Talk:List of Israeli civilian casualties in the Second Intifada/Archive 4

RfC

A quick review for the uninitiated: this article was written in January 2004 as a list of suicide bombings of Israelis. Nine days later, someone called Rei made the basic point which underlies this dispute: "Can someone rename this page to be a list of Palestinian suicide bombings (since that's what it is?)"

This proposal was never implemented; or rather, it was rapidly dis-implemented every time we tried. The list was moved to many, many different titles, yet it always wound its way back to "List of massacres". The list was AfD'd multiple times, often under a different name which makes it harder to find the AfD. Editors added incidents where large numbers of Palestinian civilians were killed - the edits were reverted. Clearly, some believe that Wikipedia must have an article called "List of massacres during the Second Intifada", and that the list must contain only killings of Israelis.

Blowing up a bat mitzvah with a nail-bomb strapped to a 17-year-old kid is a blatant atrocity and a massacre, is defended by nobody but the perpetrators, and is universally condemned by reliable sources as a deliberate mass killing of innocents. Blowing up a crowded apartment building with a 900 kilogram smart bomb is also a massacre in the views of most reliable sources, since "This was a deliberate attack on the site, knowing that innocents would be lost in the consequences of the attack." (That's Ari Fleischer speaking for Bush.) Nevertheless, there is a valid case that such acts are not morally equivalent - a case which is stronger for those incidents where civilians have been killed in genuine battles, where both sides are shooting and separating the combatants from the civilians is difficult.

What is being ignored here is that we don't write Wikipedia articles to prove a valid case. Not when there are other valid cases made by other significant sources of opinion. When multiple significant points of view exist on a topic, we accommodate all of them. That means we don't write an article called "List of massacres", and then use a provocative, highly selective definition of "massacre" which not only differs from what notable reliable sources say, but appears to be an ad hoc construction devised solely to make a WP:POINT.

Since there are well-founded objections to listing dissimilar events in the same list, the logical solution is to create two lists. This was, in fact, the recommendation of the admin Xoloz, who closed the August 29 AfD remarking, "the actions of one group are represented ... a list [of non-military individuals killed by Israeli forces during the Second Intifada] would convey equally encyclopedic information. Such lists might be linked to each other to provide a full view of the conflict." Of course, in order to create two lists, it is necessary that neither list claim to be comprehensive for both sides. Thus, this article should be moved to something along the lines of List of attacks on Israeli noncombatants during the Second Intifada. <eleland/talkedits> 22:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I support Eleland proposition. On other side I do not see reasons for this AFD. Situation is very clear and I do not see problem in moving article and then block return of article to this name (even I can block return of article to this name) !! --Rjecina 11:59, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean that you don't see the need for the RfC (request for comment), or you don't see the need for the previous AfDs (requests for deletion)? <eleland/talkedits> 17:53, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

If this article stay on wikipedia it must be moved to another name.

On other side I do not know if we are having article List of massacres commited by Israelis forces during Second Intifada (or something similar). If that article is not existing on wikipedia we need to delete this article so that wikipedia stay neutral. If it exist then this article can exist so that wikipedia is neutral. In my thinking neutrality need to be first wiki law. --Rjecina 18:11, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Your claim has a basic flaw - you assume Israeli forces committed massacres - but according to many definition, not a single Israeli actions falls into such a category (Israel's action do often hurt civilians, but unlike Palestinian actions, are not specifically targeting civilians). If Israel commits no such actions, there's no need for such a list, and it would be perfectly NPOV to have just this list - like it or not, only the Palestinian side uses certain tactics.

To the point - though I have not participated in the discussion for a while, I have been following it, as closely as I can. I still support changing the name, like Eleland suggested. I also find the use of the word "massacre" in this context unencyclopedic - while I do believe suicide bombings are massacres, it's not the factual phrasing we are expected to use. The facts can be conveyed just as accurately using neutral, not-loaded, terms, like "attack", "suicide bombing", etc. okedem 19:43, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

"List of attacks on Israeli noncombatants..." can potentially include any incident of stone-throwing by Palestinian children. The point of this list, as I see it, is to limit it to massacres, i.e. incidents of deliberate mass murder of civilians. Beit Or 21:23, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Almost all of the stone-throwing you allude to is directed at IDF personnel and military positions, not non-combatants. All versions of the list that have been proposed, moreover, are limited to "major" attacks with significant casualties.

I think everyone is agreed that the use of the word "massacre" here presents POV problems. The questions we're dealing with are (i) whether to have separate lists or a single list for Palestinian and Israeli attacks, given that RSs agree that Palestinian attacks are "attacks on non-combatants," but are divided on whether Israeli attacks can be described this way.--G-Dett 21:35, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

A "major" attack "with significant casualties" is a massacre, so your argument is self-defeating. "I think everyone is agreed that the use of the word "massacre" here presents POV problems." Does it present POV problems only when Jews are killed or in other instances too? The existence of the List of massacres does not seem to present any POV problems for anyone. Beit Or 21:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Nope, only Jews, because we're all anti-Semites. Me, G-Dett, Burgas, Okedem, DBWikis, CasualObserver48, FearGod, in fact, anyone who disagrees with you. We thought we'd get away with it, too, but you caught us in the iron jaws of your logic trap. I doff my hat to you, sir!

Seriously, stop wasting everyone's time with this infantile crap. <eleland/talkedits> 22:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Or you could just answer the question. There's an obvious editorial inconsistency here. <<-armon->> 02:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

There was no "question", just an egregiously insulting troll, and it deserved nothing but the mockery I provided. <eleland/talkedits> 03:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Best defense is a strong offense, eh? <<-armon->> 03:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Can we please not turn this into a political argument? I would recommend only wikipedians who do not have strong views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to give their opinion in this RFC. --Burgas00 23:51, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Good luck. <<-armon->> 03:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment There is no good reason to argue that this isn't, or couldn't be, a comprehensive list of attacks targeting civilians (well, other than those which had 10 or more fatalities). There's also no good reason why attacks by Israelis on Palestinians, or attacks by Palestinians on other Palestinians, or attacks by Israelis on other Israelis can't be included. The only "issue" is that it an attack has to be reliably sourced, had to have happened during the Second Intifada, and had to be an attack on civilians -this is not a list of civilian causalities. No matter what we name it, that is the list which survived the afd -like it or not. <<-armon->> 03:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Armon, as an experienced editor, you know well that an AfD does not result in some kind of binding fiat on the scope and character of an article. Articles "survive an AfD" all the time and then are radically changed, redirected, merged, etc. Furthermore, you know that the closing admin suggested a parallel list of Palestinian casualties be created, and mused that wikilinking the two might provide useful balance and context. You're persistently ignoring arguments based on policy and reliable sources in favor of a spurious smoke-screen. Perhaps because you know how weak your position is? <eleland/talkedits> 04:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

