Talk:List of Israeli civilian casualties in the Second Intifada/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Proposal

What about something like:

List of attacks during the Second Intifada

with the sub-headings:

Attacks by Israelis

On Palestinian non-combatants
On Palestinian combatants

Attacks by Palestinians

On Israeli non-combatants
On Israeli combatants
Tiamut 17:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand the categorization of Israel's attacks - few actually claim Israel is deliberately targeting civilians, with that single purpose. The criticism is that when Israel attacks combatants, it doesn't care about civilian casualties. Thus, practically all of Israel's actions fit "On Palestinian combatants", and, according to some, also fit "On Palestinian non-combatants". So... how do you suggest we categorize those actions? okedem 18:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I assume Tiamut is referring to the Israelis such as Eden Natan-Zada or Baruch Goldstein (the latter definitely not part of the 2nd Intifada, but just an example) who are not acting in IDF operations, but launch individual terrorist attacks. I still think the word terrorist should be in the title and that no IDF/Palestinian Security Forces incidents should be included. пﮟოьεԻ 57 19:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I doubt that's what she means. okedem 19:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Okedem, that appears to be a mis-reading of some of the criticisms made. Referring to the March-April 2002 attacks including Defensive Shield, for example, Amnesty stated that "the IDF acted as though the main aim was to punish all Palestinians. Actions were taken by the IDF which had no clear or obvious military necessity; many of these, such as unlawful killings ... violated international human rights and humanitarian law. The IDF instituted a strict curfew and killed and wounded armed Palestinians. But they also killed and targeted medical personnel and journalists, and fired randomly at houses and people in the streets". That's a rather typical assessment, similar to those made by other human rights groups on this and other occasions. <eleland/talkedits> 01:27, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Issues of AI's reliability aside, how many events like that are there? Very few. Where would you categorize a "targeted assassination", in which 4 terrorist and 10 civilians are killed? The intention was to kill the militant, so it was an attack on combatants - so where would you write it?

Tiamut's suggestion solves nothing, and has the exact same problem with categorization and intent as this list has. okedem (talk) 07:27, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree.--Burgas00 (talk) 09:14, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Since you didn't indent, I'm not sure - who do you agree with? Tiamut? Eleland? Myself? okedem (talk) 15:06, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Okedem, now you're just making it up as you go along. As I said, virtually every major IDF offensive garners the same reaction - accusations of collective punishment and allegations of deliberate unlawful killing. Defensive Shield & the foreshock / aftershock operations killed some 497 people, Amnesty found that the operation had been conducted "as though the main aim was to punish all Palestinians." Now, I'm not a fan of Tiamat's idea either, for the reasons you mention, but we need to acknowledge that a substantial and credible viewpoint holds that many major IDF operations with high casualty numbers were conducted as if they were deliberate attacks on a civilian population as a whole. <eleland/talkedits> 20:50, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Two points -

First - please indent properly - that would be before Burgas00's comment. Keeps things more readable.

Second - are you trying to pick a fight? This is precisely why I kept my participation in this discussion to a minimum - we're mincing words here, and your accusations don't help. In case it's not obvious - I'm not discussing what IDF's actions are, and I'm not saying what significant POVs say or don't say. But the whole argument here boiled down to the question of intent as separating the Palestinian's actions from Israel's. In this context, I'm saying that Tiamut's suggestion is basically worthless - it still requires the categorization of Israel's actions, just like the current list does - so what's the point? What's the difference?

Sure, there's a POV saying a lot of Israel's action are against civilians - but they are also against combatants, and another POV says the action is purely against combatants, with civilians getting hurt unintentionally. According to Tiamut's suggestion, you'd have to categorize Israel's actions, preferring one POV over the other. Does that make it clear? okedem (talk) 21:24, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

One, I read Burgas' comment as if it was meant to be indented in such a way that my comment should go after. Two, as I said, I find Tiamat's suggestion to be inadequate, for much the same reasons you've offered. I didn't mean to "pick a fight", but I felt it necessary to take issue with your statement that "Very few" IDF operations involve failure to distinguish between combatants and civilians. That statement, which is demonstrably false in the view of reliable human rights org., is the key argument for keeping a "list of attacks" or "list of massacres" that includes only the Palestinian actions. <eleland/talkedits> 22:28, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you're aware of the volume of IDF operations, in many of which civilians are hurt. In only a very small fraction of them are there explicit claims from AI/HRW that IDF intentionally targeted civilians. What we do have are many claims that IDF doesn't do enough to minimize civilian casualties - and this is the main bone of contention here. Besides, you didn't even read my comment correctly - I said: "few actually claim" (not few events - few people) "Israel is deliberately targeting civilians, with that single purpose. The criticism is that when Israel attacks combatants, it doesn't care about civilian casualties. Thus, practically all of Israel's actions fit "On Palestinian combatants", and, according to some, also fit "On Palestinian non-combatants"". Do you realize the difference now? Even if you say the Battle of Jenin was specifically targeting civilians, it would also fit the category "On Palestinian combatants", since many combatants were killed there. So what would you do? That was my point.

Now - can we end this? I only wanted to comment on Tiamut's proposal, not get into this argument. okedem (talk) 18:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we all know that in some cases AI and HRW have alleged collective punishments among other things, but they do not allege systematic and direct attacks on civilians, which is what they call the events currently listed here. Beyond that, HRW's report explicitly said that Battle of Jenin was not a massacre, and AI's implicitly rejected the rumours. Oh, and of course the Israelis dispute even the allegations that were levelled, while there is zero dispute about what happened in the events listed here. So:

1. this isn't a case of weighing two "differing" allegations - the RS employ language in some cases that they reject in others, and
2. one set of allegations are broadly accepted, while another are subject to dispute. Most importantly,
3. we should not be having arguments about broad and hypothetical "moral questions". The few events whose status is disputed should be discussed individually, and admitted or rejected based on RS, not our personal judgement. Tewfik^Talk 00:34, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Tewfik, what you say about AI and HRW is directly contradicted by the quotation above. In the view of AI, the IDF conducted Defensive Shield "as though the main aim was to punish all Palestinians ... they also killed and targeted medical personnel and journalists, and fired randomly at houses and people in the streets." You may choose to split hairs over semantics, but the plain fact is that AI stated that Defensive Shield involved both targeted and random killing of civilians by the Israeli military. Your first point is irrelevant.

Your second point is entirely true - in fact, it's the core of the argument we've been making to split the list. The fact that you'll use a statement which G-Dett, myself, and others have been making for weeks as if we're unaware of it leads me to question whether you've even read this talk page. The entire problem with this list is that it excludes "disputed" allegations in such a manner as to draw a POV editorial judgment about what's a "massacre" or "terrorist attack" or "deliberate attack on civilians". And your third point is some kind of tactical maneuver that's unworthy of comment. Above, you continually insisted that your broad hypothetical moral judgment about Israel's actions should carry the issue. Now as that position becomes less tenable, you claim that broad judgments are not appropriate. Please, Tewfik, engage in this discussion seriously or not at all. <eleland/talkedits> 16:54, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Tewfik's points. What appears to be the problem is the attempt to conflate critics of the IDF asserting that the IDF didn't properly protect and/or separate civilians from the combatants, with an assertion that the IDF actually targeted the civilians. Those are two completely different things, and RSs don't assert the latter. <<-armon->> (talk) 02:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

This is erroneous on several levels. First of all, of course RSs have asserted that Israel has targeted civilians. The false claim that they haven't has been discredited a number of times on this very page, only to resurface again, maddeningly. Secondly, even if that false claim were true – that is, even if it were true that RSs hadn't described IDF actions as targeting civilians – it would be tendentious and misleading to equate attacks on civilians with attacks targeting civilians. Many sources describe Israeli "attacks on civilians" even while stopping short of describing them as "targeting" civilians. Still others argue that the debate about intent is misconceived to begin, because disregard for civilians lives is at times so total, so wanton, that the distinction between "deliberate" and "collateral" killing becomes mere casuistry – especially where there's an underlying logic of collective punishment.

