Talk:Children in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Children in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

This page was restored after being improperly redirected by User:Viriditas. --Alberuni 05:44, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Actually, it was properly redirected to an article title that was NPOV. --Viriditas 09:55, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It was improperly redirected without discussion or vote. --Alberuni 15:04, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Derek Summerfield

Fine, make a page about the life of Derek Summerfield but do not move discussion of his BMJ article that deals with the subject of the article here. --Alberuni 16:30, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No, Derek Summerfield is not the world's big spokeperson on Palestinian child casualties. Reading his most recent piece will show that children are only 5% of his agenda. What makes the contributors think that he is an authority or even deserves special mention? JFW | T@lk 04:44, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Big changes to the article

I moved the first 3 paragraphs to Derek Summerfield, as they are mostly quotations from his recenct editorial.

I also turned the AI quotes into bullet points.

As it stands now, the article is no longer a one-sided condemnation of Israel by a 'supposedly objective' human rights organization.

If the orginal point of the article was to condemn Israel as being:

absolutely guilty of crimes against humanity, etc.
or, at least, much worse than the Arabs

...then it was an opinion piece, not an enyclopedia article, and should be re-cast as a statement of opinions attributed to their advocates.

I think it would be better to merge all the info into an article or series of articles about Violence against civilians in Palestine with "Palestine" clearly meaning region of Palestine -- another title could be Violence in the region of Palestine.

Where to put the info depends on whether we want to use "Palestine" in a political or geographical sense. --user:Ed Poor (porous reed) 16:34, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)

The article deals with facts. The facts were presented in an editorial and by Amnesty International among other places that need to be added to this article. Your attempted censorship of those facts on behalf of Israel has been reverted. Your POV on the best way to hide Israeli atrocities will be considered on the VfD. --Alberuni 16:52, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Note: Ed Poor has stated on his Talk page that he agrees with the idea that "all terrorists are Islamic". This should be taken into account when he talks about these issues. - Xed 14:10, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No, I said While I personally side with Israel and tend to agree with the idea that all terrorists are Islamic I try hard NOT to imbue my edits with this perspective. Please do not quote me out of context. --user:Ed Poor (deep or sour) 15:57, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, the context confirms your appalling bigotry. - Xed 16:02, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You reverted twice, even though I made substantial and useful changes each time. I'm not hiding or censoring anything -- just trying to make an accurate and neutral article.

I think the fact that A.I. has condemned both sides ought to be made clearer in the article. Ed Poor

I agree. I added your sig, too. --Viriditas 05:05, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Supposedly objective may yet prove to be a double-edged sword here. You can argue against a one-sided presentation of their findings/ condemnations in this article, Ed, which you did while attempting to explain why, but in the same breath you went on to question the credibility of the organization, and you did not attempt to explain why. El_C

VfD vote, and suggestion to merge

No consensus was reached on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion about this article (see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Israeli violence against Palestinian children), however, given that about twice the number wanted this page merged as wanted it straight kept (15 vs. 8), and that those who voted delete (12+) obviously didn't want this article in any form, there seems to be strong latent support to merge this article into some sort of piece that discusses all civilian violence in the conflict (or at least all violence against children).

I believe this is in everyone's (and Wikipedia's) best interests. During the vote, Zionists threatened to create a reciprocal page if this one is allowed to exist. At the very least, having one contentious article is better than having two. Cool Hand Luke 20:01, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Agreed! But as I mentioned on Talk:Violence_against_Israelis, we still face the problem of having the corresponding Palestinian figures collected and compiled, so what sort of limbo are we going to go for in the interim (if at all), therefore, becomes a pressing question in itself. As an aside, I love your movie! El_C

I just noticed that Humus sapiens added the Disputed teg with the explanation that it needs to remain until the impending merge. For the record, I agree with that – I did not notice the tag was removed upon writing the above. El_C

I'm very sorry. My mistake. I also agree with the notice until then. Cool Hand Luke 04:02, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I voted delete and I specifically made it clear that I wanted the article in a NPOV form, which it is not. Also, I find your comment, Zionists threatened to create a reciprocal page perplexing. There was no threat, merely a suggestion by one user in the context of Alberuni's tit-for-tat article creation that has plagued Wikipedia with multiple articles on any subject pertaining to Palestine and Palestinians. --Viriditas 04:06, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I voted delete too. As per the threat, IZAK seemed quite willing to make an anti-Palestine version of this article, even though he apparently doesn't want to play tit-for-tat. From the talk page: "Cool Hand, have you done a real tally yet? According to what you are saying then, it seems that for the sake of balance, there should also be a Palestinian violence against Israeli children article, corrrect? IZAK 08:08, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)" If we don't balance (and presumably broaden the scope) of this article, I'm led to believe we'll solicit a dueling one. Cool Hand Luke 04:24, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That would be unfortunate. IMO, the merging should go into Violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. But first, it should be stripped out of POV crap, starting with the title. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 04:49, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Buenas suerte! --Viriditas 04:58, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