There is of course a good reason why this can't be a list of attacks targeting civilians, but Armon isn't aware of it because he doesn't/can't read and is here to troll, endlessly.--G-Dett 04:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Like Burgas00, I don’t want to indent any more, but note that I already have been housed in one camp by reference. My encyclopedic view is that the best article should be Non-Combatant Deaths during the Second Intifada, but this seems to be impossible because of POV-pushers who want to highlight one side (by a very narrowly defined list that supports one side only). The subject is already basically described in Second Intifada#Casualties, but there ‘’’are’’’ differences which should be noted, and one side is pushing theirs with POV words like ‘massacres’, which must be changed. The word ‘attack’ is OK with me, because they are already separately listed per-group and type. My encyclopedic view is that we must seek a more equal balance of wiki-words-per-corpse for each side; as I noted before, one side has real attacks and the other just has real deaths.

The following comments relate to the indented argument (quite literally) above, from eleland’s 22:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC) to Burgas00’s 23:51, 11 November 2007 (UTC) cut-off. I agree with Rjecina, NPOV should be the prime wiki law, and I think (hope) it generally is. The list is OK (without ‘massacre’) but a similar list/article must be written to support the greater corpse-count on the Palestinian side, otherwise, it must be deleted. I disagree with okedem’s first paragraph. Most editors certainly hope and accept that generally no ‘massacres’ were intended by the Israelis, but high body-counts resulted. Some RSs indicated these did happen and the body-count shows that quite clearly. Whether this resulted from bad aim, collateral damage, accidents, offensive incursions, targeted assassinations, or less-than-advertised training, motivation and discipline, doesn’t really matter. The body count indicates something happened and Wiki must describe it if it really does want to be encyclopedic. On the other hand, I totally agree with okedem’s second paragraph (i.e. ‘massacre’ is too POV and should be changed). I disagree with Beit Or’s first post and let GDett’s rebuttal stand for my reply too. Moreover, I strongly object to BeitOr's second post. This discussion has gone on for 40 ‘page-downs’ without the J-word as a noun; it should be the last use. This is a discussion of Israeli and Palestinian body-count and varying methods of production. If this discussion comes down to Js, Cs and Ms, then we might as well pack up and go home. I very much understand eleland on his reply to that one. CasualObserver'48 07:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC) Please, someone, make that second red link into blue, it exists. CasualObserver'48 07:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC) Thanks Okedem, now I see, but I am really wiki-dumb.

"Whether this resulted from bad aim, collateral damage, accidents, offensive incursions, targeted assassinations, or less-than-advertised training, motivation and discipline, doesn’t really matter." Being as every RS makes a clear distinction between Israeli operations with civilian casualties and Palestinian operations aimed at killing civilians, it does really matter for us, and we should not be attempting a false parity. The idea that this list would somehow be acceptable if only such an Israeli attack like the Cave of the Patriarchs massacre aimed at killing civilians had taken place during the Second Intifada only serves to highlight the problems here. Tewfik^Talk 11:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Two strawmen in particular have been pressed into repeated service and are getting very dry and crumbly, setting off my allergies and worse yet creating a fire hazard. The first is this silly idea that we are "attempting a false parity"; on the contrary, as has been reiterated dozens of times here, the proposal is to create separate lists, precisely because the RSs describe the two types of attacks in different terms. The second strawman is so makeshift and moth-eaten that if I do sneeze it'll go up in a puff of dust and filament – only, alas, to then be lovingly reassembled by its benefactor. Well – achoo! – here goes: there is no "idea that this list would somehow be acceptable if only such an Israeli attack like the Cave of the Patriarchs massacre aimed at killing civilians had taken place during the Second Intifada". Total BS red herring, that. The problem with this list, as has been clearly articulated to Tewfik and Armon maybe 35 times in the course of this discussion, is that its criteria are built along a fault-line of divided opinion among the RSs. The reliable sources are not agreed whether or not certain Israeli attacks can be properly described as "attacks on civilians." We must use editorial judgment when devising criteria for lists: criteria can't for example be concocted to make a point (e.g., List of non-WASP American presidents with JFK as the only entry) or to smuggle in assumptions that foreclose a debate still open among reliable sources (e.g., List of Florida counties who voted for Al Gore in 2000). Those pressing here for a single "list of massacres" or a "list of attacks on non-combatants," theoretically open to attacks by both sides but from which they plan to exclude all Israeli attacks on Palestinians, are both making a point AND foreclosing a debate still open among the RSs. Their proposed list titles, however, will prove equally vulnerable to POV-pushing from the opposing side, who will load up the list with Israeli attacks with large Palestinian civilian casualties, in order to foreclose the debate the other way, and drive home their point that attacks on both sides are morally interchangeable. This is exactly what happens when you deliberately build list-criteria along a fault line; you guarantee that the list will always be a POV-problem, either in one direction or another, depending on what faction owns the article at any given moment.

Our goal, for the 36th time, is to create a list or lists based on transparent criteria not in dispute among the reliable sources, and in that way to (a) avoid NPOV-violations, (b) forestall endless editorial disputes that serve no interest of the reader, and (c) avoid presupposing either parity or disparity. Such questions are unresolved and unresolvable by recourse to the reliable sources, who are divided on the status of Israeli attacks; and these are at any rate purely ideological questions, with no proper bearing on the proper goal of this list, which is not to persuade the reader of moral truths but rather to organize historical information in a format useful to him.--G-Dett 16:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

This "dispute among the reliable sources" you keep referring to, and which you hang your "arguments" on, doesn't actually exist -a least in the case of the Jenin "massacre", which I've looked at. If you can give some other examples where there are disputes among RSs -fine. Otherwise, it's just more proof by assertion for an extremely dubious claim. <<-armon->> 22:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what you're talking about, but what's new. Investigations by major international human rights organizations found that the IDF had "deliberately and willfully" killed non-combatants in Jenin, as you would know by now if you ever read the source material for articles where you edit-war. The Shehadeh "assassination," in which an Israeli F-16 dropped a one-ton bomb on an apartment complex in a residential neighborhood, killing 1 Hamas member and 15 civilians, many of them children, was also widely described as an attack on civilians. There are of course countless reliable sources who describe Israeli operations as "attacks on civilians," and just as many others who say no, Israel takes extra precautions to protect innocent life, etc.--G-Dett 23:26, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. The IDF has been heavily criticized for killing civilians, and heavily criticized for its "targeted killing" actions -that much is true. However, there are no RSs which state that Israel was targeting the civilians, rather than Shehadeh. You continually try and obfuscate this key difference. <<-armon->> 23:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

