Jump to content

Talk:Children in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Soosim (talk | contribs) at 09:31, 19 May 2013 (→‎Need paragraph on IDF targeting children). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconPalestine Start‑class Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Wikipedia. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related articles
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconIsrael B‑class High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related articles
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Project Israel To Do:
Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
WikiProject iconTerrorism Start‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Terrorism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles on terrorism, individual terrorists, incidents and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TerrorismWikipedia:WikiProject TerrorismTemplate:WikiProject TerrorismTerrorism articles
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Note icon
This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.

Dead girl

There has been some edit warring over the who tag.

  • Jiujitsuguy "Source does not identify the circumstances or cause of her death. She could have been killed by errant Qassam or other "friendly fire" incident"
  • I had a look and all 96 girls aged 16 or below are listed by B'Tselem as having been killed by the IDF during OCL.
  • It was reverted by Activism1234 "B'tselem is not considered an RS to reference to for plain facts. Secondly, B'tselem may not have reported on her death, she may have been killed in other way. And you wrote an inference, proof is needed"

I'm afraid I find this kind of editing too repulsive to deal with so I'm out. Sean.hoyland - talk 21:35, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted. Even if it were in dispute who killed this child, it isnt relevant to the caption. This never ending game has to stop. nableezy - 21:46, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sean.Hoyland made an inference and assumption in his summary box. He could NOT list which girl it was and provide a link. If he wants it to be used on Wikipedia, he ought to provide a RS reference and proof and be able to state clearly who it is and how she died. Not "Well it was on Day X so it's either A or B or C."
  • B'tselem has been known to lie or exaggerate or misrepresent. I'm not interested in getting into an argument about this, as it's just silly to deny that they have been overwhelmingly criticized by many people, organizations, blogs, etc, and certain lies have been pointed out. When we have an article on the Gaza War, for example, there's a reason editors are supposed to write "According to B'tselem..." and not just take what they write as a fact and put it on Wikipedia.
  • If proof can be provided of this girl, rather than just an unreferenced inference talking about B'tselem, then go ahead. But right now, all we have is a picture of a girl from Al Jazeera. Hamas, her family, anyone could've even lied about how she was killed to glorify her or bash Israel or both. Or it could just be similar to the tweet by a U.N. employee about a girl killed by an IDF airstrike, only to turn out she died a few years back and wasn't killed by Israel. THAT is the issue with this. If I took a picture of a girl covered from head to toe in blood, and I put it in this article or something similar, and wrote "Israeli girl killed in a Hamas suicide bombing," when in reality she's from another country and died in a different war or from a disease or an accident, then I would expect it to be reverted, and the claim that "Even if it were in dispute who killed this child, it isn't relevant to the caption" would just sound silly... --Activism1234 22:09, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is just a request for information. I can't locate the edit that removed the photo of the dead Palestinian girl. Sorry to be such a newbie. I am an academic researcher working on a paper. Shaixpeer (talk) 20:59, 10 March 2013 (UTC)Shaixpeer[reply]

There are lots of photos in relation to this conflict at Wikimedia Commons, including the one you are asking about. The photo, which was an up-close shot of a dead girl's face, was removed and replaced because it was kind of inappropriate. --68.6.227.26 (talk) 02:57, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

From the statistics in the fist paragraph 10 times more Palestinian children were killed than Israeli children, why is the section describing the deaths of Israeli children over twice the length of that describing the deaths of Palestinian children? Dlv999 (talk) 23:45, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The killing of Israeli children tended to be more deliberate than the killing of Palestinian children. Much of the section on Israeli child deaths focuses on notable incidents. Perhaps a few of those, such as the death of Khalil al-Mughrabi, could be added to the section on Palestinian child fatalities. --68.6.227.26 (talk) 03:40, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dlv999, as you have not responded, I am going to add some notable incidents to the section on Palestinian child deaths and remove the "NPOV dispute" from the top of the article. --68.6.227.26 (talk) 00:10, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to see responsiveness to complaints. It needs a lot more than that to be NPOV and remove tag, including cutting WP:Undue and repetitive material. But it's basically a Coatrack for how evil Palestinians are to all children. Indoctrination of Israeli children against Arabs, including their being expected to go into the military and fight Arabs, also are relevant here. Feel free to add something of that. Meanwhile I'm going to correct one thing right now and putting tag back. CarolMooreDC 19:57, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A source you might start with: Israeli Textbooks and Children's Literature Promote Racism and Hatred toward Palestinians and Arabs (Questia article - also at Highbeam). CarolMooreDC 23:50, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The report shown in the link you gave is controversial and has been challenged by other sources. However, it sounds reasonable to include a section on Israeli textbook bias. Do you have any other specific complaints about this article? --68.6.227.26 (talk) 07:41, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Critical refs from WP:RS always relevant, as are noncritical ones. I found the article because a number of books recommended it when I did a general books.google search. There is lots of material that can be added. Usually just looking at existing sources will show the "other side of the story" that biased editors left out. I'll delete what I think is WP:Undue at my leisure and we can discuss if anyone has a problem. It's a long term project in a serious area. CarolMooreDC 05:22, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think that so far you are doing a good job of making the article more neutral. As for the Gaza War, I added the casualty figures given by Israel in order to give both sides.
By the way, do you know why two images were recently removed? --68.6.227.26 (talk) 00:33, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Image wise I get the impression from edit summary that they were somebody's flicker pictures and the person withdrew their authorization. But I'm not an expert in that area. CarolMooreDC 17:52, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Accurate rendition of Ma'an News Agency report

This diff added one piece of highly questionable material, and removed several important pieces of info, not mentioned in the edit summary.

  • Added: and Palestinian officials have said that the girl's death had nothing to do with Israel. should NOT be put in unless we are sharing the source of this "information" per the article: Palestinian officials declared she was not killed by Israeli forces,” the official said, referring to the caption its blog sourced to an Israeli tweeter named Avi Mayer. Is it worth a whole sentence to debunk a questionable claim, ala WP:NPOV/WP:Undue? I don't think so.
  • Removed: the hospital medical report on the dead girl read that she died “due to falling from a high area during the Israeli strike on Gaza”. And that the Israeli air strike was reported to be as little as 100 meters away. Obviously a BLP violation because it is removal of material that is meant to show that an Individual did not lie about an event, even if she did get the year wrong.
  • I think it should be reinstated as below, with tad bit more info added:
Ma'an News Agency reported a week later that Israeli officials said that the girl's death had nothing to do with Israel. However, the hospital medical report on the dead girl read that she died “due to falling from a high area during the Israeli strike on Gaza”. Interviews with relatives, news reports and investigations by human rights organizations also suggest that her death indirectly was caused by an Israeli airstrike as little as 100 meters away. There are differing accounts as to exactly how this occurred. [strike later]

Any objections? CarolMooreDC 18:15, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I added the text saying that Israeli and Palestinian officials said that the girl's death was not caused by Israeli actions because that is what the source says, though I think it is a good idea to give more context. I removed the part about her allegedly falling from a high area during an Israeli strike because that is just one of several accounts as to how she was supposedly killed. Another account is that a slide fell on her, while another says that she slipped off a swing and hit her head.
I think it is best to just say that the cause of her death is unclear, and that some claim that it was indirectly caused by an Israeli airstrike while others say that it had nothing to do with Israel. --68.6.227.26 (talk) 03:54, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Again, what you want to say is: Israel says she's a liar and some unnamed people may not being saying she's a liar. (And thus she should be fired from her job; Wikipedia not a forum to present evidence for firing people and suppressing exculpatory evidence. Which may have been original intent since this material in four articles; thus even now must be careful of content.) That's problematic per WP:BLP. The hospital report is most reliable. All that really matters here is that other sources refer to a nearby airstrike being related to the death. What needs to be struck is extraneous fact There are differing accounts as to exactly how this occurred. Just deleting it would solve the problem, per above. CarolMooreDC
As I looked at it saw other aspects and thus rewrote with this edit summary: Per BLP showing source supports that she did not lie; showing article emphasizes how she died, not what Israel said; relevance to this article means include details; exclude claim WP:RS presented as questionable) CarolMooreDC 17:26, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What I want to say is that Israeli and Palestinian officials deny that her death was caused by Israel, while hospital records and rights groups claim otherwise. Also, I think it should be mentioned that the accounts that say her death was caused by Israel vary in how it allegedly occurred. --68.6.227.26 (talk) 03:12, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
MaanNews last sentence reads: “Palestinian officials declared she was not killed by Israeli forces,” the official said, referring to the caption its blog sourced to an Israeli tweeter named Avi Mayer. You really want a reference to that questionably sourced assertion in the article? I doubt anyone on WP:DRN, WP:NPOVN or WP:RSN would agree.
The main point of the article is the child was somehow killed due to a fall because of a nearby airstrike. The variation is not in whether it was related to an airstrike, but where the fall was from and if something fell on her, given fact probably no one witnessed it directly. The question is, does article need all those options to explain what "how it allegedly occurred" means, for NPOV and BLP reasons. Should we bring this to WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard? CarolMooreDC 04:26, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would rather just talk it out here. How about this: "Ma'an News Agency reported the hospital medical report on the dead girl stated she died 'due to falling from a high area during the Israeli strike on Gaza'. Interviews with relatives, news reports and investigations by human rights organizations also suggest that her death indirectly was caused by an Israeli airstrike as little as 100 meters away, though accounts differ on how this occurred. Israeli officials have said that the girl's death had nothing to do with Israel." --68.6.227.26 (talk) 05:32, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good enough. Done! CarolMooreDC 15:58, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Casualties statistics

I changed the statistics and dates to fit the Second Intifada time period and added the number of children below the age of 12 who were killed. --68.6.227.26 (talk) 04:26, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm...I see properly sourced info below was replaced with older info that fudges the source (B'tselem filtered through the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs report?) And with no edit summary.
  • Between the outbreak of the Al-Aqsa Intifada in September 2000 and December 2011, 1331 Palestinian children and 129 Israeli children under the age of 18 have been killed, according to B'Tselem, an Israeli human rights monitoring group. becomes...
  • B'tselem and Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs report that during the Second Intifada (September 2000 to January 2005) 571 Palestinian children, age 17 and under, and 112 Israeli children, age 17 and under, were killed.(REF) A study by the International Institute for Counter-Terrorism found that 46 Israelis and 88 Palestinians were below the age of 12 at the time of their deaths.(REF)
  • International Institute for Counter-Terrorism report named An Engineered Tragedy – Statistical Analysis of Casualties in the Palestinian – Israeli Conflict, September 2000 – September 2002 only covers a couple years and certainly doesn't belong in there; and its POV really hangs right out there.
What is the rationale for removing 6 years and 760 kids?? And adding a sentence drawn from two mere years of statistics. Again, none noted in the edit summary....
I can see this whole paragraph has to be properly reorganized to reflect all 12 years with proper sourcing, as well as recent Gaza clashes that killed 33 children. CarolMooreDC 06:09, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the years because the previous figure, September 2000 to December 2011, felt a little random. The other casualty figures are those from major periods in the conflict, the First Intifada and the aftermath of the Oslo Accords. I thought it would make more sense to categorize the figures with the specific conflict during which they occurred. The numbers should be up to date, though. Maybe just have a distinction between during and after the Second Intifada? I think the part about how many were below the age of 12 should be kept.
I did give an edit summary. Looking back over the last edit, though, I realized that I accidentally cited the wrong report. I had meant to give the one from 2005 but gave the one from 2002 instead. That has been fixed.
Also, I think that the statistics should not include casualties in 2012 until the year has concluded. --68.6.227.26 (talk) 06:56, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
First, it is original research for you to divide up the Bt'Selem numbers by years the way you did. A broad overview from them (that doesn't just focus on years where Israeli deaths closer to Palestinian deaths), followed by other breakdowns by other sources is appropriate, assuming done in NPOV way. And Bt'Selem numbers til September as well as the latest "clashes" numbers are available from UN, so no need to wait.
Second, the 2007 OCHA report doesn't mention Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs or any statistics on minors from Bt'Selem. It does have a lot of other interesting factoids/statistics about children which it is too later for me to look at tonight.
Studying the relevant sources and a few others I put together and entered a cleaner version which makes clear who is saying what about what time periods and better summarizes some sources, like Richter-Stein. Also, it makes sense to start with the First Intifada when statistics on children seem to first have been collected and where large numbers of teens started being active. More info on specific deaths during those times, as well as Gaza War and 2010 clashes, can be added later. Obviously, this article needs the updating. CarolMooreDC 09:05, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I made some small changes. B'tselem reports 129 Israeli child casualties between September 2000-2012, not 85. I added a source and specified where Mearsheimer and Walt made the claim regarding the conduct of Israeli troops. --68.6.227.26 (talk) 23:57, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see I did misread the numbers. Read an interesting source on children's role in first intifada which is sourced info as opposed to current WP:OR of first sentence in introductory paragraph. Something to fix tomorrow... CarolMooreDC 01:09, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Original research interpretation of B'Tselem statistics?

Going through tonight at this diff, the refs do not make clear that they support your statement except through WP:Original research interpretation. If you feel it is necessary to mention that there is a challenge to the B'Tselem statistics of Cast Lead/Gaza War discussed below, then do it in the next sentence, don't do it in the middle of the B'Tselem sentence as if it actually is a B'Tselem statement.