To remove the POV from this article: can we agree that an opinion column deserves at most a sentence? (Ideally, I think it would be stripped out, but retaining a link to the columnist provides more detail, and could probably host much of what's listed here.) I'm not sure how much of this material can be redeemed. The AI condemnation certainly deserves notice (along with their criticisms of Palestinian techniques, as Ed Poor notes above). I also think we should document in as NPOV way possible that Israeli targetting of children is commonly perceived, at least among Palestinians. Do others think Violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict be a suitable place for this material once cleaned up? Cool Hand Luke 05:05, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, I hate to weigh in here, because it means other editors will immediatly vote the opposite. Nevertheless, Violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is indeed the perfect place for this, as it is admirably neutral and comprehensive. And I agree with the rest of your suggestions. Jayjg 19:58, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Page renaming

Just my opinion but this page I think should be renamed to Violence against children in Israel and Palestine instead of just Israeli violence against Palestinian children, because we all know that there can be an equally valid page called Palestinian violence against Israeli children, or Palestinian violence against Palistinian children and also Israeli violence against Israeli children. I think in the page I have suggested there should be a section dedicated to Israel to Palestine violence, Palestine to Israel violence, Israeli to Israeli violence and Palestinian to Palistinian violence. This way we can all avoid the NPOV disputes, because to be honest the way this page is titled is giving the impression that Israeli violence towards children is intentional and the Palestinians would never harm a child. Neutralisation 14:22, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The POV that Israeli violence towards children is intentional and the Palestinians would never harm a child should be identified as either public opinion or the official view of a specific organisation - or of some prominent writer or politician. It shouldn't be the SLANT of any Wikipedia article. --user:Ed Poor (deep or sour) 17:30, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)

The above comment can be viewed in the light of Ed Poor's previous comments that "All terrorists are Islamic". None of his comments regarding Israel/Palestine should be taken seriously - Xed 23:06, 12 Nov 2004

Ed's personal opinions aside, the title is biased, so I take his remarks seriously. A broad plurality of the VfD vote also favored a move/merge, and that's no zionist conspiracy because almost all Israel supporters voted delete. However, as stated above I would prefer to merge into a topic of larger scope including, at the least, all civilian violence. Cool Hand Luke 17:13, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

FWIW, that isn't Ed's personal opinion, but Xed's usual distortion and misinterpretation. Regarding this page, I would like to get started with moving and merging the content, so could you recommend a good strategy for accomplishing this goal? I see that you and Jayjg have recommended meging with Violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and I concur with that proposal. Thanks in advance for your help.--Viriditas 20:17, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I am in favour of an article titled Violence against children in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and for NPOV to be applied mercilessly and unremittingly (though I cannot commit myself towards this at the moment, sorry). I should note that I support Luke's position with respect to merger (which I have already made clear earlier), but if we hypotehtically lose the vote deciding this and an article is to be written specifically on violence against children in this conflict, it should encompass both sides – and in such a case, I believe the name I mentioned above would be most suited for it. El_C

I concur with your position. --Viriditas 21:33, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Warmly endorse El_C's suggestion. It would also mean that the paragraph Xed is suppressing can remain part of the article. JFW | T@lk 22:32, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

A typically dishonest position from JFW, a user who once tried to remove a vote because the voter didn't agree with him. The idea seems to be that you put in a completely unrelated paragraph and choose to rename the article on the basis of that paragraph. Like inserting a paragraph about Stalin in the Bush article, and then renaming the article 'Stalin and Bush'. Only habitual liars could agree with such a position. - Xed 22:48, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Cut the ad hominems, Xed. This page is too POV to stand by itself. JFW | T@lk 22:57, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It's not clear to me why Xed wishes to suppress this information. Jayjg 01:07, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm not suppressing anything. The added items have nothing to do with the article, which is why JFW etc want to rename the article. The idea seems to be that you put in a completely unrelated paragraph and choose to rename the article on the basis of that paragraph. Like inserting a paragraph about Stalin in the Bush article, and then renaming the article 'Stalin and Bush'. - Xed 01:12, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I don't know why we're still arguing about this. The page name of this article clearly gives the impression that Israeli soldiers kill Palestinians without provocations and the lack of an opposing article listing Palestinian violence towards Israeli children or equivalent further reinforces that bias, even if that may not be the case in the article itself. Why not just save all the hassle and all the NPOV disputes and give this article a more convenient name like countless many have suggested? Violence towards children in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Violence towards civilians in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, whatever you want. Just so long as the article and the page name of the article remain neutral, as per WikiPolicy, it shouldn't matter. Neutralisation 03:24, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Neutralistation could always created a page about Palestinian violence against Israeli children. Examples from the Al Aqsa intifada include suicide bombings of Israeli civilians that kill children, the children killed by the Hamas rocket attacks on Sederot, and the civilian residents of illegal Jewish colonial settlements (including children) murdered by some Palestinian guerrillas in occupied Palestine--some of whom claim that unarmed civilian colonists are legitimate military targets like soldiers and paramilitary colonists, which is not true under the laws and customs of war. And I've heard Israeli children were also killed in some PLO guerrilla raids before the Oslo Accords and the first intifada.