"Rather than" Shehadeh? Interesting phrasing. Anyway, let's see. Arafat called it a "massacre," as did the PLO's legal advisor speaking on CNN, and that's how it's generally referred to by Palestinians. Ali Abunimah gives a pretty good representation of how it's seen by the Palestinian diaspora: "Such wanton disregard for innocent life, is the exact moral equivalent of the killing of Israeli innocents in bars, restaurants, buses and shopping malls, and it violates international law." White House Spokesman Ari Fleischer strenuously resisted any comparison with the collateral damage from American bombing in Afghanistan which "very regrettably included losses of innocent lives"; Fleischer contrasted this with the Shehadeh bombing, saying "This was a deliberate attack on the site, knowing that innocents would be lost in the consequences of the attack." What follows is from the Al Mezan Center for Human Rights' "Factual and Legal briefing on IOF Attacks on Civilian Objects during the June 2006 IOF incursion of Gaza":

At approximately 11.45am on June 13, the IOF killed 11 Palestinians and injured 42 others in an extra-judicial assassination attempt in Gaza city. In this case it appears that the attack on civilians was intentional. Jet fighters fired twice at a car; the first missile hit a car on Salah Ad-Din Street, killing three Palestinians: Hamouda Al wadiayya, 38, Ramez Al Mbayed, 27, Shawqi Al Siqeli, 42. Following the explosion, citizens and paramedics rushed to the location to help the wounded. Three minutes later, a second missile was fired on the same spot, killing 7 Palestinians, including 4 paramedics, and injuring 42 civilians; 6 were in critical condition...While considering the scope of this extrajudicial execution attempt of 8 July 2006 which caused the massacre of a civilian family while they were sleeping in their homes, it is significant to draw for comparison a similar attack on civilians that was conducted in Al Daraj neighbourhood of Gaza City on 22 July 2002. In the Daraj attack, which occurred shortly before midnight, IOF dropped a one-ton bomb the neighbourhood whilst targeting Salah Shihadeh, aged 50, a senior member of Hamas and founder of its military wing Izz Ad-Din Al Qassam. Shehadeh was indeed killed, but 15 others were killed with him. 145 people were seriously injured and substantial damage to homes and property was sustained. This attack, which took place in the 21st month of the Al-Aqsa Intifada, was unprecedented in its reckless disregard for civilian life...Al Mezan strongly condemns the ongoing impunity in these attacks which severely target civilians. When efforts failed in the Israeli courts, the Daraj Case was taken abroad, and under universal jurisdiction was tried in a British court, where an arrest warrant was approved for IOF Major General Doron Almog. Almog had given command for the Daraj attack and a number of other severe attacks between 2001 and 2003, including the demolition of 59 homes in Rafah in January 2002. Almog was never prosecuted as he never returned to England following the charge...

My emphasis. The Al Mezan report also describes a number of other Israeli attacks as "attacks on civilians." Incidentally, Almog did return to England, but received a friendly alert by cell phone not to deplane lest he face criminal prosecution for war crimes.--G-Dett 01:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Right, so now you're attempting to argue that the PLO and other activist sources are "reliable" for a claim that Israel was going after the civilians. I can't imagine what the tactical purpose of that was supposed to be. The point of NPOV and reliable sources is to remove as much as is possible, as a service to the reader, the propaganda surrounding the conflict. This is how I read WP:SOAP. If the reader wants POV, there are a thousand websites preaching to their respective choirs. You obviously disagree, otherwise you wouldn't present this sort of "evidence". <<-armon->> 03:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Armon, what exactly are you claiming here? Al Mezan is not a reliable source? Are human rights organizations generally non-reliable, or just ones with Arab staff? That's not a rhetorical question; when I told you that HRW concluded that the IDF carried out "willful and deliberate" killing of civilians in Jenin, you changed the subject. Are HRW and AI also non-reliable? Do you really believe the point of policy is to remove as much partisan material as possible? That official Israeli statements are non-reliable, insufficient to establish that a Palestinian claim is contested? Please note that I've never – not once – added an official PLO statement to an article, or Electronic Intifada or MPAC or Ali Abunimah to mainspace. But this isn't true of you; a good deal of your time on Wikipedia is spent edit-warring in material from dubious partisan sources, as you're doing with the CAMERA crap over at Second Intifada this very moment.

Keeping on topic, do you really maintain that there is no RS-debate about whether Israel "attacks civilians"?

I'm asserting that WP is not the place to quote mine. "IOF dropped a one-ton bomb the neighbourhood whilst targeting Salah Shihadeh, aged 50, a senior member of Hamas and founder of its military wing Izz Ad-Din Al Qassam." Your "evidence" is from POV sources and doesn't say what you claim anyway. If you're attempting to argue that Israel was heavily criticized for killing civilians in the course of such targeted killings -congratulations, welcome back to reality. <<-armon->> 05:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

"...a similar attack on civilians that was conducted in Al Daraj neighbourhood of Gaza City on 22 July 2002...Al Mezan strongly condemns the ongoing impunity in these attacks which severely target civilians" etc. etc. If WP isn't the place to quote mine, then why are you doing it? And why are you coupling your quote-mining with out-and-out lying?