  • You wrote: "From the outbreak of the Second Intifada starting in 2000, to September 2012, B'Tselem statistics show that 990 Palestinian minors (not including those killed during the Gaza War, discussed below) and 129 Israeli minors were killed within Israel, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip.[5][6][7]"
  • Also you have a wrong ref link and a missing ref link and I have included the full ones with full descriptions per the source (for comprehensibility), assuming all four really are necessary in this section, which I doubt.
  1. http://www.btselem.org/english/Statistics/Casualties.asp Fatalities: 29.9.2000-30.9.2012 (September 29, 2000 to September 30, 2012)
  2. http://old.btselem.org/statistics/english/casualties.asp?sD=29&sM=09&sY=2000&eD=26&eM=12&eY=2008&filterby=event&oferet_stat=before Fatalities since the outbreak of the second intifada and until operation "Cast Lead":29.9.2000-26.12.2008 (September 29, 2000 - December 26, 2008)
  3. http://old.btselem.org/statistics/english/casualties.asp?sD=27&sM=12&sY=2008&eD=18&eM=01&eY=2009&filterby=event&oferet_stat=during Fatalities during operation "Cast Lead":27.12.2008-18.1.2009 (December 27, 2008 - January 18, 2009)
  4. http://old.btselem.org/statistics/english/Casualties.asp?sD=19&sM=01&sY=2009&filterby=event&oferet_stat=after Fatalities after operation "Cast Lead": 19.1.2009-31.10.2012 (January 19, 2009 to October 31, 2012)

Thoughts? CarolMooreDC 06:05, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to # http://old.btselem.org/statistics/english/casualties.asp?sD=29&sM=09&sY=2000&eD=26&eM=12&eY=2008&filterby=event&oferet_stat=before Fatalities since the outbreak of the second intifada and until operation "Cast Lead":29.9.2000-26.12.2008 (September 29, 2000 - December 26, 2008), 951 Palestinian minors were killed before Operation Cast Lead. According to #http://old.btselem.org/statistics/english/Casualties.asp?sD=19&sM=01&sY=2009&filterby=event&oferet_stat=after Fatalities after operation "Cast Lead": 19.1.2009-31.10.2012 (January 19, 2009 to October 31, 2012), 38 were killed after. 951 + 38 = 989. It causes confusion to say that a certain number were killed in total, and then show the debate about how many were killed in a particular time period, as it could lead readers to believe that the dispute is over when certain casualties occurred rather than the overall number. --68.6.227.26 (talk) 23:24, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The current state of affairs is highly dubious. We should give the total figure for the whole period. This does not mean we cannot also discuss the casualty figures specific to the Gaza war. Dlv999 (talk) 23:49, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Listing fatalities during the Gaza War individually is more clear and accurate. I don't believe there is any dispute regarding how many were killed before and after, but because there are drastic differences between the numbers given during Operation Cast Lead, it is best to list them separately. --68.6.227.26 (talk) 00:31, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is not "more clear and accurate" that is an absurd assertion. What would be more clear and accurate would be to list the figures for the entire period as published by B'tselem. Dlv999 (talk) 00:43, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I have stated previously, it causes confusion to state that a certain number were killed in total and then discuss the dispute over how many died during the Gaza War. It could give the impression that the dispute is over the time of their deaths rather than the number of how many were actually killed. It could also give the preconceived notion that B'tselem's statistics are the most reliable, which is dubious. --68.6.227.26 (talk) 00:54, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is confusing is the current state of affairs. Listing B'tselem's findings for the entire period would not be confusing. Furthermore, it would not "give the impression that the dispute is over the time of their deaths" I cannot understand this claim you are making. Your claim "It could also give the preconceived notion that B'tselem's statistics are the most reliable" is not correct, we would simply be reporting the figures as published by the source. In any case, with respect to Cast Lead the figures provided by the Israeli military, who were a party to the conflict, are the outliers

  • B'selem: 320
  • Defense for Children International: 352 [1]
  • Amnesty International: "some 300" [2]
  • Palestinian Centre for Human Rights: 318 [3]
  • Al Mazen 342 [4]
  • IDF 89

Quoting from the UN fact finding mission: " The Mission received statistics on the fatalities of the military operations from the Gaza authorities, specifically from the Central Commission for Documentation and Pursuit of Israeli War Criminals (TAWTHEQ), as well as from PCHR, Al Mezan and B’Tselem. The first three also provided lists of all the persons killed in the military operations, with their names, sex, age, address, occupation, and place and date of the fatal attack. Another NGO, Defence for Children International – Palestine Section, provided a list of all the children killed.....The Mission notes, however, that the Israeli Government has not published a list of victims or other data supporting its assertions, nor has it, to the Mission’s knowledge, explained the divergence between its statistics and those published by three Palestinian sources, except insofar as the classification of policemen as combatants is concerned.....The Mission notes that the statistics from non-governmental sources are generally consistent. Statistics alleging that fewer than one out of five persons killed in an armed conflict was a combatant, such as those provided by PCHR and Al Mezan as a result of months of field research, raise very serious concerns about the way Israel conducted the military operations in Gaza. The counterclaims published by the Government of Israel fall far short of international law standards."[5] pp 90-91 Dlv999 (talk) 01:25, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. I still believe that it would be inconsistent to first give an overall casualty figure as if it were undisputed fact and then discuss a debate over how many were killed during the Gaza War. As the article is right now, there is no confusion. It gives the number prior to Operation Cast Lead, after, and shows both sides of the dispute over how many fatalities there were during the Gaza War. Readers can decide on their own who they think it more reliable. --68.6.227.26 (talk) 01:40, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My point at the time was merely that you can't make it look like B'Tselem is the source of comment that there is disagreement. However, since then I rewrote it with this edit summary: more info on disputes over figures; put in box with relevant B'tselem figures since best overview, remove most duplicate B'tselem figures; needs more work but easier to comprehend now. It's far less confusing now. If someone else has such complete figures, we an decide what do do about them. (UN probably does somewhere.) CarolMooreDC 03:30, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That solves the problem. I agree that this is the best way to present the figures. --68.6.227.26 (talk) 06:40, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, team! :-) CarolMooreDC 21:05, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures

I added two photos to replace the ones that were recently deleted. --68.6.227.26 (talk) 01:52, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Foreigners killed

There is currently no mention of children from other countries who were killed as a result of this conflict, so I am going to add a section to cover it. --68.6.227.26 (talk) 23:37, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't reviewed all your past edits, but I have a feeling they consist of a lot of the POV/WP:Undue material that needs to be cut down, just like this section. As I wrote on that section which I deleted before noticed this in talk: delete POV section; article already is attack article to downplay Palestinian children suffering and emphasize Non-state terrorism; this section just piles it on; discuss at talk per WP:BRD) CarolMooreDC 05:19, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
According to Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, you can't revert something until we've discussed my issues. Otherwise its 'WP:edit warring.
Right now I need to add some of the copious missing material to make article NPOV; then will review all that copious WP:undue material. CarolMooreDC 05:22, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Foreign children were killed in this conflict or as a result of it. That is a fact. They should not be ignored solely because you think it makes one side look bad. Everything I wrote was supported by one or more reliable sources. --68.6.227.26 (talk) 05:26, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You could put it in as a two sentence paragraph in casualties where it would have relevance. But it's just POV pushing having its own section. CarolMooreDC 06:13, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is a section for Israeli children and a section for Palestinian children. It makes sense for there to be a section for foreign children as well. It is not excessively long or detailed. --68.6.227.26 (talk) 06:34, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Below is a WP:Undue rendition of a paragraph for the casualty section. If you believe that that much detail (including the multiple references and the paragraph on France) are appropriate, than you would have to believe that about three dozen examples of dead Palestinian children, plus every regiment and named commander in charge when the kids were killed, plus details about a number of Lebanese children killed during the 2006 Lebanon Warwhen Israel bombed the heck out of Beirut are appropriate.

I can never decide if NPOV Noticeboard or Dispute Resolution is the best place to go, for each of these examples we obviously will be dealing with over the next couple months as this article is improved.

According to Btselem, 58 foreign citizens were killed by Palestinian militants between September of 2000 and September of 2012, and some unspecified number were children.[1] These include Aleksei Lupalu, 16, of the Ukraine in the 2001 Dolphinarium discotheque suicide bombing [2]; Shmuel Taubenfeld, 3 months, of New York in the Shmuel HaNavi bus bombing on August 19, 2003[3]; Daniel Wultz, aged 16, of Weston, Florida, in the 2006 Tel Aviv shawarma restaurant bombing.[4]

Thoughts? CarolMooreDC 01:55, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The 2006 Lebanon War was a response to Hezbollah rockets; it was not related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. As for the use of multiple references, I have always seen them as a good thing because they help to strengthen the credibility of the article.
I do see the issue of the section containing only casualties caused by Palestinians, but I don't believe any foreign children were killed by Israel between 2000 and 2012 as a result of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I have tried to find the statistics for foreigners between 1987 and 1999 but have not been able to. --68.6.227.26 (talk) 03:55, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NPOV reads: An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.
The Lebanon war is just a relevant as the French incidents because both have a tangential relation to Palestine (and the IDF killed at least one Palestinian activist during Lebanon war). A non-Palestinian killed them. Are we to bring in every Al Queda attack because they've said they are ticked off about Palestine? The emphasis obviously is POV.
The paragraph does not need to mention every adult killed. Just as POV as if someone mentioned how many of them were IDF members and quoted WP:Rs discussion of whether they were "fair military targets."
As for reference stacking, that can be done by everyone until there's a 1000 reference an article. Not necessary. CarolMooreDC 04:17, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
When I said that multiple references were a good thing, I meant that two or three references are better than one.
The Lebanon war was not a result of the Israel-Palestinian conflict. It was a response to Hezbollah rockets. In the case of the killings in France, the perpetrator specifically said that he did it because of the conflict.
Again, I do see the issue in the fact that the section contains only fatalities caused by Palestinians. How about putting this under "Casualties":

According to Btselem, 58 foreign citizens were killed by Palestinian militants between September of 2000 and September of 2012, and some unspecified number were children. Others were killed as an indirect result of the conflict. For example, a French Muslim attacked a Jewish school in February 2012, saying that his motives were to avenge Palestinians

--68.6.227.26 (talk) 04:43, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1RR notice; Removing important information (Malnutrition-related)

I just put the WP:1rr notice on the talk page for future reference, per Israel Palestine arbitration since this article is clearly well within its limits. I previously put an Edit warring notice on AnonIp 227.36 talk page and there was a 1RR notice there on another article, so hopefully the AnonIp goes to their talk page from time to time.

Anyway, at this diff AnonIP 227.36 changed the new text:

She stated the comments meant that Gazans were not starving, but the situation remained dire and the blockade was the main cause. She emphasized Israel's refusal to allow in building materials to rebuild homes destroyed by Israel during the Gaza War and to repair water and sanitation facilities, as well as raw materials for industry and spare parts for medical equipment.

to:

She stated the comments meant that Gazans were not starving, and that the main issue was not food shortages but damaged infrastructure and sanitation problems. She further stated that the blockade was the main cause for lack of rebuilding since the Gaza War.

This clearly changes the meaning of the WP:RS which emphasizes that she says the situation is dire and the blockade is the problem. This is obviously a POV twisting of a source and looks to me like edit warring again. Please revert it. Thanks. CarolMooreDC 03:15, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did not revert your edit; I only altered some of the text because the section is on malnutrition, not damaged infrastructure or medical equipment. My edit does not remove the part about the blockade being the main problem. --68.6.227.26 (talk) 04:04, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:344: A revert means undoing the actions of another editor. Rewriting to remove important information, especially for POV reasons, is considered a revert. Do you not even see how you have watered down the statement to make it sound more like the IDF version?? CarolMooreDC 04:22, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I did not remove the information to "water down" the statement, but because I did not think it was related to malnutrition. I will put the part about her saying that the situation was still "dire" back in. --68.6.227.26 (talk) 04:48, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your original entry was not related to malnutrition either. There being food in the stores/restaurants is not related to whether there is enough food for all people, especially poor people.
But IF you insist on having the out of context statement per WP:NPOV then you must allow the whole context of what the Red Cross official said in the CS Monitor article, including things that are known commonly to be related to malnutrition - "every day thousands of liters of untreated sewage is dumped into the Wadi Gaza River, which is a major health problem." (See typhoid and diarrhea in next paragraph). Living in a cold tent because Israel won't let you re-build homes it destroyed and create proper toilet facilities can lead to illnesses which make it harder to eat as much as you need. Not having working medical equipment can make it more difficult to diagnose malnutrition-related diseases. Not having a job means less money to pay for food.
The NEXT paragraph makes the contamination connection more clear, like the fact that once sanitation and water facilities are bombed, water becomes contaminated, gives kids typhoid and diarrhea. (And as is commonly known, and the Wiki article will verify, the latter especially related to malnutrition since nutrients are not absorbed well when one frequently has diarrhea.) One of the difficulties of editing wikipedia is one article won't be as explicit as a later one, especially when you are presenting reports in Chrono order.
Food in stores/restaurants does not mean children are NOT malnourished. "Lack of rebuilding" is not sufficient to make it clear why children are mulnourished. Removing these explicit issues makes it difficult for readers to understand the problem and is very WP:POV. CarolMooreDC 16:05, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My original entry was to explain that, though there is malnutrition, there is no humanitarian crisis or starvation. Some of your edits have created the impression that there is. The fact that "The United Nation's Relief and Works Agency provides aid to most of Gaza's 1.5 million people, and has been allowed to bring in food and medical supplies. The Red Cross and other aid groups are active as well" [6] is relevant to a section on food shortages and malnutrition.
The part about medical equipment and sanitation belongs in the section about medical care, as it is more closely associated with that than malnutrition.
The Christian Science Monitor article states that the most prominent issues in the Gaza Strip are poor economic, sanitation, and medical conditions, not malnutrition. The article does not discuss the things you mentioned - "Illnesses which make it harder to eat as much as you need. Not having working medical equipment can make it more difficult to diagnose malnutrition-related diseases. Not having a job means less money to pay for food." Those are your own words and conclusions. --68.6.227.26 (talk) 23:01, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your current version is NOT accurate:

She stated the comments meant that Gazans were not starving, and that the main issue was not food shortages but damaged infrastructure and sanitation problems. She further stated that the situation was still "dire" and that the blockade was the main cause for lack of rebuilding since the Gaza War.[145]

However, SHE doesn't say Gazans are not starving, CSMonitor does. She says in article:

But according to ICRC spokeswoman Cecilia Goin, the situation remains dire and the Red Cross views the blockade on Gaza by Israel as the principal cause. Ms. Goin says the earlier interview with Riedmatten did not include the full context provided by her colleague, and created the understanding "that since there’s no evidence that there’s a humanitarian crisis that everything was OK." Far from it, Goin says. (The full following details she shares could be put in a separate section on poverty/industry/homelessness. Sanitation is adequately covered in the next paragraph of the article.)

