list of attacks targeting "civilians" and a list of attacks targeting "Israeli civilians" are two different lists. <<-armon->> 23:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Two different lists, or the same list with two different titles? If the former, what items specifically would you include in one list that you wouldn't include in the other?--G-Dett 23:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Something like the Cave of the Patriarchs massacre. I did just say that. <<-armon->> 00:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

You would include events from 1994 as part of the Second Intifada? The Second Intifada began in 2000.--G-Dett 00:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Nope. Something like it.<<-armon->> 00:50, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't be coy. What item specifically would you include in one list that you wouldn't include in the other? Or would the lists be identical? If the lists in your view would and should be identical, then we are indeed keeping and retitling the list.--G-Dett 01:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not being coy -you're asking the wrong question. One list allows attacks from either "side", one doesn't. <<-armon->> 02:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Above I've tried arguing repeatedly that the asymmetrical character of this list is not a result of effort by some fervent pro-Israeli cabal but rather result of asymmetrical warfare waged in reality. You have IDF fighting guerilla forces which have no scruples about blowing buses on city streets and launching Qassams in rather indiscriminate fashion; should we wonder that the difference in attitude towards violence and difference in material means influence asymmetrical results? My point is this asymmetrical list we are discussing is just a result of asymmetry of the warfare and if you like to broaden the scope, clash of asymmetrical civilizations. Digging deeper, the UN's partition of Palestine in 1947 has met asymmetrical reactions too: proclamation of a democratic state by one side and rejection of UN's plan and attack on population by the other side. I do not think that NPOV should mean to try and force mechanistical "balance" on totally different sides here. DBWikis 17:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

DBWikis, your points about asymmetrical warfare are well-taken as always, though where you'd attribute it to a difference of values or even civilizations (!), I respectfully part ways. No one here is attributing that asymmetry to a "pro-Israel cabal," but nice use of the scare phrase :). Nor so far as I can tell does anyone one here want to impose "mechanistical balance" – indeed, the proposal is exactly the opposite: to create separate lists with unequal formulations. As opposed to a single formulation that smuggles in an ethically controversial and organizationally superfluous value judgment, one that guarantee endless dispute among editors while providing no service to the reader.--G-Dett 18:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

DB, can I draw your attention to the last paragraph of my little screed? Here, I'll mark it out with bold font:

There is a well-founded objection to listing [IDF military operations] alongside pizzeria massacres, to wit, that they are inherently dissimilar in quality, and that listing them in parallel implies a moral equivalence which Wikipedia should not make. Fine. That's why I support the second possibility, that of dropping the pretense that this is a comprehensive list of attacks, and explicitly labelling it as a list only of Israeli fatalities. Subsequently, a list of Palestinian fatalities can be created, without any implication that these [Palestinian] fatalities are equivalent in quality or intent to Israeli deaths. <eleland/talkedits> 21:31, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Eleland, my implicit point is that compartmentalizing the list of victims along national divide will be even more detrimental (instead of possibly being perceived as "lesser evil") -because your departure point was seemingly taking issue with one-sidedness, but your suggested remedy is actually institutionalizing this one-sidedness, correct? DBWikis 00:08, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

He appears to want an "undisguised POV fork". <<-armon->> 00:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Armon, your continued insistence on trying to paint me as a hypocrite based on your trite and stupid misreading of my statements is disruptive and verges on a personal attack. It's a lame system-gaming tactic meant to avoid a good faith discussion of the serious problems with this list. Drop it. <eleland/talkedits> 01:17, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

If you're going to argue that the list should be deleted because it's a POV fork, then, when that argument fails, insist that it become one, because you can't find examples committed by Israelis, I'm going to point it out. That's not a personal attack. If you want a good faith discussion, great, stick to good faith arguments. See RFC section below. <<-armon->> 03:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

DBWikis, you've lost me with "institutionalizing." Wikipedia doesn't institutionalize anything. It does however run the risk of presenting material in a way that forecloses questions of truth that are still open among the reliable sources; when it does this it violates NPOV. If we present a single list of "attacks on non-combatants in the Second Intifada," how we compile that list will necessarily foreclose an open question – namely, whether certain Israeli attacks with predictably high civilian casualties or high civilian-militant kill ratios constitute "attacks on civilians." If we include Israeli attacks, we foreclose it one way; if we exclude them we foreclose it another way. We absolutely do not need to foreclose this question in order to organize this material in a way useful to the reader, and no one here has presented an argument why we should.--G-Dett 00:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

G-Dett, by "institutionalizing" I have meant forking the list i.e. giving up on process of first working out objective criteria and second applying those criteria to known facts in defensible manner. My perception is that part of the contributors are unhappy with result looking sort of one-sided and as a remedy attempting tweaking the rules so that the product will be more "balanced" which in my own view amounts to possible misinterpreting the NPOV policy. DBWikis 01:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that's it, DBWikis. I and other editors want to avoid "objective criteria" that, due to a lack of consensus among reliable sources, are not in fact objective and in fact necessarily create large gray areas. If for example we settle on List of attacks on non-combatants during the Second Intifada, we will have to put in certain Israeli attacks, along with a rather complicated disclaimer saying that some reliable sources describe these as attacks on civilians and others don't, and that some conclude that attacks with such high civilian-militant kill ratios render questions of intent meaningless, etc. Why would we do that?--G-Dett 01:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Well I guess that working with those "objective criteria" is sometimes quite torturous yet the alternatives are worse still, or how you are proposing avoiding them? (aside of excizing the whole topic from WP altogether which is even worse). And what is wrong with complicated disclaimers? The life itself is complicate so the good reflection must be as well, and is certainly preferrable to simplistic one. DBWikis 02:08, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