But there being an article about Israeli violence against Palestinian children is not biased just because no one can be bothered to write the other article.-Kingal86 21:27, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That's not why it's biased. The title implies there's something unique about this violence as opposed to other Israeli or civilain violence in the conflict. I believe have the "other article" would be the worst possible solution because we'd be left with dueling POV articles. Cool Hand Luke 22:07, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Generally agreed. Also, downstream effects might be the use of that argument to justify all sorts of weird, esoteric and unjustified / propagandized pages. Or does wikipedia not believe in precedent? ; ) Tarek 22:15, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It probably would be better to merge articles about violence against children, but that doesn't seem to happening at the moment does it does it?

Kingal86 16:37, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Why merger over renaming

Yikes! Anyway, to think that my suggestion got deleted as being off-topic (an honest mistake, I'm sure) ! Thanks for your support for the name suggestion, but I'd rather have your support for the merger idea that myself and Luke have been arguing for (though I did forget to vote, it seems!). Why merger over name change? Because we are dividing a civilian (well, with children, inherently) demographically (i.e. seniors, etc.). I would rather the article exists as a section under the ausepcies of one about civilian casualties, even if it is lengthy enough that it warrants a seprate page, so long as it's part of that article (see History of the PRoC's continued as an example). All that said, it isn't pivotal, that would just be my preference. So, for your consideration. Well, however it is decided, I urge everyone to contribute to the article as a draft in another page until either a merger or name change is implemented so that we can avoid the following El_C

Censorship

There is a lot of censorship occurring by Xed to this article. This article requires an alternative point of view, and I am not sure why Xed wishes to censor it. --Masterhomer 01:57, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

There's no censorship at all. A section on Palestinian Child Soldiers is not an "alternative point of view", it is completely irrelevant. A section on Palestinian Child Soldiers has nothing at all to do with "Israeli violence against Palestinian children" unless of course you are attempting to justify killing children. Perhaps you are, I don't know - Xed 02:01, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Both sides of an issue need to be presented; that is what NPOV is all about. See discussion above. Jayjg 02:04, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm confident that NPOV is not about inserting irrelevant material in order to justify killing children. - Xed 02:08, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The truth hurts, doesn't it? --Masterhomer 02:36, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Is that the best you can do? - Xed 03:07, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes. It's against my religion/beliefs to be reactive, ya know? --Masterhomer 07:07, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

NPOV is about presenting both sides of an issue, not irrelevant issues you have mentioned. See discussion above. Jayjg 02:32, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

While that is not my addition, it DOES make sense in this article. The article is "Israeli violence against Palestinian children", and that section is an explanation of why "Israeli violence against Palestinian children" occurs in the first place. --Masterhomer 02:06, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Xed, we're making this article into one of broader scope. When it's merged/moved, it will cover (at the least) all violence against children in the conflict. If it makes you feel better, we can move it to Violence against children in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict now, at least temporarily (I still favor a merge in the long term). Is there support for this move? Cool Hand Luke 03:28, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hear, hear! El_C