Tewfik and Armon want a list title that steps in and dismisses or resolves these hotly debated issues. They want the list title to convey their strong belief – a belief widely disputed by reliable sources – that only Palestinians (and not Israelis) carry out "attacks on civilians." The violation of NPOV is as obvious as it is unnecessary. A title like List of attacks on Israeli non-combatants in the Second Intifada will yield exactly the list Armon and Tewfik wish to have, exactly the same contents and exactly the same organization – minus the quietly manipulative argument.--G-Dett (talk) 18:04, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, no. I'd like WP articles to be based on sober analysis of the facts, not activists' rhetoric. There's also a place for the rhetoric presented along the lines described in WP:TIGERS. We don't however, need to redefine this list because of it. <<-armon->> (talk) 19:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes, Armon the sober analyst, whose preferred titles are List of massacres committed during the Second Intifada and List of mass murders committed during the Second Intifada. Nice to see you're up and trolling again. If you feel like taking a brief break from your endless bullshit, you might explain how you think List of attacks on Israeli non-combatants in the Second Intifada introduces "activists' rhetoric" into the encyclopedia.--G-Dett (talk) 19:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, my preferred title was "List of attacks targeting non-combatants in the Second Intifada". But let's not let the facts get in the way of a good straw man... <<-armon->> (talk) 22:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

"Attacks targeting non-combatants" is your latest preferred title. You settled for it when it became clear that your more hyperventilating & propagandistic suggestions ("mass murder" etc.) were being roundly rejected. You can live with "attacks targeting non-combatants," because – provided ownership of the list's contents remains in the right hands – you can still use it to hammer home your opinion that only Palestinians, not Israelis, attack civilians.--G-Dett (talk) 23:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

You've moved on from straw men to outright lying. Please stop. It's useless anyway because this is a wiki and every post is logged. The evidence is here. Diff for option one and Diff for option three. <<-armon->> (talk) 11:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Look this is stupid. Im changing the title to List of attacks on Israeli non-combatants in the Second Intifada. If someone has a problem with it, please explain exactly what the problem is HERE before reverting. The most constructive way of dealing with this is discussing the problems with the least controversial title not the most controversial one.--Burgas00 (talk) 20:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

This is definitely the way forward.--G-Dett (talk) 20:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, ignoring those who disagree with you is one approach. Tewfik^Talk 21:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

my experience

My experience is, that when things develop into an impasse, what is needed is someone who is not minutely familiar with the history of the article, or even the subject, and can see to the underlying difficulties. It seemed from a 1st reading through the talk here that the underlying difficulty with the article is the underlying difficulty with the politics, not the details of RSs. The problem is not wording, but whether the Israeli and Palestine casualties are morally analogous. I do not care to express my personal feelings on that one on WP, and I am not sure I could work on the article without making them evident. DGG (talk) 22:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Im happy with terrorist attacks. No point arguing endlessly.--Burgas00 13:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that WP:TERRORIST is even more problematic than "massacre" -which is why I didn't suggest it earlier. <<-armon->> (talk) 02:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

List of attacks on Israeli non-combatants in the Second Intifada

Anyone has a problem with the current title???--Burgas00 (talk) 20:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Why not just go for the title I suggested earlier (List of terrorist attacks during the Second Intifada)? This has the advantage of including victims from both sides, and attacks in which no-one but the perpetrator was killed. пﮟოьεԻ 57 22:01, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

There have been a number of objections to that from both "sides", though there have also been statements from both "sides" that they would be willing to accept it. I would like to have a discussion where we flesh out what the RS say on the 1-2 disputed cases first rather than a solution based on the theory that RS are across the board impossible to reconcile with the current/previous scoping. Tewfik^Talk 22:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Number 57, your title was acceptable to me but there were objections, probably stemming from the fact that "terrorist" is explicitly singled out by WP:WTA; at any rate, I don't think it offers any advantage over List of attacks against Israeli non-combatants in the Second Intifada. Given that that title is non-controversial and requires no case-by-case ethical interpretations on the part of Wikipedians, I think it's the shoe-in here.

The only argument that's been made against it is that it's a "POV fork," which seems to be false. A pov-fork "is a content fork deliberately created to avoid neutral point of view guidelines, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts." As I understand it, a POV-fork is kind of specially-designed play track for gimpy hobby-horses who didn't compete well in a general heat with normal, healthy equines. WP:POVFORK gives two examples of this: in the first and most common, a new article is created under a synonymous title which should obviously be simply a redirect; in the second, a "Criticisms of ...X" or "Unanswered questions about...Y"-type article is created to evade WP:UNDUE or other issues of non-notability. None of this has anything whatsoever to do with the creation of separate lists for Palestinian and Israeli civilian casualties. There is no conceivable issue here of sneaking in non-notable material, or presenting material in a non-neutral light. Those pushing against it are claiming that Israeli and Palestinian attacks are categorically different, yet simultaneously insisting that they must be dealt with in a single list, which doesn't make sense.--G-Dett (talk) 22:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I reject that title (in the heading). List of attacks on non-combatants in the Second Intifada is better. Or possibly Non-combatant deaths resulting from the Second Intifada with the arbitrary 10-person minimum removed, as well as the "deliberate" criteria. --MPerel 22:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I wonder why you reject it, MPerel. Your suggestion, Non-combatant deaths resulting from the Second Intifada (with the controversial criteria removed), is completely acceptable to me with regards to WP:NPOV, but how would we manage it? Would it be a list of names, phone-book style? Pretty difficult I would think...--G-Dett (talk) 23:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I think the current title is ok, as it allows attacks in which no people were killed to be listed. пﮟოьεԻ 57 23:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

That's a good point 57, although nothing listed thus far has a zero death toll. --MPerel 23:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I've just added one. пﮟოьεԻ 57 23:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

G-Dett, I reject it because it implies a sister article called List of attacks on Palestinian non-combatants in the Second Intifada which of course there will not be. If the problem is that Palestinian civilian deaths don't fit into the more generic title due to the minimum 10-person deliberate criteria, remove the arbitrary criteria and adjust the title. Since Israel does not launch deliberate attacks against civilians, list the events which resulted in collateral deaths. That's what I am suggesting. --MPerel 23:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I have also removed the arbitrary criteria of 10 people. Perhaps people can now move foward from these arguments and start populating the list a bit more. пﮟოьεԻ 57 23:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Mperel, the sister-article would be titled List of attacks '''involving''' Palestinian non-combatants in the Second Intifada, in order to accommodate the fact that RSs are divided on the issue of whether Israel attacks civilians. Your specific suggestion for a single list is acceptable to me (provided it's feasible), but I would remind you that it's more than a little odd to insist in one sentence that Israeli attacks and Palestinian attacks are categorically different, and then insist in the next sentence that they be treated together in a single list.--G-Dett (talk) 23:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean about my insisting "Israeli attacks and Palestinian attacks are categorically different". There are Israeli deaths and Palestinian deaths that are objectively indisputable. What constitutes an "attack" is the debated part. So adjust the title to reflect something no one can argue about, that there are deaths on both sides due to the Second Intifada. --MPerel 23:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Edit-war over title

Armon, you're at four reverts and the title now has a typo...--G-Dett (talk) 21:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted back -I would point out however, that you and Burgas00 have redefined it against consensus. <<-armon->> (talk) 21:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Armon really presenting a list of Israeli deaths as a list of all deaths is an exercise of wilfull misrepresentation and is not acceptable on wikipedia. We have been engaging Tewfik and yourself for weeks and there has been no real response. --Burgas00 (talk) 00:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

A question

Aside from the name issue, are the bombers included in the death toll (I have not included it in the one I just added)? If so/not, perhaps it should be mentioned in the footnote. пﮟოьεԻ 57 23:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Number 57, I think the current title is a huge mistake, and will lead to endless and unnecessary edit-warring. If it stays, there are a dozen or more Israeli attacks I'll be adding to it, which I'm virtually certain Armon and Tewfik will then edit-war to try to keep out. I cannot see the point of this. I cannot for the life of me see what would be lost by having separate lists, each with criteria not built along molten fault lines of hot controversy.--G-Dett (talk) 23:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, let's see - put them in, and remember to WP:AGF. пﮟოьεԻ 57 23:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's a matter of good faith, I think G-Dett is correct there will be endless edit wars as there will never be consensus on it. Since "attack" (or any form of it, e.g. "massacre") is apparently ambiguous, are there any takers for my suggestion Non-combatant deaths resulting from the Second Intifada or something like it which provides a means to list Intifada-related events contributing to the death toll on both sides? --MPerel 23:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I second MPerel in this, and yes he's right it has nothing to do with AGF.--G-Dett (talk) 00:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Me three, see Purpose(?), below. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 07:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree MPerel but we must include the nationality of the victims if we are to avoid the problems we have been discussing for weeks? months? --Burgas00 (talk) 00:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