So we should delete the first sentence and tweak the second one to read (minus further since she said it first):

She stated that the situation was still "dire" and that the blockade was the main cause of lack of rebuilding of infrastructure and Sanitation since the Gaza War.

I think that solves the problems. CarolMooreDC 00:29, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't write that she said the Gazans are not starving; you did. Your original edit said the following:
"She stated the comments meant that Gazans were not starving, but the situation remained dire and the blockade was the main cause. She emphasized Israel's refusal to allow in building materials to rebuild homes destroyed by Israel during the Gaza War and to repair water and sanitation facilities, as well as raw materials for industry and spare parts for medical equipment."
I altered it to say "She stated the comments meant that Gazans were not starving, and that the main issue was not food shortages but damaged infrastructure and sanitation problems. She further stated that the blockade was the main cause for lack of rebuilding since the Gaza War." I have since re-added the part about the situation being "dire".
About deleting the first sentence and altering the first, how about this: "It was reported that, though there was no starvation, the situation was still "dire" and that the blockade was the main cause of lack of rebuilding of infrastructure and sanitation since the Gaza War." --68.6.227.26 (talk) 01:32, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mea culpa!
I decided to go back and re-read the whole article and found a few things of interest that all are relevant to a response by both the writer and the Red Cross. So here's another version that more accurately reflects the article in relation to the IDF's version of her statements. Just to make the full context clear, here's both paragraphs with one thing struck in the first one, avoiding the whole "wrong spelling" issue:
In April 2011, the Israel Defense Force spokesperson's office made available to the media comments by "Mathilde Redmatn", the deputy director of the International Committee of the Red Cross in the Gaza Strip, who the IDF reported said that there is "no humanitarian crisis in Gaza. If you go to the supermarket, there are products. There are restaurants and a nice beach." Redmatn further said that problems caused by the blockade were "mainly in maintenance of infrastructure and in access to goods, concrete for example."[5][6]
Christian Science Monitor staff writer Dan Murphy interviewed the spokeswoman for the Red Cross, Cecilia Goin. She told him the comments were not provided in full context and thus gave the inaccurate impression "that everything was OK" when in fact the situation was still "dire." Murphy, who has been to Gaza, wrote that products in supermarkets and restaurants were "out of reach" for most Gazans and that aid from the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East keeps Gazans from starving. Moreover, a 2008 United States diplomatic cable released by Wikileaks stated that "Israeli officials have confirmed to Embassy officials on multiple occasions that they intend to keep the Gazan economy functioning at the lowest level possible consistent with avoiding a humanitarian crisis".
When an organization's views are misrepresented and a major publication does an in depth analysis, you have to reflect that. CarolMooreDC 06:15, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that it's not really necessary to call attention to a spelling error. I think the part about Wikileaks should be left out, as it is not the most reliable source, and that this line should be altered a little: "Murphy, who has been to Gaza, wrote that products in supermarkets and restaurants were 'out of reach' for most Gazans and that aid from the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East keeps Gazans from starving." It gives the impression that the Gazans are on the brink of starvation, which is not what the article says.
Maybe it should say this: "Murphy, who has been to Gaza, wrote that products in supermarkets and restaurants were 'out of reach' for most Gazans and that they rely on aid from the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East." --68.6.227.26 (talk) 21:41, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the CS Monitor thinks it's good enough to quote Wikileaks, it's good enough for Wikipedia. Only primary source use of Wikileaks is frowned upon here. And obviously if the whole point of the first paragraph is that IDF (and the JPost headline) boasts that the Red Cross says there is No humanitarian crisis, a US Document saying Israelis "intend to keep the Gazan economy functioning at the lowest level possible consistent with avoiding a humanitarian crisis" is highly relevant and I'm sure any NPOV wikipedian would think it was POV to delete that fact.
  • A slight tweak in order makes the statement an accurate summary of what Murphy writes- "Murphy, who has been to Gaza, wrote that products in supermarkets and restaurants were "out of reach" for most Gazans but they were not starving because of aid from the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East."
What he says in the order he says it is:For average residents, they're out of reach...(intervening paragraph)...In this context the "no humanitarian crisis" means that people in Gaza aren't starving, which is certainly true. The United Nation's Relief and Works Agency provides aid to most of Gaza's 1.5 million people, and has been allowed to bring in food and medical supplies. The Red Cross and other aid groups are active as well.
If there is an impression left, it is an impression from the article itself. But certainly not all people would get that impression. CarolMooreDC 22:44, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What about just quoting the article? ...In this context the "no humanitarian crisis" means that people in Gaza aren't starving, which is certainly true. The United Nation's Relief and Works Agency provides aid to most of Gaza's 1.5 million people, and has been allowed to bring in food and medical supplies. The Red Cross and other aid groups are active as well. I think that would solve the issue of how it should be worded. --68.6.227.26 (talk) 22:54, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that solves that problem. CarolMooreDC 05:07, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Changes this article needs

  • Lead that explains briefly what the conflict is about and conflicts/actions since First Intifada that are relevant to children and overview of article itself.
  • Legal responsibilities (or some such section title) section which outlines each parties obligation under international law, some of which is mentioned in passing below a couple places. More details can be offered as relevant in following sections.
  • Casualty figures subsections need Proper balance of details of who killed how many children and how - per WP:NPOV, including removing excessive details if they are repeated over and over and excessive referencing of articles with same info for POV purposes.
  • Manipulation of Children should be next and include more on Israeli children indoctrination vs. Palestinians and preparation for IDF (have found lots can discuss when enter). Indoctrination section would come before Child Suicide bombers. Again, balance with removal of overly repetitive and POV material and refs.
  • IDF treatment next
  • Effects on children needs more details, including new medical section contrasting Israeli and Arab children medical facilities; for past/current problems getting medical supplies to West Bank and Gaza; checkpoints holding up medical treatment; child birth mortality rates etc, as properly discussed by a variety of sources. The Israeli "good deeds" sections from sources that applaud Israel's actions can be incorporated into that section.
  • Peace projects could do a bit more.

So those are my more detailed thoughts and intentions for the coming month(s). Hopefully some will agree and help out. CarolMooreDC 16:45, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Adding more to the lead sounds like a good idea, so does legal responsibilities of both parties. I agree that "Peace projects" could be expanded. Israelis tell their children that, when they are adults, they will be required to serve in the army for two or three years. How is that indoctrination? As for casualties, there should be a distinction between who killed who. Btselem lists several dozen Palestinian children who were killed by other Palestinians. There are some cases where the responsible party is unclear, and in those cases Btselem tends to classify them as casualties perpetrated by Israel. --68.6.227.26 (talk) 23:16, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For the section on peace projects, maybe there should be a little more about how the educational efforts work. Also it could discuss two or three more projects specifically, such as Children of Abraham.
I will go ahead and switch the section on indoctrination to go before child suicide bombers. --68.6.227.26 (talk) 23:27, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We can wait til info is added to discuss what is or isn't indoctrination. To clarify, I'm talking about excessive mentions and details with obvious POV. But we can discuss as we go. CarolMooreDC 00:07, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Casualties abroad

Btselem statistics only cover fatalities within Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza. Israeli children were killed in Palestinian attacks in other parts of the world between 2000 and 2012. I don't know if there were Palestinian child deaths in other countries during that time period. --68.6.227.26 (talk) 04:07, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Only if there is explicit WP:RS saying that it was done regarding that conflict and not general terrorism and/or antisemitism. And I still do think the current section on non-citizens is WP:POV/WP:Undue. But will wait til bring several issues to WP:NPOV. CarolMooreDC 04:52, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The 2002 Mombasa attacks, which targeted an Israeli-owned hotel and plane in Kenya, resulted in the deaths of 3 Israelis and 10 Kenyans. 2 of the Israeli deaths were children. A group called the "Army of Palestine" took responsibility, saying that the attack was to mark the 55th anniversary of the partition of Palestine and also to show the "voice of the refugees". [7] The 2004 Sinai bombings were perpetrated by a Palestinian group who, after a failed attempt to enter Israel, attacked tourist hotels being used by Israelis in the Sinai Peninsula. 34 people were killed (18 Egyptians, 12 Israelis, 2 Italians, 1 Russian, and 1 American), and 3 of the Israeli fatalities were children. [8] --68.6.227.26 (talk) 05:21, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than get into yet another section that would confuse people, why not just leave "Foreign children" meaning any child who is neither an Israeli citizen nor a Palestinian who has given up efforts to return to Palestine, whether they were killed in Israel or outside of Israel. I suppose Palestinian refugee camp inhabitants intent on eventually returning to their homes already should be included under Palestinians, if they were killed in relation to the conflict, including in Lebanon in 1982 and 2006. Just as Israeli citizen children killed abroad would be under Israeli children. CarolMooreDC 05:51, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't talking about creating another section, just adding a sentence to the section on casualties. "From the outbreak of the Second Intifada starting in 2000, to September of 2012, B'Tselem statistics show that 990 Palestinian minors (not including those which took place during the Gaza War, discussed below) and 129 Israeli minors were killed within Israel, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip. Other Israelis, children among them, were killed abroad in attacks related to the conflict." Something along those lines. Sorry for the confusion. --68.6.227.26 (talk) 06:14, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You do need refs for whatever you say. And in this case it would be Israelis and Palestinians killed outside of Israel/WestBank/Gaza/EastJerusalem. But if they are killed abroad and WP:RS say it was related to the conflict, it doesn't matter if they were killed abroad. CarolMooreDC 06:48, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have given sources for two incidents that report Israeli child casualties related to the conflict that took place abroad. I have been trying to see if there are reports of Palestinian child fatalities in other countries that were related to the conflict, but have not found any. If an incident were found, then the text should say Other Israelis and Palestinians, children among them, were killed abroad in attacks related to the conflict. If not, then the text should say Other Israelis, children among them, were killed abroad in attacks related to the conflict. --68.6.227.26 (talk) 07:10, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am confused. Why bother to give details above with refs and then say you only want one sentence. I've found a number of mentions of many Palestinian children killed in Lebanon by Israeli-permitted massacres and Israeli airstrikes, etc. which can provide when sufficiently motivated. CarolMooreDC 05:11, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I thought you were opposed to another section. And I am only attempting to make the section on overall casualties more accurate and specific, as it currently only includes those which took place within Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza.
Which incidents in Lebanon, specifically, are you describing and what are your sources? The casualties section does not cover those which occurred prior to 1987, as there are no statistics of total casualties per year before the First Intifada. --68.6.227.26 (talk) 05:57, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to go ahead and add the mention of Israeli children being killed abroad. --68.6.227.26 (talk) 00:45, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Moving the story of the "youngest" Israeli killed up from an incident to a feature of casualties really necessitates bringing up the fact that the UN states 36 children died at birth because Israeli troops would not let them through check points to get proper medical attention. And there's ample evidence of Israel killing children during its attacks on Lebanon, not to mention Palestinian refugee children being killed in various conflicts related to the fact that Palestinians are refused the right to return to their own land. Also, the scope of the article obviously should go back to 1948 and once I write a short but relevant lead, I'll re-add the Deir Yassin incident and other killings of kids, especially in Lebanon like Sabra and Shatila massacre. Just FYI. Putting out other fires and still trying to get to putting up a new article, but this article remains important. CarolMooreDC 07:04, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Israeli who died nine hours after birth was the youngest to die violently during the conflict. Perhaps that should be clarified. The section on casualties is given to provide statistics from 1987 to the present, as there are no accurate statistics for children killed per year prior to 1987. I believe the casualties in Lebanon that you are referring to took place during the early 1980s. As stated before, the sentence stating that Israeli children have been killed abroad since September 2000 is intended to correct an error. The article previously reported 129 Israeli child fatalities in total between 2000 and 2012, but this only covers those killed within Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza. Others were killed abroad. Name an incident since 2000 in which Palestinian children died as a result of the conflict in another area of the world and give the source, and then I will alter the text to say Other Israelis and Palestinians, children among them, were killed abroad in attacks related to the conflict. I removed the Deir Yassin incident because it took place prior to the establishment of the state of Israel. What would you consider an appropriate time period for this article to cover? I believe it should begin at either May 14, 1948 or the emergence of Zionism. --68.6.227.26 (talk) 07:31, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • clarification good, but this is not just about violent deaths, as my addition made clear (though threat of being shot at a checkpoint usually considered violent). Also note that "Israeli" does include Arab Israeli children, though I don't know how many have died and if separate statistics are made of that. Also needs clarification somewhere.
  • Refugee issue in general needs addressing, given there are a couple million in several countrie with a large proportion being children. Have various incidents related to Israel and others killing kids as a result of the confict. Like I said, when gather best examples I will be ready to add and change the text accordingly.
  • starting at First intifada is arbitrary; obviously whatever is in there statistics and numbers wise needs refs and I'm just saying once I have refs, don't be surprised if add Palestinian refugee children abroad.(so many articles, so little time)
  • You are right Deir Yassin happened one month before Israel's official independence. I think the most appropriate time would be November 29, 1947 when the United Nations General Assembly recommended the adoption and implementation of the United Nations partition plan of Mandatory Palestine. December 1, 1947, Arab bands began attacking Jewish targets. (From Israel article.) Once the Brits said they were leaving, and the UN ok'd partitioning, the fight got really serious in an official way. CarolMooreDC 22:17, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean by Also note that "Israeli" does include Arab Israeli children, though I don't know how many have died and if separate statistics are made of that. Are you suggesting separate statistics for Arab Israeli children who were killed?
A section on refugees would be a good idea. This should include the 800,000–1,000,000 Jewish refugees from Arab countries who were expelled following the establishment of the state of Israel as well as the Palestinian refugees.
In your edit, you wrote that the "30 or more Palestinian children and infants dying" figure includes those that resulted from miscarriage. A number of Israeli women have miscarried as a result of suicide bombings and other attacks, and pregnant women have been killed on both sides of the conflict. Do you think this should be mentioned in the article? --68.6.227.26 (talk) 00:13, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You wrote: "Are you suggesting separate statistics for Arab Israeli children who were killed?" I'm just wondering if such separate statistics are kept or not by anyone or if "Israeli children" typically does include Arab children. Just thought of when asked above. Have not yet investigated myself.
  • Jewish refugees: just as Palestinians have been most shunted to a few countries, it would be good to note that Israel lobbied many countries to refuse those Jews entries so they would have no choice but to go to Israel; of course, once there most did get better circumstances than Palestinians in refugee camps. So many details, so little time to properly research...
  • Miscarriages/Preemies/etc: Sure, if there are refs. At least for children just born or premature children who COULD have survived out of the womb IF there had been proper and speedy medical care. Should get own paragraph, I guess. I actually just used some articles already had, as opposed to looking for new ones. Will look soon to parse it out. CarolMooreDC 17:01, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs considers anyone with Israeli citizenship - regardless of their ethnicity - who was killed in the conflict as an Israeli casualty. I think that in some instances Btselem lists Arab Israelis who were killed as Palestinian fatalities.
I have never heard of Israel telling countries to refuse to allow the Jewish refugees entrance (over 200,000 went to Europe and the Americas following their expulsion). What are your sources? --68.6.227.26 (talk) 20:08, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Format-wise, let's try to keep our own replies together, per my minor edit just now. Anyway, thanks for your views on how Israeli numbers counted. I guess something that still can be researched more if need be.
Refugee origins just a thought as I typed away, and it may be more true of European than Arab Jews. As usual, really good and relevant sources would have to be found before putting in such info.
Off hand I remember reading a lot about Zionist groups opposition to European refugees coming to anywhere but Israel - or emphasizing Israel - before, during and after WWII, with Menachem Begin being very vocal on or involved with the topic. For example, this books google search brings up on the first page some articles that have some info on the topic: (Chomsky Language and Politics, Page 570; Encyclopedia of the Jewish Diaspora: Origins, Experiences, and Culture - Volume 1 - Page 600; The Holocaust in American Life - Page 79-81 plus. I can't remember off hand the more explicit things I've read. And then I remember reading how Zionists needed lots of Arab Jews to expand control over confiscated Arab land in Israel/Palestine so I assume same groups kept up same kind of lobbying to keep them from going elsewhere in large numbers. (And then there are rumors like Zionists bombing Iraq temples to drive them out of Iraq, detailed in History of the Jews in Iraq.) Also it seems that Russian immigrants in the 1980s were discouraged from going anywhere but Israel, though many of course came to US and elsewhere. I guess I should hold my tongue and just put things in when find sources :-) CarolMooreDC 21:29, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for elaborating on the refugee issue. I don't believe there is any solid evidence that Zionists were behind the Iraqi bombings. The Iraqi government did execute two men, Shalom Salah Shalom and Yosef Ibrahim Basri, for alleged involvement, though one claimed to have confessed under torture and the other maintained his innocence throughout. --68.6.227.26 (talk) 00:49, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli minors killed between 1987 and 2000

