Talk:Casualties of Israeli attacks on the Gaza Strip

Not a memorial

Slatersteven. Are you familiar with the conventions of this area. As I noted n reverting you, dozens of articles on terrorist incidents affecting Israelis list the names. If you are not flourishing a POV, your reading of the names here, and their elimination, would require you to go through all of the other Israeli victim articles, and remove the victims named. Until then, the elision of such material uniquely for Palestinian articles suggests that Palestinian death must remain nameless, whereas Israeli deaths be 'memorialized'. This is all about systemic bias, and editors who persist in their practice, perhaps unwittingly, in actively pursuing double standards depending on an ethnic identification of the parties. Nishidani (talk) 14:27, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Otherstuff is not a justification, I am here, not at those other articles.Slatersteven (talk) 14:28, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

No. NPOV is fundamental. Editors who use policy to remove material but apply it, now with full knowledge, only to one ethnicity's articles, while ignoring that the material is part of a standard inclusion matter for all articles dealing with the opposing ethnic group's suffering, are playing POV games, to ensure maximum coverage for one ethnicity's plight while militantly eliding the same stuff if it deals with the other party's suffering. Look at the following sample, which all have lists of the dead and their ages:-

1. Maxim restaurant suicide bombing
2. Bat Mitzvah massacre
3. Beit Lid suicide bombing
4. Ben Yehuda Street bombings
5. Binyamina train station suicide bombing
6. Carmel Market bombing
7. Eilat bakery bombing
8. Geha Interchange bus stop bombing
9. Hadera Market bombing
10. 5 December 2005 HaSharon Mall suicide bombing
11. 12 July 2005 HaSharon Mall suicide bombing
12. 2002 Herzliya shawarma restaurant bombing
13. 2011 southern Israel cross-border attacks
14. Jaffa Street bombing
15. Hanadi Jaradat
16. Karnei Shomron Mall suicide bombing
17. Karni border crossing attack
18. Kedumim bombing
19. King George Street bombing
20. 2002 Mahane Yehuda Market bombing
21. Netzarim Junction bicycle bombing
22. Neve Shaanan Street bombing
23. Passover massacre
24. Stage Club bombing
25. Tel Aviv Central Bus Station massacre
26. 2002 Tel Aviv outdoor mall bombing
27. 2006 Tel Aviv shawarma restaurant bombing
28. Tzrifin bus stop attack
29. Yeshivat Beit Yisrael massacre

I do not object to that standard practice. I do note the behavior of editors who knowingly apply a principle to one article, but refuse to apply it to all other articles in the set. NPOV obliges all editors to be coherent in their application of policy, otherwise the editor is pushing for a POV that allows victim pages to stand if they are Israelis, while erasing victim lists to disappear if they happen to be Palestinians. That is a particularly distasteful form of ethnic discrimination. I don't mind how WP:NotMemorial is applied, as long as, when applied, editors do their duty and see it applied to all area pages, here the I/P world. It's your responsibility since you raised the issue. I respect those pages, and have never attacked them citing that guideline. But I do insist that editors who cite that guideline exclusively when Palestinian related articles reproduce the list format, prove their judgment is unpolitical, disinterested, by applying it systematically to the abundant articles in that field where such lists are normal and unchallenged. Nishidani (talk) 14:57, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

You are aware of the difference between an article about a specific even and an article about lots of different events?Slatersteven (talk) 15:07, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

What is the difference? That one is longer than the other. The criteria and norms for editing both are not supposed to differ: it is a long-standing practice, accepted by all parties editing the I/P conflict so far, that names of victims are allowed. You don't have edit warriors coming to those Israeli victim articles to erase at sight those lists. You are alone in coming in to an area you say you rarely edit, breaking the convention, and uniquely because Palestinians are named. That creates a systemic bias, and implies there are double standards: Israel victim pages can have names. Palestinian victim pages must only list numbers of casualties, and not give a sourced identity to the victims. It's racism, aside from breaking a convention underwritten by everyone.Nishidani (talk) 16:20, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Stop casting aspersions, I do not care you you think it is a systemic bias (odd its agreed by both sides, yet there is a bias). Not is there a double standard (odd there is an agreement by both sides, yet there is a double standard). Do you edit every pages on Wikipedia, are you aware of everything that goes on on every page? I have said all I am going to say now because of your attitude, you have failed top convince me this is a good idea and I stand by my objection. I do not care what the other boys did, this is not a school playground, I care what I do.Slatersteven (talk) 16:24, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