That's probably necessary. Add another column? --MPerel 00:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I've said earlier that it isn't our job to define these terms. Events should be included based on what the RS call them.[1][2] As an aside, Number 57, while I appreciate that "10" is an arbitrary number, I'm not sure that including the tens, perhaps even close to 100 suicide bombings and other attacks aimed at civilians, (add another) will be good for the level of quality of this entry. Tewfik^Talk 02:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be - why wouldn't we want a comprehensive list. I don't think the list is currently of great quality anyway - certainly the external links makes it look tatty. пﮟოьεԻ 57 09:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The current list can certainly be improved - won't a hundred events that can never have an entry look even more tatty though? Tewfik^Talk 12:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Not if a way of formatting the external links in a better way is found (possibly as references). Comprehensiveness is more important anyway. пﮟოьεԻ 57 13:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

It certainly isn't our job to define terms, especially nebulous and ideologically charged terms the application of which even the RSs aren't agreed upon. Which is why we should use simple, transparent and non-contentious criteria designed to organize information, not massage and interpret it. Tewfik, you need to start looking at this list as an organizational tool only, not as an opportunity to make an argument about intent or comparative infamy in the I/P conflict.--G-Dett (talk) 04:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

You need to stop attributing false arguments and motivations to those who disagree with you. Tewfik^Talk 12:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, don't be ridiculous.--G-Dett (talk) 12:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I meant adding the nationality in the title, otherwise this list of Israeli deaths is purposeful misrepresentation, which no doubt is what Tewfik wants. (note I no longer assume good faith).--Burgas00 (talk) 12:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Attacks on Palestinians

I have just added this attack on some Palestinians by The Committee for Security on the Roads to the list, having moved it back from "Israeli non-combatants". Could we stop moving it around and actually populate it now? пﮟოьεԻ 57 13:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Plus this one. пﮟოьεԻ 57 13:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Im sorry to disagree. Such an inclusive list would be problematic. The vast majority of Palestinian civilians killed during the Intifada were not killed by gung ho settlers but by IDF military actions. This means that they will be systematically excluded as unintentional deaths on the list. This will result in a list containing hundreds of Israeli deaths and perhaps a dozen Palestinian deaths: i.e. a misrepresentation of the true casualty figures of the conflict.

It seems that certain people want to engineer this page so that uninformed internet users who stumble upon it get the impression that only Israeli civilians died during the Intifada. That is what it says at the moment. --Burgas00 (talk) 21:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

That's fine for you to think that. However, this page is here to "list... attacks on non-combatants during the Second Intifada." Moreover, uninformed internet users are far more likely to stumble on the 'Second Intifada' article than this one. If they're uninformed internet users who can't parse a sentence of English text, then that's too bad for them. John Nevard (talk) 05:22, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

This is very much the impression I have as well, especially in light of Tewfik and Armon's posts to this page.--G-Dett (talk) 04:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Then the list should include all civilian deaths. Otherwise it is manipulative. That is my position.--Burgas00 (talk) 10:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Can we stick with reliable sources please. Tewfik^Talk 11:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Another discredited report. Tewfik^Talk 10:19, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

"Jewish Virtual Library" is Tewfik's principle source here. But he finds Physicians for Human Rights unacceptable. Once again, separate lists with separate criteria will help us avoid this inanity.--G-Dett (talk) 14:17, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Errr, Tewfik is saying that Physicians for Human Rights is a reliable source, in contrast to the one used by Tiamut. пﮟოьεԻ 57 14:22, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

That and the idea that I've ever used that source for controversial claims is fiction. Tewfik^Talk 10:19, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I dont see much from Tewfik's suggested source that deals with the Second Intifada, or is much real help for the large number of deaths. I had never heard of it before. I like B'Tselem because I have heard of them and they have a long, geographic-specific track record. They have also been 'vetted' by CAMERA. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 16:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Indentations are getting screwed up so I'm putting my comment on Tewfik's second suggested source (honestreporting.com) here. His specific page reference talks about unreliable Palestinian witnesses, well OK, maybe, but then I went to the 'about us' page, which I always check, just to give the site the 'sniff test'. I am sorry to report that I do not think this one will fly. The lead sentences of the first two paras in 'about us' start as follows: 'It was Yom Kippur, 2000. The Intifada had just broken out and a huge wave of terror had suddenly descended upon Israel' and 'So there were 4 or 5 of us British university students, kicking ideas around, frustrated and wondering what we could do to help Israel.' Well, that was it for me, I am not only suspicious of the article, I am suspicious of the site. Please, I have suggested an Israeli site (B'Tselem) that I believe is honest and reliable and covers the whole of our current subject. It is a world-recognized site in its field of human rights. As I see it, it is the only way to look at it honestly. Why not B'Tselem, dont like what you find? Sure, there are unreliable reports. We will stick with B'Tselem, and you can look for a hundred others to cut the numbers. Good luck; you are, well, in denial of the facts. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 16:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I apologize to Tewfik for having misunderstood his point about Physicians for Human Rights being an RS. On the matter of reliable sources, I am a little concerned about the use of the word "massacre" throughout the list. In most of these cases, the RSs refer to these as "suicide bombings," not "massacres." The Passover massacre is indeed widely known as such, but that appears to be the exception.--G-Dett (talk) 18:50, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The page provides links to Reuters, as well as Haaretz and the Jerusalem Post reports that the allegation was disproven. I would hope that editors can be more discriminating in the future about the quality of material added, as well as ensuring that they fit the scope. Tewfik^Talk 21:36, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:NPA and WP:CIV applies to every editor here without exception. A minimal observance of WP's behavioural policies is in order. I again request that the scope of this list be adhered to. Events clearly titled as "response to...gunfire" are not "attacks on civilians". Tewfik^Talk 23:02, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

What you've deleted in your latest mass revert – in addition to material from Haaretz, Washington Post, and the International Herald Tribune – is a Human Rights Watch report headlined "Israel/Palestine: Armed Attacks on Civilians Condemned." To be told in the haughtiest of tones that RS-material about "attacks on civilians" is not appropriate in an article about attacks on civilians is exasperating, Tewfik. This sort of thing goes a long way toward explaining why editors have begun to regard your posts with a measure of disdain.--G-Dett (talk) 23:14, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

That title in what way changes the "response to Palestinian gunfire" part? Or are we pretending that we all agreed to remove the word "attack" from the title? And the disdain part was an explanation that breaches of conduct policy are okay just so long as you disagree with the other editor? Tewfik^Talk 23:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand the thrust of your first rhetorical question, and the second one seems to make no sense at all. No one wants to remove the word "attack" from this list's title. This is a list of "attacks on civilians," so of course an HRW report explicitly about "attacks on civilians" is an appropriate source for it. None of this "changes the 'response to Palestinian gunfire' part"; why on earth would it or should it? The fact that many such attacks (i.e. IDF attacks "reponding" to this or that provocation) are regarded by some prominent RSs as "attacks on civilians," and by others not, is something I've been stressing to you in post after post for over a month. This is precisely why I think it's madness to have a list built around a criterion over which the RSs are so deeply divided, as I've said about a dozen times now.--G-Dett (talk) 23:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

What "seems to make no sense at all" is your justification of breaching behavioural policy. Regarding "criterion over which the RSs are so deeply divided", we've already shown that HRW and AI both criticised the previously listed events, not for lack of discrimination or proportionality, but for "systematic" and "direct attacks" on civilians. They reserve that language for only very specific events. Subsequently adding events with a less severe language which is applied to both sides is anything but proof of "lack of clarity". Tewfik^Talk 00:21, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going down the rabbit hole with you Tewfik. An HRW article about Israeli "attacks on civilians" is an appropriate source for this list, period.--G-Dett (talk) 00:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Again, I know that including the cases with unclear language proves the point that there is unclear language used, although the logic is quite circular. Why would we do that when the same sources label other events with different, and clear language? Tewfik^Talk 00:57, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