This article currently says that 18 Israeli minors were killed between 1987 and September 2000, citing the Btselem statistics. Btselem gives numbers but does not list the casualties. Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs lists 24 Israeli child fatalities between 1993 and 1999, giving their names, ages, and the circumstances of their deaths. [9] --68.6.227.26 (talk) 03:42, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So add the additional numbers. i.e. During that same period Palestinian militants killed 18 Israeli minors in the Occupied territories and within Israel's Green Line.[2] Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs lists 24 Israeli child fatalities between 1993 and 1999.[and Ref.] People can decide who they believe. CarolMooreDC 03:38, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. --68.6.227.26 (talk) 03:42, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Barely relevant POV material poorly sourced

Why is AnonIp ‎68.6.227.26 adding barely relevant material about women (pregnant or not) disguising themselves as suicide bombers, except to once again blame Palestinians for all the malnutrition and deaths of their children? This is wikipedia, not the Israeli Defense Forces website. I reverted the first occasion where you inserted material in the middle of of sourced info, in a very POV way that interferred with proper referencing. And then you added similar opinions from an American politician? Not very WP:RS. I wish I had time to clean this article up and properly balance it with indoctrination of Israeli children into historical inaccuracies, hatred and supremacy. When I have time to clean it up I will and then take it to a noticeboard where NPOV editors will surely agree with the way the article is being abused. A properly ref'd and placed mention of the Israeli excuses for these deaths might be permitted but both of these were just offensive. CarolMooreDC 01:19, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article gave no explanation, justified or not, for women being kept at checkpoints. There is nothing in my edit about "women disguising themselves as suicide bombers," but rather sourced information about female suicide bombers feigning pregnancy to hide explosives. As for the second edit, the use of hiding bombs on ambulances and feigning injury or pregnancy as well as attacks on rescue workers are very relevant to a section on medical care, especially one that previously addressed only the impact on Palestinians. The United States House of Representatives is a reliable source. The statement was not by one American politician; the bill was sponsored by Rep. Mike Pence and cosponsored by 164 other politicians including dozens of members of both parties. You think it was "offensive," but I quoted exactly what they said. --68.6.227.26 (talk) 02:12, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll fix it with proper sources when get a chance. Meanwhile, please pay attention to the fact that your edits increase the bias of making this article emphasize Israeli suffering while making Palestinian kids look like a bunch of terrorists who deserve what they get. It's quite shameful really. I'll be looking for other eyes to comment on it. (And if you have used Hebrew language sources, please note that only English or English translations can be used as sources here.) CarolMooreDC 19:42, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I made this particular edit because the section previously only discussed how Palestinians were affected and gave no explanation for the delays at checkpoints. It seemed NPOV to me, so I added the information from the bill. I thought it was best to simply quote the source and avoid the issue of how it should be phrased. --68.6.227.26 (talk) 23:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Per my edit summary: 'replace introduced but not pass USCongress political resolution with high quality news/book reliable sources on topic to present NPOV overview of checkpoint issue. Resolutions are not WP:RS unless they have WP:RS; they are just political posturing and they weren't even passed. However, it is true that the context of the checkpoints needs more explanation and I did that with serious high quality refs. Using high quality refs, properly placed, tends to cut down subsequent aggravation by other editors. CarolMooreDC 14:14, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

Hello, Children in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. CarolMooreDC 19:52, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. First of all, thank you for notifying me about the Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion. I was uncertain where to respond and tried to at your talk page, but it doesn't seem to be allowing edits right now. I looked through my old edits for this article, and they include the following:
1. Expanded the section on Israeli child casualties, mostly to make it less random.
2. Added Sderot statistics to the section on Post Traumatic Stress, as it seems to have the highest concentration of PTSD in Israel
3. Expanded the section on Palestinian child casualties to include examples of individual incidents
4. Added a section on peace projects
5. Added a few photos (three of Palestinians, two involving Israelis, and two for the section on peace projects). None of these had a negative connotation.
6. Added statistics on malnutrition in Gaza
7. Added information on schooling disruptions in Israel as a result of the conflict. It was intended to balance out the section, which previously only discussed schooling disruptions in the West Bank and Gaza. However, the text on those disruptions was removed shortly after by another editor as the link was dead.
8. Rephrased some text from the section on Treatment of Palestinian Children by the IDF in order to make it more neutral
9. Added a section on media manipulation
10. Added some information on Israeli medical aid to Palestinians and cases of organ donation between opposite sides of the conflict.
11. Gave statistics regarding the age and gender trends for Palestinian child deaths
12. Added information about miscarriage and the deaths of pregnant women on both sides during the conflict
13. Gave the age of the youngest victim of violence during the conflict
14. Added some information on child suicide bombers and child indoctrination
15. Added a section on foreign children killed as a result of the conflict
I have also added a few counter-arguments in sections which only included one perspective in order to make it more neutral. As a whole, I don't believe my edits have been particularly NPOV, though I am more than willing to discuss specific issues you have. --68.6.227.26 (talk) 00:12, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Usually I avoid these types of incident-related articles because it's too much he said/she said, with the Israeli side to often way over represented and it's too upsetting and aggravating. So I stick mostly to dealing with WP:Undue smears on WP:BLPs where there are more supporters for NPOV policy. Today I at least cleaned out a few of the most annoying POV problems, especially from NON-WP:RS sources and made things a little clearer chronologically. I'm trying to find a really good summary of past history for lead that I saw in some article, already no doubt vetted by many editors. I've collected four pages of new material have to organize. CarolMooreDC 14:16, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV and Too many refs for many incidents

Just one more NPOV issue: I notice that a number of incident have 4, 5, even six refs for one or two sentences. This lends a POV air of importance and in the ref list drowns out even more destructive incidents which have only one or two refs. Two are usually enough, in case one gets deleted by the publisher, unless they really have very different info. Usually the first couple tell the story and/or the less reliable ones easily can be removed. And I think we can safely delete the Non-English refs in such cases without people having to bother to translate them. CarolMooreDC 20:11, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think more than one reference just increases the credibility of the article, but I have no objections to removing a few. --68.6.227.26 (talk) 23:23, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The other issue is: do the refs actually support the statements. I'm doing some major reoragnization on legal issues and checking refs as I go. As at this diff, so as not overwhelm, I will just cut down verbose paragraphs and remove material that just does not ref statements, leaving it in current sections. (Note that here calling an organization "controversial" using as refs articles published 3 years prior to relevant incident and adding 5 refs that "prove" it is just POV argumentative; it could be done with most organizations here but just not productive.) Feel free to check refs etc. CarolMooreDC 07:30, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Children and IDF

I made changes that hopefully make the section more NPOV, and to avoid edit warring people should comment here and not make further changes til there is more of a consensus. Specifically:

  1. Used actual ref for Code of Ethics which obviously would apply to children. The other material is not specifically about how IDF treats children, only infers excuses for bad treatment.
  2. Removed unnecessary dup refs
  3. More specifics about what report said with less wordy summaries; no need to identify Fox News; removing info not in source cited. CarolMooreDC 04:28, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the other material in the opening paragraph had originally been part of a section on international reactions, which was deleted, and its information was moved to various other parts of the article. I have a few suggestions:
  1. Rather than saying that "most" of the charges involve rock-throwing, give the actual statistic (60 percent, according to the Fox News report)
  2. Name the number of minors currently involved and their age distribution (233 in total, of which 31, or 13 percent, are below the age of 16)
  3. The paragraph is getting rather long; it might be a good idea to break it up into two. --68.6.227.26 (talk) 04:43, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the "code of conduct", the document itself does not discuss "children" or "minors" so inclusion only citing the document itself will be WP:OR. If we are going to include this what we need is a source that directly relates the code of conduct to the topic of this article "Children in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict".
I made all suggested changes. I think it's obvious children would be included in the code, but added one specific incident as illustration. From this search; find something better?. Actually, what we need here is a section on relevant International law/treaties/etc. and then subsections on how both sides violate it. But I'm in the middle of a bunch of other articles that get more hits and have even more disinformation (if on other topics). CarolMooreDC 14:53, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Newest article info added today fine, but belongs in the relevant section and not the lead or other sections. I'm trying to focus on finishing one article right now so otherwise will not act for time being. CarolMooreDC🗽 14:07, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I added to two or three sections. The article is lengthy and the lead almost pared down to one line, so that to date, we have had no attempt to write the lead. Leads summarize, as you know, and some general statistics, or even that UNICEF comment I added to the body, is perfectly adequate for a lead. You might like checking out the original sources Levy and co cite, and using them independently of that article. Nishidani (talk) 14:43, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your note motivated me to finally - per past promises - "expand lead; create legal section and organize relevant material there; move text books/indoctrination to appropriate section and remove WP:Undue; add images; various tweaks". And there's still lots of overly wordy, wp:undue, tit for tat stuff in there that could be cut down. Will continue another day. See section about removed text book material below. CarolMooreDC🗽 07:52, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cut WP:Undue in first of several sections needing it

Per this diff], took out WP:undue/repetitive, not relevant to children & poorly sourced statements; one irrelevant and one questionable video source; motivation for surrounding home necessary; note many call such actions "nonviolent action") This is just one of several sections like this. Really ridiculous and would not stand a good review from WP:NPOVN. Let's clean it up. CarolMooreDC 03:39, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Removed text book material

The text book discussion was way too long, WP:Undue vs. Palestinians and most belongs in the relevant Text book article, thus cut it. I added one paragraph of a report not already covered to that article. And after review this paragraph seems relevant to Israel's reaction so I can put that back in after my 1rr period over:

  • According Haaretz Israel has made the criticism of Palestinian textbooks a cornerstone of its Hasbara campaign against the Palestinian Authority.[7]

The other couple paragraphs below we can discuss; temporary removal, especially if there are any major objections. I have more info on Israeli child indoctrination, bad settler behavior, etc. which can balance these removed paragraphs since obviously there is indoctrination on both sides. Not only place such balancing needed, obviously.