Now, to be very clear, I don't put much stock in the statements of PLO spokesmen or White House spokesmen or Israeli spokesmen on the complicated question of what constitutes an "attack on civilians." They are reliable however for the ways in which the question of intent was officially contested. Many, perhaps most reliable sources saw the dropping of a one-ton bomb on one of the most densely populated residential areas in the word as an "attack on civilians," which is the proposed criteria of this list. As for what the "tactical purpose" of incurring high civilian casualties might be, there are those who say generally that the IDF wants to make clear the high cost of "harboring" militants in civilian neighborhoods ("We great regret the loss of whoever was innocent among them, but when they take civilians as their cover, then though it is difficult, they must know that this has a price," a reserve pilot told Arutz 7) and there were many who said specifically that Sharon was intentionally scuttling an imminent ceasefire. Many American papers followed Fleischer's suit in condemning the bombing in terms deliberately ambiguous with regards to intent: the Hartford Courant described it as an "atrocity," and wrote that "when Israeli civilians are killed in suicide bombings or other kinds of attacks by Palestinians, Israelis call it terrorism, and it is. But the killing of civilians and the assassination of Palestinian leaders are no less acts of terrorism. There is no way that an Israeli jet fighter can fire a missile at residences and not risk killing noncombatants." The Boston Globe wrote that ""At best this is the thinking of a tank commander with no grasp of the art of statecraft. At worst, it is the boasting of a hawk in power who deliberately launched his missile attack at a moment when high-level Israeli and Palestinian officials were meeting to discuss security cooperation and after Hamas leaders spoke publicly about stopping suicide bombings ... More than ever, American mediation is needed to rescue Israelis and Palestinians from their descent into pure vendetta." The dispute about Israeli intentions in the Shehadeh bombing is part of a larger set of disputes about what constitutes intent, and what constitutes the "deliberate" killing of civilians. As a legal and philosophical question, it is beyond the purview of Wikipedians compiling lists.

I disagree with your take on human rights organizations as non-reliable "activists." And with regards to your high-minded statements about removing partisan sources from Wikipedia, in light of your customary editing – for example your present edit-warring to include CAMERA's take on casualty statistics over at Second Intifada – my reaction is one of amused skepticism.--G-Dett 05:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

More Bullshit. #1 I haven't edit-warred over it (therefore, no diffs) #2 On the talk page, it was Gatoclass who brought CAMERA into the discussion not me. #3 My "take" on CAMERA -actually the issue of Btselem's changed methodology, for which CAMERA was offered as a cite is here and here. Actually, HRW and AI have been criticized by reliable sources -see here and here. This is should come as no surprise unless you hold such groups as somehow beyond reproach. The problem is I don't share your faith -no source is. <<-armon->> 11:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

That is a good point G-Dett, particularly the illustration of list of counties that voted for al gore. But I would like to remind people that we are discussing changing the title at this stage, not deleting the article or modifying the content.--Burgas00 18:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes exactly, Burgas, I forgot to point out strawman #3 – the idea that we somehow aim to delete this article, when in fact we're proposing to preserve its contents unmodified and merely give it a non-contentious title.--G-Dett 19:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

G-Dett, if the paramount goal is to craft the article shielded from POV-pushing (and some contributors have hinted that WP:NPOV should be given super-authority to trump all other policies) then I really doubt it will ever succeed in quarters of Arab-Israeli conflict, even if you will try to mutilate the account into "historical information" divorced from any sort of interpretive qualifiers: after we will excize terms like "massacre" there remain politically motivated demands by both factions. I agree that the proper way of doing that will be first to agree on said transparent criteria and if there will be number of controversies then each one should be flagged and shunted out into its dedicated spot (e.g. Battle of Jenin). Maybe the foremost question raised is whether it should be one list or two. I've tried to argue that splitting into two seems to be greater evil but you still appear undecided since you say "list or lists" but this step should logically preclude working out of any criteria lest applying them. DBWikis 19:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

DBWikis I really dont understand that last post. We are happy with the content excluding Palestinian deaths and for the moment, creating a second list is not the issue. "of Israelis" is all that is needed in the title. Im not even that bothered over the use of the word "massacre".--Burgas00 20:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the word "massacre" is quite POV, whether it is used to describe the deaths of Israelis or Palestinians. I support Eleland in the proposition, but suggest a more accurate one: List of killings of Israeli noncombatants during the Second Intifada.Bless sins 20:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Burgas00, I am not happy with exclusion of any death regardless the nationality of the victim, I just had an issue with labeling results of IDF actions which albeit being regrettable still do not quite fall in my view under caregory of "massacre"; along with it I agreed that word massacre is too loaded and should be avoided; as for certain controversial instances like Battle of Jenin I was truing to argue that the only way it can be included here probably is with explicit flagging of the unresloved controversy and focussing on it in its dedicated article; same applies to other incidents too e.g. regarding killing of Shehada the account is not settled as well, since Israelis have opened a criminal probe last month, and so on. DBWikis 21:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I understand the objections to the word "massacre". Frankly, I find it a bit emotive myself. I would point out though, that there are centralized discussions like WP:WTA, and List of massacres to work out the appropriate use. The "parallel list" idea doesn't work because if an incident with Palestinian causalities was in fact "parallel", then it should simply be included here. The civilians killed during the assassination of Salah Shahade or other "targeted killings" is probably the closest comparison. <<-armon->> 23:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi DB. A couple clarifications re your post above. I'm not undecided; I think the best option would be separate lists with differently phrased criteria (on vs. involving). The second best option would be a single list with the more open-ended and non-contentious formulation, "involving." Third and least attractive would be a single list with the contentious formulation, "attacks on non-combatants," with qualifying language in the lead pointing out the various controversies regarding how to categorize Israeli attacks on Palestinians. The only red-line unacceptable proposal in my eyes is a list of Palestinian attacks on Israeli civilians that tries, through the cute strategem of a seemingly inclusive title, to nudge the reader with the coy suggestion that we would have gladly included Israeli "attacks on non-combatants" if only had there been some. Coy suggestions of this sort violate WP:POINT in the best of times; and when they are predicated, as in this case, on assumptions not shared by a consensus of RSs, they violate WP:NPOV as well.

Of course you're right that when it comes to the I/P conflict you can never fully shield material from POV-pushing, that there's no "'historical information'" divorced from any sort of interpretive qualifiers," etc. etc. Please don't think me so naïve :). But I do think that a great deal of headache can be avoided if we take a step back and think in terms of the interests of readers rather than the rights of editors. That is, instead of asking What do I and like-minded editors have a right to say in this article, per WP policy?, we should be asking what is the most organizationally useful and least ideologically intrusive format for the presentation of this information? What are readers likely to be looking for, and what's the best way to give it to them with a minimum of fuss? It seems to me that what readers will want from this list and the related one we're contemplating is a thorough run-down of Palestinian terrorist attacks on the one hand, and major Israeli operations controversial for high civilian casualties on the other. Whether it's one list or two linked ones is inconsequential. A refresher on the bloodshed-related grievances of the last seven-years, a quick, clear point of reference for the millions of readers who are very aware of this conflict but don't obsess over it the way we do. These readers don't need our moral guidance and insights, and they are not well served by our primly withholding information about major controversies like Jenin and the Shehadeh "assassination" because they don't fit our criteria, criteria we've coyly contrived to provide a pretext for primly withholding such material in the first place, so that we can make clear our moral take on comparative infamy in the Israel-Palestine conflict.--G-Dett 23:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Since my post of yesterday (and six more ‘page-downs’), I’ll comment as follows: Unfortunately, it appears strawmen and red herrings do exist; I had to look at Propaganda to find out and tend to feel that the tight-titling issue of the current list tends toward the Big Lie. I don’t mind BlessSins’ suggested title of List of killings of Israeli noncombatants during the Second Intifada, and just change the nationality for the second article. To be fair, however, this might also downplay the ‘on versus involved’ argument. I made my titling suggestions 06:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC).