Support. Jayjg 00:50, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No, I do not support this attempt at changing the focus of this article. It appears that all articles that mention Israel's crimes or problems with Zionism are met with these insidious hasbara Zionist revisionism efforts at dilution, redirection, deletion, and censorship by the same gang of partisan pro-Israeli editors. This article is about Palestinian children killed by Israelis, a very significant problem with a very specific cause, as discussed in the BMJ editorial. If you want to create articles about Israeli children killed by Palestinians, or Palestinian children killed by Palestinians, or Palestinian children killed by bee stings, that's fine. Go right ahead. They don't belong here. --Alberuni 01:10, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Agree with Luke's idea. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 10:17, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It's a good point. I still don't have a good grasp of how "far" these things should go; i.e., when an article should be amalgamated and when it should be separated. I think that the topic of children victims of wars deserves special attention, but the very salient question here is: Should there be weird esoteric offshoots every which way? Just think how many times this particular war will be waged. It's my opinion that Wikipedian editors are slightly less likely than the general public to fall for the propagandized antics of either side, so that's a good way to always think of it. If the section people wish to merge isn't too big, then let's merge it, and we can pull it out if/when it does become too big. Take it to its extreme, should there be "Palestinian children killed before noon"; "Palestinian children killed in the afternoon"; "Palestinian children killed at night"? No. So, so long as there is good balance and reliable sourcing (see note about IDF as a 'reliable' source), then having it in a larger article will be fine. The key, though, is not forgetting these discussions when it comes to pages like Violence against Israelis or the much-beloved "Terrorism against Israel" series. Tarek 01:35, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Alberuni, why do you have a problem with it being merged? Not deleted, renamed, redirected and so on, but merged into an article detailing all violence towards all civilians in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. I am not a pro-Israeli or pro-Palestinian or pro/anti anything, I strive for neutrality and at current this article, its name and its purpose is not neutral. Further more, the reasons that you will have to inevitably give for why there is violence against Palestinian children in by Israeli soldiers will lead overlap the other articles which you are proposing of creating. Why not make it easier on everyone and merge the articles together, detail why there is violence against children or civilians and how it happens? It's just common sense, the article and its name at the moment clearly imply Palestinian innocence and Israeli guilt without analysis. Neutralisation 02:28, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Not even merged. I'm just proposing moving it to a title of broader scope for now. And let me assure you I'm no zionist, nor am I part of the pro-Israel gang. This title is too granualar, and more people voted on VfD to merge or redirect than keep. They're not zionists either (as I pointed out, seemingly every zionist voted to delete.) Cool Hand Luke 02:45, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with the title of this article. It is a sad fact that Israel has killed hundreds of Palestinian children and continues to do so regularly. There are a gang of partisan Zionist thug editors on Wikipedia who make it their full-time jobs to censor any facts that they deem deleterious to Israel. This article deals with one of those facts. They would like to hide the facts about these Israeli atrocities. They accomplish their apologist censorship by VfDing pages, when that fails, they redirect the page to an irrelevant page, and when that fails they merge to another "neutral" page and delete the information that offends them. The Neutral page is then edited with a heavily pro-Israeli slant so that nothing remains of the important facts that they wish to conceal. Examples of this process are currently underway with Zionist Revisionism and Violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The latter page gives almost no information about Israeli atrocities against Palestinian civilians. It focuses almost entirely on Israeli victims of violence as innocent victims, even the soldiers, and frames the Palestinian victims through a Zionist media lens as "terrorists". Israel's murder of children is excused as accidental, collateral damage, or they actually try to blame it on Palestinians. That's why this page needs to stand alone. It is notable encyclopedia material that exists and is commented upon in medical journals, human rights reports and the mass media. Merging it "for balance" is just a tactic that they use to delete material they wish to censor. They use it relentlessly on all pages related to the Mideast. This material will be deleted unless Wikipedians take a stand agianst this type of contemptible censorship. --Alberuni 02:58, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That is besides the point though, we are just arguing that having one, single NPOV article, then having two competing (thus, inherently more non-NPOV) ones. As for the contents being NPOV, that is, again, another issue altogether (which is nonetheless pivotal – I don't think anyone is disputing this). Sure, it (or either VaPc or VaIc) might 'ordinarily' (sheer quantity-wise) be worthy of its/their own articles, but considering the circumstances (and again, NPOV contents notwithstanding), it is highly problematic an approach, I hope you can see that. This is why I am in favour of having Violence against children in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a provisional solution (until, hopefuly, an all-civilian-ecompassing merger proceeds). I have argued in favour of this all along with respect to other similar competing articles related to the conflict, the vast majority (if not all) of which, I maintain should be merged accordingly. My point is, unless we commit ourselves to doing this, the problem of bias will get worse, not better. El_C

I disagree with your approach. This article can be written in an NPOV style without deleting reference to Israelis in the title and without watering down the violence done by the Israeli military against Palestinian civilians by adding the already well-documented history terrorist attacks against Israelis. These are separate issues and attempts to merge them are just the usual attempts to paint the Palestinian victims under Israeli military occupation (state terrorism) as unfortunate collateral damage victims while the Israeli victims are authentic victims of terrorism. The partisan Zionist editors will even blame the Israeli atrocities on Palestinians because in their eyes, Israel is never wrong. You can see the pro-Zionist bias and efforts at censorship on all Mideast related pages. This one will be no different. --Alberuni 05:27, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, to me, it is an overlapping issue(s) involving one conflict and I argue that we should strive for a balanced and representative NPOV approach, one for which merger is most suited. At any rate, it sounds like your mind is set, so I will not expend any further words on this front. El_C

Yes, there are two issues, and I think we're agreed on NPOV, but this issue must be de-coupled from the proposal to move. Cool Hand Luke 06:13, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