  • In August 2009, Hamas refused to allow Palestinian children to learn about the Holocaust, which it called "a lie invented by the Zionists" and referred to Holocaust education as a "war crime."[8]
  • According to the Anti-Defamation League, the Hamas' bi-weekly on-line magazine for children, al-Fatah (Arabic for "the conqueror"), published since 2002, features stories and columns praising suicide bombers and attacks against the "Jewish enemy."[9]
  • In 2013, more than 3,000 Palestinian teenagers graduated from Hamas’s first high school military training program in the Gaza Strip. According to Abu Hozifa, a 29-year-old national security officer who teaches in the program, the children are taught to, "honor the national flag and anthem, to strengthen their affinity with the homeland and Jerusalem, the spirit of resistance and the principles of steadfastness. We also prepare them in terms of faith and physical fitness to serve as resistance fighters if they want to be in the future."[10]

Thoughts? CarolMooreDC🗽 14:19, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why in the world would any of those three paragraphs be removed? They all made valid points extremely relevant to the topic at hand, child indoctrination. These paragraphs are crucial in giving a rounded overview of the topic as they elucidate claims of child indoctrination by Hamas (which, unlike claims against the PA and Israel, had not been addressed in the former paragraph). The first article addresses indoctrination in an academic setting, the second indoctrination through government propaganda (Hamas run children's magazines), the third indoctrination within Hamas' teenage military training program, which they themselves admit "is aimed at fostering a new generation of leaders in the struggle against Israel." These three paragraphs, along with those already present in the section, are all necessary for anyone looking to receive a rounded picture about child indoctrination from all parties at hand (Israel, the PA, Hamas) and thus need to be returned to their proper place; their omission is completely unwarranted. Sammy1857 (talk) 19:44, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question left on brand new users talk page. However, to answer generally, there's just as much on Israeli children indoctrination but I didn't feel like adding it at the time and just got tired and took the easy out. Plus maybe people are tired of accusations back and forth by the time they get down here. I added material balancing the one paragraph you put back. Maybe that will be sufficient to make point. CarolMooreDC🗽 20:24, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I added the first story before finding your discussion on the talk page; I was hoping you would add the latter two after I presented the reasons for their inclusion in the talk page, but I still don't find it them within the article so I am going to add them now. I personally don't see adding this information about Hamas as throwing "accusations back and forth" as Hamas really wasn't covered in the section- like I said, I believe all three parties should be adequately represented, and I think the three stories chosen really highlight some major instances in which Hamas was practicing child indoctrination, each briefly mentioning a different method.

I also don't believe the sentence "His son Yoni, a pacifist, was arrested for resisting mandatory conscription." in the paragraph you added has any relevance to the point at hand- there are plenty of conscientious objectors, but that would be a fact more appropriately presented in an article about the IDF itself, not in a paragraph detailing the ways in which the army is said to be indoctrinating Israeli children.Sammy1857 (talk) 06:33, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please see your talk page and revert you last two edits for 24 hours per 1rr - see Arbitration tag on top of page also.
If you didn't add something back, I can't mind read why. I remember my point I forgot when writing above: text books are not only indoctrination; there are plenty of charges that Israelis teach their children very negative attitudes as well, just seemed like there had been enough "mudslinging" already. But I guess we can balance it out if you like.
That Israeli school children know they face if arrest if they resist conscription is relevant somewhere, if not there. Will look at tomorrow. CarolMooreDC🗽 12:34, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Sammy1857 on this point. The information on Hamas is relevant to a section on indoctrination, but the part about one adult resisting conscription does not seem related to this subject. Unless you can find a reliable source that links the arrest of Yoni Ben Artzi and child indoctrination, I think this bit should not be included in the article. --1ST7 (talk) 02:33, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Added info on draft refuser group representative talking about child indoctrination, Israel arresting resisters and therefore an aside that a speaker in second paragraph had a son who was arrested is Relevant. Other articles infer that arrest is a fear or known consequence, but I don't think we have to find a totally explicit reference to an obvious factoid about conscription in general. :-) Of course, if mentioning the stick of prosecution as well as the carrot of indoctrination is really such a big problem in that section it always can be added to the earlier mention of IDF. Mandatory conscription is generally seen as abusive; I also got idea from one ref that Palestinian kids more willing fighters than Israeli since most of the world sees them as more oppressed and with greater grievances and that feeling on their part might be made more explicit, if found. CarolMooreDC🗽 17:41, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Making article more NPOV

Still working on it per my detailed summaries. Let's try to keep relevant material together and not make sure every mention of something bad Israelis do is countered by some redundant reference to something a Palestinian did. I see emotional reactiveness not an attempt to make article more coherent. The biggest problems remain:

  • Unbalanced casualty examples in relevant sections and elsewhere in article really are themselves a media manipulation and wonder if we should use them at all, especially since there is a disproportionate number of Israeli examples. Let's think of a less exploitive way to deal with this.
  • This is a big problem in the school disruption section that doesn't even mention the disruption of having most of your schools bombed, not being allowed to import supplies to rebuild them, problems with check points, etc. Didn't have energy to deal with either issue right now.
  • I cut out the WP:undue in PTSD section whose redundancy was pretty easy to just remove. CarolMooreDC🗽 05:44, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits, avoiding duplication, etc.

Hopefully User:1ST7 most recent sent of edits will be reverted, but they do consist of some problematic edits I'd like to resist before it is "legal" for the editor to put them back:

  • Diff 1 I agree that the Hebron detained children was a bit redundant, but actually hadn't read that section lately to catch it.
  • Changing Israeli weapon strikes have destroyed or damaged hundreds of Palestinian schools. to "numerous" when clearly the following sourced numbers of 93 and 300 add up to "hundreds" seems to be quite POV.
  • Removing "Three teachers and 86 children registered with the Agency were killed." and adding new sentence "There is a dispute as to the number of casualties that resulted, particularly those from the Al-Fakhura school incident. First, if there was just one incident (not clear from my source) then lets discuss it and both sides claims. Don't delete the one claim. Kids killed at school are mentioned in Israeli paragraphs of section so relevant here. The issue is structuring, not inclusion.
  • And of course names of Israeli operations must be identified as such to not convey the Israeli POV on the topic. Let's not get too much into the 1500 puny Palestinian rockets hardly killing anyone compared to the 1500 plus big Israeli bombs killing hundreds debate if we can avoid it, or at least be sensible about it if we do.
  • Diff 2 Ok, now we get into adding some back ground, though won't try to analyze per above. Re: Dershowtiz, let's be careful of getting not getting into professional opinionators opining battles. News sources best for conveying Israeli govt accusations.
  • "Violence perpetrated by children" new section. First, an opinion piece in The Blaze is not very WP:RS and the leftists opinion and the response irrelevant here. However, creation of the section is duplicative to material under background (though I do think the fact that young people were so active leading the first intifada is an important background issue; just like adults later taking over is). So the question is, how do we make it clear that Israeli children also are encouraged to engage in violence once they get to be 18 year old soldiers and to kill with far more lethal weapons? Should we rename the IDF section "IDF and Israeli abuse of children" and make a subsection with same name mentioning military training of teenages and the Settlers kids attacking Palestinians. I don't have any firm thoughts, but let's be thinking about it, not just throwing in duplicative/POV sections. CarolMooreDC🗽 01:14, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll go ahead and reply to your message on my talk page here. First, I forgot to add the part about the 280 damaged schools when explaining damaged vs destroyed, but that's already been fixed. Second, the photo didn't seem to show the entire building, so I was reluctant to say that it was destroyed without being certain.
  • Numerous vs. hundreds: If possible, I think it would be best to just get the total number of schools damaged or destroyed on both sides.
  • There is a lot of variation in casualty statistics during the Gaza War, including those involving schools. With the Al-Fakhura school incident, numbers range from 12 killed (9 combatants and 3 noncombatants) to over 40.
  • The part about Operation Pillar of Defense was redundant, as the casualties that resulted are already mentioned twice earlier in the article.
  • I agree that it is best to avoid quoting too many people, but I do not have a problem with using Dershowitz because there are already a few pro-Palestinian quotes that exist in the article. I think, to keep the article neutral, it is good to have one pro-Israel quote.
  • If you object to The Blaze, another source can be found. Some of the text in the background section does not need to be there and can be moved, and I think the section I added might be better titled as "Exploitation of children" or "Manipulation of children". As this is a controversial subject and there are varying opinions, studies, and reports, the material should not be presented as blatant fact. When editing, I have tried to make clear that in certain areas, it is the IDF/Hamas/UN/PA/etc. that accused the other side of such and such and that the claim is not universally accepted. --1ST7 (talk) 04:39, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
First, just keeping everyone on our 1RR toes (including me), esp. with a sock who keeps creating new accounts making all new accounts suspicious. I've made my point. ;-)
  • "Numerous vs. hundreds": The point was we had a good estimate from two WP:RS. But if our adding numbers is WP:Synth...
  • "There is a lot of variation in casualty statistics during the Gaza War" - but let's not go deleting the UN side. Anyway, section needs more work.
  • "The part about Operation Pillar of Defense was redundant, as the casualties that resulted are already mentioned twice earlier in the article." I'll have to look when study further what best belongs where.
  • "I do not have a problem with using Dershowitz because there are already a few pro-Palestinian quotes that exist in the article." There's a difference between wild eyed advocates ranting, which Dershowitz quote was, and academics, think tanks, researcher, former Israeli officials, etc. making critical statements quoted by the media. I think, to keep the article neutral, it is good to have one pro-Israel quote.
  • "The Blaze... another source can be found" - my point exactly.
  • ... "Exploitation of children" or "Manipulation of children"...Still thinking about but taking a day or two off to clear head and work on off wiki deadlines. :-)
  • " I have tried to make clear that in certain areas, it is the IDF/Hamas/UN/PA/etc. that accused the other side of such and such and that the claim is not universally accepted." The UN and other academics/NGOs/etc are not "pro-Palestinian" as much as they are critical of the actions of a state which is supposed to be more responsible than quasi or non-state actors and not abuse its overwhelming military might. CarolMooreDC🗽 13:41, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe David Horovitz or Amnesty International would be a good replacement for Dershowitz. I wasn't implying that the UN is pro-Palestinian (that's another conversation entirely), and there are many NGOs that are pro-Israel and there are many that are pro-Palestinian. I was just saying that in some cases the source should be identified in the text, as they do not always agree and there are a lot of issues that are still being debated. --1ST7 (talk) 04:13, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Incomplete Tom Segev citation

Hello all,

I'm going through articles attempting to locate, add, verify, improve citations as I occasionally do, and one tagged in this article gives simply "Segev, Tom (2000) p 319." Based on some journal articles I can find citing Segev, and on an OCLC catalog search, I believe this source is probably One Palestine, complete: Jews and Arabs under the Mandate Metropolitan Books, 2000. I do not have ready access to the book in my own library, but someone who does may want to check and verify this. Hope it's at least a bit helpful. --some jerk on the Internet (talk) 14:36, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know how I missed that; I think I've been using him on another article and got confused. I searched his name and 2000 in Wikipedia and found another full cite also. Of course checking Segev's actual text I found on that page he only mentioned fact of a massacre and Jewish Virtual Library supplied all other facts so changed accordingly, including that it only says they initiated violence through throwing stones. CarolMooreDC🗽 04:44, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Casualty examples

The individual sections on casualties is too dependent on examples, especially the Israeli one. I think four would suffice. --1ST7 (talk) 02:59, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking of my "example farm" tag today. Frankly, if there are going to be any examples at all in casualties, they should be closer to proportionate to numbers killed, so at least say 3 Palestinian examples to each Israeli. But hat sort of "competition" remains tacky. Probably the best way to do it is to just have a chronological listing of how many kids were killed during significant events, with any particularly noteworthy examples that got a lot of attention or affected historical events mentioned briefly. But there still should keep a relative balance to any such details. Obviously there may be 2 or 3 WP:RS stories on every Israeli child killed but maybe one out of 50 Palestinian deaths gets any coverage at all from WP:RS. Let's not reflect the media bias. CarolMooreDC🗽 03:11, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if you saw my comment before making your change, but considering none of the "foreign children" (mostly visiting Israel) were Palestinian, you have only have 1/3 being Palestinian to reflect almost 3000 Palestinian children vs. 180 Israeli. I really don't even want to have to work on this issue, but with stuff like this... CarolMooreDC🗽 05:41, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, I didn't see your comment until just now. I wasn't really thinking of the "foreign children" section when I made the change, but was focused on removing excess examples in the Israeli/Palestinian part. The Israeli casualties section in particular relied too heavily on listing individual incidents, so I added some statistics and information on the overall nature of the fatalities/injuries on their side. The Palestinian casualties section, though it also had too many examples, still had a good amount of statistics and general overview, so I didn't think it needed more material immediately.
Where does the "almost 3000 Palestinian children vs. 180 Israeli" statistic come from? I don't think that's accurate.
On how long each section should be, I think that when the issue is as controversial as this, it is best to just give each side equal coverage. --1ST7 (talk) 22:24, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Numbers, I was just adding up B'tslem's #s (which may be updated by now). Sure, you could point out claims that a certain number of minors were young combatants. That's one of several reasons I'm saying only 3/1.
"Foreign children" wise the number of Palestinians children killed in Lebanese refugee camps over the years is no doubt great and just haven't gotten around to looking for incidents/numbers.
The controversy is that so many more Palestinian children get killed than Israeli and by a "modern state" as opposed to various terrorist factions. And most of those were during 2000-2005 second intifada, but the media publicity continues to assert like it still happens every day.
That's what I finally realized was making me uncomfortable about not having a historical context, and not just the numbers. We aren't the media, we are supposed to be NPOV. I'll do an NPOV version and if we can't agree we can get 3rd party opinions. CarolMooreDC🗽 22:38, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • B'stelem statistics list 1,337 Palestinians and 129 Israelis (below age 18) that have been killed since September 2000.
  • Palestinians killed in Lebanon or elsewhere are not "foreign children". I believe that that section is not meant to discuss casualties in other areas of the world but incidents in which children who are neither Israeli nor Palestinian have been killed.
  • The controversy is over who's right vs. who's wrong, what is legal and ethical, which killings are intential or just collateral damage, who broke ceasefire first in whatever incident, the status of certain organizations as terrorist groups, etc. There are so many issues that make this a hotly debated topic, and few parties agree completely on anything.
  • A background section already exists. I'm not certain it would be a good idea to reorganize this into a chronological account of the events; it could easily come off as one-sided or duplicative of articles such as "Arab-Israeli conflict" and "Second Intifada". --1ST7 (talk) 23:07, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • No disagreement on statistics, just on how to properly reflect 10 to 1 differential.
  • Considering that all Jews currently have a right to move to and become Israeli citizens but Palestinian refugees do not have right to move to "Palestine" and become "citizens", I'd say that Palestinian refugees in other countries have same right to be mentioned there as Jewish foreign children and non-Jewish foreign children.
  • Obviously there are two sides to every right/wrong, legal/illegal, ethical/not ethical, which is intentional vs. which is collateral killing, etc.; numbers might be some evidence on the latter, might they not?
  • This is not a background section, it's just a chrono section that mentions in a couple words what decade or war or intifada etc is going on when these casualties occur. I'll think about over next couple days. CarolMooreDC🗽 18:09, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think Arab children who identify themselves as "Palestinian" and are killed in other countries would still be best categorized as "Palestinian children"; an American/European Jewish child who is killed in Israel is still a foreign citizen.
On the new section you are suggesting, do you intend for it to add to the current casualties section or replace it? --1ST7 (talk) 05:09, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Still thinking. Meanwhile cleaned up duplication/unref'd/unnecessary in background and moved Settler paragraph to own section since IDF/govt is accused of letting them do it and/or not trying hard enough to stop it. Also finally got around to removing more WP:UNDUE references per past talk discussions that were redundant and dead, foreign language, nonconfirmed, etc.; reformatted a couple others so all under one ref. CarolMooreDC🗽 16:02, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

POV removal of photo?