HRW's language couldn't be clearer. They regard Israel's use of "indiscriminate force in response to Palestinian gunfire, causing excessive civilian casualties" as amounting to "attacks on civilians." This is a list of "attacks on civilians." Human Rights Watch, a top-notch reliable source, does not agree with you about what fits that description.--G-Dett (talk) 01:08, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

That sentence appears nowhere in the report, and in fact, the only thing resembling it is in reference "armed attacks on Israeli civilians". The IDF is criticised for being "indiscriminate" and "excessive". So again, why are we ignoring the cases where HRW and AI do use that language? Tewfik^Talk 01:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Holy cow, Tewfik, that's a crap claim even for you. See an optometrist, then re-read the very first line of "Israel/Palestine: Armed Attacks on Civilians Condemned". Ta. <eleland/talkedits> 01:36, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

The first line would be "Human Rights Watch today accused the Israeli military of using indiscriminate force in response to Palestinian gunfire, causing excessive civilian casualties.", and I'm at a loss as to why you are still peppering your comments with insults. Tewfik^Talk 02:13, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Didn't you just say, above, that the sentence appears nowhere in the report? <eleland/talkedits> 02:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

What Tewfik is pretending not to understand is that Human Rights Watch, along with innumerable other sources, consider indiscriminate attacks with high civilian casualties to be "attacks on civilians."--G-Dett (talk) 03:53, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Why argue when you can insult? The sentence you claim appears that call those responses to gunfire "attacks on civilians" does not; HRW's wording is carefully articulated - they didn't accidentally only use it once. Still no reason has been provided for why we should disregard the cases that AI and HRW unambiguously call "systematic" and "direct attacks" on civilians. Tewfik^Talk 12:48, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

As much fun as it would be to get into another month-long, semi-formally mediated, Kafkaesque conversation with you about how HRW doesn't actually mean what they say, that their report about "Armed Attacks on Civilians" isn't actually about that, or whatever, I think I'll forgo the pleasure.--G-Dett (talk) 16:51, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

What you mean is that we should accept that they mean what they don't say. The sentence you constructed above does not exist. You yourself have already previously argued that headlines are not a replacement for sourced statements in the text regarding the 'massacre' charges and disproofs, which is the case here as well. Tewfik^Talk 18:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I haven't constructed any sentence, as you know, and in your desperation you're either misremembering or misrepresenting the discussion about headlines, or mistaking me for another editor. You've fought tooth and nail to define this list as covering "attacks on civilians," and having prevailed on that front you're now twisting yourself into embarrassing contortions to argue that Human Rights Watch's report on "Armed Attacks on Civilians" is not an appropriate source. There's no need for this wretched casuistry, Tewfik. You obviously want this to be a list of attacks on Israeli civilians, which can easily be done, and with my full support.--G-Dett (talk) 20:16, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Rhetoric and strawmen about what I really want are not a substitute, even on the third or fourth iteration, for the statement you claim exists in the report, and none of this at all addresses why we are excluding the statements that do exist. Tewfik^Talk 22:54, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Give it up, Tewfik. Many Wikipedians can read, and will make short work of your ridiculous deceptions.--G-Dett (talk) 23:03, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

From G-Dett's appology to this point I agree with her position concerning what constitutes an 'attack on civilians' and what should be included in the list. Specifically, also and again (we've been over this) is G-Dett's point concerning the widespread usage of the emotive 'massacre' for almost every incident. The linked incidents should be vetted with the linked article title being what is generally used in a wide range of RSs. I am also concerned that most recently added isolated incidents are described as murder if the victim is Israeli and only killing if the victim is Palestinian. Anybody else want to jump in on these? —Preceding unsigned comment added by CasualObserver'48 (talk • contribs) 06:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC) Thanks for that, Bot. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 06:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Purpose(?)

I will repeat some of what I said before: There is no real way to equate deaths as a result of suicide bombs with those from ‘collateral damage’, except by body count, and that is the way it should be. (2Nov) The method of death in this conflict depends largely on which side you reside. Concerning whether Israeli actions constitutes targeting of civilians really doesn’t matter; the question is whether civilians died as a result of Israeli actions. Until all editors accept the fact that life is the sacred yardstick and a Palestinian life is as valuable as an Israeli life, the perfect article either can not be written or will not be allowed. For titles, I like List of fatalities from attacks on Israeli civilian during the Second Intifada and List of Palestinian civilian fatalities during the Second Intifada. I can not come up with a parallel wording because the one side has real attacks and the other just has real deaths. But it also indicates the difference between big blasts and an endless stream of single bullets. (4Nov)

The other path, based on the many feet of typing (currently 31 ‘page-downs), accepts that a single NPOV article can not currently be written and considers that appropriate, equalizing titling/documentation of Palestinian death during the Second Intifada should be pursued; tit for tat. Making that decision is well over my head, but I tend toward that path at this point, because I consider it will lead eventually back to the NPOV road. There also will be endless debate over the word ‘non-combatants’, which I want to avoid and therefore, reiterate my view that the common accounting unit for both sides is the corpse. That unit of measure is equal, unequivocal and undeniable; it doesn’t require additional ‘exact criteria’. If ‘the powers that be’ decide the POV fork is needed, then some leeway must be given while all this is worked out, that leeway has certainly been shown the current article; it should be noted and linked. (9Nov)

I especially agree with [G-Dett's] “I do think that a great deal of headache can be avoided if we take a step back and think in terms of the interests of readers rather than the rights of editors….we should be asking what is the most organizationally useful and least ideologically intrusive format for the presentation of this information? What are readers likely to be looking for, and what's the best way to give it to them with a minimum of fuss?” (12Nov) My main concern is that there is no similar article to describe the larger number of deaths and incidents on the Palestinian side of the conflict. (16Nov) I will also tend to stay away and see what/how this develops. (14Nov)

We are now at 63 page-downs. You are working on the single wiki-perfect article. Having fun? Things that have come up since: I'm glad to see the 'T' word is gone. Yes, the bomber is included. I hate lists if the two are combined, tatty; the list format is really only good one side. I believe the other side isn’t quite so 'listable', except as specific Operations or a monthly total 'other misc corpses', or something. Have as many columns as you want; it might eventually lead to some form of paragraphination(?) for an article.

I don’t think the purpose of the new list/article has been sufficiently considered. Where do we go from here? The purpose of the list/article should be to eventually add up the totals shown here. WP:AGF is a must while populating the list/article and body count is un-arguable. Nationality, or perceived nationality should only concern two, I and P, whether others were a foreign tourist or a foreign journalist is only really a footnote. Concerning who is and who isn’t 'in' the Intifada, I believe 'during' is better in the title. I also believe that 'in Israel’ and/or 'in' the Occupied Territories are the only necessary qualifiers for inclusion. This would include the P-on-P violence and the more isolated settler violence/victim on both sides. If you don’t solve the ref/link problem, it will end up beyond tatty with 'in tatters'. Any help? CasualObserver'48 (talk) 08:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Why does this article not include all civilian deaths resulting from conflict, separating them into sections so as not to have to imply they are morally equivalent? 1) I.e. Civilian deaths resulting from IDF Antiterrorist operations 2) Hamas Suicide bombings 3) Settler attacks etc... This would be the most informative, interesting and neutral way of going about creating this article.--Burgas00 (talk) 11:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I would have no objections to that. пﮟოьεԻ 57 11:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Nor would I. Two notes, though: First, how many settler attacks resulting in civilian deaths were there? I can't think of any during the second intifada. They usually harass, injure, but I can't remember any deaths. Second - there are usually discrepancies between the number of civilian deaths reported by the IDF vs. the number reported by the Palestinians. People the IDF claims were combatants, are said to be innocent civilians by the Palestinians. So we would probably need to report both numbers, and attribute them to both sides. okedem (talk) 11:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

No Objections from me either; late but properly indented. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 07:49, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I suspect that B'Tselem is probably the place to start, since it was vetted(?) at least once by close camera inspection, based on earlier discussions. There are other human rights orgs that may also generally pass scrutiny and/or point to where the differences lie. I am coming from the human rights angle, which I believe is the most neutral and fair. The human rights sources are the most likely ones to pass editorial scrutiny. Next, I'd suggest the Red Cross/Crescent/Shield; at least they generally use the same accounting unit that I have recommended. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 15:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Tiamut has added some incidents, so, indeed, there were murders by Settlers.