As I've just said on another page about a similar debate, the topics themselves are related, which is what various sides view as the treatment of Palestinian children in the conflict. I suppose one can always find a finer and finer granularity to distinguish them (as mentioned above), and therefore insist that separate articles are required. However, in practice what happens then is that different sub-topics become POV pieces expressing an opinion, all context is lost, and any general articles on the subject become unreadable link repositories. Noticing this, editors then attempt to add detail to the link repositories, which inevitably conflict with the links they refer to (since those have been thoroughly POVd), resulting in a mess and more edit wars. What we need is one article in which to work out all the POVs, retain context, and provide an article actually readable and worth reading. Jayjg 16:44, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Does the supposed inevitability of pro-Israel censorship seem more or less likely at a different title? As the edit war demonstrates, your going to have these problems wherever the article sits. Israel does in fact claim that childeren are killed as accesories to terrorism, and that should go in the article (though in a more NPOV way than was pushed yesterday), even HistoryBuffEr left a one-sentence synopsis of this fact before it was obliterated in the edit war [1]. Granting the vulnerability of any article to POV, isn't it better to have one disputed article instead of two? Cool Hand Luke 06:13, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Pro-Israel censorship is more likely if it's moved. Some are calling for the article to be merged with Violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, a ludicrously pro-Israel propaganda piece.- Xed 09:27, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have to confess, as a part of vast Zionist conspiracy, I made Xed resist the terrible Pro-Israel censorship" and write the above text. Good job Xed, you're a hero now. Next time, I'll teach you to poison wells and mix blood into matzos. If you behave, maybe we'll shoot a Palestinian child or two. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 10:16, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[2] - Xed 11:52, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"Consider Bigotry-finder rule 101: Take a situation, change the race, religion, sexual orientation, or other aspect of the players' identities, and see if the same results apply... Listen to the criticism of any other country: It is always a political party, a program, a policy, or a person that is criticized, never the legitimacy of a society. Except for Israel." [3]

Apartheid South Africa? Not sure what you mean by "legitimacy of a society", something to do killing Palestinian children no doubt - better keep breaking that glass - Xed 11:07, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What does the article Violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict being pro-Israeli and therefore not NPOV have to do with trying to make this article NPOV? Instead of complaining that said article is pro-Israeli maybe you should go and neutralise it. I can think of no better way of doing that than by merging it with an article such as this detailing Israeli violence towards Palestinian children. Alberuni, let me remind you that this article and its name is not neutral, WikiPolicy is for articles to remain neutral, you're advocating two seperate POV articles instead of one NPOV article where violence against all factions by all factions is detailed. It's not a matter of being pro-Israeli or pro-Palestinian, please dispel this myth that I'm doing this because I'm a Zionist. Neutralisation 10:04, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

OK fine, let's take merging off the table (no one was proposing it immediately anyhow). Let's just change the title to encompas all violence against children. These subjects are eminently related, and I'm very much opposed to partisan article granularity. Cool Hand Luke 19:27, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes, the longer we'll wait, the worse it's going to get. El_C

Violent measures against Young Palestinians

On the basis of what consensus was the page renamed as such? El_C Ad. Good call on the protection. I regret making the above section, I did not fully realize it was vandalism at the time. What an unecessary distraction it has become. El_C

It was probably Masterhomer or Jayjg using one of their sockpuppets, desperate to justify killing children. - Xed 03:03, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Looking at the contributions of User:62.14.104.36 confirms my suspicions. Comparing User:Jayjg's list of "POV-ed" articles on his own page shows that Jayjg is the mystery vandal. - Xed 03:14, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No, I don't think that is very likely – how does that ip indicate it is him? While I have had probably more disagreements than agreements with Jayjg, vandalism is not something I concieve him being involved in. I can see how you might respond with that I am being naive, but I would need to see more compelling evidence prior to arriving to such a conclusion. El_C

Yes, you're being naive. The contributions of that IP are few and include some of the (few) articles that Jayjg considers under attack. That isn't just coincidence. - Xed 03:36, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

IP resolves to assignment in an .es (Spain) block, but I don't think it's productive to accuse people. Thanks for moving it back, Xed. Cool Hand Luke 03:34, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Xed's quite free with the false accusations; of course, it was not me. I've never been afraid to use my id to revert, and I've never reverted as an anon IP. Jayjg 03:39, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The page is now under attacked by another probable sockpuppet (Jayjg again? Masterhomer?) User:200.69.231.181 whose user contributions include commenting "Fuzzhead is a turd sandwich" and this edit [4] to Childlove. The same people who want to justify killing children here also want to justify having sex with children elsewhere. I can't say this surprises me. - Xed 03:36, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No. Stop. Simply because this wave of vandalism is following an 'anti-Palestinian' current is no indication that any of the 'anti-Palestinian' editors partipating in the discussion here are behind it. I urge you, in the strongest possible terms, to cease from making such accusation without proof. El_C