There is nothing 'odd' in editors who attend to Palestinian articles accepting that there's nothing to war over when editors specializing in Israeli victim articles have over a decade, systematically listed the names of the victims. Not to speak of respect both for their work, and the victims. Indeed, the consensus represents a spirit of tolerance, of not grasping at guideline straws to repress data that are well sourced. If you believe what you practice just here, then try and get that principle established, by gaining a consensus that no victim articles should mention those who fell. If, on the other hand, you go for the rare Palestinian article that redresses marginally the imbalance, while closing a kind eye to the Israeli precedents for it, you're wittingly engaged in a POV war, in which one party is to have privileges denied to the others. Given some recent behavior in my regard, you should think seriously about what this sudden activism here tends to suggest, rightly or wrongly.Nishidani (talk) 16:35, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Nor did I knowingly do anything, as this is one of the few article I have edited in this subject area. Now however I am going to say I will not do something just to prove something to you.Slatersteven (talk) 15:09, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

---

Perhaps a centralized discussion, for an overall uniform approach, would be of value. The question of victim lists that relate to mass shootings is being discussed here, for example, though I would not recommend tacking this dispute onto that process.) At any rate, I have fully-protected the article for one week. Hopefully, that will provide enough time to get a discussion further toward resolution. El_C 17:54, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, El_C. I am somewhat worried by the confusion there. In my view, one should have a clear cut general principle, either banning or accepting lists of victims. I wouldn't care whatever principle of this kind was adopted. My only concern is to see that in conflict area articles, the same principle obtains - parity per NPOV, The suggestions there, making rope for exceptions to whatever yes/no guideline might be adopted, and leaving it to page consensus to overturn the rule, will just incentivate edit warring or outcomes on the aleatory aggregation of casual editors. As I've shown in detail, this is standard practice for Israeli victims, but disliked if Palestinians are victims. I don't want to be placed in the ethical predicament of, say, a consensus saying P victims can't be mentioned, and being pressed to achieve systemic parity by removing victim lists from the Israeli articles, something I would find distasteful, I.e. we need a principle that is cogent for articles dealing with interethnic conflict: out or in, because editors without this overriding guideline will determine case by case inclusion or exclusion on the numbers game, who can muster more pro-Pal or pro-Israeli 'voters' from page to page, a surefire recipe for incoherence. We need a principle that lowers the endless heat of partisan battles.Nishidani (talk) 18:32, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

I might add that the fuss over names never occurred when, as sources allowed, I added them from time to time to the 2018–19 Gaza border protests. That was an intensely worked article, mostly by old or regular I/P hands associated with either POV. Long term editors know that this is normative for the Israeli articles, so it shouldn't be problematical for Palestinian articles on this tragedy.Nishidani (talk) 19:14, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

I came here to fix the reference to "Wehda Street Massacre" in line with the recent page move, and noticed the lists of fatalities. Checking the talk page to see if it had been discussed, I noticed this discussion.

Now, I haven't checked every page you linked, but of those I did none of them maintain the mentioned lists, and so I WP:BOLDly removed the ones from here, as your objection was predicated on the existence of lists on those pages. If you have additional objections, please revert and we can discuss. (Though please note that in my edit I also merged two aftermath sections - please reimplement that change if you do revert) BilledMammal (talk) 04:23, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

To be done:

Links to be done, Huldra (talk) 21:21, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

• Asma al-Ghul
• Atef Abu Saif

Analysis of data collected by OCHA field staff entered into OCHA’s Protection of Civilians database, following review and verification.

Selfstudier (talk) 14:12, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Source reliability

I've opened a discussion at RSN on the reliability of the source "Counting the dead in Gaza: difficult but essential", which cited in this article: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Counting the dead in Gaza: difficult but essential. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:42, 13 July 2024 (UTC)