Hmmm, at this diff a 15 year old child of an occupying power learning to use a weapon that can kill dozens of people in a few minutes certainly is not equivalent to a child in an occupied territory throwing a stone at a tank. But removing the child with the lethal weapon from the photo is not called for since the photos illustrate so well the imbalance of power. So what POV is at work here? CarolMooreDC🗽 14:52, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

hi carol - i see you just edited the page within a 24 hour period, as per http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Children_in_the_Israeli%E2%80%93Palestinian_conflict&action=history - your previous last edit was yesterday april 21, at 21:58 and then today at april 22 at 15:16. one of your edits today seems justified (fixing a broken ref), but the other, labeling something 'cn' seems to be in violation of 1RR. yes? no? Soosim (talk) 16:54, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Revert means removing or substantially changing another's material. Tagging and repairing obviously broken refs don't count. Please reread policy or your constant inaccurate warnings on 1rr can be seen as one more example of what I consider your disruptive behavior. (And if you are following around my edits to give me bad warnings, that's even worse.) CarolMooreDC🗽 18:09, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just noticed photos on top of each other. Good enough. CarolMooreDC🗽 02:59, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish Virtual Library

I did check that but went to fast and didn't see that "rioting, grenade throwing, and suicide bombings" is more accurately "rioting and gasoline bombs." JVL is one of those sources which probably would pass WP:RSN for this, if not for WP:Biographical issues. But more academic ones definitely better. Note that I am working on better sourcing some of this right now. CarolMooreDC🗽 18:26, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The JVP article on the 1929 riots doesn't come anywhere near meeting WP:HISTRS standards - There is no stated author and the two cited sources for the article are an Arutz Sheva and Jpost article from 1999. There is a mountain of academic literature published in peer reviewed journals or under academic imprint in most historical topics related to the I/P conflict, I cannot see the justification for using lower quality sources. Dlv999 (talk) 21:49, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The only justification is if no one provides the better ones. I may I have in some changes worked on a couple nights ago but haven't entered yet, so can't quite remember. CarolMooreDC🗽 01:15, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kaufman

The information Kaufman provides does not relate very well to indoctrination; it would work better if another section were created on the change in environment that has resulted from the conflict. Also, describing any nationality of children as "among the among the most violent in the world" comes off as offensive. If that text is going to be included, it should appear as a quote from the source rather than a blunt fact. --1ST7 (talk) 01:12, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, first we're talking about this version since another editor got confused and thought we were gutting the section and reverted. However, per my "needs verification" tag, and as I wrote in the edit summary, " Kaufman says terror leads to PTSD not violence; this is about violence as conflict resolution; that's even what the quote says"... If you want to mention the PTSD sentence in the relevant section, go for it.
Now talking about the last three paragraphs of the Child Indoctrination section, about Israel.
  • I agree fuller quoting is necessary.
  • Also you noticed my comment that the
  • But I do think it's in the right section. The first two paragraphs is about the kids being indoctrinated to join and participate in the military. Kaufman's fuller context needs to be mentioned, which is that Israel engages in extra-judicial killings by the military. So when he gets to this violent modus operandi having a negative effect on children's attitudes it flows naturally from the two preceding indoctrination into the military-related paragraphs. (And by the way I'd make the same criticism of US extrajudicial killings and violent US kids, though it's more mediated through news media and video games here.) CarolMooreDC🗽 01:31, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, the new version is much better. --1ST7 (talk) 22:12, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is informative that an article posted on Jewish Virtual Library (with no indication of authorship) based on an article by Arutz Sheva is used for facts in the wikipedia voice for historical events without attribution, but a professor published by a distinguished academic press must be attributed and quoted because an editor finds what he says "offensive". A good example of the systemic bias prevalent in the topic area, where content is produced based on the parochial world view and opinions of a subset of editors rather than an objective analysis of source evidence based on Wikipedia policy. Dlv999 (talk) 08:55, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Treatment of Palestinian children by the IDF

On the section of the article about treatment of Palestinian children by the IDF two editors have seen fit to delete a picture of Palestinian children and replace with a picture of an Israeli child's shoe. Dlv999 (talk) 15:18, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPOV/WP:Undue applies to images as well as text. Removing a relevant photo of Palestinian children having to play near bombed out buildings and then replacing it with yet a third photo of or indicating an injured Israel child is WP:Undue, especially since casualties are so overwhelmingly Palestinian. I know that photos of injured or dead Palestinian children have been regularly cleansed from Wikipedia and Wikicommons so there are none to put up.(Per haps this Latuff Cartoon would do?) So let's remove at least one of those three Israeli photos and put back the kids playing in destruction one. CarolMooreDC🗽 16:52, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see a new editor has put in a fourth WP:UNdue Graphic. We can replace the kindergarden one with that. CarolMooreDC🗽 23:14, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
i don't mind pics of pal kids, etc but the pic being used is so vague as being related to this article. if the article was entitled 'children of israel and the palestinian authority' (or something similar), then fine, but the pic doesn't relate to the conflict. any connection made between those kids and the conflict is OR. Soosim (talk) 09:09, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Are you honestly claiming that a picture of Palestinian children taken during the Gaza war amongst the destruction caused during that war is not related to the Israel Palestine conflict? Dlv999 (talk) 09:18, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
the picture itself is not relevant since the kids seem to go over to see what happened. it was not that they were part of it - that is, it appears that they were neither combatants nor victims. you can see the original here: http://blip.tv/al-jazeera-asset/war-on-gaza-day-18-1672729 (at the 40+ second mark, as per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Day_18_of_War_on_Gaza.PNG ) and again any connection made between those kids and the conflict is OR. Soosim (talk) 09:39, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you are adamant that you believe children depicted amongst the wreckage in the midst of the Gaza war from a report on the "War on Gaza" is not related to the Israel Palestine conflict then perhaps you should take it to WP:ORN, I would be interested to see what uninvolved editors thought of your claims. Personally I can't see where you are coming from on this. Dlv999 (talk) 10:03, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with new edits and structure

Per Gilabrands last few edits, let's discuss first the problematic individual edits and then the structure issues that are problematic:

  • First, the history doesn't show where the IDF section originally became the "violence" section, and who knows what else, so I'm not sure what that's all about. See this edit changing it back there. Please explain since no edit summary. Obviously some people don't want a section header that infers Israel might have done wrong, or that Israel is detaining kids. This moral equivalence between a state that purports to be civilized and a small bunch of radical militants is a bit absurd.More thoughts on structure below.
  • Removal of settler activity - the word child is in every sentence, about their harassing kids and their teaching their kids to use violence; more refs to come on that; and we haven't even gotten to all the settler murders of kids. No excuse for removal.
  • Second the bloody shoe problem is WP:Undue on images of Israeli kids harmed. There are three; get rid of at least one.
  • Potted history.Original before Gilabrand's edits version - a bit wordy, but a few sentences about why there are refugees and what the war is about and why there are years of suffering might seem encyclopedic. Something policy-wise actually trying to get straightened out elsewhere. But I'm sure refs mentioning children can help beef it up again.
  • Military recruitment of children? I don't think that a bunch of militants have a military, do they? But more on the whole topic in separate section.
  • Removal of Geneva Convention. Why not tag it, instead of deleting, since surely a source mentioning children can and will be found.
  • I won't bother to comment on the two edits you made that violated the 1rr restriction as two of us have mentioned on your talk page. I decided to just revert the most problematic edits; history we can talk about; replacing the old kindergarden photo with the new rocket attack photo. CarolMooreDC🗽 21:54, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Someone should revert back brand new 3 week editor User:IranitGreenberg whole sale revert. He already has been warned about reverting too much and 1rr and obviously has to learn policy which I've advised him to do and given him the Edit warring link. CarolMooreDC🗽 17:25, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Images

[Note added later: this turned overwhelmingly into a discussion of images and User: ‎IranitGreenberg's edits and reverts; editor who made original removals did not reply.]