The contributions of the sockpuppet IP match the articles that Jayjg considers under attack. That isn't coincidence. - Xed 03:52, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps the anon is you, Xed, trying to sow confusion and mistrust. That's a more likely scenario that your hypotheses. Jayjg 03:40, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is trying to justify the killing of children or trying to justify having sex with children. Neutralisation 03:46, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I encourage anyone to look at the evidence. You certainly have some strange friends in the 'childlove' world. - Xed 03:52, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

An even sillier statement than usual, and that's saying a lot. The childlove edit of that IP was made 3 1/2 months ago; it's highly unlikely it was the same editor using a fixed IP. Jayjg

Those making the claims have little concern about falsely accusing those they oppose. Jayjg 03:48, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Strange how contributions of the sockpuppet IP match the articles that Jayjg considers under attack. - Xed 03:52, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Not that strange. These are hugely contested issues. There are many editors, serious and vandals, registred and unregistered, etc., who only focus on articles on this part of the world. The latter type are likely watching all of this closely, waiting to sow discord (as is their nature). El_C

What's your point? That anonymous IPs can't find my homepage? Or that I'm the only editor on Wikipedia who is aware of my list of articles currently under POV attack? Let me assure you that that is not the case. For a guy who's sensitive about imaginary accusations, you sure are free with your own false ones. And I might add that you're certainly aware of that list, and now seem to have gotten the page protected in the version you like. My scenario is seeming more and more likely. Jayjg 04:02, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Again, I encourage anyone to look at the evidence. Yes, I was aware of the list on your page, and I was shocked when I saw the sockpuppet had been making edits to the exact same articles. Not only that, but making the same edits as you. Maybe its not you, but one of your ideological team mates. I invite you and the other pro-Israel ideologues to to log off and post a comment using just an IP address - Xed 04:15, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Here's my IP. Those with the technical know-how will see that it comes from the UK not Spain. Everyone elses turn now. I'm sure we can narrow it down. - 217.43.112.254 04:18, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC) (Xed)

Here's my IP. I'm sure those with the technical know-how will see it does not come from Spain either. 69.196.8.106 04:24, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC) Jayjg 04:25, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Could we stop this please? Have any of you heard of proxies? The IP's that have been vandalising the article could be anyone, any server, at any place in the world, and there's a near limitless supply of them. Please stop accusing and counter-accusing people without solid and viable proof. Neutralisation 04:27, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, given the history of the edits of my own IP, I think it's pretty obvious that it is mine. I've only actually used it when I have been unknowingly logged out by Wikipedia. I typically login and update with my own Wikiname as soon as I realize. Jayjg 04:31, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That helps narrow it down. - Xed 04:30, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Wow, that was an amazing apology. Jayjg 04:33, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

How few edits Neutralisation has made. And which subjects he's edited. And yet they're so familiar with Wikipedia. - Xed 04:36, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What are you implying Xed? Neutralisation 04:41, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

A question has it's answer. - Xed 04:43, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well done. Now be a good boy and give me the answer please. Neutralisation 04:47, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Whose sockpuppet are you? - Xed 05:07, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I kind of figured you'd end up accusing me of being someone's proxy or 'sockpuppet' as you put it. As it turns out I'm not a sockpuppet. As I said before, don't make accusations without solid and viable proof, and seeing as I am not a sockpuppet there is no solid and viable proof.

That's a strange circular argument. - Xed 05:32, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Let me assure you I'm not playing favorites. This is how the article was about 20 hours ago. Since then, the child soldiers bit has been reverted about 16 times, 14 by Xed himself. That I protected on his edit was coincidence. For the record, I support including this because the article should be merged/moved into one of broader scope. Cool Hand Luke 04:11, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, as Xed reverted 14 times, usually within a minute or two of the child soldiers information being entered, it's not a "coincidence" that you protected on his edit, but rather more of an "inevitability", given his behaviour. That said, I didn't and don't suspect you for a moment of acting in anything but good faith. Jayjg 04:28, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

As it was vandalized 14 times, how could I not revert 14 times? - Xed 12:04, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Article protected from editing

I protected the page due to numerous reverts. The reverted text contained information about child soldiers which was apparently used to explain the deaths of Palestinian children. You can see the revisions yourself in history. We should come to consensus about whether we put this material in the article before unprotecting. Cool Hand Luke 03:56, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Good luck. Jayjg 05:00, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

OK. Whenever the murder-mystery above dies down, we have several issues to consider here. First, this page should at some point be remerged with Violence against Palestinian children. The articles were cut-and-paste moved into two. I believe the histories should be merged. I figure we may as well agree to merge it in at the same time this article is unprotected.