I also want to give G-Dett a big ditto for her last two paragraphs (it sure saves a lot of typing). I especially agree with “I do think that a great deal of headache can be avoided if we take a step back and think in terms of the interests of readers rather than the rights of editors….we should be asking what is the most organizationally useful and least ideologically intrusive format for the presentation of this information? What are readers likely to be looking for, and what's the best way to give it to them with a minimum of fuss?” (But what’s the source of the italicized portion?)CasualObserver'48 09:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

G-Dett, upon re-reading of your clarification above it appears that I do not have an essential quarrel with your proposals, provided there will be one list; I also support broadening of the scope if the term "massacre" will be substituted to effect of having List of incidents involving killing of non-combatants during Second Intifada instead, with explicit flagging of incidents like Shehada killing as (still) controversial and linking to the dedicated article. Other essential remark: what you are referring to as "coyness" can be called rather reluctance to foreclose some instances as squarely pronouncing the Israeli side as guilty. DBWikis 22:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Outside input

OK I think we need more input on this issue. I suggest we post a message about this on the talk pages of those who voted on the AfDs. Any objections? <<-armon->> 00:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm all for bringing in more voices here, though I have two reservations. (1) There is a wide range of participation here already, and frankly the extensive arguments for retitling this list have not been adequately engaged by Armon or Tewfik. If we could clearly articulate the nature of the impasse here, targeted requests for comment might be appropriate, but groping around for a game-changer should not be the motive. (2) I am wary of Armon polling participants in deletion discussions for their opinions about retitling, especially given his unfortunate track record of presenting this is as a deletion discussion when it isn't.--G-Dett 02:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd appreciate other comments, but dont know the possible editing crew. This is not a deletion exercise. I think editors with a known 'satisfactory solution' record should be involved, if they have the view/knowledge of the I/P issue and are still willing. We need an editing crew not a camera crew. CasualObserver'48 09:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Having been asked for some input, here are my thoughts:

Article title I do not like the inclusion of the word "massacres" in the title - this is hard to define, and whilst the article has done so, it is only the author's POV of what constitutes a massacre. Personally I would be in favour of renaming it to List of terrorist attacks during the Second Intifada.

Content With my proposed renaming, the article should also be expanded to include all terrorist attacks during the period in question, including ones where no-one died except the bomber (such as the Be'er Sheva bus station one in 2006(?), which I was unfortunate enough to witness) and attacks carried out by Israelis such as Eden Natan-Zada's Shfaram attack. пﮟოьεԻ 57 11:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

This makes sense, though we should make sure that whatever event is part of the Second Intifada, something that I'm not sure about in that specific case. Tewfik^Talk 18:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed with above. Massacres is a hotbed of POV and hot emotion. Let's pull back and properly label it as what it is, a list of terrorist attacks. Kyaa the Catlord 14:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Number 57, the word "massacre" should not remain in the title, it is too vague to describe the myriad acts listed, plus it's a divisive term that will result in long-term complications regarding the article. --Agamemnon2 15:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I also agree with Tewfik, Kyaa, et al that List of terrorist attacks during the Second Intifada would be good. There will be some who say it's a word to avoid, or that it's POV, but this is terminology used by the reliable sources, so far as I know, and unlike "attacks on civilians," not a locus of great ethical or interpretive controversy.--G-Dett 02:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

G-Dett, I find it hard to believe that you agree with this suggested title, after listening and generally agreeing with you for the last several days. You have basically agreed with a new title that, again, will end up with only one side of the carnage being described. How does the production of Palestinian corpses get described – List of Non-Terrorist attacks during the Second Intifada? I can not see how this pushes the debate forward, it just pushes it into another corner, with no way out. I have made my suggested titles known above.

I freely admit that the title is accurate, yup, this definitely falls within the POV-rich terrorist basket. I can also quite accurately say that many/most Israelis and their supporters see any act of opposition to the Occupation is conducted by a ‘terrorist’, even when kids are throwing stones and men are defending their refugee camp against an occupying army ‘incursion’. As everybody knows, Israel never uses terrorist attacks, but I do note that the Israeli corpse-production-efficiency is four times greater. So, where do all these bodies come from – is this some kind of gift or right for a chosen people? Please! The non-terrorist methods of the Occupation kill much better and similarly terrorize; every RS agrees with that. CasualObserver'48 07:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

CasualObserver, I agree with most of what you say, but the fact is, there isn't a lot of significant dispute among RSs that Palestinian suicide bombings against non-combatants are acts of terrorism. There is dispute about whether groups and individuals – Hamas, Rantisi, etc. – should be described as "terrorists," with most respectable reliable sources opting instead for the word "militant." But "terrorist attacks" for the suicide bombings themselves seems to be widely accepted, no? I agree with you that the terminology is loaded, but it is accepted terminology, unlike "massacre." Unlike the proposed title List of attacks on non-combatants, from which editors want to exclude Israeli attacks on Palestinian non-combatants by presupposing the truth of a highly contentious theory of intent, the title List of terrorist attacks doesn't try to adjudicate an issue hotly debated by reliable sources. It just uses an (admittedly flawed) vocabulary common to most of them. Wikipedia doesn't really have much scope to transcend that. I'm not saying List of terrorist attacks is ideal, just acceptable.--G-Dett 14:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

OK yes, G-Dett, I acquiesce to RS and your greater experience, with the following comments: First, these incidents are already listed several ways throughout Wiki; they are also listed separately by group (with several ‘busts’ where they are listed for one group, but attributed to another in the note). In several places, they are listed as suicide bombings with no deaths, which is hard to figure, and probably ‘just’ bombings. There are some other etc’s that I could add, but won’t.