User: ‎IranitGreenberg is editwarring on this material and I've left a final edit warring notice asking him to revert the material. CarolMooreDC🗽 02:36, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Because your edition is (arbitrarily and with no explanation) removing relevant and balanced images just because they show the Israeli children's suffering, like this one, this one, this one and even this one... among other things (while you keep the images that sympathize with the Palestinian point of view). Read WP:NPOV.--IranitGreenberg (talk) 04:14, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If your issue is the images, why do you keep deleting 5k of sourced text without explanation? Dlv999 (talk) 05:45, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Images is minor compared to your major issues which your edit summary calls "NPOV" - as I have described at length above critiquing all the changes in User:Gilabrand that you have now reverted back to twice. You (and she if she wants to revert them) really have to respond to each of my points and make a case for each of those edits to revert them otherwise they will be reverted back.
As for photos, first, you all removed the refugee history, so the photos are not appropriate at all. As for the others, according to WP:NPOV they have to reflect the overall content of the material. That material clearly states there are far more Palestinian casualties than Israeli, so putting too many Israeli casualty photos in and taking out Palestinian ones is really problematic. This has been said several times on this talk page. You have to read talk pages if you intend to heavily edit articles or revert heavily edited and disputed articles. CarolMooreDC🗽 05:59, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Palestinian militants deliberately target Israeli children in several occasions (unlike Israeli soldiers vs Palestinian children). But regardless of casualties, per WP:NPOV article must show both or neither point of view. As far as I can see, right now you have nine images that sympathize with the Palestinian point of view (here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here) and eight that sympathize with the Israeli point of view (here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here). So even now you are winning. If you want you can add another image of Palestinian children's suffering, but please don't remove any more photos.--IranitGreenberg (talk) 13:46, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, allegations that Israelis have targeted children are in here and more will be added, as well as one source saying both sides target children.
Second, here is the breakdown of photos as you want them in, with the two biggest problems first:
  • Two photos of refugees after you have removed all mentions of the refugee problem which continues to affect 5 million Palestinians are unwarranted.
  • Three photos showing or indicating physical harm to Israeli children but none of harmed Palestinians (these are regularly removed from wikipedia and wikicommons with questionable claims they are not accurate which have not been made re: Israeli photos).
  • Palestinian child with gun is not balanced; perhaps it should replace the rock throwing photo??
  • Palestinian children helped by Israel soldiers obviously pro-Israel POV - however...
  • The photos of Palestinian children near a Separation barrier and at Israeli check points balances that. (The photos should actually be a dual photo where those related issues are mentioned in more detail.)
  • 2 photos of Palestinian children in rubble; OK, similar photos of Israeli children in mounds of rubble could be shown
  • 2 photos each regarding school which balance each other
  • Palestinian child throwing rock and Israeli girl shooting weapon, balance each other
Thanks for making me do this analysis which made other issues clear as well as solutions. CarolMooreDC🗽 18:32, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't remove any mention about the refugee problem.
  • As I told you before, there are at least nine images that clearly sympathize with the Palestinian point of view (believe me, showing a little boy in front of a tank or surrounded by rubber... it works for that).
  • Showing a Palestinian child with a gun is no less balanced than an Israeli child with a gun.
I think images are quite balanced. But if you want, you can add images showing physical harm to Palestinian children, I already told you I have no problem with new images, only when someone removes them.--IranitGreenberg (talk) 03:42, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, it was previous editor who removed refugee material; got confused. In any case the photos not relevant unless the material in there.
  • However, given that you have done at at least one revert in the middle of a report on your edit warring, I have a feeling trying to discuss things with you in a collaborative manner may be impossible. CarolMooreDC🗽 03:50, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if I broke a rule. I'm new, but it won't happen again. I promise. I don't know what information of the refugee problem was removed, perhaps you could show me a link. Regarding the Geneva convention's paragraph, I simply thought it was off-topic, since it has nothing to do with children. But if you think the opposite, I'm all ears.--IranitGreenberg (talk) 04:24, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not my decision on what to do about the rule breaking but you should carefully read policy. Unlike the real world, people enter lots of negative material about Israel here (not to mention Palestinians) and as long as its within policy they can't be kicked off, fired, etc. If you adjust your head to that, you will do better.
Again, you are only answering questions about the photo when you have reverted a lot of text in the past and not discussed why. To discuss a current issue, if you think Geneva Convention paragraph should mention children, leave a tag or a talk page note. Something surely can be found. Just deleting material that is properly sourced and would make perfect sense as background in most writing is just not proper.
Also there is a real problem with this competition to see who can come up with the most references of one side or the other doing bad things, also known as "reference padding", but that is just FYI since it's one part of the problem with casualty section I'm working on.
Neutrality wise, you must realize that a photo of injury or blood is more highly emotional than other photos. Many many such photos of dead or injured Palestinian children have been taken off wikipedia or vetoed in articles with all sorts of questionable rationales. So I decided to look at origin of those 3 injury photos.
[[:File:Bloody_child's_shoe_after_rocket_fired_from_Gaza_hit_Israel.jpg] is the most questionable photo of the three and looking at the source, it may be a manufactured photo falsely attributed to the photographer of the other two injury photos. Both those photos link to his Flickr page. But this links to "israelnationalnews.com" which does not allow one to see photos. One more reason not to use the photo. (FYI, suspicions or allegations of manufactured photos often used to get rid of Palestinian ones also.) CarolMooreDC🗽 04:54, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Insert later note: I missed the OTRS on it and I this evidently was taken before he started using Flickr. CarolMooreDC🗽 17:16, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I won't take responsibility for photos of dead or injured Palestinian children that were taken off in Wikipedia (just like you won't take responsibility for anti-Israeli vandalism in other articles... and you don't tell me this encyclopedia is not pro-Palestinian). If you find one picture of a dead or injured Palestinian children, please be my guest and add it here. It's relevant and appropriate. But don't remove an allegedly "pro-Israeli" image just because you can't find a "pro-Palestinian" one. Right now there are nine images that sympathize with the Palestinian point of view (against eight).
There is nothing wrong with the bloody child's shoe photo. It's well-sourced and is real. As long as Wikicommons doesn't delete it, I can't find a reason to discredit it or don't use it.--IranitGreenberg (talk) 05:14, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
CarolMooreDC, you seem to be saying that there should be a picture for Palestinian children showing physical harm but that you have not found one. I saw one on the Wikimedia Commons and am going to use it to replace one of the rubble photographs. Hopefully, that fixes some of the image issues. --1ST7 (talk) 05:35, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations! It was only a matter of looking. Wikicommons is full of useful pictures.--IranitGreenberg (talk) 05:51, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is still the outstanding problem, which I mentioned in my comment timestamped 15:18, 26 April 2013 (UTC): "On the section of the article about treatment of Palestinian children by the IDF two editors have seen fit to delete a picture of Palestinian children and replace with a picture of an Israeli child's shoe." - An Israeli child's shoe remains irrelevant to the section of the article about treatment of Palestinian children by the IDF and needs to be removed. Dlv999 (talk) 06:21, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The place of the shoe's picture is not appropriate. I'll change that soon (needs to be moved, not removed). But I don't remember to have deleted the image of a Palestinian children. Perhaps you could restore it in the section "treatment of Palestinian children by the IDF". By the way, I think it would be balanced, professional and fair to create a new section about "treatment of Israeli children by Palestinian militants", but that's for another occasion or discussion.--IranitGreenberg (talk) 08:42, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
First, glad to see someone found a photo. What search terms did you use?
The problems with the image and a solution (and don't remove tag til we get consensus):
  • The description [File:Bloody_child's_shoe_after_rocket_fired_from_Gaza_hit_Israel.jpg|on the image page]] reads: A child's bloodied shoe inside the shopping mall in the southern Israeli city of Ashkelon after a missile, fired by Palestinian militants inside the Gaza Strip, exploded on a mall on 14 May 2008 severely injuring several Israelis, including one child and a woman, and wounding dozens of other civilians. It does not say the child whose shoe it was was injured. It might have fallen in a pool of blood. That's like a photo of a pool of blood in Gaza with a caption "a child was injured during an Israeli airstrike in Gaza" and using that.
  • But I have a compromise. I moved bloody shoe to "medical in Israel" subsection with proper caption and included the Latuff cartoon which is a media criticism of comparisons injuries of of Israeli and Palestinian children. If that's good enough, I'll take off the tag that should not have been removed during the discussion in the first place. CarolMooreDC🗽 17:16, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is a joke? Come on! It's not serious. What's the point of having a cartoon by Carlos Latuff? He is clearly an anti-Israel propagandist and adding such a cartoon is not NPOV or constructive at all. And this image doesn’t even refer to media manipulation, but an alleged “Israeli double standard” (when it targets military objectives, unlike her enemies which deliberately target civilians). Completely off-topic, out of place. Carlos Latuff is not credible or reliable and his ridiculous cartoon/opinion has to go. It doesn’t belong here.--IranitGreenberg (talk) 02:12, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
First, Latuff cartoons are used elsewheres on a variety of Wikipedias worldwide. Next, considering we really don't know if the photo allegedly of blood and from a specific incident is real (and I am no investigating), questions remain about using it. Obviously we need outside opinions on this since people here divided, so shall get some. CarolMooreDC🗽 14:58, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I know nothing about Carlos Latuff, but I agree with IranitGreenberg in that the cartoon is not relevant to a section on media manipulation/misinformation unless it is going to be presented as an example of the propaganda the section discusses. --1ST7 (talk) 22:20, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:IranitGreenberg put back the 4th photo, the bloody shoe, writing " image stays as we agreed on the talk page." I don't see any agreement here on that photo and it's still obviously POV to have four to one photos like this. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 15:11, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I thought we agreed to leave this image with a tag, until it was deleted from commons. I don't see any reason to remove it. Anyway, if the bloody shoe is deleted, then at least one image that sympathizes with the Palestinian point of view must be deleted. Right now, without the bloody shoe, there are ten images that sympathize with the Palestinian point of view (here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here and here), while there are only eight that sympathize with the Israeli point of view (here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here). So there is an unbalanced POV regarding images that needs to be corrected.--IranitGreenberg (talk) 15:45, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's no agreement to violate policy on NPOV. Somehow missed that two other editors popped up and removed the image: Pluto2012 writing " (Undid revision 554717976 by IranitGreenberg (talk) - edit war)" and Faizan writing "(maybe well-referenced, but still not proved at the discussion to be relevant)"
So where do we take this now, if IranitGreenberg or Soosim put it back? WP:Edit war noticeboard? Or WP:ARBPIA? I'm not sure. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 15:11, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I should report you first, because eight days after you agreed to leave the image with a tag (at least until this dispute be solved), you suddenly removed it. Why? What's your argument, based on Wikipedia's policy, to remove such image (with proper license and relevant)? On the other hand, Pluto2012 and Faizan are two pro-Palestinian users who practice POV-pushing all the time. Instead of reporting each other and play this silly game forever... why don't we call a neutral, impartial and experienced editor (probably an administrator, not pro-Palestinian or pro-Israel) to solve this dispute?--IranitGreenberg (talk) 16:17, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, you mean when I agreed to leave it if the Latuff cartoon stayed? At 17:16, 1 May 2013. (Adjust for your time zone.) And before yet a fourth image was added? That agreement obviated by two of your edits. Plus now two other editors agree it doesn't belong. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 17:35, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A cartoon by Carlos Latuff is not even serious to be included here, I explained it above (also 1ST7). Regarding the new images, I added a victim of Maxim attack because most of Israeli children casualties were killed or wounded by suicide bombings... but I also added an image of Palestinian (children) victims to make it balanced. As I told you before, right now we have 10 images favoring the Palestinian point of view and 8 favoring the Israeli point of view. I honestly don't understand your objection to add the bloody shoe (except that it shows Israeli children are also victims in this conflict... and you don't like it).--IranitGreenberg (talk) 18:20, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Several editors here and in edit summaries have explained a number of problems with the photos. Please read them. Also read WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and which is a subsection of Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 19:42, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have a suggestion. The debate over whether or not to include the picture of the Israeli child's bloody shoe seems to be, at least in part, about its relevance to where it is right now (in the section on medical care). Why not switch its location with this one? The section on medical care discusses the emergency response following terrorist attacks, so the picture of the child being loaded into an ambulance would be appropriate for that area of the article. Meanwhile, the image of the bloody shoe can be put in the casualties section. --1ST7 (talk) 19:45, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO, that issue only comes into play if there is removal of at least one, and preferably 2 of the injured Israeli children per WP:NPOV, AND if the bloody shoe is verified as being what it is alleged to be per WP:V. Besides placement, perhaps that is the issue of relevance that other editors have mentioned but some have not detailed.
I have a photo from a protest of a woman carrying a sign with a photo of a dead Palestinian baby covered in debris; it's about as verifiable as the shoe photo. I could put that up too and I'm sure the relevance would be pretty clear. But that seems to me as tacky as the shoe photo. Unless several others disagree... CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 19:59, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you want to remove more photos of Israeli children? In any case, per NPOV we should remove pro-Palestinian images. I repeat: 10 against 8 is not fair... and you want to remove more images of Israeli children??--IranitGreenberg (talk) 20:41, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
IranitGreenberg is right in that the images are slightly slanted towards the Palestinian narrative in terms of numbers. This could be used to balance out that ratio without aggravating the "photo of injury or blood" issue. CarolmooreDC, you seem to think that the nature of the photos is an issue, as the Palestinian ones in the casualty section are namely of children standing in damaged buildings while the Israeli ones show physical harm. Rather than start removing photos, I think some should just be switched out. Replace one of the rubble images with one that shows physical injury (I have one in mind that would work if you can't find one). --1ST7 (talk) 21:54, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to go ahead and be bold and make the changes. --1ST7 (talk) 02:01, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Images of injured children are highly emotional and have a much stronger POV than those of kids at check points, etc. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 03:10, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, hence the changes I just made. Now the article has the following:
  • a double image in the lead, one from each side, both showing damage to houses
  • a double image showing the refugee situation with one for each side
  • Faris Odeh and the girl in Gadna, both of which lean towards the Palestinian side
  • a Palestinian boy holding a weapon
  • four photos in the casualties section, two for each side, all of which show physical injury
  • four pictures depicting schooling disruptions, two for each side
  • three for medical care, one of Palestinians at a check point, one of an Israeli being put in an ambulance, and one of Palestinian children on one of the ski trips organized by Israeli soldiers
  • Palestinian children walking near the West Bank Barrier
  • a drawing by an Israeli
  • and two pictures in the section on peace projects, which are neutral
There are ten images favoring the Israeli narrative and ten favoring the Palestinian narrative. Overall, it is fairly well-balanced now. --1ST7 (talk) 04:24, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Still no response on how temperature of injury photos is so much higher than other photos.
Quote and reply below with thoughts; busy with other stuff and looking for photos. Also other photos to be added to the mix can discuss at the time. At this point the bloody shoe remains a problem. :
  • a double image in the lead, one from each side, both showing damage to houses - you really can't see the damage to the Palestinian house; comparing the pink house damage to a more typical total destruction of Palestinian abode would be comparable. Like the one I have a dead Palestinian child's head sticking out of Israeli bomb debris; pretty much comparable in all respects to bloody shoe.
  • a double image showing the refugee situation with one for each side And one of these days I'll rewrite the refugee thing so it's clear the big differences in refugee status today (not to mention how desperate Israel was for refugees; 1950–51 Baghdad bombings can be left out.)
  • Faris Odeh and the girl in Gadna, both of which lean towards the Palestinian side (But isn't Odeh one of those terrorists the IDF can shoot on site? that depends on interpretation, I guess.)
  • a Palestinian boy holding a weapon probably should put that with Gadna girl?
  • three for medical care, one of Palestinians at a check point, one of an Israeli being put in an ambulance, and one of Palestinian children on one of the ski trips organized by Israeli soldiers So two sympathetic to Israelis.
  • Palestinian children walking near the West Bank Barrier That and checkpoint one going together would make more sense

CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 18:47, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just a comment on "Still no response on how temperature of injury photos is so much higher than other photos."... there are two photos of injured Palestinian children (here and here) and two of injured Israeli children (here and here). No reason to keep whining about this.--IranitGreenberg (talk) 03:16, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are right. Best to just put up a photo whose creator and whose accuracy, not to mention relevance, are clear. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 04:04, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the new image is a bad choice, that any protest poster or political cartoon should not be given any great weight. It is only a random person's opinion, and it should not be held up as something that accurately depicts the conflict. --1ST7 (talk) 05:23, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So you would remove every political cartoon and every protest photo on wikipedia? I don't think you'd find too many takers. I'd rather have the Latuff cartoon myself. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 00:55, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Political cartoons and protests photos are appropriate for articles/sections on political cartoons, protests, public opinion, and the like. They are not appropriate for the area in which the new image was placed. --1ST7 (talk) 01:29, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What's appropriate is what illustrates the text. It's next to a paragraph about children killed in Gaza. It's not much different than a hand holding a bloody shoe which itself is really just a "Poster" of an event and could be fabricated anyway. At least we know I didn't create the poster and hire those guys to pose with it :-) CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 03:14, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Several paragraphs back, you yourself said that an image of a protest poster would be "tacky". There are much better, less questionable photos that can be used. --1ST7 (talk) 04:08, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I meant to me they are equally tacky to me but to those who don't think the bloody shoe is, this one should not be either. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 00:17, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The description for the shoe photo says that it was taken after a child was injured in a rocket attack. Maybe the user who posted it figured that it was not really necessary to spell out that that was the injured child's shoe. Either way, I don't think either image is really needed, as without them there are already 22 images for the article, which is a good amount on its own. --1ST7 (talk) 01:01, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's not know if it's the injured child or one that has others' blood by accident or deliberately or what for sure. Removing both would be my preferred compromise but who wants to get in another edit war over it?? Sigh... CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 01:51, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Modified structure suggestion

I can't see any reason for Gilabrand's sloppy restructuring of the article. There is a difference between the actions of a state and the actions of non-state actors or, if you prefer, quasi-state militants under occupation. (It might help to clarify diff between Hamas in govt and Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades or other militants.) I think a few tweaks could be made per the below. Rest of article needs to keep historical context clear. Changes are noted:

1 History (we probably should merge history and casualties here since article confusing as to when casualties have happened to who; extremely confusing and even misleading right now; see below)
2 Legal issues
3(New): Child indoctrination - both sides do it, in different ways;
4 Israel's Treatment of Palestinian children by the IDF (The state controls the IDF and the settlers)

  • Violence against children
  • Child detention
  • Human shields
  • Settler activity (more to come on that)

5 Palestinian militant treatment misuse of children

  • New: Violence against children (if something new and/or not WP:undue repetition)
  • Human shields
  • Child suicide bombers
  • Recruitment Manipulation of children:I think it's proved the kids are eager volunteers and don't have to be manipulated; the issue is when they are actively recruited to do something violent they shouldn't; pretty much same as settlers.