Second, moving the article, if just temporarily before an eventual merge. There doesn't seem to be any opposition to moving the page to Violence against children in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but Xed hasn't commented on it. Would you agree to this page move, Xed?

Finally, the content dispute. If we move to the broader topic, is it agreed that "child warriors" would be a relevant subject? Cool Hand Luke 05:20, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is almost entirely Israeli propaganda so I'm sure Violence against children in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will be the same. I'm in favour of waiting till all parties have posted their IP addresses here - Xed 05:37, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Helpful as always. Jayjg 05:44, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Just like you Neutralisation. Oops, I mean Jayjg - Xed 05:46, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

LOL! First I was a series of anon IPs, now I'm Neutralization. Your posts get more ridiculous by the minute. Jayjg 05:47, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Funny how Neutralisation won't supply his IP.... - Xed 05:53, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No, I think it's more that most people don't bother responding to your typical bullying. Jayjg 06:10, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, why would knowledge of people's IP address change your opinion about moving the page at all? 24.2.104.37 05:50, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC) (Cool Hand Luke, USA)

Sheer contrariness, no doubt. Jayjg 06:10, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I am in no way opposed to discussing the involvement of children in the conflict. When Palestinian factions recruit children into their armed struggle, they are committing an act of violence against them. However, I think the title "Child warriors" is ridiculous. For one, the term is pretty much completely non-existent in the mainstream media or literature in relation to this issue [5] [6], and only found in pro-Zionist propaganda. It would discredit Wikipedia to be so overtly influenced. Secondly, Palestinian children who are deceived or otherwise coerced into joining the resistance really are victims, and this should be contextualized. So, so long as everything is sourced and validated, the facts should be reported. Tarek 05:48, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You have a good point there about use of the term "child warriors." I fully agree. Cool Hand Luke 05:58, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes, very good point. El_C

I agree, the article should be moved, however, I think the article should be widened to include all civilians which have been victims of violence by all factions in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, not just children. A dedicated section for children could be setup within that wider articl though. Xed, how is supplying my IP going to prove or disprove anything at all? I can supply you with any number of fake IP's, but as you seem so desperate to know it is 172.188.225.222, it's an AOL address so it'll always trace to Virginia. If you want the IP to AOL's proxy it is 195.93.32.11, it'll also trace to Virginia, and Xed, just so I can clarify, I am no-one's sockpupper, I am me, leave your conspiracy theories behind, I saw your piece on the Vanunu article. Neutralisation 06:24, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well done. You can make up numbers. Funny my Vanunu piece was before you became a Wikipedia user. Which user were you then? - Xed 10:54, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Jeez Louis. I've never seen anyone so paranoid on Wikipedia. Even if he is Jayig's sockpuppet, why does this change your opinion about a page move? Cool Hand Luke 22:27, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Odd you mention Mordechai Vanunu as that page is now being attacked by "New user" sockpuppets with even fewer edits than you. - Xed 13:01, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It looks to me as though there's plenty enough information to make an article of its own, so why amalgamate? Would it not be an impractical mess? Also, the politicking of dealing with victimized children and victimized adults is different.. How messy would that talk page be? Tarek 06:38, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

They are all messy anyway, it can be sectioned accordingly – both in the article (see my 'Why merger over renaming' subsection above) as well as the talk page. El_C

There's not much that information, about 4 paragraphs, and once the original research is removed, even less. Most of it is links. When everything is merged and NPOVd I doubt you'll be near the 32K limit, and it will enable readers to get the full perspective in one read. Jayjg 12:00, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

OK. I retract my original statement. Tarek 15:32, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, that was a lot of help in dispelling his absurd theories. Thanks (not). Jayjg 06:31, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

:D Alright, could we please take any further talk of me being Jayjg's sockpuppet and sarcasm to a User's Talk page? This is not the place to be discussing it. Neutralisation 06:35, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No Jayjg/Neutralisation. You can dispel it by logging off and posting here. If you're not Jayjg, then you're surely one of the anonymous vandals of this page. That much is certain - Xed 10:54, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Some users use dirty stalling tactics in order to keep the page from being renamed under a neutral title or merged, according to the VfD results and to the WP policies. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 11:13, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Article requires a "Criticism" section

Article Changes

It should let the reader know the common Israeli or Israeli government position on the subject line of the article. This would most likely be that the cause of the subject is actually a ploy or a fallacy invented by pro-Palestinian groups to garner support for waging terrorist attacks against Israel.