The problem is - for the life of me, I can't see the point in a huge consolidated list of this sort. If we forgo the 10 death limit, and expand it to all incidents involving civilians on both sides, the list won't do anybody any good.

Why not just separate it into several, clearly defined, lists? I know there have been objections, but I don't understand them. What good will the list do now? Why not have clear cut lists, for well defined subjects? Enlighten me. okedem (talk) 21:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Wake me when you get an answer, Okedem.--G-Dett (talk) 21:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe it is possible and might include something like: Intro paras to establish the setting/situation including, final (is it over?) body count, discussion of the differences between causes of deaths on both sides (Burgass list items: 1) I.e. Civilian deaths resulting from IDF Antiterrorist operations 2) Hamas Suicide bombings 3) Settler attacks etc... ), lack of moral equivalency (‘on’ versus ‘involving’), comparative levels of destruction, etc. I know I missed some major points, but you can see where I am going.

To avoid the ‘huge consolidated list of this sort’ we break it up along the time line, so it stays in a cross-referencable historic context, e.g.:

Immediate aftermath of Sharon’s visit;

String of Bombings

Operation X, subdivided by city/camp A, B, Jenin, and misc, subdivided as well by combatant, non-com, and, (inevidably) disputed, or a range of RSs might also do. You cant argue every single one; WP:AGF.

Between Op X and Op Y (or June x to July x), more bombings, shootings, snipings, etc.

Op X, like Op Y, with whatever tweeking might be necessary to distinguish differences between X and Y. I have no problem with that. Might make sense to make different templates and try to work within a few basic ones.

Eventually you will get to the ‘winding down phase’, with fewernumbers and longer time brackets and the totals should match, say, B’Tselem. If the editors agree to this format (mixed list or mixed lists and paras), the article title might end up as something ‘Description of Non-Combattant Fatalities durung ….’. Maybe this isnt the right time for that, but does this description offer any help? Im easy. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 09:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I wrote: I am of the opinion that all Israeli civilian/unarmed deaths should be included in this article, major incident or not. I have no objection with their inclusion, as long as it doesn’t end up as the repository for every unsolved murder. I am willing to include all fatalities on both ides because the Palestinians tend to die in continuing small numbers, rather than in specific big blasts. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. The point is to make the articles representative of the fatalities. Currently, they do not add up to the truth.(4Nov) CasualObserver'48 (talk) 12:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok well lets make this article as inclusive as possible while dividing it into subsections. I think that will mean the end of edit wars and constant arguments among us. --Burgas00 (talk) 16:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that's a good way to go, and the subsections you list above are a good start. --MPerel 18:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I still have to disagree. Documenting the thousands of shootings and stonings will make any lists useless. Wikipedia has standards of notability for good reason. We also don't need a list of every event in the Second Intifada - we already have a category for that. Similarly, a list of every event with civilian casualties would not make sense. Nearly every event in armed conflict has civilian casualties, which is why we don't have megalists of every event in every conflict; attacks on civilians are treated as the aberration from the norm, which is why they receive so much attention, and why there are some lists and megalists for them. I again should state that it would be far more productive to having a specific discussion of whatever borderline cases rather than assuming some general rule. Tewfik^Talk 23:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I have suggested, above, a way to simplify what you note is a very long list, individually. I understand your notability concern for the ‘each and every’ approach of a ‘list’, but what is notable at this point (my POV) is certainly the ghastly numbers, which are better presented in ‘summary lists’ as I suggested. I looked also at the category you suggested and note sadly, it is only populated by one side of the story. Yes, civilians die in every conflict, Shit Happens; it should be an aberration, but many of the RSs point toward this standard result, if not a standard operating proceedure. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 10:02, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Tewfik? Armon?--Burgas00 (talk) 19:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I thought so...--Burgas00 (talk) 23:13, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain that Tewfik and Armon will reject any solution not designed to (a) foreclose RS-debates about intent, and (b) imply that only the Palestinian side, not the IDF, stages "attacks on civilians." The options before us seem to be either working toward a general consensus that may not include them, or entering into more formal dispute resolution.--G-Dett (talk) 23:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Although this is a wiki, G-Dett is misrepresenting my position ([3][4][5][6][7]). Tewfik^Talk 23:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand what this fistful of diffs is meant to prove. Yes, I know you keep saying you want "a specific discussion of the 1-2 disputed cases." That misleading formulation is itself a neat example of your efforts to foreclose RS debates about intent, and to imply what I accurately described you as chronically implying. There are not 1-2 cases where Israeli operations have been described as "attacks on civilians"; there are dozens. There are also major RS-debates about the extent to which Israel "attacks civilians," and the definition and significance of intent more generally. Your strategy has been to ignore these issues on the talk page, and foreclose them in mainspace.--G-Dett (talk) 00:30, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

You've made your perception quite clear. Tewfik^Talk 00:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

You are invited to prove my perception wrong by either (a) agreeing to a list format that would deal with Palestinian attacks and Israeli attacks separately (separate lists or subheadings within a list), thereby avoiding intractable disputes about "moral equivalence"; or (b) suggesting an alternate approach that doesn't blithely build its criteria on ideological fault-lines about what constitutes an "attack on civilians."--G-Dett (talk) 00:54, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that since (as always) everyone except Tewfik agrees on this way forward. We should simply ignore the trolling and go ahead.--Burgas00 (talk) 18:05, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Duplicate article with same fine sense of POV

Please see: Violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict 2000. While not restricted to non-combatants, it is yet another one-sided listing of Israeli deaths to the exclusion of Palestinian deaths.

Also, for those deleting the sourced additions I have made, please explain your actions here before doing so. When I provide a WP:RS, you cannot delete it without explaining your reasons for doing so. The repeated deletion of sourced information withoout providing a rationale, is considered vandalism. Thanks. Tiamut 12:02, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Separate column

I suggest a separate column be created for the sources. Ideally this column should be the last one, and should contain sources in <ref> format. This suggestion is largely a stylistic one.Bless sins (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 04:52, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that's a nice idea, but am unsure what it will look like. Plus, we have the ability to use reflist. I was going to set about doing that, but don't want to until people stop deleting massive parts of the article. (i.e. those of Palestinian casualties).

On that note

Armon, your edit summary here which reads: "rv -it's not an attack on civilians unless the CIVILIANS are the targets)" is an insufficent explanation for your deletion of over 5000 bytes of material. This article is entitled List of attacks on non-combatants in the Second Intifada. If civilians were attacked, they get listed here. Whether or not the attack was intentional, speaks to motive, and requires us to make inferences for which we have no reliable sources. It is besides, beyond the purview of this article. Please cease deleting this material. Tiamut 01:15, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually it is. An attack ON non-combatants is a an attack targeting them. It's really that simple, your pov-pushing aside. <<-armon->> (talk) 01:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. A cursory review of the talk page shows that I am not alone in my opinion either. Also, please read WP:NPA and WP:AGF. Accusing me of POV-pushing is not helpful. Tiamut 01:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that we should all refrain from name-calling. That said, this is not a list of every casualty in the Second Intifada, and it isn't the place for listing people killed in the course of rioting with firebombs and gunfire, or for people whose circumstance of being killed is disputed. Most importantly, we need RS to clearly call the events attacks on civilians. Tewfik^Talk 01:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

WP has a lot of contributors, the fact that someone might agree with you is not the standard. The standard is the facts according to RSs presented in a NPOV manner. You've added reports which have been discredited, as well as "attacks" which are clearly accidental. If you stop this sort of editing, that would be helpful. <<-armon->> (talk) 01:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

How do you know they were "clearly accidental"? Do you have any sources? <eleland/talkedits> 02:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

According to the RSs. This is still not a list of Collateral damage in the Second Intifada. <<-armon->> (talk) 02:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Which RS's? <eleland/talkedits> 04:08, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Of the 28 entries being deleted citing a number of different sources, which ones in particular did Armon and Tewfik feel were 'clearly accidental' or not attributed to an RS? Because you seem to be deleting exactly the same material (using different arguments) and its all related to Palestinian casualties. Don't you think a better (and more detailed) explanation is in order? Tiamut 02:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

This isn't an original list of accusations either. If there are reliable sources, you won't need to synthesize information from the reports of advocacy groups in order to get the content you want for the list. <<-armon->> (talk) 03:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Tiamut, there were proposals (including mine) for changing the list to one of "attacks involving non-combatants" however it remains list of "attacks on non-combatants" and as such the collateral victims like bystanders killed in IAF strike on militants should not be included.