My main concern is that there is no similar article to describe the larger number of deaths and incidents on the Palestinian side of the conflict. So, if we go with the ‘terrorist attack’ list, what do we do for the title of the companion article. This, for me and NPOV, should be the prime direction to head . I believe that we were closer to progress with the difference between ‘on’ and ‘involving’, because a reasonable equivalency could be made and the distinct differences could be described. All this does is to replace ‘massacre’ with ‘terrorist attack’; it doesn’t really help NPOV much. CasualObserver'48 06:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I was agreeing only with the second part of the statement above. Tewfik^Talk 22:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• I have been asked to offer input here as an uninvolved party. I am admittedly not well-schooled in many of details of the incidents in the list, receiving my knowledge of current events primarily from the American media (which, for reasons wholly unrelated to the Middle East, I have learned to distrust in general.) As an historian, I recognize that there has never been a conflict in the history of the world wherein one party has been entirely blameless, and the other wholly guilty. I think I'm about as neutral on this subject as it is possible to be.

• In this context, massacre is a word to be avoided. There are places in the encyclopedia where -- disputes having passed into history -- the word might be used. In presenting the course of an ongoing conflict, this label is inappropriately connotative and imprecise, bearing a host of implications, of moral judgments, which are the proper domain of a NPOV encyclopedia.

• In this context, terrorist is also a word to be avoided. In ongoing disputes between states and non-states, a state may label its opponents "terrorist" as a means of demeaning them. Many times, this action of the state is justified; sometimes, it is not. Editors at the United States' most famous "terrorist" attack have acknowledged this difficulty, and opted for a dispassionate title. It is important to note that dispassionate labeling does not constitute an endorsement of a particular cause. Judgment is merely reserved for the reader; he or she, in reading and evaluating the offered sources and evidence, is left to conclude the moral weight properly assigned to the "terrorist" group. In cases where the moral truth is obvious (a hypothetical bombing of an orphanage for unwanted newborns), the condemnation in readers' minds will be rightly universal and unequivocal. In real-world cases, the actual result will be less marked, with by far most readers disdaining the killing of civilians, and a few finding justification in some motive or another. The important thing -- and our job as editors -- is to ensure that these judgments do not arise as a result of the terminology selected, leaving the reader in the fairest position to judge the facts. Dispassionate writing is also the only way that two opposed partisans in any conflict can come together, and it is the job of a NPOV encyclopedia to bring as many editors of every partisan position together as is possible.

• I support eleland's proposal, "List of killings of Israeli noncombatants during the Second Intifada," as the most dispassionate available here. I also continue to support the creation of a parallel "List of killings of Palestinian noncombatants during the Second Intifada." This list presently has a criterion requiring the deaths of ten or more individuals. This need not be explicitly stated in the title, as a basic assumption of the encyclopedia is that all detailed events are notable, and (sadly) single deaths are rarely ipso facto notable. If the consensus here nevertheless desires a more explicit title, "List of mass killings of Israeli noncombatants during the Second Intifada" would be appropriate. Upon request from a consensus here, I will be happy to move (and move-protect) the article. Best wishes, Xoloz 15:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Whilst (obviously) I agree with you on the massacre issue, I don't think the use of terrorist is an issue. There is a clear distinction between the terrorists on both sides (e.g. Baruch Goldstein or the various suicide bombers of Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the Al-Asqa Martyrs brigade) and the legitimate armed forces (i.e. the IDF and the Palestinian Security Forces). If an attack is carried out by one of the former it is a terrorist attack, if by one of the latter during a military operation, not. пﮟოьεԻ 57 16:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

While you may be technically correct (for such acts, when perpetrated by armed forces, are better consider "war crimes"), the technical distinction loses force in such discussions. The My Lai massacre is an example of an armed forces' attack that occupies this uncertain zone between war crime and "terrorist" act. Certainly, militaries are capable of "killing civilians in a manner meant to inspire terror among civilians." In that sense, states may commit terrorist acts, and it is that conundrum which renders the word "terrorist" hopelessly confused, imprecise, and unhelpful. Xoloz 16:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

My point is that splitting the list into two (Israeli and Palestinian ones) will lead to omission of the intentionality component i.e. on one side we see deliberate and indiscriminate attacks like suicide bombings and Qassams while the non-combatant toll in number of incidents with IDF is controversial at best (Shehada killing involved faulty intelligence, shelling of Beth Hanoun was result of error, etc.) While siding with view that every life should count - still equating between intended and collateral tolls means actual disregard to important difference in stances and such narrowing of scope for the present article should not be acceptable (Cf Frances Kamm etc. for importance of intentionality in ethical accounts) DBWikis 17:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The intentionality of state actors is almost impossible to determine for any action, much less armed attacks. The intentionality of non-state actors is easier to determine. This is a function of the structure of a state, which causes a diffusion of any intentionality that might have existed on the part of individuals. In my view, this is one among many reasons the lists need to be separate. Talk of the intentionality of the state (whether it has the best intentions, or the worst ones) is unproductive, not usually susceptible to investigation through reliable sources, and thus, not encyclopedic. Killings by a state and killings by a non-state are distinct "species" for factual reasons of structure: I think everyone can agree on that point. Again, the assignment of moral weight is not an encyclopedia's business. Wikipedia is interested in conveying the information with no "emotional color" -- it is for the reader to decide whether or if a state or non-state actor is more or less admirable or repugnant for reason of having an organized armed force or not having one.

In short, it is justifiable to say that killing by a state are different from those of a non-state -- it is not justifiable to say they are better or worse than those by a non-state. Xoloz 17:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I was also asked to weigh in as someone who commented on an afd in the past. I think that Eleland's and Xoloz's title has merit and has the simplicity that each and every single non-combatant killing can be included in the list rather than just a selection of what some editors consider massacres or mass murders. This information is probably available at some reliable soucres that catalog these (Amnesty International? UN? CNN?) - so that the picture is clearest. Carlossuarez46 17:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Xoloz, I absolutely agree that killing by army is different, yet the action of guerilla force can not be equated with conduct of bunch of individuals; and noone is calling for assigning of the "better/worse" labels. And I respectfully disagree with your opinion that "intentionality of state actors is almost impossible to determine for any action, much less armed attacks" what sounds almost mystifying while it is perfectly open to inquiry for exact reason of being done by organisation/state with proper records, justice system, mass media and yes NGOs working for human rights. I am not calling for providing moral judgements here because that will be OR etc. but see no problem in referencing accounts of RS which dealt with assertions being in essense legal/ethical. The "emotional color" will remain on the reader's side but presenting the material in objective manner is our responsibility, and splitting of the list into two will amount to obfuscation of the intentionality component which is important enough.

Carlossuarez46, too much simplicity here will make WP a disservice. Number of instances in question are controversial and the only cure in my view will be rather attempt at greater versimilitude. DBWikis 18:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I haven't read the entire debate, so forgive me if I am repeating something or not understanding everything this debate is about. I think the best way to answer the question is with the dictionary (I'm using Dictionary.com for convenience). A list of massacres during the Second Intifada should be a series of items written together in a meaningful grouping so as to constitue a record of the unnecessary, indiscriminate killing of a large number of human beings or animals at some point in the course of the Palestinian uprising against Israel beginning roughly around the time of the Camp David 2000 Summit known as the Second Intifada. Under this dictionary understanding of this list, the following requirements must be satisfied for the inclusion of any event:

1. The event must be "unnecessary." Obviously, this requires interpretation.
2. The event must be an "indiscriminate killing," meaning that the perpetrator(s) did not descriminate between combatants and civilians.
3. "A large number of human beings or animals" must have been killed. How "large" the number must be is subject to interpretation.
4. The event must have occurred after the year 2000, or when the Second Intifada began.
5. The objective of the event must have been to further the "uprising" against Israel and/or the Israeli presence in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, i.e. an event within the framework of "Intifada."

--GHcool 22:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

How "large" the number must be is subject to interpretation. This is exactly why we cannot use the word massacre - interpretation is pure POV. пﮟოьεԻ 57 22:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

• I was also asked for input. For the record, at the last AfD I voted to delete the list unless it could be balanced.

I'm not sure I can say anything that hasn't already been said. While the word "massacre" certainly applies to every incident in the list, many would argue that it applies equally to some actions by the Israeli military. While the attempt to "clarify" the criterion for inclusion by making it "deliberate attacks against civilians" was well-intentioned, again, many would — and have — argued that the Israeli military takes actions that any reasonable person would expect to result in large numbers of civilian casualties, qualifying those actions as deliberate attacks against civilians.

I have a few suggestions:

1. Consider the criteria for inclusion at List of massacres committed during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war, which is subtly different: "Incidents in which at least 10 civilians or disarmed soldiers were killed deliberately" doesn't require consideration of purpose of the attack, simply the results. This approach has the advantage that competing editors will make sure that the article doesn't create a false sense of balance.
2. If you can't reach a consensus, consider two articles with more neutral titles, such as "List of attacks on Israeli civilians ..." and "List of attacks on Palestinian civilians ..." This approach has the disadvantage of creating a false sense of balance and parallelism but the advantage that nobody gets the moral high ground of using the word "massacre".
3. Don't make up names for the massacres. If the article is named Ben Yehuda Street bombings, refer to it by that name, not as the "Ben Yehuda Street massacre".

Those are my thoughts. Sorry I can't be more helpful. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 23:07, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with most of Malik Shabazz's points, but his suggestion fails to address my fifth point: that the Second Intifada is, by definition, a Palestinian uprising against Israelis. Israeli action against Palestinians do not count as being within the framework of an "intifada." --GHcool 07:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I find GHCool’s un-addressed fifth point quite unique. It is constructed from his POV (shown on his user page by his limited, one-sided MidEast reading reference list); at the same time it indicates one of his basic problems in trying to understand the I/P conflict. His stated fifth point is: The objective of the event must have been to further the "uprising" against Israel, i.e. an event within the framework of "Intifada."

What he appears to have missed, in my estimation, is that the Intifada is not against Israel; the Intifada is against the Israeli Occupation of Palestinian Territories, and its oppression of the occupied Palestinian People. Sure Israel takes the blunt trauma; just as the Palestinians do. The simple fact remains, if the Occupation didn’t exist, neither Intifada would have happened as they did. I would also argue that the suicide bombings hardly furthered the cause of the Intifada. These attacks hurt their cause badly; the Palestinians would have been much better off if they had stuck to stone-throwing and defense of their homes, rather than attacks on innocents. CasualObserver'48 08:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid you are mistaken on this point (at least partially so). Please note the fact that the emblems of the major Palestinian organizations (PLO, Fatah, Hamas, PIJ, PFLP) all include a map of all of Palestine (current day Israel, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip) - see in Israeli-Palestinian conflict (under history). You can also read under Hamas#Beliefs - "Hamas regards the territory of the present-day State of Israel — as well as the Gaza Strip and the West Bank — as an inalienable Islamic waqf or religious bequest, which can never be surrendered to non-Muslims. It asserts that struggle (jihad) to regain control of the land from Israel is the religious duty of every Muslim (fard `ain). Hamas does not recognize Israel as a sovereign state, unlike the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), which has recognized it since 1988, and calls it the "Zionist entity". Its charter calls for an end to Israel.", and so on. The PLO was, in fact, established before the 1967 war, in 1964, by the Arab League (see Palestine Liberation Organization). Fatah was established in 1954, and carried its first attack against Israel in 1965 (see Fatah#Establishment).

All of these organization demand the "Right of Return", which equals the end of the Jewish State (it will obviously cease to exist as such with a majority of Palestinians).

So while it is a popular notion that the Intifada is just against the occupation, that is not so. okedem 14:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I have ammended my fifth point above based on both CasualObserver'48's and Okedem's arguments. --GHcool 01:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, GH thats cool. Ridiculous use of euphemisms does not help your point; it only proves your POV. CasualObserver'48 03:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Okedem, first I’d like to know where you think I am ‘at least partially’ correct. It would help me understand where you stand. I appreciate your point; there are those who will never accept Israel. Similarly, there are those who will never accept a Palestinian State. That is the problem for both the PLA and Israel; personally it is also a problem sitting very squarely in America’s lap. All these groups use the 1922 (post-Jordan) Mandate map, but I believe this is is exactly the point. You have your country and they do not. Concerning maps, I will also note the Israel has never declared her borders and has continued to expand (save Sinai). So, this point tends to be somewhat mute, especially considering continued settlements and the Barrier Wall.

I did look at your suggested reference ‘Israeli-Palestinian conflict (under history)’, but note sadly that nothing (apparently) happened in the I/P conflict between ’48 and ’49, between ’67 and ’93 or between ’00 and ’02, which is certainly not the case. (Yes, I also know the ‘main’ article exists.) Concerning Hamas, I will never support their beliefs statement as is, but I will make my own reference to History_of_Hamas#Before_1987_.E2.80.94_Palestinian_Islamic_activities_prior_to_the_creation_of_Hamas and, similarly, History_of_Hezbollah#What_originated_in_Hezbollah. My point is that Israel can do a lot better that it has. It is time to work toward peace, not an endless continuation of ‘my enemy’s enemy is my friend”. There is plenty of blame to go around.