It should be noted in a separate section, that skirmishes between Palestinian militants and IDF occur in areas populated heavily by children and young adults, and that they often end up in the crossfire. It should also be pointed out that Israel has no strategic objective to kill innocent children, and in cases were Israel did kill a child or young adult intentionally it was due to the fact the large chunk of suicide bombers were children. A reference link to the article on child bombers would be appropriate.

The title itself is charged, and was probably chosen to evoke an emotional response by the reader that sympathizes with the Palestinians.

--Masterhomer 07:47, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It occurs to me that putting in non-propagandized content is a good idea. However, this is not what I have been seeing. Instead, what I have seen is an attempt to insert a propagandized "counterpoint" for the sake of mitigating the atrocity that is violence against innocent children (in this case Palestinian). So, it's not "the fact the large chunk of suicide bombers were children", it's "the Israeli propaganda claiming that a large chunk of suicide bombers were children". Of course, providing a credible source would completely change my mind on that. So, I say if we can credibly source it and put it in context, let's do it! However, the IDF web site hardly seems like the credible source for whether a Palestinian (or an ambulance stretcher for that matter [7]) is civilian or not. Tarek 15:31, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Unfortunately, The only way to counter pro-Palestinian propaganda (eg: "fromoccupiedpalestine.org"), is using pro-Israel propaganda.Masterhomer 04:42, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That's garbage. Propaganda needs to be covered as such (with attribution, explaination), but repeating it uncritically to "counter" other propaganda will not make encyclopedia articles. It makes justifiably unstable and confused agitprop. Cool Hand Luke 07:18, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Both sides needed to be listed as claims, and attributed. Ideally one fights POV with NPOV. Jayjg 20:43, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I believe it was attributed to a statement by the IDF. Masterhomer 23:20, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I believe it wasn't [8]. Cool Hand Luke 00:13, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Let me break down what needs to be changed: Masterhomer 23:24, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

1) It should be noted that skirmishes between Palestinian militants and IDF occur in areas populated heavily by children and young adults, and that they often end up in the crossfire. Does anyone disagree with this and why?

2)It should also be pointed out that Israel has no strategic objective to kill innocent children. Does anyone disagree with this and why?

Qualify it as "Israel says", wikilink the IDF code of conduct subheading for support, but stop short of flatly saying there's no strategic objective. Perhaps I'm understanding your statement oddly, but I think this kind of statement would be difficult to demonstrate in a NPOV way. Cool Hand Luke 00:13, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

3) In cases were Israel did kill a child or young adult intentionally it was due to the fact the large chunk of suicide bombers were children. A reference link to the article on child bombers would be appropriate. Does anyone disagree with this and why?

Disagree. I believe you're making the causal relationship much cleaner and simpler than it is. Many things cause this violence, and were dealing with a complex situation, not billiard balls. Cool Hand Luke 00:13, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC) To clarify: child suicide bombers should be mentioned (especially with broader scope, an especially as additional victims), but such violence is not simply "due to the fact." Cool Hand Luke 00:27, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This statement has now been made more than once. If you have sources for this? If so, please cite them. If not, the argument does not become more cogent with repetition. Tarek 23:23, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sockpuppet watch

The sockpuppet User:200.69.231.181 who vandalised the article is Uruguayan, whose user contributions include commenting "Fuzzhead is a turd sandwich" and this edit [9] to Childlove. justifying having sex with children. User:216.155.74.28 is another .uy IP who has edited various articles and has a rather extreme pro-israel stance. - Xed 04:21, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Are you implying that Zionists are natural child molestors and have friends who are turd sandwiches? Masterhomer 23:27, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Wow, that was an amazing apology. Jayjg 04:33, 14 Nov 2004

El_C

IDF always promises to investigate, always claims it's an accident, never apologizes, keeps on killing

To be added when the page is unlocked: Israeli Defense Force officials promised to investigate the incident. The Code of Conduct of the IDF explicitly prohibits targeting non-combatants and dictates proportional force. It also stipulates that they should avert unnecessary casualties and hardships to civilian population, as well as "accord dignity and respect to the Palestinian population and those arrested." Despite these rules, or because of weak compliance with them, 3,448 Palestinians have been killed during the al-Aqsa Intifada between September 29, 2000 and November 20, 2004 [10]. An estimated 663 Palestinian children have been killed by Israeli forces in the Israeli Occupied Territories since the beginning of the First Intifada in December, 1987 (through May, 2003) [11].

You've added that to a number of articles, but it's hardly NPOV. As formulated, it implies that all the 3,448 Palestinians were non-combatants, and that they are all "targeted" or the victims of disproportionate force. It's something to be discussed here first, rather than simply added. Jayjg 21:33, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Do you have any complaints about Israel killing 663 children? --Alberuni 21:46, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Are you still beating your wife? --Viriditas 21:52, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)