Other incidents you have put in and I have removed or marked as in need of clarifications are instances where the evidence is too cursory to merit inclusion into the encyclopedic article. For example: one entry cites CSM on killing of grandmother on her threshold. I'd suggest creating of separate article on said incident providing RSs with criticism, refutations etc. that will help to define the incident in question as nothing else but attack on a non-combatant. This way your critics (including your truly) will bow and agree with evidence arising from verifyable content; meanwhile what we see is rather persistence in wholesale inclusion of cases which are debatable. DBWikis (talk) 06:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

There isn't in fact a hard and fast distinction between attacks on non-combatants on the one hand and the collateral killing of civilians on the other. Many sources (including Human Rights Watch, obviously) consider "indiscriminate" attacks on civilian areas to be "attacks on civilians," regardless of the alleged or announced target. At any rate, many of the events you've just removed from the list, DB, have explicitly been described by top-notch reliable sources as attacks on civilians. Other RSs (not to mention other Wikipedians) will say they're not attacks on civilians, and of course, as I've been saying for a month now, it's disputes like this – which are inevitable and will number in the hundreds – that make the supposed criteria of this list so ill-considered.--G-Dett (talk) 13:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

This, like any WP article, is not written according to the POV of some editor's favoured advocacy organizations. An accidental killing remains accidental, one no matter what "spin" you prefer. <<-armon->> (talk) 21:08, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

G-Dett, I do not think that our position are so far apart that we should not try and resolve contentions here; let us just try and work on them one by one. So one of ideas was to have a list of attacks involving non-combatants where bystanders fit better. For the proponents of more specific and less inclusive titles one would suggest something along lines of Non-combatant victims of targeted killings.

Regarding incidents that cite no WP article but one paragraph in news outlet and do not provide name of the victims - I think these lost lives deserve better than wholesale inclusion. So my suggestion is to take these incidents to the substance: e.g. take "Killing of two nurses", create article, provide better sources, i.e. create instance that will be verifiable and could serve as a departure point to more decent debate, i.e. one which will zero in on hard and cool fact and will repell politics and all hot air. While Mohammad alDura or Rachel Corrie or Tali Hatuel have their space and their incidents debatable, contestable and hopefully verifyable, these two nurses appear here almost anonymously and I do not think it is right. May be their death is an incident of an attack on non-combatant and maybe not - with current level of detail all we can do is to play tug of war rewriting and replacing and reversing labels over their dead bodies and in my opinion this is wrong. DBWikis (talk) 14:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Most, if not all, of the recent additions are problematic in some way. For example, the Assassination of Salah Shahade was not an attack on non-combatants, it was an attack on Salah Shahade. As I said in my last edit summary, it would be better to list each incident here and discuss. <<-armon->> (talk) 21:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

10 or more deaths

Looks like that part of the criteria has been dropped. Is there a consensus on that? Even if that's the case, I don't think we should be listing incidents without any fatalities. <<-armon->> (talk) 01:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

A review of the discussion above would lead me to believe it has been dropped. Further, the only entry with no fatalities was just removed by you (I certainly didn't place it there). Are there others? Tiamut 01:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that was it. I just want to clarify what the current consensus is. <<-armon->> (talk) 01:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

My understanding from above discussion also is that less than 10 are intended for inclusion. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 05:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Building on a further renaming suggestion

MPerel's suggestions above for a title like Non-combatant deaths resulting from the Second Intifada was supported by four other editors at least. I'm wondering if we could simplify it even further to read: Non-combatant deaths during the Second Intifada or Civilians killed during the Second Intifada. This would leave out judgement calls which editors like Xoloz and others had proposed were not to made by us. Thoughts? Tiamut 04:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree, as I have stated before. A corpse is indisputable and has no need for further qualifying ifs, ands or buts. It takes POV-pushing considerably out of the equasion. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 05:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I have renamed the article so as to include all civilian victims, regardless of whether they were or were not "colateral damage". --Burgas00 (talk) 15:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Please don't do that. That title and scope is not even close to consensus. <<-armon->> (talk) 21:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The scope is quite clear: Civilian deaths resulting from political violence during the Intifada. Very simple. Very clear. No room for POV. Why does this inclusive approach, which the vast majority of us agree upon, bother you so much Armon? Are you going to continue arguing until this list goes back to only including Israeli deaths? Your blanking of information is not justified.--Burgas00 (talk) 22:15, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

No, because I never objected to incidents with Palestinian causalities in the first place, so long as it was, in fact, an attack targeting civilians. Are you going to keep arguing until you've finally deleted the article? That's certainly what it looks like. <<-armon->> (talk) 22:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Incidents to be included

There were a whole slew of incidents, mostly composed of WP:SYNT from a HRW report which some editors are insisting on. Rather than rv each other, let's go through them one by one and decide which ones merit inclusion, and which don't. Thanks in advance. <<-armon->> (talk) 22:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Armon there is a fundamental problem here. You want to create a rationale/criteria for inclusion in the list which involves making rather controversial political decisions on what deaths qualify and what deaths dont qualify. I, and I believe most other editors involved in this discussion, disagree. A civilian death is a civilian death is a civilian death. No need to read the minds of the parties responsible.--Burgas00 (talk) 23:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Except we don't have to read anybody's mind -unless you're attempting to argue that an attack on combatants was really an effort to kill civilians, in which case, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. As for deleting this list by redefining it out of existence, I'm sorry but I still regard that as a bad faith attempt to delete it despite the two afds. There appears to be a consensus to remove both "massacres" from the title, as well as the 10 fatalities criteria What there isn't a consensus for, is a completely different list. <<-armon->> (talk) 00:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Armon, are you seriously arguing that the insertion of the single word "Israeli" into the title of the previous article would "delete it by redefining it out of existence"? That's a rather strange claim. Most of us seem to want exactly the same content, we just dispute whether it should claim to be comprehensive while aligning itself along the razor-edge of a controversy, or adopt a crystal-clear and objective standard without taking a position on the broader issue of whether IDF actions are "attacks on non-combatants". After many weeks I've yet to see a satisfactory explanation of why the second option is undesirable. <eleland/talkedits> 00:18, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

There are in fact cases where Palestinian civilians were the victims of attacks targeting them. We can cite them and include them and you won't get an objection from me. What you can't do, is to push for some kind of false equivalence between a terrorist attack, and people killed by accident. It's clear from the afd's that this is what your problem with it was, the lack of this false equivalence. <<-armon->> (talk) 00:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC) BTW that "razor-edge of a controversy" is a fiction which is only a problem among the "delete faction". It's quite easy to source the cases in which civilians were the target. <<-armon->> (talk) 00:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Armon, you are making an irrelevant straw-man argument. Nobody is asking for a list of "falsely equivalent" attacks, rather, we are trying to remove this specious standard you've devised to exclude IDF actions since their character is "disputed", or because you believe (contrary to the view of top-tier reliable sources) that their killings are always "accidental". Precisely because we recognize that the moral character of IDF vs Palestinian actions is hotly disputed, we dislike the idea of any one list of "attacks on non-combatants" which attempts to step in and settle the disputes permanently. Thus, we suggest a list of Palestinian terror attacks on Israelis be explicitly labeled as such, without any editorial judgment, stated or implied, on the essential differences or similarities between IDF and Palestinian actions. Address this argument rather than your preferred straw man. <eleland/talkedits> 01:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