6 Casualty figures
remove: Israeli children, Palestinian children, Foreign children and replace with era sections: "1920 to 1987", "First Intifada", "Second Intifdad", "Since 2008" (after 2nd Intifada cooled because the barriers and checkpoints regime fully enforced). Per previous talk. Plus my analysis of current casualties section has revealed WP:Or/Synth combined with repetitions of same incidents; questionably sourced material; detailed example farms; and POV number of examples compared to casualites).
(rest remains the same)
Thoughts? CarolMooreDC🗽 23:38, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

carol - you suggestions of restructering go a long way to help this article, but your personal attacks on another editor totally detracts from anything you say. just get past it, and comment on the content, not the editor. yes, you didn't say that gilabrand was 'x', but that her editing was 'x', but that still reflects on her, and you. i think just sticking to the content would be best. as they say, check your emotions at the door. i try very hard to reply to people's comments for content, and get very offended when someone comments on the editor. what do you think? Soosim (talk) 09:15, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Sloppy restructuring" is a descriptive term for a series of edits, just as "POV restructuring" would be. If someone had made nasty comments about "her" housekeeping as well, that would be a personal attack. Constantly inferring people are edit warring or making personal attacks when they aren't is edit warring and making personal attacks. CarolMooreDC🗽 15:50, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Those are not personal attacks. Gila was AE blocked. The block was lifted here, with the note "Gilabrand is further reminded that any future problematic editing following the removal of editing restrictions will be viewed dimly". She also said "If I am unblocked, I will do my best not to disappoint them.--Geewhiz (talk) 07:25, 5 July 2011" here. Some of her recent edits have been a tad problematic (e.g. this described as "clean up", or this, and here in this article), and judging from her talk page her editing is causing conflict and edit warring. A review of the provisional suspension of her AE block seems almost inevitable if problematic edits continue and I wouldn't be surprised it it were re-imposed. Since the majority of her edits, the ones that aren't affected by her personal views, are constructive, reimposing a block isn't ideal. So, I think the last thing she needs is anyone defending her bad edits. It would be better to call her out on it and try to stop her making bad edits so that she doesn't get herself blocked again. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:35, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I always thought I was a naughty newbie, but I always listened to talk page warnings and I guess that's why I was here 5 odd years before getting blocked - and that was when I lost my temper at an editor who was not even involved in I-P area, after being harassed by a bunch who were. So watching talk page warnings is VERY important for newbies. CarolMooreDC🗽 18:38, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Compare the total mess she made overnight at Susya. Not a word on the talk page. 20% of the material dealing with the Palestinian side challenged as sourced in non-RS which no one hitherto found problematical; it now has several pictures of the synagogue, only one of Palestinians protesting at the massive destruction of their Susya; the selective use of balanced reportage to twist into a statement of fact what is a statement of an occupying power's position ('While the residents claim they own much of the land, they have been denied building permits and have therefore built without permission:' (the source says:'on the grounds their houses and other buildings were erected illegally.'(b) 'Jewish settlers lodged a petition with the Israeli Supreme Court arguing their occupation of the land is illegal.';(c)'although much of the land around here is privately owned Palestinian land, Susya is in Area C of the West Bank which comes under complete Israeli control. So Susya's 350 residents are denied permits to build proper homes, schools or clinics and instead live in a collection of shabby tents.'(d) '(Ari Briggs, a Regavim blow-in from Australia)says contrary to what international law says about Jewish settlements being illegal, it's Palestinians at Susya who are occupying the land illegally.' i.e. whoever edited this systematically states the settler POV as the neutral voice. I.e., complete unilateral POV reediting of an article. Nishidani (talk) 10:57, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, I just realized looking at her talk page that I got Gilabrand mixed up with a similarly POV'd editor on a Students article who was a newbie from December. Gilabrand has been here since at least 2010. Your example shows she does ten to just go in there and deletes away, without the courtesy of a article, section or inline tag or discussion on the talk page. But according to WP:BRD she should be reverted and asked to tag and explain edits better when they are problematic. But she is sometimes right. Which is why I'm beefing up the history section a bit with relevant refs on Kids before putting it back. CarolMooreDC🗽 16:26, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
By the way Carol, Christian Peacemaker Teams have the best coverage outside of Btselem of this topic. They qualify as RS, being committed to non-violent presence and neutral documentation. They usually allow use of their photos. Take a look at this, for example.Nishidani (talk) 10:21, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Watched 5 Broken Cameras last night and really dramatized how the IDF and the Magav singles out and arrest kids. Amazing! CarolMooreDC🗽 15:27, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, now I know Magav means Israel Border Police if I run into it again! CarolMooreDC🗽 17:06, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Need paragraph on IDF targeting children

Paragraph on IDF targeting children is needed in the IDF violence section. IMHO, the removed target photo mention by itself, where it was, was not off topic as much as it was an insufficiently developed thought that belongs in a larger paragraph elsewhere.

We do have a sentence in the article denying IDF targets kids and a sentence saying Palestinians do target children. We don't have all the sources that say that IDF targets and kills kids (not to mention targeting them for arrest, in that section). So last night I got motivated and found a bunch of good sources showing WP:RS allegations through the years and IDF denials. As usual have gotten distracted on almost finished rewrite of casualties and now there's this. But as I've said, this is a long term project. So if no one gets something in there first, will do; or be motivated to add my sources/info if you get it going. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 17:34, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What type of articles are they, and do they supply any evidence? Or are they just allegations? --1ST7 (talk) 17:41, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Before discussing anything you need to self-revert your 1RR violation. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:50, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See here. --1ST7 (talk) 17:57, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You may be right in that the first edit reverts something that may have been there a while. I didn't check when that material was added. I guess you and Dlv999‎ will figure out what to do. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:10, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Although I'll add that it is not obvious how an Israeli soldier posting on Instagram a photo of a young Palestinian boy in the crosshairs of his rifle and what followed from that is irrelevant with respect to the "Treatment of Palestinian children by the IDF" section. So, it's not obvious why you removed it twice, at least, not to me. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:17, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose "unnecessary" would have been a better word. I figured that it would be more straightforward to quote the Code of Conduct, and the article's edit history seemed to indicate that this example was added to help explain the Code when a source had not yet been found to do so directly. Besides, one of the issues with the article as noted at the top of the page is having too many examples. --1ST7 (talk) 18:47, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the code of conduct should be included and I take your point about too many examples but I think we should cover both principals and practice as well as the consequences of the inconsistencies. Reliable sources tend to focus on the latter two. Sources pertinent to this particular incident are BBC, Haaretz, The Telegraph, JTA, ABC, The Times of Israel, The Guardian, Maan (and the The Atlantic that was removed). It seems notable and it had some consequences. A couple of sentences is probably enough. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:00, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)

Apropos Carol's original point. I thought I had posted some of the data below on a talk page ages back. The whole section of the book should be read. I've just excerpted some notable passages which editors (I'm self-suspended until May 23) can of course harvest. The source is

Charles Fruehling Springwood 'Open Fire: Understanding Global Gun Cultures,' Berg 2007 pp47-55

  • 'Although Palestinian children have died in greater numbers, the percentage of child fatalities from the total pool of fatalities for both Palestinians and Israelis is about the same, oscillating between 20 and 25 per cent of those totals. The main difference between the modes of death in these two groups has been the means of violence perpetration. While a substantial proportion of Palestinian children and minors hae been killed by Israeli-perpetrated gunfire, the vast majority of Israeli children and minors have been killed by Palestinian-perpetrated body-bombings. This differencee is significant ‘ p.47

Apart from Dolphinium incident Palestinian bombings not focused on places where children and minor s congregate whereas ‘In contrast, sniper fire at Palestinian children necessitates choice of individual target.’ P.47

  • ‘it becomes a rational deduction that a clear intention to kill children and minors exists among the IDF and other Israeli state forces.’
  • ‘Of a total sample of unfire-perpetrated child deaths from September 2000 through December 2003, where available data provide corporal location of the fatal wound, 109, or 65 per cent of a total of upper-body “one-shot wonders” were killed by exclusive headshots, four, or 2 percent by exclusive neckshots, and 56 or 33 per cent by killed by exclusive heart-chest shots. An additional 90 children and minors, or 21 per cent of a total of 427dead in three and one quarter years, were killed by gunshots on two or more corporal locations, many including one or more of the three vulnerable areas already mentioned, such as head-chest and neck-chest combinations ‘pp.47-8
  • A major indicator of “the deliberate targeting of (Palestinian) children is the fact that 20% of the total number of Intifada victims were children going about their normal daily activities such as going to school, playing, shopping or simple being in their homes”.,’ p-54 Nishidani (talk) 19:07, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Those are interesting statistics, though there should still be more explicit evidence that those noncombatants killed were not collateral damage. Another factor that should be considered: though the percentage of children in the overall casualties appears to be about the same, minors make up a much larger portion of the Palestinian population (50 percent in the Gaza Strip) than they do in the Israeli population. --1ST7 (talk) 19:49, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(a) 'There should still be more explicit evidence that those noncombatants killed were not collateral damage'. Sorry, you misunderstand policy. We read as many sources bearing on an issue as are available, and according to due weight, register that information. We do not think 'hang on. There must be some evidence that contradicts or mitigates this' etc. (b) If you are familiar with statistics and their use in analysing 'collateral damage', they tend to cancel out oddities, or turn up patterns. The pattern turning up in many sources is that the proportion of head or chest shots compared to other bodies areas is extremely high, not random. (Of course, as is well documented, in many such crowd control operations, there is the spotter and the sniper, the former designating the hit but that is another story).Nishidani (talk) 20:14, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
what age are these children? were they combatants? were they involved in provocation/retaliation against israeli army soldiers? not clear without lots more information. Soosim (talk) 06:41, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think you need to read Nishidani's quote again: A major indicator of “the deliberate targeting of (Palestinian) children is the fact that 20% of the total number of Intifada victims were children going about their normal daily activities such as going to school, playing, shopping or simple being in their homes”.,’ p-54 Dlv999 (talk) 06:58, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
i saw that quote. it is not by the author of the book, it is the author quoting a non-profit organization worker from an unknown date. i went to their website and can't find it either. it seems not so RS. certainly, if this topic/issue is so important, then RS should be plentiful, no? Soosim (talk) 08:29, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
oh, one more thing - that quotes is a bit "off" - it says, if i understand it correctly, that the IDF targeting palestinian children who were going about their normal activities - is shopping something kids do? not clear what this means. and the last example is even more unclear: "simple being in their homes" - the IDF waits for the parents to leave a particular home, and then targets it because the kids are there? Soosim (talk) 08:41, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
An academic source quoting a relevant NGO is the kind of high quality reliable source we should be basing the article on. I'm not particularly interested in your second guessing of what reliable sources say. Your opinion on what is "a bit off" is irrelevant - we are here to represent what reliable sources say. You can't trump reliable sources with your own personal opinions on topics, that is not how Wikipedia works. Dlv999 (talk) 08:58, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(which of course is your personal opinion) Soosim (talk) 09:01, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is a clear difference between our approach. I am simply saying lets report what high quality RS say. You are giving unsupported WP:OR arguments and opinions not grounded in source evidence to try to refute what is said by an academic source. Dlv999 (talk) 09:15, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
there is a clear difference between our approach. i am simply saying that this is not RS since the author is quoting something 3rd hand which is undated - the author is 4th hand. so you are trying to squeeze something into RS which isn't. Soosim (talk) 09:31, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ "Statistics:Fatalities". B'Tselem. September 2012. Retrieved 2012-12-05.
  2. ^ Alexei Lupalo
  3. ^ After praying for a seventh child Nava's baby died in her arms, Haaretz
  4. ^ Daniel Wultz
  5. ^ Red Cross official: Gaza isn't experiencing a humanitarian crisis, Ha'aretz, April 21, 2011.
  6. ^ Red Cross: There is no humanitarian crisis in Gaza, Jerusalem Post, April 21, 2011.
  7. ^ Chemi Shalev and Nathan Jeffay, Yale professor blasts 'blindness' of Israeli Education Minister over school textbook report, Haaretz, February 2, 2013. Quote: "Israel, which has made the condemnation of the anti-Israeli and anti-Jewish content of Palestinian textbooks a focal point of its hasbara efforts against the Palestinian Authority, lambasted the report as biased, unscientific and unprofessional."
  8. ^ "Hamas rips U.N. for teaching the Holocaust." JTA. 31 August 2009.
  9. ^ Hamas Magazine for Kids Promotes Martyrdom and Hatred
  10. ^ Barzak, Ibrahim. 3,000 Gaza teens graduate Hamas terror school. January 24, 2013.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Children_in_the_Israeli–Palestinian_conflict&oldid=555764974"