On your later post concerning the right of return I agree this could be a real problem; Israel must remain a democratic state or it is lost. I suggest that time is running out and note that this is purely an internal Israeli political problem. Thankfully, however, the right of return includes ‘or reparations’, with which Israel is quite familiar.CasualObserver'48 05:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't want us to go completely off-topic here, so I've replied in your talk page. okedem 10:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, I appreciate that; it'll take a bit for me to formulate a reply. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 01:07, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

• RFC Response - only going to add my two cents, and nothing more. Overly-POV name that should be changed. It's a shame that both sides of this debate are always trying to play one-ups-manship with naming disputes. The Evil Spartan (talk) 02:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Do you think that "massacres" alone is the problem, or is any "list of attacks" constructed to only admit Palestinian attacks POV? And you mean the Israelistinian tarpit generally, right, not this particular naming dispute...? <eleland/talkedits> 02:31, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I've been asked for another outside opinion

on the same basis as Carlossuarez46. I ask a preliminary question. Did none of the events involved the killing of both Israelis and Palestinians -- and those of other nationalities? DGG (talk) 18:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

And a preliminary observation. There are some things such that even the barest list of them will intrinsically have an emotional color. DGG (talk) 18:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Several Palestinian bombings have killed Arab Israelis, and other attacks have killed individuals like George Khoury. I'm unaware of Israelis having been killed alongside Palestinians in events mentioned above, though that may have happened. I am aware of one case in which two armed Israelis were killed by the Israeli military. And herein lies the crux of the issue: intent. In the latter case, the mistake is that the victims were identified as enemy combatants, and in the former, the victim was identified as an "enemy" civilian. Whatever language we settle on for the title of this list, we cannot allow it to blur an important distinction, one which is not decided by editors here, but by RS. The events currently appearing here have been condemned as "targetting" civilians - "direct" and "systematic" attacks.[1][2] There have been similarly condemned events carried out by Israelis like the Cave of the Patriarchs massacre or Shfaram attack, and I don't believe that there is any objection to including any relevant examples, Israeli or Palestinian. Rather than redefining the list on the hypothetical premise that there are numerous events that are being unfairly rejected from this list, I think the discussion would be more productive to discuss individually the actual 1 or 2 cases in dispute. Tewfik^Talk 22:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Tewfik, you're ignoring the fact that significant and reliable sources describe some Israeli attacks as targeting civilians. In February 2003, for example, Human Rights Watch stated that "Israeli soldiers repeatedly used indiscriminate and excessive force, killed civilians willfully and unlawfully, and used Palestinian civilians as human shields." Amnesty said last year that "Many of the Palestinians killed by Israeli forces in the Occupied Territories were involved in armed confrontations and attacks. However, the majority were not – and they were killed as a result of deliberate and reckless shooting, artillery shelling or air strikes by Israeli forces carried out in densely populated residential areas." Both sources also discuss the Israeli policy of assassination targeted killing and conclude that it is politically motivated and not a legitimate security tactic. And we've established above that the world condemned the Shehada aistrike, and Ari Fleischer took pains to distinguish between "collateral damage" and a "deliberate attack on the site, knowing that innocents would be lost."

Now, we understand that notable POV's - including your own - hold that this nebulous concept of intent is the moral fulcrum upon which the Middle East conflict turns, and that Israeli actions involve a stark moral contrast to Palestinian ones. But what we're waiting for you to understand is that this is not the only significant view of the subject, and thus it must not be allowed to dominate the article. I have yet to see any policy or RS-based refutation of this point; instead, you're trying to convince us that your side's view of the conflict is correct. Well, whether it's correct or not, it's still a disputed point of view, and we write articles to a neutral point of view. As you well know! <eleland/talkedits> 23:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The only thing being ignored is the policy on civility - comment on content, not contributors. Beyond that, you replied to something that I didn't write. I said that any occurrence of an attack that RS say targets civilians should be included, and I included examples of such attacks carried out by Israelis. What I also said was that this discussion should focus on the 1-2 cases actually responsible for this dispute. Tewfik^Talk 03:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Point being, Tewfik, that it's a bad idea to make this list's central criteria an argument about intent, as that is a principle source of hot dispute among both RSs and Wikipedians. Both those who are pressing for this criterion and those resisting it, moreover, want this to be a list of Palestinian attacks on Israeli non-combatants; in other words, everyone wants the same list. But some want that list to impress upon the reader, through its title, the argument that only Palestinians, not Israelis, stage attacks on non-combatants. There are many RSs who find this argument uncompelling, so to build it into the title is a violation of WP:NPOV. At any rate, when both sides agree what a list's contents are to be, the choice between a contentious and non-contentious title should be a no-brainer. You go with the latter, always. Lists exist so that the reader may have organized information at his fingertips, not so that he may have intractable ethical questions resolved for him by Wikipedians.--G-Dett 05:22, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't want the same list as you, and I've said as much several times. There is no reason to exclude attacks arbitrarily just because they were carried out by Israelis. What I want, as I've said at least twice, is a specific discussion of the 1-2 disputed cases, and not vague theories about "intractable ethical questions". Tewfik^Talk 22:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

You may have said you "don't want the same list" as me, but you haven't said specifically how the contents of your list would differ from a List of attacks against Israeli non-combatants, leading me to conclude that it wouldn't differ at all. Your list would be identical to mine, except that it would have a title that makes an argument, as opposed to merely organizing information in a non-contentious way.--G-Dett 04:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Whatever, if you are convinced that you know what I want better than I do, then you have my congratulations. Tewfik^Talk 12:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Eleland I think it would be appropriate if you made a concise summary of the exact issue we are discussing under a new heading for outside opinion (So that they know exactly what we are arguing about) and that the rest of us (me, G-Dett, Armon, DBWikis etc...) abstain from commenting under that heading. Otherwise this is getting too muddled. --Burgas00 23:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

If he's happy to "write for the enemy" in presenting the dispute, it's OK with me -and probably a good idea. I'm staying out of it for now anyway. I just want to see what others think. <<-armon->> 00:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I will also tend to stay away and see what/how this develops. I would also be willing to assist Eleland (off the page), or alternatively come up with another summary from my POV, which might be different. CasualObserver'48 03:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)