If you actually had "top-tier reliable sources" instead of the spin you guys are constructing out of the reports of HR groups, we wouldn't be having this argument. A (disputed) criticism that the IDF didn't do enough the minimize civilian causalities, is still not the same as actually targeting the civilians. <<-armon->> (talk) 02:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

And all this talk of devising a "specious standard [...] to exclude IDF actions" is a red-herring. For the umpteenth time, RS like HRW and AI are clear about criticising the events previously on this list as "systematic" "targetting" of civilians, just as on teh Hebron page they only level the charge of "attacks on civilians" once, regarding the shootings on civilian vehicles, and not regarding the Israeli response to gunfire. Tewfik^Talk 01:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

If we get so tight with the semantics, we rob the reader of what they likely came here to learn. I think it's more likely the reader simply wants to see a complete picture of the human cost of this conflict, without having to dig around on dozens of specialty partisan pages to try to piece together information. We don't have to decide so much for the reader. Why not just give the basic casualty information with links to the full articles and let the reader evaluate whether deaths caused by a suicide bombing is equivalent to deaths caused by refugee camp incursions? I'm sure at least for the families of the victims, the outrage is the same, the dead are equally dead. --MPerel 05:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I seriously doubt any list (or article for that matter) on WP will ever be able to produce "a complete picture of the human cost" of this, or any conflict. Fortunately that's beyond the scope of this list, which is a list of what are essentially terrorist attacks. I think that is useful to the reader. Perhaps the survivors hate the killers equally, but that doesn't alter the key difference between intentional, and accidental, killings. The "semantic" difference is the same as the one between murder and involuntary manslaughter. An easy way to decide what merits inclusion in this list is to ask yourself if the incident was murder (assuming you have an RS cite, of course). <<-armon->> (talk) 10:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Nothing is beyond the scope of this list Armon. The scope of this list is precisely what we have been discussing.--Burgas00 (talk) 11:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

As there's no consensus to change the scope, AND it's survived 2 afds. If you still can't live with it with the changes we've made, I suppose you could try another afd. I'd consider that to be pointy, but whatever. <<-armon->> (talk) 11:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive deletions

The deletions by Tewfik and Armon and the over 28 separate entries detailing Palestinain civilian causlaties sourced to places from Human Rights Watch to the BBC (which I might note, is regularly used as a source for the Israeli civilian casualties) is disruptive, POV-motivated and requires adminstrator intervention. The false argument that this list covers the intent behind the killings (whihc it does not) is being used to portray a wholly one-sided view of the conflict. It's not WP:NPOV which is a core policy here at Wikipedia. Please cease and desist immediately. Bring objections to each entry here, on by one and provide specific policy-based rationales for why they are not eligible for inclusion. Tiamut 11:18, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The article does have a clear scope, and it doesn't breech NPOV. However, what you've put in does run afoul of another core policy that of WP:OR, specifically WP:SYNTH. You've been asked repeatedly to discuss specific edits here. When you do, maybe we'll get somewhere. <<-armon->> (talk) 11:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Shall we begin then? In response to Tewfik's latest edit summary which claims that calling these responses to gunfire etc. "atacks on civilians", which is purely OR), shall we examine some of the now over 32 entries Tewfik and Armon keep deleting?

For example:

1) |Home demolition burying a grandmother [8]

In a tragic incident on Wednesday, 5 February, in the Gaza Strip, the occupation forces killed a 65-year-old Palestinian woman, Kamila Suleiman Sa'eed, when they demolished her home and crushed her to death.

2) Killing of two nurses [9]

During the house raid, at approximately 23.55, an Israeli soldier fired a bullet at a window on the first floor of the hospital, which is clearly marked in Arabic and English. The bullet hit a nurse in the chest and exited to hit another nurse in the chest as well, thereby killing the two: 1. 'Abdul Karim Hamed Anwar Lubbad, 22, from Jabalya; and 2. 'Omar Sa'ad al-Din Hassan, from the al-Zaytoun neighbourhood in Gaza City.

3) Killing of pregnant woman [10]

Palestinian hospital officials said the pregnant 33-year-old was killed by falling masonry when the army blew up a house during the raid.

4) Killing of 75-year old shepherd, Abudullah Ashab [11]

An 75-year-old shepherd was among three Palestinians who died on Tuesday in fresh Middle East violence. An Israeli army spokeswoman said the shepherd was spotted riding a donkey in "an area in which Palestinian movement is prohibited", prompting troops to open fire.

5) Woman killed in Qassam rocket attack [12]

An Israeli woman was killed Wednesday in a Palestinian rocket strike on the town of Sderot, prompting some Israeli lawmakers to demand a sharp military response in an effort to end such attacks from the Gaza Strip.

By the way, the fact that you deleted entry number five, indicates to me that you are not even reading the entries posted. Unless, you are of the opinion that Israeli civilian deaths from rocket fire are not attacks on non-combtants.

Stop the knee-jerk deletions, do some reading, investigation. Try adding things to the article rather than bulldozing out of existence facts that you WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Grow up. Tiamut 12:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Until some editors can grow up

I've created a list entitled List of Palestinian civilian casualties in the Second Intifada. Tewfik and Armon can have this list to do with as they wish. However, it should be renamed to List of Israeli civilian casualties in the Second Intifada to reflect its one-sided content. Perhaps one day, when editors are more mature or have learned to put aside their rabid POVs, we can unite the two lists.

PS. For those who are genuine about improving this list and who are patient enough to have their potentially work sabotaged by these stubborn POV pushers, please add the following entry deleted by Armon:

|- |Woman killed in Qassam rocket attack [13]||16 November 2006||Sderot||Hamas/Islamic Jihad||1 |

You might also consider addding all fatalaties from Qassam fire (I believe there are 11 such cases). Good luck. Tiamut 12:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I welcome Tiamut's move, as it should now enable everyone to edit honestly, and avoid fruitless edit-wars. --NSH001 (talk) 13:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Yep, good move! Dont forget to provide mutual links between both articles.--Burgas00 (talk) 15:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Good move, absolutely; it is also a positive learning experience. We have been here before, the first day I added my two cents; I am now about out of small change. At that time (4Nov) I agreed with the POV Fork because all I saw on Wikipedia was Israeli death even though the RSs indicate much more death and destruction on the Palsetinian side. I said then that the wiki-perfect article either couldn't be written or wouldn't be allowed. Now, a month later, I can quite accurately say that the wiki-perfect article can't be written because it won't be allowed.

That is not what Wikipedia is supposed to be, but unfortunately it is what it is, thanks to some specific editors. We have the POV fork, so lets use it. Fork It! There is no need for more debate, the last month proves my point. The last month of fillibuster has also allowed many uninformed readers to gain all sorts of unbalanced, one-sided POV. This, quite literally, buries corpses twice. This, quite literally, also allows one side to build facts under the ground, in addition to their advertised facts on the ground. Although chastised, I will say this again:

So let Tewfik have his pique, a new article we should seek. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 05:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Blanking of sister article

Jaakobou (talk · contribs) has inexplicably defied the emerging consensus here and blanked the sister article List of Palestinian civilian casualties in the Second Intifada. I have restored that article and am asking here that such actions be desisted from without engaging in discussion or going through the proper channel (i.e. AfD). I ask that other editors be vigilant against this kind of Orwellian approach and that if necessary, we be prepared to take this matter to a User RfC, if the behavior continues. I will be leaving a message on Jaakabou's talk page to this effect. Tiamut 10:21, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Telling other editors to "grow up", and describing their edits as "Orwellian", while they are different incivilities than those expressed before, are still not going to be a substitute for reliable sources calling the events you are adding "attacks on civilians", which is currently just a personal opinion. The fact that those events which are attacks on Palestinian civilians were removed after renaming this list smacks of WP:POINT. Making this a list of every casualty has no precedent on WP and violates several policies, as does favouring a personal interpretation of what an event was over RS. Tewfik^Talk 12:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem with your post, Tewfik, is that Human Rights Watch's report about "Armed Attacks on Civilians" clearly presents the attacks on civilians you keep deleting as attacks on civilians. When you say you think they don't say this, it just isn't plausible; if your command of English were uncertain, that would be one thing, but you're fluent. Hence the widespread disdain you are encountering on this page; editors here can read the HRW report, and they know your misrepresentation of it is over-the-top. Personally, I would find it degrading to "debate" this with you. I would be willing to do so in the context of formal dispute resolution, but nothing short of that.--G-Dett (talk) 16:32, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