DBWikis, besides your rather surreal summary of the Arab Israeli conflict, that last post sounded slightly xenophobic. Could you care to expand on this concept of "assymetrical civilisations"? --Burgas00 23:25, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather he didn't. It's off topic and you're obviously attempting a "gotcha" in order to paint the guy as a racist. <<-armon->> 23:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Burgas00, "asymmetrical" here is a qualifier emphasizing set of differences between the sides in the conflict in question and alluding to Clash of Civilizations (Cf Huntington etc.) Unrelated example of asymmetrical stance can be an idea of focusing on persons voicing certain opinions and applying labels to them, instead of addressing those opinions directly along with related facts, ideas and logic. Regarding asymmetry: recognizing differences is sine qua non for both xenophobia _and_ xenophylia too, and if someone is in hurry to start calling foul upon perceived xenophobia then this is actually rather testimonious to the tendency how that person would prefer to paint the discussion. DBWikis 00:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

DBWikis, I've been assuming you were talking about asymmetrical warfare, which refers to disparities in military power – and therefore in the strategies and tactics – between the opposing sides of an armed conflict. You now seem to be talking about some sort of asymmetry of morals, values, etc. of different "civilizations." You're welcome to your opinions on this, but you should know that Wikipedia doesn't build such opinions into the contents and titles of articles.--G-Dett 00:46, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

In that case, it's a good thing the whole "Clash of Civilizations" issue was never germane. "Gotcha" failed. <<-armon->> 01:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

G-Dett, my point was indeed primarily on asymmetrical warfare, and in line with my views on NPOV I've proposed relabeling of this article and yes opposed Eleland's idea on splitting the lists (see above). Focusing on differences in values is relevant to understanding the conflict but should not be interpreted in context of justifications etc. As for itemizing articles of my xenophobia or moral relativism or what not - this probably can be supplied by Burgas00 on my behalf but not by me since I subscribe to neither DBWikis 01:07, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

DB, I think you raise a good point about false balance and intersubjectivity generally, but I'm not sure of its relevance to this discussion. I think it's clear that suicide bombings are deliberate attacks on civilians, and no notable sector of opinion disputes this. Even Hamas is off suicide bombings these days. Personally, I think it's clear that Defensive Shield, the Shehada bombing, and innumerable other IDF actions were also deliberate attacks on civilians. A lot of reliable, significant people and groups agree with that (for starters, look up how many groups have condemned Collective punishment by the IDF on how many different occasions), and a lot of reliable, noteworthy sources disagree with that. So we have acts which are clearly and undeniably "massacres" by our ad hoc definition, and acts which are arguably "massacres" and arguably not.

Now, if we make a list which includes only the undeniable massacres, we're effectively making a POV, editorial judgment about what is a massacre and what isn't, and we're contradicting many very knowledgeable sources. Nobody would ever get away with making a direct statement in an article like "During the Intifada, both sides killed civilians, but only Palestinians did it deliberately. The Israeli forces have never committed any kind of massacre." But this list is saying exactly that.

If we make a list which includes only the undeniable massacres, but we make it clear that we're only listing massacres of Israelis, there's no such problem. Your objection that dissimilar events should not be listed as if they are the same seems to me actually to militate against one list and for two lists. A list of operations causing Palestinian civilian deaths would do well to include, for example, the stated target of the operation such as arresting militants or capturing bomb-making materials, information which would be spurious in this article since the immediate goal of the terrorist attacks is always maximal carnage.

Anyway, I do appreciate your input, and I'm sorry that some other editors have gotten a little hot-under-the-collar. I'm a bit confused as to your overall position though, probably as a result of that same heated undertone to the discussion. Can you restate for me, what do you think this list should be called, what do you think it should cover, and how do you feel about creating an additional list recording incidents with large Palestinian civilian death tolls? <eleland/talkedits> 02:42, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I do think that the article should be called List of attacks involving non-combatants during the Second Intifada and that it should include a "Notes" column identifying whether it was suicide bombing, or collateral from targeted killing, or Qassam attack, etc. I do recognise that the list is very long potentially covering hundreds of instances but the truth is it is actually a list of lives lost irreversibly and is more horrific exacly because of that. I believe that the list should not assign responsibility but should provide reference to the known facts and enough data on circumstances (and information sources), so for example it will be possible to conclude what was deliberate and what was collateral; and controversial cases should be labeled as such explicitly. I am not totally against separate list of incidents with large Palestinian death tolls but think it is not particularly good idea because that one will be one-sided too (by definition) and also much easier to highjack. DBWikis 03:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)