And there we have it, per Casual Observer's note above, Tewfik's pique. Please spare us your faux indignation. Your edits here, here, here, here, here and many other places, all have one thing in common: they delete the overwhelming majority of Palestinian casualties, on the most spurious of bases. Instead of engaging in a point by point discussion, you tried to bulldoze these facts out of existence. It won't fly here. Sorry. And I won't sugar coat my words so that what you are doing sounds less disgusting. It's an insult to the memory of people who died to be digitally wiped out by you and your specious argumentation. The fact that after deleting all of this material you changed the title of the article back once again to List of attacks on non-combatants in the Second Intifada instead of List of Israeli civilian casualties in the Second Intifada which is what it is due to your deletions, is worse than merely a violation of WP:NPOV. It's sickening. Tiamut 14:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

please see WP:POVFORK. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

can you explain the merit of keeping separate articles ? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Here to cause another riot? One didn't do it for you?

We've discussed this enough. Go read the discussion above before posting questions like that. okedem (talk) 16:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

We could, again, explain it, but what would be the point? You're obviously not here to listen, because we've been discussing "the merit of keeping separate articles" for weeks now, and nothing you've said indicates you've even skimmed over the discussion. Cryptic references to guidelines, without explaining what part of the guideline supposedly applies, are little better than no discussion at all. The "POV fork" argument was discussed, and rejected, at the AfD discussion. The closing admin specifically suggested the solution we're now implementing. You are absolutely free - in fact, you're encouraged - to AfD the Palestinian civilian casualties article. But do keep in mind that it will only bring wider community attention to your disruption and censorship, and the article will pass for the same reason that "List of massacres..." passed, despite its oh-so-clearly POV point-making title and organization. Or file an RfC. Or seek mediation. But don't drive-by blank a list simply because it contains information you'd rather the world forgot. <eleland/talkedits> 16:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Tiamut. First of all kudos to you for taking the effort and tabulating names (most important), dates and circumstances of Palestinian non-combatants killed in Battle of Jenin. In my opinion this table belongs to article on Battle of Jenin (where I've argued repeatedly in favor) not here, but this is less essential. Secondly - about the present list(s). Maybe the "disengagement" makes some sense, but please do not assume there is consensus on this splitting of the list - in my view there is no even semblance of any consensus. To name couple of problematic points: (a) Where should be put Arabs killed by police in October 2000? They were Israeli citizens. Yes they are Palestinians by self-identification but say if someone goes to Nazareth and talks to Arab native saying "You are Palestinian not Israeli" - that will be somewhat right-wing and racist I guess; (b) Where belong Palestinians killed by Palestinians as being accused as "collaborators"? And I can indicate (in fact I did) number of points in favor of keeping one list still. DBWikis (talk) 17:07, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

As to A, I don't think there is much controversy that "Israeli Arabs" or "Arab Israelis" (excepting the Druze, some Bedouins, etc) are Palestinians. They certainly identify as such, often calling themselves "Palestinians with Israeli citizenship". For B, the current "civilian casualties" list should include those, as long as the executed are not identifiably militants from one faction or another.

I see why you want one list, but given that some editors have made it absolutely clear they will blank out all Palestinian casualties based on tendentious and non-falsifiable statements of Israeli "intent", can you see why the two-list solution has merit? <eleland/talkedits> 17:33, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes Eleland the "disengagemnt" has some merits but de facto it gives very serios boost to political editing and in my view it is .. ahem .. un-encyclopedic. Take for example George Khoury. Or his grandfather for that matter. I find it really repelling that proponents of Palestinian militancy here in WP would try to enlist him as shaheed or "victim of Zionists" as if what was around time of his burial was not enough. Yet apparently some contributors to WP here will have their way waving flags of "concensus" and "NPOV". DBWikis (talk) 17:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Of course the logical thing would be to have one article. But it is clear that it is not possible due to these disruptive users. Having to articles and maybe merging them at some point in the future when they are both complete is the lesser of two evils. --Burgas00 (talk) 11:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Protected

Due to edit warring, I have protected this and List of Palestinian civilian casualties in the Second Intifada. I'm going to post at AN/I for other admins to see if this can be solved better by blocks on appropriate parties. If they don't act, you all get a week of looking at the m:wrong version to discuss and form consensus as to what the right version should be. GRBerry 21:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Would anyone like to dance?

Okay guys. We all know a little bit about each other here and have our own preconceived notions and biases regarding both the material in question and each other. It is in nobody's interest for us to be stale-mating like this all the time. So let's put aside all of the baggage and discuss.

As I see it, there is a need to document the casualties incurred from the Second Intifada, without succumbing to hyperbole or sensationalism. If this list is to remain restricted to suicide bombings that claim multiple victims, it should be entitled List of suicide bombings during the Second Intifada and it needs no sister article. If this list is to remain restricted to Israeli victims of Palestinian attacks, it should be called List of Israeli casualties in the Second Intifada and it should have a sister article. We could also have one list that describes all casualties but we do not seem to be able to agree on its contents. What are the specific objections to two separate articles entitled as they are at present? Does anyone see other solutions? Tiamut 19:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Tiamut there is a need to document the casualties incurred from the Second Intifada. What is the main objective behind this article? What are we trying to communicate to the reader? I understand the initial title and focus of this article was to be a list of suicide bombings. I believe the best method of providing such a list is best accomplished via a category, specifically Category: Suicide bombing in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict already in place. What the reader currently gleans from the existing article list that is not readily available via categorizing is the casualty count. So it appears to me the underlying goal behind providing the information in list form rather than category form is to communicate the casualty count, rather than to group by method of attack. Therefore if the focus of this article is indeed informing the reader of civilian casualty count, how can we best provide a comprehensive picture of Second Intifada casualties? Should we have individual specific articles listing these casualties by method of how people died and by which side of the conflict they represent, and then simply list the articles in one parent comprehensive article? Or should all casualties be listed in one article with subdivisions? I’ve always preferred the single comprehensive article approach, but if individual more specific articles consolidated in a parent article will get us beyond this impasse, I’m all for it. --MPerel 21:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to dance, but the rug was pulled out from under us, and I need a breather to allow my NPOV to return. There are still some big questions to be resolved and I will stand on what I've said to date. I'll keep my eye on the article, but have better things to do and will probably see you around. I took a look at the construction history of Violence_in_the_Israeli-Palestinian_conflict_2000 up to 2003; the camera crew was really working and scroupulously covered only one side. It was an educational experience to see how things worked, however. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 06:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Housekeeping

Several titles, such as "List of attacks...","List of massacres...", and "List of attacks on [civilians / non-combatants / potatoes]") were redirected to the Israeli list. I have created a disambiguation page Civilian casualties in the Second Intifada which links Second Intifada#Casualties as well as the split lists, and redirected all of the titles there. I have also checked a few articles which link to the old, now redirected, titles, and switched some of the links to point to the Israeli list where they are clearly intended as such (eg, a link in Template:Campaignbox Second Intifada called "suicide bombings"). I hope nobody uses this as an excuse to edit-war while the main lists are protected. <eleland/talkedits> 17:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Request change

Can an admin change the sentence "The following is a list of attacks on non-combatants during the Second Intifada" to "The following is a list of Israeli non-combatant casualties during the Second Intifada"? Thanks.Bless sins 00:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Sources

Do we need to reference entries that have a corresponding article on Wikipedia? -Reuvenk_{T C} 12:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Technically, yes. All information needs a source and WP isn't reliable as one. That said if you want to be lazy, just add the information (maybe with a {{fact}} tag) and somebody will get around to it. <eleland/talkedits> 20:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Merge

List of Palestinian civilian casualties in the Second Intifada and List of Israeli civilian casualties in the Second Intifada articles merged as Civilian casualties in the Second Intifada. Kasaalan (talk) 10:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC)